has this been mentioned yet?

Thanks for the info Nugzfan. Even though it's kind of a different situation (Luc had to retire because of his injuries) it should help the Rockets because Luc wasn't as important to the Knicks as Mo was to the Rockets. People are saying this could cost them a playoff spot, so I would assume this would help the Rockets cause.

 

if the knicks--who complain about being undersized, but have 4-5 PF & C's-- get $3M for Luc Longley who they wouldn't have used even if he were healthy, thenwe should get the full medical exception for mo's injury.

 

I think espn is confusing a "medical buyout" of the remainding years of a contract with a "disabled player exception." What is being reported at NYPost is a "medical buyout" of the remainder of his contract pending his retirement.

look at the bottom:

http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/2760.htm

I don't see how Marc Berman can write an article without mentioning the exception. And espn does not mention it:

http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2001/0925/1255298.html

If someone has the nytimes.com article please post it.

It is impossible for them to receive a medical exception because we are 45 days post his condition of retirement...the arthritis. The league rules state that a medical exception must be used 45 days after the occurrence of the injury/illness or when it first could have arisen (the first day of exceptions). Since we are both 45 days past his prognosis and 45 days past when the exception could have arisen....there can be no exception...at least non to use.

You would have to find me an article by the first week of Sept for there to be an exception, and even still it would have expired by now.

 

nba.com reports "retirement" with no mention of an exception.

http://www.nba.com/news/longley_010925.html?nav=ArticleList

 

Here's the confusion. NYTimes says the exception is "believed" to be part of this retirement. imo, this is an incorrect assumption.

No other media outlet is mentioning an exception...just the retirement. I believe the NYPost is more accurate with their "medical buyout" of the 3yr, $21m contract.

 

Crispee,

If it's just a "medical buyout", what does that mean? Does it allow NY to drop his salary off the books only? Does it allow them to sign another player to replace him at the salary he was making or what? I don't know. Please enlighten me, Grasshopper.

 

Hottoddie,

first, I'm 100% sure in my mind that this is not an exception, as the 45-days has expired...case closed. Plus, under no circumstances can a team get a replacement for a retired player. I would be extremely surprised if this assumption floated by the NYTimes is true.

A "medical buyout" also might be the wrong wording. The Knicks might have got Longley's salary reduced. He is retiring for medical reasons and the NYPost seems to say the Knicks applied to get his salary cap hit removed from the books. Either his contract allows for reduced salary from the guaranteed years, or they Knicks are going to pay him in full and are applying for cap relief for two years from now. Here's what Larry Coon says:

The way I see it is the Knicks got an award for cap relief for his 3rd year, or this is merely a reduction in salary paid according to provisions of the Longley's player contract.

This is not an exception. Retired players DO NOT get replacements via exception, and the time 45-day time period for a Longley exceptions has passed. You see how even the NYTimes can get this wrong. That's why I don't believe much of anything a sports writer says about the CBA. NY writers have been saying for a couple of months that the Knicks applied for an exception. Doesn't appear to be true.

 

Crispee,

Thanks for clearing it up for me.