The Wolves and the Salary Cap
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2009 9:53 PM CDT
Email
PrintA couple of questions have come up about the Cap situation to which I have responded. It occurred to me to do a post about the Wolves cap situation over the next couple of years.
(Ed note: Eric in Madison put together a wonderful post below the fold. Also, don't forget to check out Hoopus' salary cap page.)
For the 2008-09 season, the salary cap was between $58-59 million. I don't think it's going to change materially next season (We should know on July 7th--there's a moratorium on transactions between July 1st and 7th while they figure out next year's cap).
Right now, including Flynn Ellington, and Rubio, they have roughly $57 million in committed salaries for this season. That is for 15 players (including those 3 rookies). The salary commitments for the 3 rookies are 100% of their rookie scale contracts. Once they sign actual contracts, those real numbers are counted (and will usually be 120% of the rookie scale).
A lot salary is expiring after this year. Roughly $24 million in contracts that simply end after this season, with no options. This includes Thomas ($7.35M), Cardinal ($6.75M), Gomes (3.8), Madson (2.84), Smith (2.5) and Brown (.736).
There is another roughly $6 million in team options that I could imagine them not exercising (Brewer, Pecherov, though Brewer is unlikely). Decisions about these 2 2010-11 team options have to be made at the beginning of THIS season, I believe.
Assuming they keep Brewer, let Pecherov go, keep Flynn and Ellington, and all player options are exercised, you are looking at roughly $33 million in salary committments for 2010-11. Not including Rubio. Around $37M including Rubio. The two player options for 2010-11 are Darius Songalia ($4.8M) and Bassy Telfair ($2.7M). I am assuming they both exercise those options, though I suppose that if Bassy is still around, I could see him opting out. For this exercise, I assume he stays.
They will have a couple of million under the cap next week, but not a ton, The cap flexibility comes in having so much expiring salary for next year. They can keep it, and be well under the cap next off-season. Of course, we've discussed the issues with using cap space for free agents in the circumstances of the Wolves. More likely is that some of these expiring contracts get traded sometime between now and the trade deadline for longer-term pieces. It is difficlut to get young quality players that way, however.
72 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice work--
feel free to hit up SnP with some billable hours.
It is not out of the realm of possibilities that:
1. The Wolves get Rubio on the roster
2. A very good free agent decideds in 2010 that he would like to play with Rubio, et al in Minnesota
That said, I agree that the best course of action for the Wolves is to use their cap space next year to accept contracts from teams looking to clear space, or cut costs for economical reasons.
Rooting for a Rubio Revolucion since roughly 10:20 a.m. on June 24th, 2009
Good stuff.
I’ll put this one up on the front page in a bit.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Thanks
I take it billing you as PoorDick suggests is a non-starter?
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2009 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions
you didn't get..
….the pro bono memo? ;)
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
I'm very pro bono
more so the Irish guy, less so the California congressman. But each has his respective merits.
Rooting for a Rubio Revolucion since roughly 10:20 a.m. on June 24th, 2009
i can't think of an appropriate skiing...
…or transgender joke.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
I'm pro-Bono, which also makes me anti-tree.
As a side note: Is it possible to fix the spelling error in the title now that it’s on the front page?
I hate Pod Six. I don't even know why we have a Pod Six. Total suck pod.
by Kevin Loves McHale's Navy on Jun 30, 2009 10:25 PM CDT up reply actions
Very good...
Thought I had read a few days ago that the cap was going to be $58.6 mil for the upcoming year, but can’t remember where I saw it. Probably just info from one of those “unnamed sources” we love so much anyway.
Looks like no chance on a Carney return then, barring an unforeseen trade. I’m guessing he can do better than $1.5 mil / year somewhere else. If we could get Rubio here this year, Carney would have been an interesting piece to match with him, and helped fill out the 2/3 rotation.
"I'm gonna make you cry...I'm gonna make you cry and dip my cookie in your tears!!!"
Well, that might have been a reference to the 2008-2009
cap which was $58.68 million. They haven’t determined this year’s yet, but all signs point to it remaining roughly the same. There was talk earlier that it might go down for the first time ever, but recently the talk has been about it staying the same or increasing just a tiny amount.
In terms of Carney and the cap and free agents, not necessarily. Being just a bit under the cap is a weird spot. So my understanding is that what the NBA does is to essentially “add” the exception amounts (MLE, biannual) to the team’s salary figure in order to say they are over the cap. As a result, the Wolves can use their exceptions on free agents, even if they start the FA period a couple million under.
This exists to close a loophole that I don’t want to explain because I don’t think it’s relevant to the Wolves situation.
Anyway, they could use (part of) their MLE to sign Carney or anyone else they want. I think they have their biannual this year too, but I could be wrong. I don’t think they used it last season, but maybe they did.
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2009 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Don't we hold Bird Rights over Carney?
He was traded straight from Phillie.
And he may not be able to do better than 1.5mil/yr.
I don't think we do hold Bird Rights
because I think his team option for the 4th year of his rookie contract was not exercised.
My understanding is that the team options for Rookies that exist for year 3 and year 4 must be exercised at the beginning of the previous season. In other words, this is Brewer’s 3rd season. The team has an option for year 4, but they must decide to exercise that option at the beginning of this season.
If that option is not exercised, the player becomes a UFA.
I think, and I repeat think, that in that case, the team does not retain Bird rights. I’m not sure I’m right about this last point, though.
Anyway, Carney is not someone I particularly care about being on the roster.
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2009 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't mind Carney
but having to use the phrase “Bird Rights” to discuss how the team can hold on to him is a bit of an abomination unto Basketball Jesus.
Rooting for a Rubio Revolucion since roughly 10:20 a.m. on June 24th, 2009
Also an Abomination
Contrasting the cap page’s numbers on people like Shelden Williams with the figure we can offer Rubio, I am overwhelmed by a sense of original sin. What did rookies ever do to deserve this indentured servitude?
They rejected a 6 year, $103 million extension...
And then said their $125 million deal “wasn’t about the money.” How soon we forget.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jul 1, 2009 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions
Not Really
I think it was more about guys like Shawn Bradley getting $44 million before lacing up a shoe. KG signed a rookie deal. It was the extension that was crazy and led to max contracts.
by SBG on Jul 2, 2009 8:17 AM CDT up reply actions
It got out of hand...
…in the mid to late 90s. All across the board. After the good times of the Celts/Lakers 80s and the Bulls early 90s, they seemed to think the gravy train would last forever.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
They extended the length of rookie deals...
After the lockout as a response. So it’s both the CBA that set up the rookie deals and the subsequent one that turned rookie deals from 3 years to 4-5 years.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jul 3, 2009 10:02 PM CDT up reply actions
That resulted in "max" contracts
The KG (and Juwon Howard) year seems to have directly resulted in the idea of “max” contracts, not the rookie scale.
I suppose we can point to Glen Robinson and the like when we talk about Rookie scale…. Still, basically I think it’s as comparatively reasonable as it is because the players’ negotiations just didn’t care much about rookies. All the guys in the union are veterans with some service time, and they conceded rookie scale wages in order to get concessions for players like themselves, is the basic model.
(The $500k limit on buyouts, too — care to guess how many international players represent their teams in the union?)
The key contract that led to the rookie scale
as I recall, was another Wolf: Donyell Marshall.
The $500K on buyouts is something that protects small markets theoretically. I’m sure the Union likes the limit if it saves a job for their current members. If Rubio doesn’t come over, for example, does Kevin Ollie manage to get that roster spot somewhere?
Drafts and rookie scale contracts are, in my view, such blatant restraints of trade, but the courts don’t like messing with sports leagues (hence baseball’s absurd anti-trust exemption). Plus, it’s not as if one wants to waste too much sympathy on guys who are making millions of dollars anyway. Still, when you step back and consider it, it’s a pretty outrageous system.
The problem is, as a fan, they actually work. The alternative is something more like the European model, where a few big clubs dominate much more than in our sports leagues.
by Eric in Madison on Jul 2, 2009 9:48 PM CDT up reply actions
I think we do hold Bird Rights for Carney and Williams
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q19
Under Larry Bird Rights
“If the player was a first round draft pick and just completed the third year of his rookie scale contract, but his team did not exercise their option to extend the contract for the fourth season (see question number 41), then this exception cannot be used to give him a salary greater than he would have received had the team exercised their fourth year option. In other words, teams can’t decline the option in order to get around the salary scale and give the player more money. "
www.canishoopus.com
by wyn on Jul 1, 2009 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions
Well, the way I read that
is that perhaps they nominally have Bird rights, but they can’t use that right to pay them more than their 4th year option amount.
Bird rights allow you to exceed the cap to pay your own free agents. Here, I suppose if they were over the cap, and they wanted these guys back, they could use the Bird rights, but only up to the amount of their 4th year options. I’m not sure that’s particularly meaningful.
I mean, if you want a guy on a rookie contract, you exercise the option.
by Eric in Madison on Jul 1, 2009 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions
I read it the same way.
It’s meaningful insofar as if the Wolves are over the cap, they don’t have to use the MLE or BAE to sign Carney or Williams.
www.canishoopus.com
by wyn on Jul 1, 2009 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions
Updated the contract page yesterday, but neglected to give notice.
http://www.canishoopus.com/pages/contract-info
Also, my league-wide spreadsheets are here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=r0EIACYJtq4Wgjl-ZmYzRug&output=html
www.canishoopus.com
Is that easily tweakable?
(I hopped in here to say the cap page seemed out-of-date too. Can it just default to next year’s numbers, with the others as the links? They aren’t all that visible.)
Just changed, thanks for the suggestion
Any more are welcome.
www.canishoopus.com
by wyn on Jul 1, 2009 9:11 AM CDT up reply actions
Be careful if you go to Hoopshype and look at the Wolves salaries
Something weird just happened. For some reason, they now have Gomes’ contract extending out for 4 years, whereas earlier, they had it (correctly) ending after this season.
Unless he’s been signed to an extension I didn’t hear about….
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2009 7:07 PM CDT reply actions
I believe
The wolves have a Team Option next offseason where they can choose to extend it at the Salaries listed in hoopshype, but you are correct, hoopshype incorrectly labels these years as guaranteed.
Thank you
I did not know that. Strange to have a 3 year option like that. In fact, I didn’t know such a thing was permitted under the rules.
It’s a huge advantage for the club. Not that, as it happens, they will exercise it, but it gives the club an immense amount of control for not, comparatively, very much money.
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2009 8:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Agreed
I remember when he signed his contract thinking the exact same thing. If Gomes produced at his 07-08 levels during the first two years, the Wolves could extend the deal at a modest salary given his production. Unfortunately for Gomes and more specifically Gomes’ agent, 08-09 happened.
And what if he had totally blown up? Admittedly, that was always unlikely
but man, that would have sucked for him.
It sort of reminds me of the contract Tim Wakefield signed with the Red Sox a few years ago. It essentially allows them a rolling option to renew his deal for $4 million every year. That guy has cost himself millions with that deal.
by Eric in Madison on Jun 30, 2009 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Gomes' contract
Gomes signed a 5-year deal, but the 3rd, 4th and 5th years are partially guaranteed (2010, 2011: Each guaranteed for $1m, 2012: $750k guaranteed, all fully guaranteed on 6/30/10).
The 5th year has an Early Termination option.
www.canishoopus.com
by wyn on Jul 1, 2009 9:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Is that right?
How did I miss this piece of useful information? I feel stupid.
So how does this work assuming they don’t want to employ him past this year?
by Eric in Madison on Jul 1, 2009 9:29 AM CDT up reply actions
They decline his option...
For the remaining years of his deal.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jul 1, 2009 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions
It's a small distinction, but...
He doesn’t have a team option, so the team has nothing to exercise (or decline). They need to waive him in order to get the savings of the non-guaranteed portion of his contract.
It’s similar in outcome, but not in procedure.
www.canishoopus.com
Do you know when that goes into effect?
Because if a team could make a trade for that amount of salary and then cut him, they could instantly add $4 mil to someone like Hedo. Does it work that way?
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
His entire contract becomes fully guaranteed on June 30, 2010
Gomes could be used in a sign-and-trade and then be cut by the receiving team.
www.canishoopus.com
So he's hugely valuable...
….this week for a team that wants to make a big offer….or next year before free agency.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Good Job on this dude
Unfortunately…The Chances of us bringing in Any free Agents are extremely Slim.
Ditto
Regarding free agents, I’m assuming that Kahn’s program will eschew any free agents of note for several years. All of the expiring contracts should be used to acquire young players who fit into the core and will be affordable for several years. As Eric says, it’s hard to do.
Finding a center (or two) is probably very high on the agenda. That’s the hardest of all.
Free agents
are hopefully the last piece of the puzzle. Start with the Future Star, swap out one or two uncomplimentary starters for guys who fit with the way Future Star plays, then trade picks and expirings for another player or two, and finally, pay the last man needed a bunch of money.
Gee, Bill Simmons was right—it is easy to be an NBA GM!
Rooting for a Rubio Revolucion since roughly 10:20 a.m. on June 24th, 2009
Brewer + Rubio
If Brewer is able to come back with the same or close to the same athleticism before the injury, I think he is an excellent player to put alongside Rubio. Defensively, Brewer can guard the other teams best scorer at 2&3. Offensively all he needs to do is run the floor and give Rubio a target in the open court…
No big splash in FA 2009
I’m going to go out on a limb: the Wolves are not going to win the NBA Championship in June 2010. Therefore, why the need to make a big splash in FA 2009? There may be some sensible trades, Kahn expressed in interest in keeping the team young given that the team pillars are in their early 20s.
There are always a few candidates
“Big splash” aside, every year there are one or two young-ish free agents that could be had. Marvin Williams gets a lot of attention on some Wolves boards. Until the tide of PG talent came in, people talked about Raymond Felton.
Next year or even the year after, the idea will probably be to find those younger, diamond-in-the-rough free agents in the middle of the pack, rather than overspending on the likes of Bosh or Wade…. Not that the latter would come here anyway, at this stage.
Okay, Amateur Wolves GMs
(and that includes you, McHale), Linus Kleiza and Shawn Marion are both available. Assume The Kahnverter can and will sign one and only one. Which do you sign, and why? (show your work)
Rooting for a Rubio Revolucion since roughly 10:20 a.m. on June 24th, 2009
I don't particularly want either one
though Kleiza holds mild interest.
Marion is not a fit. He’s 31 and not someone I’m interested in. By the way, don’t be shocked if he winds up getting no more than the MLE.
I might be wrong, but I think Kleiza is an RFA, meaning Denver can match any offer. He’s been fairly productive in somewhat limited minutes.
by Eric in Madison on Jul 1, 2009 7:47 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm not crazy about them, either
but I’m pretending it would be a good idea for the Wolves to go after some cheaper free agents at the “3”. Kleiza regressed last year, as the team got better. Also, I think you’re right on Marion. A combination of age and diminished production shouldn’t get him much above the minimum.
Rooting for a Rubio Revolucion since roughly 10:20 a.m. on June 24th, 2009
As for Kleiza
The Nuggets can match, I think, because it looks like they made him a qualifying offer. However, they are in payroll hell. I have a hard time seeing them avoid the luxury tax next year even without Kleiza, but certainly with him they will be paying.
I doubt they match him. I wonder what he’ll get offered? Is he worth, say, a part of the MLE for 3 years? 3 years, 9 million?
I’m not really that interested; just making conversation.
by Eric in Madison on Jul 1, 2009 8:42 AM CDT up reply actions
Kleiza
For the numbers Eric puts up further down. I think he would be a decent addition and would be the spot up 3ptr we need for Rubio to pass to. If memory serves me correctly, he has gotten better each year, so the growth potential is still there. Now would I persue him hard? No, but I would make him an offer and let him know that he could play more for us than he will in Denver.
I wouldn’t touch the matrix with a ten foot pole, unless I was needing a small tweek on a contender.
Sometimes the obvious is hidden.
What do you all think of...
Trying to acquire Gerald Wallace? I think he is undervalued and could be had at a reasonable price. Not sure on fit, but a great player (and PER).
99 Problems, But Free Agency Ain't One of Them
Skating around the web this morning and reading all the headlines about teams losing players, going over the salary cap, having to offer guys like Hedo and Andre Miller contracts that pay them $12 mill a year in 2014 when they’re in their late forties actually makes me feel better about being a Wolves fan. There are lots of issues and very big holes. But at least the team can sit back and relax while the rest of the teams get into a frenzy.
Rooting for a Rubio Revolucion since roughly 10:20 a.m. on June 24th, 2009
Apparently David Lee
turned down 4 years, $34 million from the Knicks. Good luck with your projects, David.
I know Gortat had a solid NBA finals, but signing him to a big deal now sounds iffy. Will we be talking about “Marcin Gortat’s expiring contract” in 2014?
Yeah, we'll see what Gortat gets
but it is setting up to be a Jim McIlvane situation. He’s exactly the kind of guy who looks great when he’s making a million bucks, but when it’s 7….not so much.
by Eric in Madison on Jul 1, 2009 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions
And going up against weary starters
or backups for 18 minutes a night, vs. being “The Man” for 30 minutes against better players. I like the guy, and he apparently has the Dork Elvis Seal of Approval, but it’s one more reason I’m glad the Wolves have no reason to be outbidding other teams for players like him.
On another free agency note, Steph Marbury says Free Agents Should Avoid the Knicks. Yes, Stephon, the team that paid you $20 million per year, to be a below-average point guard, while feuding publicly with not one but two coaches, while you had sex with a Knicks intern in the back of your truck (which may have been consensual, but I’m guessing your wife didn’t consent), got a star tattooed on the side of your face, you’ve never won a play-off series as the starting point guard, and who the Knicks finally paid to leave so that you could then earn even more money playing for the Celtics—yes, the Knicks have indeed done you wrong. Try to find it in your heart to forgive them, for they know not what they have done.
Rooting for a Rubio Revolucion since roughly 10:20 a.m. on June 24th, 2009
by PoorDick on Jul 1, 2009 9:13 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
It is amazing...
Since he enjoyed a modest amount of success here, Steph has been a “harbinger of suck” everywhere he has gone. Trace back his stops in the NBA, and every single team he has played for got worse when he arrived and got better when he left.
But yes Steph…they were the problem, not you.
"I'm gonna make you cry...I'm gonna make you cry and dip my cookie in your tears!!!"
Thanks
One of my favorites. It was so bizarre when he got hot in free agency after being a 2nd round pick and averaging 2 points a game in his 2nd season. He blocked a lot of shots in extremely limited minutes, and all of a sudden, everyone was imagining some defensive stud in the post.
by Eric in Madison on Jul 1, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions
McHale kicked it off, actually
I seem to recall his being enamored of McIlvaine — at a more justifiable salary number. Jim’s contract really tore the championship heart out of the Sonics, bizarrely. Lots of discontent about his getting so much.
McHale also brought in Zydrunas Ilgauskas to summer league here one year, whereupon other teams took note that he had some promise if his injury situation would clear up. He had a decent record of finding bargain basement bigs at one stage. Dean Garrett, for example — though Garrett owed a positive ton to playing alongside Marbury early on, including in summer ball.
I have no memory of McHale courting
McIlvaine. Thank god that didn’t work out.
Whatever you want to say about Steph Marbury, he made Dean Garrett’s career. That first year, at age 30, when Steph was getting him layups, made him $10 million. He ought to tithe to the church of Steph.
by Eric in Madison on Jul 2, 2009 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions
McHale brought Ilgauskas in...
Before he was drafted, not after his early injuries with the Cavs. He got hurt and had to wait another year to enter the draft. But they did have a lot of those types of guys of the team — Bill Curley, Tom Hammonds, Stanley Roberts (wouldn’t forget him), Cherokee Parks.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jul 3, 2009 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Also...
I think Houston’s making a big mistake if they make a hard push for Gortat to replace Yao. But, it looks like that’s what they’re doing. Maybe their FO statniks are way ahead of the curve, but it’s hard to project someone’s actual production out when you increase their minutes like that, if you ask me. Too many other factors come into play that can’t come up on a stat sheet.
I'm not clear on what Houston wants to do.
It seems to me they have 2 options:
1. Trade McGrady as essentially an expiring contract, and try to get a couple of good players out of it, resign Artest, hope Yao makes it back this year sometime, and hope. The problem with that is you probably can trade McGrady for 1 good player, but not 2. And I still can’t see that working out with a deep playoff run.
2. Let it go. Let McGrady expire, don’t resign Artest, maybe try to trade Battier (2 years left) for an expiring contract, and start over. You still have yao on a player option the following year, but other than that, your cap is pretty clean.
It’s tough to decide on a rebuild right after you got to the 2nd round of the playoffs, but in a vacuum, that’s what I would do.
by Eric in Madison on Jul 1, 2009 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions
I suspect...
…they may know something about Yao’s foot being career-ending and that eventually they will clear him from the cap. It was rumored that Houston was the blow-everything-up team that would have dealt for Rubio. I think they’re more in flux than we’d like to believe.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Here's a question that comes around to the salary cap eventually
What’s up with the Hawks? They have 8 players under contract for next year (including Marvin Williams, an RFA they will match or pay the Q-offer to) for around 43 million. They also drafted Jeff Teague.
I’ve heard they aren’t going to resign Mike Bibby, which I can understand, but it seems to me that a team with some good players (Johnson, Williams, Horford) that made the 2nd round of the playoffs would be trying to get better.
In the meantime, even though they are under the cap, because of the way cap holds work, Bibby’s salary counts more than 100% against their cap until he signs somewhere (to avoid the Mourning situation). So it’s not like they have a ton of room right now to take on more salary. I don’t know if they are going to resign Zaza, who is also UFA.
Right now, their “point guards” are Jamal Crawford and Jeff Teague. Neither of whom are really, you know, point guards. I have no idea what they are planning to do about that.
Here’s my question as it relates to the Wolves. I’m interested in Josh Childress, who is an RFA. Would he be a base-year player if he signs for an S&T at greater than a 20% raise over his previous NBA salary? Usually, you aren’t a BYC player if the team that signs you (here, the Hawks) is under the cap when they do so. But are they under the cap for these purposes? Since they have a lot of cap holds for their FAs?
Of course, they could just wait until after some of their FAs sign elsewhere, which releases their cap holds.
Does anyone understand the Hawks’ plan? Can anyone envision a deal for Childress? Would it be easier to just sign him for the MLE? Would the Hawks match? What would they want in an S&T?
by Eric in Madison on Jul 1, 2009 11:18 AM CDT reply actions
Sure
Flynn, Utah pick, Gomes, and expirings for Childress. Not sure if he’s worth it but t would work somehow.
I'm assuming that...
Part of their plan involves more of Joe Johnson on the ball with Teague/Crawford/Flip Murray guarding point guards. They also could bring back Mario West, who played decently for them last year and is similar in size to Murray. But I do think they’re going to choose between Childress and Williams and think Childress is an interesting player.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jul 3, 2009 10:11 PM CDT up reply actions
The new salary cap number is out
$57.7 million. Down a little from last year. The Wolves are almost exactly on that number right now, including their rookie cap holds. Maybe a few hundred thousand under.
The tax threshold is just under $70 million.
by Eric in Madison on Jul 7, 2009 11:09 PM CDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
