PDA

View Full Version : Which teams benefit most from an Amnesty clause?



Chill_Will_24
05-16-2011, 10:09 AM
One of the proposals by the owners includes a one time Amnesty clause that allows each team to shed one contract off their books without affecting their cap.

Which teams would benefit most from this?

How would you hope your team uses it?

Which players that other teams might cut would you be interested in for your own team?

Gilbert Arenas
Richard Hamilton
Rashard Lewis
Brandon Roy
Ron Artest
Travis Outlaw
Mike Miller
Ray Allen
Carlos Boozer
Elton Brand
Brendan Haywood
Drew Gooden

Thats just a few of the likely candidates

irobson
05-16-2011, 10:19 AM
wizards would have a lot of cap room....orlando would still have bad contracts

CELTICS4LYFE
05-16-2011, 10:52 AM
ray allen??


Id say Orl with Gilbert.

asandhu23
05-16-2011, 10:58 AM
Warriors. Biedrins' ridiculous contract

BlondeBomber41
05-16-2011, 11:37 AM
It would be most beneficial to Washington. They could dump the one big contract that is holding them back in Rashard Lewis. Like Irobson said, even if Orlando was able to cut Gilbert, they would still be over the cap.

ManRam
05-16-2011, 11:51 AM
See yah Gil :pray:

FUKudomeYOMOMMA
05-16-2011, 11:53 AM
what? i never heard of it. fans and owners would love it... players not so much

id rather dump boozer, start taj, and invest the money in some other place like sg. but im getting ahead of myself

AntiG
05-16-2011, 11:57 AM
Why would you list Ray Allen? First off, he has a 1 year player option of $10 million. If he doesn't want to be back or the team is showing overtures of using him in a trade, he'll just opt out and sign elsewhere. Secondly, why would the team even want him gone (outside of trading him for great talent)?

Bravo95
05-16-2011, 11:59 AM
Marvin Williams.

iggypop123
05-16-2011, 12:28 PM
its not meant to benefit teams. just the owners. its only for luxury tax teams.

The Final Boss
05-16-2011, 12:31 PM
Chris Bosh

gilly
05-16-2011, 12:38 PM
Brand off the books would be nice.

TopsyTurvy
05-16-2011, 01:19 PM
Coupled with a similar cap scheme (only drastically lowered), this system would alleviate any need to teams to drastically alter their personnel but the remaining contracts would still hurt teams going forward. I think this plays into the favor of those teams who went out on a limb and signed 'bad paper' without doing anything to reward the more savvy clubs around the league.

I still think the best option is to waive the luxury tax for teams currently unaffected who will certainly creep past that threshold under new cap restrictions.

Chill_Will_24
05-16-2011, 02:12 PM
Why would you list Ray Allen? First off, he has a 1 year player option of $10 million. If he doesn't want to be back or the team is showing overtures of using him in a trade, he'll just opt out and sign elsewhere. Secondly, why would the team even want him gone (outside of trading him for great talent)?

I didnt know his contract situation. I was just throwing some names out there

Chill_Will_24
05-16-2011, 02:13 PM
Rip Hamilton could be uselful to a lot of teams if the Pistons let him go. CHI for example

jimbobjarree
05-16-2011, 02:17 PM
Utah have bee in financial hell for years, finally shed ak47 and then this come in :sigh:

I guess we'd cut Memo's final year since he's pretty much done

ttam68
05-16-2011, 02:19 PM
Orlando in a landslide. There are years left on Gil's contract.

shep33
05-16-2011, 02:44 PM
I personally think its a stupid proposal. Your basically giving teams a free pass on their own screwup. Here's the biggest thing with it, say Orlando shed Arenas' $62 mill right, another team that has a far less severe bad contract, ultimately gets punished. For example, what if the Heat want to shed Mike Miller's contract? Obviously Miller's $20 mill or whatever is less than Arenas' $62 mill.

Honestly, I think teams have to own up to their bad signings, I'm sorry teams shouldn't get free passes. I'm a Laker fan, and yeah I'd like to get rid of some of our contracts, but we signed those players, and we deserve to keep their contracts on the books. That just makes the good teams better too, so I don't get how this makes sense to even out the playing field.

Say Orlando gets rid of Arenas' deal, or LA gets rid of either Walton or Artest's deal... that just gives these teams more cap room to sign a top notch free agent.

Bottom line... own up to your mistakes.

xbrackattackx
05-16-2011, 04:36 PM
i personally think its a stupid proposal. Your basically giving teams a free pass on their own screwup. Here's the biggest thing with it, say orlando shed arenas' $62 mill right, another team that has a far less severe bad contract, ultimately gets punished. For example, what if the heat want to shed mike miller's contract? Obviously miller's $20 mill or whatever is less than arenas' $62

say orlando gets rid of arenas' deal, or la gets rid of either walton or artest's deal... That just gives these teams more cap room to sign a top notch free agent.

bottom line... Own up to your mistakes.

x2

ManRam
05-16-2011, 04:51 PM
I can't see this applying to current contracts. If Gil got his contract before this rule, I don't think he should be able to have his contracted axed after the rule is established. I don't think it's a huge problem really, but a minor one at the very least.

NFL contracts are non-guaranteed. I don't think that NBA contracts should ever be non-guaranteed and I question whether this should even ever happen...but it should be easier to get out of contract, or at least a contract, every once in a while.

ttam68
05-16-2011, 04:57 PM
The amnesty clause doesn't cancel contracts, or make them unguaranteed. Its the same clause they used in the mid-2000s that resulted in Michael Finely's release.

The player still gets paid by the team, but the team is able to release the player and that contract will no longer apply to their salary cap.

There's really no reason for players to oppose it, it just creates more cap room for them to sign into and allows them to sign where they please.

JasonJohnHorn
05-16-2011, 05:04 PM
First team I'd like to see use the clause is Detroit. I think Gordon is good enough to trade, a contending team would take on the contract, I think, and hope, and Rip is going to be in his final year, so that leaves Charlie V's disgusting contract. I like Charlie V, and he seems like a great guy, and he is a decent player and can contribute in a rotation, but I dont think he is worth the money Detroit is paying for him, so I'd like to see him get bought out, both for himself, and for Detroit.

Orlando can use it, but I think they'd better wait and see about the Howard situation. They can force a team to take on Arenas or Turk if they do end up having to trade him, and that could save them some money and let them buy out the other.

I just hate the thought of paying somebody NOT to play.

king4day
05-16-2011, 05:15 PM
what? i never heard of it. fans and owners would love it... players not so much

id rather dump boozer, start taj, and invest the money in some other place like sg. but im getting ahead of myself

Remember, you're still paying his salary. It just doesn't affect the cap. Boozer won't be going anywhere as that'd be the biggest salary eaten in sports history.

JasonJohnHorn
05-16-2011, 05:16 PM
The thing about the amnesty clause, some teams simply cant afford to pay a player not to play. This is one of the reasons the NBA is in dire straights in terms of money. Just think of how much money teams have paid players NOT to play over the last ten years. When I was growing up watching the game, you NEVER heard of a team paying a guy to go home. NEVER

Look back at how many players, Ben Wallace, Marbury, Francis, Jalen Rose, all bought out of million dollar contracts. Its crazy. I bet if you counted up all the contracts that got bought out over the last 10 years, you'd find that 300 million that the NBA was short last season, and most of it would be coming out of New York!

hugepatsfan
05-16-2011, 05:18 PM
If BOS got out of Pierce's deal they could sign CP3 and Dwight in the summer of 2012 and then deal Rondo to get a few pieces around those 2, Jeff Green, and Avery Bradely.

king4day
05-16-2011, 05:22 PM
Miami probably dumps Miller. They are in a situation where they need players to contribute,
even if it means dumping a 20mil salary.

Pistons probably let Hamilton go.

Cavs might let Davis go.

Suns probably would off Pietrus after he picks up his player option so we don't have to take the cap hit and it'd allow us to go after someone like Crawford or Richardson (if the brass wants to still contend).

Chances are you'll see things like that. Teams with contracts about to expire that they don't wanna deal with the cap hit for the last year.

llemon
05-16-2011, 05:42 PM
The amnesty clause doesn't cancel contracts, or make them unguaranteed. Its the same clause they used in the mid-2000s that resulted in Michael Finely's release.

The player still gets paid by the team, but the team is able to release the player and that contract will no longer apply to their salary cap.

There's really no reason for players to oppose it, it just creates more cap room for them to sign into and allows them to sign where they please.

Only teams under the luxury tax level should oppose it. They lose out on the money that teams that are over the luxury cap would have paid.

shep33
05-16-2011, 06:32 PM
I still think its a bad idea, even as a Laker fan we would benefit so much from this, just as other power teams would.

Team owners with money still have the advantage here. Say a team like the Bucks wants to buy out Maggette for instance... well they're still screwed, cause not only do they have to pay the rest of his contract out, but they also have to sign a replacement that's better than him (who will want more money probably). Guys like Jerry Buss or Cuban can afford to do stuff like that, but the less wealthy owners, obviously of the lower market teams, get screwed.

NYman15
05-16-2011, 06:55 PM
with the amnetsty rule can you cut a player then resign them? For example, under this rule the Knicks could cut Amare but he would still get paid and then resign him for the vet min. Probably cant happen just wondering? that would give them only melo and balkman on the books for 2012? Probably cant happen though?

sportscrazy34
05-16-2011, 07:06 PM
I would think if you used this rule that player couldn't resign for at least a year with the team that dumped him.

Chill_Will_24
05-16-2011, 07:11 PM
with the amnetsty rule can you cut a player then resign them? For example, under this rule the Knicks could cut Amare but he would still get paid and then resign him for the vet min. Probably cant happen just wondering? that would give them only melo and balkman on the books for 2012? Probably cant happen though?

No. The player can sign with any team except the team that cut him.

Nice try thou. :up:

NYman15
05-16-2011, 07:26 PM
worth a shot. For the Knicks. it would have helped last year with Curry's contract. Then they could have had a big 3 with a core of gallinari and chandler and douglas. For them they only have 3 players under contract in 2012 and 2 of them are melo and amare so if they were to use it it would be on Balkman.

Atownballa5
05-16-2011, 07:30 PM
Travis Outlaw... :pray:

knickfan33
05-16-2011, 07:33 PM
the lakers begining there rebuilding would get a huge boost from this... teams looking for experienced role players, like knicks, could get huge boost from guys like arenas and rip becoming FA's.

just dropping rashard and arenas contracts are huge for those teams.

it helps pretty much everyone.

knickfan33
05-16-2011, 07:35 PM
are teams alowed to save it? or does it have to be used next year if it happens?

knicks should just save theirs

The Final Boss
05-16-2011, 07:40 PM
Every NBA owner is a billionaire yet clowns compare them. A billionaire is a billionaire, no matter how much richer he is than other owners.

The Final Boss
05-16-2011, 07:48 PM
Every NBA owner is a billionaire yet clowns compare them. A billionaire is a billionaire, no matter how much richer he is than other owners.

SP17
05-16-2011, 07:52 PM
the lakers begining there rebuilding would get a huge boost from this... teams looking for experienced role players, like knicks, could get huge boost from guys like arenas and rip becoming FA's.

just dropping rashard and arenas contracts are huge for those teams.

it helps pretty much everyone.

Last time I checked we are not rebuilding..and how can you say its a huge boost for us? only contract I see us cutting is ron or puke..

Chill_Will_24
05-16-2011, 08:00 PM
are teams alowed to save it? or does it have to be used next year if it happens?

knicks should just save theirs

No. There is a deadline. I believe the deadline is just before the pre season

Raph12
05-16-2011, 10:18 PM
Orlando will... They can get rid of Arenas and then trade Nelson, Bass, Redick, QRich, etc for expirings... With only Hedo on contract for 2012-13, they can sign D12 and CP3 to max contracts!!!

One can only hope lol.

bholly
05-16-2011, 10:41 PM
The amnesty clause doesn't cancel contracts, or make them unguaranteed. Its the same clause they used in the mid-2000s that resulted in Michael Finely's release.

The player still gets paid by the team, but the team is able to release the player and that contract will no longer apply to their salary cap.

There's really no reason for players to oppose it, it just creates more cap room for them to sign into and allows them to sign where they please.


Remember, you're still paying his salary. It just doesn't affect the cap. Boozer won't be going anywhere as that'd be the biggest salary eaten in sports history.

I could've quoted just about any two posts in this thread, but these are the ones I noticed. The 2005 amnesty provision meant you didn't have to pay luxury tax on those players, but you still had to pay them, and their salary still counted towards your salary cap figure.

We go over this every time this topic comes up (which seems like every couple of months).

If they did do an amnesty this time, there's no way it would allow you to go under the cap so that you could then sign more people. That would go completely against the point of it.

Chill_Will_24
05-16-2011, 10:51 PM
I could've quoted just about any two posts in this thread, but these are the ones I noticed. The 2005 amnesty provision meant you didn't have to pay luxury tax on those players, but you still had to pay them, and their salary still counted towards your salary cap figure.

We go over this every time this topic comes up (which seems like every couple of months).

If they did do an amnesty this time, there's no way it would allow you to go under the cap so that you could then sign more people. That would go completely against the point of it.

Larry Coon-

.the author of CBA FAQ and twitter-er extrodinaire seems to believe that this time around (i) amnesty is very likely (he points out that its already in the owners proposal, and that the players certainly would not object to it, because the players will get paid regardless); and (ii) it will include both luxury cap savings and cap clearing (he points out that in the last cba only the luxury cap changed, not the salary cap itself, whereas, this time around, the salary cap itself is in question).