PDA

View Full Version : Who would you removes with an Amnasty claus?



Snapcracklepop
06-15-2011, 06:49 PM
herro, i was readings up some informationals about possible CBA additions to the NBA, and i was reading something called the Amnasty claus in which a team would be able to complete remove a players salary from the cap, and pay the player at the sides their money and the player would become a free agents

so i would like to take a six, two, five minute of your times to answer a quick suvvey:

Would you supports an Amnasty clause or does it make the powerful teams too powerful in that they can free up cap space at any time?

2. Should a team be able to resigns the player they Amnasty-ed? for instance, if the Heats Amnasty bosh, he make a 10, 14 million, they Amnasty him, they sign him back for veterans minimums and get another 10 million dolla player for their raster?

3. should their be a limits on the amount of year a team can do this? for examples, should teams be able to do this yearly, bi-yearly, every 5 year, time and a half?

4. who would you Amnasty from your teams?

Gibby23
06-15-2011, 06:51 PM
Luke Walton

Snapcracklepop
06-15-2011, 06:54 PM
Luke Walton

pretty chip, about a four five million right?

good choice for the lakers, save them a little luxary tax maybe

Hawkeye15
06-15-2011, 06:59 PM
I am not in favor of a one time amnesty clause. If they do set a hard cap, they should give teams 2 years to make the moves to get under it. Nobody can expect the Lakers to get under a $65 cap in a day for example. But I am not down with the amnesty deal, because it rewards teams with bad deals, and punishes teams for being financially intelligent and keeping cap flexibility.

If they do have it, there is NO WAY ON EARTH that player should be allowed to resign with the club that cut them. The Lakers would obviously cut Kobe and his $30 million if they knew they could just then get him back for much cheaper for example. Most clubs would do that in fact.

sep11ie
06-15-2011, 07:00 PM
Brad Miller or Thabeet.

Snapcracklepop
06-15-2011, 07:07 PM
I am not in favor of a one time amnesty clause. If they do set a hard cap, they should give teams 2 years to make the moves to get under it. Nobody can expect the Lakers to get under a $65 cap in a day for example. But I am not down with the amnesty deal, because it rewards teams with bad deals, and punishes teams for being financially intelligent and keeping cap flexibility.

If they do have it, there is NO WAY ON EARTH that player should be allowed to resign with the club that cut them. The Lakers would obviously cut Kobe and his $30 million if they knew they could just then get him back for much cheaper for example. Most clubs would do that in fact.

yea, it would be like a too powerful eh?

but ocnsider a team like greg oden, who gets injured every year, lets say he get a 8 million per year, 4 year deal. first year of deal he gets injured for the year. in that situation, he should be able to me Amnasty-fied

but look at like whoever own desgania diop, and some of these other ggarbage player, make a five six eight million dolla, ridiciolous.

idk how the amnasty should work, but it should be limited

as far as the hard caps, it will never be lowered too much because the MLE is need for the best teams to get better

imagine if the heats couldnt sign a center, or the knicks or celtics, and their only means is to draft player? like a someboooooooooooooooody, it ridicolous, they need someone for the pick up you kno?

mle is needed

Carey
06-15-2011, 07:11 PM
I am not in favor of a one time amnesty clause. If they do set a hard cap, they should give teams 2 years to make the moves to get under it. Nobody can expect the Lakers to get under a $65 cap in a day for example. But I am not down with the amnesty deal, because it rewards teams with bad deals, and punishes teams for being financially intelligent and keeping cap flexibility.

If they do have it, there is NO WAY ON EARTH that player should be allowed to resign with the club that cut them. The Lakers would obviously cut Kobe and his $30 million if they knew they could just then get him back for much cheaper for example. Most clubs would do that in fact.

I agree completely and i think we are looking at least a 2 year grace period if they do institute a hard cap.

Hawkeye15
06-15-2011, 07:11 PM
yea, it would be like a too powerful eh?

but ocnsider a team like greg oden, who gets injured every year, lets say he get a 8 million per year, 4 year deal. first year of deal he gets injured for the year. in that situation, he should be able to me Amnasty-fied

but look at like whoever own desgania diop, and some of these other ggarbage player, make a five six eight million dolla, ridiciolous.

idk how the amnasty should work, but it should be limited

as far as the hard caps, it will never be lowered too much because the MLE is need for the best teams to get better

imagine if the heats couldnt sign a center, or the knicks or celtics, and their only means is to draft player? like a someboooooooooooooooody, it ridicolous, they need someone for the pick up you kno?

mle is needed


The amnesty clause will help every single contender big time. Therefore I am not ok with it. It will also punish teams that have been financially intelligent. I also think the MLE is fine actually. But they need to have a hard cap set around $70 million imo. Tax over $58.

Hawkeye15
06-15-2011, 07:13 PM
We shouldn't be giving a pass to GM's that made a horrendous signing. Sorry.

ChI_ShIzzLe
06-15-2011, 07:15 PM
Herro to you too.

Snapcracklepop
06-15-2011, 07:17 PM
We shouldn't be giving a pass to GM's that made a horrendous signing. Sorry.

how we can blame a gm if a player gets injured? look at the brandon roy situaton!

greg oden


some of these teams need help. wat if it is structure so that only half the value of the contract is a subtract from the capspace, would that work?

like lets say greg odeans make a eight, ten million right? they give him the amnasty, and only four, five million is a subtract from the capspace

and for the MLE, lets say there is a separate capspace for MLE, so we have MLE cap(15 million), hard cap(to sign your players that you have, 60 million), salary cap(60 million)

something like that u kno??

what do you think?

llemon
06-15-2011, 07:22 PM
David Stern

hugepatsfan
06-15-2011, 07:24 PM
If they do it, it should be a 1 time thing. The player gets his money, and is not allowed to resign w/ that team for 3 seasons (to avoid guys taking 1 year deals and then just signing back).

For BOS, Pierce and Rondo are the only guys on the team beyond next season. Getting rid of either would put BOS in position to sign CP3 AND Dwight (or at least have the cap to do it) while still holding onto Jeff Green. I'd let Pierce go, replace him w/ Green, trade Rondo for a few young pieces that can be role players, and try to convince Dwight and CP3 to join. I really think that team would be in better position than MIA as a future superteam.

Snapcracklepop
06-15-2011, 07:30 PM
If they do it, it should be a 1 time thing. The player gets his money, and is not allowed to resign w/ that team for 3 seasons (to avoid guys taking 1 year deals and then just signing back).

For BOS, Pierce and Rondo are the only guys on the team beyond next season. Getting rid of either would put BOS in position to sign CP3 AND Dwight (or at least have the cap to do it) while still holding onto Jeff Green. I'd let Pierce go, replace him w/ Green, trade Rondo for a few young pieces that can be role players, and try to convince Dwight and CP3 to join. I really think that team would be in better position than MIA as a future superteam.

lol, are you sure you is celtics fan or bandwagon celtics fan? i dont know any self respect celtics fan who is infavours of releasing the face of their franchise

imagine my laker, release kobe because he is old to sign cp3 or something, crazy, imagine a spur or a dirk releasing timduncan, or somethang

unbelievable, true fan of team: never agree

hugepatsfan
06-15-2011, 07:35 PM
lol, are you sure you is celtics fan or bandwagon celtics fan? i dont know any self respect celtics fan who is infavours of releasing the face of their franchise

imagine my laker, release kobe because he is old to sign cp3 or something, crazy, imagine a spur or a dirk releasing timduncan, or somethang

unbelievable, true fan of team: never agree

Pierce demanded a trade when he fealt BOS wasn't getting him his ring. Well now I feel his contract is hurting BOS from getting a ring. BOS only has two choices here - Rondo or Pierce (or nothing, which would be the third choice). I root for the team over indidvidual players so if Pierce has to go for the better of the team, he goes. It's funny you say I'm not a true fan of a team because I place team goals over individual legacy.

tbomlad
06-15-2011, 07:39 PM
Arenas but would be very happy to see Turk go.

5ass
06-15-2011, 07:41 PM
Hedo or arenas, but probably arenas

Snapcracklepop
06-15-2011, 07:41 PM
Hedo or arenas, but probably arenas

arenas, make more money per year

Snapcracklepop
06-15-2011, 07:47 PM
Pierce demanded a trade when he fealt BOS wasn't getting him his ring. Well now I feel his contract is hurting BOS from getting a ring. BOS only has two choices here - Rondo or Pierce (or nothing, which would be the third choice). I root for the team over indidvidual players so if Pierce has to go for the better of the team, he goes. It's funny you say I'm not a true fan of a team because I place team goals over individual legacy.

maddness i says, you is in fine cap situation come next offseason, yes? dont you have alot of cap, if you dont resign this green kid?

sb123
06-15-2011, 07:58 PM
Spell check for lord's sake.

Tony_Starks
06-15-2011, 07:59 PM
The amnesty clause will help every single contender big time. Therefore I am not ok with it. It will also punish teams that have been financially intelligent. I also think the MLE is fine actually. But they need to have a hard cap set around $70 million imo. Tax over $58.


I just can't see them doing a hard cap. The premise is supposed to be to "balance the field" between the small market teams and big market teams with big payrolls. But when you look at small markets teams like OKC, MEM, and to a lesser extent Indy and Milw, they've had success because they were prudent.

I just don't see the players folding on that when at the end of the day everyone knows its up to the front office to make wise decisions with drafts, FA signings and player management.



edit*
but to answer the question yes Im down with the amnesty clause. Lets the player and team in a bad situation both move on.

daleja424
06-15-2011, 08:00 PM
I am not in favor of a one time amnesty clause. If they do set a hard cap, they should give teams 2 years to make the moves to get under it. Nobody can expect the Lakers to get under a $65 cap in a day for example. But I am not down with the amnesty deal, because it rewards teams with bad deals, and punishes teams for being financially intelligent and keeping cap flexibility.

If they do have it, there is NO WAY ON EARTH that player should be allowed to resign with the club that cut them. The Lakers would obviously cut Kobe and his $30 million if they knew they could just then get him back for much cheaper for example. Most clubs would do that in fact.

I agree pretty much with this.

Im sorry but if your owner spent 100 million on a piece of junk... tough cookies... maybe next time he will think a little harder before spending the cash.

There should be no amnesty clause... that is a punishment to the teams that spend money well...

daleja424
06-15-2011, 08:01 PM
And there will be no hard cap... that is a deal breaker for the players.

If the owners get enough money back from the players they won't care what else happens... the players on the other hand will stand firmly against a hard cap...

Bishnoff
06-15-2011, 08:02 PM
I am not in favor of a one time amnesty clause. If they do set a hard cap, they should give teams 2 years to make the moves to get under it. Nobody can expect the Lakers to get under a $65 cap in a day for example. But I am not down with the amnesty deal, because it rewards teams with bad deals, and punishes teams for being financially intelligent and keeping cap flexibility.

If they do have it, there is NO WAY ON EARTH that player should be allowed to resign with the club that cut them. The Lakers would obviously cut Kobe and his $30 million if they knew they could just then get him back for much cheaper for example. Most clubs would do that in fact.

This, except for the 2 year exception.

Teams shouldn't be allowed time to get under the cap whilst they are competing against teams who are under the cap and at a serious disadvantage.

Snapcracklepop
06-15-2011, 08:14 PM
This, except for the 2 year exception.

Teams shouldn't be allowed time to get under the cap whilst they are competing against teams who are under the cap and at a serious disadvantage.

agreeds

blastmasta26
06-15-2011, 10:19 PM
Honestly, I like the current cap system. Teams that are in salary cap hell are there due to their own front office mistakes. I think it's sad how general managers and owners are so incompetent that the NBA must consider instituting rules to prevent them from screwing up. My Knicks have been one of the prime culprits of salary stupidity, but I still don't advocate change.

On topic though, I guess the amnesty clause would be used to clear Renaldo Balkman's dead weight contract.

Trueblue2
06-15-2011, 10:32 PM
Last time there was an amnesty clause it didn't take the salary off the cap it was just used for luxury tax purposes.

Heater4life
06-15-2011, 10:40 PM
If there is a hard cap, their either needs to be an amnesty clause or contracts will be non-guaranteed.

That being said, I dont think there will be a hard cap.

JWO35
06-15-2011, 10:50 PM
If there was an amnesty clause placed on a player, that team shouldn't be allowed to resign(trade for, etc) for that player for at least 1 calendar year the clause was placed.

Bishnoff
06-15-2011, 11:36 PM
If there was an amnesty clause placed on a player, that team shouldn't be allowed to resign(trade for, etc) for that player for at least 1 calendar year the clause was placed.

I'd say until their original contract was due to expire.

Bishnoff
06-15-2011, 11:42 PM
This, except for the 2 year exception.

Teams shouldn't be allowed time to get under the cap whilst they are competing against teams who are under the cap and at a serious disadvantage.

To clear up how this could work, teams should be allowed to trade away players in order to get under the hard cap, for players and/or picks of lesser value. Once they are under the hard cap, normal trade rules apply.

lvlheaded
06-15-2011, 11:47 PM
If I were the Knicks Id get rid of Renaldo Balkman....who thought drafting that guy in the first round was a good idea...cough Isiah cough

MagicBucsSox
06-16-2011, 12:15 AM
I'd rid of Otis Smith and bring in Kevin Pritchard

bosox3431
06-16-2011, 12:36 AM
I think there should be, but limitations. It can only be for an injured player. The player must have been on the team at least 2 years and missed a certain percentage of games, say 60%. if contracts are guaranteed, teams need to beagle to protect themselves from injuries. GMs cant predict injuries. Of course they could play the system also, but the NBA could find ways to prevent that.