PDA

View Full Version : Alteration to the Amnesty Clause?



Cal827
10-28-2011, 01:01 PM
I saw this article on Espn (Mark Stein wrote it):


We’ve known since the spring that a new amnesty clause was coming in the NBA.

But the 2011 version is going to be different.

Very different, in fact, from its 2005 predecessor.

In ‘05, teams received only luxury-tax relief on amnesty players. In 2011, according to sources close to the negotiations, 75 percent of a player’s contract value will not count against the salary cap when shed via amnesty.

And there could be more wrinkles.

Sources say that there’s a determined push led by San Antonio Spurs owner Peter Holt to allow teams to have at least two years to decide whether or not to amnesty one player, with multiple sources telling ESPN.com this week that they believe the concept -- with restrictions that are still being haggled over -- has indeed won sufficient support to be included in the new labor deal.

Six years ago, teams had only two weeks to decide whether to use the amnesty clause or lose it forever. Now? There is a growing likelihood that teams will be able to “save” their amnesty clause through next season, or perhaps beyond.

Some teams want to restrict amnesty eligibility to the players on a team’s roster when the lockout ends. Others want the freedom to use it on any player they acquire over, say, a three- or five-year span, arguing that there are teams out there which currently don’t have an ugly contract to shed but should have the right to atone for a future mistake.

The latter sentiment understandably upsets some small-market teams, who argue that the amnesty clause was only ever intended to help teams get away from luxury-tax territory. The fear among some execs is that having amnesty rights on a player you can acquire later could turn the clause into a huge competitive advantage for deep-pocketed teams that can offer to absorb a bad contract in a down-the-road deal and then wipe it away.

But all those finer points, sources say, are still in flux. They are among the many system issues that the sides are trying to smooth out in the shadow of the big-ticket discussion on the annual revenue split.

The certainty, at this point, is that there will be an amnesty clause in the next labor deal ... along with a rising belief that there will be a multiyear window to use it.

Source: http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32935/more-flexible-amnesty-clause-on-way

It looks like the Amnesty Clause might last more than just one year (for the teams who haven't made huge mistakes on salaries). And of course the smaller market teams are have a problem with this. It's quite odd to me that they have complained about this (because the players might go anywhere was another complaint), since he helps so many of them clear bad deals instantly. I don't have a problem if big market teams decide to retain their one Amnesty for future use with the 75% cap clear, but since the smaller market owners probably won't budge, One thing I could think that they could do is maybe reduce the % that comes off the cap books for each year they hold onto it. For example 75%, goes to 65% next year, 55% the next and so on. What are your thoughts?

beasted86
10-28-2011, 01:06 PM
Yeah, I don't like that down the line nonsense, or on players not on the current team.

I say have it for the remainder of this entire year. Have June 30th as the cutoff to waive a player.

Shmontaine
10-28-2011, 01:10 PM
Yeah, I don't like that down the line nonsense, or on players not on the current team.

I say have it for the remainder of this entire year. Have June 30th as the cutoff to waive a player.

i would agree to this.. allow teams to trade for bad contracts (say d12 and hedo to the bulls), then waive them... this would help teams with multiple bad contracts (orl)...

nycericanguy
10-28-2011, 01:22 PM
i would agree to this.. allow teams to trade for bad contracts (say d12 and hedo to the bulls), then waive them... this would help teams with multiple bad contracts (orl)...

I would imagine it would only be for players the team signed, not traded for.

Shmontaine
10-28-2011, 01:35 PM
so, then gilbert arenas, and rashard lewis, and hedo would all be off the table?? they have all been traded on their current contracts... doubtfull IMO... it could be argued that these teams knew there would be some sort of amnesty coming with the new CBA, which is why they traded last year, no??

NYman15
10-28-2011, 01:39 PM
Interesting. There still is many things we don't know or don't have all the details on certain things in this new CBA. Hopefully, more things will start to come out once they get really close to a deal or we'll probably find out after a deal is completed.

Lord Leoshes
10-28-2011, 01:41 PM
I dont like it, they need to have it this year. & all cuts should end one week from the singing of this deal.

Hawkeye15
10-28-2011, 01:54 PM
as a fan of a team with zero bad contracts in all reality, this is a much better idea imo. It will allow for taking a player in a trade that you don't really want, and being able to waive him in the amnesty clause. It also helps teams that are over the payroll not have to get rid of a possibly integral player to a contender.

This is WAY better than having a 2 week period to do it.

beasted86
10-28-2011, 02:33 PM
My stance is no team should be trading then using the amnesty on players they just traded for.

Use the amnesty on current players, but give some leeway other than 2 weeks or whatever. A team like Dallas may want to consider using the amnesty on Brendan Hawyood immediately, but they need time to see how free agency with Tyson Chandler and some of the other guys works out. That's why I say give them until June 30th, or if not that late, a good amount of time into the season... maybe even the trade deadline.

Let teams work with the roster, and work out the trades during the season, then they can make the determination whether they want to keep him or not for the long haul. I know as a Heat fan, they'd like to give Miller another shot at seeing how he fits when healthy before using the amnesty on him.

But allowing trades then amnesty throws all type of curve balls into scenarios where teams may take on bad contracts just for the hell of it... leading to even more losses and profit issues. Even though it doesn't count against the cap, you think owners want to pay a big contract long term for a guy to help another team? You might have the Wizards owner offer to take a $12M expirer, but the other team gets Rashard Lewis and a lottery pick. Someone may be stupid enough to take that deal cause they think a Wizards lottery pick may be good. That's why I just don't like the idea of trading for bad contracts because it seem like it will lead down a bad trail.

Shmontaine
10-28-2011, 02:41 PM
My stance is no team should be trading then using the amnesty on players they just traded for.

Use the amnesty on current players, but give some leeway other than 2 weeks or whatever. A team like Dallas may want to consider using the amnesty on Brendan Hawyood immediately, but they need time to see how free agency with Tyson Chandler and some of the other guys works out. That's why I say give them until June 30th, or if not that late, a good amount of time into the season... maybe even the trade deadline.

Let teams work with the roster, and work out the trades during the season, then they can make the determination whether they want to keep him or not for the long haul. I know as a Heat fan, they'd like to give Miller another shot at seeing how he fits when healthy before using the amnesty on him.

But allowing trades then amnesty throws all type of curve balls into scenarios where teams may take on bad contracts just for the hell of it... leading to even more losses and profit issues. Even though it doesn't count against the cap, you think owners want to pay a big contract long term for a guy to help another team? You might have the Wizards owner offer to take a $12M expirer, but the other team gets Rashard Lewis and a lottery pick. Someone may be stupid enough to take that deal cause they think a Wizards lottery pick may be good. That's why I just don't like the idea of trading for bad contracts because it seem like it will lead down a bad trail.

I don't think you can make that distinction, though... is there going to be governing body to claim, "that's a bad contract" or not? if a player is on the team and amnesty is available, the team should be able to use it on any player, IMO...

what happens if a team trades for howard and a max deal, and halfway through the season, he get a back injury that needs surgery and a year + of recovery, maybe never being the player that was traded for. his contract becomes one of GA's stature... should that team who traded for him not be able to waive him???

nycericanguy
10-28-2011, 02:50 PM
so, then gilbert arenas, and rashard lewis, and hedo would all be off the table?? they have all been traded on their current contracts... doubtfull IMO... it could be argued that these teams knew there would be some sort of amnesty coming with the new CBA, which is why they traded last year, no??

I meant signed AFTER the rule goes into affect.

Any player on the roster now could be cut, but only players signed after the rule could be cut, not players that you traded for AFTER the rule is made.

beasted86
10-28-2011, 02:52 PM
I don't think you can make that distinction, though... is there going to be governing body to claim, "that's a bad contract" or not? if a player is on the team and amnesty is available, the team should be able to use it on any player, IMO...

what happens if a team trades for howard and a max deal, and halfway through the season, he get a back injury that needs surgery and a year + of recovery, maybe never being the player that was traded for. his contract becomes one of GA's stature... should that team who traded for him not be able to waive him???

That's exactly why teams should only be able to amnesty players that are on the roster right now.

Owners need to start taking responsibility right this moment. All truth and honesty, I don't even want a team re-signing one of it's own players this very year and then using the amnesty on him on June 30th. Take responsibility and make a decision to keep, amnesty, or trade the players they have right now. Don't use the amnesty to add more bad salary through a trade.

beasted86
10-28-2011, 02:54 PM
as a fan of a team with zero bad contracts in all reality, this is a much better idea imo. It will allow for taking a player in a trade that you don't really want, and being able to waive him in the amnesty clause. It also helps teams that are over the payroll not have to get rid of a possibly integral player to a contender.

This is WAY better than having a 2 week period to do it.

Every team has 1 or 2 guys up for consideration.

I'm sure playing under the original rules of this proposal, the Wolves would consider Webster.... and possibly Darko.

Shmontaine
10-28-2011, 02:55 PM
I meant signed AFTER the rule goes into affect.

Any player on the roster now could be cut, but only players signed after the rule could be cut, not players that you traded for AFTER the rule is made.

amnesty was foreseeable here... to give the benefit to teams who traded for bad contracts while having a pretty good idea that they could waive them now is the same thing...

nycericanguy
10-28-2011, 02:57 PM
amnesty was foreseeable here... to give the benefit to teams who traded for bad contracts while having a pretty good idea that they could waive them now is the same thing...

I don't know about that. When ORL traded for Arenas & Hedo I don't think they were banking on an amnesty clause to bail them out.

It would be unfair to let teams make trades now though and then cut them, but if they are already on your roster it makes sense to me.

Hawkeye15
10-28-2011, 02:57 PM
My stance is no team should be trading then using the amnesty on players they just traded for.

Use the amnesty on current players, but give some leeway other than 2 weeks or whatever. A team like Dallas may want to consider using the amnesty on Brendan Hawyood immediately, but they need time to see how free agency with Tyson Chandler and some of the other guys works out. That's why I say give them until June 30th, or if not that late, a good amount of time into the season... maybe even the trade deadline.

Let teams work with the roster, and work out the trades during the season, then they can make the determination whether they want to keep him or not for the long haul. I know as a Heat fan, they'd like to give Miller another shot at seeing how he fits when healthy before using the amnesty on him.

But allowing trades then amnesty throws all type of curve balls into scenarios where teams may take on bad contracts just for the hell of it... leading to even more losses and profit issues. Even though it doesn't count against the cap, you think owners want to pay a big contract long term for a guy to help another team? You might have the Wizards owner offer to take a $12M expirer, but the other team gets Rashard Lewis and a lottery pick. Someone may be stupid enough to take that deal cause they think a Wizards lottery pick may be good. That's why I just don't like the idea of trading for bad contracts because it seem like it will lead down a bad trail.


Amnesty clause should reward teams that have been fiscally intelligent, KNOWING this CBA was approaching, just as much or more than it helps teams that have been fiscally stupid.

If the Wolves can land a good player still on a rookie deal for example, but the only way they can get him is by taking a garbage deal, they should be allowed to waive them the second the trade is completed as their one time anmesty. Sorry but if this allows the Wiz to just shed Lewis's deal almost, the teams that have been playing it smart should be seeing huge gains possible as well.

Shmontaine
10-28-2011, 02:59 PM
That's exactly why teams should only be able to amnesty players that are on the roster right now.

Owners need to start taking responsibility right this moment. All truth and honesty, I don't even want a team re-signing one of it's own players this very year and then using the amnesty on him on June 30th. Take responsibility and make a decision to keep, amnesty, or trade the players they have right now. Don't use the amnesty to add more bad salary through a trade.

does the fact that amnesty would benefit miami the least probably of all teams sway your opinion???

i won't lie, i think the bulls could use this to get d12 without having to pick up hedo/gs... and i think all teams should be afforded this option... not just the teams who've made poor decisions, but all teams...

Hawkeye15
10-28-2011, 03:00 PM
does the fact that amnesty would benefit miami the least probably of all teams sway your opinion???

i won't lie, i think the bulls could use this to get d12 without having to pick up hedo/gs... and i think all teams should be afforded this option... not just the teams who've made poor decisions, but all teams...

everyones opinion on nearly every portion of the CBA is swayed by their teams scenario/situation. Its human nature.

Shmontaine
10-28-2011, 03:00 PM
Amnesty clause should reward teams that have been fiscally intelligent, KNOWING this CBA was approaching, just as much or more than it helps teams that have been fiscally stupid.

If the Wolves can land a good player still on a rookie deal for example, but the only way they can get him is by taking a garbage deal, they should be allowed to waive them the second the trade is completed as their one time anmesty. Sorry but if this allows the Wiz to just shed Lewis's deal almost, the teams that have been playing it smart should be seeing huge gains possible as well.

well, we agree... :clap:

beasted86
10-28-2011, 03:03 PM
Amnesty clause should reward teams that have been fiscally intelligent, KNOWING this CBA was approaching, just as much or more than it helps teams that have been fiscally stupid.

If the Wolves can land a good player still on a rookie deal for example, but the only way they can get him is by taking a garbage deal, they should be allowed to waive them the second the trade is completed as their one time anmesty. Sorry but if this allows the Wiz to just shed Lewis's deal almost, the teams that have been playing it smart should be seeing huge gains possible as well.

All I know is that whatever benefit the Wolves might get from that added rookie talent, won't take away from the truth they probably won't be able to afford to pay that bad contract they added as well as extend that young rookie plus the other young rookies on the team.

I think a lot of fans still don't grasp that amnesty does not make the contract disappear. That player is still getting paid, and the team that trades for him, or has him right now will need to be able to afford paying that salary on top of growing the existing players and giving raises when needed.

I've always been leery on how this amnesty will be used because it could put a lot of financially struggling teams into even more trouble.

Shmontaine
10-28-2011, 03:04 PM
I don't know about that. When ORL traded for Arenas & Hedo I don't think they were banking on an amnesty clause to bail them out.

It would be unfair to let teams make trades now though and then cut them, but if they are already on your roster it makes sense to me.

there was amnesty in '98... and the way things had been shaping up the last year or so, it was indeed a strong possibility, and owners/gm's would know this

Shmontaine
10-28-2011, 03:07 PM
All I know is that whatever benefit the Wolves might get from that added rookie talent, won't take away from the truth they probably won't be able to afford to pay that bad contract they added as well as extend that young rookie plus the other young rookies on the team.

I think a lot of fans still don't grasp that amnesty does not make the contract disappear. That player is still getting paid, and the team that trades for him, or has him right now will need to be able to afford paying that salary on top of growing the existing players and giving raises when needed.

I've always been leery on how this amnesty will be used because it could put a lot of financially struggling teams into even more trouble.

well, there have said to be provisions that would spread the remainder of salaries over 5-7 years, thus lowering the annual commitment from teams, as well as the two teams involved in the amnesty (the team who cuts, and the team who signs an amnestied player) would split the contract... so you can't just say 'teams can't afford it' because you don't know how the structure of amnestied contracts will be.

nycericanguy
10-28-2011, 03:09 PM
there was amnesty in '98... and the way things had been shaping up the last year or so, it was indeed a strong possibility, and owners/gm's would know this

I'm sure there were rumblings about it, but I highly doubt owners were taking on horrible contracts without that rule being in place yet or official.

beasted86
10-28-2011, 03:11 PM
does the fact that amnesty would benefit miami the least probably of all teams sway your opinion???

i won't lie, i think the bulls could use this to get d12 without having to pick up hedo/gs... and i think all teams should be afforded this option... not just the teams who've made poor decisions, but all teams...

The original intention of the amnesty is to help teams avoid the luxury tax and give them a one time do-over. In that regard it could very well help the team because we might have overpaid Mike Miller by way of luxury tax penalty when it's pretty clear that money should probably go to a Center or PG.

But in the regard of the use you and some other fans think of it, yes, it wouldn't really help us as much. I just think that added 150-200% on trades rule.... on top of this amnesty is going to really screw some teams financially in the short term, and 6 years from now they'll be like "hey, we're losing money again, we have the records to prove it".

Hawkeye15
10-28-2011, 03:13 PM
All I know is that whatever benefit the Wolves might get from that added rookie talent, won't take away from the truth they probably won't be able to afford to pay that bad contract they added as well as extend that young rookie plus the other young rookies on the team.

I think a lot of fans still don't grasp that amnesty does not make the contract disappear. That player is still getting paid, and the team that trades for him, or has him right now will need to be able to afford paying that salary on top of growing the existing players and giving raises when needed.

I've always been leery on how this amnesty will be used because it could put a lot of financially struggling teams into even more trouble.

if its saving the Wiz $33.75 million over 2 years (75% according to Stein is being proposed to be wiped off the payrolls), than it needs to also be able to be used to absorb in a deal and then waive (now that they are discussing trades needing to be in the 225% range close wise, more lopsided deals are available).

The teams that didn't go out and make ridiculous signings need to see some sort of positive effect just as the teams that are now going to shed millions due to a stupid FO will get.

Your last line is exactly why small market teams, especially ones that were preparing for this lockout and kept under the cap by a decent amount, HATE the thought of an amnesty clause honestly. You screwed up Orlando, Washington, and others. Tough cookies, live with it. Unless the amnesty can be used on a traded player, in which case teams like the Kings, Wolves, Raptors, etc, can benefit.

beasted86
10-28-2011, 03:14 PM
there was amnesty in '98... and the way things had been shaping up the last year or so, it was indeed a strong possibility, and owners/gm's would know this

In 99 it was a one time amnesty, and only a handful of teams used it.

Hawkeye15
10-28-2011, 03:16 PM
The original intention of the amnesty is to help teams avoid the luxury tax and give them a one time do-over. In that regard it could very well help the team because we might have overpaid Mike Miller by way of luxury tax penalty when it's pretty clear that money should probably go to a Center or PG.

But in the regard of the use you and some other fans think of it, yes, it wouldn't really help us as much. I just think that added 150-200% on trades rule.... on top of this amnesty is going to really screw some teams financially in the short term, and 6 years from now they'll be like "hey, we're losing money again, we have the records to prove it".

and because this doesn't do squat for my team, and helps the bloated payrolls, I am very much against it.

beasted86
10-28-2011, 03:17 PM
if its saving the Wiz $33.75 million over 2 years (75% according to Stein is being proposed to be wiped off the payrolls), than it needs to also be able to be used to absorb in a deal and then waive (now that they are discussing trades needing to be in the 225% range close wise, more lopsided deals are available).

The teams that didn't go out and make ridiculous signings need to see some sort of positive effect just as the teams that are now going to shed millions due to a stupid FO will get.

Your last line is exactly why small market teams, especially ones that were preparing for this lockout and kept under the cap by a decent amount, HATE the thought of an amnesty clause honestly. You screwed up Orlando, Washington, and others. Tough cookies, live with it. Unless the amnesty can be used on a traded player, in which case teams like the Kings, Wolves, Raptors, etc, can benefit.
First off, you are misunderstanding. A contract is a contract. The players is getting paid 100% of his salary. The 75% they talked about is what is taken off the cap hit. Teams will still take a 25% cap space hit of the contract's value.

2nd thing, if the only way for small market teams to get talent is still trading for super bad contracts with a rookie thow-in... then its very clear this lockout was a complete failure and we'll be seeing the same thing soon.

Dade County
10-28-2011, 03:23 PM
I am not in favor of the Amnesty clause .....

I have not read anything saying a team can't cut their on player and resigned them for less. To many crazy things can come out of this.

This is not going to make smaller market teams better, most of all the amnesty players will go to the teams that have a very good shot of winning a championship.

And why would orlando trade Howard to the bulls... you know what don't even answer " I'm just to take it as we are all fans ... and you know what fan is short for.

Hawkeye15
10-28-2011, 03:24 PM
First off, you are misunderstanding. A contract is a contract. The players is getting paid 100% of his salary. The 75% they talked about is what is taken off the cap hit. Teams will still take a 25% cap space hit of the contract's value.

2nd thing, if the only way for small market teams to get talent is still trading for super bad contracts with a rookie thow-in... then its very clear this lockout was a complete failure and we'll be seeing the same thing soon.

I understand fully the players are getting paid regardless. Its the effect on the payrolls that I have partial issues with, if this is simply a "do over for a boo boo"

That was a mere example. Teams will still go over the cap to keep their own players. The length of mid levels is dropping, which may help. Rookie contract wages may drop. There are other things that will effect small markets, the biggest of which is revenue sharing. There are owners like Donald Sterling who only looks to make as much profit as possible. Glen Taylor will actually use the money to try and make his team better. This goes further in the right direction than a single trade.

Hawkeye15
10-28-2011, 03:25 PM
I am not in favor of the Amnesty clause .....

I have not read anything saying a team can't cut their on player and resigned them for less. To many crazy things can come out of this.

This is not going to make smaller market teams better, most of all the amnesty players will go to the teams that have a very good shot of winning a championship.

And why would orlando trade Howard to the bulls... you know what don't even answer " I'm just to take it as we are all fans ... and you know what fan is short for.


that will be in there, trust me. No way they allow teams to resign someone they waive.

Dade County
10-28-2011, 03:29 PM
that will be in there, trust me. No way they allow teams to resign someone they waive.


It better be...

Because if you think that the HEAT/Pat wouldn't amnesty one of the BIG 3 "Wade" and sign him right back for pennies ... Now we can afford a real center... this is going to get ugly:speechless:

Hawkeye15
10-28-2011, 03:32 PM
It better be...

Because if you think that the HEAT/Pat wouldn't amnesty one of the BIG 3 "Wade" and sign him right back for pennies ... Now we can afford a real center... this is going to get ugly:speechless:

um, Kobe? He is set to make $82 million over the next 3 years.

There is no way, and I mean none, they allow teams to resign a waived player.

NYman15
10-28-2011, 03:40 PM
STEIN_LINE_HQ Marc Stein
One trusted exec chimes in convinced new Amnesty Clause HAS to include provision forbidding teams on using it on players acquired by trade
1 hour ago

STEIN_LINE_HQ Marc Stein
To be clear: Any restrictions on using amnesty on players acquired by trade refers to FUTURE trades. NOT deals that have already happened
19 minutes ago

So, it sounds like you won't be able to do a deal like trading for Dwight Howard and Arenas or Hedo and then use the amnesty on Arenas or Hedo, you'd have to keep them.

Shmontaine
10-28-2011, 03:55 PM
STEIN_LINE_HQ Marc Stein
One trusted exec chimes in convinced new Amnesty Clause HAS to include provision forbidding teams on using it on players acquired by trade
1 hour ago

STEIN_LINE_HQ Marc Stein
To be clear: Any restrictions on using amnesty on players acquired by trade refers to FUTURE trades. NOT deals that have already happened
19 minutes ago

So, it sounds like you won't be able to do a deal like trading for Dwight Howard and Arenas or Hedo and then use the amnesty on Arenas or Hedo, you'd have to keep them.

:sigh: oh well..

GodsSon
10-28-2011, 04:01 PM
Every team should have the same deadline to amnesty a player for the sake of fairness; not to mention that surely loopholes will be found down the road.

I say it has to be done the same day as the trade deadline so that players that are dropped still have some time to sign on with teams before the FA/playoff roster deadline. Oh, and it should absolutely not be allowed use on players that were just traded for.

rapjuicer06
10-28-2011, 04:10 PM
I think its funny Bulls fans still think Howard's going there....

nycericanguy
10-28-2011, 04:12 PM
:sigh: oh well..

THat's what I figured, it wouldn't make sense any other way

Shmontaine
10-28-2011, 04:16 PM
I think its funny Bulls fans still think Howard's going there....

i think it's funny you think it's funny...

rapjuicer06
10-28-2011, 04:17 PM
i think it's funny you think it's funny...

I'll sig bet you that he will not become a Bull

Shmontaine
10-28-2011, 04:17 PM
THat's what I figured, it wouldn't make sense any other way

yeah... it's seems like a legit clause...

what's the deal with this 2 year amnesty?? i'd be interested to see the final draft of this amnesty...

Shmontaine
10-28-2011, 04:21 PM
I'll sig bet you that he will not become a Bull

i guess... you don't really need to on your part... but i don't care...

Sactown
10-29-2011, 02:59 AM
It would be cool if the amnesty clause was always around, but could only be used on one player at a time

Say ORL wipes Gils contract which has what? 3-4 years on it? So they can't wipe away another contract until his contract is done.. so they couldn't use it again for another 2-3 years