PDA

View Full Version : Whats the point of team above the payroll using the amnesty clause?



kobe7ringbryant
12-04-2011, 03:37 AM
Example would be the Lakers using it on Ron Artest or Luke Walton, The Lakers would still have to pay them and the Lakers wouldn't be any closer to the salary cap.

mdm692
12-04-2011, 03:46 AM
I dont know this is very confusing to me =/.

Sactown
12-04-2011, 03:55 AM
So they don't have to pay the tax on them

-Kobe24-TJ19-
12-04-2011, 03:56 AM
less luxury tax bro.

ChiTownSports1
12-04-2011, 04:01 AM
It would be usefull for a team that is paying luxury tax and wants to get below it. A team may think they are not real contenders and wants to spead up the rebuilding process by dumping a over priced veteran. Or a team might have an injured veteran and want to create cap space. Last year Houston would have probally loved to have used it on Ming.

Giraffes Rule
12-04-2011, 02:41 PM
There's also a "curtain clause" that if a team uses the mid level exception, their payroll cannot exceed $74.3 million. If they do exceed that, then they only get 3 million dollars instead of the full MLE. I don't know if the Lakers fall into that, but the Spurs and Heat do.

justinnum1
12-04-2011, 03:20 PM
There's also a "curtain clause" that if a team uses the mid level exception, their payroll cannot exceed $74.3 million. If they do exceed that, then they only get 3 million dollars instead of the full MLE. I don't know if the Lakers fall into that, but the Spurs and Heat do.

This

THE MTL
12-04-2011, 03:25 PM
Example would be the Lakers using it on Ron Artest or Luke Walton, The Lakers would still have to pay them and the Lakers wouldn't be any closer to the salary cap.

Dude, Lakers are in the luxury tax so amnestying Ron Artest would save them 6 million dollars in taxes

PhillyFaninLA
12-04-2011, 03:31 PM
Example would be the Lakers using it on Ron Artest or Luke Walton, The Lakers would still have to pay them and the Lakers wouldn't be any closer to the salary cap.


This is inaccurate.

Lets say player X makes $10 mil this year, $12 mil next year, and $14 mil the last year of the deal.

You use amnesty you have to pay the entire $36 mil but that value each year is subtracted from your official team payroll, thus lowering the cap or luxury tax number.

Don't confuse having to pay and salary cap hit.

Pierzynski4Prez
12-04-2011, 03:34 PM
OP wasn't aware of the luxury tax. He was basically saying what's the point for teams over the cap to amnesty a guy that doesn't even put them under the cap. But he forgot about the luxury tax and how much it could save by being under that.

Tony_Starks
12-04-2011, 03:55 PM
Question regarding amnesty. I get that its now basically a waiver with the teams that are the lowest under the cap getting priority to bid. My question is does the amnesty player have any say so over where he goes? If Horrible team A offers so much and Respectable team B offers less can he choose to take less or is he just forced to go to the highest bidder?

DLeeicious
12-04-2011, 04:00 PM
He goes to highest bidder

Tony_Starks
12-04-2011, 04:01 PM
^Wow that really sucks.

The_Jamal
12-04-2011, 04:06 PM
Not really. It stops all the contenders from swooping up extremley solid role players who are going to be amnestied. And many of them would be willing to take extremley small deals as they're getting their big pay-day already.

Giraffes Rule
12-04-2011, 04:26 PM
^Wow that really sucks.

Not really. Think of it like a trade where only one team gets a player.

Tony_Starks
12-04-2011, 04:35 PM
Not really. It stops all the contenders from swooping up extremley solid role players who are going to be amnestied. And many of them would be willing to take extremley small deals as they're getting their big pay-day already.


Yeah but when you amnesty a player you're basically saying you don't want him, if for no other reason for salary purposes. But then on top of that you're saying even though we don't want you, we don't want you to go to team X. Thats not reasonable.

Thats like divorcing your wife and then telling her who she can date just because you're paying alimony.....

bholly
12-04-2011, 05:59 PM
^^ No it isn't. It's like selling a car you don't want anymore, and selling it to the highest bidder rather than the person who'll treat it kindest.

Tony_Starks
12-04-2011, 06:20 PM
You really think a young rebuilding team is going to be in a hurry to spend some of their hard earned cap money they've been misering away for years on the Gilbert Arenas, Baron Davis, even the Luke Waltons of the world? Of course not, they don't even have a use or want for them. But as long as a good team doesn't get those players then its all good........