PDA

View Full Version : Chance of no amnesty clause in new CBA agreement



MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-21-2016, 12:10 PM
So if true. Those teams that blew their wad and those players regress good luck trading them. Only chance left is expansion teams in a expansion draft taking on some bad contracts. Or worst case a buyout or stretch provision.

Toxeryll
10-21-2016, 02:30 PM
Good. The league shouldn't reward teams who make bad decisions.

Chronz
10-21-2016, 03:05 PM
Agreed with above. It was cool back in the day but with so much money to blow it's time to stop

nycericanguy
10-21-2016, 03:28 PM
Laker fans were acting as if it was guaranteed...

Shammyguy3
10-21-2016, 07:47 PM
Agreed with above. It was cool back in the day but with so much money to blow it's time to stop

I'm with this line of reasoning. Especially since Rose's contract is finally not our problem.

Lakers + Giants
10-22-2016, 02:19 AM
Laker fans were acting as if it was guaranteed...

prove 1 laker fan even saying such a thing.

More-Than-Most
10-22-2016, 03:04 AM
So ****ing happy if this is true... Teams shouldnt get a get out of jail free card for horrid ****ing quick over pays. GOOD ****

nycericanguy
10-22-2016, 10:15 AM
prove 1 laker fan even saying such a thing.

go into lakers forum the Mosgov contract thread... all the talk of amnestying him and how there would be am amnesty in the new CBA

i'm good with no amnesty though, that was supposed to be a one time get out of jail free card... at this point you cant keep bailing out owners for bad contracts, otherwise they will continue. Contacts dont make sense in the NBA today. i keep saying they need to get rid of max deals and let teams pay what they want.

mrblisterdundee
10-23-2016, 12:07 PM
Cool; no more bailouts.

Scoots
10-24-2016, 09:23 AM
I like it.

Vinylman
10-24-2016, 10:18 AM
The Amnesty provision benefits the players just as much as the owners because it gives the amnesty team the ability to spend MORE which is good for the players...

As for this thread... it might be minutely credible if there was a source linked..

Scoots
10-24-2016, 11:52 AM
The Amnesty provision benefits the players just as much as the owners because it gives the amnesty team the ability to spend MORE which is good for the players...

As for this thread... it might be minutely credible if there was a source linked..

The OP is speculative making the whole thread speculative. Don't sweat it.

Vinylman
10-24-2016, 12:37 PM
The OP is speculative making the whole thread speculative. Don't sweat it.

not sweating it... it is either poor grammar or purposefully misleading... everyone is responding as if there is some credibility to his post other than pure speculation and personal opinion.

I don't know whether there will be an amnesty provision or not... since it benefits both the players and the owners I don't see why either would decide to eliminate it after it has been in the last TWO CBA's.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-24-2016, 12:46 PM
CBA isn't finished yet but most is agreed on. Cant find the old article. I'm not worried Bucks sitting alright. I read a new article from WOJ today. Said most is agreed on but still ironing small things out yet. Never mind found another article speculating of no amnesty.

http://www.hoopsrumors.com/2016/10/amnesty-clause-unlikely-to-remain-in-next-cba.html

Lakers + Giants
10-24-2016, 03:21 PM
go into lakers forum the Mosgov contract thread... all the talk of amnestying him and how there would be am amnesty in the new CBA

i'm good with no amnesty though, that was supposed to be a one time get out of jail free card... at this point you cant keep bailing out owners for bad contracts, otherwise they will continue. Contacts dont make sense in the NBA today. i keep saying they need to get rid of max deals and let teams pay what they want.

You said lakers fans and it was only 1 fan (the OP) that said it over and over again. To be fair though, I said prove 1 fan. So yea.:surrender:

Bowman53
10-24-2016, 06:09 PM
It's nice for a change that warriors have no bad contracts so this not a concern.

Scoots
10-24-2016, 06:31 PM
I don't know whether there will be an amnesty provision or not... since it benefits both the players and the owners I don't see why either would decide to eliminate it after it has been in the last TWO CBA's.

Supposedly the owners are trying to find ways to restrict/punish the super teams and removing the amnesty is one way of doing it. They can stick it to the Heat directly and possibly to the Cavs and Warriors if/when something goes wrong with one of these huge contracts.

Vinylman
10-25-2016, 09:23 AM
Supposedly the owners are trying to find ways to restrict/punish the super teams and removing the amnesty is one way of doing it. They can stick it to the Heat directly and possibly to the Cavs and Warriors if/when something goes wrong with one of these huge contracts.

short sighted thinking if true but I doubt it is...

if you want to punish the super teams just increase the LT penalties, eliminate all vet exceptions for LT teams except for the minimum, and don't let teams in the LT use TPE's...

This isn't rocket science

warfelg
10-25-2016, 09:51 AM
short sighted thinking if true but I doubt it is...

if you want to punish the super teams just increase the LT penalties, eliminate all vet exceptions for LT teams except for the minimum, and don't let teams in the LT use TPE's...

This isn't rocket science

Without getting dramatic in changing the structure of the league that's one way.

What about:
Repeat offenders lose their first round pick and it goes in order to the worst teams in the NBA.

MLE available only to first time LT offenders, returns after two seasons under the tax.

Hawkeye15
10-25-2016, 09:58 AM
I have never been for the amnesty clause. It promotes stupidity. Couple that with the ridiculous money available now, and it seriously makes no sense.

All the premature ejaculators from this past offseason will end up paying for their sins, and I love it.

mightybosstone
10-25-2016, 11:36 AM
I hope this ends up happening. There was some truly ridiculous money thrown around last season, and while I understand it given the massive increase in the cap, there were some contracts that were just truly atrocious. If you make a poor decision as a GM and overpay somebody, you should have to pay the consequences of that mistake.

Scoots
10-25-2016, 12:33 PM
Without getting dramatic in changing the structure of the league that's one way.

What about:
Repeat offenders lose their first round pick and it goes in order to the worst teams in the NBA.

MLE available only to first time LT offenders, returns after two seasons under the tax.

Spoken like a disciple of The Process :)

Hawkeye15
10-25-2016, 12:48 PM
The Amnesty provision benefits the players just as much as the owners because it gives the amnesty team the ability to spend MORE which is good for the players...

As for this thread... it might be minutely credible if there was a source linked..

it doesn't benefit the fans of many teams that don't spend money like a cast member of NBA Wives

Hawkeye15
10-25-2016, 12:49 PM
short sighted thinking if true but I doubt it is...

if you want to punish the super teams just increase the LT penalties, eliminate all vet exceptions for LT teams except for the minimum, and don't let teams in the LT use TPE's...

This isn't rocket science

well very true

Vinylman
10-27-2016, 09:12 AM
it doesn't benefit the fans of many teams that don't spend money like a cast member of NBA Wives

True... but the NBAPA only cares about getting its members as much dough as possible... as it should be

Vinylman
10-27-2016, 09:14 AM
Without getting dramatic in changing the structure of the league that's one way.

What about:
Repeat offenders lose their first round pick and it goes in order to the worst teams in the NBA.

MLE available only to first time LT offenders, returns after two seasons under the tax.

I am down with any rules that help the competitive balance of the league... so count me in on those

Scoots
10-27-2016, 11:48 AM
short sighted thinking if true but I doubt it is...

if you want to punish the super teams just increase the LT penalties, eliminate all vet exceptions for LT teams except for the minimum, and don't let teams in the LT use TPE's...

This isn't rocket science

Unfortunately for the other owners the Warriors are not in the LT right now (though they certainly will be next year)

Gibby23
10-27-2016, 11:51 AM
go into lakers forum the Mosgov contract thread... all the talk of amnestying him and how there would be am amnesty in the new CBA

i'm good with no amnesty though, that was supposed to be a one time get out of jail free card... at this point you cant keep bailing out owners for bad contracts, otherwise they will continue. Contacts dont make sense in the NBA today. i keep saying they need to get rid of max deals and let teams pay what they want.

Who cares what Lakers fans think. The Lakers didn't give Mosgov the contract with the thought of using the Amnesty clause on him down the line. lol

Scoots
10-27-2016, 11:51 AM
I am down with any rules that help the competitive balance of the league... so count me in on those

So, a league wide re-draft of all players every off-season with the team with the worst record getting first pick with the order reversing in each round of a 15 round draft? It certainly would mean that any franchise would have a chance from year to year :) Any rule to help parity right?

hugepatsfan
10-27-2016, 01:08 PM
I don't have an issue with the amnesty clause itself. What annoyed me about it is that you were "punished" for not having a bad deal worth using it on. Not from a financial perspective because teams still had to pay guys but from a competitive standpoint. It wasn't fair to me how teams got a get out of jail free (not really free but you guys know what I mean).

hugepatsfan
10-27-2016, 01:14 PM
I have never been for the amnesty clause. It promotes stupidity. Couple that with the ridiculous money available now, and it seriously makes no sense.

All the premature ejaculators from this past offseason will end up paying for their sins, and I love it.

Exactly. I'll use BOS as an example. Losing Evan Turner will hurt. He was a big part of what we do. But his deal was absurd. It would have been great if we could sign him and then just get out of the deal with no harm to our cap flexibility. If there was amnesty we could do that. But instead we made the smart decision to let him go. A team like POR that made the short-sighted move deserves to pay in the long-term for it and if you give an amnesty then you give them the best of both worlds. They get the short term improvement without the cost of the long-term cap flexibility. So the team that made the smart move ends up being punished essentially.

Vinylman
10-27-2016, 01:27 PM
So, a league wide re-draft of all players every off-season with the team with the worst record getting first pick with the order reversing in each round of a 15 round draft? It certainly would mean that any franchise would have a chance from year to year :) Any rule to help parity right?

:rolleyes:

a redraft isn't a "rule"

but you knew that

Hawkeye15
10-27-2016, 02:14 PM
True... but the NBAPA only cares about getting its members as much dough as possible... as it should be

oh absolutely. it helps both sides (teams, players) for sure.

Essentially, since my team didn't benefit from it, I hate it. Shortsighted? Of course. Do I care? Nope.

shep33
10-27-2016, 05:35 PM
Silly to take it away. People want teams to be horrible and have terrible competitive balance? Don't understand why any basketball fan would not want an amnesty clause.

Significant injury to say, Al Horford or Mike Conley this season, would put those two franchises back so far in the rebuilding process.

Amnesty makes for a better NBA since it allows teams to get out of a contract that is making them unable to bring in talent.

Pretty amazing that some people here actually want to see teams hindered by making a bad signing, or have an injury to a big signing.

Hawkeye15
10-27-2016, 05:48 PM
Silly to take it away. People want teams to be horrible and have terrible competitive balance? Don't understand why any basketball fan would not want an amnesty clause.

Significant injury to say, Al Horford or Mike Conley this season, would put those two franchises back so far in the rebuilding process.

Amnesty makes for a better NBA since it allows teams to get out of a contract that is making them unable to bring in talent.

Pretty amazing that some people here actually want to see teams hindered by making a bad signing, or have an injury to a big signing.

god forbid we reward those who are fiscally smart, versus reckless

Injury is a completely different thing. The amnesty was straight up used for stupid deals the last time around all over the place.

hugepatsfan
10-27-2016, 05:59 PM
Silly to take it away. People want teams to be horrible and have terrible competitive balance? Don't understand why any basketball fan would not want an amnesty clause.

Significant injury to say, Al Horford or Mike Conley this season, would put those two franchises back so far in the rebuilding process.

Amnesty makes for a better NBA since it allows teams to get out of a contract that is making them unable to bring in talent.

Pretty amazing that some people here actually want to see teams hindered by making a bad signing, or have an injury to a big signing.

You act like it only helps bad teams. The good teams can still use the amnesty to free up cap space and build more powerhouses that are hurting parity. It allows them to bring in talent, yes, but the fundamental problem of the NBA is that players only want to go to powerhouses. So you can give all the crappy teams cap space but if there's an avenue to get on a powerhouse then the players will take it. And the amnesty helps create that.

TheMightyHumph
10-27-2016, 10:16 PM
You act like it only helps bad teams. The good teams can still use the amnesty to free up cap space and build more powerhouses that are hurting parity. It allows them to bring in talent, yes, but the fundamental problem of the NBA is that players only want to go to powerhouses. So you can give all the crappy teams cap space but if there's an avenue to get on a powerhouse then the players will take it. And the amnesty helps create that.

Exactly. Well said.

If there is an amnesty clause in the new CBA, it points to how much money the owners are actually making, as they would be able to (and gladly willing) to pay the salary of someone that doesn't play for them, and still make a profit because they own an NBA team.

Gibby23
10-27-2016, 11:52 PM
Exactly. I'll use BOS as an example. Losing Evan Turner will hurt. He was a big part of what we do. But his deal was absurd. It would have been great if we could sign him and then just get out of the deal with no harm to our cap flexibility. If there was amnesty we could do that. But instead we made the smart decision to let him go. A team like POR that made the short-sighted move deserves to pay in the long-term for it and if you give an amnesty then you give them the best of both worlds. They get the short term improvement without the cost of the long-term cap flexibility. So the team that made the smart move ends up being punished essentially.

Well, as a Boston fan you better hope they have another amnesty provision. You guys will need ot for Al Horford. Probably will be one of the worst deals this past FA period.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-28-2016, 09:05 AM
Silly to take it away. People want teams to be horrible and have terrible competitive balance? Don't understand why any basketball fan would not want an amnesty clause.

Significant injury to say, Al Horford or Mike Conley this season, would put those two franchises back so far in the rebuilding process.

Amnesty makes for a better NBA since it allows teams to get out of a contract that is making them unable to bring in talent.

Pretty amazing that some people here actually want to see teams hindered by making a bad signing, or have an injury to a big signing.


Why should teams get out of jail free card with injuries? Bucks didn't. Heck Michael Redd was getting like over $20M per final two years and both years he was injured and didn't play. Yeah final year the owner had the insurance pay 80% of his salary but still he counted against the cap and held us hostage two years. Also Bogut was on the team as well and he always was missing games with migraines or some random injury or not with teams family reasons. Them two guys alone pretty much killed a decade for us.

warfelg
10-28-2016, 09:27 AM
Why should teams get out of jail free card with injuries? Bucks didn't. Heck Michael Redd was getting like over $20M per final two years and both years he was injured and didn't play. Yeah final year the owner had the insurance pay 80% of his salary but still he counted against the cap and held us hostage two years. Also Bogut was on the team as well and he always was missing games with migraines or some random injury or not with teams family reasons. Them two guys alone pretty much killed a decade for us.

Yup.

I hate the amnesty clause. I felt like it never helped who it was designed to help. It was really meant to take a middling team with an older player on the max, and allow them to get out from under that. But in the end, good teams used it to their advantage.

Also in the past, the owners held the Amnesty Clause as a bargaining tool to their advantage. Like giving the players a bigger part of the cash, but we need to let teams do this to free up the money to spend.

Right now it looks as though players and owners are happy with everything that's going on, so they have no desire to change things.

And hasn't the Amnesty only been used two times in NBA history?

Edit:
Not like used used, but like used as in only part of 2 CBAs.

Hawkeye15
10-28-2016, 09:44 AM
Well, as a Boston fan you better hope they have another amnesty provision. You guys will need ot for Al Horford. Probably will be one of the worst deals this past FA period.

seriously? Evan Turner? Mosgov? Beal? DeRozan? Barnes?

Those are all exponentially worse

warfelg
10-28-2016, 09:50 AM
seriously? Evan Turner? Mosgov? Beal? DeRozan? Barnes?

Those are all exponentially worse

If Boston comes away with a defensive center (Noel+LAL pick for Nets/C's swap+2 2nds anyone?) and Horford is a PF, with Crowder/Brown at 3, Bradley in the backcourt, that teams would be easily set for the length of Horfords contract.

Hawkeye15
10-28-2016, 10:06 AM
If Boston comes away with a defensive center (Noel+LAL pick for Nets/C's swap+2 2nds anyone?) and Horford is a PF, with Crowder/Brown at 3, Bradley in the backcourt, that teams would be easily set for the length of Horfords contract.

no doubt Boston is another piece away from really contending, but Horford was nowhere near the worst signing of the offseason. That is just ridiculous considering so many of the deals given out to fringe starters and role players who were paid unreal money.

Gibby23
10-28-2016, 12:43 PM
If Boston comes away with a defensive center (Noel+LAL pick for Nets/C's swap+2 2nds anyone?) and Horford is a PF, with Crowder/Brown at 3, Bradley in the backcourt, that teams would be easily set for the length of Horfords contract.

Boston isn't trading the possible 1st pick in the draft for Noel who had a ACL, in college, tendinitis in the same knee in his short NBA career and now just had another surgery on the same knee. Good luck with that pipe.

warfelg
10-28-2016, 12:58 PM
Boston isn't trading the possible 1st pick in the draft for Noel who had a ACL, in college, tendinitis in the same knee in his short NBA career and now just had another surgery on the same knee. Good luck with that pipe.

Yes way to leave most that trade out of that reply.

Vinylman
10-28-2016, 01:33 PM
god forbid we reward those who are fiscally smart, versus reckless

Injury is a completely different thing. The amnesty was straight up used for stupid deals the last time around all over the place.

meh... you are overstating / overthinking things...

the only reason there needs to be an amnesty provision is because of guaranteed player contracts and the fact that there is NO TRUE FA which results in all those middling players getting overpaid...

the current system is completely broke because top players are underpaid and average players are massively overpaid so that teams can retain them as they enter their first round of FA.

It has nothing to do with teams being fiscally smart... every team in the league has to overpay at some point to retain talent...

the system is complete and utter garbage

Gibby23
10-28-2016, 01:45 PM
Yes way to leave most that trade out of that reply.

It's a pipe. Let me know when it happens or the Sixers get anythin comparable to what you pasted. The new team would also have to pay Noel, his rookie deal is almost up.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-28-2016, 01:56 PM
Noel is due for a new contract. Which probably scares some teams for trading for him. Also seems most the league is stocked with big men.

hugepatsfan
10-28-2016, 02:24 PM
If Boston comes away with a defensive center (Noel+LAL pick for Nets/C's swap+2 2nds anyone?) and Horford is a PF, with Crowder/Brown at 3, Bradley in the backcourt, that teams would be easily set for the length of Horfords contract.

If we had signed a Durant for example I would do that. But not without having a star. I know we're getting the LAL pick back but I just can't risk that we mis son a franchise player by 1 pick. We're a star away from contending. A "nice" piece like Noel doesn't move the needle for us in those terms. The BRK pick is no sure thing but I think it has a realistic enough shot of putting us in position to draft a star that I would not deal it without one coming back.

THE MTL
10-30-2016, 12:41 AM
It doesnt make sense in the new deal to have an amnesty. Last CBA deal, the salary cap was coming down and everyone's salary was based on the previous CBA. So give teams an amnesty to even the playing field.

But an amnesty clause now with an increasing cap, is just a "get out of jail free" card

MILLERHIGHLIFE
10-30-2016, 10:03 AM
No point in amnesty if there's a possibility of expansion draft of two new teams. So each team can toss a couple bad contracts into a hat and hope these teams pick one to get near cap apron.

Scoots
10-30-2016, 02:37 PM
There is too much talk about rules changes to help parity. The best run teams rise to the top regardless of the rules.

Anybody who wants a hard cap should be against the amnesty.

Are people against tanking for the amnesty?

Bad injury luck can happen to anybody, but badly run teams tend to have more injury issues ... so more of the same.

Vinylman
11-01-2016, 08:20 AM
There is too much talk about rules changes to help parity. The best run teams rise to the top regardless of the rules.

Anybody who wants a hard cap should be against the amnesty.

Are people against tanking for the amnesty?

Bad injury luck can happen to anybody, but badly run teams tend to have more injury issues ... so more of the same.

blah blah blah

talk about cherry picking hot button issues and then conflating them... mind boggling...

The current system is broke because there are non-market forces intervening into the process.

just for ***** and giggles... who are these badly run teams?

warfelg
11-01-2016, 08:42 AM
blah blah blah

talk about cherry picking hot button issues and then conflating them... mind boggling...

The current system is broke because there are non-market forces intervening into the process.

just for ***** and giggles... who are these badly run teams?

I'll just sum it up and save us time:
Good team fan argument - "We don't need parity, there's just poorly run teams. Just do a better job."

Middle level team fan argument - "The lottery is broken. It's absurd with the tanking."

Bad team fan argument - "We need a harder cap, players shouldn't be able to jump teams, we need more incentive to keep players where they are."

When in reality:
Good teams - got lucky with a pick or two, massively won a trade or two, hit on a cheap FA.

Middle level teams - gave out max contracts to merely "good" players who aren't good enough to win alone. Don't have good enough GM's to get lucky in the draft with finding a player.

Bad teams - Came down from a high place, with bad contracts, and couldn't get lucky in the draft. So now FA's don't want to go there and they have a hard time retaining good players because they aren't winning.

Vinylman
11-01-2016, 12:27 PM
I'll just sum it up and save us time:
Good team fan argument - "We don't need parity, there's just poorly run teams. Just do a better job."

Middle level team fan argument - "The lottery is broken. It's absurd with the tanking."

Bad team fan argument - "We need a harder cap, players shouldn't be able to jump teams, we need more incentive to keep players where they are."

When in reality:
Good teams - got lucky with a pick or two, massively won a trade or two, hit on a cheap FA.

Middle level teams - gave out max contracts to merely "good" players who aren't good enough to win alone. Don't have good enough GM's to get lucky in the draft with finding a player.

Bad teams - Came down from a high place, with bad contracts, and couldn't get lucky in the draft. So now FA's don't want to go there and they have a hard time retaining good players because they aren't winning.

some of that is right but what it really comes down to is paying the best players what they are worth within a hard cap... with revenue sharing built into the last CBA the need to babysit teams when it comes to salaries is way less important... everyone has to pony up 90% of the cap anyway.

The current system favors the elite teams because they are given ways to exceed the cap to add talent when there is no competitive incentives for other teams to do the same.

The idea that Cleveland could create TPE's for the last 3 years when they are WAY into LT and use them to fill out their roster is laughable.