Idle thought on the Amnesty Clause
by McCleak on Oct 31, 2011 10:49 PM CDT
Email
PrintAs the end of the lockout draws nears, people have begun discussing how the upcoming amnesty clause will be used. There have been a lot of mock clauses released, notably on ESPN and Grantland, and Canis even took a semi-serious discussion of what the Wolves could/would do (my vote: if it's allowable, trade for dead weight and cut it, with an impact player as your price (i.e. trade for and cut Nocioni in exchange of Iguadola)). But there's also the question of how the amnesty clause will work.
There are three main components we don't know about the amnesty clause. 1) How long teams have to use it. 2) Whether they can only use it only players under contract now, or even only players under their contract now. 3) Whether players can resign with the team that cut them.
While there is some discussion around the first two points, I have yet to see the third broached. The main reason I bring it up is that it could be vital to some contending teams trying to hold their shot at a championship open. Take Boston. Right now they have $66 million in committed salaries (options included). Now last season the cap was at $58 million. Let's raise that to $60 million just to deal with some nice round numbers (also, I won't be shocked if the cap goes up again. As a whole, the NBA makes money). If the cap is $60 million, then the Celtics are over the cap. Most suggestions I've heard have centered around cutting Jermaine O'Neal, but that would only put them under the cap by $200,000. But if you're the Celtics and you know you need to get younger, how about this: cut Kevin Garnett and then resign him for the minimum. It's not a loss of a single cent to Garnett and it puts the Celtics $15 million under the cap. Miami could do the same thing with Lebron James (or Chris Bosh), but it would net them $8 million in space.
Anyway, if the amnesty clause allows for teams to resign cut players, don't be shocked to see big names get the axe and then immediately turn around and resign with their team.
13 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting
I don’t really know what to expect once the amnesty is at Kahn’s disposal.
Won't happen
There was a provision in the last amnesty cuts that didn’t allow this and there certainly will be this time around as well. Remember, most of the owners are in smaller markets looking to lower salaries while increasing competitive balance. This certainly wouldn’t help matters.
Exactly
It wasn’t a part of the last agreement, and there’s no way owners will let each other off the hook if they don’t have to get rid of the players. There’s no incentive for under-the-cap teams if the player can re-sign with the former team, and they need to agree to the deal as much as the over-the-cap teams do.
The good news is hopeful doesn't mean dumb. The bad news is cynical doesn't mean smart. -- Sarah Silverman
by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 1, 2011 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions
The ability to use it in the future is big
The Wolves will be substantially under the Salary Cap as is-esp if the reports on Salary Cap staying same are accurate-so there’s no pressing need to pay someone to not play for the team.
Throw in a new coaching staff,a shortened season and there’s little need to Amnesty anyone this yr.
Give the new coaching staff a yr to see how they feel about Darko,Luke,etc. If they’re not going to get minutes in the future,the team can use the Amnesty next yr,possibly in a delayed trade where they take on a bad salary in exchange for a nice drafted player.
It would be hilarious when they cut their star
That he decides to sign else where for a max contract effectively doubling his income. It would be illegal for a team to have an agreement that says we will cut you only if you resign with us wouldnt it?
Boozered!
Now will you all please raise your right hand ... and place the paper bag over your head.
by Cedarpenguin on Nov 3, 2011 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes
It would be illegal for a team to have an agreement that says we will cut you only if you resign with us wouldnt it?
It might not be easy to prove necessarily, but I’m fairly certain that is correct.
Reminder to previous amnesty clause rules
1. Team couldn’t resigned cut player for 1 year
2. Player couldn’t get more money. If he resign for some salary for another team, money he is getting from original team decreases for the same amount.
Essentially, all cut players that were any good were signing for minimum for contender.
So those rules are bad for teams like Minnesota.
There are following problems with this approach:
Why reward players that aren’t worth their contract with ability to chose who they will play for minimum. That has no sense. Rich become richer.
Also, original teams are paying all the money except minimum salary and player is playing for another team. That has no sense either.
Instead of pure cutting, make it “cut&trade”. It works in following way: for example Dallas want to cut Haywood. They put him on “cut list”, as well all other teams in a league put up to 1 player. All team in NBA could bid for players from that list and biding is public (increments 1% of contract). For example Minnesota won Haywood with offer 4.2 M$ for the first season (and the same % increase as in original contact). Original contract for the next season is 7.6 M$, so 3.4M$ are paid by Dallas, 4.2M$ by Minnesota and like this to the end of contract. Whoever offer maximum % won player from “cut list” and original team couldn’t refuse the offer. Teams could include other players in deal, but seller could refuse any offer so bidder must have enough space in salary cap to just accept player. Player’s salary counts towards salary cap only for buyer.
Little problem is converging all those cutting at the same deadline. It could be solved with moving deadline for 15 minutes between players. It will allow teams to have reasonable bidding strategy if they are targeting several players from “cut list”.
So player that are cut aren’t rewarded with tittle chance with contender, league balance is better because worse teams usually have more space in salary cap to bid for cut players, team that cut player is paying smaller % of his salary. So: win, win, win.
to add
Team couldn’t bid for it’s own cut player.
“Cut&trade” deadline could be sorted per player depending on value of his contract (starting with guys like Lewes, Arenas, Roy).
All teams are entering “cut&trade” process with cap space without cut players on it.
If it is really “cut&trade”, and not only “cut&sign”, teams need to close the deal in few days after “cut&trade” deadline or “cut&sign” will be automatic. Ability to “cut&trade” just give more flexibility in dealing – acquired player in “cut&sign” could go to the third team, cut player salary could count less against trade rules, etc.
I think the problem with your solution is that you're trying to make things more fair
Fair is not a concept the NBA deals in.
Owners are to sports like a colostomy bag is to a kitchen.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Mike D’Antoni breaks silence on New York Knicks exit: ‘An obstacle had to be removed’
- Adam Morrison looks great, everyone
- Create-a-Caption: Tim Duncan puts some stank on it
- LeBron James won’t even give Lance Stephenson half a bar
- Let’s all hate the Oklahoma City Thunder shirts that take a needless shot at the team’s move from Seattle (PHOTO)
