Would you use the amnesty right away?

[dream34]

I think the only real possibilities of us using it are:

1. Hasheem Thabeet, but only if we sign a center like Nene and need the cap space now.

2. Luis Scola, but not until the end of his contract.

We don't really have any long, bad contacts worthy of it. What do you think?

[zapatasblood]

Not sure how that amnesty works but if it rids yourself of the whole contract then Scola. Old and to much money for too many years. But If it does not work that way then goodbye Thabeet if we find another legit sized center

[kam_soluusar]

If anyone goes, it is Thabeet. Scola would be needed for trade purposes. T-Will and maybe Hill would also be possibilities. It would be a PF/C that goes more than likely.

[TMU]

Nice thread.

I think it is more likely that Morey uses the Amnesty next season when we'll see a mass influx of talent in free agency. Using it on Thabeet this season doesn't clear a whole lot of cap space and I think he's better suited as a trade bait next year when his contract expires.

[kam_soluusar]

TMU, you're right. I forgot you don't need to use it straight away. Our team is reasonably cap friendly at the moment. If we hadn't offloaded Miller, then it might have been used on him.

[dream34]

The amnesty allows you to cut someone from your roster and have their entire salary off the books. They will no longer count towards your cap space or luxury tax implications. You do still have to pay them, which is why teams are still hesitant to shed terrible contracts like Rashard Lewis.

If we don't use it this year, we have only 3 players under contract next year. Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, and Kyle Lowry. Those are our 3 core players. We have 6 team options on the rest of the gang we could just not pick up instead of using the amnesty clause on them. I think the most likely case is we use it on Scola in 2014.

I know you can only use it on existing contracts, but does anyone know if you can trade for someone and then use it on them? Could we trade for Arenas (for example) and then amnesty him if the Magic were hesitant on cutting him and still paying him? That could be good trade bait.

[LarsV8]

It would only be used on Thabeet now if Nene wants to come here.

It could be used next year on Scola if we were to get two max cats to commit next year and no SnT options are available.

Other than that, I can't see it getting used.

[zapatasblood]

I heard from someone on the Disney Sports Network that the Nets could be willing to give Nene close to a max deal. Crazy!

[spolgar]

No. However, a developing market could emerge. This makes keeping the amnesty right for future use a pretty good idea.

If I was a free agent this year, and I want to land a good to great deal, I'll look at teams that have already used their amnesty rights already so they couldn't use it on me down the road. Amnesty deal or not, they still have to pay me. However, 'if the fall is all you have left, how you fall, matters a great deal.' Proud players who don't get burn ask out of deals with buyouts and everyone's happy and they'll try to play somewhere else. However, the rational player would prefer not to be out of a job, because while money remains constant, the pension agreements and retirement benefits from the NBPA are all based on time. To maximize monetary earnings for the rest of my life, you want to stay on an NBA roster for as long as possible. To a guy just starting out, this sort of spread sheet thinking is probably not going to come up. But to a smart agent who is trying to act in the best interest of his client whom is in the autumn of his career, things like this matter.

This means a team with dumber management would be more attractive fiscally to the free agent. Now you have a trade off. Do I go to the smarter ran team with better cap management to bring in a better guy down the road and keep winning, or do I go to the crappy team that can't get rid of me, even if I decide to pull a Vince Carter? Remember, the longer I stay on a roster, the better my pension check looks 30 years down the road.

In turn, the teams respond. The status of being a team that hasn't used their amnesty deal is now a handicap. Rational teams would seek to lose that status. This now creates a market.

It creates an incentive for teams to market their Amnesty Rights to get rid of crappy contracts on teams that have more than one crappy contract. An act that most good teams would never have had to use in the first place.

For example, suppose Oden signs an extension with Portland but then suffers a set back in his recovery process. The Portland Trailblazers want to rid themselves of Oden's contract, but are already looking to get rid of Brandon Roy via the amnesty right. They can trade Oden to the Rockets for their team option contracts, of which managemet can then exercise their amnest rights on Oden and instantly free up more cap room to go after free agents.

So poorly ran team A, which in this economy is suffering fiscally because of lack of attendance, wants to implode more completely, what really happens is that they end up helping out other teams, who never needed the help before hand to drive up the price of free agents, free agents which the poor teams were hoping to covet with the extra cash from the amnesty deal.

Guess what happens? All things are equal again. All free agent prices go up. The crappy teams will still over pay for crappy players, and you are back to square one.

[moofs]

Spolgar, your post reeks of genius. I wish i'd either written it or had time to write it.

[spolgar]

Thanks Moofs.

[dream34]

Spolgar, your post reeks of genius. I wish i'd either written it or had time to write it.

There is a pretty big flaw though. It is all based around the original idea that free agents will choose teams who have used their amnesty so they have additional security. The amnesty clause can ONLY be used on people currently under contract. Any and all new signings are NOT affected by this... so everything that follows pretty much goes out the window?

[spolgar]

Dream34:

That's pretty embarassing. You are correct, I just went over the tentative agreement. Bugger, missed that part. The cba does not allow you to waive players after the signing this year. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, I think that there still might be a market place for other teams to waive a bad teams' spaghettied nest of contracts. The team that gives up the bad contract needs to do it for the money, where as the team that amnesties the player may end up paying money, but get cap room to go after better players than what the team originally has. Not having to pay the tax on long term deals, say three/four year long means you can go into win now mode without spending like there's no tomorrow.

[Ribalding]

I smell Bonzi.