RealGM

Will the Pacers cut Posey or will we use him as trading chip. We're not over the Lux tax I'm sure so don't see any reason to cut him.


Who will other teams be using their Amnesty on?

Well you'd obviously cut him. Can just use the capspace as a trade chip.....

No, he'll be on the team. We're not going to blow all of our capspace this season, and there will be a salary minimum we have to hit. Maybe not 90%, but I'm sure it's higher than it was. After Danny we got Paul who can slide up and play the 3. After that nobody but Posey. If we sign a Battier, Butler, or Mbah a Moute to a one year deal then amestying him makes sense, but only for a quality 3. None who we should give a multi-year deal out to. We'd still take a cap hit for Posey, just not the whole 6.9 mil or whatever it is. Better to pay him to sit on the bench and be there in case of an injury than it would be to pay him to play for another team.

There's no way they keep James Posey.

Are we bringing back Foster and McBob? We are really thin at the PF/C spot. Who's out there to sign?

Don't we still have Rush and Dahntay on the wings? We really don't need Posey.

I agree that the PF/C spot is something we have to address. If neither of the big-name guys we've been looking at sign with us, then we're going to have to look elsewhere. Foster only if he's really cheap, and McBob has skills, he's just not smart. I would like to take a look at other options.

They obviously don't need Posey but given their cap space there is no reason to cut him. More likely, it will not be used or Dahntay Jones would be cut if they identified a better wing in FA or via trade. Amnesty cuts don't save the teams any money they just relieve the cap, Posey is expiring and can be used as a trade chip or else just sit on the bench and expire at the end of the year.

Indy2thaWindy wrote:No, he'll be on the team. We're not going to blow all of our capspace this season, and there will be a salary minimum we have to hit. Maybe not 90%, but I'm sure it's higher than it was. After Danny we got Paul who can slide up and play the 3. After that nobody but Posey. If we sign a Battier, Butler, or Mbah a Moute to a one year deal then amestying him makes sense, but only for a quality 3. None who we should give a multi-year deal out to. We'd still take a cap hit for Posey, just not the whole 6.9 mil or whatever it is. Better to pay him to sit on the bench and be there in case of an injury than it would be to pay him to play for another team.

Agreed.

If we have the opportunity to sign a better veteran SF like Hill or Battier, we can amnesty him.

In all other cases, I don't think his salary is going to matter. Or it would be for salary minimum.
We have Hibbert, Hill coming up for extensions and a more talented 2012 FA class waiting.

Gremz wrote:Well you'd obviously cut him. Can just use the capspace as a trade chip.....

So you are saying there isn't one possible trade scenario where salary needs to be matched?

Time for me to take a dive into the new CBA apparently.

Pacersike wrote:

Gremz wrote:Well you'd obviously cut him. Can just use the capspace as a trade chip.....

So you are saying there isn't one possible trade scenario where salary needs to be matched?

Time for me to take a dive into the new CBA apparently.

Well I'm assuming we are under the cap so we can take salary without giving back the same amount ot the 25% rule doesn't apply. Example and please don't scream to loud when I say this but Imagine we take Elton Brand at $17 million for Posey at say $7 million we'd be able to absorb that extra $$ now to do that I'm gonna want at least 1 #1 pick, Brand for example has a 2nd yr at $18+ million.

I can see the Pacers doing some of what OKC has been doing taking salary and getting paid to do it. We should be looking at the 9-10 teams who re already over the cap to see if they want to dump someone and pay us to take him.

This is the second amnesty provision I can remember, and it's the second time it won't benefit us.

Boneman2 wrote:This is the second amnesty provision I can remember, and it's the second time it won't benefit us.

This also means the Pacers did a good job managing their roster with reasonalbe value, which is a good sign, IMO.

laydo wrote:

Boneman2 wrote:This is the second amnesty provision I can remember, and it's the second time it won't benefit us.

This also means the Pacers did a good job managing their roster with reasonalbe value, which is a good sign, IMO.

No it means these provisions come at the wrong time. Three years ago we could've used it on either Murphleavy. Croshere was another prime candidate during the initial Alan Houston amnesty clause period. Unfortuantely, neither provision was instituted at the right time to help us get out of our bad contracts. Timing is everything, just watch we'll need a bailout in a few years.

Yeah, a bailout from winning too many championships.

Amnesty provision is for the team who spend too much money to avoid the luxury tax level. The team stills need to pay the money to the players.

The Pacers put first amnesty provision on Reggie Miller's contract in 2005, since he was retired and the CBA add the luxury tax level. The Pacers did avoid the luxury tax then.

And for the new CBA right now, amnesty provision is for those teams who spent too much since the new luxury tax rate will be set two years later.

The Pacers don't need to use it right now since they are way under the salary cap, and there is only few good free agents in the market. However, the Pacers still could keep it as an insurance in case one day one of the players with big contract suffers big injury, such as Brandon Roy, or confront the behavior issue, such as Arenas.

BTW, even if the Pacers could use amnesty provision on Dunleavy last season, the Pacers still couldn't hunt the big free agents in 2010. The salary was also stucked by Ford, Murphy(or Posey), Foster, and Tinsley.

Since i've posted my response in this thread, i've been reading a lot about this amnesty rule in the CBA and how it would effect the teams and i have to admit, i was way wrong when i said we'll def use it on James Posey. I guess i wasn't too clear on too many of the issues surrounding it but laydo and Indy2thewindy obviously were.

We would still need to pay Posey. So, we would be pretty much be giving him a $6.9 million check to not show up at Conseco Fieldhouse. If we have to still pay him, we might as well just have him show and contribute in some capacity, even if it is a veteran leader off court. If he was a off court issue, like Jamaal Tinsley, it'd be a different story.

Second, if we were to cut him, we still would need to replace his salary someway because we need to get into the salary cap minimum spot, which we are under right now.

The positive i could see in the amnesty provision is, us picking somebody off the wire. The players will be paid for except we'd have to pay a very small salary. There could be a few guys that would be worth a look among the potential cuts.

I didn't like him when he played, but I don't mind having Posey on the bench as a guy who's smart and has been around.

There was some talk before the new deal was reached and Dahntay Jones was brought up as an amnesty candidate. I don't see that happening, but do you guys?

Boneman2 wrote:This is the second amnesty provision I can remember, and it's the second time it won't benefit us.

It most definitely benefited us last time. We used it on Reggie's contract, as he had just retired. It cut his contract off the books and got us under the luxury tax that year, and saved us around $5 million or so (if I recall) before the luxury tax redistribution.

Miller4ever wrote:I didn't like him when he played, but I don't mind having Posey on the bench as a guy who's smart and has been around.

There was some talk before the new deal was reached and Dahntay Jones was brought up as an amnesty candidate. I don't see that happening, but do you guys?

Yeah like Scoot said it was a few yrs back they called it the Allan Houston Rule, because of his massive contract then as I recall the Knicks didn't even us it on him they cut some other guy who sucked.

I say we don't use it we don't need to we have a ton of cap space Dahntay can play I was impressed with his play late last season. Posey could be traded if we find a deal or a sign and trade to help balance salary's.

With it being announced that the one time amnesty clause will be available for a team to use at it's discretion throughout the life of the CBA, there is no chance we'd use it on Jones or Posey now.

I doubt management would approach it this way, but for those worried about David West's age/acl injury, the amnesty clause could be an out if he slows 2-3 years into a potential deal.