RealGM

Not sure if answers are available yet, but they will be.

1. Do we have a list of all teams with cap space that will be able to bid and how much cap they have?

2. Can teams bid on multiple players? Any limit to how many amnestied guys you can sign?

3. Can teams bid on multiple players, but only bid on one at a time?

4. Can a team re-bid for Player X if another team exceeded their bid for him?
Or re-bid for Player X if another player they bid on got picked up already by another team?

5. Do the years have to match? (if Lewis is amnestied for his 2 years, then does it have to be a 2 year offer? Villanueva 3 years...)

6. What about amnestying players who are not fully guaranteed in their final year? Lewis is only guaranteed about half of his final year, so if amnestied would the Wiz be responsible for the full 2 years or just 1.5 years? Hamilton is only guaranteed about 75% of his final year...
If the final year is a full team option, does the team get to "opt out in advance" before amnestying?

7. Will some teams be able to renounce the rights of their FA's to be able to bid?

8. Will the bidding process go on as long as it takes?

9.....unrelated, but can Phoenix still buyout Vince Carter for $4 million?

Teams would be bidding on the contract that was amnestied. The contract cant be altered. The bidder will state how much of the salary he is willing to pay.

The high bidder gets the player for the term of the original contract. They pay their agreed amount each year & the original team pays the difference. The original contract and its terms are not changed.

It is my understanding that the amount spent will go on the new team's salary cap & against Lux Tax. Since only teams under the cap can bid, this shouldnt be much of an issue. The selling team must pay the difference in salary but it does not count against their salary cap or Lux Tax.

The player would have to join the team that won the bid for him. It's just like being traded.

If no one bids on an amnestied player, that player becomes an automatic UFA and can join any team

Suppose a team can get under the cap by waiving a player through amnesty, can that team then bid on a different player that was waived through amnesty?

Tommy Udo 6 wrote:Teams would be bidding on the contract that was amnestied. The contract cant be altered. The bidder will state how much of the salary he is willing to pay.

The high bidder gets the player for the term of the original contract. They pay their agreed amount each year & the original team pays the difference. The original contract and its terms are not changed.

It is my understanding that the amount spent will go on the new team's salary cap & against Lux Tax. Since only teams under the cap can bid, this shouldnt be much of an issue. The selling team must pay the difference in salary but it does not count against their salary cap or Lux Tax.

The player would have to join the team that won the bid for him. It's just like being traded.

If no one bids on an amnestied player, that player becomes an automatic UFA and can join any team

Player A signs a contract for 5years/$50 mil
Player A gets amnestied in year two. he has 4/40 left
No NBA team submits a bid
Player A becomes a UFA
NBA teams change their mind
NBA teams 1 and 2 bid for player A as an UFA; offer contract higher than league minimum

does Player A get paid on top of his old contract?

if so, why would players ever oppose amnesty?

jcuuofd wrote:Suppose a team can get under the cap by waiving a player through amnesty, can that team then bid on a different player that was waived through amnesty?

Yes.

AggO wrote:Player A signs a contract for 5years/$50 mil
Player A gets amnestied in year two. he has 4/40 left
No NBA team submits a bid
Player A becomes a UFA
NBA teams change their mind

If no team bids on the player when his original team places him on amnesty waivers, and he clears waivers, the player becomes an UFA. At that point any team in the NBA can deal with the player directly about signing a new contract. And his original team still has to pay him the total amount of his contract with them, regardless of what any new team agrees to pay him under a new contract.

The players never opposed amnesty.

coolness wrote:7. Will some teams be able to renounce the rights of their FA's to be able to bid?

8. Will the bidding process go on as long as it takes?

9.....unrelated, but can Phoenix still buyout Vince Carter for $4 million?

7. Teams will be able to renounce players in order to gain cap room to be used in the bidding process.

8. Though the rules have not yet been finalized, it is suspected that once a player is placed on amnesty waivers, teams will have the usual 48 hours to pace a bid on the waived player. I've also heard that teams will have only around ten days from the beginning of training camp to place a player on amnesty waivers.

9. If Vince Carter is wiling to be bought out for $4M, the he can agree to such an arrangement with the Suns.

It will be interesting to see how many teams bid up players that they have no intention of signing in order to hurt other teams cap space; this seems like the type of thing the Blazers would try to do if they were not already over the cap. The other extreme could be collusion where teams tacitly agree to let each other get the player they really want for a nominal amount with no opposing bids.

coolness wrote:9.....unrelated, but can Phoenix still buyout Vince Carter for $4 million?

You are talking about the fact that VC's final year was only guaranteed for $4M if he was waived by June 30.

We passed June 30.

Now his contract is fully guaranteed in the event of a waiver.

DBoys wrote:

coolness wrote:9.....unrelated, but can Phoenix still buyout Vince Carter for $4 million?

You are talking about the fact that VC's final year was only guaranteed for $4M if he was waived by June 30.

We passed June 30.

Now his contract is fully guaranteed in the event of a waiver.

If that is true then the Suns have really effed that one up.

Back in June, the Suns and Vince Carter mutually agreed to change the 'deadline' in his contract. Now his deal won't be fully guaranteed until the start of free agency, which apparently will be Dec. 9

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/ar ... rooks.html

Carter's previous contract language stipulated that his $18 million salary would have become fully guaranteed if he was not waived by June 30, when he still would have received a guaranteed $4 million. The Suns have negotiated for that deadline to move back to the start of free agency, whenever that occurs once a new collective-bargaining agreement is reached. The guaranteed amount remains $4 million and the likelihood of Carter remaining a member of the Suns still is extremely doubtful.

If a player is amnestied and no one bids on him, does anyone know if the team that owns him has the right to withdraw waivers and take him back (more similar to waivers in major league baseball)? And if so, can they try again, like in baseball? I think it's fair since teams could wait him out and have him sigh elsewhere dirt cheap. Another question: Let's say a team bids on the player, can the player refuse to go to that team? My guess is probably not, but I thought that it's worth asking.

i've seen that the amnesty only applies to contracts in place at the start of the new CBA, BUT.... is it stipulated anywhere that it can't be used on players acquired through trade??

is anything concrete out yet regarding this?

Bensational wrote:i've seen that the amnesty only applies to contracts in place at the start of the new CBA, BUT.... is it stipulated anywhere that it can't be used on players acquired through trade??

is anything concrete out yet regarding this?

I just read an article by JA Adande in which he mentions this:

Unfortunately, the new proposal does not allow for teams to use the amnesty clause on a player who has been acquired in a trade; it's only applicable to contracts that are currently on the books.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/trades-111129/let-wheeling-dealing-begin

turk3d wrote:If a player is amnestied and no one bids on him, does anyone know if the team that owns him has the right to withdraw waivers and take him back (more similar to waivers in major league baseball)? And if so, can they try again, like in baseball? I think it's fair since teams could wait him out and have him sigh elsewhere dirt cheap. Another question: Let's say a team bids on the player, can the player refuse to go to that team? My guess is probably not, but I thought that it's worth asking.

I haven't read anything specifically about these ideas, but I really doubt that either will be part of the new amnesty.

I think the amnesty is going to be pretty straight forward: player gets amnestied, teams under the salary cap bid on the player, highest bidder claims player. If nobody bids, then the player becomes an unrestricted free agent and is free to sign with whomever he want for as much as he can get.


One thing I am curious about is, how much is the minimum bid?

turk3d wrote:If a player is amnestied and no one bids on him, does anyone know if the team that owns him has the right to withdraw waivers and take him back (more similar to waivers in major league baseball)? And if so, can they try again, like in baseball? I think it's fair since teams could wait him out and have him sigh elsewhere dirt cheap. Another question: Let's say a team bids on the player, can the player refuse to go to that team? My guess is probably not, but I thought that it's worth asking.

If a player is amnestied and no team bids on him, his team cannot withdraw waivers. The player becomes an UFA. As for your second question, a player must go to whichever team wins the bidding war.

I'm not sure where Adande gets his idea that a player can't be traded and then amnestied by someone else. While that was a limit in the old amnesty rule in 2005, I'm fairly certain it wasn't in the details outlined by the league this time.

Certainly it could be included, and not written because it's assumed, but I'm hesitant to make that assumption since there are lots of tweaks in the new deal to try to give teams more ways to get value out of those bad contracts other than simply tossing them onto the waiver heap, amnesty or not. And it looks to me like Adande has somewhat misconstrued how the new trade rules would work, which doesn't give me any confidence that he has the precise details on the amnesty rule figured out correctly either.

Does anyone have something from the NBA that would back Adande's words on the amnesty rule?

Could very well be that they're still in the process of negotiating the finals terms for this. Was amnesty part of the so called B-List items which from what I understood still had to be iron out after all the major issues were resolved at least in principle?

DBoys wrote:I'm not sure where Adande gets his idea that a player can't be traded and then amnestied by someone else. While that was a limit in the old amnesty rule in 2005, I'm fairly certain it wasn't in the details outlined by the league this time.

Certainly it could be included, and not written because it's assumed, but I'm hesitant to make that assumption since there are lots of tweaks in the new deal to try to give teams more ways to get value out of those bad contracts other than simply tossing them onto the waiver heap, amnesty or not. And it looks to me like Adande has somewhat misconstrued how the new trade rules would work, which doesn't give me any confidence that he has the precise details on the amnesty rule figured out correctly either.

Does anyone have something from the NBA that would back Adande's words on the amnesty rule?

NYTimes ran the same interpretation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/sport ... tract.html

According to a draft of the rule, a team can use the provision in any off-season, subject to two restrictions: the player must have been signed before July 1, 2011, and must be on the team’s current roster.

In other words, a team cannot sign or trade for a player now and apply for amnesty later. The provision is meant for past mistakes, not future cap calamities.

It would be great to have confirmation that this is indeed correct, but I haven't seen anything from the league since the draft agreement, and that didn't include it.

He says "according to a draft of the rule" ......

1 If his so-called draft of the rule is the NBA memo everyone has seen that outlined the new rules, the wording here is his take on the memo. And inaccurate.

2 If the referenced "draft" of the rule is not the NBA memo everyone has seen that outlined the new rules, he'd had to have seen the actual document being crafted by the attorneys, as it's being figured out. I'm not sure how likely that is.

3 But if he did see something that secret, and if this note more or less is citing that secret draft document, I further wonder if perhaps he's misinterpreted the meaning of the word "current" in the phrase "must be on the team’s current roster." It says very specifically "signed before July 1, 2011" and it could just as easily add "and on the amnestying team's roster on July 1, 2011" - but it doesn't. That leads to the idea that "current" is referring to the time at which the player is amnestied, ie it can't be a player that has been otherwise waived by your team and then you go back and ask for amnesty.

What recourse, if any, does a player have if he is amnestied and then selected off waivers by a team for which he does not want to play? If he retires rather than reporting for duty with his new team, does he forfeit his entire salary, or just the portion for which his new team is responsible?