RealGM

So if the owners and players agree to a 45mil hard cap and they let us use the Amnesty clause on one player who would u guys use it on? I would choose Joe, maybe this is our one chance to correct that awful mistake from last year.

They would have to get only players that rode the short bus in meetings to agree to a hard cap

I don't see any advantage to us in using the amnesty provision. Sure, we'd have to do it if it were enacted (the hard cap would require it) but we wouldn't benefit from it.

With Joe, we're $12 million over the cap. Joe's $16 million is mostly the cause.
Without Joe's $18 million next year but with a $45 million cap, we'd be $3 million over. But it'd be a HARD cap, so ... big deal.

The owners would be able to spend less but the team be worse and we'd have less of a chance to become better.

NBA should be like the NFL...... teams can cut players any time and players can holdout any time.

it allows players to get paid appropriately on a yearly basis and it allow teams to correct financial mistakes to improve the team.

I think Marvin is the only person that this concept should even be thought of when it comes to. Joe's contract has a lot of value around the league anytime Gilbert Arenas and Rashard Lewis can be traded Joe can too.

if the lockout ends before this season, id use it on marvin. he provides production on par with a guy making the vet minimum.

i dont think any owner in the league would use it on joe johnson.

buckeye12 wrote:NBA should be like the NFL...... teams can cut players any time and players can holdout any time.

it allows players to get paid appropriately on a yearly basis and it allow teams to correct financial mistakes to improve the team.

Players in the NFL sign NON Guaranteed contracts. NBA teams have had the choice of team option or player option...or just shorter deals....but then you probably need to outbid others (by a lot) if they offer a guaranteed deal

JJ has about a $100 mill deal remaining. No way the Hawks shell out $100 mill to make him go away. Instead, wave goodbye to Marvin and Hinrich.

Signed,guaranteed contracts will NOT just go away. One way or another...they get paid. The NBA does not have the legal ability to void contracts.

Ownership would only use the amnesty clause to prevent luxury tax. Joe is not a possibility because $100M to go away is not realistic. To be honest Marvin's 25M might be too much to swallow. Hinrich shouldn't be the choice because he's already expiring, but if it meant the difference between luxury tax or not then they might. The only other candidate would be Zaza. He's not overpaid per se, but 10M/2 years might be the right balance between not too much to swallow and a little cap relief.

Amnesty is meant to allow deep pocketed owners loosen the handcuffs to change their roster. It isn't meant for the ASG.