RealGM

Far less restrictive than the last proposal of the full cap hit being spread over twice the length of the player's contract but with the way we are set up, however the cap structure judges free agency and whoever the hell actually owns the team there's really no way to answer whether or not the Hawks actually utilize this provision.

That's still too expensive for the Hawks. Not expansive enough for a profitable team like the Magic or Knicks. They can pay and still make money. The Hawks are generally operating at a lost. I don't see Hawks using this for anyone on the roster. Your best bet is to trade for exp.

Still possible the clause would be used on Marvin Williams to save 5M a year on the cap for each of the next 3 years, but it seems like the Hawks have 1 contract too huge for amnesty (Joe) and 1 contract bad, but not bad enough for amnesty (Marvin).

Tentative agreements are already in place on the following major items:

¶ Luxury-tax rate: Teams will be charged $1.50 per $1 spent beyond a threshold, replacing the previous dollar-for-dollar tax, according to people who have seen the plan.

To further discourage spending, the tax will increase for every $5 million spent beyond the threshold: to $1.75 after $5 million, $2.50 after $10 million and $3.25 after $15 million.

Under this system, the Los Angeles Lakers would have paid $45 million in taxes last season, compared with $20 million under the old formula. (The rates could still change based on other tradeoffs.)

¶ Contract lengths: Players with “Bird” rights will be eligible for five-year deals, while others will be limited to four. The previous C.B.A. allowed for six-year (Bird) and five-year deals. The 1999 C.B.A. allowed for seven-year (Bird) and six-year deals.

¶ Raises: Annual raises will be reduced by several percentage points, possibly as low as 5.5 percent for Bird players and 3.5 percent for non-Bird players. The prior deal allowed raises as high as 10.5 percent (Bird) and 8 percent.

¶ Midlevel exception: It will start at $5 million, a decrease of $800,000. The contract length and annual raises attached to the exception remain under discussion.

¶ Amnesty clause: Each team will be permitted to waive one player, with pay — anytime during the life of the C.B.A. — and have his salary be exempt from the cap and the luxury tax. Its use will be limited to players already under contract as of July 1, 2011.

¶ Stretch exception: Teams will be permitted to stretch out payments to waived players, spreading out the cap hit, over several seasons. The payment schedule will be set by doubling the years left on the contract and adding one. (Thus a team waiving a player with two years left could pay him over five years.)

I like the last two rules. Makes it so there are less mistakes made with F/A signings

There are a few critical issues still under debate. The N.B.A. wants to further punish tax-paying teams by denying them use of the midlevel exception and sign-and-trade deals, and wants additional penalties for “repeat offenders.” The union opposes those measures.

Not a fan of the last paragraph Basically it would kill big market teams. In every sport you have big market teams yet basketball wants to be different even though small market teams dont bring in the dough like big market teams. Kinda funny if you ask me.

Also what the NY times article states that The amnesty can be used at any point over the life of the CBA but only with respect to players currently under contract and can’t trade for a player and amnesty his pre CBa deal. Sounds like pretty good superstar insurance in case someone-especially Joe Johnson although I dont wish any type of injury has a serious injury at any point over the life of his deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/sport ... r=1&src=tp

Wow. All that's left to negotiate is the BRI so these terms are pretty much set in stone. What this means is that some how and some way the ASG have managed to look smart with regards to Joe....of course they could just go ahead and waste the provision on Marvin so lets not get excited just yet.

Pretty much with the current lockout they won't have to pay Joe's full salary (yes yes, they are losing money by not having games) then lets say we roll into the 2012 season with the roster intact and then bam, right when they about to actually pay Joe 20 mil (or it's cap equivalent in the new CBA) for the 2013 season they amnesty him. Instead of paying all that money upfront they can spread it out over 7 years and then enter the summer with only Al, an expiring Marvin (unless he unlikely uses his PO) and whatever rookie we have from 2012 as guaranteed contracts. That's less than 25 mil in salary, comfortably underneath any cap system.

Haha...use the stretch on Joe! Pay him ~$10M/season over the next 11 years. LOL.

^

¶ Amnesty clause: Each team will be permitted to waive one player, with pay — anytime during the life of the C.B.A. — and have his salary be exempt from the cap and the luxury tax. Its use will be limited to players already under contract as of July 1, 2011.

Read.

^

¶ Stretch exception: Teams will be permitted to stretch out payments to waived players, spreading out the cap hit, over several seasons. The payment schedule will be set by doubling the years left on the contract and adding one. (Thus a team waiving a player with two years left could pay him over five years.)

Read.

Why thank you for pointing out your own ignorance.
He can be waived at any point during the CBA.....
At which point they can stretch out his payments rather than paying it all up front.....
So saaaaaay they waive him in year 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 of his deal....
I only wish a poster had pointed out a scenario where all of this is feasible...

I may have been slightly confused believing that you can combine exceptions but even if it's a matter of the exceptions' terms being entirely separate of each other you still have the option of dropping him off the roster at any point of his contract. The stretch provision looks continuous from that blurb while the amnesty is restricted to preexisting contracts. Either way, I stand by the Hawks having numerous options at cap space and there are now not one but two proposed ways of making a waived Joe Johnson economically feasible no matter how you look at it.

So hypothetically Joe Johnson could then sign anywhere he wants for 50 cents on the dollar hypothetically Orlando and hypothetically Chicago meanwhile we'd have whom at shooting guard?

Waive Marvin Williams.

Ruhiel wrote:So hypothetically Joe Johnson could then sign anywhere he wants for 50 cents on the dollar hypothetically Orlando and hypothetically Chicago meanwhile we'd have whom at shooting guard?

Waive Marvin Williams.

Someone pointed out amnesty Joe when he hits the 20 million tier of his contract. By then, we assume he isn't even worth 15 million at that point, so I doubt he would benefitother teams..

Yes, over the next 5 years there will be no manner or change in variables or permutations of the NBA. I should go see my bookie for some sure money.

NBA wants to institute a one time amnesty clause that can be used at
any time over a 5-7 year CBA.

People's first reaction? Teams will use it on the very first day of the return of business.

MaceCase wrote:I may have been slightly confused

Fair enough.

If those terms are as you say the nature of the amnesty clause might save Marvin Williams. The Hawks may prefer to have the Amnesty clause still in their back pocket to use if Joe Johnson's game drops off rather than use it on Marvin now. If they wait until Marvin comes of the cap in 2014, they could use the amnesty with stretch to pay Joe his remaining $45M and start fresh. They still probably have some amount of dead money with respect to Joe (9-11M a year), but if those terms make into the final CBA maybe we only have 3 years until reset instead of 5.

As for the stuff up in the air, this is a key point of contention:

There are a few critical issues still under debate. The N.B.A. wants to further punish tax-paying teams by denying them use of the midlevel exception and sign-and-trade deals, and wants additional penalties for “repeat offenders.” The union opposes those measures.

This would mean almost a de facto hard cap. A team over the luxury tax would only be able to go up via minimum contracts and trades of existing deals (no S&Ts). So essentially you could get into the luxury tax area but not by that much which would make the tax threshold approximately a hard cap value.