If there's an amnesty clause: Who gets cut?

Post #1 » by **dockingsched** » Mon May 30, 2011 10:44 pm

There's been talk about a potential amnesty clause coming back with this new CBA similar to the previous where the lakers cut Brian Grant's albatross deal.

Amnesty clause basically lets teams over the luxury tax cut a player and not be responsible for their salary in terms of paying lux tax. they still have to pay their contract, it still counts against the salary cap, and the player can't come back.

Most people think it will be Luke Walton, who's been a bad contract for several yrs now. He makes less then the MLE, 5.7 and 5.8 the next two yrs.

Another player I think the Lakers might look at as an amnesty casualty is Steve Blake and his 3yrs / 12mil that he's due. I'm not sure what role he'll take now with Mike Brown as the coach, but the lakers may want to go younger at pg and might see this is a way to go in a different direction.

I actually think the Lakers are more likely to cut Ron Artest, who will be 32, 33, and 34 and making 6.8, 7.3, and 7.7 mil over the next 3 yrs. I think with the extra money and yrs, his age, and his decline the last two yrs, the Lakers are more likely to want to cut ties with him

Jetset · Post #2 » by **Jetset** » Mon May 30, 2011 10:51 pm

Walton.

Although I'd heavily consider waiving Artest.

Post #3 » by **TyCobb** » Mon May 30, 2011 10:54 pm

Even though Artest has the worst contract, he gave up money (supposedly) to sign with the Lakers and that would just be dirty to cut him after that. I got to go with Blake. At least with Walton it's likely to be a medical exemption.

Post #4 » by **dockingsched** » Mon May 30, 2011 10:58 pm

TyCobb wrote:Even though Artest has the worst contract, he gave up money (supposedly) to sign with the Lakers and that would just be dirty to cut him after that. I got to go with Blake. At least with Walton it's likely to be a medical exemption.

i remember artest saying he gave up money, but i don't think there's any truth in that. he'd still get paid his full contract though, but yeah, PR wise, there would be very little controversy in getting rid of luke.

Jetset · Post #5 » by **Jetset** » Mon May 30, 2011 11:00 pm

Well it was dirty what they did to Brian Shaw and it was dirty that they didn't at least gauge Kobe's temperature on the new HC. Much dirtier things have been done this offseason that waiving Artest should be viewed as small. And like cash said I don't really believe there was anyone offering him more than we were.

BEazy · Post #6 » by **BEazy** » Tue May 31, 2011 12:56 am

No question if there is one....GET RID OF LUKE WALTON! The dude isn't the teacher's pet anymore Phil ain't here buddy boy. You either step it up or leave this team NO MORE vets on this team that just ride the bench EVERYBODY HAS TO PLAY PERIOD!

chefy · Post #7 » by **chefy** » Tue May 31, 2011 1:59 am

walton other than being the glue guy for this team, his useless

if we cut artest we have to look for his replacement so we'll basically be in the same position money wise.

Post #8 » by **snaquille oatmeal** » Tue May 31, 2011 2:42 am

with a new defensive minded coach it wouldn't make sense to get rid of Artest or Blake. Luke on the other hand is usesless.

Gek · Post #9 » by **Gek** » Tue May 31, 2011 3:08 am

Bad contracts: Kobe, Bynum (if he can't stay healthy...), Walton, Blake, Fisher, Artest, Pau (if he doesn't find his testicles)

Desiderium · Post #10 » by **Desiderium** » Tue May 31, 2011 3:26 am

chefy wrote:walton other than being the glue guy for this team, his useless

if we cut artest we have to look for his replacement so we'll basically be in the same position money wise.

i don't even think he's a glue guy anymore. you have to play in order to be a glue guy.

Shamizy · Post #11 » by **Shamizy** » Tue May 31, 2011 3:49 am

Mitch Kupchak has got to be one of the most gracious GM's in the entire league. I can't believe the # of crappy deals he's given out. It's not so much the $$$ in many deals as it is the length. I mean, Steve Blake 4 years? Artest for 5 years? Luke Walton got SIX!

Post #12 » by **snaquille oatmeal** » Tue May 31, 2011 4:19 am

G=K wrote:Bad contracts: Kobe, Bynum (if he can't stay healthy...), Walton, Blake, Fisher, Artest, Pau (if he doesn't find his testicles)

Players not worth their bad contracts:
Walton, Fisher, maybe Blake.

Pablo Escobar · Post #13 » by **Pablo Escobar** » Tue May 31, 2011 4:53 am

Luke Walton for sure!!

Desiderium · Post #14 » by **Desiderium** » Tue May 31, 2011 5:44 am

LaLa · Post #15 » by **LaLa** » Tue May 31, 2011 6:40 am

Please get rid of Blake...hate him so damn much.

If not, obviously Luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuke.

KB24TBOTB · Post #16 » by **KB24TBOTB** » Tue May 31, 2011 11:46 am

snaquille oatmeal wrote:
G=K wrote:Bad contracts: Kobe, Bynum (if he can't stay healthy...), Walton, Blake, Fisher, Artest, Pau (if he doesn't find his testicles)
Players not worth their bad contracts:
Walton, Fisher, maybe Blake.

Kobe's contract is horrible regardless

Gek · Post #17 » by **Gek** » Tue May 31, 2011 12:08 pm

snaquille oatmeal wrote:
G=K wrote:Bad contracts: Kobe, Bynum (if he can't stay healthy...), Walton, Blake, Fisher, Artest, Pau (if he doesn't find his testicles)
Players not worth their bad contracts:
Walton, Fisher, maybe Blake.

I wouldn't say Kobe is worth $30 million any more. Also Pau's is TERRIBLE if he plays like he did in the Playoffs again. Bynums is also bad if it's only for 40 games because it's actually like he's getting paid double for his time on the court.

I think Walton would get cut though.

Anklebreaker702 · Post #18 » by **Anklebreaker702** » Tue May 31, 2011 2:31 pm

I'd say Walton or Blake.

The Skyhook · Post #19 » by **The Skyhook** » Tue May 31, 2011 5:02 pm

It doesn't seem like Jim Buss has been shy about letting people go. It wouldn't shock me if he let Artest go.

Doormatt · Post #20 » by **Doormatt** » Tue May 31, 2011 6:16 pm

you cant amnesty guys like kobe/pau because you cant resign them. and drew's contract is fine. he has 2 year left and the last is a team option, actually one of our better contracts imo.

i really dont care that kobe is earning 30mil, even if it was around a 20mil max, we still couldnt afford to bring in any FA. this team would be over the cap no matter what kobe is making.

If there's an amnesty clause, who gets cut?