Amnesty and what it means for us

[BBallFreak]

With all the talk of the new cba coming into play it appears as though another amnesty clause will be worked in. Now I don't think we're going to use it. We've got 6 guys under contract (the Big 3, Haslem, Miller, and Anthony), Pittman with a team option, and a qo on Mario, as well as a high second rounder.

What this means for us though is that we're likely to have far more options in free agency then we'd ever considered. They'll be getting paid by their previous team so a huge payday probably won't be a top priority.

So who are some guys likely about to shake loose? Any centers? Andris Biedrins makes a ton of cash and hasn't produced. Any good veterans who could help situationally? Obviously Rashard Lewis could be worth a look. Point guards? Baron Davis? Luke Ridnour?

Who do you think will be available and who could help?

[GameTime_3]

BBall,
Would Riley consider dropping MM? I like what he did for us when HEALTHY but the guy is a year older and a year more beat up.

[BBallFreak]

BBall,
Would Riley consider dropping MM? I like what he did for us when HEALTHY but the guy is a year older and a year more beat up.

I would hope not personally. Riley's always coveted the guy and knew his age and injury history before he signed him. He also saw what the rest of us saw; Miami's best lineup was Wade, Miller, James, Haslem, and Bosh. I don't think he's going to give up on it just yet. If he does though their could be a ton of options available. I just don't see Riley creating a need when resources are already limited...

[Scum Freezebag]

The biggest casualty of the NBA's last amnesty clause was Michael Finley. He got cut by Dallas and within two years of signing with San Antonio, he helped the Spurs win a championship with steady play off the bench.

It'd be pretty cool if we can benefit from this newest amnesty clause in a similar way.

[mikey1365]

After looking at it, there not that many that say hey im the guy. There is one that has been talked about and that would be Brando Roy (health issues) owed like 50m over next 3yrs I think

Another one is Gilbert Arenas (i would say no) but im sure there would be some that would like him

Ben Gordon how does he fit for detroit moving forward
Al Harrington in denver
charlie vilanueva detroit again
John Salmons what was milwaukee thinking
Tyrus Thomas big long term deal for what i dont know
stephen jackson denver, punk
baron davis cleveland, i dont want him

How about brendan haywood dallas has to make some room somewhere if they resign chandler barea butler cuban never makes that deal if he knows he is getting chandler, and with that said no way he pays haywood to help us to beat them so forget i mentioned that

what about emeka okafor doubtful i guess

luke ridnour's contract is pretty friendly really especially with them trying to move flynn luke is perfect with rubio for a couple of years

look what okc is perkins its sinful you talk about over paid

[RJM]

As it concerns a possible Amnesty Clause, I can only imagine the following teams getting involved in dumping salaries. They are as follows:

Philly: Elton Brand - He's alright despite the knee surgeries, but that contract is massive and will only stunt that young team's growth going forward. He's a likely goner.

Cleveland: Baron Davis - If they don't find someone stupid enough to trade for him, they can choose either his albatross contract or Antawn Jamison's as a favor to the aging veteran seeking out a final shot at an NBA Championship before he retires. These are their two choices.

Detroit: I would guess Richard Hamilton to be the cut, as there are well-documented problems between the SG and management/coaching staff as of late. T-Mac is a free agent, so he can take off with no problem.

Charlotte: Likely Stephen Jackson. He's 33, can still play the game, and Charlotte isn't going anywhere important anytime soon. I think they cut either him or Diaw, but my guess is SJax.

Utah: Mehmet Okur is a goner. He's been injured quite often as of late, and Paul Millsap/Derrick Favors/Al Jefferson have replaced him on the roster.

Minnesota: Recently I heard a story about the T'Wolves possibly trading Michael Beasley despite his breakout season last year. That would blow my mind as I'd think they'd wait to see how this team develops with Rubio finally in tow next season. If not him, I think they can either Nikola Pekovic or the absurdly overpaid Darko Milicic.

Denver: At first, I would think Al Harrington, but they may keep him for depth reasons.

Houston: Brad Miller is done. Dude just had arthroscopic knee surgery, and he was already slow as molasses as it was.

San Antonio: Richard Jefferson was a complete disappointment and not worth the money he's making in San Antonio. I think they can him.

Phoenix: Is it possible that the Phoenix Suns allow the 37-year old Steve Nash to leave? It would be a classy move on the Suns' part, mainly because Nash has been unbelievably loyal to a team that dumped him earlier in his career. He needs to play on a contender.

Anyone else?

[twix2500]

point guard who would be released would be Baron Davis, Jose Calderon, and maybe Ben Gordon. Centers who may be release could be Emeka Okafor, and Chris Kaman.

Ben Gordon if released would be a huge target, but he definitely will not be cheap. Will like get a good deal from someone. So he even if released would be hard to obtain. Baron Davis will come cheap and fits well as a veteran big time player with still good abilities. Calderon sucks as a player period. He would just be a back up to Chalmers.

Best cast scenario in my opinin for us this offseason is Baron Davis and Samuel Dalembert

[twix2500]

Davis and Dalembert would solidfy our starting lineup. I too would like for us to add a scoring big off the bench, Mehmet Okur would be an excellent addition for our bench.

[Chosen01]

As it concerns a possible Amnesty Clause, I can only imagine the following teams getting involved in dumping salaries. They are as follows:

Philly: Elton Brand - He's alright despite the knee surgeries, but that contract is massive and will only stunt that young team's growth going forward. He's a likely goner.

Cleveland: Baron Davis - If they don't find someone stupid enough to trade for him, they can choose either his albatross contract or Antawn Jamison's as a favor to the aging veteran seeking out a final shot at an NBA Championship before he retires. These are their two choices.

Detroit: I would guess Richard Hamilton to be the cut, as there are well-documented problems between the SG and management/coaching staff as of late. T-Mac is a free agent, so he can take off with no problem.

Charlotte: Likely Stephen Jackson. He's 33, can still play the game, and Charlotte isn't going anywhere important anytime soon. I think they cut either him or Diaw, but my guess is SJax.

Utah: Mehmet Okur is a goner. He's been injured quite often as of late, and Paul Millsap/Derrick Favors/Al Jefferson have replaced him on the roster.

Minnesota: Recently I heard a story about the T'Wolves possibly trading Michael Beasley despite his breakout season last year. That would blow my mind as I'd think they'd wait to see how this team develops with Rubio finally in tow next season. If not him, I think they can either Nikola Pekovic or the absurdly overpaid Darko Milicic.

Denver: At first, I would think Al Harrington, but they may keep him for depth reasons.

Houston: Brad Miller is done. Dude just had arthroscopic knee surgery, and he was already slow as molasses as it was.

San Antonio: Richard Jefferson was a complete disappointment and not worth the money he's making in San Antonio. I think they can him.

Phoenix: Is it possible that the Phoenix Suns allow the 37-year old Steve Nash to leave? It would be a classy move on the Suns' part, mainly because Nash has been unbelievably loyal to a team that dumped him earlier in his career. He needs to play on a contender.

Anyone else?

According to ESPN they are NOT trading Beasley, which is pretty wise;if he does pan out be an All star caliber player then they can keep him if not then they can just let him go.I doubt PHX let Nash go but I don't know.

[Heat11114]

Doesn't this kind of assume a lot? Amnesty was originally used so teams over the luxury tax could cut a player (he would still receive his salary, hence why the players agreed) but teams would not have to pay the dollar for dollar luxury tax. So if amnesty returns we're guessing that a soft cap and the luxury tax would both remain in place. I actually find this to be the most likely scenario but i'm just throwing it out there.

The luxury tax this year was about 68 million, that number will probably be around the same or maybe lower. The only teams way over that amount are

1. Lakers 94.8 million in guaranteed salaries next year.
Possible cut: Luke Walton 2 years 11.7 million

2. Orlando 74.8 million
Possible cut: Arenas 3 years 63 million
Turkoglu 3 years 32.2 million

Everyone else is kind of fluttering around 68 million or significantly less. A team could of course waive a player because they fear future tax dollars but that brings in so many variables who knows who would be cut.

Remember amnesty in 2005 did NOT mean you did not have to pay the player, it meant that that players salaries would not count against future luxury tax paid.

Edit: Also 2005 amnesty could not be used to cut a player and get under the cap. So those teams with one bad contract and a 40 million dollar payroll are not helped.

[HEATVols865]

Do we know that is the direction the CBA is going? Even if there is an amnesty, if they take away the MLEs and LLEs of the world, with a hard cap, we have no room to sign guys for the vet minimum because of the hard cap and we can't go over it. Then what?

[Heat11114]

Do we know that is the direction the CBA is going? Even if there is an amnesty, if they take away the MLEs and LLEs of the world, with a hard cap, we have no room to sign guys for the vet minimum because of the hard cap and we can't go over it. Then what?

There is not going to be a hard cap without exceptions (IMO there will not be a hard cap at all). For example there isn't going to be a hard cap where teams start having to waive guys left and right and not pay them. At the same time teams over a hard cap aren't going to field teams of 7 players because there is a hard cap, there will always be at the very least minimum salary exceptions...

[BBallFreak]

Heat11114,

I initially made the same argument about the Amnesty Clause, but apparently this time it would also be striking the contract from the cap itself. That means most teams would be waving a player.

As for the new CBA, if their's going to be a hard cap (which I also doubt) then contracts have to be non-guaranteed and renegotiable. Otherwise, the league is pretty much doomed. I would also expect that teams would want to change the rate of the raise to match the BRI, so that players signed to a contract one year don't ever end up eating more than a certain percentage of the cap.

[MartyConlonJr]

I don't know why they feel the need to change the CBA dramatically. IMO if you trimmed one year off what is allowed in a contract, and made the yearly raises smaller, you'd just about be there.

If you took a year off contracts, last year this would have been freed up:
Jamal Crawford 10 mill
Morris Peterson 6.6 mill
Joel Pryzbilla 7.4 mill
Caron Butler 11 mill
Kenyon Martin 16 mill
Tayshaun Prince 11 mill
Troy Murphy 12 mill
Vladamir Radmanovic 7 mill
Yao Ming 17.7 mill
Jared Jeffries 7 mill
Mike Dunleavy 10.5 mill
TJ Ford 8.5 mill
Jeff Foster 6.6 mill
Jamaal Tinsley 5.5 mill
Marko Jaric 7.6 mill
Shane Battier 7.4 mill
Michael Redd 18.3 mill
Eddy Curry 11.2 mill
Dan Gazuric 7.2 mill
Sasha Vujacic 5.5 mill
Nazr Mohammed 6.9 mill
Jason Richardson 14.4 mill
Jason Kapono 6.6 mill
Samuel Dalembert 12.2 mill
Predrag Stojakovic 14.9 mill
Reggie Evans 5 mill
Andrei Kirilenko 17.8 mill
Mike Bibby 5.5 mill

There is 277.8 million. Teams lost 300 million apparently last year. Add in some smaller contracts I didn't list, and you are there. Some of these guys get signed to another contract, but they probably push out some of the 'bad' contracts that are usually given. More players on the market usually means you get paid closer to worth. Thin FA markets mean players get overpaid. So this helps there. You factor in previous years where players would have ended a year earlier, and overall, teams have better products, don't have a lot of dead weight.

I think that is all that needs changing.

Possibly change the MLE to instead be half average salary (closer to 3 mill than 6). Would suck for us, but be good for the league.

[andremcosta]

I don't know why they feel the need to change the CBA dramatically. IMO if you trimmed one year off what is allowed in a contract, and made the yearly raises smaller, you'd just about be there.

I like this idea of one less year.

Great players are rewarded by signing bigger contracts. Kobe, Gasol, KG.

Bad players will suffer, but it's because they are bad, and the wrong contract will cause less damage. Okafor, Kirilenko, Arenas.

Good players are getting a good paycheck anyway, and overpaid players will lose a lot of money, having to sign a fair contract sooner.

[andremcosta]

I don't know why they feel the need to change the CBA dramatically. IMO if you trimmed one year off what is allowed in a contract, and made the yearly raises smaller, you'd just about be there.

I like this idea of one less year.

Great players are rewarded by signing new big contracts. Kobe, Gasol, KG.

Bad players will suffer, but it's because they are bad, and the wrong contract will cause less damage. Okafor, Kirilenko, Arenas.

Good players are getting a good paycheck anyway, and overpaid players will lose a lot of money, having to sign a fair contract sooner.

[Akshan]

I think teams should be allowed to pay a player on how he produces there is no reason Kevin Durant should be getting paid 5.5 million a year and leading a team and the NBA in scoring while Carlos Boozer is getting 11 million a year to be injured half the year.

Amnesty won't really harm us because the NBA won't just make teams waive players left and right or make players have to leave there teams because than players will strike and refuse to play there already multi millionaires. If players can just get short contracts and get paid on how they produce it would be ideal for the NBA.

[truthiness]

I don't know why they feel the need to change the CBA dramatically. IMO if you trimmed one year off what is allowed in a contract, and made the yearly raises smaller, you'd just about be there.

It's because the owners are greedy and want GUARANTEED PROFITS. If that happens, I would really need to look into getting a team of my own. How could a bank NOT give me a loan to get a team when they know my profits are GUARANTEED ????

IMO what needs to happen is to have 4 years max on a contract, max 3 guaranteed (team option for the 4th), 5% anual raises max and the MLE somewhere lower. I'd say around 4 mil.

6 year contracts have proven to be too long. A lot of time players could use a change of scenery - usually after 3 or 4 years. And let's face it .... a star staying with a team for his entire career is overrated. Trades, especially block-buster trades, create a lot of buzz, allow teams to quickly rebuild, can change the balance of power etc. I think that'd help the league (create interest from fans) as well as players (a good player won't be stuck on a bad team forever - and nobody wants to see good players stuck on bad teams.

[StrawberryShake]

OMG ben gordon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i just got a little giddy sorry folks. ben gordon is one of my favorite players of all time. hes deteriorating in detroit. he might be too expensive but id love to have him here. hed be an instant fan favorite

[Heat3]

wouldn't ben gordon just go back to chicago? they need a sg. can they throw more money at him? it'd be funny if he signed here though just to see the bulls fans reactions