Amnesty Brad Miller?

[Krapinsky]

Howard Beck writes:

¶ 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/sport ... tml?src=tp


Should we amnesty Miller and sign a free agent or two?

[Devilzsidewalk]

yes (or else darko)

[shrink]

Should we amnesty Miller and sign a free agent or two?

If the "Anytime over the life of the CBA" clause is in effect, I think we hold onto the amnesty.

Miller's 2010-11 salary is $4.75 mil, and his 2011-12 partial guarantee is only for $0.85 mil. In fact, since he has guaranteed money in 2011-12, he can actually be a trade chip, since he is eligible to be traded after the 2010-11 season and give a team some instant cap relief. Even if we don't trade him, cutting him ourselves helps save money for the new contracts of Love, Beasley and/or Randolph.

With a billionaire owner, I think I'd rather hold onto the amnesty clause, and make some dramatic play - say a 5-year, $50 mil deal for Greg Oden, and keep the amnesty clause available as a "Get-Out-of-Jail-(notso)-Free" card.

[Krapinsky]

Should we amnesty Miller and sign a free agent or two?

If the "Anytime over the life of the CBA" clause is in effect, I think we hold onto the amnesty.

Miller's 2010-11 salary is $4.75 mil, and his 2011-12 partial guarantee is only for $0.85 mil. In fact, since he has guaranteed money in 2011-12, he can actually be a trade chip, since he is eligible to be traded after the 2010-11 season and give a team some instant cap relief.

With a billionaire owner, I think I'd rather hold onto it, and make somedramatic play - say a 5-year, $50 mil deal for Greg Oden, and keep the amnesty clause available as a "Get-Out-of-Jail-(notso)-Free" card.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting Beck's last line above, but my thinking was that it has to be a contract that was signed before July 1, 2011.

[shrink]

I just read the link:

¶ 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.

Personally, I think that's unfair to the teams (like the wolves) that have had financial prudence and have no seriously bad contracts. I understand that there needs to be an amnesty for big market teams to adjust to the luxury tax rules, but this is an unfair allotment, particularly since I think the new lux tax is still to lame:

¶ 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, $2.25 after $10 million and $3 after $15 million.

Under this system, the Los Angeles Lakers would have paid $42.5 million in taxes last season, compared with $20 million under the old formula. (The rates could still change based on other tradeoffs.)

I think this still benefits the Lakers. With gate revenues six times what the wolves get, they can afford to stay at a $90 mil salary - and so can NYK, but all the "big but not huge" teams they compete with will be pushed back. I would like to see harsher lux penalties, to balance more teams competitively.

[shrink]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting Beck's last line above, but my thinking was that it has to be a contract that was signed before July 1, 2011.

Yep - beat me to it.

I guess you're right - if we amnesty anyone, it's likely going to be Miller.

The question may come down to who other team's amnesty. If they get rid of a talented player, we may try to manuever extra cap space, so we can offer that player more than the $5 mil MLE deals that better destinations may present him.

I didn't see any new numbers for the salary cap, or where the lux starts.

[Krapinsky]

Not to turn this into an all-CBA thread, but at the bottom of the article it further discusses additional penalties for Lux teams that are still being disputed:

"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."

[Krapinsky]

Does anyone have an idea of where the 2011-2012 salary cap number is going to be? Will it be about the same as projected from the last CBA or will it be rolled back?

[tisbee]

Minn is so far under any potential Cap that I don't see any reason the owner would pay somebody to not play. And that's before salaries get pro-rated for a shortened season.
Then there's the potential for using a "bad" contract in a trade w/the alleged new looser trade rules. If you can trade for anywhere from 150-200% of your contracts,Miller can get a $7mil+ contract by himself.(I'm still struck by Adelman's comments that w/a few trades the Wolves could be right there.)
Miller will prob last yr as a mentor for Minn bigs on Adelman's system,and then get moved in Draft Day trading window.
Next yr tho,I could see Darko getting Amnestied.

[champalift]

I wonder if this is current roster specific or if added players via trade are eligible. Maybe use amnesty as insurance to acquire a "scary contract" high upside player in a trade.

[AQuintus]

No. We have 3 guys (Darko, Pek, and Webster) making more money over a longer period of time who should all be amnestied before Miller.

[Biff Cooper]

Does anyone have an idea of where the 2011-2012 salary cap number is going to be? Will it be about the same as projected from the last CBA or will it be rolled back?

It should be reduced by approx the change in BRI percentage allotted to the players. Wyn has the salary cap projected at $58.044 Mil based on the old CBA. If we assume 52.5% of the BRI, I'd assume we would be around 52.5/57x58.044 = $53.5 Mil cap. If we assume 50% of the BRI, it would be around 50/57x58.044 = $51 Mil. If we factor in Derrick Williams salary based on the old CBA, our cap number is already at $52.6 Mil. It is unlikely we are much under the cap if at all.

I wonder if this is current roster specific or if added players via trade are eligible.

I would sure think this is appropriate.

[tisbee]

There is a huge elephant in the room w/the new Salary Cap. Using last yr's numbers and a 50% Player share(questionable due to higher revenues last yr which would be expected to raise the Cap) teams would need to spend @ $1.9 Billion on players. That averages out to $63mil+ per team,which is about where we'd expect the Lux Tax threshold to be.
9 teams have team salaries committed in excess of $63mil. They are about $84mil combined over the threshold w/100 or so players signed. To get to 14 per team let's assume the other players ave $2mil a player in salary.(Most will be late rd Firsts or Seconds,vet mins. The Owners are trying to deny the ML to teams over the Cap. This also ignores Amnesty buy-outs.)
Assuming those 9 teams end up @ $130mil in salaries over the threshhold.(Now we know where all that extra Revenue Sharing is supposed to come from!) BUT,that means the other 21 teams have to average some $57mil in salaries,which is several million higher than the Cap. And if teams over the Cap can't sign players w/the MLE how are they going to get there? Raises,trades will help,but there are going to be several teams rebuilding who are going to be well south of $50mil in salaries.
The Owners will end up having to let teams over Cap but not paying Lux Tax use the MLE,which will end up repeating the worst part of the current CBA,overpaying for role players. Or they are going to have to pay the Players at end of yr whatever they are short of as to Players %. Or,shorten spread between Cap and Lux Tax threshold,which would be easiest and help sell deal to Players. Either by eliminating spread-which Players hate as it implies a hard Cap-or making Salary Cap 90% of Lux Tax threshold. In the case of a 50% split,perhaps the Lux Tax starts at $64mil and Cap at $57.6mil.

BTW,the Owners refusal to think outside the box continually astounds me. For a group that wanted to start over in the new CBA,every proposal by them is just a tweaking of what already exists-in their favor of course.
Instead of a Cap-free buy-out,which poorer teams and teams that don't have big bad contracts can't use,why didn't they propose a Cap free contract provision. Each yr a team can have one player's salary not count towards the count for that yr.It's not tradable,you trade that player and the incoming contracts count towards cap and you have to declare it before July 1. I'd have it still count towards Lux Tax,but I could see it counting 50% or not at all.
It would give teams near the Cap a means to get under and sign FAs.

[cpfsf]

I just read the link:

¶ 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.

Personally, I think that's unfair to the teams (like the wolves) that have had financial prudence and have no seriously bad contracts. I understand that there needs to be an amnesty for big market teams to adjust to the luxury tax rules, but this is an unfair allotment, particularly since I think the new lux tax is still to lame:

So can you still trade for a player to be waived? I doubt that would be the case, but it just says the player must be under contract.

[Krapinsky]

No. We have 3 guys (Darko, Pek, and Webster) making more money over a longer period of time who should all be amnestied before Miller.

Webster's got a great contract. Not sure why you would amnesty a useful player with a team option after this year.

Darko is a useful back-up at worst. Not sure what we have with Pekovic, but I think he is tradeable.

Miller might not be able to play until January, and when he does play, it might be very evident that he's finished.

[Klomp]

Miller might not be able to play until January, and when he does play, it might be very evident that he's finished.

He'll be a great player to have on the practice court and in the locker room though, much like Ollie was for OKC.

[shangrila]

And he's a big that's had success in Adelman's system. Even if all he does is help Love and the others get used to Adelman he'll be worth his contract.

[shrink]

No. We have 3 guys (Darko, Pek, and Webster) making more money over a longer period of time who should all be amnestied before Miller.

Webster's got a great contract. Not sure why you would amnesty a useful player with a team option after this year.

Darko is a useful back-up at worst. Not sure what we have with Pekovic, but I think he is tradeable.

Miller might not be able to play until January, and when he does play, it might be very evident that he's finished.

Hmmm. I wonder if the new CBA will have the disabled player exception? Here's the old one:

DISABLED PLAYER EXCEPTION -- This exception allows a team which is over the cap to acquire a replacement for a disabled player who will be out for the remainder of that season (if the player is disabled between July 1 and November 30) or the following season (if the player is disabled after November 30). This exception can also be granted in the event of a player's death. This exception can only be used to acquire one player. The maximum salary for the replacement player is 50% of the injured player's salary, or the average salary, whichever is less (see question number 25 for the definition of "average salary"). Approval from the league (based on a determination by an NBA-designated physician) is required for this exception to be used. This exception can be used to sign a free agent, or to create room to accept a salary in trade. When used for trade, the team may acquire a player whose salary (including any trade bonus) is up to 100% of this exception plus $100,000 (not 125%). Also see question number 20 for more information on the availability and use of this exception.

[Worm Guts]

Darko is a useful back-up at worst. Not sure what we have with Pekovic, but I think he is tradeable.

Miller might not be able to play until January, and when he does play, it might be very evident that he's finished.

Darko can be a useful backup, but he's also emotionally unstable and has the biggest contract of the three. I think he's the most likely to be a liability.

[Krapinsky]

Darko is a useful back-up at worst. Not sure what we have with Pekovic, but I think he is tradeable.

Miller might not be able to play until January, and when he does play, it might be very evident that he's finished.

Darko can be a useful backup, but he's also emotionally unstable and has the biggest contract of the three. I think he's the most likely to be a liability.

And yet, if we amnesty'ed him, we'd likely want to replace him soon after since we don't have a defensive big on the roster. So we ding Darko and then sign Aaron Gray for the same money? That doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe the play is to hold off a year and reassess the Darko situation after the season. Then we'd still have our amnesty chip, and the minimally guaranteed contract of Webster and Miller.