Amnesty clause-sixerfan1976

Mahorn at the 4 · Post #1 » by **Mahorn at the 4** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:29 pm

SF,

With the word of another amnesty clause, is it safe to assume Brand is gone?

This team needs to take a few steps back to truly go fwd.

youngcrev · Post #2 » by **youngcrev** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:22 am

Considering we aren't a lux paying team and that's all it affects (still gotta pay that salary and have it count against the cap), does it really make sense to do so? If they were gonna use it I'd think they'd just amnesty Nocioni (if they are sitting against the tax line).

Post #3 » by **Foshan** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:23 am

Have there been any hard details released about what the Amnesty would look like? I remember reading 'speculation' that it would take off against the cap, at one point.

Either way, i can't see us amnestying Brand. Noc yes... although if we're going to move Iggy, having Noc around as a back up vet SF wouldn't be nearly so bad then.

Post #4 » by **dbodner** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:49 am

Considering we aren't a lux paying team and that's all it affects (still gotta pay that salary and have it count against the cap),

Not true. The new version of the amnesty clause will reportedly remove them from the cap as well as tax figure, although reports are it could be 75% of the contract off rather than 100%.

Mahorn at the 4 · Post #5 » by **Mahorn at the 4** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:57 am

Supposedly, 75% off the cap and the rest spread over the cap for the number of years left x2. So, 25% of EBs deal spread over 6.

Do it. There is no need to fall in love with these players, as fans. We need titles. Make the business decision.

Take a sub .500 record instead pf 45 wins and an overpaid 15&8 undersized PF.

Post #6 » by **dbodner** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:20 pm

Brand only has 2 years left, so it would be spread over 4 years.

youngcrev · Post #7 » by **youngcrev** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:34 pm

dbodner wrote:
Considering we aren't a lux paying team and that's all it affects (still gotta pay that salary and have it count against the cap),

Not true. The new version of the amnesty clause will reportedly remove them from the cap as well as tax figure, although reports are it could be 75% of the contract off rather than 100%.

Oh, really? I was basing it off the old amnesty. In that case, even though Brand had a pretty good season, it would seem pretty stupid to keep him around. I assume you wouldn't be able to sign the player back a reduced rate, correct?

Post #8 » by **Foshan** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:40 pm

So 35M/4 = 8.75 over the course of 4yrs 2.2 a year cap hit? That's not really bad at all.

I guess it just depends on where they are going with the team. One thing that slightly scared me about a video interview of tmoores with the new owner dude, he was like "after their 3-13 start they played good ball, I don't think its broken" or something like that.

i think if your going to amnesty brand then you should be looking to move Iggy too. But then your also left with a team with virtually no vets.

*shrug* If the '11-'12 season is toast, I'd almost wonder if we could get something of value for him as an expiring deal, rather than amnesty him?

Post #9 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:49 pm

It was 25% over the remaining years (not years x2) at least according to:
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/ ... se-leaked/

So Brand's 8.75 would be 4.375 for 2 years. I don't see the team doing that at all, it would still cost his full contract and the team doesn't look to be in too much luxury tax issue.
Amnestying Nocioni would clear 75% of his cap hit and I think that happens (assuming there is a season).

SJSF · Post #10 » by **SJSF** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:24 pm

And lets see, who would play PF? Cutting Brand is stupid. Trading a SF who needs to go is a much better idea. Nocioni needs to go also. I would amnesty him.

Mahorn at the 4 · Post #11 » by **Mahorn at the 4** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:08 pm

Well, amnesty Brand & get a young 4 in an Iguodala trade.

This team needs to look at 3-5 yrs from now. Continue to build on the young core & add a quality star or 2. They will come here.

youngcrev · Post #12 » by **youngcrev** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:42 pm

SJSF wrote:And lets see, who would play PF? Cutting Brand is stupid. Trading a SF who needs to go is a much better idea. Nocioni needs to go also. I would amnesty him.

Thad Young

sixerfan1976 · Post #13 » by **sixerfan1976** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:42 pm

I agree with Kate Fagan and what some others have said here..that it would be Nocioni.

Lets hope there is a season at some point to actually exercise that option.

P2K · Post #14 » by **P2K** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:47 pm

Foshan wrote:
*shrug* If the '11-'12 season is toast, I'd almost wonder if we could get something of value for him as an expiring deal, rather than amnesty him?

The fact that we still have to talk about expiring contracts as the main target in trades is sad, sorry and why the league is in the state that it is in.

Post #15 » by **dbodner** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:55 pm

P2K wrote:
Foshan wrote:
*shrug* If the '11-'12 season is toast, I'd almost wonder if we could get something of value for him as an expiring deal, rather than amnesty him?

The fact that we still have to talk about expiring contracts as the main target in trades is sad, sorry and why the league is in the state that it is in.

What "state that it is in" ? It had record earnings last year, and that was during tough economic times. Complex trade rules aren't affecting player salaries.

P2K · Post #16 » by **P2K** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:19 pm

dbodner wrote:
What "state that it is in" ? It had record earnings last year, and that was during tough economic times. Complex trade rules aren't affecting player salaries.

Are you serious? It only had record earnings because the Big 3 and the story lines surrounding it along with the Heat facing the Lakers, Celtics, etc.

Other than that, the league is very much "meh". Complex trade rules may not be affecting player salaries, but it sure is affecting how the league is ran.

Are you alright with a league where if you make one bad move, you're stuck with that mistake for too long and it's extremely hard to make up for it without giving up too much? It doesn't bother you that general managers cannot be creative with trades because of being so hamstrung by such a inane, handicapping rule? It makes no sense at all. If I'm not mistaken, other sports leagues don't have this. That is why mediocre or bad teams are able to unburden themselves with creative trades instead of having to wait for the draft and praying something good happens.

Sorry, but I cannot agree with you on this. I'd rather have a league where teams are eager to make themselves better, not a league where teams basically sit on their thumbs and wait for someone to take away the garbage.

dobbins66 · Post #17 » by **dobbins66** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:52 pm

Based on the latest I heard - Amnesty can not be used on a contract currently in effect. It will only be able to be used on a contract that is signed in the future after the new CBA goes into effect.

Post #18 » by **Foshan** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:59 pm

... i could have sworn I just read the exact opposite somewhere. Do you have a link?

youngcrev · Post #19 » by **youngcrev** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 11:33 am

The exact opposite would seem to make more sense

Mahorn at the 4 · Post #20 » by **Mahorn at the 4** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 3:28 pm

dobbins66 wrote:Based on the latest I heard - Amnesty can not be used on a contract currently in effect. It will only be able to be used on a contract that is signed in the future after the new CBA goes into effect.

Right now, they can't trade for a bad contract and then use the amnesty on that newly acquired deaal. I believe that is what you meant.