New Amnesty clause in CBA

[CameronFrye]

More flexible amnesty clause on way? - TrueHoop Blog - ESPN

According to this article, there is a good chance there will be a new amnesty clause in the upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement - and this one (unlike the 2005 version) will allow a team to wipe away 75% of the player's salary from the cap.

Do the Warriors use the clause? If so on which player?

David Lee - Owed $11.6 mil this year then $12.7 mil, $13.8 mil, $15.0 mil and $15.5 mil through the life of the deal.

Andris Biedrins - Owed $ 9 mil in each of the next 3 seasons

Monta Ellis - Owed $11 mil in each of the next 3 seasons

Personally, I would use it on Lee. Biedrins is a shell of his former self, but he can still be useful to certain teams for his defensive presence. His contract is bad, but not so prohibitive that it cannot be traded.

Ellis obviously stays. His contract is a bargain.

And that leaves Lee. He's vastly overpaid and does not do anything on the court to make other players better. His stats are as hollow as any player's in all of basketball.

The biggest problem is that Joe Lacob LOVES David Lee and I don't think he's going to sign off on any deal that removes Lee from the team, despite the fact that it would give Golden State tons of cap room and would allow them to go after a true power forward.

Thoughts?

 

[wildturkey]

I think they did this in 99 as well. I can just imagine Orlando praying this happens so they can shed Arenas.


As for the Warriors, no way they use it on Ellis. He has too much trade value. I'd probably use it on Lee as well but I'd first I'd explore some trades. I think he has value for the right team so there might be somebody willing (or foolish) enough to take the contract.

 

[CameronFrye]

I think they did this in 99 as well. I can just imagine Orlando praying this happens so they can shed Arenas.


As for the Warriors, no way they use it on Ellis. He has too much trade value. I'd probably use it on Lee as well but I'd first I'd explore some trades. I think he has value for the right team so there might be somebody willing (or foolish) enough to take the contract.

It was 2005. And I agree that the Magic will use this on Arenas. The other team that is going to use it is the Portland Trail Blazers. They signed Brandon Roy to a max deal just before his knee went out on him. If any team is going to use the provision, it'll be them.

I agree that the Warriors will not use the provision on Monta. I was just throwing the names of all the high-priced players out to start a discussion. And I wish that I could agree with you about Lee having trade value. I just don't see it. The guy makes WAY too much money for what he can do on the court. I don't see any other team that would be willing to eat that deal unless they were shipping back an equally bad contract. At that point, I think it would be easier for the team to just use the amnesty provision on that player.

Lee stays, his nasty contract stays too and the Warriors continue to be hamstrung by overpaid, underperforming roster moves.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

Word is we would use it on Charlie Bell. What I want to know is how much cap space we would have then.

 

[wildturkey]

LINK

^Saw this on ESPN today about what teams may do with their amnesty. As the above user said, looks like GS will target Charlie Bell.

 

[CameronFrye]

Word is we would use it on Charlie Bell. What I want to know is how much cap space we would have then.

That answer really depends on how the new cap is worked out, but I can tell you that using the amnesty on Bell would be a huge effing waste. That guy has a $4 mil player option for 2011-2012 that he recently exercised. Trimming his contract from the roster takes team payroll from about $49 mil to about $45 mil.

It would essentially give the team a mid-level exception (I am assuming that still exists in the new CBA because all indications are that it will still be there, but will be limited in the number of years and the dollar amounts that can be given).

With apologies to Pete Townshend, "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

 

[Ray_Dogg]

Who should Warriors amnesty? Nobody, for now

He says, save it for later.

 

[CameronFrye]

Who should Warriors amnesty? Nobody, for now

He says, save it for later.

I have no problem holding onto it as long as the team does not have an expiration date on the amnesty.

Steinmetz has a point that getting rid of Lee now does very little since the FA market right now is so thin. Losing Lee and adding Nene or Jordan might make the Warriors better, but it will be a marginal improvement at best. If they have the opportunity to hold onto it and use it in a few years, that would be even better.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

Warriors amnesty: Should be Lee, could be Biedrins, but probably will be Charlie Bell | Talking Points

 

[CameronFrye]

According to this article, the teams will also have a stretch exception.

"This exception would allow teams to waive a player and stretch his pay (and salary cap hit) over an extended period of time. The agreed-upon formula is as such: double the number of years left on the player's deal, plus one (so Player X who has two seasons remaining on his deal would be paid over five seasons). It's unclear how often this would be available to teams, but it's likely to be at least once per season.

So waiving Bell and using the stretch exception would move his contract to roughly $1.37 mil per year over the next 3 years. Using the amnesty on him would be a waste when the stretch would be a much better idea.

 

[ChuckDurn]

Using the amnesty clause on Bell would be a waste..... I don't see the Warriors using it on Lee or Biedrins for the reasons noted in the articles. (For the record, I think the smart thing would be to use it on Lee because of how that deal will hamstring us in 4-5 years.)

To me, I'd try something creative, like putting together a deal with Portland. They have to use it on Roy, but that will be extremely unpopular up there. I'd offer the Blazers Ellis + Biedrins for Roy + Matthews (or Batum) + a pick. We would amnesty Roy, and suddenly have massive salary cap space to go after one of the big centers, as well as a quality starter back and a pick. I'm sure a lot of people here wouldn't like a deal like that, but my point is that we could trade for a guy who we could use the clause on, and pick up other assets in the process.

 

[CameronFrye]

Using the amnesty clause on Bell would be a waste..... I don't see the Warriors using it on Lee or Biedrins for the reasons noted in the articles. (For the record, I think the smart thing would be to use it on Lee because of how that deal will hamstring us in 4-5 years.)

To me, I'd try something creative, like putting together a deal with Portland. They have to use it on Roy, but that will be extremely unpopular up there. I'd offer the Blazers Ellis + Biedrins for Roy + Matthews (or Batum) + a pick. We would amnesty Roy, and suddenly have massive salary cap space to go after one of the big centers, as well as a quality starter back and a pick. I'm sure a lot of people here wouldn't like a deal like that, but my point is that we could trade for a guy who we could use the clause on, and pick up other assets in the process.

Chuck - The two problems with your deal are that the trade would leave the Warriors without a legit center and it would give the Blazers 3 and potentially 4 centers in Biedrins, Camby, Aldridge and (here is the potential) Oden.

I like the idea in theory, but unless the deal is Monta/Biedrins/Bell for Roy/Oden/Matthews plus a pick, I don't see how the Warriors could go through with the deal. Even then, Oden is as much an injury question mark as Roy, so the Warriors would be taking all the risk.

But if Bell and Matthews are part of the deal, it might be interesting.

 

[ChuckDurn]

Cam, I think the Blazers want to move Aldridge back down to the 4, and they could then use the amnesty clause on Biedrins or Camby (which I wouldn't understand, but it's been said that's a possibility), or could keep all 3 of Oden, Camby, and Biedrins because of the injury risk. And I know we wouldn't have a center left in the original deal, but we would have a boatload of money which would be used to get one.

This said, I like your deal better than the one I suggested, though there's no way I'd see us getting a pick out of it, in fact we might have to give one up. But if we could do those 3 players for our 3, even without picks, I'd absolutely do it. Getting Matthews and Oden in the starting line-up (a defensive force in the middle would be amazing to see in a Warriors uniform), and freeing up cap space where we'd end up with about $15M in cap room (once Roy was cut) would be extremely nice. Of course, the big question in either of them is "is the Warriors ownership really willing to trade for a guy and pay him $70M to go away"? That is a really, really steep price.......

 

[ChuckDurn]

I started another thread about this, here's a copy of the NBA's proposal for the CBA: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/nba proposal 11-11-2011.pdf

Right near the bottom, section 14, is about Amnesty. Long story short, if we amnesty a player, and somebody else picks him up, then we actually only pay the balance of his salary. (i.e. he doesn't get paid his original contract plus his new contract.) Given this, it leads even more credence to the "we should amnesty Lee" argument. Somebody out there will probably give him 4 years/$28M or so, so we'd be on the hook for only about $40M instead of nearly $70M.

But it ain't going to happen. Management loves him too much.....