Amnesty clause part duex?

[magnifier661]

I have an idea, and it may suck badly; but it has something in the lines of the amnesty clause.

Restructure of capped salary contract:
The reason could be a player like Roy; whom is a fan favorite, but their health condition hampers the value of their salaried pay. This will help teams that have rewarded their stars with large contracts, and an injury or condition has hampered their ability to fulfill the play that earned the contract.

1.) Must need league approval.

2.) Restructure only "Max players" or "Franchise Players"

3.) The contract must be guaranteed for more than 3 years before contract is taken into consideration.

4.) The entire "Max deal" still must be paid, but the renegotiated adjustment is applied to the team's cap.

5.) The renegotiated deal cannot be more than 2 years, and that player can become a un-restricted free agent. This would restrict teams to abuse this policy.

6.) The team asking for amnesty cannot use the cap space for the first year of the amnesty and lose their MLE. Another deterrent from abusing the amnesty.

Well that's all I can think of now.

 

[magnifier661]

Plus... Think about it like this. I don't think too many in here are ANTI-ROY because they think he sucks, moreso that Roy just can't live up to his contract with his current condition. Would this forum be more supportive on keeping Roy, if maybe his contract was renegotiated to a 2 year, 6.5 mil per season on the books; but allen having to pay the entire contract?

 

[Draco]

Sorry but I'll be blunt, that is a horrible idea. Wouldn't every team want to renegotiate a players contract so it counts for less on the cap then they have to pay? There are dozens of overpaid players throughout the league. Your idea is straight circumventing the salary cap. Salary cap relief should only come if the team has to cut the player.

 

[magnifier661]

Sorry but I'll be blunt, that is a horrible idea. Wouldn't every team want to renegotiate a players contract so it counts for less on the cap then they have to pay? There are dozens of overpaid players throughout the league. Your idea is straight circumventing the salary cap. Salary cap relief should only come if the team has to cut the player.

I don't think you read the entire set of rules I posted.

1.) the said player becomes an "un-restricted free agent" in 2 years. That means any team can sign him if he chooses to leave.

2.) The team gives up the year's MLE. Basically meaning, they will not have the opportunity to sign a free agent if they are over cap.

3.) The deal must be longer than 3 years and be a "Max contract", plus the NBA must approve the request.

4.) The renegotiated structured cap relief will only be applied to the next season. Basically they get one year of relief and it won't be the year they renegotiated the deal.

Also, other things could be implimented. Maybe this amnesty can only be used once ever 5 years or so.

 

[Draco]

I don't think you read the entire set of rules I posted.

1.) the said player becomes an "un-restricted free agent" in 2 years. That means any team can sign him if he chooses to leave.

2.) The team gives up the year's MLE. Basically meaning, they will not have the opportunity to sign a free agent if they are over cap.

3.) The deal must be longer than 3 years and be a "Max contract", plus the NBA must approve the request.

4.) The renegotiated structured cap relief will only be applied to the next season. Basically they get one year of relief and it won't be the year they renegotiated the deal.

Also, other things could be implimented. Maybe this amnesty can only be used once ever 5 years or so.

Well the whole premise of your posting is how the Blazers can keep Roy while having him on the books for less than the team is paying him; that is circumventing the cap.

It seems like you have abundant conditions and requirements to a non-existent problem. So it has to be a "max" contract, well Roy's final year isn't fully guaranteed so does that make it a non-max deal? What about Garnett, his deal is massive dollars, more than Roy per year but he was eligible for an even larger extension so is that not "max"? Who decides the NBA approval? There are so many conditions you might as well say it only applies to guys who played at UW and later had meniscus surgery.

The amnesty clause is only going to happen if the majority of owners see a benefit. So it should have general conditions of relief that apply to many unique teams situations and give the majority of owners a benefit. If there are so many conditions only a few select players qualify then only a few owners would be in favor.

 

[magnifier661]

Well the whole premise of your posting is how the Blazers can keep Roy while having him on the books for less than the team is paying him; that is circumventing the cap.

It seems like you have abundant conditions and requirements to a non-existent problem. So it has to be a "max" contract, well Roy's final year isn't fully guaranteed so does that make it a non-max deal? What about Garnett, his deal is massive dollars, more than Roy per year but he was eligible for an even larger extension so is that not "max"? Who decides the NBA approval? There are so many conditions you might as well say it only applies to guys who played at UW and later had meniscus surgery.

The amnesty clause is only going to happen if the majority of owners see a benefit. So it should have general conditions of relief that apply to many unique teams situations and give the majority of owners a benefit. If there are so many conditions only a few select players qualify then only a few owners would be in favor.

Okay how about being the highest contract on the team's payroll and must be over 3 years left on contract without a team option?

 

[Draco]

Okay how about being the highest contract on the team's payroll and must be over 3 years left on contract without a team option?

Well I don't see why there needs to be any of these conditions?

Why not let each team decided on their own what contract to apply the amnesty to and let them chose any players deal. Why would a team be penalized for having an overpaid player be the second highest paid? Why penalize a team for only negotiating 2 years more on a contract? Why penalize a team for negotiating a team option?

 

[magnifier661]

Well I don't see why there needs to be any of these conditions?

Why not let each team decided on their own what contract to apply the amnesty to and let them chose any players deal. Why would a team be penalized for having an overpaid player be the second highest paid? Why penalize a team for only negotiating 2 years more on a contract? Why penalize a team for negotiating a team option?

True and this is why I don't work for the NBA! LOL

 

[Minstrel]

Well I don't see why there needs to be any of these conditions?

Why not let each team decided on their own what contract to apply the amnesty to and let them chose any players deal. Why would a team be penalized for having an overpaid player be the second highest paid? Why penalize a team for only negotiating 2 years more on a contract? Why penalize a team for negotiating a team option?

Yup, if there's an amnesty, it should be simple: cut any player you want from your roster, you still have to pay their full value contract value, but it doesn't count against the cap (or only counts as a percentage of the value against the cap).

The player then becomes a free agent. The only restriction I'd place on this is that the team that cuts the player cannot re-sign the player until their original (cut) contract expires.

 

[magnifier661]

Yup, if there's an amnesty, it should be simple: cut any player you want from your roster, you still have to pay their full value contract value, but it doesn't count against the cap (or only counts as a percentage of the value against the cap).

The player then becomes a free agent. The only restriction I'd place on this is that the team that cuts the player cannot re-sign the player until their original (cut) contract expires.

If that be the case, then I doubt Portland will cut Roy. Believe it or not, he is a fan favorite in Portland. Cutting him would make a lot of Blazer fans very upset. There are other teams, which their fans would feel the very same way; even with their star player having no real hope of returning to old form.

 

[Minstrel]

If that be the case, then I doubt Portland will cut Roy. Believe it or not, he is a fan favorite in Portland. Cutting him would make a lot of Blazer fans very upset. There are other teams, which their fans would feel the very same way; even with their star player having no real hope of returning to old form.

I think the Blazers would cut him without a second thought. Fans respond to winning above all else, and Roy's contract isn't helping the team win. It might be a short-term PR hit, but definitely not a long-term one.

 

[Draco]

I think the Blazers would cut him without a second thought. Fans respond to winning above all else, and Roy's contract isn't helping the team win. It might be a short-term PR hit, but definitely not a long-term one.

Yeah I agree. Tracy McGrady had the top selling jersey in the world and when the Rockets realized he would never come back the same from his injuries they got rid of him.

If they have an amnesty its absolutely essential the player cannot return to the team who cut him. Otherwise you'd see stuff where Kobe gets "cut" from the Lakers so they get cap room to sign Dwight Howard then he comes back on the payroll as a minimum salary free agent.