Amnesty Clause.... Team by Team Candidates

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Yeah, it's a nice bargain bin of players and they're going to do wonders filling out the benches of the Heat, Knicks, Celtics and Lakers. Nice job, small market owners. Set up a situation where you get to pay your former players to help out the very teams you intended to weaken. Brilliant.
 
e_blazer said:
Yeah, it's a nice bargain bin of players and they're going to do wonders filling out the benches of the Heat, Knicks, Celtics and Lakers. Nice job, small market owners. Set up a situation where you get to pay your former players to help out the very teams you intended to weaken. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

You can't look at it that way. Trying to prevent other teams from acquiring players won't get any one team one step closer to the goal of winning a championship. But dumping overpaid players and (theoretically) replacing them with other more productive and hopefully cheaper players is a step in the right direction.

Keep in mind it's about finding and acquiring top 20 talent at a couple of positions that usually wins titles, a large collection of B talent with no superstar(s) has almost no chance.
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
I get saying keeping Roy would be a mistake, I think it is a stretch to say management doesn't have a realistic picture of the Blazer situation, IMO.
Click to expand...

If you are refering strictly to the basketball people, that might be true. If "management" includes Allen/Miller/the Vulcans......frankly, I'd say you were dreaming!
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Why what? Do you really need a blow-by-blow of how poorly Paul Allen has run this franchise over the years to be convinced?

If you don't believe it's been mismanaged by looking at the empirical evidence -- which is a matter of public record -- then what argument could anybody possibly make to convince you otherwise?
 
Fun to see the list of guys waived in 2005 amnesty:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2005-08-15-amnesty-day_x.htm

Rather than saving almost $40 million, New York opted instead to release forward Jerome Williams to avoid $21.3 million in luxury taxes that would have been due over the next three seasons.

Dallas worked into the night trying to find a trade for Michael Finley, who is owed $51.8 million over the next three seasons. But the Mavericks ended up releasing the 10-year veteran instead.

In all, teams saved more than $212 million in future tax payments by waiving 18 players. Among those let go Monday were Fred Hoiberg of Minnesota, Ron Mercer of New Jersey, Calvin Booth of Milwaukee, Troy Bell of Memphis and Clarence Weatherspoon of Houston.

Several teams made moves to clear tax obligations for players who left their rosters long ago. They included Alonzo Mourning (Toronto), Vin Baker (Boston), Derrick Coleman (Detroit), Wesley Person (Miami), Eddie Robinson (Chicago) and Howard Eisley (Phoenix).

Players previously released under the amnesty program included Doug Christie (Orlando), Aaron McKie (Philadelphia), Brian Grant (Los Angeles Lakers) and Derek Anderson (Portland).

(It was known as the Allan Houston Rule, but the Knicks waived Jerome Williams instead)
 
I believe the Knicks didn't use the amnesty clause on Allan Houston because he medically retired and came off the salary cap and luxury tax anyways.

Perhaps the same could happen with the "Brandon Roy" clause this time.
 
Nikolokolus said:
Why what? Do you really need a blow-by-blow of how poorly Paul Allen has run this franchise over the years to be convinced?

If you don't believe it's been mismanaged by looking at the empirical evidence -- which is a matter of public record -- then what argument could anybody possibly make to convince you otherwise?
Click to expand...

I don't know, that is why I asked. (Just cause you ahve it all figured out in your head doesn't mean that there is nothing to discuss.)

In your mind the Blazers have mismanged as proven by the empirical evidence on the record. In my mind, Blazers ran into a ton of bad luck with injuries that any franchise would be reeling from (empirical evidence of injuries also public record). I think many (including yourself) are quick to judge because of a couple of GM moves that I frankly don't care about and don't beleive that what defines the Blazer organization (I am allowed to analyze the empirical evidence right)

I'm open to discussion. Judging by your posts, I don't believe you are. Basically fuck you right back.
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
Why?
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between mistakes that were defensible at the time (eg Oden over Durant), and conduct that is just embarassingly foolish (eg the handling of KP and Cho). When the Vulcans get involved, we get the latter.
 
Draco said:
I believe the Knicks didn't use the amnesty clause on Allan Houston because he medically retired and came off the salary cap and luxury tax anyways.

Perhaps the same could happen with the "Brandon Roy" clause this time.
Click to expand...

http://gothamist.com/2005/10/18/allan_houston_retires.php


Yesterday, New York Knicks shooting guard Allan Houston announced his retirement after 12 years in the NBA. With the Knicks for 9 seasons, Houston retires as fourth on the Knicks' all-time scorer list, ranks 2nd in all-time three-pointers with the team, and as a career 40.2% three-point shooter. Houston, 34, has had knee troubles for several years and has seen limited action in the last two seasons, playing only 70 games. Pressing to return after surgery on his right knee, Houston injured his left knee, ending his season after only 50 games during the 2003-04 season.

It doesn't look like Houston's retirement will help the Knicks with the salary cap, but depending on how the league looks his injury, it's possible that his salary will be excluded from the luxury tax. The Knicks are responsible for Houston's $39.8 million over the next two years.
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
I don't know, that is why I asked. (Just cause you ahve it all figured out in your head doesn't mean that there is nothing to discuss.)

In your mind the Blazers have mismanged as proven by the empirical evidence on the record. In my mind, Blazers ran into a ton of bad luck with injuries that any franchise would be reeling from (empirical evidence of injuries also public record). I think many (including yourself) are quick to judge because of a couple of GM moves that I frankly don't care about and don't beleive that what defines the Blazer organization (I am allowed to analyze the empirical evidence right)

I'm open to discussion. Judging by your posts, I don't believe you are. Basically fuck you right back.
Click to expand...

I never said anything remotely close to "fuck you." So if that's what you think I "said" are you really open to discussion? Are you really qualified to judge what I write? I'm going to go with no on this one.

Have a nice day though.
 
Nikolokolus said:
Why what? Do you really need a blow-by-blow of how poorly Paul Allen has run this franchise over the years to be convinced?

If you don't believe it's been mismanaged by looking at the empirical evidence -- which is a matter of public record -- then what argument could anybody possibly make to convince you otherwise?
Click to expand...

Well, let's look at the empirical evidence.

The Blazers are over .500 during the Allen years.

Therefore, he has done better than average. More than half of NBA cities look up at us and wish they had done as well.
 
jlprk said:
Well, let's look at the empirical evidence.

The Blazers are over .500 during the Allen years.

Therefore, he has done better than average. More than half of NBA cities look up at us and wish they had done as well.
Click to expand...

Are half of NBA cities below .500 during this time span?
 
So will you have to use the amnesty during the off-season? If you can do it during the season I could see the Blazers giving Roy a 20 game trial run before finally deciding to cut him. That way you only have to pay luxury tax on 20/65 (~30% or whatever) of his salary for this season and get complete relief in future offseasons when the salary cap space is of more use to us.
 
I'm pretty sure (Storyteller's better at this), but Lux Tax is calculated on June 30. So if someone is traded/waived/etc. it's not like salaries or insurance, where you pay or receive a pro-rated portion...rather it's "salary cap number of each player on your team's cap on June 30 (remember, it can different than "salary" and not necessarily "on the roster") added together."

IIRC, the "amnesty" is the following:
If Roy was waived at any point in the season (using last year's rules) his salary cap number would stay on our books until the end of his contract (see Darius Miles), and his cap number would be added to the totals on June 30.
This year, if we decide before June 30 at any point to waive (or "amnesty") Roy, then his 14+M cap number stays on the books until the end of his contract(meaning that we can't gain that in "cap space" for free agents), and he gets paid the rest of his 82M contract, but that that cap number doesn't get put into the luxury tax calculations.
 
The paren was an aside. I'm pretty sure that the Lux tax...

But Story's better at this. ;)
 
oldmangrouch said:
There is a huge difference between mistakes that were defensible at the time (eg Oden over Durant), and conduct that is just embarassingly foolish (eg the handling of KP and Cho). When the Vulcans get involved, we get the latter.
Click to expand...

I agree there are a big difference between the two and that the Blazer conduct with the GMs was not handled well, to the point of embarassing for many. But did it really hurt the organization?

I'm not a vulcan fan, but if they are in control, they have showed athey are willing to spend money and make moves. I understand they need to make good moves, but that is easier said than done. I thought Wallace was a good mood. I also like the Felton move.
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
I agree there are a big difference between the two and that the Blazer conduct with the GMs was not handled well, to the point of embarassing for many. But did it really hurt the organization?

I'm not a vulcan fan, but if they are in control, they have showed athey are willing to spend money and make moves. I understand they need to make good moves, but that is easier said than done. I thought Wallace was a good mood. I also like the Felton move.
Click to expand...

Yes it really does hurt the organization to have a capricious and vindictive owner. It hurts their chances of actually attracting a competent GM to run the team, it hurts their chances of competing over the long haul in a new NBA environment where simply having bags of money is going to be less of a competitive advantage, it hurts this team that Allen fancies himself a talent evaluator, it hurts this team that Allen thought this team was one move away from a deep playoff run by picking up a past-his-prime Wallace instead of taking the advice of his former GM and "blowing it up" (sort of) and trying to rebuild around Aldridge.

Allen and his cadre of boot-licking sycophants have certainly shown a willingness to spend in the past and there's nothing wrong with that, but has there ever been a coherent vision of how to sustain success except for throwing gobs of money around like Holloween candy? I certainly haven't seen it.

Whatever positive momentum this organization stumbles into almost always feels like it's destined for a short shelf-life as long as Allen is in charge and I don't believe it will ever change until he's gone.
 
Nikolokolus said:
Yes it really does hurt the organization to have a capricious and vindictive owner. It hurts their chances of actually attracting a competent GM to run the team, it hurts their chances of competing over the long haul in a new NBA environment where simply having bags of money is going to be less of a competitive advantage, it hurts this team that Allen fancies himself a talent evaluator, it hurts this team that Allen thought this team was one move away from a deep playoff run by picking up a past-his-prime Wallace instead of taking the advice of his former GM and "blowing it up" (sort of) and trying to rebuild around Aldridge.

Allen and his cadre of boot-licking sycophants have certainly shown a willingness to spend in the past and there's nothing wrong with that, but has there ever been a coherent vision of how to sustain success except for throwing gobs of money around like Holloween candy? I certainly haven't seen it.

Whatever positive momentum this organization stumbles into almost always feels like it's destined for a short shelf-life as long as Allen is in charge and I don't believe it will ever change until he's gone.
Click to expand...

I see this different. I do not see all the reprecussions you see from having an essentric owner. But it might come from a standpoint that I think GMs are overrated. What it really takes to succeed in the NBA, IMO, is to gather as many star and superstar players. And while it helps to have a good GM to do this, I think the essential ingredient in that recipe is an owner who will open up the pocketbook. So while Allen may have his many faults, the fact he can dish out max contracts and buy draft picks like candy, in my mind, overcomes whatever GM they may be missing out on (without PA's money they couldn't hire a top GM anyways).

It was just a couple years ago Ptd was rocking with the idea of Roy, LA, and Oden leading this team to the glory land. Nathional news had a consensus that the Blazers were the up and coming team. Things were looking great for the Blazers. Then injuries, not ownership, destroyed all that.

When the NBA changes, time to reevaluate PA's worth to the Blazers, but in the past and up to date, invaluabale, IMO.

Sounds like what all this comes down to is you beleive the Blazers should be blown up and they aren't seeing the reality of their team. I think that is possible. I am on the side of not wanting to see the team blown up, liking the Wallace trade, building around LA and trying to keep this team in the playoffs. Just because management isn't blowing up the team like you want, doesn't mean they don't see what is going on. They just have a different opinion of how to get a championship.

I don't know the quickest way to a title, new owner or with PA, but I am very concerned with the idea of gettting an owner with limited resources coming in and trying to make a profit running the Blazers. If it was me, I wouldn't take the oraganzation a cent over the cap . . . and I'm afraid the new owner will do this and that would create one boring medicore non-playoff team.

Maybe if I was a Cho fan, I would feel the same as you. But I was never that impressed with Cho and his firing was a non-event in my mind. In fact if he wanted Blazers to start all over, I'm glad they fired him. :)
 
BrianFromWA said:
I'm pretty sure (Storyteller's better at this), but Lux Tax is calculated on June 30. So if someone is traded/waived/etc. it's not like salaries or insurance, where you pay or receive a pro-rated portion...rather it's "salary cap number of each player on your team's cap on June 30 (remember, it can different than "salary" and not necessarily "on the roster") added together."

IIRC, the "amnesty" is the following:
If Roy was waived at any point in the season (using last year's rules) his salary cap number would stay on our books until the end of his contract (see Darius Miles), and his cap number would be added to the totals on June 30.
This year, if we decide before June 30 at any point to waive (or "amnesty") Roy, then his 14+M cap number stays on the books until the end of his contract(meaning that we can't gain that in "cap space" for free agents), and he gets paid the rest of his 82M contract, but that that cap number doesn't get put into the luxury tax calculations.
Click to expand...

Yes that was how the old luxury tax and old amnesty works. It would make sense to have the same luxury tax date rules, so yes in that scenario maybe we could get complete luxury tax relief from Roy for the 2011-12 season even if we wait until mid season to cut him.

I'm very curious on how exactly the new amnesty will work; the stories I've heard of it are that the new amnesty will definitely give cap relief and likely be useable during a longer time frame. We would get cap relief, but since we still have Camby, Felton, Wallace on deals this coming season it wouldn't be of any use in adding a free agent until possibly next summer, the summer of 2012.

We only have two contracts, LaMarcus and Matthews, on our cap next summer, if we are able to amnesty Roy. That is a boat load of cap space if this team is indeed multiple players away from title contention. Amnesty along with intelligent moves on extensions to Oden/Batum/Wallace/Felton could give us tools to start rebuilding instead of having to suck for 5 years like the Knicks did just to attempt to clear cap space.
 
Last edited:
The other factor, which the owners seem very strong on, is the proposal that teams over the luxury tax threshold will *also* lose roster exemptions such as the MLE.

Simple example: Freeland. Under the old CBA, Freeland is no longer bound by the rookie scale. The team could offer him the MLE instead - which means a good chunk of change in his pocket! Take that away, and he has no incentive to ever play in Portland.

Everyone seems focused on the money - but in terms of the team being competitive, the lose of roster flexibility is the real issue.
 
oldmangrouch said:
The other factor, which the owners seem very strong on, is the proposal that teams over the luxury tax threshold will *also* lose roster exemptions such as the MLE.

Simple example: Freeland. Under the old CBA, Freeland is no longer bound by the rookie scale. The team could offer him the MLE instead - which means a good chunk of change in his pocket! Take that away, and he has no incentive to ever play in Portland.

Everyone seems focused on the money - but in terms of the team being competitive, the lose of roster flexibility is the real issue.
Click to expand...

I've mentioned it a few times, but not many seem to care.
 
Nikolokolus said:
I've mentioned it a few times, but not many seem to care.
Click to expand...

Well most of these rules such as luxury teams losing the MLE are unresolved issues and its hard to know how it will effect the Blazers since we don't even know the final rule. We would be the largest beneficiary of the amnesty clause in the league, based on ESPN's projection of dollars saved, and the amnesty clause is supposedly more or less an agreed upon part of any deal so obviously that issue is going to have much discussion on this board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top