Amnesty

[freakazoid]

3 million/year is not hurting the Jazz cap wise as much as Okur. It's Memo no question.

Actually, it's nobody.

Memo is going to be an expiring contract. If Utah used the amnesty on him, they'd still have to pay him. Why would they do that when they can just wait a few months and then trade him as an expiring contract? I just don't see Utah spending like the Cubans of the world.

 

[YB85]

Actually, it's nobody.

Memo is going to be an expiring contract. If Utah used the amnesty on him, they'd still have to pay him. Why would they do that when they can just wait a few months and then trade him as an expiring contract? I just don't see Utah spending like the Cubans of the world.

Who's to say that expiring contracts will be worth anything? Losing Memo's salary off the cap is as valuable to them as using him as an expiring contract. I like Memo but if there is an anmesty clause as rumored, he is the guy.

 

[freakazoid]

Who's to say that expiring contracts will be worth anything?

They may not be, and if there's an amnesty, they may be almost worthless, but I tend to believe there will still be opportunities out there. If not, then Utah just let's Memo expire.

Losing Memo's salary off the cap is as valuable to them as using him as an expiring contract.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Let's say Utah Curry cured Memo, and used the cap room to sign a free agent. That would mean they'd be paying Memo in addition to the new player. If they instead traded Memo as an expiring (assuming they could), they wouldn't be getting it from both ends salary wise. Again, if I'm missing something, please fill me in. Obviously none of us can see into the future, so we can't really know what the details of a new CBA would be. Having said that, I'm betting Utah would just decline to use the amnesty, rather than pay Memo not to play.

Believe me, as much as I like Memo, I think the rest of his days will be as a role player off the bench in very limited minutes. I would be happy to see Utah throw some money around and gamble on getting another FA. Don't know who that'd be though.

I think it's far more likely that Utah waits to see how the new team starts to come together, and then try to get something for Memo if they can.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Yeah, the Jazz will get ten million on the salary cap for?

A chance to front load an RFA contract to see it be matched? (Gasol)

Lose out on Free agents? (Nene)

Jazz have a plan for the 2012 and 2013 off season, not the 2011 off season. They'll sign either older vets, or cast out bench players for no more than two year contracts, likely one year, and see who they can attract or trade for when they have gobbles of cap space in 2013.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Jazz or not, I think someone is going to throw money at Gasol that the Grizzlies won't match. Gay and Randolph will tie up at least 50% of the cap for the next four seasons, and that's not even considering Conley's sizable deal, Mayo's (current or future), and the rest of the roster (which is mostly rookie-scale guys that will probably get a raise [Vasquez, Arthur, Henry if he gets his **** together and/or minutes]).

For the right price (and/or if Gasol gifts them a hometown discount), the Grizzlies will keep him. But when it comes down to it - and ESPECIALLY if there's an amnesty clause like this - there will probably be a deal available to Gasol that Heisley will blink at and try to find another answer at C.

 

[//r00t 4 Jazz]

My main point in thinking (if the Jazz even decide to use it) is they would use it on Raja is he still has 2yrs left at around 3.3Mil for a total over 6mil saved (he signed a 3yr deal for 10mil) and if Memo proves to be healthy enough to play while he is currently playing in Turkey than I don't think the Jazz would dump him with him being in his last year.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Since most contenders in the NBA are major markets, the amnesty exclusively favors the entitled NBA teams.

-Free agents tend to gravitate towards bigger cities (as they should)
-Teams with a better ability to absorb paying a player to leave are more likely to do that in order to bring on a player they want
-If players like Jose Calderon, Brendan Haywood, Rip Hamilton, Brandon Roy, Biedrins/Lee, are released, a team like Miami is going to be very pleased.

I am and have been telling you, the owners are full of **** and this proves that. All of this talk of making the league more competitive and the owners losing money hand over fist makes absolutely no ****ing sense if there's an option on the table allowing teams to lose more money at their own discretion to give an even larger competitive advantage to those with the most as it is.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Jazz or not, I think someone is going to throw money at Gasol that the Grizzlies won't match. Gay and Randolph will tie up at least 50% of the cap for the next four seasons, and that's not even considering Conley's sizable deal, Mayo's (current or future), and the rest of the roster (which is mostly rookie-scale guys that will probably get a raise [Vasquez, Arthur, Henry if he gets his **** together and/or minutes]).

For the right price (and/or if Gasol gifts them a hometown discount), the Grizzlies will keep him. But when it comes down to it - and ESPECIALLY if there's an amnesty clause like this - there will probably be a deal available to Gasol that Heisley will blink at and try to find another answer at C.

Really? Knowing how difficult it is to obtain a solid, defensive C (especially for a team like Memphis), you think they'd even consider letting him go? I don't think so. I see them using their Curry Cure on Gay and riding the roster that played very well in the playoffs.

I think Gasol's availability is no more than wishful thinking.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Really? Knowing how difficult it is to obtain a solid, defensive C (especially for a team like Memphis), you think they'd even consider letting him go? I don't think so. I see them using their Curry Cure on Gay and riding the roster that played very well in the playoffs.

I think Gasol's availability is no more than wishful thinking.

We have nearly 15 years of Grizzlies vast incompetency to compare to one season where they caught fire halfway through the season. I don't think cutting Gay (who is a very good player) and still paying $80 million more for him on top of what will be at or close to a max deal for Gasol is a move that will be wise for them. Whether they amnesty Gay or not, they are faced with paying a ****-load of money based on one half of a good season and little in the way of future assurances, or they can try and find a way to grab another C and ride out the contracts they ****-****ed themselves into (does anyone really think the slothful, drug-dealing, locker-room menace that won't pass the ball and couldn't give less of a **** whether his team wins or loses won't be back? Let's bear in mind he just played a contract year and got his last big paycheck and to that point, all he's cared about was his $).

If teams are allowed to shed their least-desired contract, some team out there is going to give Gasol A LOT of money. Matched or not, it's going to happen.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Since most contenders in the NBA are major markets, the amnesty exclusively favors the entitled NBA teams.

-Free agents tend to gravitate towards bigger cities (as they should)
-Teams with a better ability to absorb paying a player to leave are more likely to do that in order to bring on a player they want
-If players like Jose Calderon, Brendan Haywood, Rip Hamilton, Brandon Roy, Biedrins/Lee, are released, a team like Miami is going to be very pleased.

I am and have been telling you, the owners are full of **** and this proves that. All of this talk of making the league more competitive and the owners losing money hand over fist makes absolutely no ****ing sense if there's an option on the table allowing teams to lose more money at their own discretion to give an even larger competitive advantage to those with the most as it is.

This. Great post. An amnesty clause without restrictions would basically reward owners with deep pockets to gamble on expensive free agents. If the player doesn't live up to expectations, the owner can take the player off the cap and try again on another player. Maybe if the maximum length of contracts is shorter, it makes the cost of gambling on a player less and keeps the cheaper owners in the game. Maybe if the team can only apply the Amnesty clause once in two or three seasons, there is less impact.

Either way, Amnesty could have a big impact on the game. Just imagine if teams like the Knicks could have unscrewed themselves at the rate of one bad contract per year. If Orlando could get out from under Arenas' contract and use the cap space on Chris Paul, it saves that franchise from losing Dwight Howard. Big changes.

 

[Qman]

This. Great post. An amnesty clause without restrictions would basically reward owners with deep pockets to gamble on expensive free agents. If the player doesn't live up to expectations, the owner can take the player off the cap and try again on another player. Maybe if the maximum length of contracts is shorter, it makes the cost of gambling on a player less and keeps the cheaper owners in the game. Maybe if the team can only apply the Amnesty clause once in two or three seasons, there is less impact.

Either way, Amnesty could have a big impact on the game. Just imagine if teams like the Knicks could have unscrewed themselves at the rate of one bad contract per year. If Orlando could get out from under Arenas' contract and use the cap space on Chris Paul, it saves that franchise from losing Dwight Howard. Big changes.

But if it only happens ever 8-10 years when a new CBA is negotiated- it isn't that big of advantage.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

But if it only happens ever 8-10 years when a new CBA is negotiated- it isn't that big of advantage.

Yeah, this is a one time deal to help teams clean up their mistakes made with bad contracts. This is not an annual amnesty they're proposing.