This article seems legit, though I've never heard of this site before... NBA may offer amnesty Spoiler July 17 2009 Vegas Notebook: NBA may offer amnesty By Chris Tomasson Pro Basketball News LAS VEGAS - Could NBA owners whose teams have bad contracts be getting another mulligan? It's possible the NBA could end up bringing back the amnesty rule that resulted in teams saving millions of dollars in luxury tax during the summer of 2005. When the NBA reached an agreement on its current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that summer, teams were allowed a one-time opportunity to waive one player and not have to pay any luxury tax on him. The player, though, got the full amount remaining on his contract, and that counted against the salary cap. In all, 18 of the NBA teams used the rule, saving about $212 million in luxury-tax payments. Players waived included Michael Finley, Derek Anderson, Brian Grant and Ron Mercer. Finley's release from Dallas proved the most beneficial to another team as he helped San Antonio to the 2007 NBA title. With NBA economy in peril and the luxury tax next summer possibly dropping by more than $5 million from $69.92 million, NBA commissioner David Stern has spoken to owners about the possibility of the amnesty rule again surfacing, although any possible resurrection of that rule likely wouldn't be put on the table until late in the collective bargaining process. If such a rule were to be implemented prior to the summer of 2011, which is when the current CBA will expire if the NBA doesn't pick up the 2011-12 option, it likely would have to be approved by both players and owners. But it could end up being part of the next CBA, and there's a chance the current one could be torn up and a new one implemented prior to 2011. Denver Nuggets coach George Karl said he's heard about the possibility of the amnesty rule returning in some form, and he believes it's a good idea. "I think it could be something like we did (in 2005)," Karl told Pro Basketball News at the NBA Summer League. "It could be something that resurfaces (similar to the one 2005). Or it could be resurrected in a different way. Is there a way to address both the owners about the financial situation and the players association, where everybody could come to a happy conclusion?" However, according to those in the know, there could be serious debate among the owners about whether they would want the return of such a rule. There are some owners of teams who haven't given out as many outlandish contracts that might not want to help out teams that have. Teams that have been more responsible then would be at risk of receiving less money back in luxury-tax payments from the big spenders. Then again, the Spurs usually have kept contracts in check. And the amnesty rule benefitted them after rival Dallas let Finley go.
From the article: So what would that mean for the Rockets? Would it hurt us by easing the pressure on other teams who might feel desperate or would it help by waiving a guy like Cook? Perhaps it would help if you could make the Paul trade and then waive Peja or pick up some decent waived player. I'm in way over my depth here, so capologists, please let us know what the ramifications of this would be. Thanks.
This kind of stuff is dumb. It just rewards the teams that really screwed up, while penalizing the teams that were fiscally responsible and didn't make the terrible decisions.
Actually it helps teams with good fiscally management to sign good players for cheap. San Antonio signing Finley was one example.
It also helps teams with poor fiscal management to do so. Perhaps there should be a clause mandating that players can be cut only if another team is willing to sign them to a new contract, and that teams who sign players cut under the amnesty rule may not use the amnesty rule themselves. That way, some teams with financial difficulties can get help, and more responsible teams can get good players on cheap contracts.
I've never understood, why the rockets used it on Weatherspoon that one year instead of saving it. Was it only for that one year were you could do that only?
Was wondering when they'd talk about this again. The luxury tax rule is plenty fair to all teams. Irresponsible, risk taking teams get the squeeze, responsible teams get extra. Might as well have a hard cap if teams cant control their spending
I think the real target would be NO to try and find a way that they can keep Paul and be a viable franchise.
You guys make some good points but I wouldn't mind if the amnesty were to happen again. It would avoid us having to send player X + cash + draft pick to team Y (who am I kidding? I mean Memphis) just to be under the luxury tax.
