NBA amnesty clause will include protective bidding system

I'll be curious to hear more details on how exactly this works.

Also, is this amnesty thing only a one time deal?

 

Yes, only a one time deal.

This is really interesting and I'm happy to read this because that means that teams like the Lakers and the Mavs can't just go and get these players.

 

Wow, the Sun Sentinel is REALLY on top of things! Uh . . . this was in the league's (published) proposal to the union BEFORE it blew up a couple of weeks ago. Way to be current.

Okay, now that that's out of the way . . .

I did FINALLY get confirmation, via Howard Beck's latest piece from the New York Times, that teams with prudent management teams (like the Rockets and Thunder) that do not really have any "bad contracts" to jettison via the amnesty clause CANNOT trade for a player and then use the amnesty clause to waive the acquired player.

This basically means that the Rockets will likely not ever use the amnesty clause, except in the following circumstances:

--This year on Hasheem Thabeet, if (and only if) it was necessary to create the maximum amount of cap room necessary to sign a major free agent like Nene or Tyson Chandler. (Otherwise, I think the Rockets just see what they have in Thabeet for one season, knowing they can just let him go next summer.)

--Perhaps in some future year (2013 or 2014) on Luis Scola . . . but ONLY if Scola really breaks down in the next year or two. (I don't think Les would cut Scola in 2012--and eat three years, $20-30M remaining on his contract--even to create cap room, especially since Scola could probably be traded elsewhere along with future picks to create the room.)

It seems as if the idiot GMs and owners of the league are being rewarded for their stupidity, while the truly prudent teams watch their prudence being answered with no reward whatsoever. Only the punishment of the league "re-leveling" the playing field.

 

Aren't you leaving out the ability of the Rockets to get one of the Amnestied players?

I mean if Beidrens or Haywood shake loose, the Rockets can pounce.

There are two sides to this coin.

DD

 

Ah, therein lies the rub.

Only teams with CAP ROOM can make waiver claims on amnesty players. In order for the Rockets to effectively bid, they would have to renounce their rights to Chuck Hayes and/or amnesty cut Thabeet.

And given that many players initially thought to be cut (Andris Biedrins and Baron Davis, to name a couple) are now likely to be retained for at least another year, I doubt that Morey opts for cap room just so that he can bid--and still possibly lose out--on players like Gilbert Arenas, DeSagana Diop and a broken-down Brandon Roy (on whom some team will likely WAY overspend in its waiver claim).

Personally, unless they can add a major free agent like Nene or Tyson Chandler, I'd rather the Rockets avoid using their cap room and instead have ALL of the following at their disposal (none of which would be available with an election for cap room):

--Chuck Hayes's Bird rights

--The Mid-Level Exception (up to 4-year deal starting at $5M)

--The Biannual Exception (up to 2-year deal starting at $1.9M)

--The ~$7.35M Trade Exception generated in the Shane Battier trade

--The ~$1.2M Trade Exception generated in the Brad Miller trade

Sure, I know the Rockets could also have the $2.5M "Room Exception" along with cap room, but that's not enough to make up for all the benefits of NOT using cap room (again, unless it's necessary to add a major free agent).

Don't underestimate the value of that Battier trade exception. All those who killed Morey over the Thabeet acquisition, just realize that the TRADE EXCEPTION was one of the biggest things to come out of that deal. While it's certainly possible that it never gets used, that trade exception could be instrumental in getting a major trade accomplished next February/March. Possibly even one for Dwight Howard or Chris Paul.

 

Interesting, so they would have to renounce Chuck or wave Thabeet or another player I guess...TWill, Scola, Kmart etc....

It will be VERY interesting to see how Morey plays this, it will tell a lot about the direction he has for the organization.

DD

 

Wait, I forgot that the Rockets could not renounce anyone and still get amnesty players if they go unclaimed, right?

No one knows if many or all of them will be claimed....

Wow - this is exciting stuff.

DD

 

Well, I think the Rockets can take a risk on a player and use the amnesty clause later in the CBA. They don't have to use it right now.

 

Teams still have to pay the player they amnesty.

 

Le$ made enough money during Yao and Tmac's injury plagued years from insurance, they can afford a little hit.

DD

 

Ditto.

Yep. Like any team (except the team waiving a particular player), the Rockets can pursue any amnesty cut who goes unclaimed by teams with cap room. But remember that, at that point, the Rockets will be competing with the Heat and the Lakers for those same players. It will be tough to compete for the top amnesty cuts, although I could definitely see the Rockets adding a decent amnesty cut player at some point. (FYI, don't expect there to be a ton of amnesty cuts . . . this year.)

It could get VERY interesting in 2012, if the Rockets open up a ton of cap room but fail to get Howard, Paul or Williams. They could then become major players on the amnesty cut waiver wire next summer. Not that I'd want to add him, but I think THAT is when Baron Davis will be amnesty cut (if the Cavs can't make use of his expiring contract).


On a related note, here is my not-so-bold prediction for next year:

Brandon Roy will be a Sacramento King.

It just makes sense. The Kings have far and away the lowest payroll in the league and will need to add a ton of salary just to hit the league-mandated team minimum salary. They can outspend any other team (practically) for amnesty waiver claims. Brandon Roy can at least show flashes of the star he once was, plus he will sell tickets and give the team added exposure. While the Kings just brought back John Salmons, they could still use depth at the SG spot (both Salmons and Garcia play more like SFs).

So, that's my guess.

 

Not enough to justify cutting Scola this year or next. That's ~$30M out the door. The net effect of that insurance money (minus whatever expenditures were made based on having that insurance money) pales in comparison.

Cutting Thabeet (if necessary)? Sure. That's "only" $5.13M.

Cutting another 2009 lotto bust? No problem.

Cutting Scola in a 2-3 years (if absolutely necessary)? Possibly, although that would be a bitter pill to swallow.

But there's no way Lowry (reasonable deal) or Martin (contract up in 2013) get cut; and Scola's simply going to cost too much to cut anytime soon.

Oh, and there's no reason to cut such productive players anyway.

(DD, this is not an indictment of your earliest posts. Just a statement in general.)

 

I don't want them to cut anyone Bima, I would rather them stay put, keep the Amnesty in their back pocket (Lord knows the injuries to Yao and Tmac probably make them lean this way too) and then see what fruit falls from the tree.

DD

 

Is it really 30 million out the door? In this bidding system, isn't there a good chance that some team picks up a sizable portion of his salary. He'll certainly fetch at least 6 mill per in the bidding system, right?

 

Remember, that's if they wait another year. The details of Scola's final year are sketchy, so we don't know if amnesty cutting Scola would trigger some or all of that $11M final year becoming guaranteed. It could be more than $30M.

My guess is that, if the Rockets couldn't dump Scola via trade and were "forced" to amnesty cut him, Scola probably would be drawing $6M per season bids on the waiver wire.

If he's worth $6M per, the Rockets could just trade him along with cash or a future pick or something. That would probably be preferable to eating all that money, even the net amount.

 

Really interesting thought on this. Well done.

 

Another 'amnesty' question. If, for the sake of argument, Shard was amnestied and signed with the winning bid at $3m/yr. What are the trade rights? How long until and to where or where not? Presumably at the $3m/year figure, tho.