On the subject of Luis Scola and the chances that the Rockets use the amnesty clause on him: Barring the most desperate of circumstances in which the Rockets absolutely need a couple of extra million bucks in cap room to sign a star who is ready and willing to sign with the team, I seriously doubt that the Rockets will EVER amnesty cut Scola. Three words: The. Stretch. Exception. Whereas the amnesty clause would allow a team to waive a player and receive 100% (allegedly) salary cap relief but still have to pay that player 100% of his salary as if he were still under contract, the Stretch Exception would allow a team to waive a player and then spread his cap figure AND THE PAYMENT OF HIS SALARY over ([2 x the number of years remaining on his deal] + 1) years. I'm not sure whether the cap hit is spread evenly over those years of it it starts smaller and then escalates at the same rate of the player's annual salary increases; but let's go ahead and assume that it is spread evenly. Using Scola as an example, I think most of us can agree that the Rockets would not amnesty cut him this offseason, since (1) that would cost WAY too much money and (2) they could create cap room in a variety of other ways with all of the expiring contracts they have. So let's assume that Scola breaks down towards the end of next season, the Rockets are unable to trade him, and the team decides to part ways with him (having not used the amnesty clause the prior year). AMNESTY: If the Rockets were to amnesty cut Scola in 2012, they would open up a tremendous amount of cap room (a little less than $9M in extra cap space, accounting for roster charges), but they already would presumably have enough to sign a max free agent anyway. If two superstars were lined up to sign with the Rockets? Sure, they'd consider this route. But the new rules will likely make the chances of acquiring one superstar very difficult, let alone two. Meanwhile, Les would have to pay Luis the full $9.4M of his salary in 2012-13 and the full $10.2M of his salary in 2013-14. Those are real dollars, folks. While I truly believe that Les wants to win and will spend on a winner, I don't know if he'd be willing to spend a lot on draft picks, throwing cash into trades, etc., if he had THAT much dead money on his payroll. (Remember, it's not like the Tracy and Yao injuries, where some/most of that dead money was covered by insurance.) Would that make Les "cheap"? I don't think so. STRETCH EXCEPTION: (Please note that I do not yet know how partially or non-guaranteed years are treated under the new Stretch Exception rules, so I will assume for this illustration that Scola will not hit any of his incentives for his final year guarantees and that the final year of his contract will be fully non-guaranteed and not count towards the Stretch Exception calculations.) If the Rockets use the Stretch Exception on Scola in 2012, rather than amnesty cutting him, the team will still see a good deal of cap savings while at the same time lessening the overall financial burden on the team. Based on the assumptions above, the Rockets would open up about $5M or so in additional cap space in 2012, which could potentially allow the Rockets to sign a max free agent AND another quality free agent. Plus, that is also about $5-5.5M less in payroll expense for Les. The Rockets would also save about $6-6.5M in 2013-14. The downside to using the Stretch Exception would be that Scola's salary (in true Matt Maloney fashion) would continue to count a little less than $4M against the Rockets' cap for each of 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. Still, if the Rockets thought that they could truly attain a star player in either 2012 or 2013 by opening up some (but not all) of the cap space occupied by Scola's contract, that would seem to make more sense than simply cutting him, paying his full salary, and Les having to eat all that dead money over two years instead of five. All that said, I personally love Luis Scola as a player and hope that he continues to play well and that the Rockets either retain him beyond 2012 or trade him for good value (perhaps even to a contender, as I would not mind seeing Scola win a ring if it's not at the expense of the Rockets). Hope this illustration was helpful, though.
Obviously instead of stretch-exceptioning a useful player in Scola, they could simply not pick up team options on our 2009 draft team. Of course, your analysis is 100% spot on if Scola suffers a career-threatening injury.
I think people who want to cut Scola are just so enamored with the potential of Dwight Howard that they've pretty much thrown logic outside the window. Also, I'm pretty sure the Rockets can simply trade him. I can't imagine there won't be at least one contender/semi-contender come deadline time who wouldn't give up at least expirings for Scola.
You're one of the most knowledgeable posters on this board Bima, but I'm not quite sure what is this all about. I agree that Les isn't cheap and would spend plenty of money to win, but the chances we use either the amnesty clause or stretch exception on Scola are so slim, I'm not sure why you'd even bring it up. Do you really think the Rockets couldn't find a taker if you desperately needed to created more cap space? This isn't Jared Jeffries or Eddy Curry we're talking about here. Scola still is a pretty damn good player. If it wasn't for the promise Patterson was showing last season we wouldn't even have this conversation of trading, much less waiving the guy. I'm sure there are teams out right now there that would trade some decent assets for him. Just think of the smaller market teams that don't attract free agents and are in need for an upgrade at PF and/or a veteran leader. I think at worst you're going to get a 'Beasley-package' in return. I don't know. I just think it's a poor example of Les not being cheap or whatever the point of this thread is.
True, but my illustration assumes that he starts to break down considerably and becomes untradable. Also, under the new harsher luxury tax scheme, I don't know if a guy making $9-10M per for 2-3 years will be worth it to a contender (presumably that is already in/near luxury tax territory), even if he could be "the missing piece."
HMMMHMM, please re-read my assumptions. First of all, this thread is in response to all those here who actually WANT the Rockets to amnesty cut Scola (which, like you, I think is absolutely ludicrous given his current level of production). Also, my illustration presupposes that he breaks down next year and becomes untradable. No "pro-Les" agenda here. Just responding to a growing sentiment that is both illogical and unreasonable.
Point taken. Still I think it's a rather unlikely scenario. I mean how serious must Scola decline to the point where he becomes "untradeable". Also - and I get your point - there really is no such thing as untradeable. Do you think it makes sense to use amensty clause or stretch exception on Scola, instead of trading him in addition to other assets (e.g. draft picks) for cap space? Will there really be no takers? I guess it's a possibility, but so is me hooking up with Mila Kunis.
You are correct. My illustration was merely to show the benefits of using the Stretch Exception over the amnesty clause. I'm sorry that the actual example used (in response to a call for cutting Scola that was ridiculous in its inception, mind you) was not realistic enough for you. On trading Scola--if it came to that--yes, perhaps there would be some "cheapskate" teams out there who are struggling to hit the league minimum salary cap level and would be willing to take on a large contract plus additional assets. Still, much like the Jared Jeffries example from this past trade deadline (in which the Rockets presumably opted to just eat most of Jeffries's cap figure and pay luxury tax rather than give up assets to a team like Sacramento in a salary dump), a situation may present itself--however unlikely--in which use of the Stretch Exception is preferable to giving up the assets it might take to dump salary. So, to sum up: (1) Scola is not likely to break down and become untradable in the next 9 months; (2) It is unlikely that the Rockets would use EITHER the Stretch Exception or amnesty on Scola over a trade; (3) This entire thread was in response to a ridiculous notion of amnesty cutting Scola, hence the presupposition of several factors, without which using any sort of waiver device would be ludicrous. Have I now fully satisfied your request for some context for this thread, HMMMHMM? :grin:
I think I'm the one who first brought up using amnesty on Scola and I did this in response to Thabeet getting amnesty cut. Amnesty cutting Scola is ridiculous. Amnesty cutting Thabeet is ridiculous as they can just cut him. I thought amnesty cutting Scola was slightly less ridiculous as I thought cap would be lower. With higher cap space, even if the Rockets signed a decent player this season, they would be able to get a max player next season.
This works 'even better' (?) if one takes BT's premise and then wink-wink after the 'cut' Luis is (de facto) routed to some unknown team (in the East) for which the Rox get a 'loaded trade'.
Luis is my favorite Rocket, I prefer to believe he will maintain this level throughout the duration of his contract. DD
Scola's contract isn't a lemon though, at the very worst we could trade him for basically nothing to a team with cap room. Some people's contracts are worth less than nothing, Scola isn't one of them.
UPDATE: According to @NBA, the Stretch Exception CANNOT be used on existing contracts. So . . . disregard this entire thread.
No kidding? Then it is only proposed for future contracts in the latest proposal? So it would exist "only" to alleviate future GM blunders. Interesting.
Upon further reflection, that is really the only fair way to treat players who signed their guaranteed contracts under the rules of the prior CBA. It wouldn't be fair to change the rules on how they can be paid without their consent. I just hope little things like this don't go unnoticed by the union's leadership. Too bad they likely do.
