Is Amnesty a really good idea?

You already answered the question yourself. It's pretty stupid.

Not only does it screw the teams that managed the cap well and made smart roster moves by not overpaying guys, but it'll hurt the competitive balance of the league, something the league allegedly is trying to fix.
Also, it sure won't help the owners save money - another reason why there's a lockout in the first place - unless it's a tax paying team that's using it.

 

i haven't read the NYT article yet, but to me there should be a rule that any team that uses the amnesty clause can not sign a player that was waived with the amnesty clause. like _RTM_ says, you can get irresponsible teams now signing a bunch of guys who are still getting paid to minimum contracts. and those are pretty much going to exclusively be the already good teams. as someone who was rooting for the heat, this could be beneficial. but as a rockets fan, it basically sucks to see us manage our cap situation very smartly only to see morons not only get out of their bad deals, but possibly even get cap room to compete with us next offseason after we maneuvered so much to get that cap room.

but of course, no one wants that rule. the owners won't want to be limited from getting out of their stupid mistakes and the players won't want to have their options limited on where they can go so everyone will talk about their love of competitive balance and fair play for every team while doing nothing to bring it about.

 

I totally agree.

I wish they would add some rule. Like if you sign a player that was released based on Amnesty, you are required to pay something like 20-35% of their original contract that is the base of their new contract.

For example, lets use 25%. Emeka Okafor's 2011-12 contract is supposed to be $12,492,500. If he were released based on amnesty, any team that signs him would have to pay him a contract starting out at $3,123,125. That base amount would then have to paid by the new team and NOT the original team.

So in essence, the player is not minting more more, unless the new team wants to add more to that base amount. The original team saves more money, and you maintain some competitive balance that you need some cap space to sign the better players released from amnesty.

 

I think its a terrible idea. Completely punishes well run teams. When the owners are crying that they are losing money, it opens an avenue for them to spend even more money. Definately mot good for the Rockets.

 

I agree. It won't happen though, since the players want freedom and there won't be enough owners pushing for it either.

The same goes for what rpr52121 said and any other possible punishments for teams using the amnesty clause.
There are simply too many owners wanting to get rid of a contract without being punished. The players obviously don't mind, since they get paid twice and get to play for pretty much whoever they want to play for.

What might or could happen, if Mr. Alexander and/or a few other owners let their voice be heard, is the teams not using the amnesty clause getting some kind of reward, that doesn't have a big influence on the teams using it.
Like getting a certain % of all cut players salaries or their new salaries to use a some of extra cap space.
The percentage number would have to be pretty low or there'd have to be some kind of limit, so there'd be no way for team to abuse it, but that should be too hard to figure out.

Obviously just an idea. I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to reward the teams that don't have an use for the amnesty cluase, without penalizing the other teams.

 

That wouldn't be such a bad idea. However, just note this would probably not affect teams like Miami and New York (who most fear will benefit the most by picking up amnesty cuts), since both teams are not currently in danger of paying luxury tax. Also, how would that rule be enforced against a team who picks up a modest amnesty cut (not a star but an overpaid role player who wouldn't have gotten much more on the open market) but then wants to amnesty cut a player, say, 3 years later?

Nice idea, but I don't see how it could be implemented practically. Under your rule, previously overpaid role players and guys starting to break down (like Mehmet Okur) would essentially be blacklisted, since no team would want to sign them if they had to pay 35% of their bloated former salaries.

Don't mean to nitpick what's otherwise a great idea. Just pointing out how its application may have unintended consequences that would likely prevent the union from ever agreeing to it.

 

One idea for a simple reward for teams not using the amnesty rule/penalty for teams that do use it (albeit not overly satisfying for fans):

(A) If you use the amnesty rule in a given year, your team is ineligible to partake in luxury tax revenues for that season.

(B) If you use the amnesty rule in a given year AND end up paying any luxury tax that year, your team is ineligible to partake in luxury tax revenues in following TWO seasons.

Just a thought.

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

It is not as bad as you are stating, because my intent was that percentage would have to be the starting point of any new deal. As in their new deal with a team after being released on amnesty would start at 25% of their old deal. Even a previously overpriced role player like Okur is supposed to get $10,890,000 next year. Even at $2-3.5 million base salary that is steal for player like Okur.

It is weighted in the favor of the owners as you mention, because that player won't make a lot more money on top of their previous contract. However, my argument to the players is that you want players who produce to get paid what they should. If a player has been grossly overpaid for production it takes away from the money a more deserving player should get. I know it's idealistic, and players wouldn't believe it, but that is how I would spin it.

 

Yeah, that also would work, though I was thinking more about system related benefits, as it's more system issue.

I guess money always helps, though.


Sorry about my poor English by the way. Apparently I need to double proof-read.

 

You may be right, but even if one player is unintentionally blacklisted by the rule, it just won't pass muster with the union.

For example, let's say that Rashard Lewis's skills diminish more than they actually have. If he's amnesty cut and no team is willing to sign him to a deal starting at $5-6M (which would be 25% of his former salary), then there would be a major problem with the union.

Perhaps a way around this problem would for every unsigned amnesty cut would be subject to a sort of "sealed bidding" once training camps open, where any team can submit a contract offer to the league. The player can accept any offer he wants, but if he accepts an offer less than the most lucrative sealed bid offer, then the player will have to pay to his former team (or to the league) the difference between the most lucrative bid and the bid he decides to accept.

 

i know, and i'm fine with that. well, i'm not fine with amnesty in general and don't think there should be one, but teams like new york and miami should certainly benefit more than more profligate teams. miami and new york spent several years making moves (presumably some were painful from a W/L perspective) to get their caps into a good position. that should be rewarded.

i'd say that's a damn shame for that team. while it does benefit teams with current crappy contracts who know who they want to cut as opposed to teams who might have a crappy contract in the future (say, from injury) that they want to cut, thems the breaks. and since the guy has to currently have a contract, in 3 years it wouldn't have much time left on it anyway. you want the short term benefit of signing a modest amnesty cut, then just realize you might be shooting yourself in the foot in the future and make your value judgment accordingly.

 

The new Amnesty scheme simply means one thing, that the bad owners far outnumber the good owners, which most of us already knew.

 

If only it were so simple, you can't predict players mentally giving up at times. There are misreads and bad signings, but you have to hold hte players accountable at some point. No one can control Eric Dampier and Brandon haywood deciding to mail it in after trying their asses of before the contract, that is on them, yet with these long term guaranteeds, no one holds them accountable.

I thnk everyone brings up Spurs as a great franchise and management, well look right at their signing of Richard jefferson which has been a total bust and they are stuck with him for years for so much million. Is he now a bad owner all of a sudden? give me a break. People like to simplify and point a finger in the simplest way when its far more complex than that and accountability is on both sides

 

as long as amnesty is allowed on traded players, its fine for everyone, it's especially good for anyone after dwight howard since orlando have 2 absolutely behemoth team crushing contracts.

 

It is the only way to get the big clubs to agree to a higher lux tax rate, a one time get iut of jail free pass.

DD

 

Times change too.

The Spurs management success came a lot from recruitment, particularly of internationals which was massively ahead of the curve, they had Ginobli and Scola as garbage picks (sure we picked their pocket on that second guy, but it was as much a product of them being too good), Parker not far from that either, but that was then.

Jefferson though was basically a hail mary, and at this point in their team, one last hail mary was worth the risk, they're going to need to go thru a half dozen years of sucking like everyone else usually does too.