Speaking of amnesty rules, from my reading of the owners' last proposal, the amnesty cuts will not be handled how most people think they will. This will (most likely) NOT be a straight-up cut, where any team can sign a guy for the league minimum. Rather, in a manner quite similar to one I proposed earlier, the league will have all of those amnesty cuts pass through a form of "modified waivers" where each team can make a conditional claim. No team is obligated to pay the waived player's full salary, but the team willing to take on the most of that player's salary will get him. The player's original team is then absolved from paying that amount but will continue to pay the difference. This system of modified waivers is both fair and logical. Here's hoping that teams can make waiver claims using the MLE, since I think the Rockets would be best served--assuming they strike out on Nene--to opt for the MLE and the $7M+ Battier trade exception over what would otherwise be only a moderate amount of cap room this year.
Thanks Bima, great info there. You have to admit that having Daryl Morey in this particular situation is a HUGE win for the Rockets. This is when he will earn his keep.....and then some. DD
FYI, after reading the latest league memo clarifying the various deal points of the new CBA proposal, it appears as if teams CANNOT use the MLE in the amnesty waiver claim process. It seems more fair to allow the teams who have cleared cap room priority over those that have not. That said, it seems odd that a team making a claim using $3M in cap room would get priority over an over-the-cap team making a full MLE ($5M) claim. That wouldn't be fair to the team that waived the player and still has to pay the remainder of his salary.
Bima, Does the original team still get full relief in terms of cap figures even though they are still paying part of the salary? Anyhow, I think it's fair enough to the original team in your scenario. After all, the league is doing them a favor when they could have gotten no relief at all.
Yes. I'm still trying to figure out if all waiver claims must be for the remaining life of the player's pre-existing contract. For instance, if the Magic amnesty cut Gilbert Arenas (and the three years remaining on his deal), must all waiver claims on Arenas be for three-year deals? I'm guessing the answer is yes. Otherwise, there would be no real way to compare apples-to-apples waiver claims, plus it would subject the waiving team to having to pay 100% of the waived player's salary in the latter years of his deal.
Bima, In the clause below, are they saying that only teams under the cap can make an offer? I think only the Kings are under the cap, so that doesn't make sense. Do you think they are counting exceptions?
Several teams will have cap room to make waiver claims. Indiana and Washington are two additional teams that come to mind.
