Would An Amnesty Clause Help The Celtics?
There are rumors that the NBA is thinking about installing an "amnesty clause" in the new CBA that is apparently no where near being completed yet. So without anything else to talk about, let us discuss how this might impact the Celtics.
First, what is this amnesty clause? Is it like the Allen Houston Rule from a few years back (which ironically was not used on Allen Houston). Not exactly.
Heat could be rescued by amnesty clause - Heat Index Blog - ESPN
It’s a provision that would allow teams to waive players under contract and have money owed to them removed from their salary cap. The players would still get their guaranteed money but they would become unrestricted free agents.
Great, so we can waive any bad contracts that we have without any consequence. But wait, we don't really have any bad contracts. We've got the Big 3, Rondo, Jermaine O'Neal, and Avery Bradley on his rookie deal. That's it. The rookies haven't even signed yet. Is it worth considering waiving one of the Big 3? Briefly, no.
But to add more text to this debate, consider Jay King's take.
Why the Celtics likely would not benefit from an amnesty clause | Celtics Town
Even if the Celtics released Kevin Garnett (and the $21 million left on his contract), that would leave them with more than $51 million of salary in 2011-12. That would likely put them just under the salary cap, and it would be difficult to replace Garnett’s production without having more money to spend. Ditto goes for Ray Allen, whose two-year, $20 million also expires after the 2011-12 season. Jermaine O’Neal, who will make $6.2 million next season in his contract’s final year, also would seem to be safe from being released under the provision: after all, he is currently Boston’s only center.
So it is a total waste for us, right? Not so fast. The Heat Index article linked above gives us this take.
The Heat need a big man, a point guard and always could use shooters. They can make calls and recruit all they want but signing big-ticket free agents like Nene, Tyson Chandler or J.J. Barea is a pipe dream. But what about getting Rashard Lewis, Baron Davis or maybe even Brandon Roy for cheap? These are all instant candidates to be released under a new amnesty provision and all, in their own ways, could help the Heat.
The article goes on to mention Gilbert Arenas (an obvious choice) and points out that you never know who else might be let loose. Jay doesn't agree, but I still think that Boston would be a destination for ring-chasing free agents, especially in the positions that we need (and the Heat do not) like backup small forward and shooting guard. Brandon Roy anyone?
On the flipside, there is one more wrinkle to all this to consider. This Amnesty Clause would benefit a whole lot of teams that were not as fiscally responsible as the Celtics were over the last few years. They essentially are gifted a get out of contract-jail free card and the teams set up well for 2012 get nothing. Imagine if the Magic get out from under Gilbert's contract, use that extra space to add a piece or two which makes Dwight Howard giddy with title dreams and signs on for a max extension. Oh well, thanks for hording all that cap space Danny. Enjoy your door prizes.
So we might get some short term help from this theoretical clause, but it might hurt us in the long run. At least by helping the rest of the league. But that's the breaks. I still think that cap flexibility is a good thing headed into the next era. Danny will have to adapt and react to any new rules and the more wiggle room he has the better.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree that an amnesty clause is better for the league as a whole
As for the Celtics, it will be a mixed bag. There will be more free agents on the market, but I’m skeptical that all of them will be signing for minimum deals (especially as more teams would have new cap room). At the same time, as noted above, the number of teams that can make attractive offers to Dwight Howard widens.
For instance, even if Dwight does leave Orlando, would he prefer Boston or, say, New Jersey, which could waive Travis Outlaw and then sign Deron, Howard, and, say, David West. Ironically, the new rules might make it easier for some team to pull off a mini version of what the Heat did last summer.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
Disagree with Roy - but I have not had coffee yet
Seems to me the amnesty clause would be bad for the NBA. Too many players and owners chasing to many deals and being forgiven for too many mistakes….
If you’re stupid enough to sign a Gilbert Arenas then you should have to look at his name everyday as being tied your BUDGET and realize you screwed up instead of being able to move on and spend more money – sounds like the GOVERNMENT
If you just have to pay him but not have count against your budget (Salary Cap) then why bother with Salary Caps?
What am I missing ?
Is it Soup Yet?
I figure every team is entitled to a mistake now and again...
While I agree that owners should have to live with their mistakes, it’s tough to tell a fan base that they can’t compete for the next six years because they signed Gilbert Arenas, Jermaine O’Neal, Rashard Lewis, etc., to a long-term deal. With a hard cap, there needs to be some way to shed cap killers, in my opinion.
If an owner wants to hand out $100 million contracts, and then void them, he won’t be in business very long, which I think mitigates against the concern of owners spending an unlimited amount of money.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
depends on how rich the owner is.. i see your point...but hear me out
If we use the rule of thumb that owners should be in charge of how much they spend on players and not the league regulating that, so if they overspend they go broke ((which sounds conceptually like I all things should run) then why do we have a hard cap in the first place? I am not an expert on this, and have learned a great deal from reading your breakdowns of this over the years on here Roy, but I am still not getting it…sorry…so help me
The purpose of the hard cap, as my simple brain understands it, is to prevent extra rich owners who can afford to pay more than other less wealthy owners from gathering up all the elite players with their big cash and thus start dominating the league… correct? The owners apparently, as a whole are in favor of this Hard Cap as I understand it.
So what was being discussed in the issue Jeff mentioned in this article is yet another added twist to this basic principals behind a “hard cap”. To recap, the owners could avoid the Hard Cap to some degree (which they support as a whole) by being able to avoid pushing up against it or exceeding it by an exception…. in some cases? all cases? (unlimited amnesty or selective amnesty?) They would be able to do this (in some frequency or quantity?) if they made a bad business/player decision by choosing a player who turned out to be a bust they committed to with a contract.
From my perspective the super rich owners (if you allowed amnesty for some bad player contract choices) get to pay the guy off with their own wad of big cash and then go try again to make a better decision still having a big wad of cash to do so on the open market of players. Whereas the “not so rich owners” would have the same opportunity (in theory) to do the same thing with amnesty, but yet these somewhat poorer blokes may not be able to keep buying their way out of mistakes via an amnesty clause.
So.. following my own logic above, what you have created with this yet to be fully defined amnesty provision seems weaken or abate the very core principal of the hard cap being there in the first place. because now the rich owner has been given another advantage with his bigger pocket….
Ok…tell me where I am wrong. I am over my head apparently here.
Is it Soup Yet?
You need amnesty if implementing hard cap
There probably has to be amnesty if a hard cap is going to be implemented because the players were acquired under the old rules and there really is no option for getting room to move since the player is still guaranteed their money. Amnesty is only a good ideas when rules get stricter.
It is only a one time allowance due to changes in cap rules.
by guava_wrench on Sep 25, 2011 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, I think under the hard cap the need for amnesty will diminish...
… because owners will start giving shorter, non-guaranteed deals. As for amnesty, I think rules could be implemented to make sure that rich owners aren’t taking advantage. There could be a limit on how many times the provision is used, etc.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
When has any highly coveted free agent ever signed on with NJ?!?
Howard will sign with Boston….if LA doesn`t first trade for him.
Every star player, including Howard, has taken keen notice at how enthusiastically KG has been received in Boston.
Things like that make a huge difference, especially when the money will be enormous wherever he goes.
Cap flexibilty will always be a good thing
whether we land Howard or not. Ainge knows that the Big 3 are on their last legs and he will need a legit go to scorer to replace Pierce going forward. Who knows who will be available and whether they will want to come to a cold weather city but by securing sufficient cap room he will not be hindered from a financial aspect. I would bet that’s what Ainge had in mind rather than one particular player.
Jermaine O'Neal's contract was good
Because it is only a two-year contract. Four- and five- year contracts signed under the MLE tend to be horrible, though.
it only benifits boston if we can say waive KG's 21 mill then resign him to a min deal/exception or still use bird rights(if allowed after waiving) to give him a ray allen type deal
that & the free agency pool would benfit us brandon roy wont go to miami where he;d get virtually no minutes same with lewis which lebron/bosh/haslem covering the foward postions there so im for it being that we’d be a top candidate for guys like brandon roy/gilbert to go to to get a ring
I would expect that an amnesty clause would forbid re-signing players released. Isn’t that what happened last time around? I suppose I could google it if I felt more ambitious.
by guava_wrench on Sep 25, 2011 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions
amnesty
is good for the league in concept but hurtful to the C’s specifically. I’m all for the teams having the ability to cut overpaid players to free up roster space. the players lose nothing since they’re still paid. I would however not give the teams a complete free pass. I’d apply half a cut player’s salary to the cap. I also limit the number of players a team could cut to 2.
the scary thing is consider how fast the Knicks, Nets, Sixers and Magic could get if they could purge their worst contracts to get space freed up. The C’s problem is that the contracts they would need to cut KG and Ray to get real space under the cap and hope to replace them with a top flight player. It’s never happen though
The Knicks are relevant because the have a lot of money to burn. Unfortunately for them, this is happening while Curry is already off the books.
I don’t most teams are getting a free pass. They are losing a lot of money for nothing.
by guava_wrench on Sep 25, 2011 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Danny worked very hard
to get himself positioned for a summer 2012 push. This must be very frustrating for him. Danny’s been pretty disciplined and an amnesty would not reward that discipline. Can we call the hard cap the Viagra Rule?
by thereallargejames on Sep 26, 2011 2:20 PM EDT reply actions



































