Who are we going to use for our Amnesty Clause?

[phoostal]

Just read each team will have one amnesty clause to use on any of their players. Who do you think the Hawks will use this on?The most logical from most is Marvin. However, someone mentioned Hinrich and maybe Joe. Can't see us using it on Kirk. Since he is on the last year of his contract and that would be a valuable trading piece. Also, good to have him around for Teague. Just can't see us using it on Joe either. That leaves Marvin.I actually think we may not use it. However, we have to find a way to clear some cap space and add some pieces that improve this team. I do know one think this team is going to be cutting it close to the cap with the current roster. You know ASG doesn't want to pay the luxury tax. Especially now that there are going to be stiffer penalties for going over the cap. We need to fill six roster spots and hardly have any money. Something needs to get done. Maybe we will cut Marvin? What does everyone think?P

[EazyRoc]

Even if we let Joe go, will we have enough money to sign Deron Williams or Dwight Howard ?

[HawksFan87]

People think Josh is a headcase... Favors is 10 times worse.

[Joker]

No one.

[HawksFan87]

Wrong thread disregard last response lol..

[ATLJA316]

Probably no one... Once they're gone, you still have to pay them. Sound like a move we would make?I think not.

[Diesel]

Probably no one... Once they're gone, you still have to pay them. Sound like a move we would make?I think not.

They come off the cap though. That means no LT for those players right? Sounds like a move we would make?

[phoostal]

Diesel,From what I read, the answer is yes. That player would come off the cap. Yet, who do we cut. I'm guessing Marvin. But, who knows. If you do cut Marvin who do you go out and sign replacing his cap space?P

[TheNorthCydeRises]

No one.

I agree.The Hawks really can't afford to use the Amnesty clause on anybody right now, Using it on JJ means no playoffs. Using it on Marvin means that the Hawks would have to go out and find a quality SF and a decent PF ( seeing that Marvin can play both spots ).I guess it would depend on where the Luxury Tax level was set. If the L-TAX is at 70 million, the Hawks will have just enough room to add minimum contracts to fill out the roster. If it's 65 million, we may have a problem, and Marvin might be the guy to go.

[warcore]

I vote to use it on Joe. This is our one chance to get out of the mistake we made.

That would give Marvin a bigger role and his stock might actually go up! If we're able to package him and Zaza for an expiring/picks, we're right there in the CP3/D12 sweepstakes with only Horf, Smoove and Teague under contract.

Hell, we may be able to even with Marv and Za

[capstone21]

The only gain is that the player comes off the cap but we still pay his salary. We are not going to release Joe to play somewhere else only to continue paying his contract. That is a lot of money to spend on nothing

[MaceCase]

From the PDF Sturt posted:

Each team permitted to waive 1 player prior to any season of the CBA

(only for contracts in place at the inception of the CBA) and have 100% of

the player’s salary removed from team salary for Cap and Tax purposes.

The Hawks would be fools to burn this right away.

[lethalweapon3]

The owners will save it and use it on 34-year-old Joe in summer 2015 ($24.9 million in 2015-16), assuming they're still stuck with his contract and there are no pretty banners hanging from the rafters by then.~lw3

[Randy]

I'd guess they don't use it. Marvin's back is better, so who knows, maybe he will step it up. But even if he doesn't, they don't gain much. They still pay his salary and if they got rid of him, they have to replace him - that may cost more than you'd think. The l-tax and cap seem to be the same as last year, so I'd look for them to try to trade either Josh or Kirk to get some cap space. I also don't think using it on Joe makes sense - I agree that saving if for later is probably the best move.

[Jizzle]

Lets be creativewe use it on Joe after he agrees to sign with us for the minimumthat way we keep joe and get his money off the booksthe go after Howard having him come home to smith al and joe

[thecampster]

You guys are thinking shortsighted on this. We won't be cutting anyone with this move....but other teams will to free up room to trade for Joe which is what will happen. We will take their 10 million dollar good player and 7 million dollar albatross for Joe (or something resembling this).This is the best way for a "just out of the playoffs" type of team to get back in it.

[Swatguy]

We do not use it. If we use it on Marvin we have to replace him and still pay him. It is better to keep Marvin and use the money which would have been to Marvin and go into the luxery tax and get value. See, if we amnest Marvin we will still fill up the cap and pay Marvin. Better to keep him and spend into the cap. It would be the same money and we'll have Marvin.</p>

[Guest]

Lets be creativewe use it on Joe after he agrees to sign with us for the minimumthat way we keep joe and get his money off the booksthe go after Howard having him come home to smith al and joe

I think if amnesty a player, you are not allowed to resign him

[Guest]

You guys are thinking shortsighted on this. We won't be cutting anyone with this move....but other teams will to free up room to trade for Joe which is what will happen. We will take their 10 million dollar good player and 7 million dollar albatross for Joe (or something resembling this).This is the best way for a "just out of the playoffs" type of team to get back in it.

Huh? Teams that will be using the amnesty to get under the cap will not turn around and trade for Joe and his contract. Teams like wizards and cavalier even Orlando that are being talked about , what 10 mil good player and 7 mil albtross are on those rostersyou want.

[lifelong]

If you amnesty a player I thought I read somewhere that there is an "auction" for the player, where the amount they're willing to pay him offsets what you have to. Isn't this the case?