Who are we going to use for our Amnesty Clause?

[macdaddy]

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?

I heard something like that. If that's the case then Joe would make sense. Dallas, NYK, Nets, Chicago would all probably take a run at him in auction and end up having to pay the bulk of his contract. Its plenty risky though. Not that i want Joe gone but we are definitely restricted in adding talent at this point.

[DJlaysitup]

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>

Agreed Swat...+ we have to be honest about our ownership. The ASG has reverted now to wanting to be the bestest loyalest owners...but they have already demonstrated that they will bail in a heartbeat if a half-assed Pizza selling/Reno slot machine dude waves a few Benjamins in their faces. It only makes sense for them to hold on to the "amnesty" thing to make their product more attractive to the next swap-shop magnate who comes along.OK, Ok, ok...that's a little harsh - even for the ASG - but it does make sense to hold onto the amnesty thingy. It will be much more valuable in two or three years if a real deal can be done and we get a billionaire owner.

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>

Agreed Swat...+ we have to be honest about our ownership. The ASG has reverted now to wanting to be the bestest loyalest owners...but they have already demonstrated that they will bail in a heartbeat if a half-assed Pizza selling/Reno slot machine dude waves a few Benjamins in their faces. It only makes sense for them to hold on to the "amnesty" thing to make their product more attractive to the next swap-shop magnate who comes along.OK, Ok, ok...that's a little harsh - even for the ASG - but it does make sense to hold onto the amnesty thingy. It will be much more valuable in two or three years if a real deal can be done and we get a billionaire owner.

[thecampster]

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.

I took a quick look, there are several possibilities. Dallas might Amnesty out Brendan Heywood to keep Chandler or they might be willing to trade Chandler if it makes them otherwise better. A package with Chandler/Johnson at the core could start the conversation.The Lakers if you remember were not happy with Bynum at the end of last year and he has 2 years 31 million left on his deal.Detroit would like to be rid of Ben Gordon.Other teams stand to lose their Free agents and need to get back something in return for them to fill space. There are deals there to be had and none involve amnestying Joe/Marvin. I'll explain.With the new agreement, teams must spend 85% of the cap. Marvin is a very nice piece (assuming he's better healthy) because he fills a much needed mid level salary range. Joe could be very valuable to a team that has trouble luring free agents because they have to get to the cap.....Joe is "insta cap" and can be traded away before the season ends to a contender in a rent a player situation.I believe Joe could/will be moved around twice this year because of his deal and won't be amnestied. Just my 2 cents worth. Marvin is in the same boat. Edited November 29, 2011 by thecampster

[thecampster]

I heard something like that. If that's the case then Joe would make sense. Dallas, NYK, Nets, Chicago would all probably take a run at him in auction and end up having to pay the bulk of his contract. Its plenty risky though. Not that i want Joe gone but we are definitely restricted in adding talent at this point.

Which is why I say amnestying Joe is not the answer....we're right at the cap if we amnesty him. But trade Joe in a 2 for 1, 3 for 2 type of swap and you pick up an extra player for the same salary. One other thing, Josh got in a scuffle with Rondo/Robinson at a night club a little while back. First word was that a guy took a swing at Rondo but video has surfaced of Josh pushing the guy in question on their way out the door. Remembering I'm the huge Josh fan, he's got to stay out of the clubs, fly straight this year or he'll be gone....I could easily see this team competing for it all this year or being blown up by March.

[Guest]

I heard something like that. If that's the case then Joe would make sense. Dallas, NYK, Nets, Chicago would all probably take a run at him in auction and end up having to pay the bulk of his contract. Its plenty risky though. Not that i want Joe gone but we are definitely restricted in adding talent at this point.

Teams that are under the cap gets 1st chance at any amnesty player. I think only the Nets are under cap. Each

team submits a bid of how much of that players existing salary they are willing to pay with remainder being paid by original team. Highest bidder wins. In this scenario, player has no say in what team he will play for.

I heard something like that. If that's the case then Joe would make sense. Dallas, NYK, Nets, Chicago would all probably take a run at him in auction and end up having to pay the bulk of his contract. Its plenty risky though. Not that i want Joe gone but we are definitely restricted in adding talent at this point.

Teams that are under the cap gets 1st chance at any amnesty player. I think only the Nets are under cap. Each

team submits a bid of how much of that players existing salary they are willing to pay with remainder being paid by original team. Highest bidder wins. In this scenario, player has no say in what team he will play for.

[AHF]

There are more teams that are under the cap than the Nets. The Bobcats, the Clippers, the Cavs, the Nuggets, etc.

[lethalweapon3]

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7300507/nba-updated-amnesty-candidates-every-team

Slight revision from the previous report from Stein and Ford:

Most likely amnesty cut: None

How likely not to use amnesty this season? Jump ball

Amnesty candidate: Marvin Williams

Analysis: The Hawks won't immediately burn their amnesty card on Williams for a few reasons.

(1) Atlanta's ownership situation is still in flux after the collapse of the team's sale to California businessman Alex Meruelo. (2) Sources with knowledge of the Hawks' thinking insist that they apparently still believe a trade market can be found for Williams despite a longstanding inability to find any trade takers for his contract ($25 million to go through 2013-14) in recent months. (3)The unspoken truth in the corridors of the Hawks' offices is that saving their amnesty clause as an insurance policy for Joe Johnson's gargantuan contract is their smartest play.

Although there can be no conceivable motivation left within the organization to try to camouflage the grave Williams mistakes (drafting him and then extending him) of the past -- since the guy (Billy Knight) who drafted Williams ahead of Chris Paul when Paul wanted to land with the Hawks is long gone -- immediately releasing the No. 2 overall pick from 2005 creates no cap space for ATL. So it's better to bypass amnesty in the short term in case Johnson starts to seriously slip.

~lw3

[AHF]

Sounds they have finally caught up with this board.

[HawkItus]

Which is why I say amnestying Joe is not the answer....we're right at the cap if we amnesty him. But trade Joe in a 2 for 1, 3 for 2 type of swap and you pick up an extra player for the same salary.

One other thing, Josh got in a scuffle with Rondo/Robinson at a night club a little while back. First word was that a guy took a swing at Rondo but video has surfaced of Josh pushing the guy in question on their way out the door. Remembering I'm the huge Josh fan, he's got to stay out of the clubs, fly straight this year or he'll be gone....I could easily see this team competing for it all this year or being blown up by March.

Boston Celtics Rajon Rondo Not Involved In Fight At Night Club According To Agent

Published: 25^th Nov 11 7:20 pm

Credit: Jennifer Stewart-US PRESSWIRE

“RajonRondo was not involved in the reported incident that occurred last Friday night at a Boston (area) night club,” Duffy said in a statement. “Any reports regarding my client that have surfaced related to this are false.

“It’s unfortunate that this has overshadowed the positive aspect of the charity basketball game hosted by Rajon and those benefiting from the event. No further comment will be made about this moving forward.”

Agent Bill Duffy Courtesy the Boston Herald

The Boston Herald, Fox 25 News, and various other sites are reporting that Rajon Rondo’s agent Bill Duffy has released the above statement claiming that Rondo was not involved in the weakest nightclub incident ever reported. Fox has a nice video of the alleged incident that might just confirm those claims. In the video Josh Smith pushes Eric Valarezo to the ground. Valarezo gets up ready for a fight. The problem is Rondo is just walking by harmlessly. Granted there could be more after the video, but right now that is all that is out there.

The problem is that regardless of what his agent says Rondo was involved. Rondo was with Josh Smith. Smith caused trouble and Rondo was with him thus guilt by association. Like my mom tells me, one is judged by the company that you keep. Did Rondo get swung at? No. However, he was with his idiot friend that shoved an innocent guy. (Disclaimer: I do not know if he said anything to Smith that caused the shove. The video has no audio. The fact is that Smith walks by the guy and then out of nowhere launches him without physical provocation.) However, everybody does have that one idiot friend. I just hope Rondo keeps his nose clean. Remember Go Green or Go Home!!!!!!!!!!

[lethalweapon3]

LOL at what they call a push (video). Must've been NBA Refs' No-Cover Night.Either way, save those bonier 'bows for the hardwood and not the club, J-Slim!http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/man-accused-of-attacking-rajon-rondo-speaks-out-20111123~lw3

[AHF]

The multi-year aspect of the amnesty rule is still up in the air as far as I know. I exchanged this emails with Sports Illustrated's Zach Lowe after his article on the amnesty rule:

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:58 PM, wrote:Thanks for your article on uncertainty in the new amnesty rule. The biggest unknown for fans is what happens with multi-year contracts. For example, if Hedu Turkoglu’s 3 year, 36M contract is waived via amnesty and a team below the cap wins the bidding on him for $4M that is easy for year 1. But is unclear whether the player on which they bid only comes over on a one year deal or if the entire contract follows and, if so, how this works for years 2 and 3 in the Hedu example. Do bidders list an amount for each year of the contract (i.e., a $4M bid is actually a $12 bid at $4M/year and Orlando pays Hedu the remaining $24M), do they only pay for the first year and get him for free the rest of the time (that seems unlikely), do they bid different amounts on each year ($3M year 1, $4M year 2, $5M year 3), etc.? If the full deal follows the player (just as if he was waived and claimed except for who pays the salary) this would incent more teams to use the exception since they would presumably be getting an offset on their debt to the player in additional years of the deal.Can you please give us a new article with an explanation as to how this will work for multi-year deals since those are the ones most likely to be affected? Thanks for the great work!-------------------------Has not been worked out. See my post from Tuesday (or maybe Monday, I can't keep track anymore) on amnesty.

Hopefully they will work that out soon since it is critical. Edited December 2, 2011 by AHF

[drzachary]

Thanks for finding out that info, AHF!

[AHF]

Thanks for finding out that info, AHF!

Very informative, I know.

[MaceCase]

Some clarity at last,

Finally: If a team bids on a player in the amnesty waiver process, it is bidding on the full length of his contract, not just the first season. In the event the Blazers change course and use amnesty on Roy, that would mean any team that bids, say, $4 million on the guard will be bidding to pay him at least that amount in each of the four remaining seasons on his deal.

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/12/06/details-of-amnesty-provision-emerge/

[AHF]

Some clarity at last,http://nba-point-for...ovision-emerge/

Excellent. That is how it should be.

[Joker]

Excellent. That is how it should be.

Yep and Roy is not getting amestey which is a smart move by Portland.

[AHF]

Yep and Roy is not getting amestey which is a smart move by Portland.

Agreed. They need to wait on Roy and see if he recovers. Even if they ultimately cut him, if he shows signs of real life like he did for moments in the playoffs then teams will be willing to bid a lot more for his services.

[thecampster]

I took a quick look, there are several possibilities. Dallas might Amnesty out Brendan Heywood to keep Chandler or they might be willing to trade Chandler if it makes them otherwise better. A package with Chandler/Johnson at the core could start the conversation.

The Lakers if you remember were not happy with Bynum at the end of last year and he has 2 years 31 million left on his deal.

Detroit would like to be rid of Ben Gordon.

Other teams stand to lose their Free agents and need to get back something in return for them to fill space. There are deals there to be had and none involve amnestying Joe/Marvin. I'll explain.

With the new agreement, teams must spend 85% of the cap. Marvin is a very nice piece (assuming he's better healthy) because he fills a much needed mid level salary range. Joe could be very valuable to a team that has trouble luring free agents because they have to get to the cap.....Joe is "insta cap" and can be traded away before the season ends to a contender in a rent a player situation.

I believe Joe could/will be moved around twice this year because of his deal and won't be amnestied. Just my 2 cents worth. Marvin is in the same boat.

Spiking the Football a little bit.