Which Players will Realistically be Waived under Amnesty?
Much has been made of the owners' ability, in the new CBA, to waive one player and have his salary not count against the salary cap. However, it's not as if the owners will waive their most overpaid player for the good of the team.
Now, why would this happen? Because there are costs and benefits to releasing a player. Every owner knows that the minute they waive that player, that player will sign with another team for a minimum contract. If there's one thing rich billionaires hate, it's paying someone while he produces for another team. This is why guys like Rashard Lewis, Baron Davis, and Mo Williams will not be released (note: if I am wrong, feel free to blast me later). For example, if the Cavaliers waive Baron Davis, who could they honestly sign with that cap space? Moreover, they are under the cap anyways (thanks, Lebron), and since the luxury tax is distributed evenly, it doesn't matter if they are $1 million or $20 million under the cap. Unless Dan Gilbert acts like an idiot and decides to overspend (again), he would realize that Davis' contract was a sunk cost, that no free agent would want to come to Cleveland unless he was overpaid, and keep Baron Davis (it helps that Davis' contract is up in two years, too).
In reality, there are only a few reasons for the owners to release a player (a sunk cost) to get cap space:
- You think you can sign a marquee free agent with the extra cap space (ex: signing Marc Gasol)
- You need to get under the cap so you don't pay as much money (ex: LA Lakers)
- The player is a cancer to the team, or has no value to other teams other than as the 13th man off the bench.
- The player is overpaid, has a long-term contract, and you are willing to sacrifice your wallet to improve your team's salary cap over the long haul. You are also willing to swallow your pride and watch that player sign with a playoff team for a minimum contract. (hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Just kidding.)
In short, the players most likely to be released are overpaid players on playoff or close to playoff teams who are either over the luxury tax or want to sign a big free agent. For teams like the Cavaliers, Wizards, and Raptors? Don't expect too much. Owners don't let money go for nothing.
For the Warriors, I'm not sure Lacob will release with Lee or Biedrins. Lee has too much money left on the deal and Lacob will not want to see him sign for a minimum contract with another team. As for Biedrins, remember that trade from the Houston Rockets that didn't go through? Lacob had the chance to dump Biedrins' contract, and he didn't. He will not want to make himself look foolish by waiving Biedrins. Most likely, it will be unused, or be used on Charlie Bell/Louis Amundson in order to pursue a free agent.
(note: this post is assuming that it is not a hard cap, but instead a harder soft cap, with a higher luxury tax)
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
19 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Here's my question
Can you use the amnesty on a player and then re-sign him yourself? If that was possible (and it seems only fair to me that it should be), then we could come to an agreement with Lee that we’ll use the amnesty on him and then re-sign him for $1 or something. I don’t see why the player wouldn’t agree to that.
_______________________________________________________________
The City: Is A Grown Man NBA Blog
Follow @thecity2
Like thecity2 on Facebook
"Also, Evanz’ posts are easiest to hide while working. The chats and graphs can look like actual work related data to the lazy walker-by’s eye" (tafkasam)
Buy-Back Minimum vs. Bidding Wars for Amnestied Players
I think it would require a minimum salary, either a percentage of the original contract or a set amount (a buy-back minimum). This is because a valid, legally binding contract must have reasonable consideration, in this case for services rendered. It’s like selling a car for $1, which is a gift. There is no contract in this situation, and any breach of contract is unenforceable.
I think a buy-back minimum , or some regulation tool is crucial to stop huge market teams from becoming amnesty destinations. However, we have to figure that even though these players get paid through amnesty, they still want as much money as the market dictates. Offers for Arenas or Lewis could easily exceed 5mil/yr.
It smells like hope in this mug
I would be really surprised if that were true.
If it were, what prevents teams from using the clause on their highest paid player, and then resigning him for the minimum amount?
Wow, this sounds familiar.
This is the same idea I had a couple months back that everyone wrote off as ridiculous. IIRC, someone had a pretty convincing answer as to why they thought it wouldn’t be allowed by the league. Let me see if I can dig it up….
by Lacob's Ladder on Oct 3, 2011 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions
here's the link from the conversation in July
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2011/7/26/2295817/the-alan-houston-project#72799025
Erock386 makes some solid points against the idea at the end.
by Lacob's Ladder on Oct 3, 2011 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Here's a link to the 2005 Amnesty Clause
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&id=2112912
Players weren’t allowed to re-sign then, and they won’t be allowed to re-sign now.
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
Charlie Bell
Golden State Warriors Fan 4 Life!!!
Biggest GSW fan in NY!
Twitter: @GSWarrior9
..............SC30..............
I think we should keep it in our pocket.
I don’t know if there will be an expiration date for the amnesty clause, but there’s not too much sense in immediately cutting Lee or Biedrins. Like it or not, they are both starters on our team, and have a certain degree of value to us (not much in either case though).
I think we should talk to free agents FIRST, considering the cap space we would have if we “amnestied” Lee or Biedrins. We could potentially talk to Nene (hypothetically speaking), and make some sort of verbal agreement first. Then, we could use the clause and officially sign the free agent.
My [realistic] picks
Boston – Rasheed Wallace $6.79/1yr
Suns – Josh Childress – $19.5/3yr (they might be too cheap to swallow this)
Warriors – Charlie Bell – $4.09/1yr (Biedrins next year if he does not improve)
Denver – Andre Miller – $7/1yr – (so they can resign Afflalo, Chandler and Nene)
Lakers – Luke Walton – $11/2yr
It smells like hope in this mug
Agreed for Ws
Bell this year. We can’t waive Beans just yet. Give Udoh another year to develop and Tyler a year to show if there is really something there (I really hope there is). Beans may be expendable in one year from now.
Additionally....
I don’t think that bringing in a guy like Gasol or Nene is a priority for the management, but they would at a good price. I’d do it if we can, but it looks like we have some talent at C waiting in the wings.
Hoopsworld just ran an article on this:
http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-pm-who-gets-nba-amnesty/
$60 Million is a lot to pay for Arenas over three years, but $60 million dollars is also a lot just to let a player walk.
It smells like hope in this mug
Yep
I don’t see a lot of these player getting amnesty. If there’s one thing owner hate more than paying ridiculous amounts of money to marginal players, it’s paying ridiculous amount of money to marginal players who are playing against them.
Imagine if Arenas signed on to the Atlanta, Charlotte, Washington, or Miami. The owner would basically spend three years paying 60 million to a guy to play against them.
Mark Cuban, meanwhile, is willing to spend money and doesn’t care who know it. He’s one of the owner I expect to actually use the amnesty clause to cut a high-priced useless player (Brendan Haywood, assuming they resign Chandler)
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
How do we convince said player with value (though not enough value for the team with his contract to hold on to him) to consider the Warriors a better destination to ‘sign on the cheap’ than any of the other 28 teams that he can sign with?

by 























