Amnesty Rule Details (Updated 12/6)

[Fafnir]

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/12/01/even-the-league-is-unsure-of-amnesty/#?sct=nba_bf2_a4

Interesting stuff, if in the end you're only allowed to use the amnesty rule on currently signed contracts then the Celtics after this year will only have two amnesty options, Rondo and Pierce.

Lots of things to still be worked out in the next two weeks between the NBA and the NBAPA.

[Moranis]

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/12/01/even-the-league-is-unsure-of-amnesty/#?sct=nba_bf2_a4

Interesting stuff, if in the end you're only allowed to use the amnesty rule on currently signed contracts then the Celtics after this year will only have two amnesty options, Rondo and Pierce.

Lots of things to still be worked out in the next two weeks between the NBA and the NBAPA.

My only question is, could you waive a player and then re-sign him if no one bid on him?  Could the Celtics say for example waive Garnett with the understanding that he would be brought back at the minimum in order to free up cap space this off season?

[Roy H.]

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/12/01/even-the-league-is-unsure-of-amnesty/#?sct=nba_bf2_a4

Interesting stuff, if in the end you're only allowed to use the amnesty rule on currently signed contracts then the Celtics after this year will only have two amnesty options, Rondo and Pierce.

Lots of things to still be worked out in the next two weeks between the NBA and the NBAPA.

My only question is, could you waive a player and then re-sign him if no one bid on him?  Could the Celtics say for example waive Garnett with the understanding that he would be brought back at the minimum in order to free up cap space this off season?

Most likely not.

First, the other times the NBA has done amnesty, they have not allowed that loophole.

Second, there is the "bid" process on claiming waived amnesty players off of waivers, which you referenced.  Teams with cap room can bid on amounts they'd like to pay the amnestied player, and he would be bound to go there.

Let's say that Minnesota bid $2 million on KG.  He'd be awarded to the Twolves, and they'd be on the hook for that amount of salary, while we paid the rest of the contract KG was owed.

I don't think there's any way that KG, Ray, or Pierce would get through the bid process without being picked up by another team.  

[Fafnir]

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/12/06/details-of-amnesty-provision-emerge/?sct=hp_t2_a5&eref=sihp

Some key points:

Still, the provision will stay alive for the full length of the new collective bargaining agreement. Teams can use it only once, and only for “contracts in place at the inception of the CBA,” according to a summary of the draft agreement.

• Teams will not be able to use the amnesty provision on a player acquired in a trade going forward. The CBA summary says teams can apply amnesty to a pre-existing contract. It does not say whether teams must already have that contract on their books, or whether that contract must simply exist. There had been hope, for instance, that the Nets could acquire Hedo Turkoglu’s contract in a theoretical Dwight Howard trade and then use the amnesty provision on Turkoglu instead of the less-expensive Travis Outlaw. Turkoglu’s contract is “in place,” in some sense, after all.

But alas: The sides have agreed that teams can use the amnesty provision only on players they have now. That is a bit of a disadvantage for teams such as the Thunder and Grizzlies that have no viable amnesty candidate, though it does provide a form of long-term insurance should any of their players become unproductive down the road.

The catch: Teams can use the provision only on “new” contracts, or deals that don’t yet exist. But what of amnesty-related contracts? If a team bids on Outlaw and “wins” him, is that a new contract the team can “stretch” later should Outlaw continue to struggle? Or is it an “old” one, and thus not eligible to be stretched because it is linked to a pre-existing deal?

• 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.

[Roy H.]

I don't like what they did with the stretch provision; I would have liked to see that apply to all contracts (at least regarding the cap hit).

[Fafnir]

More confirmation that you can only amnesty players currently on your roster. So a lot of the trade ideas that have been floated don't work as you have to burn it on your own guys.

Also the stretch exception cannot be used to create some more breathing room for current contracts, only new deals that are signed this offseason onward. That's interesting and means that teams might be more aggressive than we think in FA. It also makes cap space a little tougher on the Magic and a few other teams with more than one bad contract.

[Fafnir]

I don't like what they did with the stretch provision; I would have liked to see that apply to all contracts (at least regarding the cap hit).

My guess is that the players fought for this change, it forces teams to use it on new contracts. The NBAPA probably hopes it will create more aggressive GMS, otherwise they'd be tempted to blow it on currently signed players to shed two bad contracts.

[Roy H.]

I don't like what they did with the stretch provision; I would have liked to see that apply to all contracts (at least regarding the cap hit).

My guess is that the players fought for this change, it forces teams to use it on new contracts. The NBAPA probably hopes it will create more aggressive GMS, otherwise they'd be tempted to blow it on currently signed players to shed two bad contracts.

I haven't read the link yet, since you did a good job of summarizing.  Is there a limit to the number of times the stretch provision can be used?  I know there was a discussion of capping it at a certain percentage of the salary cap.

[Fafnir]

I don't like what they did with the stretch provision; I would have liked to see that apply to all contracts (at least regarding the cap hit).

My guess is that the players fought for this change, it forces teams to use it on new contracts. The NBAPA probably hopes it will create more aggressive GMS, otherwise they'd be tempted to blow it on currently signed players to shed two bad contracts.

I haven't read the link yet, since you did a good job of summarizing.  Is there a limit to the number of times the stretch provision can be used?  I know there was a discussion of capping it at a certain percentage of the salary cap.

He doesn't say in the article but on his twitter he answers the question this:

RafaelGuerrero5:
@ZachLowe_SI can the stretch exception only be used once like the amnesty or is it available every year?

ZachLowe_SI:
@RafaelGuerrero5 Every year, up to an underermined point in total salary stretched per team

I'm curious to how much it is.

Another interesting fact on his twitter feed, they put in a rule to limit how much cash can be sent out per team per year. Now a team may only send out 3 million dollars total for the entire league year's worth of trades. So the market for buying draft picks just got a bit tighter, as did most big market trades where the little guys always seemed to demand 3 million in cash.

[Fafnir]

A part of me wishes there was no limit or the limit was really high (like 35% of the cap) for the total amount of stretch money.

It'd be some good comedy to watch the inevitable Knicks carrying a third of the cap in dead money in 2015.

[nickagneta]

The CBA’s amnesty provision has sparked plenty of speculation and perhaps unwarranted buzz for those hoping for more player movement around the league. Wizards President Ernie Grunfeld said last week that “in all likelihood” the team would not waive any player on the roster.


The Wizards informed Rashard Lewis’s representatives last week that they have no intention of using the amnesty provision on the 13-year veteran forward who is owed $46 million over the next two seasons.

Those plans to keep Lewis remain intact, according to a league source, despite new details – uncovered by SI.com’s Zach Lowe – emerging on Tuesday that the salary of any player waived through the amnesty clause will continue to count toward the salary floor, though not the salary cap.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wizards-insider/post/new-amnesty-details-will-not-affect-wizards-plans/2011/12/06/gIQAxINPaO_blog.html

The interesting update is in red. Apparently amnesty is only really going to help teams get down towards the cap so they won't have to pay a tax and won't help teams to open up cap space to sign other free agents.

[Who]

The CBA’s amnesty provision has sparked plenty of speculation and perhaps unwarranted buzz for those hoping for more player movement around the league. Wizards President Ernie Grunfeld said last week that “in all likelihood” the team would not waive any player on the roster.


The Wizards informed Rashard Lewis’s representatives last week that they have no intention of using the amnesty provision on the 13-year veteran forward who is owed $46 million over the next two seasons.

Those plans to keep Lewis remain intact, according to a league source, despite new details – uncovered by SI.com’s Zach Lowe – emerging on Tuesday that the salary of any player waived through the amnesty clause will continue to count toward the salary floor, though not the salary cap.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wizards-insider/post/new-amnesty-details-will-not-affect-wizards-plans/2011/12/06/gIQAxINPaO_blog.html

The interesting update is in red. Apparently amnesty is only really going to help teams get down towards the cap so they won't have to pay a tax and won't help teams to open up cap space to sign other free agents.

Bah, lost my post in thread merge ...

Not sure if I am reading you right but the rule does help teams open up cap space. This new twist just makes sure teams aren't punished by the new higher minimum salary cap figure in doing so. That teams don't pay $20 million to R.Lewis and are then forced into spending another $20 million just to get up to the minimum cap number.

But they do have the choice of spending that $20 million in cap space if they so wish.

It avoids punishing teams with low salaries who want to use the amnesty.

[nickagneta]

The CBA’s amnesty provision has sparked plenty of speculation and perhaps unwarranted buzz for those hoping for more player movement around the league. Wizards President Ernie Grunfeld said last week that “in all likelihood” the team would not waive any player on the roster.


The Wizards informed Rashard Lewis’s representatives last week that they have no intention of using the amnesty provision on the 13-year veteran forward who is owed $46 million over the next two seasons.

Those plans to keep Lewis remain intact, according to a league source, despite new details – uncovered by SI.com’s Zach Lowe – emerging on Tuesday that the salary of any player waived through the amnesty clause will continue to count toward the salary floor, though not the salary cap.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wizards-insider/post/new-amnesty-details-will-not-affect-wizards-plans/2011/12/06/gIQAxINPaO_blog.html

The interesting update is in red. Apparently amnesty is only really going to help teams get down towards the cap so they won't have to pay a tax and won't help teams to open up cap space to sign other free agents.

Bah, lost my post in thread merge ...

Not sure if I am reading you right but the rule does help teams open up cap space. This new twist just makes sure teams aren't punished by the new higher minimum salary cap figure in doing so. That teams don't pay $20 million to R.Lewis and are then forced into spending another $20 million just to get up to the minimum cap number.

But they do have the choice of spending that $20 million in cap space if they so wish.

It avoids punishing teams with low salaries who want to use the amnesty.

I see. I misunderstood what was being said.