amnesty rule could mean unexpected free agents

[Jeff]

fun speculation of who would get waived if the new CBA allowed teams to cut a player (but still pay him) and have the contract not count against the new cap

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/05/17/who-would-be-waived-under-amnesty-clause/

you could be looking at guys like Marvin Williams, Baron Davis, Brenden Haywood, Emeka Okafor etc.  all guys that are grossly overpaid now, but would be available on the open market for whatever teams think they are worth

[Who]

Orlando waives Gilbert Arenas under the amnesty provision.

Then trades Jameer Nelson + JJ Redick + Brandon Bass to clear cap space. How much cap room would they have? Enough to acquire another max contract player like Chris Paul?

It'd be hard to move Chris Duhon and Quentin Richardson. Probably have to give up picks / prospects (R.Anderson) to get that done.

A huge roll of the dice in an effort to keep Dwight Howard in town. I think it'd be worth it.

[Lucky17]

How the amnesty provision would work remains unclear, but we can make some educated guesses based on precedent and conversations with experts and sources close to the negotiations. The league offered teams an amnesty provision after the 2005 collective bargaining talks. That provision allowed teams to waive one player, with three major caveats:

1) The team still had to pay that player’s full salary.

2) The salary still counted against the team’s cap number.

3) Teams could not waive a player and then re-sign that same player until the expiration date of his original contract.

So what was the point? As Larry Coon explains here, the amnesty provision applied to the league’s luxury tax. The salary attached to the waived player would not count against the luxury tax, meaning a team set to come in over the tax — or anticipating that it might do so in the future — could cut its tax bill by releasing a player of its choice.

The amnesty thus offered little help to teams under the salary cap or barely over it (but under the tax line). They could waive a player if they didn’t like him or wanted to create a roster spot, but doing so would not save them any money or lower their cap figure.

If this amnesty provision would work as the old one, then the only real incentive for teams to release players is for luxury tax implications, not clearing salary cap space (see points 1 and 2 above).

So, would Cleveland really waive Baron Davis, or would they prefer to keep his contract, knowing it was increasing in value as it drew closer to expiring?

[Chris]

This will be very interesting to watch.  Last time they had an amnesty rule, there weren't too many useful players cut loose.  However, that rule was somewhat weak, since it did not help the cap, just the luxury tax.  If this rule is part of the CBA, and allows them to completely get guys off the cap, I think it will definitely put some interesting names out there.

Although if they roll back salaries, that also might make more of these guys contracts more palatable.

I think the guys you will definitely see cut would be Baron Davis, Arenas, Posey (because they will have more cap space), maybe Artest, and maybe Rip Hamilton.  Beyond that, I am not sure how much it will be used.

[Who]

Oh, they still count on the cap. Just not the luxury tax. Oh well.

On the positive side, this is good news for anybody hoping to steal Dwight Howard from Orlando.

[Chris]

Oh, they still count on the cap. Just not the luxury tax. Oh well.

On the positive side, this is good news for anybody hoping to steal Dwight Howard from Orlando.

That was last time.  This time, particularly if they are phasing in a hard cap (which eliminates the luxury tax anyways), it could concievably wipe the salary completely off the cap.

[JSD]

This is one thing I'm ABSOLUTELY for under a hard cap scenario. I believe a team's fan-base is an extension of the team, and this would permit those teams that have the revenue to justify it, make the proper moves to put them in a better position to win sooner than later.

I hope this rule is unlimited too. Meaning for example, the Celtics could cut the entire squad and sign all new players if ownership was willing to pay the bill.

[Lucky17]

Oh, they still count on the cap. Just not the luxury tax. Oh well.

On the positive side, this is good news for anybody hoping to steal Dwight Howard from Orlando.

That was last time.  This time, particularly if they are phasing in a hard cap (which eliminates the luxury tax anyways), it could concievably wipe the salary completely off the cap.

Conceivably, yes. If that were the case, this amnesty provision could radically alter the landscape of the NBA.

[JSD]

Oh, they still count on the cap. Just not the luxury tax. Oh well.

On the positive side, this is good news for anybody hoping to steal Dwight Howard from Orlando.

That was last time.  This time, particularly if they are phasing in a hard cap (which eliminates the luxury tax anyways), it could concievably wipe the salary completely off the cap.

Conceivably, yes. If that were the case, this amnesty provision could radically alter the landscape of the NBA.

Trades would be more about talent and a lot less about about cap clearing contracts. "Brilliant!"

[Evantime34]

Thoughts
1. As a Celtics fan you should be against this. We have been good with our cap flexibility and have a ton of space next year. Teams like the Magic have made bad decision, like Gilbert Arenas. If they get amnesty for bad contracts like that all our work to get cap flexibility is lessened.

2. Along the same lines of the previous comment. Dwight is much more likely to stay under this agreement.

3. If they are implementing a hard cap we probably would only have the room to sign vet min guys for next year. So if good players get cut we probably won't be able to sign them. I assume that the MLE goes away with the coming of the hard cap.

[mgent]

Oh, they still count on the cap. Just not the luxury tax. Oh well.

On the positive side, this is good news for anybody hoping to steal Dwight Howard from Orlando.

That was last time.  This time, particularly if they are phasing in a hard cap (which eliminates the luxury tax anyways), it could concievably wipe the salary completely off the cap.

Wouldn't that encourage teams to give big contracts to undeserving, unproven, or injury-prone players?  Aren't they trying to do the opposite?

[Chris]

Oh, they still count on the cap. Just not the luxury tax. Oh well.

On the positive side, this is good news for anybody hoping to steal Dwight Howard from Orlando.

That was last time.  This time, particularly if they are phasing in a hard cap (which eliminates the luxury tax anyways), it could concievably wipe the salary completely off the cap.

Wouldn't that encourage teams to give big contracts to undeserving, unproven, or injury-prone players?  Aren't they trying to do the opposite?

This is a one time thing, and it would only be for players on existing contracts.

It would allow them (in theory) to cut one guy on a current contract from the old CBA, and have that contract not count against the cap going forward (however, they would still need to pay the player).

So, it does nothing for them going forward, it just gives them a one time "get out of jail free" card to help them more easily become compliant with the new system.

[LarBrd33]

Some of those free agents can really add to a team at the right price, but who will have cap room to sign them if there is a 45 million dollar hard cap

[Evantime34]

Some of those free agents can really add to a team at the right price, but who will have cap room to sign them if there is a 45 million dollar hard cap

I was trying to get to this point but you put it a lot more succinctly than I did. TP

[Chris]

Some of those free agents can really add to a team at the right price, but who will have cap room to sign them if there is a 45 million dollar hard cap

Well, that cap wouldn't be in place for a few years.  This will all be a relatively gradual process.