There Is Only One NBA Team In Cap Hell. (Darn Amnesty Clause)

[nickagneta]

How are the Lakers, Clippers and Knicks not in luxury tax hell?

The Lakers are not amnestying Kobe. They start next year at $79 million without Howard signed. The Clips start at about $44 million with just 7 players on the payroll and Chris Paul unsigned. New York is at $77 million now with only the option to amnesty Amar'e.

And because all the teams paid massive luxury tax this year they get the small MLE and no signing and trading for a player.

The Knicks used the amnesty on Billups, so they are definitely in hell already, since Amar'e is untradable.

Okay, that only helps my argument.

[JSD]

Orlando - $7 Million under the cap with Hedo's $12 Million expiring after next season. Used Amnesty Clause on Gilbert Arenas saving them $22 Million in cap space. Far from cap hell.

Arenas expires after next season anyways. Regardless of their amnesty, they won't be in a position to sign a major FA until 2014.

Portland - $17 Million under the cap with Aldridge, Batum and Matthews on good value contracts. Used Amnesty on Brandon Roy giving them their cap space. Far from cap hell.

They amnesty'd Roy, but Roy retired. He would've come off the books regardless (and I think he also stopped himself from receiving any substantial payout officially from Portland this season by not playing enough games)..but i might've fever-dreamed that.

I guess I'm a little confused about why you're upset. The reward for not using the amnesty clause is that the owners aren't paying someone tens of millions of dollars not to show up, right?

He's upset because in the old NBA Pierce's non guaranteed deal would have brought a lot more in return due to the cap space it would save. Now his contract (not the player but strictly his contract) loses value.

IP is onto something, you probably cannot attribute much of the current economic situation to the amnesty clause. Many of those deals would have been off the books for various reasons anyway by now.

Here is the complete list of teams and contracts that will save money in 2013-14 due to the amnesty clause:

Outlaw BKN $4m
Haywood DAL $7m
Andersen DEN $4.5m
Scola HOU $6m
Arenas ORL $22m
Childress PHO $7m
Roy POR $18m
Blatche WAS $8m

If you allow for Roy's retiring, as far as I can tell the only teams who gain cap room due to amnesty are:

DAL
HOU
ORL
PHO(?)

Doesn't seem like a real game-changer to me.

http://www.nba.com/news/amnesty-tracker-2012/index.html

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

What about in the past? What about the mistakes GM's would have been made trying to fix other mistakes that would have lead to an entirely different landscape? What if the 76ers weren't able to Amnesty Brand when they did? Would Bynum still be there? And if so, would they have been able to resign Hawes and Young? Probably not. Unleashing those two into free agency may have forced the price down for other players.

The Celtics would have benefited from an increased supply and less demand. That didn't happen because of the Amnesty.

[wdleehi]

The teams that do not use it already have been rewarded.  They are not paying someone the amnesty.



Teams that did it and are still over the cap are still paying for a player they no longer have. 

[Boris Badenov]

Orlando - $7 Million under the cap with Hedo's $12 Million expiring after next season. Used Amnesty Clause on Gilbert Arenas saving them $22 Million in cap space. Far from cap hell.

Arenas expires after next season anyways. Regardless of their amnesty, they won't be in a position to sign a major FA until 2014.

Portland - $17 Million under the cap with Aldridge, Batum and Matthews on good value contracts. Used Amnesty on Brandon Roy giving them their cap space. Far from cap hell.

They amnesty'd Roy, but Roy retired. He would've come off the books regardless (and I think he also stopped himself from receiving any substantial payout officially from Portland this season by not playing enough games)..but i might've fever-dreamed that.

I guess I'm a little confused about why you're upset. The reward for not using the amnesty clause is that the owners aren't paying someone tens of millions of dollars not to show up, right?

He's upset because in the old NBA Pierce's non guaranteed deal would have brought a lot more in return due to the cap space it would save. Now his contract (not the player but strictly his contract) loses value.

IP is onto something, you probably cannot attribute much of the current economic situation to the amnesty clause. Many of those deals would have been off the books for various reasons anyway by now.

Here is the complete list of teams and contracts that will save money in 2013-14 due to the amnesty clause:

Outlaw BKN $4m
Haywood DAL $7m
Andersen DEN $4.5m
Scola HOU $6m
Arenas ORL $22m
Childress PHO $7m
Roy POR $18m
Blatche WAS $8m

If you allow for Roy's retiring, as far as I can tell the only teams who gain cap room due to amnesty are:

DAL
HOU
ORL
PHO(?)

Doesn't seem like a real game-changer to me.

http://www.nba.com/news/amnesty-tracker-2012/index.html

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

What about in the past? What about the mistakes GM's would have been made trying to fix other mistakes that would have lead to an entirely different landscape? What if the 76ers weren't able to Amnesty Brand when they did? Would Bynum still be there? And if so, would they have been able to resign Hawes and Young? Probably not. Unleashing those two into free agency may have forced the price down for other players.

The Celtics would have benefited from an increased supply and less demand. That didn't happen because of the Amnesty.

I'm sure Spencer Hawes would be grateful to know that anyone thinks he is this important.

[JSD]

How are the Lakers, Clippers and Knicks not in luxury tax hell?

The Lakers are not amnestying Kobe. They start next year at $79 million without Howard signed. The Clips start at about $44 million with just 7 players on the payroll and Chris Paul unsigned. New York is at $77 million now with only the option to amnesty Amar'e.

And because all the teams paid massive luxury tax this year they get the small MLE and no signing and trading for a player.

Lakers - Great shape with $70 million exploding off their books after next season. They have all the flexibility in the world right now.

Clippers - After resigning Paul will be right at the cap with and don't have a bad contract on the books.

The Knicks - Are still playing and have the scoring champ. Yes, Amare's contract is bad, but I don't classify them as a cap hell team because if they really wanted too, they have enough to rid themselves of Amare without giving up a pick. It would however cost them their star player. But I'll concede the Knicks, they are #2 in bad cap situation, but they are still competing with a scoring champ so it can't be that bad.

[JSD]

Orlando - $7 Million under the cap with Hedo's $12 Million expiring after next season. Used Amnesty Clause on Gilbert Arenas saving them $22 Million in cap space. Far from cap hell.

Arenas expires after next season anyways. Regardless of their amnesty, they won't be in a position to sign a major FA until 2014.

Portland - $17 Million under the cap with Aldridge, Batum and Matthews on good value contracts. Used Amnesty on Brandon Roy giving them their cap space. Far from cap hell.

They amnesty'd Roy, but Roy retired. He would've come off the books regardless (and I think he also stopped himself from receiving any substantial payout officially from Portland this season by not playing enough games)..but i might've fever-dreamed that.

I guess I'm a little confused about why you're upset. The reward for not using the amnesty clause is that the owners aren't paying someone tens of millions of dollars not to show up, right?

He's upset because in the old NBA Pierce's non guaranteed deal would have brought a lot more in return due to the cap space it would save. Now his contract (not the player but strictly his contract) loses value.

IP is onto something, you probably cannot attribute much of the current economic situation to the amnesty clause. Many of those deals would have been off the books for various reasons anyway by now.

Here is the complete list of teams and contracts that will save money in 2013-14 due to the amnesty clause:

Outlaw BKN $4m
Haywood DAL $7m
Andersen DEN $4.5m
Scola HOU $6m
Arenas ORL $22m
Childress PHO $7m
Roy POR $18m
Blatche WAS $8m

If you allow for Roy's retiring, as far as I can tell the only teams who gain cap room due to amnesty are:

DAL
HOU
ORL
PHO(?)

Doesn't seem like a real game-changer to me.

http://www.nba.com/news/amnesty-tracker-2012/index.html

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

What about in the past? What about the mistakes GM's would have been made trying to fix other mistakes that would have lead to an entirely different landscape? What if the 76ers weren't able to Amnesty Brand when they did? Would Bynum still be there? And if so, would they have been able to resign Hawes and Young? Probably not. Unleashing those two into free agency may have forced the price down for other players.

The Celtics would have benefited from an increased supply and less demand. That didn't happen because of the Amnesty.

I'm sure Spencer Hawes would be grateful to know that anyone thinks he is this important.

You completely missed my point.

[Boris Badenov]

Orlando - $7 Million under the cap with Hedo's $12 Million expiring after next season. Used Amnesty Clause on Gilbert Arenas saving them $22 Million in cap space. Far from cap hell.

Arenas expires after next season anyways. Regardless of their amnesty, they won't be in a position to sign a major FA until 2014.

Portland - $17 Million under the cap with Aldridge, Batum and Matthews on good value contracts. Used Amnesty on Brandon Roy giving them their cap space. Far from cap hell.

They amnesty'd Roy, but Roy retired. He would've come off the books regardless (and I think he also stopped himself from receiving any substantial payout officially from Portland this season by not playing enough games)..but i might've fever-dreamed that.

I guess I'm a little confused about why you're upset. The reward for not using the amnesty clause is that the owners aren't paying someone tens of millions of dollars not to show up, right?

He's upset because in the old NBA Pierce's non guaranteed deal would have brought a lot more in return due to the cap space it would save. Now his contract (not the player but strictly his contract) loses value.

IP is onto something, you probably cannot attribute much of the current economic situation to the amnesty clause. Many of those deals would have been off the books for various reasons anyway by now.

Here is the complete list of teams and contracts that will save money in 2013-14 due to the amnesty clause:

Outlaw BKN $4m
Haywood DAL $7m
Andersen DEN $4.5m
Scola HOU $6m
Arenas ORL $22m
Childress PHO $7m
Roy POR $18m
Blatche WAS $8m

If you allow for Roy's retiring, as far as I can tell the only teams who gain cap room due to amnesty are:

DAL
HOU
ORL
PHO(?)

Doesn't seem like a real game-changer to me.

http://www.nba.com/news/amnesty-tracker-2012/index.html

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

What about in the past? What about the mistakes GM's would have been made trying to fix other mistakes that would have lead to an entirely different landscape? What if the 76ers weren't able to Amnesty Brand when they did? Would Bynum still be there? And if so, would they have been able to resign Hawes and Young? Probably not. Unleashing those two into free agency may have forced the price down for other players.

The Celtics would have benefited from an increased supply and less demand. That didn't happen because of the Amnesty.

I'm sure Spencer Hawes would be grateful to know that anyone thinks he is this important.

You completely missed my point.

Er, no, you missed mine. It's called a joke.

I found the notion that Spencer Hawes would be "unleashed" onto the market kind of funny.

[indeedproceed]

Orlando - $7 Million under the cap with Hedo's $12 Million expiring after next season. Used Amnesty Clause on Gilbert Arenas saving them $22 Million in cap space. Far from cap hell.

Arenas expires after next season anyways. Regardless of their amnesty, they won't be in a position to sign a major FA until 2014.

Portland - $17 Million under the cap with Aldridge, Batum and Matthews on good value contracts. Used Amnesty on Brandon Roy giving them their cap space. Far from cap hell.

They amnesty'd Roy, but Roy retired. He would've come off the books regardless (and I think he also stopped himself from receiving any substantial payout officially from Portland this season by not playing enough games)..but i might've fever-dreamed that.

I guess I'm a little confused about why you're upset. The reward for not using the amnesty clause is that the owners aren't paying someone tens of millions of dollars not to show up, right?

He's upset because in the old NBA Pierce's non guaranteed deal would have brought a lot more in return due to the cap space it would save. Now his contract (not the player but strictly his contract) loses value.

IP is onto something, you probably cannot attribute much of the current economic situation to the amnesty clause. Many of those deals would have been off the books for various reasons anyway by now.

Here is the complete list of teams and contracts that will save money in 2013-14 due to the amnesty clause:

Outlaw BKN $4m
Haywood DAL $7m
Andersen DEN $4.5m
Scola HOU $6m
Arenas ORL $22m
Childress PHO $7m
Roy POR $18m
Blatche WAS $8m

If you allow for Roy's retiring, as far as I can tell the only teams who gain cap room due to amnesty are:

DAL
HOU
ORL
PHO(?)

Doesn't seem like a real game-changer to me.

http://www.nba.com/news/amnesty-tracker-2012/index.html

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

What about in the past? What about the mistakes GM's would have been made trying to fix other mistakes that would have lead to an entirely different landscape? What if the 76ers weren't able to Amnesty Brand when they did? Would Bynum still be there? And if so, would they have been able to resign Hawes and Young? Probably not. Unleashing those two into free agency may have forced the price down for other players.

The Celtics would have benefited from an increased supply and less demand. That didn't happen because of the Amnesty.

I'm sure Spencer Hawes would be grateful to know that anyone thinks he is this important.

You completely missed my point.

Er, no, you missed mine. It's called a joke.

I found the notion that Spencer Hawes would be "unleashed" onto the market kind of funny.

Sixers fans call him Spencer 'Too Many Flaws' Hawes.

[nickagneta]

How are the Lakers, Clippers and Knicks not in luxury tax hell?

The Lakers are not amnestying Kobe. They start next year at $79 million without Howard signed. The Clips start at about $44 million with just 7 players on the payroll and Chris Paul unsigned. New York is at $77 million now with only the option to amnesty Amar'e.

And because all the teams paid massive luxury tax this year they get the small MLE and no signing and trading for a player.

Lakers - Great shape with $70 million exploding off their books after next season. They have all the flexibility in the world right now.

Clippers - After resigning Paul will be right at the cap with and don't have a bad contract on the books.

The Knicks - Are still playing and have the scoring champ. Yes, Amare's contract is bad, but I don't classify them as a cap hell team because if they really wanted too, they have enough to rid themselves of Amare without giving up a pick. It would however cost them their star player. But I'll concede the Knicks, they are #2 in bad cap situation, but they are still competing with a scoring champ so it can't be that bad.

But next year the Lakers ARE in cap hell and after they sign Howard, will have another gigantic luxury tax bill and only Howard signed for 2014-15. Which means they would only have about $30 million in cap space with no ability to sign and trade for a player, no drafts picks, and only the mini-MLE after cap space. And if they resign Kobe at all, that cap space disappears, even if he isn't getting paid $30 million a year. Of course, if they don't renounce Kobe's rights, they don't have any cap space whatsoever because of the cap hold on his $30+ million salary this year.

Your logic for NY and the Clips just makes no sense to me personally. I could care less if Carmelo is a scoring champ. The team is in salary cap hell. And I consider DeAndre Jordan's contract bad. He's no where near an $11 million a year player.

[JSD]

Cap hell, to me, is a team being locked into minimal tradable assets for multiple years.

The Lakers have multiple options if they wanted or needed to change their cap situation besides giving Kobe the Amnesty or letting Howard walk. Using the Amnesty on Blake or Metta or trading Gasol for a pick to a team who could simply absorb his salary, for example.

[Boris Badenov]

My opinion, just to get back on topic, is that among all the possible reasons explaining why we have rolled with the roster(s) we've had over the last five years, the amnesty clause is pretty minor.

We haven't been a real player in free agency, so the big thing determining the makeup of our roster has been the value Danny places on our trade chips - notably Pierce, I think.

And most of the "serious rumors," if you want to call them that, involving Pierce, have involved partners and players (Smith, Barnes etc.) where the team has been pretty unaffected by amnesty, and I haven't heard anything concrete about player value in those situations being determined by amnesty considerations.

I'm not saying amnesty hasn't changed anything league-wide, it probably has. And I'm sure you can construct hypotheticals where we would've had a willing trade partner, for a player who would've really improved the team overall, if there were no amnesty clause.

But of course, you can conduct hypotheticals involving many other things too - trades like CP to the Lakers that broke down, for example, or the new MLE rules  - that could have had similar ripple effects.

But without a specific example, and compared to all of the other things that have been going on, I don't see amnesty as some boogeyman that has substantially harmed the Celts.

[JSD]

I believe Hawes would have received at least the full MLE from a team last offseason ccoming off a career year. That would have tricked down and helped the Celtics, even if Ainge had no interest in Hawes whatsoever.

[indeedproceed]

I believe Hawes would have received at least the full MLE from a team last offseason ccoming off a career year. That would have tricked down and helped the Celtics, even if Ainge had no interest in Hawes whatsoever.

He did receive the full MLE; he got it from Philadelphia.

So basically your thesis here is that BECAUSE teams had put themselves into poorly managed cap situations, they would have extricated themselves from any free agent discussions, and would've been further prevented from resigning their own free agents to affordable contracts, which would've put more mid-level players into the free agent pool, driving the price down, and blah blah blah, benefiting the Celtics in the previous two off-seasons by making more talent readily available.

Is that about the long and short?

[JSD]

Hawes was signed with his Bird Rights freeing the 6ers to sign Nick Young, Kwame Brown, Royal Ivey, Maalik Waynes with the exception.

That's a good summary of part of the reason the Amnesty hurt the C's by affecting supply and demand. The other is the overall value in expiring contacts being crashed. The landscape of the league was supremely alteredd by these things resulting in a negative affect for our Celtics. The true impact will never be known outside of hypotheticals.

[Moranis]

How are the Lakers, Clippers and Knicks not in luxury tax hell?

The Lakers are not amnestying Kobe. They start next year at $79 million without Howard signed. The Clips start at about $44 million with just 7 players on the payroll and Chris Paul unsigned. New York is at $77 million now with only the option to amnesty Amar'e.

And because all the teams paid massive luxury tax this year they get the small MLE and no signing and trading for a player.

Lakers - Great shape with $70 million exploding off their books after next season. They have all the flexibility in the world right now.

Clippers - After resigning Paul will be right at the cap with and don't have a bad contract on the books.

The Knicks - Are still playing and have the scoring champ. Yes, Amare's contract is bad, but I don't classify them as a cap hell team because if they really wanted too, they have enough to rid themselves of Amare without giving up a pick. It would however cost them their star player. But I'll concede the Knicks, they are #2 in bad cap situation, but they are still competing with a scoring champ so it can't be that bad.

But next year the Lakers ARE in cap hell and after they sign Howard, will have another gigantic luxury tax bill and only Howard signed for 2014-15. Which means they would only have about $30 million in cap space with no ability to sign and trade for a player, no drafts picks, and only the mini-MLE after cap space. And if they resign Kobe at all, that cap space disappears, even if he isn't getting paid $30 million a year. Of course, if they don't renounce Kobe's rights, they don't have any cap space whatsoever because of the cap hold on his $30+ million salary this year.

Your logic for NY and the Clips just makes no sense to me personally. I could care less if Carmelo is a scoring champ. The team is in salary cap hell. And I consider DeAndre Jordan's contract bad. He's no where near an $11 million a year player.

I just don't think of contenders as being in cap hell.  NY and LAC are contenders so I can't say they are in cap hell.  the Lakers might be in cap hell or they might actually play up to their talent level and be contenders.