Amnesty Clause

[Wurider05]

I am just curious but if there was an amnesty clause that a team could use to get out of a bad contract wouldn't JJ's be the contract they get out of even before Marvin's.

[Seano]

I am just curious but if there was an amnesty clause that a team could use to get out of a bad contract wouldn't JJ's be the contract they get out of even before Marvin's.

Not necessarily so, I wouldn't think. JJ might be overpaid, but he is at least a good player, while Marvin is just deadwood. And if we did get out of JJ's contract, then what? We'd have lost our best player, so how would you propose we replace him and with whom?

[MaceCase]

Paging Nire, Nire to the front desk, please.

Well since he's running a lil late I'll update you.

First we had

http://www.hawksquawk.net/community/index.php/topic/359387-owners-want-another-amnesty-clause/page__p__511841__hl__%2Bamnesty+%2Bclause__fromsearch__1#entry511841

Then later

http://www.hawksquawk.net/community/index.php/topic/359655-new-cba/page__p__513444__hl__%2Bamnesty+%2Bclause__fromsearch__1#entry513444

and I'll quote myself from the first thread.

I don't see the ASG paying Joe 20 mil to stay at home or to go sign with the Bulls so a contract that allows them to remain competitive while also having the ability to improve is still more cost effective for them.

Edited June 1, 2011 by CrawfulToCrawesome

[Guest]

The last amnesty clause was only beneficial to teams paying the luxury tax, so unless it will be different in the new CBA it will not help the Hawks because they are not luxury tax payers. T he provision provides only luxury-tax relief, with no salary-cap relief. So a team can't release a player to gain cap space.

[TRUEINTELLECTPLAYA]

The CBA is going to end up looking a lot like it already does. I have not seen a single new or old idea made new trickle out that really made sense. The NBA saying they want to cut salaries by $800,000,000 is the most ludicrous thing ever. They want to cut salaries by 40% (damn near in half) then want to limit guaranteed contracts, want to put in some stupid age clause. There will be a lockout because Stern and the owners want one as simple as that. If the things you are asking for are not reasonable you will not get a reasonable solution.

[Diesel]

The CBA is going to end up looking a lot like it already does. I have not seen a single new or old idea made new trickle out that really made sense. The NBA saying they want to cut salaries by $800,000,000 is the most ludicrous thing ever. They want to cut salaries by 40% (damn near in half) then want to limit guaranteed contracts, want to put in some stupid age clause. There will be a lockout because Stern and the owners want one as simple as that. If the things you are asking for are not reasonable you will not get a reasonable solution.

I think the owners are asking big with the hope of getting what they really want...

Non-guaranteed contracts.

I think they will keep a soft cap with a LT.

I just believe that they will also get N-g-contracts so that can not make Marvin Williams like mistakes again.

Atlanta was over a barrel with Marvin. He had a good contract year and looked like he was progressing but once he got the guaranteed money, he went to worse. What could they have done?

1. Let him walk?? That's 5 yrs of protecting the investment.

2. SNT him?? He looked like he could handle the position.

They had to resign him just to get their investment back.

[niremetal]

Paging Nire, Nire to the front desk, please.

Well since he's running a lil late I'll update you.

First we had

http://www.hawksquawk.net/community/index.php/topic/359387-owners-want-another-amnesty-clause/page__p__511841__hl__%2Bamnesty+%2Bclause__fromsearch__1#entry511841

Then later

http://www.hawksquawk.net/community/index.php/topic/359655-new-cba/page__p__513444__hl__%2Bamnesty+%2Bclause__fromsearch__1#entry513444

and I'll quote myself from the first thread.

Sorry. Fell asleep at the switch.

[thecampster]

Paging Nire, Nire to the front desk, please.

Well since he's running a lil late I'll update you.

First we had

http://www.hawksquawk.net/community/index.php/topic/359387-owners-want-another-amnesty-clause/page__p__511841__hl__%2Bamnesty+%2Bclause__fromsearch__1#entry511841

Then later

http://www.hawksquawk.net/community/index.php/topic/359655-new-cba/page__p__513444__hl__%2Bamnesty+%2Bclause__fromsearch__1#entry513444

and I'll quote myself from the first thread.

Oh man, I love this game. Here, let me quote myself from this thread from June 30 of last year.

Giving someone the max is easy when it isn't your money or worse yet it's monopoly money to most of the posters here. Here is what Giving JJ the max means. Please God let every Squawker read this in it's context.

If we give JJ the max, the last 3 years of the deal will be 20, 22, 24 million approximately. That means that one player will control 33-40% of the cap all by himself. That is lunacy. That is no way to build a team unless that player is named Kobe, Lebron, Dwayne, Dwight or a few players in their prime. Giving Joe the max is a 10 million dollar raise 6 years from now. That's not free money, it's money that is being taken away from signing other players. You can go over the cap year one to sign your own players, but after that, subsequent signs have to fit cap rules.

If you sign JJ tonight ASG, you are telling every Hawks fan, this is it. This is what you get for the next 6 years. Hawks under contract in 3 years (assuming Horford signs for similar money to Josh Smith) in 2012/2013.

JJ - 19 million

Josh - 13.2 million

Horford - 13 million

Marvin - 8.3 million

Zaza - 5.2 million

Teague - 2.4 million

"he who's name shall not be mentioned" - 1.2 million

62.3 million total - 5 million over the current cap.

That's your team guys. You sign JJ for the max and you are looking at Teague, JJ, Josh, Marvin and Horfod and absolutely no bench in 3 years. You are over the cap with 5 slots to fill. for everyone saying pay JJ the max, you are not thinking this through. This will handcuff us for years to come.

I told you so just doesn't make it taste better in my mouth though.

Edited June 3, 2011 by thecampster

[MaceCase]

Yea, I'm sure you've been waiting all year to bring that up buuuuuuut you're playing the wrong "game" unless you were the first to make a thread on the NBA reporting about a possible amnesty clause......1 year ago *cue spooky music*. What that has to do with Marvin getting amnestied though? I don't know but I guess when you have to get your gun off you've got to get your gun off even if you miss the target.

Edited June 3, 2011 by CrawfulToCrawesome

[thecampster]

Yea, I'm sure you've been waiting all year to bring that up buuuuuuut you're playing the wrong "game" unless you were the first to make a thread on the NBA reporting about a possible amnesty clause......1 year ago *cue spooky music*. What that has to do with Marvin getting amnestied though? I don't know but I guess when you have to get your gun off you've got to get your gun off even if you miss the target.

No but now we're talking about amnesty for our stupid contracts.

No argument at all though with the current points you are making.

I think the owners are asking big with the hope of getting what they really want...

Non-guaranteed contracts.

I think they will keep a soft cap with a LT.

I just believe that they will also get N-g-contracts so that can not make Marvin Williams like mistakes again.

Atlanta was over a barrel with Marvin. He had a good contract year and looked like he was progressing but once he got the guaranteed money, he went to worse. What could they have done?

1. Let him walk?? That's 5 yrs of protecting the investment.

2. SNT him?? He looked like he could handle the position.

They had to resign him just to get their investment back.

I still contend Marvin is tradeable and could bring back good value to a young team in need of a scorer/athlete (see Minnesota/New Jersey).