How the New Amnesty Clause Works

[AHF]

Amnesty provision

• 2005 CBA: One player can be waived prior to the start of the 2005-06 season. The salary of the waived player will not count toward the luxury tax.

• 2011 CBA: One player can be waived prior to the start of any season (only one player can be amnestied during the agreement, and contracts signed under the new CBA are not eligible). The salary of the waived player will not count toward the salary cap or luxury tax. Teams with cap room can submit competing offers to acquire an amnestied player (at a reduced rate) before he hits free agency and can sign with any team.

• Who benefits? As with the amnesty provision in the 2005 agreement, this provision allows teams to kick one bad contract to the curb. The benefits to amnesty are greater now than they were in 2005 -- 100 percent of the player's salary is removed for both cap and tax purposes. The other big change is that teams are allowed to pocket their amnesty card to use later -- so teams that managed their cap well to this point benefit because they don't have to use it or lose it.

Teams with cap room can benefit greatly from the amnesty provision by being able to submit a competing offer to claim an amnestied player at a reduced rate. For example, if Cleveland uses its amnesty provision on Baron Davis, a team that is $5 million below the salary cap can submit a $5 million offer to acquire Davis' contract. If that offer is the highest, the team acquires Davis and is responsible for $5 million of his salary -- with Cleveland responsible for the balance. This happens before Davis becomes a free agent and can sign on his own with a team like Miami.

http://espn.go.com/n...mpares-last-one

So the new amnesty provision means:

* Players cut will be paid every dollar of their contracts but won't get a windfall unless no one bids on them.

* Players cut will end up going to teams with cap room who will bid on them. This will reduce the cost of cutting a player that is desirable and means you won't have everyone running to Miami to cherry pick a ring.

*When the player is cut, 100% of the salary comes off the books.

------------------

The Hawks need to be very strategic about how they use this clause. It will be interesting to see who bids on guys like Baron Davis because if you can get Baron Davis for $500K then that doesn't sound like a bad deal for a team with the cap room to bid!

[sturt]

I like the way that Lowe explains it...

http://nba-point-for...ons/?xid=si_nba

...The net result is that teams under the cap will have the first shot at any amnesty victims, preventing those players from flocking to contenders over the cap (the Lakers, Mavericks, Celtics, Spurs, Magic, Bulls and even the Grizzlies). Here’s a slightly simplified version of how it will work:

• Say the Trail Blazers use their amnesty provision on Brandon Roy, who is set to make $15 million this season and $69 million over the four years left on his contract. Releasing Roy would not take the Blazers under the cap — a reason they might wait — but it would take them under the dollar-for-dollar luxury-tax line.

• When we first contemplated amnesty, we thought Roy would then be a free agent, able to sign with any team. Fans of contending teams salivated over picking up quality veterans on minimum salaries — cheap contracts they’d be willing to take, since their old team would still be paying their full salary.

But this is not what will happen. Instead, Roy would be placed into a hybrid waiver market open only to teams under the salary cap. Those teams would then submit bids detailing how much of Roy’s $15 million salary they’d like to pay. The highest bidder gets him; Roy has no choice in the matter. The winning team will pay only the money it offered in its bid, with Portland paying the rest. So, if the Hornets, desperate for a shooting guard and able to get under the cap if they lose David West, bid $4 million for Roy and win, the Blazers would be on the hook for the remaining $11 million.

As you can see, the system prevents players from joining contenders on the cheap and from earning two salaries at once — at least, if someone under the cap claims them....

Edited November 29, 2011 by sturt

[lethalweapon3]

^Minutia question: Are the Grizz assumed to be over the cap once they re-sign Marc Gasol?

~lw3

[DJlaysitup]

...The Hawks need to be very strategic about how they use this clause. It will be interesting to see who bids on guys like Baron Davis because if you can get Baron Davis for $500K then that doesn't sound like a bad deal for a team with the cap room to bid!

Thanks a bunch for checking into this AHF. Those are exactly the two issues I was wondering about...1. the amnesty is an asset that can be kept...and 2. the amnestied players can be gotten at a reduced price.

As far as our Hawks not using the amnesty - I think it's only realistic that the ASG not do anything small time with it. Keep it as a selling point in case a new (really) rich buyer comes along who wants options.

As far as being able to pick up an amnestied player on the (relatively) cheap - who knows?

Edited November 29, 2011 by DJlaysitup

[MaceCase]

It's a nice little wrinkle especially now that the minimum team salary has been raised so plenty of teams like Minny or Sacramento that have been hoarding capspace in the past will definitely be in the bidding for a few amnestied guys.

It's a nice little wrinkle especially now that the minimum team salary has been raised so plenty of teams like Minny or Sacramento that have been hoarding capspace in the past will definitely be in the bidding for a few amnestied guys.

[DJlaysitup]

It's a nice little wrinkle especially now that the minimum team salary has been raised so plenty of teams like Minny or Sacramento that have been hoarding capspace in the past will definitely be in the bidding for a few amnestied guys.

It's a nice little wrinkle especially now that the minimum team salary has been raised so plenty of teams like Minny or Sacramento that have been hoarding capspace in the past will definitely be in the bidding for a few amnestied guys.

Yes it is

It's a nice little wrinkle especially now that the minimum team salary has been raised so plenty of teams like Minny or Sacramento that have been hoarding capspace in the past will definitely be in the bidding for a few amnestied guys.

It's a nice little wrinkle especially now that the minimum team salary has been raised so plenty of teams like Minny or Sacramento that have been hoarding capspace in the past will definitely be in the bidding for a few amnestied guys.

Yes it is

[sturt]

Read that cap holds will be increased.

[Jody23]

Quick question. If the Hawks used this clause on a player like Marvin or Joe prior to the start of next season in addition to allowing Hinrick's contract to expire, how much cap room would they attain? Not advocating this, just wondering.

[AHF]

Quick question. If the Hawks used this clause on a player like Marvin or Joe prior to the start of next season in addition to allowing Hinrick's contract to expire, how much cap room would they attain? Not advocating this, just wondering.

If you used it before the start of next season, you would have:

62.4M in 2011/12 contracts for 8 players + roughly 3.6M in cap holds for the remaining roster spots plus the spot coming from another player being cut + cost of draft picks = roughly 66M

If you cut Marvin and renounced all your veteran players, you would move down to about 57M which would give you about 1M in cap room.

If you cut Joe Johnson and renounced all your veteran players, you would move to roughly 47M which would give you about 11M in cap room.

[drzachary]

http://espn.go.com/n...mpares-last-one

So the new amnesty provision means:

* Players cut will be paid every dollar of their contracts but won't get a windfall unless no one bids on them.

* Players cut will end up going to teams with cap room who will bid on them. This will reduce the cost of cutting a player that is desirable and means you won't have everyone running to Miami to cherry pick a ring.

*When the player is cut, 100% of the salary comes off the books.

------------------

The Hawks need to be very strategic about how they use this clause. It will be interesting to see who bids on guys like Baron Davis because if you can get Baron Davis for $500K then that doesn't sound like a bad deal for a team with the cap room to bid!

Here's a question: say the ASG amnesties (yay, it's a verb!) The Artist Who Formerly Walked Like A Duck. The Nets bid a figure appropriate to his market value: $1. The Pacers then bid $2 million for him, and they win the auction.

The Pacers are then liable for $2million of Marvin's $8M for the 2011-2012 season. Right? Who is liable for what for 2012-13 and 2013-14?

Thanks in advance for explaining this. My brain-meats are addled and atrophied by disuse.

[AHF]

Here's a question: say the ASG amnesties (yay, it's a verb!) The Artist Who Formerly Walked Like A Duck. The Nets bid a figure appropriate to his market value: $1. The Pacers then bid $2 million for him, and they win the auction.

The Pacers are then liable for $2million of Marvin's $8M for the 2011-2012 season. Right? Who is liable for what for 2012-13 and 2013-14?

Thanks in advance for explaining this. My brain-meats are addled and atrophied by disuse.

It has not been explained what happens with the remaining years on the contract. I am sure they will have something addressing this but it is not clear what that is.

[Randy]

This does make amnestying Joe Johnson look a little better. Joe has a lot of value, just not 18m per year (and climbing.) Say he's reallt worth 10-12. So instead of eating over $100 m for the next 5 years, the Hawks would eat a lot less. Might make letting him go be worth it.

(And despite everything I just, I doubt they would do it.)

[TheNorthCydeRises]

This does make amnestying Joe Johnson look a little better. Joe has a lot of value, just not 18m per year (and climbing.) Say he's reallt worth 10-12. So instead of eating over $100 m for the next 5 years, the Hawks would eat a lot less. Might make letting him go be worth it.

(And despite everything I just, I doubt they would do it.)

Now is not the time to do it though. Wait a few years, especially until we decide what to do with Smith. The amnesty can be used throughout the life of the CBA ( only on players signed BEFORE the new CBA was ratified. So if we do use it, it will probably be on JJ or Marvin or possibly even Horford.

The Hawks need to hold onto this, and not use it this year under any circumstances.

[thecampster]

Now is not the time to do it though. Wait a few years, especially until we decide what to do with Smith. The amnesty can be used throughout the life of the CBA ( only on players signed BEFORE the new CBA was ratified. So if we do use it, it will probably be on JJ or Marvin or possibly even Horford.

The Hawks need to hold onto this, and not use it this year under any circumstances.

I agree. I think people forget that Joe, Josh, Al, Pachulia and even Marvin are seen as commodities despite their salary.

[AHF]

I agree. I think people forget that Joe, Josh, Al, Pachulia and even Marvin are seen as commodities despite their salary.

Joe in particular is someone who could easily be a digestable salary for a few years and then someone who is an albatross. You have to think about waiting to do this even if you know you want to excise the deal. However, now that the ASG is keeping the team (cough, cough) there is less reason to think about a big move with Joe than if there was new ownership and uncertainty about how new ownership might view the merits of the deal.