Is it best to use the Amnesty on Joe Johnson now or later?

[JTB]

First off I have NOT heard that we are using the amnesty on Johnson but Im assuming we are because of his playoff production which was no where near superstar good or even all star good at that.....

WHAT I WANT TO KNOW......

moving on I made this post more so to ask if anyone can explain the amnesty clause and wheather it would be smarter for the ASG to use it now over the off season or in the future?

PLEASE ONLY ANSWER IF YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AMNESTY AND HOW IT AFFECTS JOHNSON AND THE HAWKS

.....by the way Im very NBA savy like many on this board but I dont completely understand how the amnesty is going to help based off what i read from others then again they may not know what they are talking about. If somebody can explain im sure i will get how it can help the hawks with using it on JJ...by the way explain when its best to use it (now or later) and why?......Thanks!

Edited May 20, 2012 by JTB

[EazyRoc]

Hard to say...Do you amnesty him now to try to get someone to pay him close to what we're paying or do we keep him to stay competitive and amnesty down the line when teams will be less inclined to offer a higher paying contract..

[Duff_Man]

We can't amnesty him because we won't be footing a huge bill for a guy on another team.

[warcore]

if we can't trade him for a pick or a decent package with expirings, I saw we amnesty him next summer - that way we could be a surprise player in Free Agency next summer.

[Diesel]

if we can't trade him for a pick or a decent package with expirings, I saw we amnesty him next summer - that way we could be a surprise player in Free Agency next summer.

That's delusional.ASG will still have to pay Joe.These are the same guys that don't want to pay a Luxury tax.Think about that. A luxury tax is just a tax... it has nothing to do with a player.do you think ASG will pay Joe ~15 Million dollars for the next 4 years to play for the Clipps or Chicago... and on top of that spend more money to replace him?That's my reality check question of the day.Now... for more reality.ASG hasn't used Amnesty because just in case they sell the team, it offers the new owners a chance to do what they want.ASG would prolly rather keep Joe for the life of his contract and hope we remain a playoff team than to pay Joe to play for our rivals.

[EazyRoc]

Just to correct you, the ASG will only be responsible for the portion of his contract that is not being paid for by he other team.

[Randy]

I figure the biggest problem with Joe's salary is in the years ahead. For next season he's paid $19.8 m. That's a lot, but I figure on an open market for a one year deal he would get maybe $14m. We get rid of him and we need to replace him with someone who costs what? 10-15m? Who would that be. So he's really overpaid by maybe $6 million. This is not fatal, just a drag. Now, in the last year of his deal he's paid almost $25m. By then, his market value may be only $5m depending on how he holds up as he ages.Rather than eat most of Joe's contract it would probably be a lot cheaper for ASG to go into the luxory tax. Or trade Josh for draft pick(s) and get some good cheap young talent who want to play in ATL rather than leave town.

[thecampster]

You amnesty someone with little to no value. That is not JJ. Joe is a good player, just not a superstar. The right move is to send Joe to someone will to send back 2-3 contracts then try to move them.

[Guest Walter]

First, I don't think you will get just "expirings" for JJ. You might get a good portion of the deal as an expiring. Second, I don't think you get a sure thing talent AND financial relief as part of any deal for JJ. I do think you can get a potential player, pick, and salaries for JJ. Next, what team's are near contention and really need a veteran presence, Sg? Minnesota - Milicic (1), Webster (2), Wesley Johnson (3), 18th pick this year's draft for JJPortland - Might be a way to trade Matthews (4), other filler, and 6 or 11th pick (likely 11th) for JJ..I see Portland going FAcy for their needs.GS - Biedrins (2), Richard Jefferson (2), Klay Thompson (3), 7th pick, +1 pick = 2 years off JJ's deal + Klay, 7th pick, and lottery protected pick next year. Indiana - David West and Paul George for JJDetroit (they aren't "in contention") - Stuckey (2), Villenueva (2), 9th pickUtah - Devin Harris (1), Hayward (3), Raja Bell (1), 2013 1st rd pick for JJI'm not saying these are the only deals, and some are difficult to swallow, but I think this is likely where we are if we want to trade JJ now. Having said that...Why not one more run with Nash (with JJ)!?!W

[thecampster]

First, I don't think you will get just "expirings" for JJ. You might get a good portion of the deal as an expiring. Second, I don't think you get a sure thing talent AND financial relief as part of any deal for JJ. I do think you can get a potential player, pick, and salaries for JJ. Next, what team's are near contention and really need a veteran presence, Sg? Minnesota - Milicic (1), Webster (2), Wesley Johnson (3), 18th pick this year's draft for JJPortland - Might be a way to trade Matthews (4), other filler, and 6 or 11th pick (likely 11th) for JJ..I see Portland going FAcy for their needs.GS - Biedrins (2), Richard Jefferson (2), Klay Thompson (3), 7th pick, +1 pick = 2 years off JJ's deal + Klay, 7th pick, and lottery protected pick next year. Indiana - David West and Paul George for JJDetroit (they aren't "in contention") - Stuckey (2), Villenueva (2), 9th pickUtah - Devin Harris (1), Hayward (3), Raja Bell (1), 2013 1st rd pick for JJI'm not saying these are the only deals, and some are difficult to swallow, but I think this is likely where we are if we want to trade JJ now. Having said that...Why not one more run with Nash (with JJ)!?!W

Understanding the cap and LT, you get nothing for amnestying JJ. The Hawks have 61 million in salaries next year with JJ being owed just under 20 million. 41 million in committed salaries, cap 58 millionish. Yes you could amnesty JJ and then sign a 17 million dollar talent but you won't have any money afterwards for anything other than vet minimums and one mid-level exemption (simplfying it). Which is why I say moving JJ for contracts (plural) brings you back more options.

[Buzzard]

We have a SG that can put up 16 to 18 ppg and to cut him and still pay him is bad business if we cannot clear enough cap to sign someone really good. In a couple of years when JJ becomes bench material it may happen then as well.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Buzzard

[EazyRoc]

We have a SG that can put up 16 to 18 ppg and to cut him and still pay him is bad business if we cannot clear enough cap to sign someone really good. In a couple of years when JJ becomes bench material it may happen then as well.

we would still be responsible for his contract, but if we wait we will responsible for a much larger portion.

[WraithSentinel]

JJ still got some basketball left in him. I will say the earliest they will use Amnesty on him is in the 5th year of this contract. He will be heading into his 3rd of the contract next season. Now this could all change if we finally get a real owner(s) in here and GM who know what the hell he is doing.

[Diesel]

Just to correct you, the ASG will only be responsible for the portion of his contract that is not being paid for by he other team.

exactly. I said 15 Million not 20 Million. I figure one of our rivals will pay Joe about 5 Million to come play for them and be a part of a superteam.

[thecampster]

This is why I laugh so hard at people saying "we're trading Smoove, amnesty Joe, Marvin, etc". Joe, Josh, Al, Marvin and Zaza together almost = the cap. So if you get rid of any of the 5, you have to get equal value back.You can't "trade" Josh and get back even close to equal numbers. It matters because you won't have room to sign anyone else.You can't "Amnesty" Joe or Marvin because you won't get back equal value signing a free agent. The agent you sign can only be about 2 million less than the player earns because he won't be ours and the signing puts us over the cap. So in Joe's case you can get 1 - 17 million player. Marvin's case 1 - 5 or 6 million dollar player. If I or others haven't been clear on this before, I hope this explains it. Amnesty Joe and you have to first convince a top tier free agent to come here. Second, he has to sign for 17 million and third, he has to bring more than JJ at either the point guard, center or shooting guard position. The only player out there like that is Dwight and he is no longer a free agent this year.No you could "trade" one of the big 6. Teague is too good of a deal with his tiny salary. Marvin won't bring back enough because any player who makes less than Marvin probably doesn't produce more (Marvin is very useful on defense). There is no 5 million dollar center out there that brings you back what Zaza does and at his age. A healthy Al is a bargain at 12 million and would bring back the best player for his salary in return but we can't afford to take on more salary so unless Al bring backs 2 players at 12-13 million, it's insanity to trade him. Josh's 13.2 million would bring back a better 2 players at 14 million but you aren't going to replace his numbers at the 2 need positions of point, center for his salary. But Joe's salary of 19.7 million could bring back 3 players (say 10 million, 6 million and 4-5 million) on a disgruntled team who would like someone who can sell tickets. You send Joe and Marvin or Joe and Zaza and you can now take someone else's bad fits. While keeping Teague, Al, Josh.As long as JJ's contract eats up 1/3 + of the cap, Josh will not be brought back next year and you will not get anything for him. He will walk.

[AHF]

So in Joe's case you can get 1 - 17 million player.

You can't spend 17 million if you amnesty Joe. You have to account for the rest of the roster spots as well as the five remaining people on contract.

Here is a previous post of mine on the subject:

Here is how amnesty works.

First, the people who can be amnestied are only those who were under contract with the team trying to amnesty them at the time the CBA was signed. So JJ qualifies as long as the Hawks have him (if he is traded his new team can't use amnesty on him).

Second, you have to pay the amnestied player every penny of his contract with one exception. The amnestied player goes into an auction where only teams under the cap can bid on him. Every dollar they bid is a dollar they pay instead of the Hawks. So JJ is set to make $19,752,645 next season. If the Hawks cut him via amnesty and a team under the cap bids $6M for him, the Hawks only owe him $13,752,645 for next year. It is the same for the rest of his contract although I am not certain how bidding works (if it is $6M per year or if they can bid different amounts for future years).

Third, you get cap relief from cutting the player but you don't necessarily get to use the full amount of his contract towards signing new free agents. Next season the Hawks have:

$60,921,972 in salaries committed to 6 players

If they fill 7 spots with minimum salaries of $762,195, it pushes the total cap committment to:

$66,257,337 for 13 players

If the league's economic projections hold steady, the cap will increase to $60Mfor 2012-13.

If we cut Joe Johnson via amnesty and he is won by a bid of $6M, it will reduce our cap by $19,752,645 and bring the "JJ Amnestied Cap Number" to 46,504,692which will free up a total of $13,495,308 to spend onfree agents. If you go after a "star" then that means a roster of:

Jeff Teague/Minimum Salary

$13.5M Player/Minimum Salary

Marvin Williams/Minimum Salary

Josh Smith/Minimum salary

Al Horford/Zaza Pachulia

11-13: Minimum salary players

For this roster, the owners will pay:

$60M + $13,752,645 = $73,752,645

If the owners use the MLE or something to increase that payroll, the total amount they are paying will be closer to $80 million.

For reference, here are the types of players that you could have gotten for $13.5M this offseason:

Nene

Caron Butler + JJ Barea

Grant Hill + Glen Davis

Carl Landry + Jonas Jerebko

etc.

* * * *

Are the owners going to be willing to pay JJ for not playing for them and sign up to an amnestied payroll structure, not a prayer for 2012-13.

Edited May 22, 2012 by AHF

[thecampster]

my statement was going off of previous article posts...not solid math. The principle still holds and is worse. the point of my explanation was to simplify it for those that think...amnesty = signing Kobe and Dwight. Similar thought. The same principle applies for those saying....trade Josh for a draft pick. When you are as committed as we are and then get a top 5 pick. The relief is about 11 million. But that doesn't translate into 11 million in cap space...only 6+ million. It's lunacy.

Edited May 22, 2012 by thecampster

[AHF]

my statement was going off of previous article posts...not solid math. The principle still holds and is worse. the point of my explanation was to simplify it for those that think...amnesty = signing Kobe and Dwight. Similar thought. The same principle applies for those saying....trade Josh for a draft pick. When you are as committed as we are and then get a top 5 pick. The relief is about 11 million. But that doesn't translate into 11 million in cap space...only 6+ million. It's lunacy.

I see the argument for a top 5 draft pick less about FA money and more about translating Josh into the most attractive asset on the assumption that he is going to walk after next season.

[Jody23]

I think it's a huge reach to assume that if you trade Joe, Josh will stay. Josh has multiple reasons for wanting out apparently.My suspicion (and I could be wrong) is the Hawks will try to trade Josh. I don't think they're going to want to or be able to pay Josh what he would want to stay. I also think the ASG is still trying to sell the team and a team with stable assets would be more attractive. There's no guarantee they could sell the team before the end of next season at which point, Smith is gone for nothing. I don't think they'll risk it (they would be dumb if they did).

[thecampster]

I think it's a huge reach to assume that if you trade Joe, Josh will stay. Josh has multiple reasons for wanting out apparently.My suspicion (and I could be wrong) is the Hawks will try to trade Josh. I don't think they're going to want to or be able to pay Josh what he would want to stay. I also think the ASG is still trying to sell the team and a team with stable assets would be more attractive. There's no guarantee they could sell the team before the end of next season at which point, Smith is gone for nothing. I don't think they'll risk it (they would be dumb if they did).

But if you keep Joe, you can not sign Smith. It is as simple as that. Keep a 33 year old shooting guard whose production has declined steadily for years or sign a 28 year old in his prime. That's next year's decision. Trading Joe for 3 smaller pieces this year makes that decision a whole lot easier.Basically, the decision on Joe comes down like this. Joe plus 2 vet mins or 3 salaries that average 7 million. None of the 7 million players = Joe but when you factor in 3 players that can improve us at Center or point guard...then you have something. Here is an example. Joe and Marvin (or Zaza) to Detroit for Villanueva, Prince (or Stuckey), Gordon (future pick). These salaries are very similar, almost identical. None of the players I've mentioned are Joe quality. But this puts 1 or 2 extra players on our roster for the same salary. Every piece from Detroit is movable this year or next. This is not the only deal possible, but it is what you want to do if you are going to spread out Joe's salary, get a consistent bench and create a team that will keep Josh...attract other players. Don't do this type of a thing and Josh is gone anyway as Joe's increasing salary and Teague's coming payday eat up the cap.