The value of an amnesty clause and contract roll backs from our perspective

[slaw]

I agree with much of TimW's post above. Further, I would argue that buying out a player is, generally speaking, bad asset management. We have seen for the past 10 years in the NBA that any contract can be moved. Maybe not right now this second, but eventually. There might be one or two uniqure cases where you have addition by subtraction but, generally, you are just giving up an asset for nothing and that makes no sense to me.

As for the Raps specifically, the two primary candidates (Bargs and Calderon) have far more value as controlled assets. If you want to get rid of those guys, then I would much rather explore the trade route than simply unloading them for nothing and then, at best, replacing them with similar players.

[Apollo]

IF he was traded fine, but that amnesty has GOT to be used on Bargnani if there is no trading partner available.

I don't think Bargnani will be in the guillotine for multiple reasons. First off he's super talented, young and seven foot. He has value to this team and other teams. Maybe Casey can get through to him. He's never had a defensive specialist of this level working with him night and day... I'm as skeptical as the next fan but it seems like we're heading towards finding out for sure. Not only that but if they claw back existing contracts his contract drops $500K this season, $550K next season and $600k in the final season. Furthermore I feel his market value is higher than his Raptors fan value. He's an asset, one of the biggest on the team, his contract is manageable and so they're not going to cut him. Not to mention based on what Casey and Colangelo have said over the summer they're going to give Bargnani a good run at PF. He could be on his last chance depending on who you talk to but one last chance is long enough to keep him off the chopping block at the least.

http://raptorsrepublic.com/forums/sh...-586%29/page30

I agree with much of TimW's post above. Further, I would argue that buying out a player is, generally speaking, bad asset management. We have seen for the past 10 years in the NBA that any contract can be moved. Maybe not right now this second, but eventually. There might be one or two uniqure cases where you have addition by subtraction but, generally, you are just giving up an asset for nothing and that makes no sense to me.

As for the Raps specifically, the two primary candidates (Bargs and Calderon) have far more value as controlled assets. If you want to get rid of those guys, then I would much rather explore the trade route than simply unloading them for nothing and then, at best, replacing them with similar players.

The game changer is the reduction of the max contracts, the reduction of the MLE, the elimination of the BAE and the reduction in the amount years on a contract. The whole pricing structure has changed.

Also, if you don't like my list by all means please bring something to the table beyond just criticism. I'd love to see what scenarios you all think could play out. It's a lot harder to put your own neck out, I know.

[Tim W.]

Correct me if im wrong but..

In some situations wouldnt some teams be pulled out of the super luxury tax? if indeed they go to a 2:1 or 4:1 structure, might just get them out of paying exorbitant amounts of money without giving up a key piece of the basketball puzzle...

Side note: I would personally love to see Mr. Hill or Mr. Battier in a Raps Jersey...Veteran Defensive Juggernauts with outstanding character are never bad for youthful development IMO.

Yes, that's true, it would save luxury tax money, if that's where the CBA goes, but I don't know whether a contender would screw itself to save money, especially when some of those contracts are only for one more year. San Antonio certainly has been known to be cost conscience, but would they have signed him just last summer if they didn't want to pay? They don't have a history of making dumb moves like that.

As for Hill and Battier, I like them far too much to want to see them come to a lottery team. That would be a waste of their talents.

[Tim W.]

You guys really think the NBA will allow players to be cut and then re-signed? I don't. At all. That would be WAY too much of advantage for contenders and would mean that there would be absolutely no downside to cutting a player. That's simply ridiculous.

[mcHAPPY]

You guys really think the NBA will allow players to be cut and then re-signed? I don't. At all. That would be WAY too much of advantage for contenders and would mean that there would be absolutely no downside to cutting a player. That's simply ridiculous.

The only downside would be paying them 100% and then another million to boot.

But other than that, I totally agree.

Evan after a player is traded and waived, the trading team has to wait 30 days before resigning.

[Soft Euro]

You need to elaborate on who and why or that's pretty much worthless. Also put forth who you feel will be let go.

Not if you think big picture. Dolan is swimming in money. It's nothing for him to drop $14M on a player. The Knicks are at $60M right now. If the cap is $58M this season and they had an under the table agreement with Billups that if they cut him and he signed on at the vet minimum they would then have $11M to spend in free agency to make the team better what do you think he's going to say? He gets $15M instead of $14M and he gets a better team. I don't know, tough call..

I generalized because of what Matt and Tim later said (and was very short because I posted using my phone and typing takes way more time, for me at least); teams probably can't re-sign players they cut and for most teams there won't be any point in cutting the players because it either doesn't give them significant capspace anyway (Orlando and Arenas I assume and probably Portland and Roy as well) or it won't really make sense to spend much more because they won't be competing anyway and don't need the extra capspace that badly (Washington and Lewis e.g.).

[Soft Euro]

Richard Jefferson is overpaid, but with the Spurs needing as much talent as possible to remain a contender, would getting rid of Jefferson make sense? Who do you replace him with?

Jefferson is overpaid, I agree. But last year he opted out of his final year, worth about $ 15 mln. I think everyone was really surprised and thought he really wanted to get out of there, but he resigned and they pay him about $ 10 mln a year. I assume this was agreed upon before he opted out because it seems about 2-4 mln over his marketvalue. There is no way they would cut him now, as he played much better this year than his awful first year with the spurs, after which they re-signed him.

[Soft Euro]

And while Deng is overpaid, Chicago certainly won't want to lose him, especially when there's no guarantee they can replace him with similar talent with them still over the cap.

I'm not even sure Deng is overpaid; he's very important for Chicago's defense and can score as well.

[Tim W.]

I'm not even sure Deng is overpaid; he's very important for Chicago's defense and can score as well.

Deng is paid like an All-Star, but isn't. I'd definitely say he's overpaid. That said, I think he's a good player and I think he's very important to CHicago's success.

[Tim W.]

Jefferson is overpaid, I agree. But last year he opted out of his final year, worth about $ 15 mln. I think everyone was really surprised and thought he really wanted to get out of there, but he resigned and they pay him about $ 10 mln a year. I assume this was agreed upon before he opted out because it seems about 2-4 mln over his marketvalue. There is no way they would cut him now, as he played much better this year than his awful first year with the spurs, after which they re-signed him.

Jefferson has gotten better the longer he's been with the team. The more he understands the system and plays with his teammates, the more valuable he'll be. I think he's very talented and the Spurs success is dependent, in part, to him truly finding a role with the team and playing well.

[RapthoseLeafs]

You guys really think the NBA will allow players to be cut and then re-signed? I don't. At all. That would be WAY too much of advantage for contenders and would mean that there would be absolutely no downside to cutting a player. That's simply ridiculous.

While I agree it doesn't sound plausible, the alleged Amnesty already differs from the previous one. Hence, those who reference the previous 2005 program as a some kind of model, and rely on it as a guide, are discounting what the "new" program is rumoured to be - a provision that provides not only luxury-tax relief (as 2005 only did), but salary-cap relief as well.

In the 2005 scenario, Large salaried teams (or typical Contenders as stats do prove), benefited greatly from the program. The same will happen with this version.

Allowing teams to resign their players - as free agents - has a certain logic to it.

• It minimizes the flood of free agents (whether by dubious means or not) - and the tendency for these F/A's to double dip in a significant way.
  
  
• It will bring some of the Big Spending teams on-board with a new CBA (or more likely to accept other detrimental issues).
  
  
• Flooding the F/A market with "available" players, might also run counter to what the players union would like to see happen - and its' impact on salaries. Returning players to their respective teams (again, dubious or not) could ease this concern. Of course some players could move to strong Contenders (like Miami), and further imbalance the situation. That could be corrected with some kind of rule limit.

Granted, there are some holes to my points, but not knowing what is being given up in a new CBA, and what is not, doesn't allow us to know what trade-offs are getting made to get this deal done.

Small market teams might feel it's a option they can stomach, in order to keep the troops in line. For the players union, it will appease any discontent that an Amnesty program might have, in shuffling players off a team they'd prefer to remain with.
.

[slaw]

Also, if you don't like my list by all means please bring something to the table beyond just criticism. I'd love to see what scenarios you all think could play out. It's a lot harder to put your own neck out, I know.

There are only two things we know with any certainty about what will happen after the end of the lockout: teams will immediately start spending money like it grows on trees, will hand out awful free agent contracts to terrible players and will look for any loophole they can find to spend even more money. Then, 6 years from now, the owners will tell us they are losing money cause salaries are too high.

As for your list, I don't really see anything wrong with the list per se. It's just that personally I think dumping guys like that is bad asset management (TimW and SoftEuro have discussed various specifics at length). Now, you may be right and the new FA system and contracts might create some inefficiencies that smart teams can exploit by using the amnesty clause. I just can't see what those inefficiencies are at the moment.

[Apollo]

It shouldn't matter if the team making the cut wishes to resign the player. The amnesty clause is designed to cut the teams a break while not at the expense of the player. Putting extra restrictions on it such as not permitting the team to resign the player is ridiculous in my opinion. It's a one time opportunity and it's limited to one player per team. If the team is over the cap then they can only use the vet minimum to re-sign the player... Or the MLE. If that player is willing to come back for the vet minimum then who cares? It's their choice, let them do it. Every team has the same opportunity to dump a contract and it's up to management to make the most out of it. If that includes bringing back the player then so be it, why make it more complicated than it needs to be? Like RapthoseLeafs and I've said, it's already a different beast from what we heard, so to assume it's going to follow the logic of the last clause when it's already moving away from it doesn't sound like a great assumption to me. Ultimately its the owners who decide if the teams should be allowed to resign the player and so I don't see why they're going to block it this time around when they've already been setting their sights on more freedom regarding the clause to begin with. What I'm interested in is how they handle player options in this clause.

There are only two things we know with any certainty about what will happen after the end of the lockout: teams will immediately start spending money like it grows on trees, will hand out awful free agent contracts to terrible players and will look for any loophole they can find to spend even more money. Then, 6 years from now, the owners will tell us they are losing money cause salaries are too high.

Max contracts are getting clipped, the MLE is being basically cut in half, the BAE will be abolished and the length on contracts will be clipped at 3, maybe 4 years. I know you're very cynical of the business side of it be please try to at least consider the positives of a change or at least try and frame you pessimistic view within the new landscape that seems to be coming...

As for your list, I don't really see anything wrong with the list per se. It's just that personally I think dumping guys like that is bad asset management (TimW and SoftEuro have discussed various specifics at length). Now, you may be right and the new FA system and contracts might create some inefficiencies that smart teams can exploit by using the amnesty clause. I just can't see what those inefficiencies are at the moment.

It was well publicized last time around that the only reason that some big names weren't ditched is because the amnesty clause was designed solely to give tax relief. This time its designed to give cap relief. Here's one such article from 2005 to give you a feel for the view back then and why. This amnesty clause is different and so it's only natural to possibly take a different approach and that approach is probably the one that people thought would be taken last time around before it was understood that the only relief would be to top over spenders:

Marc Stein "Houston, Finley gone; other big names staying put" ESPN.com, 2005.

[GarbageTime]

I don't think Bargnani will be in the guillotine for multiple reasons. First off he's super talented, young and seven foot

I don't think he will be either, but its more because BC has shown a complete unwillingness to give up on him. 'Talent' is obviously a very subjective statement.... there is no shortage of 'talent' in the NBA. Whats important is how one can apply/use that talent. He hasn't shown to be able to use it effectively or efficiently.

He has value to this team and other teams

Furthermore I feel his market value is higher than his Raptors fan value. He's an asset, one of the biggest on the team,

take this for what you will:

http://khandorssportsblog.com/wordpr...e-open-market/

hardly a glowing endorsement of his 'value'

(yes I know the source, and yes I realize these are just fans but I don't think Andrea's value is nearly as high as people want to believe)

Imagine this. Bargnani is not a Raptor. Who would you be willing to trade on this team for Andrea?

Maybe Casey can get through to him.

Maybe. Like Sam did? Or Jay?

He's never had a defensive specialist of this level working with him night and day...

that ofcourse assumes Bargnani would work night and day.

"I guess I'm just lazy" - Andrea Bargnani

I'm as skeptical as the next fan but it seems like we're heading towards finding out for sure

Now heard that 3-4 years running... so why not 5. And then we should find out the following year with JV right? And with a different SF the year after that....

Not to mention based on what Casey and Colangelo have said over the summer they're going to give Bargnani a good run at PF.

perfect. So lets give either Ed or Amir less minutes... and one none at all. Or move them to C because thats going to work so well.

He could be on his last chance depending on who you talk to but one last chance is long enough to keep him off the chopping block at the leastHe could be on his last chance depending on who you talk to but one last chance is long enough to keep him off the chopping block at the least

always one more chance...

its like gamblers syndrome with him

[Tim W.]

While I agree it doesn't sound plausible, the alleged Amnesty already differs from the previous one. Hence, those who reference the previous 2005 program as a some kind of model, and rely on it as a guide, are discounting what the "new" program is rumoured to be - a provision that provides not only luxury-tax relief (as 2005 only did), but salary-cap relief as well.

In the 2005 scenario, Large salaried teams (or typical Contenders as stats do prove), benefited greatly from the program. The same will happen with this version.

Allowing teams to resign their players - as free agents - has a certain logic to it.

• It minimizes the flood of free agents (whether by dubious means or not) - and the tendency for these F/A's to double dip in a significant way.
  
  
• It will bring some of the Big Spending teams on-board with a new CBA (or more likely to accept other detrimental issues).
  
  
• Flooding the F/A market with "available" players, might also run counter to what the players union would like to see happen - and its' impact on salaries. Returning players to their respective teams (again, dubious or not) could ease this concern. Of course some players could move to strong Contenders (like Miami), and further imbalance the situation. That could be corrected with some kind of rule limit.

Granted, there are some holes to my points, but not knowing what is being given up in a new CBA, and what is not, doesn't allow us to know what trade-offs are getting made to get this deal done.

Small market teams might feel it's a option they can stomach, in order to keep the troops in line. For the players union, it will appease any discontent that an Amnesty program might have, in shuffling players off a team they'd prefer to remain with.
.

That doesn't make sense. Just because the original teams CAN re-sign players they cut, doesn't mean those players won't become free agents and have the ability to sign elsewhere, flooding the free agency market. The players would still have the option to sign with the highest bidder. All allowing players to re-sign would do would be to reward the haves even more. And quite frankly, DO teams like Orlando, Miami, Dallas and other rich teams need any more help? I can't see that going over with the rest of the owners. Not at all.