Stein: Amnesty Clause Could Be Used Now Or Later?

Marc Stein of ESPN.com reports that the amnesty clause that would allow an NBA owner to waive a player and pay him his contract outright in order to free up salary cap flexibility might take a new form.
-----------------------------
Sources say that there’s a determined push led by San Antonio Spurs owner Peter Holt to allow teams to have at least two years to decide whether or not to amnesty one player, with multiple sources telling ESPN.com this week that they believe the concept -- with restrictions that are still being haggled over -- has indeed won sufficient support to be included in the new labor deal.

Six years ago, teams had only two weeks to decide whether to use the amnesty clause or lose it forever. Now? There is a growing likelihood that teams will be able to "save" their amnesty clause through next season, or perhaps beyond.
-----------------------------

This would be particularly helpful for the Portland Trail Blazers, who face a decision on whether to amnesty guard Brandon Roy, who has been hampered by knee injuries. Essentially, it would allow the Blazers to have another test-run year to see whether he can be a productive contributor over the course of a season and whether he can continue to turn games in the postseason. While Roy's 2011-2012 salary is set to be $15 million, far more than he would currently bear on the open market, the financial damage in overpaying for one season is far less than the risk associated with not amnesty'ing him under the old system and being forced to keep him through 2014-2015.

With a condensed free agency period and limited salary cap flexibility to find an adequate replacement, the likelihood that Roy will return to the Blazers for the 2011-2012 season goes up immensely if this is the final amnesty proposal.

If you're one of Portland's remaining executives, it's much easier to sell "Let's wait a year and see whether he rebounds, we can always waive him later" than "We need to move on right now" if owner Paul Allen asks your opinion and continues to insist on a "Win now" mentality.

Also, remember, the Blazers currently do not have any other awful contracts on the books that might entice them to use the amnesty clause immediately.

-- Ben Golliver | benjamin.golliver@gmail.com | Twitter

7 months ago Ben Golliver 44 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

That is a good clause

With just 2 weeks, a franchise wouldn’t have enough info to determine if a player is going to be able to go or not. This is definitely true with the Blazers. We need at least part of this year to determine what his participation on the court will be. I am not arguing whether he is Worthy of his pay, I am arguing if he can’t produce then use the amnesty

by BBK on Oct 28, 2011 9:14 AM PDT reply actions

I'd be fine with extending the clause through next summer, but not beyond.

absolutely in no way shape or form should this be extended to players to be acquired later, as is discussed in the article. this would be yet another huge advantage for big market/big spending teams at a time when the NBA keeps talking about trying to narrow these competitive advantages, not make them worse.

There already is going to be the new stretch provisions – which acts like a mini-amnesty.

"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave

by douglast on Oct 28, 2011 9:22 AM PDT reply actions

I agree. I should only be applied to players still currently on the team

by tyeforshee on Oct 28, 2011 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions

Next summer at the very latest

I’ve said before that amnesty should be in place to help teams adjust to dramatic shifts in rule changes, but not just to be there to bail teams out who have made poor decisions.

In this case, the rumored rule changes that would result in a lower tax threshold (because of the BRI guarantee change for the players) and a more punitive tax structure – I can see some sort of amnesty in place to aid teams in matching the new rule structure. But allowing a team to sign a player next year and then cut him under amnesty a year after that? That’s just wrong.

To say nothing about trading for a player just to waive them under amnesty (which sounds like it wouldn’t be allowed)…..

by Storyteller on Oct 28, 2011 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes, allowing rich teams to sign players and then amnesty them if they are not producing

would be terribly unfair to the other teams. Amnesty to help teams get under the new salary or luxury tax caps should be limited to players already under contract, i.e. those already contributing to the team being over the caps.

Allowing the amnesty provision to be used after this season or even the following season would certainly help the Blazers with the Roy situation, but what would be a good argument for that in general? Perhaps some fan-popular veteran players that would otherwise get amnestied now would stay one more year with their teams before being discarded and that’s a PR win for their teams?

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 28, 2011 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, the amnesty needs to be a one-time thing that's used immediately.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Oct 28, 2011 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions

This is huge for the blazers.

After what Roy showed in games 3 & 4 of the Dallas series, he deserves a chance to show he’s still capable. After a full off-season, I’m anxious to see Brandon play. This rule and it’s flexibility could be a blessing for our team.

by JAWKS on Oct 28, 2011 9:24 AM PDT reply actions

Did this just turn into the Greg Oden Clause?

Wouldn’t this greatly lessen the risk to the Blazers, as well as any other team, of offering Oden a lot of money for more years? If so, then Greg is the biggest winner here.

by jrj on Oct 28, 2011 9:28 AM PDT reply actions

great point

"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave

by douglast on Oct 28, 2011 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions

I imagine...

…somewhere Greg Odens agent is pumping his fist in the air and saying YES! YES! YES!….

Unfortunately about the only factor that might of kept offers to Greg in some type of reasonable line was his history and fear on making a long term, high paying commitment. If a 2 year pass is given to everybody? Then I’d think that many more teams would consider taking a gamble on Greg Oden that much more attractive. Signing Greg Oden would still mean a considerable financial output, but for a franchise or owner with enough resources, it would no longer necessarily be commitment that could sink a team salary cap wise, if it doesn’t work out.

"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"

by Krang on Oct 28, 2011 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions

I’d guess something would be written into the clause only allowing it to be used on a player currently under contract.

by Howlin on Oct 28, 2011 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

I feel there has to be

It would be crazy to be able to be able to pick some one up in free agency and then cut them if it doesn’t work out.

by AR-15 on Oct 28, 2011 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions

STEIN_LINE_HQ Marc Stein

“One trusted exec chimes in convinced new Amnesty Clause HAS to include provision forbidding teams on using it on players acquired by trade”

by jrj on Oct 28, 2011 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

That would be good for the Blazers

Then they could match offers for Oden and then just hope that at least one of Oden and Roy can stay on the court and be productive so as to not be screwed from a cap/tax standpoint.

by jrj on Oct 28, 2011 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions

It should also

have to be used on a contract written before the lockout. Even though it would be nice for the Blazers to be able to sign Oden to a huge deal and then kick it off the books if his knees blow up again, just seems like they are allowing the owners to be too reckless.

by AR-15 on Oct 28, 2011 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions

I agree

One twist might be a larry bird rule type exception that would allow teams to resign their own free agents and use the amnesty on those players in the future. Obviously this would fit for the blazers and oden

by Howlin on Oct 28, 2011 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions

If it eliminated players not currently under contract (as I think it should) it would eliminate Oden

regardless of whether he signed the QO, took a new Blazer offer, or was retained by matching an offer sheet (which I don’t think he will even get) since he not currently under contract to the Blazers. Of course, the rule could include re-signing your own free-agents and then apply to any Oden situation. Or …

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 28, 2011 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions

i think that's fair

as appealing as it sounds to get a free roll the dice play on Oden (or anyone), it just doesn’t feel right at all

"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave

by douglast on Oct 28, 2011 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions

you can see why Peter Holt had this brain child

Might as well push hard this one last year of TD’s contract, then you can eye Manu or Jefferson for the amnesty next summer.

"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave

by douglast on Oct 28, 2011 9:30 AM PDT reply actions

Yeah, SA has 2 aging stars, would need to re-sign TD, and even TP isn't free from injury concerns

by Norsktroll on Oct 28, 2011 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions

so nice, you had to say it twice

"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave

by douglast on Oct 28, 2011 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions

That's ok, I rec'd 'em both.

by blazinagain on Oct 28, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions

Ah-ha...

The have your cake and eat it too Amnesty Clause Special™, replacing the Captacular Amnesty Clause™ as the most desirable clause for those in the know.

Be the envy of your conference rivals with increased flexibility! Negotiate from a position of strength and virility! Lose that weight you’ve been carrying around for the last couple seasons! Change the past, and waltz into the future with the Amnesty Clause Special™.

Doers & Makers > Movers & Shakers

by Adam Randall on Oct 28, 2011 10:45 AM PDT reply actions

Well done

by Storyteller on Oct 28, 2011 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions

I really like this idea...

A full season… after a few months off… to see if #7 can contribute in a manner worthy of his pay. I know I’m kinda soft on BRoy,and I believe he’s already earned his money, but it would be nice for him and the Blazers to have a period of time to evaluate each others performance. Besides that way when The Natural proves to still be economically viable we will still have the amnesty to use on someone else if necessary.

#7... GO BLAZERS!!!

by Ilikeemall on Oct 28, 2011 11:20 AM PDT reply actions

Emotionally I feel the same way. But I don't see much logical justification for multi-year amnesty.

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 28, 2011 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions

This seems good for players and owners

Really like it for Greg and BRoy. We just don’t have enough to go on yet.

I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_twain_4.html#ixzz1IE4sPu16

by Tyler Durrden on Oct 28, 2011 11:53 AM PDT via mobile reply actions

John Hollinger tweets

johnhollinger John Hollinger

Have folks replying that multi-year amnesty favors Blazers. Guess PDX fans want to wait-n-see with Roy. To me it’s a no-brainer decision.

41 minutes ago

by Chris Freed on Oct 28, 2011 11:58 AM PDT reply actions

another one

johnhollinger John Hollinger

One great quarter, 23 ordinary-to-bad ones vs Mavs. RT @Fulfero3 If you watched blazers in game 4 and 5, it shouldn’t be such a no brainer.

19 minutes ago

by Chris Freed on Oct 28, 2011 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree with this

Still interested to see if the summer off has helped. I am skeptical, but open to the possibility he might have improved.

If this amnesty rule is true, thankfully we have the luxury of finding out where he’s at for sure.

I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_twain_4.html#ixzz1IE4sPu16

by Tyler Durrden on Oct 28, 2011 12:17 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

its good/bad and risk/reward for sure

Hollinger’s right – he was a net negative in that series in my book, a wash at best.

Also, having him on the team could be a distraction in and of itself, and cause a considerable amount of stagnation. Do we go back to Roy ball? do we push on with LA being the number 1 option? Wesely vs. Roy.

there’s a real danger that we could waste a year spinning our wheels and be right back where we started next year. Sometimes there is something to be said for making a decision on your team identity going forward, and actually putting it in place. The longer Roy stays on the team, the higher the risk is that we have a fractured identity where we don’t know who we are. We’ve kind of done a lot of that the past two seasons as it is.

"But if Ding Dongs and prime rib were the path to NBA pivot stardom we'd all be wearing the uniform." -Dave

by douglast on Oct 28, 2011 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions

If the amnesty clause is now or never, it's very hard to argue against using it on Roy.

But emotionally that is going to tear me up inside. I’m still in the “He saved the franchise – that’s why there is a team in Portland” camp.

If the amnesty clause lasts through this season or longer, then I see arguments on both sides. But that debate can wait to see if this proposal turns out to be real.

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 28, 2011 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions

See ya G. O.

Some team is going to give you Oprah money because they only need to keep you for a short time.

The Department of Redundancy Department is hiring, maybe I should apply myself.

by SGT Lenny on Oct 28, 2011 1:40 PM PDT reply actions

As noted above by multiple people, this would not be allowed under this provision.

by Timmay! on Oct 28, 2011 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Unless he became a UFA

If I’m reading that right, he can decide to go to the highest bidder who will then cut him if it doesn’t work out.

I want him to stay, but the money may be elsewhere for him.

The Department of Redundancy Department is hiring, maybe I should apply myself.

by SGT Lenny on Oct 29, 2011 6:24 AM PDT up reply actions

As noted above, a team is not expected to be able to use Amnesty on a player they've freshly signed

They’d need to keep him for the entire contract and pay him for it. So they can’t overpay, then cut him with an amnesty clause.

by Timmay! on Oct 29, 2011 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions

I think we should keep Roy around another year. Match any offer for Oden. Then the worst case scenario is that we are stuck with one bad deal. I’m not really sure what the strategy is when using this amnesty clause.

by BRoyInThe4th on Oct 28, 2011 1:51 PM PDT reply actions