Our bench and the amnesty rule...

[PFFFT!!]

I foresee some "unfair" problems regarding teams that are one step from the finals (unfortunately were not one of them like we used to be). I just saw this article, and typical stuff, you pay the player you let go the full amount, his pockets are full. Now whats the next step?

a) Join a team thats got it to win a championship (San Antonio, Detroit, Phoenix) for the vet minimum
b) Join a team thats already loaded with quality players for the vet min(Miami, Houston)
c) Join a big market team for the vet min(Lakers, New York)

I saw this article http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2123563


Now, my fear here, and I hope Im wrong, is to put in our second unit against a bunch of these overpaid guys who just want their rings. I know that most if not all these guys like NVE, Anderson, and Finley are well past their prime, but they are still vets and can shoot the lights out when they can and can play well 20 mpg. I understand that the Lakers had that Malone/Payton combo that didn't pan out, but they did make the finals. However now you will have a lot more veterans who are willing to make a lot less out there. Is there a rule against more than one of these so called "amnesty" player joining 1 team? Say San Antonio gets about 3 of these guys? If there isn't I firmly believe there should be a rule to make if fair for all teams to have a vet. This is not going to be good people. I would like some comments on this issue and perhaps, for those who are very familiar on the rules and know more of the details of this amnesty rule, to shed some light. Including the real possibilities that Petrie can land at least one of these guys. Thanks

 

[thesanityannex]

Personally, if I was an NBA player, and was waived from my team, I would take my paycheck and run. I'm obviously not cut out for the NBA anymore, so why would I want to suffer through a season riding the pine, when I could be out spending my millions, soaking up the sun, and sipping on some fine carribean rum.

 

[PFFFT!!]

Thats not the case though. The 3 players I mentioned is just the beginning. There will be more. I just don't want to see a second team of vets coming off the bench against our bench full of rookies. I don't think I would only stand watching a couple of minutes, then off goes the TV :\

 

[SactoGreg]

Personally, if I was an NBA player, and was waived from my team, I would take my paycheck and run. I'm obviously not cut out for the NBA anymore, so why would I want to suffer through a season riding the pine, when I could be out spending my millions, soaking up the sun, and sipping on some fine carribean rum.

That's not going to happen. Teams are not releasing players because they aren't cut out for the NBA anymore.

The types of players that will be released are purely financially driven, and have little or nothing to do with whether or not said player can still play.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there will be several teams that drop a player that are still very valuable to other teams...

 

[captain bill]

If there is no rule against multiple cut players joining one team, adding one would be pretty pointless because the rule goes away next year. I also don't expect to see too many guys signing for the vet min. They just got paid fat contracts, and that means they probably went hard for that contract and will try to get even more cash now. After all, a max gets paid when a player wants as much money as possible, more than the max I would assume. So a lot of these guys might end up in the Atlantas or Charlottes of the league, teams with cap room and the lack of sense to turn down requests for medium sized contracts from amnesty "victims." Honestly, do you expect Allan Houston to go and sign for the vet min somewhere? Seriously doubt that.

 

[Bricklayer]

If there is no rule against multiple cut players joining one team, adding one would be pretty pointless because the rule goes away next year. I also don't expect to see too many guys signing for the vet min. They just got paid fat contracts, and that means they probably went hard for that contract and will try to get even more cash now. After all, a max gets paid when a player wants as much money as possible, more than the max I would assume. So a lot of these guys might end up in the Atlantas or Charlottes of the league, teams with cap room and the lack of sense to turn down requests for medium sized contracts from amnesty "victims." Honestly, do you expect Allan Houston to go and sign for the vet min somewhere? Seriously doubt that.

Depends -- these guys are all coming off of monster contracts and are more or less set. They are already guaranteed monster paydays next year no matter what they sign for now. Especially for the older ones, I could very much see this as an opportunity to have their cake and eat it too -- to get paid big $$$ and to also find their way onto an elite team to make a run at a title.

 

[captain bill]

Depends -- these guys are all coming off of monster contracts and are more or less set. They are already guaranteed monster paydays next year no matter what they sign for now. Especially for the older ones, I could very much see this as an opportunity to have their cake and eat it too -- to get paid big $$$ and to also find their way onto an elite team to make a run at a title.

I don't buy that one bit. Someone making the rookie min is more or less set. $1 million per year is considered below the NBA poverty line. These players make tens of millions of dollars and still go begging for more. Some might take a cut at the end of their career, maybe. But most think they still have time and will try to go after even more cash.

 

[Jose]

Money WILL matter for most of these players. There's also some "fine print" in the ammnesty clause that will make it even more significant for some players:

From espn:

"Allan Houston and Michael Finley haven't said much about their futures since their names surfaced as the most likely former All-Stars to be waived via the new "amnesty clause", the onetime opportunity between Tuesday and Aug. 15 for teams to release a player without paying luxury tax on the rest of his contract.


The relative silence makes it tough to forecast exactly what they'll be looking for as free agents -- besides the chance to join a championship contender -- after their expected releases.

Which makes it tougher still to gauge how the "spread provision" in both players' contracts will affect their choices.

Houston and Finley, according to NBA front-office sources, both possess considerable spread provisions in their contracts that would result in drawn-out payment schedules from the Knicks and Mavericks after being let go.

In Finley's case, specifically, sources say the $51-plus million he's owed by Dallas over the next three seasons would be paid in annual increments of less than $5 million if he's waived by the Aug. 15 amnesty deadline. Houston's contract apparently includes a similar spread provision.

Translation?

Signing with a new team for a minimum contract in the sub-$2 million area, as Phoenix hopes to do with Finley, might not be so comfortable for either player. The fact that Finley wouldn't be able to collect his $51-plus million from the Mavs as originally scheduled over the next three seasons gives hope to a team like the Denver Nuggets, who are prepared to offer Finley their full $5 million mid-level exception.

Another factor is the "set-off provision" that was restored to the amnesty clause in the final stages of collective bargaining. The set-off provision returns a percentage of what a player makes from his new team to the team paying off his terminated contract.



In the new deal, the union fought to specifically word the amnesty clause to say that the set-off provision doesn't apply. That would have enabled players such as Houston and Finley to double-dip by collecting the full balance of their old contracts in addition to the payments from their new deals. But the league wouldn't give in, insisting that a chunk of an amnesty player's new earnings go back to the original team. What this all means is that money probably will matter to amnesty players who possess a long-term payout provision in their contract. The assumption that Finley can earn up to $21 million next season -- a full $16 million from the Mavs and $5 million from a team like Denver offering the full mid-level -- is a fallacy. To go back to the Suns, who drafted him in 1995, Finley might be looking at a pay cut of Karl Malone-to-the-Lakers proportions, even though he would eventually receive every cent Dallas owes him."

 

[BigSong]

Guys like Finley seem to be getting screwed in this amnesty deal. he was looking at 50 mil over 3 years now its more like over 10 years, and then on top of that any earnings he does get goes to his original team. How long is the set off provision in effect anyway, just that initial year? Either way I would be pissed, they get to waive you and then set the terms of your old contract?

 

[Bricklayer]

Guys like Finley seem to be getting screwed in this amnesty deal. he was looking at 50 mil over 3 years now its more like over 10 years, and then on top of that any earnings he does get goes to his original team. How long is the set off provision in effect anyway, just that initial year? Either way I would be pissed, they get to waive you and then set the terms of your old contract?

Those terms were apparently negotiated in the orignal contract -- nobody is getting screwed here. INdeed if ANYBODY is getting screwed its the waiving team still having to pay a guy $5mil a year for a decade after he leaves your roster. I wish I couold be screwed like that.

 

[Kings113]

Thats not the case though. The 3 players I mentioned is just the beginning. There will be more. I just don't want to see a second team of vets coming off the bench against our bench full of rookies. I don't think I would only stand watching a couple of minutes, then off goes the TV :\

We have two rookies (sounds like Price is gonna stay), one 1-year player. I doubt there's anymore of that kind unless it's from a trade.