Simmons most recent column - Amnesty Clause and who the Kings should use it on.

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7026680/welcome-amnesty-20-nba

SACRAMENTO KINGS

Abrams: Francisco Garcia. Knocks off Garcia's $18.3 million over the next three years and creates more minutes for Jimmer.
Simmons: Jimmer Time! If the Kings shed Garcia, it knocks their 2011-12 payroll to $23 million and gives them room for one marquee free agent and a couple of "Moneyball" signings.4 No NBA franchise has a wilder swing from "best-case scenario" to "worst-case scenario" than the Kings. Their best-case scenario: a new stadium, a free-agent prize (Marc Gasol, who could make DeMarcus Cousins his new Z-Bo), a couple of savvy short-risk signings (let's say Patty Mills and Mike Dunleavy Jr.) and a minority billionaire owner who could make sure everyone's checks cleared. Their worst-case scenario: no stadium, prolonged labor dispute … contraction. And yes, the odds for both scenarios are pretty much the same.
Simmons: One danger of waiving Garcia: He seemed like their only sane/happy player last season. I also think he could be a valuable bench guy for a contender like, say, my beloved Boston Celtics.

I'm not sure how I feel about the whole "amnesty clause" rumor that has been out there. For those who dont know, every team will be able to lose a players contract from their cap. The player would still get paid, but they would no longer count against the cap... and again, just a rumor for now.

And as far as using it on Garcia, I wouldnt. I'd use it on Salmons. If we really want to keep John, bring him back under a better deal, but between Salmons and Garcia .. Salmons is a worse fit and has a worse deal. It would be nice if the NBA would give teams something for not using it. Maybe a pick between the 1st and 2nd round or something. Its not exactly fair to teams who have been smart with their money.

It clearly would help the Kings less than most teams. So from a Kings Fan perspective it wouldnt be good for us. We have a lot of money to spend, and if every team was allowed to drop a player there would be a lot more money to go around during free agency. Obviously that would lead to more competition when signing players.

At the same time, There isnt really that marquee free agent that would really fit on our team this year. Its very possible that one of the guys who gets dropped off a team would be a better fit on our team than any of the current free agents.


Unfortunetly, It is highly likely that this would allow Miami to take Dalembert after dropping Mike Millers contract, but after just looking around Simmons list of players (And they arent all great. Some of his choices make me wonder if he even watches the games.) There are some players who could potentially help us.

Someone like Ariza would be interesting. One of the best defenders in the league on a team that needs defenders. Posey is a guy who could add veteran leadership off the bench. Or even Andres Biedrins as our fourth big.

But what I really found interesting about Simmons take on the Kings was his "Best Case-Worst Case" thought. He's right. If we play our cards right (and get a little lucky with Jimmer, Reke, and Cousins all panning out) we have ourselves some kind of team. But it is just as likely that Reke never figures it out, Cousins attitude gets himself shipped out, Jimmer cant find himself an NBA position, and we blow our cap on someone unworthy. I dont agree with his idea of signing Marc Gasol. I hate the fit, but whatever. His main point is true, and scary.

I dont trust ownership, I dont trust Petrie, and I sure as hell dont trust Westphal to put this whole thing together. The potential is there ... but man, it could go either way.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

There's just no way we would use it on Salmons - we traded for him for a reason, and it wasn't to cut him because of his contract. He's in the plans right now, however little we may like it after his first stint here.

I suppose Garcia is a candidate, but I don't know if cutting him will actually help us that much. We'll have the money to go after a big-name free agent anyway, and Garcia is a good bench guy, and great locker room chemistry guy. I just don't see any reason to pay him his $12M over the next two years just to go away. Another consideration is what happens to option years in amnesty situations. If team options are automatically denied, great, but if for some reason the amnesty forced us to pick up the team option...no way.

And on top of that, since you have to pay the contract out anyway, a franchise like ours that is a bit hurting for money (though maybe KJ's $9M in new funding will help that a bit!) isn't really in position to use an amnesty clause - the only reason for the amnesty clause is to allow a team to spend yet more money while still following the letter (if not the spirit) of a salary cap. I just don't think we're a good candidate to use it at all.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

Why would you use it on Salmons and then sign him to a new contract so you can give him more money? He still gets paid for the original contract and we are below the cap so there is no point to make any amnesty moves unless its between that and signing a major FA. I don't think the Maloofs would use it on anyone right now unless lets say a year or 2 from now we are already at the cap and they need to resign someone major like Tyreke or DMC or to land a big name.

 

[bajaden]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7026680/welcome-amnesty-20-nba



I'm not sure how I feel about the whole "amnesty clause" rumor that has been out there. For those who dont know, every team will be able to lose a players contract from their cap. The player would still get paid, but they would no longer count against the cap... and again, just a rumor for now.

And as far as using it on Garcia, I wouldnt. I'd use it on Salmons. If we really want to keep John, bring him back under a better deal, but between Salmons and Garcia .. Salmons is a worse fit and has a worse deal. It would be nice if the NBA would give teams something for not using it. Maybe a pick between the 1st and 2nd round or something. Its not exactly fair to teams who have been smart with their money.

It clearly would help the Kings less than most teams. So from a Kings Fan perspective it wouldnt be good for us. We have a lot of money to spend, and if every team was allowed to drop a player there would be a lot more money to go around during free agency. Obviously that would lead to more competition when signing players.

At the same time, There isnt really that marquee free agent that would really fit on our team this year. Its very possible that one of the guys who gets dropped off a team would be a better fit on our team than any of the current free agents.


Unfortunetly, It is highly likely that this would allow Miami to take Dalembert after dropping Mike Millers contract, but after just looking around Simmons list of players (And they arent all great. Some of his choices make me wonder if he even watches the games.) There are some players who could potentially help us.

Someone like Ariza would be interesting. One of the best defenders in the league on a team that needs defenders. Posey is a guy who could add veteran leadership off the bench. Or even Andres Biedrins as our fourth big.

But what I really found interesting about Simmons take on the Kings was his "Best Case-Worst Case" thought. He's right. If we play our cards right (and get a little lucky with Jimmer, Reke, and Cousins all panning out) we have ourselves some kind of team. But it is just as likely that Reke never figures it out, Cousins attitude gets himself shipped out, Jimmer cant find himself an NBA position, and we blow our cap on someone unworthy. I dont agree with his idea of signing Marc Gasol. I hate the fit, but whatever. His main point is true, and scary.

I dont trust ownership, I dont trust Petrie, and I sure as hell dont trust Westphal to put this whole thing together. The potential is there ... but man, it could go either way.

I'm not sure in what way Gasol is a bad fit. When I last checked he was in the playoffs. His defense is underrated and he's a terrific passer. But more than that, he's a team guy that will do whats necessary to win. He averaged 2.5 assists and 1.7 blocked shots last season. I think he and Cousins would be a compliment to each other. He may not be my first choice, but he's certainly a very talented, and still young player. If Cousins has lost enough weight and added quickness as a result, then I can see Cousins playing the Zack Randolph role along side Gasol.

As far as to who I would use the amnestiy clause on. It would have to be either Salmons or Garcia. Without taking anything else into consideration, it would be Salmons. The question is, did the Kings make the trade to just move Beno's salary to make room for Jimmer, and aquire a player that could be of help at a position of need, or did they really target Salmons? If its the former, then you dump Salmons and go after another SF that better fits the needs of the team. If its the latter, then it has to be Garcia. I really like Cisco and what he brings to the locker room. But he's overpaid for what he's done in the last three years. If you could cut him and resign him for a lesser amount, then I'm on board. But if he wants the same amount of money, then bite the bullet, say goodbye, and move on.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

I'm not sure in what way Gasol is a bad fit. When I last checked he was in the playoffs. His defense is underrated and he's a terrific passer. But more than that, he's a team guy that will do whats necessary to win. He averaged 2.5 assists and 1.7 blocked shots last season. I think he and Cousins would be a compliment to each other. He may not be my first choice, but he's certainly a very talented, and still young player. If Cousins has lost enough weight and added quickness as a result, then I can see Cousins playing the Zack Randolph role along side Gasol.

As far as to who I would use the amnestiy clause on. It would have to be either Salmons or Garcia. Without taking anything else into consideration, it would be Salmons. The question is, did the Kings make the trade to just move Beno's salary to make room for Jimmer, and aquire a player that could be of help at a position of need, or did they really target Salmons? If its the former, then you dump Salmons and go after another SF that better fits the needs of the team. If its the latter, then it has to be Garcia. I really like Cisco and what he brings to the locker room. But he's overpaid for what he's done in the last three years. If you could cut him and resign him for a lesser amount, then I'm on board. But if he wants the same amount of money, then bite the bullet, say goodbye, and move on.

I just feel like with Hickson, Thompson, and Cousins all on the roster right now, putting a bunch of money into Marc Gasol wouldnt be wise. He doesnt give you something that different from what you already have on the roster.

Marc Gasol will make more than Dalembert. And I'd rather overpay Dally, who gives you something different than what you already have, then overpay for Gasol.

Will I take Gasol? sure. But just like the draft day deal for Salmons ( and basically trading Udrih for Jimmer .. when we could have drafted Knight ..) I think it would be a lazy transaction. We wouldnt be maximizing our cap room. There are better moves to be made.

As far as my idea to dump Salmons, it would be more realistic with better owners who cared more about cap numbers than money. Salmons is overpaid, but an owner with deep pockets who actually wanted him on the roster could dump that salary and sign him for less money and less years, thus opening up more cap room for better players. But of course, the Kings are owned by the Maloofs.

 

[Bricklayer]

Gasol could play Vlade to Cousins' Webber...and then we could give up 120ppg because his defense is terrible and neither guy can slow a hot frontcourt player or guard perimeter guys, and neither can Hickson or Thompson. Memphis got away with Gasol and Randolph together up there because they had an all world set of defenders on the wings to make sure that interior defense was rarely challenged.

In any case though the amnesty proposal as its been rumored this past month could REALLY hurt us. Despite generally thinking it would hlp the league, I frankly don't want it to pass. Again, we have cleared cpa the right way. We put ourselves into position to have the most cap room in the entire league and be the big $$ team of free agency. Now not only has the normal free agency period been wiped out, but to top it they are talking about allowing every team in the elague to instantly make up huge ground on us in the free agency arena. We could get seriously screwed.

 

[ArcoKings]

I agree with Garcia being the odd man out if this thing becomes reality. He is terribly over paid for what he has produced in the last couple of years.

 

[mr. moustache]

I just feel like with Hickson, Thompson, and Cousins all on the roster right now, putting a bunch of money into Marc Gasol wouldnt be wise. He doesnt give you something that different from what you already have on the roster.

Marc Gasol will make more than Dalembert. And I'd rather overpay Dally, who gives you something different than what you already have, then overpay for Gasol.

Will I take Gasol? sure. But just like the draft day deal for Salmons ( and basically trading Udrih for Jimmer .. when we could have drafted Knight ..) I think it would be a lazy transaction. We wouldnt be maximizing our cap room. There are better moves to be made.

As far as my idea to dump Salmons, it would be more realistic with better owners who cared more about cap numbers than money. Salmons is overpaid, but an owner with deep pockets who actually wanted him on the roster could dump that salary and sign him for less money and less years, thus opening up more cap room for better players. But of course, the Kings are owned by the Maloofs.

You CANNOT amnesty a player, then resign them.

The article was also stupid. Amnesty David Lee?!!?! Maybe he's not worth the 12m a year, but cutting him means you are literally paying 80m for one year of work.

 

[mr. moustache]

Gasol could play Vlade to Cousins' Webber...and then we could give up 120ppg because his defense is terrible and neither guy can slow a hot frontcourt player or guard perimeter guys, and neither can Hickson or Thompson. Memphis got away with Gasol and Randolph together up there because they had an all world set of defenders on the wings to make sure that interior defense was rarely challenged.

In any case though the amnesty proposal as its been rumored this past month could REALLY hurt us. Despite generally thinking it would hlp the league, I frankly don't want it to pass. Again, we have cleared cpa the right way. We put ourselves into position to have the most cap room in the entire league and be the big $$ team of free agency. Now not only has the normal free agency period been wiped out, but to top it they are talking about allowing every team in the elague to instantly make up huge ground on us in the free agency arena. We could get seriously screwed.

If there's an extreme hard cap, there will be amnesty. I do agree that the Thunder and Kings have the most to lose in any sort of amnesty situation since those teams literally have no bad contracts.

I'd much rather see a grace period of a few years to allow teams to get under whatever the new cap is through traditional means.

If amnesty is allowed; I don't want to see it come for free.

There are other creative things that could be done to level the playing field. Teams under the cap could have first "dibs" on cut players. This would prevent these guys from flocking to contenders. It would also give teams with space a benefit of amnesty when they have no bad contracts.

The Kings are in a unique position and have a lot to gain or lose in the new CBA. It will be interesting to see where everything ends up.

 

[bajaden]

If there's an extreme hard cap, there will be amnesty. I do agree that the Thunder and Kings have the most to lose in any sort of amnesty situation since those teams literally have no bad contracts.

I'd much rather see a grace period of a few years to allow teams to get under whatever the new cap is through traditional means.

If amnesty is allowed; I don't want to see it come for free.

There are other creative things that could be done to level the playing field. Teams under the cap could have first "dibs" on cut players. This would prevent these guys from flocking to contenders. It would also give teams with space a benefit of amnesty when they have no bad contracts.

The Kings are in a unique position and have a lot to gain or lose in the new CBA. It will be interesting to see where everything ends up.

Come on, your making too much sense! I doubt there will be an amnesty clause in the new CBA. The league has already backed off the hard cap to some extent, but with restrictions on the exceptions (Bird and MLE). I don't know what those restrictions are, but apparently the players union wasn't that enthused. One proposal I heard in regards to the draft, and I'm not sure where I heard it, is to extend the draft to three rounds. Only the lottery teams would participate in the first two rounds, with the third round having everyone drafting in their proper order. In most cases, this would give the worse teams a good infusion of talent at a faster rate. Certainly not a cure all, but if the draft is intended to help the worse teams get better, then this could help shorten a rebuild.

 

[Tetsujin]

Gasol could play Vlade to Cousins' Webber...and then we could give up 120ppg because his defense is terrible and neither guy can slow a hot frontcourt player or guard perimeter guys, and neither can Hickson or Thompson.

That's what Keon Clark's for.

 

[Section 101]

Come on, your making too much sense! I doubt there will be an amnesty clause in the new CBA. The league has already backed off the hard cap to some extent, but with restrictions on the exceptions (Bird and MLE). I don't know what those restrictions are, but apparently the players union wasn't that enthused. One proposal I heard in regards to the draft, and I'm not sure where I heard it, is to extend the draft to three rounds. Only the lottery teams would participate in the first two rounds, with the third round having everyone drafting in their proper order. In most cases, this would give the worse teams a good infusion of talent at a faster rate. Certainly not a cure all, but if the draft is intended to help the worse teams get better, then this could help shorten a rebuild.

It was brought up in TrueHoop today. Softcap or hardcap doesnt make a difference when the players get a set amount of revenue. The type of cap wont change how much the players get, it only changes who gets more money within the players. The hardcap lowers the ceiling and raises the lower and middle salaries.

The recent report for bird rights that the owners want is they can only be used on 1 player a year per team. The MLE would be reduced and the years cut.

 

[bajaden]

It was brought up in TrueHoop today. Softcap or hardcap doesnt make a difference when the players get a set amount of revenue. The type of cap wont change how much the players get, it only changes who gets more money within the players. The hardcap lowers the ceiling and raises the lower and middle salaries.

The recent report for bird rights that the owners want is they can only be used on 1 player a year per team. The MLE would be reduced and the years cut.

Technicly, your right. 57% of something is still 57% of something. So yes, the players have to give something on the BRI split. I think the way the players are looking at the hard cap, is as a backdoor way of closing the gap in the BRI. And in one sense, I can see their point where players salaries are concerned. I believe the way its set up right now, is that if the spit doesn't come out to the right percentages at years end, then adjustments are made and checkes are sent out. Which just happened by the way about two weeks ago.

 

[mr. moustache]

...One proposal I heard in regards to the draft, and I'm not sure where I heard it, is to extend the draft to three rounds. Only the lottery teams would participate in the first two rounds, with the third round having everyone drafting in their proper order. In most cases, this would give the worse teams a good infusion of talent at a faster rate. Certainly not a cure all, but if the draft is intended to help the worse teams get better, then this could help shorten a rebuild.

Wow. That's crazy. Basically, bad teams get 2 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick. Good teams get a single 2nd round pick.

Makes more sense to me that the bad teams get 2 1st round picks and the "good" teams get 2 2nd round picks. At least that way each team gets the same number of prospects.

I don't necessarily dislike the idea. It sure does screw those 8th seeds

 

[mr. moustache]

It was brought up in TrueHoop today. Softcap or hardcap doesnt make a difference when the players get a set amount of revenue. The type of cap wont change how much the players get, it only changes who gets more money within the players. The hardcap lowers the ceiling and raises the lower and middle salaries.

The recent report for bird rights that the owners want is they can only be used on 1 player a year per team. The MLE would be reduced and the years cut.

Hmm.. I think a hard cap does the exact opposite of driving up lower and middle salaries. The NBA is a star's game. You pay Lebron the max and surround him with scrubs if you have to. Look at football. Marquee guys get marquee money, everyone else fights for scraps.