2011 NBA All-Amnesty Clause team

[Spurtacus]

The article is over a month old but it should still make for a good discussion. No question Spurs would get rid of RJ. Any potential players from this list the Spurs could target if let go?


http://www.nbadraftcentral.com/the-2011-nba-all-amnesty-clause-team/

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Deng seems the most likely target from that list, though I expect there would be plenty of interested parties for him.

[Obstructed_View]

Wouldn't using the amnesty clause on RJ cost all the multi millions they saved by re-signing him in the first place? RJ's contract was the financial master stroke of the modern era if they ride it out.

[Mel_13]

The writer clearly doesn't understand how the amnesty worked the last time. Players still counted against the cap, the amnesty only provided that they didn't count for purposes of calculating the luxury tax.

If the rules are the same this time around, cutting RJ wouldn't change the Spurs' salary cap situation at all. It could save some luxury tax payments, but that might only affect the first year if Duncan retires at the end of 2011-12. The most likely scenario is that the Spurs make no use of the amnesty, or use it on Dice's contract if his contract is not traded away.

[K-State Spur]

The writer clearly doesn't understand how the amnesty worked the last time. Players still counted against the cap, the amnesty only provided that they didn't count for purposes of calculating the luxury tax.

If the rules are the same this time around, cutting RJ wouldn't change the Spurs' salary cap situation at all. It could save some luxury tax payments, but that might only affect the first year if Duncan retires at the end of 2011-12. The most likely scenario is that the Spurs make no use of the amnesty, or use it on Dice's contract if his contract is not traded away.

True on the history of the amnesty.

However, if the league does a hard cap (which seems likely) - then the luxury tax would likely go away (probably replaced by greater revenue sharing). If that's the case, then any amnesty in the next CBA would almost have to be cap based.

[Mel_13]

True on the history of the amnesty.

However, if the league does a hard cap (which seems likely) - then the luxury tax would likely go away (probably replaced by greater revenue sharing). If that's the case, then any amnesty in the next CBA would almost have to be cap based.

Good point. If they set a hard cap at a number close to the current luxury tax levels, then any amnesty could very well be cap based, but I still don't see the team waiving RJ in that situation.

Waiving a 10M player in order to spend an additional 10M on other players is something that the Knicks, Lakers, Mavs, Nets, etc. can do. Not likely for a team on a budget like the Spurs.

[Spurtacus]

Is it possible for a player cut to not count against the cap and not have to be paid his remaining salary if he's cut? Or will this depend on the new CBA? The writer mentioned Michael Finley; Mavs were still paying him like 20 mil a year while he was on the Spurs.

[TJastal]

Wouldn't using the amnesty clause on RJ cost all the multi millions they saved by re-signing him in the first place? RJ's contract was the financial master stroke of the modern era if they ride it out.

LMAO @ the irony

[Harry Callahan]

It helps more if the team is way over the cap when you can buy the guaranteed contract but not take the 100% luxury tax on a buy out deal (Michael Finley's situation six years ago).

The Spurs were not paying a bunch in luxury tax because of the reworked Jefferson deal. This situation plays out again next year. The money saved on the contract last year ($10MM) allows them to get another year out of Jefferson for "free" so to speak - they moved the expense to this year from last year.

As bad as he was at times last year, the Spurs don't 61 games last year without him (if he would have signed with another team when he opted out). It may have been the Spurs who encouraged him to opt out last year so they could have a better net income in 2010-2011 by saving the $10MM.

Given what eventually happened in the playoffs, keeping RJ around may not have been the best move, but he was a contributor to a great RS.

The bottom line is Duncan got old and Manu got hurt again.

[Big P]

Deng seems the most likely target from that list, though I expect there would be plenty of interested parties for him.

Even with his contract, I doubt Chicago gets rid of Deng...he is the only real SF they have.

[TJastal]

It helps more if the team is way over the cap when you can buy the guaranteed contract but not take the 100% luxury tax on a buy out deal (Michael Finley's situation six years ago).

The Spurs were not paying a bunch in luxury tax because of the reworked Jefferson deal. This situation plays out again next year. The money saved on the contract last year ($10MM) allows them to get another year out of Jefferson for "free" so to speak - they moved the expense to this year from last year.

As bad as he was at times last year, the Spurs don't 61 games last year without him (if he would have signed with another team when he opted out). It may have been the Spurs who encouraged him to opt out last year so they could have a better net income in 2010-2011 by saving the $10MM.

Given what eventually happened in the playoffs, keeping RJ around may not have been the best move, but he was a contributor to a great RS.

The bottom line is Duncan got old and Manu got hurt again.

Given the whole point of Jefferson's "reworked" deal was to gain the funds to fit Splitter in under the cap (whom Pop elected to hug the bench most of the year in favor of Matt Bonner), the retardation level of the whole situation expands by a factor of 10.