Would this be good news for the spurs?

[yavozerb]

NBA Lockout Update: Generous amnesty provision?
September 22, 2011 By Chris Sheridan 2 Comments
By Chris Sheridan

NEW YORK — Negotiations to end the NBA lockout are resuming today in Manhattan with all the heavy hitters in attendance, so there will be some news before the end of the day. Stay tuned on that front.
In the meantime, chew on these two articles:
In the Oregonian, columnist John Canzano reports an amnesty provision could be part of the new labor agreement, and it would provide some serious cap flexibility leaguewide:

“Two NBA sources told me Tuesday that they believe there’s consensus among owners on a few important lockout issues. One of those issues being an amnesty clause that would give NBA teams the ability to release one player, pay his salary, take no luxury tax liability, and also, not have that player count against the season salary cap. This is different than the last round of amnesty, which didn’t give the cap relief. And if true, it would likely allow Portland to strongly consider releasing three-time All-Star Brandon Roy, creating an additional $15 million in cap relief next season. Which is only to say, the Blazers need a general manager in the chair now, as this develops, if they’re going to fully maximize the advantages of making such a powerful play

Do you think the spurs would be for this or against this clause? Do you think the spurs would use this on RJ's contract if it was put into an agreement? Just trying to get the spurs juices flowing again...

[DesignatedT]

Not sure if I see Holt cutting RJ a $30 million dollar check.

[yavozerb]

For the spurs sake hopefully this clause could be held until next season and used then on RJ for 20mil. Next season is when cap room well be vital with all the major FA's hitting the market and for the spurs it would also mean TD's contract is off the books. This would lower the spurs salary in the 30's if this could be done.

[Cane]

I'd say it be bad news because I don't see Holt throwing around that kind of money. Not only would the Spurs not use it on a large contract like RJ's; but big spenders would be able to exercise this potential advantage. For example Western teams like the Blazers would probably get rid of Roy and the Mavs could retool significantly.

[Bruno]

Without knowing the new salary cap structure, it's hard to know on whether Spurs should/will use the amnesty clause on RJ's contract. I truly think that Spurs first option will be trade RJ with Blair as sweetener but if it fails, it's the big unknown.

[Dex]

Without knowing the new salary cap structure, it's hard to know on whether Spurs should/will use the amnesty clause on RJ's contract. I truly think that Spurs first option will be trade RJ with Blair as sweetener but if it fails, it's the big unknown.

That would almost be a win/win for the Spurs. As much as I like Blair and was excited when we drafted him, I feel like the past two seasons have shown why so many teams passed on him. Not because of his knees or his durability (which a lot of teams were wrong about), but just the fact that he's an undersized player trying to play an oversized position.

His rebounding tenacity is great, but still hindered by his height, and he still hasn't been able to develop an offensive game that will allow him to consistently score against his taller opponents. Developing that jump shot didn't seem too work out to well, either.

[Bruno]

That would almost be a win/win for the Spurs. As much as I like Blair and was excited when we drafted him, I feel like the past two seasons have shown why so many teams passed on him. Not because of his knees or his durability (which a lot of teams were wrong about), but just the fact that he's an undersized player trying to play an oversized position.


The main reason why Spurs will trade him is his work ethic. Not being able to stay in shape during the season while you get consistent minutes is quite a deal breaker.

[Dex]

The main reason why Spurs will trade him is his work ethic. Not being able to stay in shape during the season while you get consistent minutes is quite a deal breaker.

Quite. Falling out of the playoff rotation was probably the beginning of the end for him unless he can seriously turn his attitude around, and prove it to the coaches. Which will be especially hard to do without a training camp.

[TD 21]

It's definitely good news for the Spurs, because it gives them the option of not only getting rid of Jefferson, but not taking back a bad contract(s) in the process and gaining more flexibility in '12 and '13. Whether they'd take advantage of it or not is another question.

Buy out candidates . . .

Hawks: Williams, Bobcats: Diop, Maggette, Cavaliers: Davis, Mavericks: Haywood, Nuggets: Andersen, Harrington, Pistons: Hamilton, Lakers: Artest, Walton, Heat: Miller, Bucks: Gooden, Udrih, Timberwolves: Miller, Nets: Outlaw, Knicks: Balkman, Magic: Arenas, 76ers: Brand, Suns: Childress, Trail Blazers: Roy, Kings: Garcia, Salmons, Spurs: Jefferson, Raptors: Kleiza, Jazz: Bell, Wizards: Lewis.

[Dex]

Ironic that Holt had to open up his wallet to GET Jefferson, and now he may need to open up his wallet again to get rid of him.

[yavozerb]

Without knowing the new salary cap structure, it's hard to know on whether Spurs should/will use the amnesty clause on RJ's contract. I truly think that Spurs first option will be trade RJ with Blair as sweetener but if it fails, it's the big unknown.

Thats been the 1st option for months and even with TP added in the deal nobody would bite. If a player like TP would net get any buyers then I seriously doubt Blair would do anything different. Lets not forget also, that not many teams could absorb his contract, so we would get back an equally bad contract from another team so I am not sure if thats a good option.

[swaggerjackson]

Yea I have to say I can't see Holt paying Jefferson 30 million to walk away either. Also I think he could still be an effective player in a different system. He might still have some trade value especially if you think how he started last season. He looked like what we thought he could be. If he has an impressive showing at the start of this season whenever that may be we could get him off our hands. I am more interested in players we could pick up after this amnesty thing. Diop is one name that caught my eye. He is injured and exiled in Charlotte but remember what he did to Duncan in the playoffs a couple years ago. He was and can be a solid rebounding shot blocker. Totally hypothetical but if the amnesty were to go through I think it would be more about adding a player than shedding a contract.

[yavozerb]

Ironic that Holt had to open up his wallet to GET Jefferson, and now he may need to open up his wallet again to get rid of him.

In my opinion you buyout RJ and lose 30 mil over 3 seasons to open up cap space now. Then the spurs should refuse TP's final year of his contract after 3 seasons (since it is a team option) and that move would save 12.5 mil. So over the next 3 seasons the spurs would lose a total of 18 mil, which comes out to losing 6 mil per year over the next 3 seasons. Just a thought

[ALVAREZ6]

That would almost be a win/win for the Spurs. As much as I like Blair and was excited when we drafted him, I feel like the past two seasons have shown why so many teams passed on him. Not because of his knees or his durability (which a lot of teams were wrong about), but just the fact that he's an undersized player trying to play an oversized position.

His rebounding tenacity is great, but still hindered by his height, and he still hasn't been able to develop an offensive game that will allow him to consistently score against his taller opponents. Developing that jump shot didn't seem too work out to well, either.

LMFAO exactly, it's a no brainer. 6'7" does not cut it as an NBA PF. I don't care how much hustle a player brings, if your team has championship aspirations (and the Spurs have the past couple seasons) then it can't have a 6'7" PF play significant minutes against the likes of LA, Dallas, etc. It's too much of a defensive liability. We all saw how Blair did against Memphis, he was dominated at will (granted most of our bigs were but that's because we only have 1 good big on defense) and it wasn't even entirely a matter of height. Blair's a thick dude, but Randolph moved him easily.

[chazley]

Get rid of RJ (Amnesty/trade)

Sign Battier

Battier/Kawhi split SF duties

Winning

[Bruno]

Thats been the 1st option for months and even with TP added in the deal nobody would bite. If a player like TP would net get any buyers then I seriously doubt Blair would do anything different.

Taking RJ's contract without knowing the new CBA is very hard to do for a team. Spurs best chance to find a taker for him will be when the new CBA will be known.
I'm not saying that Spurs will be able to trade RJ but the argument "they won't be able to trade him since they haven't been in the past" isn't as strong as it seems.

[will_spurs]

In my opinion you buyout RJ and lose 30 mil over 3 seasons to open up cap space now. Then the spurs should refuse TP's final year of his contract after 3 seasons (since it is a team option) and that move would save 12.5 mil. So over the next 3 seasons the spurs would lose a total of 18 mil, which comes out to losing 6 mil per year over the next 3 seasons. Just a thought

Saying the Spurs wouldn't be ready to fork out $30 million to get rid of RJ isn't quite the same as saying no team would. It really depends on e.g. whether the amnesty clause is limited to exactly 1 player per franchise, in which case it's better to have one player with a large contract to maximise the gain on cap space, etc.

[TD 21]

Even if Blair had a good work ethic, they were probably always going to look to trade him. For varying reasons, they're not trading Duncan, Splitter and Bonner. They don't have a starting power forward and Blair is too good to be a fifth big. So he's not a great current fit and he's not such a good long term building block to where there's ample reason to overlook that. Throw in his age and production vastly exceeding his relatively meager salary and it's a no brainer.

I still think Johnson/Kleiza for Jefferson/Blair is the most likely trade. But I'll throw another one out there: Gibson for Anderson. I don't see it happening, but consider this . . .

The Bulls will likely pursue Richardson. But with Boozer, Noah and Deng already making big money, Rose soon to be making max money and Gibson and Asik eventually due significant raises, is it really that intelligent to pay an aging SG, who can't create his own shot, what he'll command? Anderson is essentially a younger, cheaper version and he'd eliminate the eventual problem they'll have of having four bigs making top three big money and worthy of top three big minutes. Plus, he's probably as good as they can do long term, considering their limited trade assets.

[chazley]

Gibson for Anderson.

Thanks for the laugh.

[yavozerb]

Even if Blair had a good work ethic, they were probably always going to look to trade him. For varying reasons, they're not trading Duncan, Splitter and Bonner. They don't have a starting power forward and Blair is too good to be a fifth big. So he's not a great current fit and he's not such a good long term building block to where there's ample reason to overlook that. Throw in his age and production vastly exceeding his relatively meager salary and it's a no brainer.

I still think Johnson/Kleiza for Jefferson/Blair is the most likely trade. But I'll throw another one out there: Gibson for Anderson. I don't see it happening, but consider this . . .

The Bulls will likely pursue Richardson. But with Boozer, Noah and Deng already making big money, Rose soon to be making max money and Gibson and Asik eventually due significant raises, is it really that intelligent to pay an aging SG, who can't create his own shot, what he'll command? Anderson is essentially a younger, cheaper version and he'd eliminate the eventual problem they'll have of having four bigs making top three big money and worthy of top three big minutes. Plus, he's probably as good as they can do long term, considering their limited trade assets.

What makes you think the Bulls want a SF making 10+ mil. to be a bench player behind Deng? I can only think of 2 teams who might inquire about RJ, cavs and clipps, thats it. It still makes little sense for these clubs to invest anything in an aging player who is still owed 30 mil. In my opinion, other than his last year of the contract, this would be the only out for the spurs without giving up a ton to get rid of RJ.

[ChuckD]

They owe Jefferson the money, regardless. A buyout is just an accelerated payout, moving him off the roster to free time for Kawhi and Anderson.

I still think he's tradeable. Utah might be a good match, since they are STUFFED with big men, to the point of considering playing Milsap minutes at the 3. Kirilenko is unrestricted, and will likely get offers better than Utah will want to make. They need a 3.

Okur
Al J
Milsap
Favors
Kanter

Swap the Jeffersons, and throw in McDyess's immediately cuttable contract.

[Bruno]

Kanter doing well at the Eurobasket could entice Utah to trade one of its bigmen. It's also true with Valanciuas and Toronto.

[101A]

The rule favors wealthy teams willing to throw money around.

Sound like the Spurs to you?

Bad deal

[DPG21920]

For the Spurs it's a sunk cost. They are paying RJ regardless. Also for the Spurs this seems to be no different than a buy out which is already allowed for everyone unless I'm missing something. When you buy someone out do they still count against the cap?

[MaNu4Tres]

What makes you think the Bulls want a SF making 10+ mil. to be a bench player behind Deng? I can only think of 2 teams who might inquire about RJ, cavs and clipps, thats it. It still makes little sense for these clubs to invest anything in an aging player who is still owed 30 mil. In my opinion, other than his last year of the contract, this would be the only out for the spurs without giving up a ton to get rid of RJ.

By Richardson, TD21 meant Jason Richardson. Not Richard Jefferson.

[ploto]

I can not see Holt paying RJ so he can play for some other team for cheap. He would have to admit it was such a huge mistake in the first place. The Spurs think they can either teach a player or work out a deal- but not admit total failure.

[yavozerb]

By Richardson, TD21 meant Jason Richardson. Not Richard Jefferson.

Thanks, my bad...

[ChuckD]

The rule favors wealthy teams willing to throw money around.

Sound like the Spurs to you?

Bad deal


They owe Jefferson the money, regardless. A buyout is just an accelerated payout, moving him off the roster to free time for Kawhi and Anderson.

I still think he's tradeable. Utah might be a good match, since they are STUFFED with big men, to the point of considering playing Milsap minutes at the 3. Kirilenko is unrestricted, and will likely get offers better than Utah will want to make. They need a 3.

Okur
Al J
Milsap
Favors
Kanter

Swap the Jeffersons, and throw in McDyess's immediately cuttable contract.


For the Spurs it's a sunk cost. They are paying RJ regardless. Also for the Spurs this seems to be no different than a buy out which is already allowed for everyone unless I'm missing something. When you buy someone out do they still count against the cap?

[therealtruth]

I am kind of torn on this one. I still think RJ can help if Pop/Tony make an effort to keep him involved. The Spurs were unstoppable when he was averaging 20+. The problem was the Spurs slowed down their offense and stopped pushing the pace. I think that really hurt him. The player I would really like to see the Spurs go after is Tyson Chandler. I think he can push them over the top.

[Dex]

I am kind of torn on this one. I still think RJ can help if Pop/Tony make an effort to keep him involved. The Spurs were unstoppable when he was averaging 20+. The problem was the Spurs slowed down their offense and stopped pushing the pace. I think that really hurt him. The player I would really like to see the Spurs go after is Tyson Chandler. I think he can push them over the top.

Chandler will go back to Dallas. He quickly became one of the locker room leaders of that team. As long as Cuban is still allowed to open his wallet and make it happen (which he will, as long as there is a season), I don't see any reason why Tyson wouldn't want to go back and defend their title.

[Bruno]

Unlike what some of you are saying, the cheap move will likely be to waive RJ using that amnesty clause and to sign a cheap player to take his spot.

Spurs payroll for 2011/2012 is very high. If there is still a luxury tax system in the new CBA, Spurs will be a tax payer. Waiving RJ could save a lot of money to Spurs.

Once again, it's a complicate situation. An amnesty rule could very well be a great opportunity to save money and to help rebuilding the team faster.

[JsnSA]

Now I am likely wrong about this but for some reason I was under the impression that when Finley was cut from the Mavs in the last amnesty clause period, what the Spurs agreed to pay Finley was sort of deducted from the amount Cuban continued to pay Finley????

That is, if I remembered correctly and it works that way again then if the Spurs cut Richard they will be on the hook for his salary but if he is signed by another team the Spurs only have to pay the difference between what that team pays him and what the Spurs owe him?

Obviously that will not save a lot because in Jefferson's case no team will pay him more than what his current contract is. Also since he would get paid anyways (by the Spurs) he will most likely sign for the minimum to save the new team cap room. But if true it may keep the spurs from paying his full contract.

Am I mis-remembering how that worked?

[Mel_13]

Now I am likely wrong about this but for some reason I was under the impression that when Finley was cut from the Mavs in the last amnesty clause period, what the Spurs agreed to pay Finley was sort of deducted from the amount Cuban continued to pay Finley????

That is, if I remembered correctly and it works that way again then if the Spurs cut Richard they will be on the hook for his salary but if he is signed by another team the Spurs only have to pay the difference between what that team pays him and what the Spurs owe him?

Obviously that will not save a lot because in Jefferson's case no team will pay him more than what his current contract is. Also since he would get paid anyways (by the Spurs) he will most likely sign for the minimum to save the new team cap room. But if true it may keep the spurs from paying his full contract.

Am I mis-remembering how that worked?

There was no salary offset. Mavs had to pay the full salary due under the existing contract. The salary Finley received from the Spurs was completely separate.

[Bruno]

In the previous CBA, there were a "set-off provision" that allowed teams to reduce payments made to a waived player who signed with a new team.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q57


If another team signs a released player who had a guaranteed contract (as long as the player has cleared waivers -- see question number 56), the player's original team is allowed to reduce the amount of money it still owes the player (and lower their team salary) by a commensurate amount (this is called the right of set-off). This is true if the player signs with any professional team -- it doesn't even have to be an NBA team. The amount the original team gets to set off is limited to one-half the difference between the player's new salary and the minimum salary for a one-year veteran (if the player is a rookie, then the rookie minimum is used instead).

For example, suppose a fifth-year player is waived during the 2005 offseason, with one guaranteed season remaining on his contract. If this player signs a $1 million contract with another NBA team for the 2005-06 season, his original team gets to set off $1 million minus $641,748 (the minimum for a one-year veteran in 2005-06), divided by two, or $179,126. If this player had a $5 million salary with his prior team, then his prior team would be responsible for the remaining $4,820,874. Note that between his prior team and new team the player will earn a combined $5,820,874, which was more than he made prior to being waived.

Teams and players may negotiate a waiver of the team's set-off rights. Typically (but not necessarily) this is done when a contract is altered as part of a buyout (see question number 62), but not at other times.

[Mel_13]

Thanks, Bruno. I wasn't aware of that.

Going back and looking at the numbers:

Finley had three years and 51.8M remaining on his contract with Dallas. According to the references I use to check past contract details, Dallas paid Finley 50.7M over those three years, with all the savings applied in 2006-7 season.

[wildbill2u]

I can not see Holt paying RJ so he can play for some other team for cheap. He would have to admit it was such a huge mistake in the first place. The Spurs think they can either teach a player or work out a deal- but not admit total failure.

You're right on the money. Looking back, most people felt RJ wasn't cutting it when his contract came up. One of the great mysteries of life is why the FO went into hock so deep for this guy.

[ChuckD]

Thanks, Bruno. I wasn't aware of that.

Going back and looking at the numbers:

Finley had three years and 51.8M remaining on his contract with Dallas. According to the references I use to check past contract details, Dallas paid Finley 50.7M over those three years, with all the savings applied in 2006-7 season.

Those may have been the CAP numbers for those 3 years, but IIRC, Cuban had a provision that he could pay out the actual money over 10 years. If the Spurs were smart enough to put such a buyout in RJ's contract, it becomes an ABSOLUTE no brainer, since you'd be both paying him slower, and have him off the roster.

[joshdaboss]

I literally laughed out loud at the idea of this. There's no way in fuckin hell that drunk, cheap bastard Holt would EVER pay him and then let him go. hahahahaha What are you thinking? Do you even follow the Spurs?

[Mel_13]

I literally laughed out loud at the idea of this. There's no way in fuckin hell that drunk, cheap bastard Holt would EVER pay him and then let him go. hahahahaha What are you thinking? Do you even follow the Spurs?

If the terms of the new CBA mean that the Spurs can choose between paying him 30M to leave or 60M(inclusive tax) to stay, then Holt will pay him and let him go. Do you even follow the Spurs?

[yavozerb]

This might be the best route if this clause is placed in the CBA..

WRITTEN BY TREVOR ZICKGRAF | 30 SEPTEMBER 2011



But Bernucca wrote this bombshell of an idea today:

"More significantly: Can a team be prevented from re-signing a player it releases? If not, then the San Antonio Spurs could amnesty Tim Duncan (wink, wink), re-sign him to the veteran’s minimum and use the net $20 million cap space to sign a free agent that could help them make one more championship run – someone like Tyson Chandler."