If amnesty clause is in place does Jefferson get cut this season?

[Buddy Holly]

I would assume the amnesty clause is going to be part of this new CBA, if it is, does it get used on Jefferson this season?

I hope it does.

[Bruno]

It will depend on the details of the next CBA.

If it's close to the latest owners proposal, RJ won't be cut. He will be cut during the 2013 summer.

[lurker23]

One of the important questions is how long teams will have to use the amnesty.

-If teams only have until December 25, 2011 to use the amnesty, I'd say there's about a 75% chance the Spurs drop RJ. Pro: More minutes for youngsters, significant amount off of cap and potentially luxury tax, Spurs more likely to use full MLE. Con: Significant decrease in experience at the wing going into a shortened and hectic season.

-If teams have a longer period of time, e.g.- two seasons, or perhaps even the life of the CBA, here's how I have it pegged:

50% chance- Spurs keep RJ this season, then dump him in the summer of 2012 or 2013
40% chance- Spurs amnesty RJ immediately
10% chance- Spurs never use amnesty, or use amnesty on another player

[Bruno]

It will depend on the details of the next CBA.

If it's close to the latest owners proposal, RJ won't be cut. He will be cut during the 2013 summer.

After giving it more thought, I'm not even sure RJ will be cut in 2013.

As strange as it sounds, using the amnesty rule on RJ could be more expensive than keeping him. In 2013-2014, the minimum team salary will be 90% of the cap and Spurs have very little money committed to players. If RJ is amnestied, Spurs could struggle reaching that minimum team salary.

Spurs best option might be to used the amnesty clause on Dice. Using it on RJ could be only interesting if there is another team ready to re-sign him for about half his salary.

[Uriel]

After giving it more thought, I'm not even sure RJ will be cut in 2013.

As strange as it sounds, using the amnesty rule on RJ could be more expensive than keeping him. In 2013-2014, the minimum team salary will be 90% of the cap and Spurs have very little money committed to players. If RJ is amnestied, Spurs could struggle reaching that minimum team salary.

Spurs best option might be to used the amnesty clause on Dice. Using it on RJ could be only interesting if there is another team ready to re-sign him for about half his salary.

The details of the new CBA haven't been leaked yet. Where'd you get this info?

[yavozerb]

After giving it more thought, I'm not even sure RJ will be cut in 2013.

As strange as it sounds, using the amnesty rule on RJ could be more expensive than keeping him. In 2013-2014, the minimum team salary will be 90% of the cap and Spurs have very little money committed to players. If RJ is amnestied, Spurs could struggle reaching that minimum team salary.

Spurs best option might be to used the amnesty clause on Dice. Using it on RJ could be only interesting if there is another team ready to re-sign him for about half his salary.

Dice's contract is unguranteed for the coming season, why would would you amnesty that? My first choice would be to amnesty Duncan and then resign him for cheap if that is allowed. RJ is a no brainer but as you pointed out its not that easy with his contract.

[Bruno]

The details of the new CBA haven't been leaked yet. Where'd you get this info?

In the owners offer made 2 weeks ago, there were a minimum team salary of 85% in year 1 and 2 and 90% after that. It's likely still the case because I don't see why players would have pushed to remove a rule that is in their favor.

[Bruno]

Dice's contract is unguranteed for the coming season, why would would you amnesty that? My first choice would be to amnesty Duncan and then resign him for cheap if that is allowed. RJ is a no brainer but as you pointed out its not that easy with his contract.

Dice contract is partially unguaranteed, about 50% is guaranteed. Waiving him should allow Spurs to go under the tax this season.

I highly doubt teams will be allowed to re-sign amnestied players.

[DeadlyDynasty]

After giving it more thought, I'm not even sure RJ will be cut in 2013.


:)

[Seventyniner]

Could the Spurs' decision about RJ depend on who else gets amnestied? If someone like James Posey in Indiana gets cut loose, it could be well worth spending $2-3M on him and letting RJ go.

[ChuckD]

Could the Spurs' decision about RJ depend on who else gets amnestied? If someone like James Posey in Indiana gets cut loose, it could be well worth spending $2-3M on him and letting RJ go.

Posey would have been a good get three years ago, but he's fucking done.

The team is relieved of the cap/tax figure, but not the financial cost of the contract. They still owe RJ $30M no matter what. I think they only "amnesty" RJ if they think Kawhi, a cheap replacement, is ready. If he isn't, you probably keep RJ, since you owe him the money anyway. Why would they pay RJ, Posey (or someone else), AND Kawhi?

My guess is that they keep RJ for now, only owing him 66/82 of his salary this year, and amnesty him next summer, dependent of course on what Tim wants to do going forward. If Tim wants to play another year or two, you almost have to amnesty RJ off the cap.

[baseline bum]

Dice's contract is unguranteed for the coming season, why would would you amnesty that? My first choice would be to amnesty Duncan and then resign him for cheap if that is allowed. RJ is a no brainer but as you pointed out its not that easy with his contract.

I don't think Stern would let the owners amnesty and then re-sign their own guys. He's taken a really hard line in the past with owners regarding cap circumvention.

[Nathan89]

I hope Spurs cut RJ and I suggest they start on his throat.

[acoelho1]

I hope they use the amnesty as well on Jefferson but remember the Spurs owner was pushing for an extended period to decide who to use it on. I doubt they would use it this season. They may want to see how the season goes but I much rather see the younger players given more court time.

[InRareForm]

per Adrian yahoo:

Amnesty clause is in deal, just matter of form it takes. Last proposal allowed teams to use it on a current contract at anytime during CBA.

[Seventyniner]

I hope Spurs cut RJ and I suggest they start on his throat.

They'd have to get through his hands first.

[yavozerb]

I hope they use the amnesty as well on Jefferson but remember the Spurs owner was pushing for an extended period to decide who to use it on. I doubt they would use it this season. They may want to see how the season goes but I much rather see the younger players given more court time.

Thats exactly right...Why cut RJ just to have rookies stepping in on a playoff team. Wait one season, let the younger players get at least 1 season under there belt and then cut RJ. This and TD's contract expiring at the same time would open alot of cap room for the next offseason. No need to waste this cut this season in my opinion as well..

[Big P]

Dice contract is partially unguaranteed, about 50% is guaranteed. Waiving him should allow Spurs to go under the tax this season.

I highly doubt teams will be allowed to re-sign amnestied players.

$2.6 mil. I believe.

[itzsoweezee]

I can't see the Spurs cutting Jefferson.

Although he's clearly overpaid, the Spurs definitely need him. It's not like there are a lot of starting-level small forwards out there.

[therealtruth]

Another option would be changing the system enough to allow RJ to play his game. He was averaging 20ppg at the beginning of the season when the Spurs were winning. They are a much more dangerous team with an aggressive RJ. In fact I think they're better of that way than trying to find a 3 and D(efense) player to replace RJ. Allowing RJ to play his game makes everyone else more dangerous because the defense doesn't know who to stop.

The whole reason the Spurs got RJ was because they didn't believe they had enough offensive firepower with Bowen's declining defense and Finley's non-existent defense. I think the Spurs best chance at competing is to go back to that running game and then focus on improving the defense. Play JA and Splitter and less Bonner (definitely no Bonner and Blair at the same time) will also help the defense. They can also look for a cheap good backup defensive big. That's a very realistic plan that allows them to compete and maintain team chemistry. It doesn't make sense to mess with team chemistry if you're just shuffling players around. It's much easier to change the gameplan.

[Bruno]

If the amnesty clause is like in owner's offer that was made public, waived players will go through a special waiver procedure were teams can claim him for only a fraction of his salary.

I can even see a team like Clippers unofficially contact Spurs to tell then that if they use the clause on RJ, they will claim for a certain fraction of his previous contract. Waiving RJ and paying only 60% or even 50% of his salary could be a good opportunity for Spurs.

[Nathan89]

If the amnesty clause is like in owner's offer that was made public, waived players will go through a special waiver procedure were teams can claim him for only a fraction of his salary.

I can even see a team like Clippers unofficially contact Spurs to tell then that if they use the clause on RJ, they will claim for a certain fraction of his previous contract. Waiving RJ and paying only 60% or even 50% of his salary could be a good opportunity for Spurs.

Great idea. Hope something like this happens.

[lmbebo]

can't see spurs cutting him. Spurs aren't a high spending team that is willing to throw $30 million out the door.

[Bruno]

Now that the details of the new CBA are known, I doubt Spurs will waive RJ this year. It makes little sense basketball wise and financially wise.

[buttsR4rebounding]

If the amnesty clause is like in owner's offer that was made public, waived players will go through a special waiver procedure were teams can claim him for only a fraction of his salary.

I can even see a team like Clippers unofficially contact Spurs to tell then that if they use the clause on RJ, they will claim for a certain fraction of his previous contract. Waiving RJ and paying only 60% or even 50% of his salary could be a good opportunity for Spurs.

IMO this is the only scenario where the Spurs amnesty RJ. If they still are on the hook for his entire salary I don't believe they let him go. He is a servicable SF who in the right system can be very good. The Spurs are not in the biz of paying players large sums to play for someone else.

[TheCerebral1]

The guy cannot hit a three when open, cannot defend, doesn't do much of anything. He's a monumental flop as a Spur. Bring Robert Horry out of retirement, that guy has more game at 45 than Jefferson has at any point as a Spur. This guy cost trading George Hill. But I'm ready for Kawhi Leonard. Get out of town you trash bag hoe.

[DPG21920]

If the amnesty clause is like in owner's offer that was made public, waived players will go through a special waiver procedure were teams can claim him for only a fraction of his salary.

I can even see a team like Clippers unofficially contact Spurs to tell then that if they use the clause on RJ, they will claim for a certain fraction of his previous contract. Waiving RJ and paying only 60% or even 50% of his salary could be a good opportunity for Spurs.


Now that the details of the new CBA are known, I doubt Spurs will waive RJ this year. It makes little sense basketball wise and financially wise.

??? They do get to have the waiver priority where another team will pay part of his salary.

[Bruno]

??? They do get to have the waiver priority where another team will pay part of his salary.

That's how the amnesty rule will work:
http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_basketball_heat/2011/11/nba-cba-official-nba-agreement-document.html


Each team permitted to waive 1 player prior to any season of the CBA (only for contracts in place at the inception of the CBA) and have 100% of the player’s salary removed from team salary for Cap and Tax purposes.

Salary of amnestied players included for purposes of calculating players’ agreed-upon share of BRI.

A modified waiver process will be utilized for players waived pursuant to the Amnesty rule, under which teams with Room under the Cap can submit competing offers to assume some but not all of the player’s remaining contract. If a player’s contract is claimed in this manner, the remaining portion of the player’s salary will continue to be paid by the team that waived him.


Clippers can secretly contact Spurs and tell them that if the amnesty is used on RJ, they will make an offer of, let's say, 40% of his contract.

By doing that, Spurs will know that in the worst case, they willl have to pay only 60% of RJ's contract. Clippers will get RJ with a contract they like. If they are outbid by another team, they'll lose nothing.

The weakness in that plan is that Spurs will have to trust Clippers will make the offer. Once RJ is amnestied, nothing force Clippers to make a 40% offer or even to make an offer. If Clippers betrayed their word, Spurs couldn't bitch since this whole arrangement is illegal.

[TD 21]

That's how the amnesty rule will work:
http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_basketball_heat/2011/11/nba-cba-official-nba-agreement-document.html


Clippers can secretly contact Spurs and tell them that if the amnesty is used on RJ, they will make an offer of, let's say, 40% of his contract.

By doing that, Spurs will know that in the worst case, they willl have to pay only 60% of RJ's contract. Clippers will get RJ with a contract they like. If they are outbid by another team, they'll lose nothing.

The weakness in that plan is that Spurs will have to trust Clippers will make the offer. Once RJ is amnestied, nothing force Clippers to make a 40% offer or even to make an offer. If Clippers betrayed their word, Spurs couldn't bitch since this whole arrangement is illegal.

I'd be surprised if teams did that though. It's unethical and it's bad business.

I don't think the Spurs will use the amnesty on Jefferson this season. It sounds great to say "use it on him now and sign Battier", but that's a lot of money to spend for a move that could very well be a lateral one or close to it. The only time Holt has shown a willingness to spend big is when it was believed doing so would potentially push the Spurs over the top.

That being said, I had previously thought that they couldn't keep Jefferson AND acquire Amir Johnson (or another starting PF who makes in his range), because it would likely increase payroll. In reality, they could acquire Johnson for Blair and McDyess and not increase payroll (they'd actually save half a million for this season).

[Mel_13]

I'd be surprised if teams did that though. It's unethical and it's bad business.

I don't think the Spurs will use the amnesty on Jefferson this season. It sounds great to say "use it on him now and sign Battier", but that's a lot of money to spend for a move that could very well be a lateral one or close to it. The only time Holt has shown a willingness to spend big is when it was believed doing so would potentially push the Spurs over the top.

That being said, I had previously thought that they couldn't keep Jefferson AND acquire Amir Johnson (or another starting PF who makes in his range), because it would likely increase payroll. In reality, they could acquire Johnson for Blair and McDyess and not increase payroll (they'd actually save half a million for this season).

Only if you assume that Dice will play this season.

[TD 21]

Only if you assume that Dice will play this season.

Everyone knew when he signed that he more than likely was going to retire after the second season. But I think the plan all along was to use his partially guaranteed contract to bring in a younger PF, who's making about the same. So I think they were/are willing to still allot that amount to the starting PF.

[DPG21920]

Man, I'm glad this is back :lol. There is a ton of new dimensions to this now and we still have a ton to learn on how this all works.

[Mel_13]

Everyone knew when he signed that he more than likely was going to retire after the second season. But I think the plan all along was to use his partially guaranteed contract to bring in a younger PF, who's making about the same. So I think they were/are willing to still allot that amount to the starting PF.

They may well be, but they won't save money by doing it. That was my point.

[TD 21]

They may well be, but they won't save money by doing it. That was my point.

You knew what I meant. Just couldn't resist the usual condescending remark.

[Mel_13]

You knew what I meant. Just couldn't resist the usual condescending remark.

I responded to your post as written.

Any condescension was received by you, not delivered by me.

[TD 21]

I responded to your post as written.

Any condescension was received by you, not delivered by me.

Either you knew what was meant (but just couldn't pass up the opportunity to get someone on a technicality) or you just think I'm an idiot.

It was received by me . . . but only after it was delivered by you.

[Mel_13]

Either you knew what was meant (but just couldn't pass up the opportunity to get someone on a technicality) or you just think I'm an idiot.

It was received by me . . . but only after it was delivered by you.

Believe what you like.

I don't believe you're an idiot.

[MaNu4Tres]

I'm so glad to get this thing going again.

I missed you guys. :toast

[ElNono]

I'm so glad to get this thing going on.

I missed you guys. :toast

Do you still love RJ? I might not be glad to see you back :lol

[thOOdee]

great to login again on spurstalk! I'm so pumped for the nba to be rollin again....i missed this shit.

[MaNu4Tres]

Do you still love RJ? I might not be glad to see you back :lol

:lol

Never have loved him. Ever.

Just had my opinion and reasons why I understood him being resigned (saving of money and him being the best option available at that point in time).

He never was going to hurt the Spurs rebuilding process (IMO)--and at the same time it was a move to win now.

All that nonsense aside, I can't wait to see what Leonard and Anderson have in store for this year. :tu

[ElNono]

Welcome back :lol

[Ice009]

I wanted RJ gone in the first month of his first season here, I wanted him traded for Sjax, but last season I was willing to give him another chance and actually wanted him to come back as I thought it was probably the best option available over a minimum salary player. I'm sure the Spurs thought the same thing, and it was sound logic at the time, but a minimum salary player would have probably been a better option.

Not sure what direction the Spurs want to go in now as they have a few options to explore.

[ducks]

cutting duncan or manu makes more sence then rj
does anyone really think duncan deservers what he is going to make this year
you could cut him and start over and just tank
let splitter start and build for the future
do you really think the spurs will win a title this year

[DPG21920]

Ducks, shhhh.

[therealtruth]

I think Spurs should also give T-Mac a look. He'll come cheap plus he can play 1-3. SJax is too expensive and Grant Hill's too loyal to Phoenix and not a good 3pt shooter. With the emergence of Neal, Battier's offense is probably adequate.

[DPG21920]

Good call, Bruno. It does appear there will be a bidding system per David Aldridge (unless the poster was lying :lol because I haven't seen it mentioned officially). Makes things a little more interesting.

[ChuckD]

Real talk: The Spurs aren't looking at anyone, unless it's a Gary Neal out of nowhere minimum type person. SA has 12 under contract, minus the anticipated departure of Dice, plus two first rounders they MUST pay guaranteed contracts to. That's 13, and other than playing fill the roster spot like they did last year, they're likely done. They're already looking at the Tax, unless they use the Amnesty on Dice.

[ElNono]

I think Spurs should also give T-Mac a look.

Wow, you're trolling :lol

[Nathan89]

Did the luxury tax line change?

[DPG21920]

Not that I know of.

[Nathan89]

I just don't see why the Spurs wouldn't do it to Rj. We have to get under the lux tax.

Just seems like avoiding a couple mil tax plus the kick back for staying under in addition to another team paying at least 40% of his contract would make it a financially good decision. Especially because the Spurs would get flexibility to add player they want on the cheap. The Spurs also don't have to spend all the way up to the tax line saving even more money.

[DPG21920]

It's not guarenteed anyone would claim him.

[ElNono]

Spurs have 2 years to get out of the tax... and under the amnesty the Spurs would still need to pay off at least a portion of RJ's contract. You add an extra contract to that, and you might be spending more than RJ + tax.

[Nathan89]

It's not guarenteed anyone would claim him.

Well that's just sad.:depressed

Maybe if throw in a few more training sessions with Pop.:blah

[ChuckD]

Did the luxury tax line change?

Not sure what it was last year, but Spurs are sitting at $73M before offloading McDyess, but also before their two rookie deals are inked. They'll get about $2.6M relief from Dice on his 50% guaranteed deal, but spend most of that on the two rooks. Spot #15 is much more expensive that our usual late 20s spot, which we have to pay anyway since we kept the pick.

[TD 21]

Not sure what it was last year, but Spurs are sitting at $73M before offloading McDyess, but also before their two rookie deals are inked. They'll get about $2.6M relief from Dice on his 50% guaranteed deal, but spend most of that on the two rooks. Spot #15 is much more expensive that our usual late 20s spot, which we have to pay anyway since we kept the pick.

I'd be surprised if they essentially did nothing but fill out the roster with a couple of minimum salary vets. It would jive with the whole "Holt is cheap" line, but it would also go against Pop's comments at the end of last season. He made it clear that their goal is to get back to being 5th-7th defensively and it was also clear that neither he nor Buford are sold on Splitter being a fit next to Duncan.

The current roster has a microscopic chance (and that's being generous) of being in that range defensively and it also lacks a starting PF, so I've got to think a move for a starting PF is coming. Maybe that's the only move, rotation wise. But add it to Splitter and Anderson being in the rotation and Leonard being on the fringe of the rotation and they should have a legit shot at finishing 5th-7th defensively.

[MaNu4Tres]

I'd be surprised if they essentially did nothing but fill out the roster with a couple of minimum salary vets. It would jive with the whole "Holt is cheap" line, but it would also go against Pop's comments at the end of last season. He made it clear that their goal is to get back to being 5th-7th defensively and it was also clear that neither he nor Buford are sold on Splitter being a fit next to Duncan.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/article/Splitter-cast-as-Duncan-sidekick-1379352.php

“I think Tiago has to be a linchpin for our future here, because he has the size, the length, the toughness, the grit, the consistency,” Popovich said. “He's going to be a stalwart of this team going forward.”

“We played with two bigs before, when Fab was here,” Popovich said. “Fab and Timmy were the starters, and we got it done.”



He may not be the "perfect" fit next to Tim, but he's the best option and it looks like he will get significant time this year.

[angelbelow]

Season is finally starting soon.. whoo.. havent really been following the CBA discussions but it seems like the more knowledgeable posters are expecting RJ not to be cut. Being uninformed I would have jumped on the opportunity to cut him (more minutes for JA, KL) so hopefully this thread keeps on providing more insight on this situation.

[TD 21]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/article/Splitter-cast-as-Duncan-sidekick-1379352.php

I'm aware of that article. Did he sound thrilled with the notion of playing them together or did he sound like he knows it's the best in house option and given their financial limitations, they may not be able to do better? It sounded like the latter to me. I didn't hear "I think they'll be a good fit together" or anything to that effect.

As for Buford, in a radio interview in the summer, he made it clear that they view both Duncan and Splitter as centers and said something to the effect of "given where Duncan is at in his career, it would be difficult to play them together". It didn't sound like they viewed Splitter as being able to consistently defend power forwards.

Even if they essentially stood pat and paired them together, Duncan would probably play 28-30 mpg and Splitter 24-28 mpg. Even with mixing and matching, that would mean plenty of minutes with Blair and Bonner paired together and that would mean no chance of finishing 5th-7th defensively.

[Chieflion]

I think Bonner is a more possible candidate for being amnestied, but that's just me.

[Ice009]

I think Bonner is a more possible candidate for being amnestied, but that's just me.

He'd only be a consideration if you trade RJ. If you don't trade RJ, then you gotta keep that amnesty option to be able to use it on RJ at any point during his contract. That would also be too big of a waste to use it on Bonner, who is a relatively small contract in comparison.

Also, do you have to use it in between seasons? can you use it on someone during the season? and how about if you trade for someone? Can you use it on them if they signed their contract before July 1 2011?

[wildbill2u]

We forget that RJ averaged 11 ppg and almost 4 rebounds. FG % was over 47% and surprisingly, his 3 Pt. % was over 44%.

Granted he looked like a fish our of water at times and wasn't Bruce Bowen on defense, I doubt the Spurs will spend millions just to get rid of him. It's a bad deal financially for the output received, but other teams probably have worse players with similar contracts.

[objective]

After thinking more about the waiver process for amnestied players, I'm now thinking that there's a good chance the Spurs do amnesty RJ. You can hear Larry Coon explain the amnesty and waiver issue on the Cowbell Kingdom podcast, download link here (http://www.cowbellkingdom.com/podcasts/ck_podcast_ep22.mp3).

Now, of course RJ should be cut. His play on this team has been total garbage when it matters but that wouldn't stop the Spurs from keeping him.

However, when you combine the luxury tax, the MLE differences (http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/11/26/the-mid-level-and-bird-rights/)for teams in tax and out, and the waiver team absolving a portion of the RJ salary obligation, now it makes sense for the Spurs.

For one, if they kept RJ, and if McDyess gets his partial guarantee buyout, the Spurs wouldn't be able to use the full MLE on players because it would take them to $4 million over the tax. They wouldn't be able to spend on these rumored washed up SFs like Howard or Butler or Evans AND sign a body to replace McDyess on the team (like McRoberts). They'd be in a bad place with only Duncan, DNP Splitter, WhataBlair and Bonner, especially on those back-to-back-to-backs.

But if they amnesty RJ, they get well below the tax and would then not only save the money they'd pay in tax but also get their portion of the tax payout, but they also would be able to spend the full MLE on new players.

AND with the waiver process, they wouldn't even owe all the money due to RJ. All it would take is a team under the tax putting in a claim on what they think RJ is worth (I'm thinking his actual value would be maybe 2.5-3 per year for the remainder, but maybe someone bids 4). Then instead of owing RJ another 30 million, they'd only have to pay him say, 21 million, plus save 1-4 million in tax, plus get some unknown number of tax payout . . . that's a good argument to take to Holt and get RJ the hell out of town.

Plus, add in Harvey's piece today basically laying the groundwork for RJ to be amnestied, and we're good to go. Harvey is satisfying the usual requirements for the way the Spurs-SA Media works. The Spurs feed their agenda to the media, and the media pukes it into the groundwater to prepare the fanbase for the taste.

Then when it does happen, all the people who were just repeating, "RJ just needs a better system!" and "RJ is better than some 2nd rounder, even though he got tooled on by a 2nd round minimum player like Sam Young!" instead will be saying, "Yeah, RJ is like the football player who dives on the pile when the plays over! I like football, I like the Cowboys, and this RJ character just isn't good. CIA Pop is at it again, cutting off the barnacles and loose ends! Mario Elie was so tough, not like RJ!"

[SenorSpur]

I'm aware of that article. Did he sound thrilled with the notion of playing them together or did he sound like he knows it's the best in house option and given their financial limitations, they may not be able to do better? It sounded like the latter to me. I didn't hear "I think they'll be a good fit together" or anything to that effect.

As for Buford, in a radio interview in the summer, he made it clear that they view both Duncan and Splitter as centers and said something to the effect of "given where Duncan is at in his career, it would be difficult to play them together". It didn't sound like they viewed Splitter as being able to consistently defend power forwards.

Even if they essentially stood pat and paired them together, Duncan would probably play 28-30 mpg and Splitter 24-28 mpg. Even with mixing and matching, that would mean plenty of minutes with Blair and Bonner paired together and that would mean no chance of finishing 5th-7th defensively.

All the more reason why they MUST swing some sort of a trade for a mobile PF. I believe that is their highest priority and I believe they will. There have been numerous hints dropped over the past few months, that another trade could be eminent. Based upon the limited number of assets the Spurs have, I'm highly curious to see what they come up with.

As for RJ, I simply cannot see Holt "eating his contract" and turning him loose. A point which makes the Spurs recent rumored interest in a couple of SFs another very curious move. Is it real? Or is it just a smokescreen?

I believe they might just surprise us.

[Bruno]

If Spurs use the amnesty clause on RJ and if no teams claim a part of his contract, Spurs will have spend $39M just for one year of play. For reference, players like Jordan, Garnett, Bryant or Duncan have never been paid $39M a season.

I don't see Spurs suing the amnesty rule on RJ. They will try to trade him and if they fail, they will try again at the trade deadline or next summer. It's what they did with Rasho before finally being able to dump his contract.

[ElNono]

If nobody claims a player on the amnesty clause, wouldn't that player be situated like a waived player? And if that's the case, wouldn't the x2+1 years prorated payment clause in the new CBA kick in?

[ChuckD]

If nobody claims a player on the amnesty clause, wouldn't that player be situated like a waived player? And if that's the case, wouldn't the x2+1 years prorated payment clause in the new CBA kick in?

Probably, but that doesn't change the fact that they owe him 100% of what is due, just the time to pay it off.

[Bruno]

If nobody claims a player on the amnesty clause, wouldn't that player be situated like a waived player? And if that's the case, wouldn't the x2+1 years prorated payment clause in the new CBA kick in?

Yes.
No.

The stretch exception for waived players can only be used for players who sign their contract under the new CBA.

[ElNono]

Thanks... plus I would suspect a team like Miami might just pick him up for the vet min... which would suck

[objective]

If Spurs use the amnesty clause on RJ and if no teams claim a part of his contract, Spurs will have spend $39M just for one year of play. For reference, players like Jordan, Garnett, Bryant or Duncan have never been paid $39M a season.


Sorry, but that's an illogical non-sequiter.

Jordan, Garnett, Bryant and Duncan were never guaranteed $40 million to play like absolute soft, lazy garbage either.

With the last amount of money as a player option. After being putrid mess for the previous contracted time with the team. After having to dribble around cones for two weeks for the head coach just to convince him to give another chance. After opting out thinking NJ was going to give him a monster deal only to see them laugh in his face and sign other scrubs instead.

RJ is getting his money. He can either A) get it while vomiting all over the Spurs with his pathetic performances, or B) get it while another player actually has the chance to do something good.

Option B could be a trade (though I can't imagine any team being that dumb no matter how much I hope), a flat amnesty, or an amnesty where part of the bill is paid for by another team. If anything, dropping the amnesty on RJ this year gets them out from the luxury tax for this year and allows them to spend the whole non-tax MLE, though hopefully it wouldn't be on washed up busted vets like Butler and Howard.

Keeping Jefferson solely because of the sunk cost is flawed judgement. It's not as bad, but it reminds me of when posters on this board in 07 argued against bringing in Scola at his requested 3/10 because it would have made him the highest paid 2nd round pick in history. It had nothing to do with anything.

[DesignatedT]

RJ would get picked up by somebody. No way he just sits in FA.

[therealtruth]

We forget that RJ averaged 11 ppg and almost 4 rebounds. FG % was over 47% and surprisingly, his 3 Pt. % was over 44%.

Granted he looked like a fish our of water at times and wasn't Bruce Bowen on defense, I doubt the Spurs will spend millions just to get rid of him. It's a bad deal financially for the output received, but other teams probably have worse players with similar contracts.

Exactly. That's the difference between perception and reality. In reality RJ was 17th in the league in TS percentage. Basically he scored more efficiently than about everyone else on the team. The Spurs should have been looking into getting him more shots like they did earlier in the season. Not surprisingly that's when they played some of their best offense. Could he work on his defense, toughness, and attitude? Off course, but if you score more efficiently than anyone on the team you deserve to get more touches.

[TDMVPDPOY]

rjs play on this team, can be replicated by our younger players once given the same minutes...im expecting neals stats to go up and KL to avg above 10ppg

[DMC]

Being a shortened season, they obviously aren't paying him as much as they would next year. I bet they wait until at least the trade deadline, but I've been wrong before.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

if the increased revenue sharing is 3 times what it used to be like its been purported then the Spurs might not be as cheap as they have been framing the pay schedule whatever way notwithstanding.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

After thinking more about the waiver process for amnestied players, I'm now thinking that there's a good chance the Spurs do amnesty RJ. You can hear Larry Coon explain the amnesty and waiver issue on the Cowbell Kingdom podcast, download link here (http://www.cowbellkingdom.com/podcasts/ck_podcast_ep22.mp3).

Now, of course RJ should be cut. His play on this team has been total garbage when it matters but that wouldn't stop the Spurs from keeping him.

However, when you combine the luxury tax, the MLE differences (http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/11/26/the-mid-level-and-bird-rights/)for teams in tax and out, and the waiver team absolving a portion of the RJ salary obligation, now it makes sense for the Spurs.

For one, if they kept RJ, and if McDyess gets his partial guarantee buyout, the Spurs wouldn't be able to use the full MLE on players because it would take them to $4 million over the tax. They wouldn't be able to spend on these rumored washed up SFs like Howard or Butler or Evans AND sign a body to replace McDyess on the team (like McRoberts). They'd be in a bad place with only Duncan, DNP Splitter, WhataBlair and Bonner, especially on those back-to-back-to-backs.

But if they amnesty RJ, they get well below the tax and would then not only save the money they'd pay in tax but also get their portion of the tax payout, but they also would be able to spend the full MLE on new players.

AND with the waiver process, they wouldn't even owe all the money due to RJ. All it would take is a team under the tax putting in a claim on what they think RJ is worth (I'm thinking his actual value would be maybe 2.5-3 per year for the remainder, but maybe someone bids 4). Then instead of owing RJ another 30 million, they'd only have to pay him say, 21 million, plus save 1-4 million in tax, plus get some unknown number of tax payout . . . that's a good argument to take to Holt and get RJ the hell out of town.

Plus, add in Harvey's piece today basically laying the groundwork for RJ to be amnestied, and we're good to go. Harvey is satisfying the usual requirements for the way the Spurs-SA Media works. The Spurs feed their agenda to the media, and the media pukes it into the groundwater to prepare the fanbase for the taste.

Then when it does happen, all the people who were just repeating, "RJ just needs a better system!" and "RJ is better than some 2nd rounder, even though he got tooled on by a 2nd round minimum player like Sam Young!" instead will be saying, "Yeah, RJ is like the football player who dives on the pile when the plays over! I like football, I like the Cowboys, and this RJ character just isn't good. CIA Pop is at it again, cutting off the barnacles and loose ends! Mario Elie was so tough, not like RJ!"

Interesting, but I think either of the two emboldened bits below are more likely...


All the more reason why they MUST swing some sort of a trade for a mobile PF. I believe that is their highest priority and I believe they will. There have been numerous hints dropped over the past few months, that another trade could be eminent. Based upon the limited number of assets the Spurs have, I'm highly curious to see what they come up with.

As for RJ, I simply cannot see Holt "eating his contract" and turning him loose. A point which makes the Spurs recent rumored interest in a couple of SFs another very curious move. Is it real? Or is it just a smokescreen?

I believe they might just surprise us.


If Spurs use the amnesty clause on RJ and if no teams claim a part of his contract, Spurs will have spend $39M just for one year of play. For reference, players like Jordan, Garnett, Bryant or Duncan have never been paid $39M a season.

I don't see Spurs suing the amnesty rule on RJ. They will try to trade him and if they fail, they will try again at the trade deadline or next summer. It's what they did with Rasho before finally being able to dump his contract.

The RJ contract is the worst handed out by the Spurs FO in my memory. It's become a fucking albatross around our necks, just like I said it was the day it was announced. I really hope they find some miraculous way to move him, or to get him to play with some heart.

[analyzed]

I'm curious given the Spurs have practically given up on RJ , and assuming they still keep him at least for the season. How will they use him? seriously is he going to be playing less than 20 min a game or even less? I can't see how a guy who is paid 5 x more than his teamates (Anderson and Neal) ends up playing less minutes. If RJ has any pride left in him, he should ask to be traded

[mudyez]

I'm curious given the Spurs have practically given up on RJ , and assuming they still keep him at least for the season. How will they use him? seriously is he going to be playing less than 20 min a game or even less? I can't see how a guy who is paid 5 x more than his teamates (Anderson and Neal) ends up playing less minutes. If RJ has any pride left in him, he should ask to be traded

yes, he will play less than less than 20min :king

[mountainballer]

If Spurs use the amnesty clause on RJ and if no teams claim a part of his contract, Spurs will have spend $39M just for one year of play. For reference, players like Jordan, Garnett, Bryant or Duncan have never been paid $39M a season.


this.
no GM in the world could survive a 39 million gift for a 12.4 PER, plus an epic PO fail. they will try to controle the damage at any cost. maybe use the AC on RJ in 2012, when it still looks bad, but not that bad.
I see a good chance they trade him for another very bad AC candidate contract and at least get the chance that the other player fits better. the money is gone anyway. (Haywood? Harrington? Hamilton? Biedrins? Outlaw? Villanueva?)
I can see several teams try this strategy, befor they finally use the AC.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

I don't see how AC-ing RJ now will help the Spurs. It's not like they'd have more money to spend on FAs. He's not very good and does not justify his salary, however, he's not the reason why the Spurs can't contend anymore. That reason is Tim Duncan.

[objective]

I don't see how AC-ing RJ now will help the Spurs. It's not like they'd have more money to spend on FAs. He's not very good and does not justify his salary, however, he's not the reason why the Spurs can't contend anymore. That reason is Tim Duncan.

How it would help the Spurs:

If the Spurs buyout McDyess on his partial guarantee, their total salaries plus capholds would be about 72 million per Bruno. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5219730&postcount=112) That puts them over the tax, and unless I'm mistaken, limits their MLE options.

According to SI (http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/11/26/the-mid-level-and-bird-rights/):


• Every team can use the full mid-level exception, provided doing so does not take the team more than $4 million over the tax line.


Instead, the Spurs being over that amount would only have the 'mini-MLE', a three year deal starting at $3 million (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/CBA-111128/how-new-nba-deal-compares-last-one), instead of being able to offer a 4 year deal starting at $5 million.

Only having 3 million to spend on replacements for McDyess, or to sign more washed up has-beens like Vince Carter, Caron Butler, or Josh Howard is limiting for the Spurs, as they would already be paying tax dollars and then taxed on the new deals. That could cost them a player they want who could get the full 5 million MLE from another team, like Caron Butler.

So if they signed Scrubs McGoo at 3 million, they would then pay about 5 million in tax this year plus have Jefferson's terrible play sucking up minutes and ruining the development of players who could contribute.

BUT, if McDyess is brought back for some reason they're even more screwed, and their total is about 74.5 (remember, they could have cut him before the lockout, but made an agreement with him to delay his fate until the new season, maybe for trade purposes, but also maybe to wait for him to change his mind). Then, they'd be paying an extra about 7.5 million in tax this year if they used the tax mini-MLE.

So what could they get by junking Jefferson?

First and foremost, they get out from under the luxury tax. If McDyess is bought out, that takes their total number down to about 63 million. That saves the Spurs $2 million in tax plus gives them a tax payout, though only half of what it would have been under the old deal.

Then, by being at 63 million, they have full use of the MLE starting at $5 million. And they can use it and still not be in the luxury tax. That could be a big deal.

If McDyess comes back and they amnesty RJ, then their salary is about 65.5 million. They could spend up the full $5 million a year, though it would likely take them into the tax, albeit barely. But they could also pay about 4-4.5 a year if they wanted, and barely be under the tax.

AND if they amnesty RJ and some other team puts in a waiver bid on him, that saves the Spurs even more money.

So if some team bids $9 million for the remaining 3 years of his deal and wins (3 per year), that saves the Spurs a lot more money. Without Dyess and with an MLE, they'd save $5 million in taxes, 9 million in waiver payments, and get whatever their share of tax payout is. That's taking RJ's $30 million remaining down to about 15-16 million. RJ obligations get cut almost in half.

That's a good reason to do it. Even if RJ clears waivers with no bids, the Spurs save 5 million in tax money plus payout. If McDyess comes back, they still would save about 7.5 million in tax money plus possible payout.

That's free money.

AND it preserves the ability for the Spurs to sign the giant mistake of their choice, like Caron Butler.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

I see your point and agree with most of it, objective, however I don't think Holt will eat RJ's remaining 30mil ( or a bit less if another team claims him off waivers ), so that he could be able to spend even more money using the whole MLE. Not after crying poverty all summer long.

I think they'll try to shop him around all season long, if they fail, they could eventually think about cutting him next summer, but the way to get under the tax threshold for this season, would be by trading away Danny Green/ Da'Sean Butler/ James Anderson ( depending on the lux tax threshold, as far as I know it hasn't been determined yet ).

Of course trading RJ and getting a bit less salary back would also help in this regard. They could also trade Dice's contract with a 2nd round pick and cash to a team under the cap for a TE or something like that.

All much cheaper moves than AC-ing RJ. All IMO, of course.

[objective]

I'm not guaranteeing that RJ gets amnestied. For a long time I thought it preposterous that he would get cut, thinking like many that Holt wouldn't eat his deal. The waiver bid process changed my mind and made me consider it a real possibility after the realistic benefits of it.

But I would say in regards to Holt spending the whole MLE . . .

It looks like from afar that it is going to happen anyway, be it the full MLE or the limited taxpayer MLE.

These players they're alleged to be after in media reports: Caron Butler, Shane Battier, Grant Hill . . . they're not signing for the veteran's minimum. Maybe Josh Howard or Mo Evans would. Maybe Vince Carter would.

So regardless of whether RJ is amnestied, it sure looks like Holt will be spending money on RJ's replacement anyway. Even if not an outright replacement if RJ is still on the roster, at the very least, a displacement that would take minutes away.

[mountainballer]

I see your point and agree with most of it, objective, however I don't think Holt will eat RJ's remaining 30mil ( or a bit less if another team claims him off waivers ), so that he could be able to spend even more money using the whole MLE. Not after crying poverty all summer long.

I think they'll try to shop him around all season long, if they fail, they could eventually think about cutting him next summer, but the way to get under the tax threshold for this season, would be by trading away Danny Green/ Da'Sean Butler/ James Anderson ( depending on the lux tax threshold, as far as I know it hasn't been determined yet ).

Of course trading RJ and getting a bit less salary back would also help in this regard. They could also trade Dice's contract with a 2nd round pick and cash to a team under the cap for a TE or something like that.

All much cheaper moves than AC-ing RJ. All IMO, of course.

this.

the Spurs situation is different to 2009 (when they traded for RJ) and so will be their policy. the question is not, how to create as much exception money as possible to somehow improve the team by FA signings. I also can't see Holt eat 30 million $ just to produce 2 more million for spending on FAs. I can't see him do this, if they truly believe they are just one piece away from another championship. and for sure I can't see him do this, when Spurs are lightyears away from contending.

as you say, the best chance might be that we see a trade for a bad contract of an underachiebver from an other team, that pays less per season.
RJ for Josh Childress (plus filler) for example.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

as you say, the best chance might be that we see a trade for a bad contract of an underachiebver from an other team, that pays less per season.
RJ for Josh Childress (plus filler) for example.

I was thinking along the lines of RJ + Dice for Biedrins + Amundson, throw picks, cash etc.

[ace3g]

some more details on amnesty: http://t.co/CFUZMv68

[Seventyniner]

some more details on amnesty: http://t.co/CFUZMv68

Thanks for the link. There goes all the "trade RJ and the team that gets him can amnesty him" ideas. Any team trading for RJ is going to have to want him, or be sending the Spurs back an even worse contract.

[Spurs Brazil]

Monroe_SA Mike Monroe
por JMcDonald_SAEN
Parker, on potential amnesty for Jefferson: 'I love RJ but that’s a question to ask Pop. Whatever Pop decides, that’s fine with me”

[objective]

according to Marc Stein (http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/33789/sources-seven-day-window-for-amnesty):


The most likely scenario, sources say, is that teams will have a seven-day window to use the amnesty clause this season before opening night and before it goes away until the 2012 offseason. But the specific dates for that seven-day window, sources say, have not yet been finalized.

So if things do work out as Stein's "most likely scenario", the Spurs can't wait until the season starts to see how terrible RJ is and then amnesty him. They can't pitter-patter and wait too long for trades hoping some team fails it's way out of free agency and for some reason would want RJ.

It's either do the right thing and amnesty him within 7 days or watch him fail and take minutes away from more deserving players only to finally get benched in the final playoff game until next year.

Do the right thing, RC. Do the right thing, Pop. Get this guy out of here and give Leonard and Anderson their rightful opportunities.

[objective]

Awesome.

This day might be the highlight of the season. And it was worth it.