Amnesty clause and trades?

[arakkus]

Anyone know if these can be used together. What worries me is that teams with big payrolls can just grab crappy players with big contracts + a decent player every year from a trade and then unload the crappy player with the amnesty. They won't mind paying the extra money because they have deep pockets, but will really undermine competitive balance. How often have we seen small market teams unload their good players attaching a bad player with long contract with them, but at least in the past the deep pocket team would then be stuck with that big contract now they have a way to get rid of them every year...man I hope you have to at least keep them for a year before you can use amnesty.

[Seventyniner]

You're saying that a team wanting to dump a bad contract in a trade has to include a good player. What you're forgetting is that that same team could just use the amnesty themselves and keep the good player.

[arakkus]

but still pay a portion of the contract and get nothing in return. I would think that they would be more likely to want role players, expiring contracts, draft picks than pay money for nothing.

For example, lets say Lakers really want a young point gaurd in this case Jru Holliday and Philly says sure but u have to take Brand as well (haha). Well the Lakers put a package together of role play talent/expiring contracts/draft picks then dump Brand's behind with amnesty as soon as they get him. Well they might end up paying 8-9 million a year but it doesnt go towards their cap plus they might even put themselves below the cap themselves to make more moves. Philly would be happy because now they have expiring contracts and maybe some draft picks and also got rid of Brand, however, there still looking towards the future while Lakers get to reload right now and they can make a deal like this every year if they want.

If amnesty can be used on people you just traded for which I am not sure and hope its not the case.

[Fireball]

I think this is possible. It is not possible to use the amnesty role on a player and then resign him with a new contract.

[gospursgojas]

The amnesty clause can only be used once throughout the life of the new CBA, which is either 6 or 10 years. So, a team can't use it every year.

[arakkus]

oh sweet thanks only once thats cool then

[Nathan89]

If Lakers amnesty World Peace would anyone be interested? I don't think they will but if they did I would pick him up on the cheap. I don't think there would be many bidders. No bidders I can think of. I mean no one wants World Peace.

[ChuckD]

If Lakers amnesty World Peace would anyone be interested? I don't think they will but if they did I would pick him up on the cheap. I don't think there would be many bidders. No bidders I can think of. I mean no one wants World Peace.

Artest has a drawerful of forks stuck in him. He's done.

[Obstructed_View]

Is Dice's contract remotely useful from a trade standpoint? I seem to remember that the Spurs had an option to take him off the books earlier in the year. One of the cap people would be helpful at this point.

[Mel_13]

Is Dice's contract remotely useful from a trade standpoint? I seem to remember that the Spurs had an option to take him off the books earlier in the year. One of the cap people would be helpful at this point.

It could be very useful...if the Spurs were inclined to add several million dollars to the payroll.

His contract is for 5.2M, but only 2.6M is guaranteed. The Spurs could trade him for a 6-7M dollar player and the other team could cut him and reduce their payroll. His contract could also be included in a package for a player like Nene or Al Jefferson to make the numbers work.

Of course, those trades would all add millions in salary and luxury tax to the payroll. After crying poverty in the CBA negotiations, I can't see Holt signing off on that kind of expenditure.

[Obstructed_View]

It could be very useful...if the Spurs were inclined to add several million dollars to the payroll.

His contract is for 5.2M, but only 2.6M is guaranteed. The Spurs could trade him for a 6-7M dollar player and the other team could cut him and reduce their payroll. His contract could also be included in a package for a player like Nene or Al Jefferson to make the numbers work.

Of course, those trades would all add millions in salary and luxury tax to the payroll. After crying poverty in the CBA negotiations, I can't see Holt signing off on that kind of expenditure.

That being the case, it seems even stupider to keep Dice on the payroll and just eat three million dollars unnecessarily.

[Mel_13]

That being the case, it seems even stupider to keep Dice on the payroll and just eat three million dollars unnecessarily.

If they don't trade the contract, they most definitely will cut him, pay him the 2.6M and wish him a happy and healthy retirement.

[Obstructed_View]

If they don't trade the contract, they most definitely will cut him, pay him the 2.6M and wish him a happy and healthy retirement.

That's probably the case, but couldn't they have cut him in June and saved the money? Or am I remembering it incorrectly? I also have no idea how close they are to the luxury tax, but given the recent history of throwing good money after bad, getting a good player for Dice's contract seems just the opposite.

[Mel_13]

That's probably the case, but couldn't they have cut him in June and saved the money? Or am I remembering it incorrectly? I also have no idea how close they are to the luxury tax, but given the recent history of throwing good money after bad, getting a good player for Dice's contract seems just the opposite.

The original deadline was June 30th. Dice agreed to extend the deadline to give the Spurs the option to trade his contract. Dice=class.

[Obstructed_View]

Oh, so he gets paid exactly the same, the only difference is the Spurs might have a chance to get something they otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford. That was nice of Dice to do, but not really any less than we can expect, given his track record.