Would this be good news for the spurs?

[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 le.

[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 in that drunk, cheap bas 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 in that drunk, cheap bas 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 bombs 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."