I don't think Pop would have any problem getting rid of RJ. It's pretty obvious it's a failed experiment. Holt would have to be the one willing to fork over the $
Let the games begin.
daldridgetnt David Aldridge
Today's roster, besides usual suspects: owners: Peter Holt, Jim Dolan, Glen Taylor, Mark Cuban. Players: Chris Paul, Theo Ratliff.
17 minutes ago
KDonhoops Kelly Dwyer
Peter Holt, you want to avoid a truncated offseason? Push David Stern to negotiate in July. Bloody .
21 minutes ago
To me, this seems counterintuitive to what the CBA is trying to achieve.Some teams want to restrict amnesty eligibility to the players on a team’s roster when the lockout ends. Others want the freedom to use it on any player they acquire over, say, a three- or five-year span, arguing that there are teams out there which currently don’t have an ugly contract to shed but should have the right to atone for a future mistake.
I can understand why owners would want more than 2 weeks to use the amnesty. Until they know how their current roster is going to shake out, or what other needs they'll have to fill for the upcoming seasons, it could affect who they decide to release (or not release) using the clause.
However, giving owners a "get out of jail free card" to use going forward only encourages them to continue handing out bad deals. It sounds like they are going to end up getting their way in these negotiations, so why should they also be allowed to continue making the mess that they have mostly started in the first place?
IMO, if owners are given up to 2 years to use the amnesty, they should only be able to use it on existing contracts, not new ones.
Holt wants to have amnesty for RJ in his pocket so he can use it at the right time on RJ. He has to give the right to use the amnesty on new contracts to gain support from some of the owners who don't need a "get out of jail free" card now, but might in the future.
Eh. It's a blowout win as far as players making a lot of financial concessions with regards to BRI, but if there isn't a hard cap or any real sweeping changes to the system (by all accounts, most every single exception will remain, there will be no hard cap and the LT penalty won't be as ridiculous as first proposed) then it's really not that bad for the players IMO.
I agree that if Holt is gonna amnesty anybody, it's going to be (and should be) RJ. But the way the article puts it, as quoted above, makes it sound like they will be able to use it on "future mistakes". That's where I start to question the owner's responsibility in all this.
The amnesty should be in place to allow owners to cope with changes in the lux tax, not just as a handout to bail themselves out from their own short-sightedness going forward.
Seems to me like Holt wants to see how Kawhi works out in his rookie year before kicking y J to the jurb.
So with the amnesty clause the spurs can obviously get rid of Jefferson, but why is Holt pushing for the 2 year thing if we can do it now?
"Sources say that there’s a determined push led by San Antonio Spurs owner Peter Holt to allow teams to have at least two years to decide whether or not to amnesty one player"
...Also If we do use the amnesty clause on RJ, Holt still has to pay him right(Holt still takes a hit financially)?
Deepy, after reading the above I'm gettin' my first tumescence since March of '07.
Danka.
Damn, Culby going Joy of Vocabulary all up in this ish.
Man the more i read about it, the more i realize how dumb or FO was to give this got a 39m contract.
Jesus what a ing moronic move.
Hollinger gets it:
johnhollinger John Hollinger
For a league allegedly concerned with compe ive balance, the multi-year amnesty sure seems like a gift to the big market teams.
11 minutes ago
^Explains why Buss has been so tight lipped throughout the entire event.
So who does the good Dr. ship out? Odom? Gasol? Mr. World Peace probably doesn't make enough to get them into a comfortable cap position by waiving him.
Puke Walton?
+ he might eschew peace & love, take up a gun & go nutty nuts.
lol Holt not using the nuclear option right away on RJ... I swear I won't buy a single ticket as long as that guy is a Spur...
I think one big reason the owners would like the ability to carry the amnesty over for a while is because many teams only have 6-7 players under contract right now. Being able to carry it also makes it more fair, because if it's now-or-never, teams without any bad contracts get taken advantage of.
So is the players' association throwing the Jeffersons and Waltons of the league under the bus, or do the teams still have to pay the salaries of amnesty-cut players so that the savings is only from lessening luxury tax penalties?
They will have to pay them. It just won't go against their cap. That's why many have said Holt wouldn't use it on RJ. As long as you're paying someone millions of dollars, might as well use them. Now what I'm not sure about is if another team picks up the waived player, will they assume part of that contract?
Still have to pay.
There were various twists being talked about with the amnesty stuff. Some owners wanted to be able to pay off the contract in more years than what the contract was for (ie: contract has 3 years left, pay it off in 5 years). In exchange, they would have a small percentage (15% or so) of the contract still counting against the cap.
So, don't be surprised if this time the amnesty clause isn't quite like the last time.
STEIN_LINE_HQ Marc Stein
RT @WindhorstESPN: Source said talks snagged when players wouldn't accept less than 52% of BRI. No talks scheduled. More cancellations today
Talks have ended without a deal. More cancellations forthcoming.
BRI is still the sensitive issue. Per twitter, doesn't look good again.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
