Amnesty Deadline

[Stifle Tower]

Ummm...the amnesty deadline has passed and Bell is still on the team. I guess there's still a buyout or trade that could happen. To truly celebrate, we need:

1) CJ to sign with another team
2) J. Howard to sign with another team
3) Raja to be officially released.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Jazz were never going to amnesty him. Cheaper to buy him out. They're still hoping for some trade, though, I'm sure.

 

[Chargers Jazz Angels]

Bell for Jimmer lol I jest or do I?

 

[bigb]

Bell for Jimmer lol I jest or do I?

We need PKM to weigh in on this.

 

[nightmare3983]

Jazz were never going to amnesty him. Cheaper to buy him out. They're still hoping for some trade, though, I'm sure.

The best scenario would be if Bell's agent was able to find a good trade that the Jazz like. At least that would be nice for KOC, since life is good when people make your job easier.

 

[freakazoid]

The best scenario would be if Bell's agent was able to find a good trade that the Jazz like.

You mean like, the kinda trade where he doesn't play for the Jazz anymore? Cuz I would like one of those kind as well.

 

[margodydek]

Jazz now have two possible players that they'll be able to amnesty: Hayward and Favors, which unless one of them switches knees with Brandon Roy, will never happen. I feel like teams who didn't end up using the amnesty should get something in return.

 

[jazzyapma]

I feel like teams who didn't end up using the amnesty should get something in return.

CBA gave teams this option. If some team doesn't use amnesty, it's their problem. This is like having an insurance policy.

 

[Stoked]

Man, if Bell is on the team come preseason I will be pissed.

 

[margodydek]

CBA gave teams this option. If some team doesn't use amnesty, it's their problem. This is like having an insurance policy.

I fully understand this. I feel the same way with insurance as well. As Chris Rock would say regarding insurance, "if **** don't happen, shouldn't I get my money back?"

 

[Kenwood]

CBA gave teams this option. If some team doesn't use amnesty, it's their problem. This is like having an insurance policy.

IMO there's a difference. Insurance protects people from unforeseen problems, like unexpected accidents, medical issues, fires, etc. The amnesty provision (both times) enabled teams to erase their own stupid decisions. If you hadn't already made stupid decisions in the past, the amnesty provision just wasn't that useful to a team. The Jazz are one of those teams.

In the meantime, other teams have continued to sign stupid contracts this offseason. Good for them...next time the CBA is renegotiated and Amnesty 3.0 is available, they'll be able to use it again.

 

[Siro]

Didn't the Jazz buy his contract out? Wasn't there a thread about that?

 

[nightmare3983]

Didn't the Jazz buy his contract out? Wasn't there a thread about that?

I know the agreement's in place, although I haven't heard about it being finalized. I think there is still a chance the Jazz could trade Bell if there was another team interested in him that Raja wanted to go to. To me he'll most likely be bought out officially in the near future so everyone can just move on.

 

[Stifle Tower]

CBA gave teams this option. If some team doesn't use amnesty, it's their problem. This is like having an insurance policy.

If some team doesn't use their amnesty provision, it means they were well-managed and didn't need the league to save them from their stupidity yet AGAIN. I know I probably sound a bit like cj, but teams should have had to live with their folly. The last CBA gave everyone a chance to get rid of a contract. With the new CBA, all you've done is allow big-market, big-money teams to spend like drunken sailors again. It wasn't fair to the small-market teams. You award someone a foolish contract, you should have to live with it.

 

[sirkickyass]

Jazz now have two possible players that they'll be able to amnesty: Hayward and Favors, which unless one of them switches knees with Brandon Roy, will never happen. I feel like teams who didn't end up using the amnesty should get something in return.

Two related points:

1) We could still end up acquiring a contract from another team that's amnesty eligible.

2) In a year or two when many players are in the final, very expensive year of their amnesty-eligible contract it's possible to likely that having an available amnesty option will be a very valuable asset. For that reason it's worth preserving the amnesty if it's not necessary to use it now.

If some team doesn't use their amnesty provision, it means they were well-managed and didn't need the league to save them from their stupidity yet AGAIN. I know I probably sound a bit like cj, but teams should have had to live with their folly. The last CBA gave everyone a chance to get rid of a contract. With the new CBA, all you've done is allow big-market, big-money teams to spend like drunken sailors again. It wasn't fair to the small-market teams. You award someone a foolish contract, you should have to live with it.

I understand the sentiment but it's also true that the luxury tax rules weren't nearly as harsh when all amnesty eligible contracts were signed, so those contracts had a different set of assumptions built in.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I think the amnesty is a good idea, but only if teams get SOMETHING more out of not using it. Amnesty is an advantage to deep-pocketed teams, and the new LT actually favors them, too (there is no way a small-market team can stay in the LT now, for big-market teams, it's still a viable option).

 

[sirkickyass]

I think the amnesty is a good idea, but only if teams get SOMETHING more out of not using it. Amnesty is an advantage to deep-pocketed teams, and the new LT actually favors them, too (there is no way a small-market team can stay in the LT now, for big-market teams, it's still a viable option).

I think we're seeing, to a certain extent, that the new LT is a harder cap than the last LT. Even New York doesn't want to reside $15 million over the tax line in 2015.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I think we're seeing, to a certain extent, that the new LT is a harder cap than the last LT. Even New York doesn't want to reside $15 million over the tax line in 2015.

I don't disagree, but if Jeremy Lin was the difference between a solid playoff team and a real contender, it's something they CAN weigh, whereas for a small-market team there is no way to make it work.

Besides, Lin's 3rd year is OUTRAGEOUS and I think he was exposed pretty badly.

 

[Stifle Tower]

I think the amnesty is a good idea, but only if teams get SOMETHING more out of not using it. Amnesty is an advantage to deep-pocketed teams, and the new LT actually favors them, too (there is no way a small-market team can stay in the LT now, for big-market teams, it's still a viable option).

Agree re: amnesty.
But not too many teams want to hit the luxury tax threshold. I beleive the stiffest penalties go into effect for teams that exceed the amount in consecutive seasons. New York has already shown restraint by not matching for Lin. Cuban has come out and said that his model for building a team will be different going forward. And we've already seen a number of teams only offering 1 and 2-yr contracts to certain players. I think the "Big 3" model will become "2 1/2 Men" and vets who sign for the minimum to compete for a title. Or you'll have upstarts who draft well, can challenge for a couple of years with most of their great players on rookie contracts, then have to get rid of a couple due to the tax.

 

[Kenwood]

Two related points:

1) We could still end up acquiring a contract from another team that's amnesty eligible.

2) In a year or two when many players are in the final, very expensive year of their amnesty-eligible contract it's possible to likely that having an available amnesty option will be a very valuable asset. For that reason it's worth preserving the amnesty if it's not necessary to use it now.

I understand the sentiment but it's also true that the luxury tax rules weren't nearly as harsh when all amnesty eligible contracts were signed, so those contracts had a different set of assumptions built in.

Not true Kicky. Teams can only use the amnesty provision on players that were under contract with that team on July 1, 2011.
* That limited the Jazz to the following group: Jefferson, Harris, Millsap, Favors, Miles, Bell, Hayward and Evans.
* Once they didn't amnesty Miles or Evans last December 9-16, they couldn't ever amnesty them as they would be free agents by the next opportunity. That left Jefferson, Harris, Millsap, Favors, Bell and Hayward.
* Once they traded Harris, obviously they couldn't waive him.
* Once the deadline passed the July, they will never amnesty Jefferon, Millsap or Bell (free agents by next July).
* They can't use the amnesty on any players if they extend (e.g. if Hayward and Favors extend next summer), sign a new deal (Evans this year) or on players acquired via trade (Mo or Marvin Williams).

That leaves Hayward and Favors for the moment, and it's unlikely the Jazz will use the amnesty provision.