What's new
By:
Filters

Lockout is OVER!!! NBA is back according to sources

The revised amensty structure is the most interesting part of the deal to me.

Amnesty is available every single year and there will be a revised waiver system where teams can bid on portions of player contracts that are being waived. This may be a big benefit to large market teams. Can you imagine if the Hornets amesty'd Emeka Okafor for example and the Heat or Lakers got to bid agains the Jazz to claim him off waivers?

It's also unclear how the winning bid is determined. If it's straight monetary value or player's choice or some mixture of the two.
 
If what I am reading is correct. This deal does very little for the Jazz. What happen to the small market teams getting together to make the league more competitive? Other then a few minor salary cap changes I don't see anything that helps with that cause. So it looks like this was just a money grab by the owners.
 
GoJazz said:
If what I am reading is correct. This deal does very little for the Jazz. What happen to the small market teams getting together to make the league more competitive? Other then a few minor salary cap changes I don't see anything that helps with that cause. So it looks like this was just a money grab by the owners.
Click to expand...

More like it was a "We don't want to go to court and waste time and money" move. The threat of a lawsuit really gave the players that tid bit of leverage they needed to swing a couple of system issues in their favor.
 
Sirkickyass said:
The revised amensty structure is the most interesting part of the deal to me.

Amnesty is available every single year and there will be a revised waiver system where teams can bid on portions of player contracts that are being waived. This may be a big benefit to large market teams. Can you imagine if the Hornets amesty'd Emeka Okafor for example and the Heat or Lakers got to bid agains the Jazz to claim him off waivers?

It's also unclear how the winning bid is determined. If it's straight monetary value or player's choice or some mixture of the two.
Click to expand...

I believe that you misread that part of the new CBA.
 
orangello said:
I believe that you misread that part of the new CBA.
Click to expand...

In looking at it again, it appears the language is unclear: "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."

That could mean one player for the entire time the CBA is in effect, or it could mean one player per season on old contracts during the time the CBA is in effect. I made an assumption about what the word "any" meant there.

In any event, the bidding system on amnesty'd players seems to strongly favor moneyed teams. Especially if the auction is non-blind.
 
Sirkickyass said:
In looking at it again, it appears the language is unclear: "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."

That could mean one player for the entire time the CBA is in effect, or it could mean one player per season on old contracts during the time the CBA is in effect. I made an assumption about what the word "any" meant there.

In any event, the bidding system on amnesty'd players seems to strongly favor moneyed teams. Especially if the auction is non-blind.
Click to expand...


-From NBA.com-

Amnesty clause
On a one-time basis, each team will be permitted to waive one player currently under contract and have his salary not count for cap and tax purposes.
Comment: There had been talk of making amnesty available annually but that might have been excessive, fueling the perception that GMs make chronic spending mistakes
 
orangello said:
Well, it looks like I was missing a lot of information then. I apologize for stereotyping you.
Click to expand...

A sincere apology? Now that's not something you see everyday on Jazzfanz! I was expecting a smartass response...which I did get, from other posters. Haha. No worries, it happens all the time...on here.
 
There had been talk of making amnesty available annually but that might have been excessive, fueling the perception that GMs make chronic spending mistakes
Click to expand...

Assuming they would still have to actually pay the guy they amnesty off the team, this could be really a huge problem. Can you imagine the Hawks amnesting Joe Johnson's 120+ million contract and still having to pay him and then have all that cap room only to tell the fans sorry we don't have any money to sign him or even worse actually spending it on another non superstar.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
More like it was a "We don't want to go to court and waste time and money" move. The threat of a lawsuit really gave the players that tid bit of leverage they needed to swing a couple of system issues in their favor.
Click to expand...

My point is that this was suppose to be about making the league more competitive for small market teams and it turned into money grab and possibly an amnesty system that favors large market teams with money to bid on amnesty players.
 
GoJazz said:
My point is that this was suppose to be about making the league more competitive for small market teams and it turned into money grab and possibly an amnesty system that favors large market teams with money to bid on amnesty players.
Click to expand...
Since it is only a one-time amnesty, then it doesn't benefit the large-market teams chronically. Just once. Still could be a big shift. Depends on how many players are amnestied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top