amnesty players jazz might have interest in?

[Jeffrey32]

I doubt there will be any amnesty players this year. Portland will want to give Roy at least one more season especially after his playoff performance.

 

[Qman]

Looks like amnesting a player under contract with another team that is traded to your team is still up in the air.

https://nba-point-forward.si.com/20...-is-unsure-of-amnesty/?sct=hp_wr_a4&eref=sihp

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.

The key phrase there is “in place.” The NBA told me “in place” meant on a team’s roster right now, so that teams could not use amnesty on a player they acquire via a trade made after the league resumes player movement business on Dec. 9. But union sources insist the two sides have not discussed this scenario in detail, meaning it must be hashed out, along with hundreds of other details, as the two sides scramble to complete the CBA by the end of business on Dec. 8. Perhaps “in place” in regards to amnesty-eligible contracts could simply mean “in existence now,” regardless of which team holds the contract.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I don't see why a team shouldn't be able to amnesty a 2005 CBA contract acquired in a trade. If they're going to allow teams to hold onto their amnesty in order to be fair to teams that haven't been ****ing retarded, why not go all the way? I'm not an OKC fan, but if they weren't allowed to use amnesty on a player acquired through trade then they have effectively just been punished for not contributing to the ills of the NBA that led to a lockout.

 

[NUMBERICA]

And as far as my Calderon pipe dream go, there are some issues.

1) I think the cap might be frozen this year from last year. I've seen reports that the cap could be $58 million. If that's the case, the Jazz are already under the cap. If the Jazz amnesty Memo (which really doesn't have any significant cons as far as I can tell), they should be well under.
2) Toronto is pretty far under the cap. Unless they're planning on going nuts in free agency, they really have no reason to dump Calderon. Especially since they don't have anything resembling a PG if they were to do that.

I'd still trade Harris for him straight up.

 

[Bodhi]

I don't see why a team shouldn't be able to amnesty a 2005 CBA contract acquired in a trade. If they're going to allow teams to hold onto their amnesty in order to be fair to teams that haven't been ****ing retarded, why not go all the way? I'm not an OKC fan, but if they weren't allowed to use amnesty on a player acquired through trade then they have effectively just been punished for not contributing to the ills of the NBA that led to a lockout.

^this^

 

[freakazoid]

1) I think the cap might be frozen this year from last year. I've seen reports that the cap could be $58 million. If that's the case, the Jazz are already under the cap.

I think you're forgetting the rookies. Looks to me like we have about 62 million committed with 11 players, although it seems like I've seen it reported at 60 a few times. I don't know where they're getting their numbers. If my numbers are right, that would put Utah about 7 million under the cap if they amnesty Memo. I think Kenwood said 4.9 million under, and he's usually pretty acurate. I'm not sure where the discrepency is.

And even if they release Memo, they'd only be $4.9M under the cap...so in no better free agent position than if they just used the $5.0M MLE.

I've been getting my numbers off of hoopshype, but they don't jive with yours. I know I'm probably missing something. Are their numbers right?