Grantland on which contracts should be purchased and forgotten in amnesty 2.0

DETROIT PISTONS

Abrams: Richard Hamilton ($25 million over the next two years). A sad but necessary and overdue parting. Detroit could also look at trimming off the longer-termed contracts of Ben Gordon ($37.2 million through 2014) and Charlie Villanueva ($24.2 through 2014), but Hamilton makes the most sense for the Pistons: Their championship team dissipated long ago, and Hamilton has soured on the organization.

Simmons: I don't feel sad. By the way, congratulations to Joe Dumars for tying Isiah Thomas' "three legitimate amnesty clause candidates" record from 2005.

8 months ago GVLaker09 18 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Hey Simmons

Choke on it.

WORD PLAY
hollywoodsloce.tumblr.com

by Biz Markie Moon on Sep 28, 2011 9:15 AM EDT reply actions

Only I can call my kids stupid

You just called my kid dumb. I will end you. You better get the Navy in front of your house, Stevie from Eastbound and Down.

WORD PLAY
hollywoodsloce.tumblr.com

by Biz Markie Moon on Sep 28, 2011 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

He has become progressively dumber as the years have gone along.

I enjoyed his assertion that the Bulls should trade Boozer for Andray Blatche. This come on the heels of a piece he wrote at the end of the season in which he suggested that the Bulls move Taj Gibson for Andrea Bargnani. He has some… * ahem *… interesting ideas for improving that team.

by Grant E. on Sep 28, 2011 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions

here's my take on the amnesty

we really don’t know anything about it other than wishful thinking. it’s not necessary unless they institute a hard cap, something the players have drawn a line in the sand on. any hard cap would supposedly be phased in over the course of 3 seasons, at least that’s the rumor.

would it make more sense to offer the amnesty immediately (not really) or in the last year prior to the league going full hard cap (seems more practical)? give team’s a couple seasons to attempt to get under the cap and then leave the amnesty available as a last resort.

which teams get to use the amnesty? are all teams eligible or only teams that are over the luxury or the cap? I can’t imagine the players going for a system in which any player is fair game.

if they keep the soft cap they could still offer an amnesty to help teams avoid paying future luxury taxes. is this going to be a regular thing every 6 years when the CBA is up? isn’t that just an incentive for owners to spend recklessly?

just because they offer an amnesty does that mean owners want to or can afford to just buyout players? is Gores going to want to fork out $37 million to buyout Gordon?

an amnesty sounds good, but there doesn’t seem to be any answers on how it would actually work other than that we know that a player can be bought out without his salary affecting the cap.

As for the Pistons Gordon seems like the obvious choice.

by mcflies on Sep 28, 2011 10:54 AM EDT reply actions

If there is a scaled, ascending approach to the luxury tax thus making it more punitive, amnesty might be necessary for a lot of teams even without a hard cap. If, for example, going $10 mil above the cap requires a 4 to 1 payment as has been roomored… well, the math is pretty simple.

I would think all teams would get the option for amnesty, but it wouldn’t be required.

I’ve heard amnesty discussed a few different ways. It could work like a buyout, except the player’s salary doesn’t count against whatever the new cap is. Player and team reach an agreement, player gets paid, player signs with new team. It could work like a buyout, except that the players would get paid 100% of guaranteed money, player gets paid, new team, no hit against the cap for team.

From a player perspective, this could actually be a win in the sense that you could double dip. I could get 100% of my contract over however many years, plus sign with a new team on a new contract. If I’m Rip Hamilton, for example, I’m hoping for amnesty. Detroit pays me while I play for someone else and get paid there too.

"With logic he attacks. With statistics he defends."

@brgulker

by brgulker on Sep 28, 2011 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions

ahh yes, the ultra-punitive luxury sounds appealing. still the reports are that the league wants the BRI split in the mid 40’s, which is absurd. we’ll have a salary cap of $45 million with a more expensive luxury tax?

settle at 50/50, which would put the cap at roughly $52 million next season. we’ll end up in the luxury resigning stuckey and jerebko without the amnesty.

that being the likely settling point i would have to amnesty Gordon. at that point with a lower cap we’ll have Gordon, CV, Stuckey, Jerebko, Knight, Daye, and Monroe signed through 2013 and no flexibility. Cutting Rip gives us room to sign Stuckey and Jerebko without getting near the luxury. Cutting Gordon serves the same purpose while still leaving Rip’s contract to add flexibility sooner.

by mcflies on Sep 28, 2011 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions

According to Woj, the owners are moving off their demand for a hard cap

LINK

As for a potential amnesty clause, my choice would be Gordon over Hamilton or Chunky Charlie. I think that Gordon, if used correctly, could still be the most productive player of the three, but I don’t see a situation in which any of those three are a big part of the Pistons’ plans moving forward. From a purely financial perspective, Gordon is the guy.

by Grant E. on Sep 28, 2011 11:56 AM EDT reply actions

I think this is actually a pretty tough question. Obviously, it’s Gordon, Rip, or CV.

For me, the determining question is, which of these three guys still has trade value? And how much? To me, you pick the guy that you think has the least trade value, and you dump that guy.

I would think BG is one half season of good play away from having value again.

Same for CV, and his contract isn’t nearly as pricey.

Rip might actually be the most trade-able one year from now, assuming he stays healthy. He’s not fully guaranteed on his last year, so a team looking to cut costs might be interested?

I’m just not sure. It’s a hard question.

"With logic he attacks. With statistics he defends."

@brgulker

by brgulker on Sep 28, 2011 12:14 PM EDT reply actions

I can't believe I'm saying this...

But Simmons made me laugh:

Here’s why we’re having a lockout — because teams are so effing stupid that they actually need to waive guys they just signed a year ago. There should be bonus amnesty points for being total morons.

"With logic he attacks. With statistics he defends."

@brgulker

by brgulker on Sep 28, 2011 12:16 PM EDT reply actions

Which is exactly why I hate the idea of "amnesty"

The way I hear the argument is “because I screwed up this contract so incredibly badly and many of my peers were equally stupid, we have collectively damaged the quality of the league so we should be rewarded by being able to correct our most idiotic decision so that we can free up enough space to turn around and sign Beno Udrih for $40 million.” The only way to encourage innovation and change is to properly realize the price of such mistakes – not to make them magically go away.

This one from Simmons also made me laugh:

Abrams: Hasheem Thabeet. On the books for exactly $5,127,720 next season.
Simmons: And you wonder why we’re having a lockout.

First of all, that was a team option which was picked up by his boy Morey. Secondly, seriously? We’re having a lockout because the number 2 pick in the draft has a guaranteed contract for two years at a ridiculously low scale that saw Wade earn $3 million the year he won Finals MVP? And here I thought it had to do with Eddy Curry getting $60 million guaranteed rather than Thabeet getting $8 million guaranteed.

/steps off soapbox

This lockout has me drunken and surly’d.

by Shinons* on Sep 28, 2011 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Teams aren’t exactly getting out of these contracts free of charge. They still have to pay for their mistakes, technically speaking. To your point though – unless there is a fundamental change in the way teams collectively evaluate players this is all but certain to happen again. I still fail to see exactly how allowing teams to buyout one player just to sign another saves them any money. They’re basically spending twice. They might like to think they won’t make the same mistake twice, but if you look at last offseason alone this league is so far away from compensating players correctly it’s mind-boggling.

That said I’m kind of afraid of what a league would look like if every team evaluated players correctly. I want a GM to think that Ben Gordon is better than Aaron Afflalo, it’s just unfortunate that GM happens head our favorite team. If it wasn’t for this divide in evaluation pulling off trades and gaining an advantage would be extremely difficult.

by mcflies on Sep 28, 2011 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, I can see two reasons teams would take advantage:

1) To get rid of an awful player, even if they still have to pay him.
2) To avoid a very punitive luxury tax.

If the luxury tax gets as tough as roomored, I think an amnesty provision is necessary. If the owners want to save money, and they want a hard cap / punitive tax, they absolutely have to have an amnesty clause.

In other words, to make it solely about GM’s getting a pass for screw ups leaves out a very important piece of the conversation, namely, that the CBA is going to be fundamentally different now than it was when those contracts were inked.

I agree with Shinons general sentiment (it’s silly to think anything will really be fixed if we just let people off the hook), but if the CBA is totally restructured, it’s not fair to hold everyone to decisions they made under the last CBA that no longer exists.

"With logic he attacks. With statistics he defends."

@brgulker

by brgulker on Sep 28, 2011 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Rec’d for roomored.

by -PS- on Sep 28, 2011 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Those are totally fair points

To me, it just seems even crazy to implement or insist on a CBA that doesn’t work effectively under the current reality.

Expanding though, even from the owners’ side it doesn’t make sense to me – if you’re losing money, why are you so excited to voluntarily fulfill someone’s contract without the intent to utilize their services? Whether Villanueva is overpaid or not, he still has some value. More than, say, me (although I’m a better rebounder). But by executing some amnesty clause, if it means you have to pay the complete duration of his contract, you lose his value both as a player and as an expiring contract. Plus, if a guy has a player option, wouldn’t that automatically be picked up? If teams are really losing so much money, I have trouble comprehending how these tremendously empty assets are the answer, even avoiding the luxury tax.

by Shinons* on Sep 28, 2011 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Fwiw, I think it’s all BS. I see no reason that owners should be guaranteed profits.

But I also think that teams who will get screwed because of a harder luxury tax deserve a acne to get out of it.

Honestly, I’m not convinced that the majority of teams would even use it or the reasons you said above.

Would we? I’m not sure.

"With logic he attacks. With statistics he defends."

@brgulker

by brgulker on Sep 29, 2011 11:55 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions

I would think we have no choice.

I also don’t think owners should be guaranteed profits, but 17 teams lost money last season according to forbes. Obviously that doesn’t say much being that among those teams rest the Dallas Mavericks, Orlando Magic, and San Antonio Spurs – all huge luxury tax payers.

Any team that would have made a profit had they not paid the luxury tax should be exempt from the bottom line calculation. The salary cap is there, and presumably had every team maintained their spending levels within it there would have been very few teams losing money.

I’ll say 57% of the BRI is quite steep. The players definitely won the round of the CBA last time, but it’s not looking good for them this time. They offered to give some back which I think is fair.

I’d like to know how the luxury tax is divided, who received it, and how much.

If anyone is curious the Pistons were the 5th most profitable team last season, according to forbes.

by mcflies on Sep 29, 2011 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, the tighter cap is probably the best point in its favor.

by Shinons* on Sep 30, 2011 7:16 AM EDT up reply actions

I'd give it to Villanueva

I mentioned this toward the end of last season, but it’s probably not a good idea to use the amnesty option on Rip’s contract. He has less guaranteed $$ on his name than any other amnesty candidate. Rumors said teams were asking about his last year anyway, so it’s likely that his name will be called again this season especially as he becomes cheaper to buy out. If we’re stuck with Rip for one more year, I’d prefer that than to be stuck with Villanueva for the next three. In fact I might cry when he executes his $8.6M player option for 2013/14.

If we can move Rip by the trade deadline (if there is one) and Gordon gets his pre-Pistons burn, teams will likely come calling for him again next summer. Since most GMs are insane, they might chalk up the last two years to being in a “bad situation” in Detroit, and poor witto Ben Gordon couldn’t perform to his all-star level ability.

"Mike Payne is a walking-talking-hate-spewing-fire-breathing example of how exactly NOT to use supposed "statistical" analysis in the game of basketball."

by Mike Payne on Sep 28, 2011 1:27 PM EDT reply actions