Scratch That Greg Oden Idea
by Tom Ziller on Oct 30, 2011 5:28 AM PDT
in News
Email
PrintThere's still no NBA lockout deal, but once there is, Howard Beck of the New York Times reports that the amnesty clause will work a bit differently than we had thought this week.
Each team will be permitted to waive one player, with pay - anytime during the life of the C.B.A. - and have his salary be exempt from the cap and the luxury tax. Its use will be limited to players already under contract as of July 1, 2011.
The amnesty clause will not be able to be used as insurance for mistakes not yet made. Bummer. This sort of kills the Greg Oden idea, because you definitely don't want to use cap space on a huge gamble and be stuck with it. That's just crazy. What do you think this is ... a business?
Still no word on when the two sides will meet again. And we wait ...
61 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
feel like I should know what this is in reference to
by wallywagon11 on Oct 31, 2011 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I was thinking the same thing.
It might actually be a cool show. But I have no idea.
/ Wondering if I should change my signature
The amnesty clause will be able to be used as insurance for mistakes not yet made.
Not really. Not at all.
Its use will be limited to players already under contract as of July 1, 2011.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sam_amick/10/29/nba-labor-proposals/
Teams will want to use this sooner rather than later since it cannot be used on new contracts that are signed.
That's what Ziller's saying
I think that top quote is a type-o on his part
"What the fuck did I do?" - McNulty
Ziller, Ziller, Ziller
How easily you give up on your dreams. This is America, and in America when our dreams are on the table and we get shit on the flop, we don’t fold. We raise and bank it all on the river!
Why give Greg Oden a three year deal? That doesn’t make sense. Too much risk you say. Well, well, well – I can’t help but agree. But you know what you do instead? You give him a max contract.
A one year max contract mind you, but something huge. Something obnoxious. Something no other team can match. And you look into those sad, puppy eyes of Mr. Oden and you say to him “We bet big, Greg.” Twenty plus million, one year! We’re paying you twenty million to move to Sacramento, start fresh. If you want to stay here, we’ll make that work next summer. If it doesn’t work out between now and February, then guess what Greg? We’ll ship you off to the highest bidder, and you can start fresh again!
Bet big on Greg! Bet big on Greg!
GREENE! You’ve been superfluously apostrophe’d! - andy sims
iashwash, you are the voice of reason - Holmdel
by iashwash on Oct 30, 2011 9:20 AM PDT reply actions 8 recs
I nominate
iashwash as lockout commenter MVP.
In most polarizing arguments, the truth is found somewhere in the middle.
Follow me on Twitter
Author of Inside-Out Game
Or commenter MVP period.
He has my vote.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I think I'm just going to rec all of Iashwash's comments from now on
on principle alone.
Author of NBA Mashups. Follow me on Twitter here.
1 year contracts don't earn Bird Rights
Which would be monumental in re-signing him in this scenario.
Smills you've got some balls
Here I am talking about giving Greg Oden a max deal, and you don’t dismiss the insanity. Instead you think to yourself how great an idea this is, if it didn’t have one monumental flaw. And I agree with you Smills: as mammoth an intellect I have, at times I mistake the minuscule, mandatory might it be. But you my friend, you have some USDA grade A extra large huevos my friend.
I say give Greg Oden 20 million, and you think to yourself that’s not enough. No, what we need to do is give him 20 million for two years. BOOM!
That is some dynamite thinking right there! I’m trying to bet big on Oden, little did I know I was the short stack on the table. I’m over here trying to bigbrain all over myself, and we got Sir Einstein himself calling the shots. Smills you smart-aleck schmuck, you deserve an Oscar. Not a best-picture or best-actor, but maybe something minor, like best-boom-mic-holder-in-non-action-sequences-and-stuff. Yeah man, you totally deserve that. We want to bet big on Oden to get his Bird rights! We want to big bird Oden.
Let’s Bet Big Bird Greg! Bet Big Bird Greg!
GREENE! You’ve been superfluously apostrophe’d! - andy sims
iashwash, you are the voice of reason - Holmdel
by iashwash on Oct 30, 2011 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
Reading Beck's piece last night...
….made me upset there is no deal. Players get 51% of BRI and that’s a very favorable CBA for the owners. And the owners want more. Argh. I’ll bash the billionaire moron club some other day.
At any rate, it does bring up an important point: How the amnesty for the Kings may be used. I’ve said before I think the Kings won’t use the amnesty on Garcia mainly because there won’t be much benefit to doing so. And, to boot, the Kings will have just a bit over 34 million in cap holds and salary (that includes Jimmer) before you factor in Dalembert’s cap hold or a new FA.
Even though Dalembert’s cap hold is majorly big, it doesn’t mean you can’t sign a FA in a reasonable way. Like say, Nene in a sign & trade. I’ve speculated that i think the salary cap will be around 54-56 million depending on how BRI is computated and what not. That means the Kings can have serious cap space to re-sign Dalembert, Thornton and Nene if it’s done right. That doesn’t include an amnesty of Salmons or Garcia either. You can keep both of them (which is what the Kings want to do IMO).
If you can’t tell, I really wanna talk about the upcoming Kings season. This is what I went through the 3 last years for to have the payoff this season. Goddammit, even though the billionaire moron club is trying to deny me that talking point, I’m going to have it anyway.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I still say the players are idiots for not taking the 50/50 deal
That 100 million isn’t going to affect each and every player that much over the life of their contracts as much as the missed games they’re going to see, up to the entire season even. The owners CAN hold out, because they’re multi-millionaires and Billionaires already. They’re getting the deal that makes sense long term. They’ll be able to make up that lost revenue over time by getting that deal. The players are the ones losing the most in the lock-out. What’s wrong with a 50/50 split anyways?
I agree, and here's another thing.
The agents. The agents have the same window of earnings as the owners. They can hold out longer than the players, just like the owners. I can just imagine in my minds eye how the agents are pushing and pulling the players away from a 50-50 split, while the owners are pushing and pulling them towards it. I’m not saying I “feel” for the players, but it really is a lot more than just a fued between the players and owners. There’s a 1/3 partner to this whole mess, so to speak: the agents.
/ Wondering if I should change my signature
Agents have their own agenda
The union absolutely destroyed the agents power and in some cases made them completely useless to players with locked rates. The agents would love for the union to take a blood bath and put them back in power with the players. I don’t trust them at all when they encourage the players to hold out for more.
Don't forget, the more restrictive (less flexibility) the new CBA is
The less use there will be for the agents.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 1, 2011 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
You are falling for the propaganda
Everyone talks about the 50/50 split like it means something tangible because it sounds “fair”. Well, what’s wrong with 52/48 for the players/owners? That’s a huge change in favor of the owners over the last CBA.
50/50 is just an arbitrary number, just as 51/49 or 52/48.
Also, what strings are attached to any offer from the owners of a 50/50 split?
by otis29 on Oct 30, 2011 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
yeah - but it still sounds fair
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 1, 2011 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
yep
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 2, 2011 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
You would want Dally and Nene?
Alongside Cousins, Hickson and Thompson?
Or would Hickson/Thompson be involved in the S&T?
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Oct 31, 2011 7:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Hickson/Thompson in the S&T. I’d forgotten that particular post didn’t include the details of what a Nene S&T looked like.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Nice stuff right there!
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Oct 31, 2011 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
The Kings could always take on someone else's bad deal and use the amnesty then
There’s nothing that I read above that says you have to use it on someone on your roster before July. Only the contract itself must have been signed before then.
Not sure what deals would make sense for the Kings to do something like that, though
I'm kinda hoping that teams only have the option to use it on a player before the start of training camp.
I don’t like the idea of the amnestying a player during the middle of the season. It doesn’t sit right with me at all.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I am looking forward to the creative ways the amnesty clause will come up on some trade three seasons from now
It should be named the Agent Zero Cap Clause or the Rashard Lewis LoopHole (Otis Smith must be the author of this item), The Eddy Curry Cure or maybe the Metta World Peace Mulligan.
by betweentheeyes on Oct 30, 2011 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Am I missing something?
I don’t see anything in the Amick details that helps small market teams keep their star players. I want Orlando to keep D12; NO to keep CP3, and the Kings to keep Reke and Cousins.
I also don’t see the kings using the Amnesty Clause, so what do teams get if they don’t use it?
by Sacramental on Oct 30, 2011 11:06 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
Teams get nothing.
It’s a tool, and if you don’t choose to use the tool while others do, that’s not the NBA’s problem. Which is the way it should be.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I guess...
It will be interesting to see how Dallas and LA use “Amnesty” and “Stretch” in order to avoid paying a huge luxury tax; who will become Free Agents from those teams…
by Sacramental on Oct 30, 2011 12:21 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Luke Walton for the Lakers...
..and I’m not sure the Mavs use the clause right away honestly. Even then they will probably use it on Brendan Haywood in a year or two if he isn’t as productive.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I think they have to use it on Haywood immediately
If they re-sign Chandler that is. Otherwise, Haywood is the projected starter for a while.
Author of NBA Mashups. Follow me on Twitter here.
Actually I think it is great...
We can basically get a 1 year lease on Salmons and amnesty him next year if he does not work out.
This is the NBA's version of the GM/Chrysler bailout.
Reward the idiots, the responsible get screwed.
Bad example
The car company bailout was hugely successful, they have all paid the money back and a million or so jobs were saved.
Now the Banksters . . . . . we all got screwed and they’re raking it in again.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 1, 2011 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Nearly all of the new provisions will benefit the owners. In return, the players will gain an easing of trade rules and relaxed regulations on restricted free agents.
Anyone discovered what the relaxed RFA rules would be? This could have a big impact on the Kings over a shortened off-season between signings and potentially re-signing Marcus Thornton.
I don't get this...
Teams spend money scouting, signing, and developing their draft picks only to have them leave if they “want to”. Players shouldn’t be “mercanaries for hire” until they’re original team lets them go, willingly.
by Sacramental on Oct 30, 2011 12:31 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
So you're saying players should be loyal but teams don't have to be? I can see that idea going over well with lotsa people..
…except the players, their agents, and anyone who thinks legalized slavery is a stupid idea. Or, at the very least, that Jim Crow sharecropping was not a very good idea.
On the other hand, the amnesty is about teams being able to distance themselves from some financial mistakes on a previous CBA with different rules in place. It’s not about giving the players an out from anything. In the same way it’s up to the players to perform, it’s also up to the team to honor the contracts they sign a player to. That’s the way it should be, and that’s the way it will play out.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
And before you scoff at the Jim Crow points (and compare me to Bryant Gumbel for that matter....)...
….let me make another one. TZ has noted it (and apparently it didn’t sink in for whatever reason) that Oscar Robertson’s suit against the NBA is the landmark victory the players needed to create the Free Agency that has led to what we see today.
Here’s the point. You can’t outlaw Free Agency outright for one reason and one reason only: It’s a clear anti-trust violation. As in, the NBA gets shut down faster than you can say moron billionaire. Remember when Tom Brady and Peyton Manning were suing the NFL? That was a lawsuit based on the NFL violating anti-trust law.
You can always hope for no Free Agency, but I personally find it a double standard to believe that teams should drop a player at the drop of the hat whenever they wish with no consequences while players are expected to show loyalty. That’s what the Curt Flood/Oscar Robertson’s suits were all about. And, frankly, they were right. You can be a hypocrite, or you can recognize that Free Agency is a necessary part of a business, that is a business, and that is seen as a business by all parties involved. You may not like it, and you don’t have to follow the NBA. Complaining that Free Agency has wrecked the NBA is taking an extreme keyhole point of view because you wish to complain.
You’ll continue to believe players are mercenaries for exercising a hard fought right (that saw Robertson being black balled out of the NBA basically for his anti-trust lawsuit) while conveniently ignoring that teams do the same thing whenever and however they can get away with it. The NFL has the best business model in sports for owners, and frankly they are the last people on earth I will ever care about for any reason. The NFL business is a dirty business through and through and the fact that they make 9 billion on the backs of people that they can do whatever they want to whenever they want to (for the most part) is a dirty business IMO. Always has been and always will be. On the other hand, the NFL is a league where people voluntarily play it. So, in that sense, I’m not too upset. If you’re a NFL player and you don’t know that you can be screwed by owners at any moment, that’s on you.
Bleh, lockout be over already. I’m tired of talking about this!
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Oct 30, 2011 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe you or LTTG can answer this. This may or may not relate.
Why is a “no compete agreement” not an anti-trust issue. They’re legal.
/ Wondering if I should change my signature
Because it's collectively bargained.
That’s how you can be traded, how the draft is legal etc etc. If you collectively bargain this stuff it’s entirely legal. And the reality is that these guys are specialized labor so it’s really not a typical marketplace with typical everyday employee’s. Which is why I always laugh when people compare a NBA player to their own job. It’s not remotely the same thing.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Oct 30, 2011 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Thanks. Also..
I agree it’s not the same. I make way more than they do.
/wishing that were true
/ Wondering if I should change my signature
I only argue someone's logic...
Not their character.
“So you’re saying players should be loyal but teams don’t have to be?” No. I’m saying when a team invests so much into a player, they shouldn’t have to worry about that player just leaving them as soon as they hit their prime. As soon as players begin to take money for granted is when they leave their teams; there are only a few places that can get you a legitimate shot at a championship right now, so players end up trying to go there instead of remaining loyal. Still, I’m willing to admit that this point may be irrelevant once the NBA becomes more fair/balanced/competitive because players won’t feel like they have to go to Boston or LA just to win.
So you're saying that teams don't have to be loyal to players...
..but players have to be loyal to their teams. Got it.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I do not think either has to be loyal for the sake of being loyal. I only expect that for family and friends.
I believe they should uphold their agreements, until the agreement’s execution. That is all. What’s cool about agreements is that there is usually a penalty if someone breaks one. And that penalty was agreed upon prior to enacting the agreement. So either way, whether they live out their agreement or don’t, it’s already been agreed upon what would happen in each case.
Regardless, get this damn season started Owners, Players and Agents.
/ Wondering if I should change my signature
by kwill on Oct 30, 2011 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well said.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
My simple solution to the lockout.
Open up the arenas. Have the owners suit up for 82 games. Have us all there, and have the fans heckle the crap out of them – because it ain’t gonna be pretty. And it doesn’t matter if we don’t go to the games either, the owners must keep playing to empty arenas.
Then we’ll see whose league this is, and if 57% (or 52%) is fair/good bargain.
This.
I'm getting really pissed off.
What are we talking about, $100 million between them? Raise tickets and League Pass prices by 1 buck a year. I’ll gladly pay that to watch the NBA now.
/ Wondering if I should change my signature
How about they lower ticket prices and league pass by 1 buck every day until they get a deal
I bet a deal would get done pretty quickly then.
by Kfan in Korea on Oct 31, 2011 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
We are talking about $100 million this year....but
The owners are trying to reverse momentum from previous CBAs. The players have a pretty big snowball effect going on here, and that snowball has been rolling downhill at a pretty fast rate ever since the 1998-1999 lockout. Not only are they trying to reverse momentum, but they are trying to push the momentum back on the players at the same time. This is why they are receiving so much resistance from the players/agents/media/anyone else with a pulse.
I feel the opposite
If the owners get their deal and are (mostly) guaranteed to not lose money I’d like to see the Tix prices come down – especially in bad years.
League pass is pretty reasonable really.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Nov 1, 2011 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on Sactown Royalty
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Boston Celtics are moving on to the conference finals
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
