Skip to content

Report: Teams may have two years to use amnesty clause

Oct 28, 2011, 1:02 PM EDT

Richard Jefferson

One thing we know will be in the new NBA labor deal is an amnesty clause — teams will be able to waive one player off the roster and wipe most (likely 75 percent) of his salary off the luxury tax and salary cap. (The player would still get paid the full amount.) This is a souped up version of the Allen Houston rule from 2005 (when the Knicks kept Houston, because they are the Knicks).

But now there may be a new wrinkle, one that would make things very interesting around the league, reports Marc Stein at ESPN.

Sources say that there’s a determined push led by San Antonio Spurs owner Peter Holt to allow teams to have at least two years to decide whether or not to amnesty one player, with multiple sources telling ESPN.com this week that they believe the concept — with restrictions that are still being haggled over — has indeed won sufficient support to be included in the new labor deal.

Six years ago, teams had only two weeks to decide whether to use the amnesty clause or lose it forever. Now? There is a growing likelihood that teams will be able to “save” their amnesty clause through next season, or perhaps beyond.

Why does Holt want it? To get one more year out of Richard Jefferson before he sends him away. The Blazers would love to do this with Brandon Roy.

But the implications for other teams are much larger — especially if a team can use it on a player it trades for in the next year. It is still undecided, but if approved a team could trade to get a good player and take on a bad contract at the same time, then just waive the player they don’t want.

Tom Ziller explains it well at SBN.

As a direct result, teams like the Orlando Magic with multiple disastrous contracts could be able to rebuild more quickly, using their own amnesty clause on one player (like Hedo Turkoglu) and dealing another (like Gilbert Arenas) with an asset (like Ryan Anderson, Jameer Nelson or [gulp] Dwight Howard).

It might make it easier for Howard to stay in Orlando — if he really wants to.

It’s not official — some teams don’t want to allow the trade part of the clause. I think we fans would like it — it would create a fascinating wrinkle that will lead to some big player movement.

  1. edmazeing1 - Oct 28, 2011 at 1:06 PM

    I want R.J gone now, do not wanna see another year from him…Go Spurs!!!

  2. Josh - Oct 28, 2011 at 1:36 PM

    This would be big for a team like Minnesota, who currently has no terrible contracts

    • 00maltliquor - Oct 28, 2011 at 3:16 PM

      Darko Milicic? $15,674,500 for the next 3 years. I know it isn’t Hedo Turkoglu bad, more along the lines of Luke Walton bad. Still, not a good contract at all for that guy.

  3. snoopy2014 - Oct 28, 2011 at 3:39 PM

    Maybe not to the second point, Kurt. Marc Stein is reporting that most likely, the amnesty clause will be restricted, and teams would not be able to amnesty players acquired in a future trade. Of course, nothing’s set in stone yet.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

What players stood out at World Cup?
Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. D. Rose (3348)
  2. D. Ferry (3193)
  3. L. James (2711)
  4. J. Valanciunas (2546)
  5. K. Bryant (2372)
  1. K. Irving (2224)
  2. P. George (2042)
  3. G. Monroe (1929)
  4. C. Billups (1768)
  5. C. Anthony (1718)