The Terrible Contracts In the NBA

Bill Simmons (The Sports Guy) and J. Abrams give a description on how teams could potentially waive bad contracts if a new CBA is reached, and which player a team would most likely use this new option. The Bulls could use it on Boozer, but there is still time for him to live up to his contract.

8 months ago dannyp07 12 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Cutting Boozer

would depend on whether or not other power forwards are cut as well.

For example, an Elton Brand type that might accept less money to compete for a championship. Brand at 7 mill is prolly better than Boozer at 13.

I support the NBA player's union.

by chowder on Sep 27, 2011 8:19 PM CDT reply actions

Basically

Don’t cut Boozer unless you are confident you can get a decent replacement (hopefully one that also plays defense)

I support the NBA player's union.

by chowder on Sep 27, 2011 8:22 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs

agree

plus the booz hate is played out…i give him one more..now if we could restructure his contract and make it cheaper that would be really nice

but nice people dont like losing money

"Psycho: I'm liable to go Michael/take your pick: Jackson, Tyson, Jordan - Game 6."

by Belize on Sep 28, 2011 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions

you know whats funny about this article? simmons starts it off saying it gives an unfair competitive

advantage to people who ran their business poorly. but by the end of the article it became clear that 40% of the amnesty guys were signed last year. unless the lockout somehow increases owner/GM braincells, wont the amnesty buying binge likely end the same way the summer of 2010 did, with most teams making bad moves and overpaying mediocre players?

"Ponchon," says Courteline, "has lived for over twenty-five years in the same house. It has been sold several times, and the different owners always stipulate in the deed that Ponchon will have no rent to pay; all this, without his ever having asked for it."

by TheMoon on Sep 27, 2011 8:57 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

cutting boozer seems pretty pointless in most cases, and cutting ronnie brewer who is young and good for rip hamilton who is old and bad is really, really dumb.

by TheMoon on Sep 28, 2011 12:49 AM CDT reply actions

There should be a certain clause to the rule

like you could only use this on players who have already played 3 entire seasons on their contract and at least 1 entire season with your team. The amnesty should also be bi-annual, so you could only use it once every other year, and it should be a “use it or lose it” deal.

Owners shouldnt be allowed to just hand out dumb contracts and then take them back the following season, they should suffer for a while.

I dont care what the D.N.A. Says, the Guy wearing number 12 Cannot be Kirk Hinrich, he is definetly Kurt. Kirk can actually play basketball!

by piccolomair on Sep 28, 2011 12:52 PM CDT reply actions

Owners shouldnt be allowed to just hand out dumb contracts and then take them back the following season, they should suffer for a while.

It is my understanding the players will get paid the entire sum of their contract, it simply doesn’t count towards the cap or luxury tax. Therefore, if Atlanta wants to cut Joe Johnson he still gets paid the 80+ million, paying someone 80+ million dollars to not play for you seems like a pretty fitting punishment to me.

I support the NBA player's union.

by chowder on Sep 28, 2011 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions

in which case

How does this differ from a buyout?

I dont care what the D.N.A. Says, the Guy wearing number 12 Cannot be Kirk Hinrich, he is definetly Kurt. Kirk can actually play basketball!

by piccolomair on Sep 28, 2011 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions

I believe

During a buy out there is a negotiation between the player and the team, usually resulting in partial payment of their remaining salary. For example, say a player has 3 years & 30 million left on his contract, but the team sucks and the player is old and wants a chance to win a title. The team and player could agree to a 15 million dollar buy out, allowing the player to sign with another team and the team to start rebuilding.

In this case, there is no such negotiation. The player does not have to consent and the team can not negotiate down the amount owed.

I support the NBA player's union.

by chowder on Sep 28, 2011 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions

So this ultimately helps the richer markets doesnt it?

Only the bigger markets would really be able to grant the amnesty to say a max free agent like boozer, continue to pay him under the table (so to speak) and then continue to sign other players. Cheap owners like Reinsdorf, i dont see them ever being in support of this. Unless there is a hard cap. Only in a hardcap situation, could this actually make some sense. But, actually, even then only the more profitable organizations, richer owners, would be more willing to do this.

I could see a reinsdorf type never caring to use the amnesty clause, mainly cuz the weight of the decision would be Pay boozer 12 mil, and watch him suck and get booed while derrick rose carries his butt to the finals, or use the clause…continue to pay booze 12 million, but under the table, while also paying another power forward another 6 million so he could help derrick rose get to the finals…..

the line of logic might not be totally correct but i can see it being a reasonable one in the head of reinsdorf, in which case he always go with option A

I dont care what the D.N.A. Says, the Guy wearing number 12 Cannot be Kirk Hinrich, he is definetly Kurt. Kirk can actually play basketball!

by piccolomair on Sep 28, 2011 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions

Two things

1) From what I remember from the last Amnesty Clause, very few high-profile players were waived. Case in point, Allan Houston was not waived, instead, the rule was used frequently on players who neared the end of their contract and weren’t simply underperforming while on the court, rather they weren’t even able to get playing time. This article from 2005 lists the players that were waived:
..Junkyard Dog Jerome Williams
..Michael Finley
..Fred Hoiberg
..Ron Mercer
..Calvin Booth
..Troy Bell
..Clarence Weatherspoon
..Doug Christie
..Aaron McKie
..Brian Grant
..Derek Anderson

Only Michael Finley could be classified as a star, the rest were overvalued role players with a significantly declining game. I also found this paragraph interesting:

Several teams made moves to clear tax obligations for players who left their rosters long ago. They included Alonzo Mourning (Toronto), Vin Baker (Boston), Derrick Coleman (Detroit), Wesley Person (Miami), Eddie Robinson (Chicago) and Howard Eisley (Phoenix).

I believe these players were already bought out, but teams used this rule to clear them from the luxury tax equation.

2) I don’t feel a hard cap will be implemented, but the owners are seeking concessions to limit the ways they can end up over the luxury tax line. Specifically, the Larry Bird rule is only applicable to one player one season. With regards to the amnesty clause, teams would not be able to add salary causing them to enter the luxury tax or drives them further into the luxury tax. Depending on where the soft cap figure stands, I don’t know how many teams would be able to add players.

I support the NBA player's union.

by chowder on Sep 28, 2011 6:37 PM CDT up reply actions