Amnesty Clause

[Folster]

There is an assumption that if a stricter cap is implemented the league would grant a one player salary amnesty much like they did when the last CBA was negotiated. It was dubbed the Allan Houston rule, who ironically was not waived by New York. If implemented the same as last time, every team would be allowed to waive one player. They would still be obligated to pay the entire salary, but the amount would not count against the cap. That team would also not be permitted to resign the player.

This rule could potentially deepen the free agent pool this offseason and also allow the Suns to erase one of the recent bad signings. I guess the first question would be, who do we waive. Warrick or Childress are the obvious possibilities. Even though Childress has a larger salary, I'd probably chose to keep him because of his defensive potential and his ability to impact the game in multiple facets.

The other question is, who could be available to sign. Obvious amnesty players would be Lewis, Arenas, and Roy. Who else could be waived? Would the Hawks take this opportunity to waive Johnson? I doubt it, but I bet the Hawks ownership group would give it some thought. His contract is horrible.

Here are some other potential amnesty waivers:
Sac: Francisco Garcia
LAL: Luke Walton
Cle: Baron Davis
Minn: Darko Milicic
Den: Al Harrington
Dal: Brendan Haywood
Atl: Marvin Williams
Mil: Corey Maggette, John Salmons, Drew Gooden
Det: Richard Hamilton, Ben Gordon, Charlie Villanueva
Tor: Jose Calderon
Phi: Elton Brand
NJ: Travis Outlaw

The list of players that I quickly compiled isn't spectacular, but there is some talent there, especially considering they could likely be signed for the minimum since their previous salary is still guaranteed. If I recall, last time the player's previous team had to pay the difference between the players new salary and old salary. This prevented the players from double dipping.

I like Marvin Williams, Hamilton and Brand. I'd have to say that I'd take a shot at Roy for the min. Imagine if we somehow added Hamilton and Brand; we could make another playoff run or two.

There were a lot of teams with no obvious amnesty player. Feel free to add to the list with possibilities as well as guys you'd like the Suns to pursue.

 

[Griffin]

There is an assumption that if a stricter cap is implemented the league would grant a one player salary amnesty much like they did when the last CBA was negotiated. It was dubbed the Allan Houston rule, who ironically was not waived by New York. If implemented the same as last time, every team would be allowed to waive one player. They would still be obligated to pay the entire salary, but the amount would not count against the cap. That team would also not be permitted to resign the player.

Actually, last time this was done the amount did count against the cap. The only benefit of doing this was to reduce luxury tax, since any team over LT would have had to pay double for that player.

This rule could potentially deepen the free agent pool this offseason and also allow the Suns to erase one of the recent bad signings. I guess the first question would be, who do we waive. Warrick or Childress are the obvious possibilities. Even though Childress has a larger salary, I'd probably chose to keep him because of his defensive potential and his ability to impact the game in multiple facets.

Since the team would still be forced to pay a player's full salary, those bad signings would not really be erased. Even if it didn't count against the cap, the Suns would still owe tens of millions $ to whichever player they hypothetically waived for many years to come. But since the Suns are not over LT, there would be no financial benefit at all to waiving anyone. And since it does count against the cap, there wouldn't even be cap relief. For the same reason, other teams would not waive anyone under such rule unless it provided LT relief.

 

[slinslin]

Childress is a much much much worse contract than Warrick..

 

[JCSunsfan]

The would not impact the current Suns roster since they are under the lux tax but over the cap.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Childress is a much much much worse contract than Warrick..

Based on??? Childress sits on the bench and wastes money. Warrick is a waste of money but he gets into the game AND costs us on the court too.

Steve

 

[Cheesebeef]

Based on??? Childress sits on the bench and wastes money. Warrick is a waste of money but he gets into the game AND costs us on the court too.

Steve

longer contract and more money. that's how his deal is worse.

 

[AsUdUdE]

Childress is awful and his contract goes up every year for the next 5 years...

He would the the unquestioned pick to kick to the curb...

 

[AzStevenCal]

longer contract and more money. that's how his deal is worse.

Except that Childress can play basketball, although perhaps not here. I don't think we'll find a taker for Warrick without putting together a Kurt Thomas kind of deal.

Steve

 

[AzStevenCal]

Childress is awful and his contract goes up every year for the next 5 years...

He would the the unquestioned pick to kick to the curb...

Why do you say he's awful? Is it based on something other than last season? I ask because we never really gave him a chance last season. Keep in mind, he was playing with a bad hand (early on) and later, we rarely let him off the bench. The Childress I remember from Stanford and Atlanta was a very effective role player. Similar to Dudley, although Josh was better around the basket and weaker from distance. He's overpaid but IMO he still has value.

Steve

 

[AsUdUdE]

Why do you say he's awful? Is it based on something other than last season? I ask because we never really gave him a chance last season. Keep in mind, he was playing with a bad hand (early on) and later, we rarely let him off the bench. The Childress I remember from Stanford and Atlanta was a very effective role player. Similar to Dudley, although Josh was better around the basket and weaker from distance. He's overpaid but IMO he still has value.

Steve

anytime you make more money (in millions) than average points, that is terrible..

He made 6.5 million, played almost 18 MPG, but averaged 5 PPG, 2 RPG, less than 1 APG, all while shooting 6% from 3 point range and 49% from the free throw line..

No I did not mistype, he shot 6% and 49% from the 3/FT respectively..

If he were a minimum player, terrific, but paying him like a borderline starter and having an NBA rating 10.2 (good for the 10-11th guy on the bench on average) equals a "horrible player"

Good for a Min. salary player, awful for what he makes..

 

[Folster]

Actually, last time this was done the amount did count against the cap. The only benefit of doing this was to reduce luxury tax, since any team over LT would have had to pay double for that player.

Since the team would still be forced to pay a player's full salary, those bad signings would not really be erased. Even if it didn't count against the cap, the Suns would still owe tens of millions $ to whichever player they hypothetically waived for many years to come. But since the Suns are not over LT, there would be no financial benefit at all to waiving anyone. And since it does count against the cap, there wouldn't even be cap relief. For the same reason, other teams would not waive anyone under such rule unless it provided LT relief.

You are correct. I overlooked that significant detail. The Suns could still benefit by waiving a player if they plan on being at or around the LT threshold assuming there is a LT. And obviously they could benefit from signing one of the waived players. All of this conjecture is assuming the amnesty rule would be applied the same as last time, but what else do we have to talk about?

 

[Mainstreet]

I believe it is likely the Suns will buy out Carter, however, depending upon how a waived player exception is handled, it could decrease the value of Carter in a trade. I was hoping the Suns might try to trade Carter instead of buy him out.

 

[JCSunsfan]

How could childress be that bad? Its almost like he trying to play poorly.

 

[Hat]

Childress is awful and his contract goes up every year for the next 5 years...

He would the the unquestioned pick to kick to the curb...

It's statements like these that make me hate this forum sometimes.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[desertdawg]

It's statements like these that make me hate this forum sometimes.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I like Chili too, but there is going to be a lot of creative writing for awhile (more than just chili) . I just wear a helmet and mouthpiece now when I read the trade posts in here...and I'm usually ok. Some of the reads will punch you right in the face with their creativity if your not careful.

 

[AsUdUdE]

It's statements like these that make me hate this forum sometimes.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

lol.. ok, since I am way off base, are you saying he IS worth his contract?

Is it the 6% he shot from 3 point range? Or is it the 49% he shot from the FT line? Or is it the 10.2 NBA rating he had..

Since I have no idea what I am talking about saying that paying 6-7 million a year for this is ridiculous, please set me straight as to why it makes sense...

 

[AzStevenCal]

lol.. ok, since I am way off base, are you saying he IS worth his contract?

Is it the 6% he shot from 3 point range? Or is it the 49% he shot from the FT line? Or is it the 10.2 NBA rating he had..

Since I have no idea what I am talking about saying that paying 6-7 million a year for this is ridiculous, please set me straight as to why it makes sense...

He certainly has not been worth his contract and it's quite possible he never will be. However, he has proven his worth in the past and for some reason, we were unable/unwilling to work him into regular playing time this season. But you simply call him "awful" without acknowledging that we haven't actually seen what he can offer.

I think he'd be slightly overpaid even if given a fair chance and we may have to sweeten the deal a little to move him but IMO he's nowhere near the Warrick level. To move Hakim, we may have to take back a true albatross player/contract or package him with every other first round pick for the next thousand years. To me, that makes Hakim a much more obvious target for the Amnesty Clause that this conversation evolved from.

Steve

 

[Divide Et Impera]

Warrick is not a bad contract. As far as I remember, he gets paid like $4.5m per year. Yes, it's long term, but $4.5m does not mean we have to take back an 'albatross'. That amount of money is not terrible for a guy who does 8/4 in just 18 minutes. In fact, that's a very efficient level of productivity on a per minute basis....

 

[AsUdUdE]

He certainly has not been worth his contract and it's quite possible he never will be. However, he has proven his worth in the past and for some reason, we were unable/unwilling to work him into regular playing time this season. But you simply call him "awful" without acknowledging that we haven't actually seen what he can offer.


Steve

I don't know brother.. he average 17 MPG... that is your average bench guy... its not like he was playing 5 MPG and we just had no idea what he could do...

I'll say this on another team he may be have more worth than he does here... but here, in theory he is a good fit, in reality he just is not, and does not seem comfortable...

its hard to justify giving a guy more minutes when he shoots 6% from 3 point range (in our system) and 49% from the line, while averaging under 1 APG..

 

[AzStevenCal]

Warrick is not a bad contract. As far as I remember, he gets paid like $4.5m per year. Yes, it's long term, but $4.5m does not mean we have to take back an 'albatross'. That amount of money is not terrible for a guy who does 8/4 in just 18 minutes. In fact, that's a very efficient level of productivity on a per minute basis....

Not to be rude, but do you actually watch Suns games? I ask because in my 40 plus years as a Suns fan I've never seen a player hurt this team to the degree he does or as often as he does. He does some exciting things at times and when he's focused he's a fairly decent offensive weapon. The problem is that he is oftentimes not focused and even when he's at his best offensively, he's hands down the worst team defender I've ever seen.

His individual defense is horrible but inside the team concept he's a liability that no team can afford. IMO, if he were available for free, he'd still be the worst contract that we have when you weigh it against his performance.

Steve

 

[AzStevenCal]

I don't know brother.. he average 17 MPG... that is your average bench guy... its not like he was playing 5 MPG and we just had no idea what he could do...

I'll say this on another team he may be have more worth than he does here... but here, in theory he is a good fit, in reality he just is not, and does not seem comfortable...

its hard to justify giving a guy more minutes when he shoots 6% from 3 point range (in our system) and 49% from the line, while averaging under 1 APG..

Most of those minutes occurred early in the season when he was playing with an injured hand. I don't know the breakdown but he spent very little time on the court during the second half of the season. BTW, I don't really disagree with anything else you've said in this post.

Steve

 

[Divide Et Impera]

Not to be rude, but you're making a completely different argument. You implied that his contract is terrible and now you are saying that you do not like how he fits on this team. Try to keep it consistent....

 

[AzStevenCal]

Not to be rude, but you're making a completely different argument. You implied that his contract is terrible and now you are saying that you do not like how he fits on this team. Try to keep it consistent....

I've been consistent. If you follow the conversation from the first post you'll see it's about exercising the Amnesty clause. You don't use that to merely get rid of your most expensive player. The contract is a big part of the decision but so is value on the court and tradability. IMO, Warrick has neither court value nor tradability.

Steve

 

[AsUdUdE]

Most of those minutes occurred early in the season when he was playing with an injured hand. I don't know the breakdown but he spent very little time on the court during the second half of the season. BTW, I don't really disagree with anything else you've said in this post.

Steve

Minutes breakdown by month for Childress:

Oct- 16.7

Nov- 18.6

Dec- 15.5

Jan- 17.4

Feb- Was injured only played 2 games- 6.0

Mar- 15.4

Apr.- 19.5

Was pretty consistant throughout the year, it may have seemed like he was playing more because he started the season playing ok, and fell apart as the season went along..
​

 

[AzStevenCal]

Minutes breakdown by month for Childress:

Oct- 16.7

Nov- 18.6

Dec- 15.5

Jan- 17.4

Feb- Was injured only played 2 games- 6.0

Mar- 15.4

Apr.- 19.5

Was pretty consistant throughout the year, it may have seemed like he was playing more because he started the season playing ok, and fell apart as the season went along..
​

That's just not true. This is the problem with just checking stats as opposed to watching every game. I'm telling you, Childress played a lot of his minutes early despite the fact his hand was injured and then fell into much less playing time. The averages do not support this but the totals do. He played a total of 894 minutes last season and 456 of those minutes came prior to December 27th. If it wasn't for some extra playing time down the stretch when the team was mailing it in, the numbers would have been even more lopsided (239 minutes in the last 12 games).

Steve