The PF/C conundrum

[teej]

So, as far as the offseason goes for the 'Cats, PG is set, the wings need a minor upgrade, but the most attention needs to be focused on the frontcourt (jeez, where have we heard this before?). There are 4 power forwards and 2 centers that are under contract, but I don't think any of us see Diop returning. That leaves a frontcourt of Boris, Tyrus, DJ2, Eddie, and Bismack.

Lord help us.

Now, I'm not forgetting that both sides were interested in a return of Kwame, but that's not a given. And even if he does return, that still leaves a weakness at center size-wise. There's not a single 7-footer on the roster, and Bismack, Tyrus, DJ2, and Eddie can't matchup against centers for an entire season. Bismack will eventually, and should be expected to in situational matchups this season, but not as a starter or in heavy rotation.

What do you guys think? Am I wrong? Or does Cho sign Marc Gasol and end this discussion?

[ND22]

Could we afford Marc Gasol?

My feeling is we will push hard to resign Kwame and do little else with the front court. The team wants to know what TT and Bismack can do.

We will need another center aside from Kwame though. Gasol would be great, another option would be DeAndre Jordan, but he will likely cost more than he's worth.

For the sake of...whatever, I'll throw Greg Oden's name into the mix. I doubt Portland resigns him, and we could always give him a similar offer we gave Kwame last year. If he's healthy, we've lucked out, and if not we're stuck with him for one year.

[Plowright]

What if we gave Oden a big offer, then if he doesnt come good with injur then we just use the amnesty clause on him next year? Win Win no?

[tamburello]

What if we gave Oden a big offer, then if he doesnt come good with injur then we just use the amnesty clause on him next year? Win Win no?

1. Oden has a huge QO, around $ 8 million. No way would we offer such a money to him considering the limitations in new CBA and his injury history of course. Why should he accept a deal around 5 million then?

2. Amnesty clause will be valid for the players who are under contract "right now", not the players signed in this offseason or later.

[Plowright]

OK, so we only get one shot with this amnesty clause then? But we can choose to save it for a couple of years or something? I thought we got one clause after each season

[tamburello]

OK, so we only get one shot with this amnesty clause then? But we can choose to save it for a couple of years or something? I thought we got one clause after each season

No, sir. We only have one shot to amnesty and have to use it on our "own" players, Diop, Maggette, Carroll, you name it. But we don't have to use it right now, we can use it as long as new CBA lasts, but still only on one of those players.

[Toocool]

Would be curious to see how much Cole Aldrich would cost. 6'11, 245 pounds. Young with some nice upside. Would be a very solid player, especially with Thunder having Perkins as Center.

[tondi]

Why don't you think Diop will return? He is under contract and if we amnesty him we still have to pay him so why not keep him around? With Bismack on board, Diop uninjured and assuming we resign Brown we should be at least as good down low as last year and maybe even better, not that that is saying much.

[SWedd523]

I have doubts that we'll amnesty anyone. Like tondi said, we're going to have to pay him anyway so MJ might as well get a return for his money.


The amnesty clause isn't going to help teams like us out because we're already below whatever the salary cap would be. That clause is designed to help out the teams with big payrolls that can afford to pay somebody after they cut them. The Lakers and Walton or the Magic and Arenas, for example.

[Keetch]

^ That. Amnesty is completely a tool for big market teams.

With Tyrus and Bismack in the paint we'll have pretty athletic shot blockers. With a couple C's for backup; that might be good for now.

[docend24]

So, as far as the offseason goes for the 'Cats, PG is set, the wings need a minor upgrade, but the most attention needs to be focused on the frontcourt (jeez, where have we heard this before?). There are 4 power forwards and 2 centers that are under contract, but I don't think any of us see Diop returning. That leaves a frontcourt of Boris, Tyrus, DJ2, Eddie, and Bismack.

Lord help us.

Now, I'm not forgetting that both sides were interested in a return of Kwame, but that's not a given. And even if he does return, that still leaves a weakness at center size-wise. There's not a single 7-footer on the roster, and Bismack, Tyrus, DJ2, and Eddie can't matchup against centers for an entire season. Bismack will eventually, and should be expected to in situational matchups this season, but not as a starter or in heavy rotation.

What do you guys think? Am I wrong? Or does Cho sign Marc Gasol and end this discussion?
Bismack is not under contract, right?

[dav7z]

The rumor i read of Haywood and a Dallas first for Diop might just have a few legs . Thought im not sure i like that idea .
I all so thought this clause could be used yearly . Any links to clear this up .

[SWedd523]

Well first of all that's a beyond terrible deal.

[dav7z]

Well first of all that's a beyond terrible deal.
Agreeded i don't like it either . Haywood has four years left on contract. Though i wouldn't mind the first. And Haywood would be servicable. That contract sucks.

[docend24]

I would rather bring Bismack paired with bunch for players to prove themselves (somewhat Aaron Gray tier) then trade for serviceable center on terrible contract. For clear cut starter just re-sign Kwame for couple of years. Either way as long as FAs don't refuse to sign one year deals (kind of like Kwame Brown one) there is little to go wrong and we would have a glaring hole at C, we would have shot at Drummond if he will be to be liked.

[Chef]

if we amnesty anyone and i doubt we will, it only makes sense to use it on tyrus. if you are jordan, you still have to pay the money it is about cap space. why use it on any of the other candidates when they expire this year or next. the reason to do it is for free agency ie paul or howard. i would be all for getting rid of tyrus while we can even if we aren't going to get any good free agents.

[docend24]

Well, it may have some sense in case of like Carroll's as he is unlikely to attract any takers in a trade i.e. we wouldn't get anything/much in a trade with him on current contract but he may get some bids as a waiver (not on that 3M+ per year anymore). So MJ would save some money - vet minimum or slightly more - as he may be of some use for team wanting a 3pt specialist from a becnh. Not that there is pressing need to get rid of Carroll but if there an option to use it on someone for the sake of using it and saving let's say 1 million then why not.

We fans wouldn't see much of a difference though.

[Twan's Kin]

We should consider Chris Wilcox of the Pistons, Hayes of the Rockets, and Etan Thomas.

Y'all think we should play Diaw at Center when we "go small." ??

[WAM9]

I thought Gana was a given when I first thought of this and after reading a lot of really strong, informed opinions, I still think Gana is a no brainer here (although the Carroll arguement has merit).

We may still have to pay Gana here but taking him off the cap is huge.

Follow me here...

Gana's numbers come off the books salary cap wise (although we still have to pay him).

This amount let's us basically "exceed" the salary cap without "sharing" implications or luxury tax implications if we went that big. It basically let's Jordan "over spend" the cap without having to pay a more than $1 for $1 penalty for doing so.

I know many have postulated that we won't use the amnesty clause. I disagree 100% and expect us to use it on Diop or Carroll without question.

[TheBeagle]

Agreeded i don't like it either . Haywood has four years left on contract. Though i wouldn't mind the first. And Haywood would be servicable. That contract sucks. As soon as that deal goes through, Cho walks into MJ's office and turns in his walking papers.

[Toocool]

What the hell? Haywood?
His contract is far worse than Diop's, and hes not even that much better than him.
I rather keep the painful contract of Diop than the deathball that is Haywood's contract.

[SWedd523]

I thought Gana was a given when I first thought of this and after reading a lot of really strong, informed opinions, I still think Gana is a no brainer here (although the Carroll arguement has merit).

We may still have to pay Gana here but taking him off the cap is huge.

Follow me here...

Gana's numbers come off the books salary cap wise (although we still have to pay him).

This amount let's us basically "exceed" the salary cap without "sharing" implications or luxury tax implications if we went that big. It basically let's Jordan "over spend" the cap without having to pay a more than $1 for $1 penalty for doing so.

I know many have postulated that we won't use the amnesty clause. I disagree 100% and expect us to use it on Diop or Carroll without question.

That's great in concept........ for contending teams. The $6mil in savings wouldn't let us go out and get somebody who can help put us in contention. We'd use it to sign a couple of low level guys because we're rebuilding. We'd be paying him to just go away, and that's something MJ cannot afford to do.

[ND22]

My feeling is, if the clause can be used whenever, we only use it if we have a trade set up that would free the space we need to make the deal happen. Same if we agree with an impact FA.

[dav7z]

As soon as that deal goes through, Cho walks into MJ's office and turns in his walking papers.

Beagle good to hear from ya . Hows it going ? Thats just rumor on another board . People thinking Cao has the sucker all so i guess.
The way our contract structure is set up. I think it would save MJ the most money wize cutting Maggs or T Time. Because other teams would sign them at a larger amount. But im thinking MJ keeps both players because of the 85 % rule . We will make our amnisty cut next season in our run for franchize player.

If we can land two first round picks next draft. Two go along with our two picks this season . And sign a franchize player . We could make some loud noize two years from now.

[teej]

and that's something MJ cannot afford to do.

Bullshit.

He can afford a lot. It's whether or not his penny-pinching, stubborn ass self wants to or not.

My argument for Gana being amnestied has less to do with the cap and more to do with tossing Biyombo out there. If Kwame is re-signed, then that creates an even bigger logjam at the 4 and 5 and I don't want any reason for Biyombo to sit.

And if Diop is sitting behind Kwame and Biyombo, isn't that basically paying him to go away? Why not hope another team offers him a minimum contract, then go out and sign some rookie to play third center and still save MJ a few hundred thousand bucks?

[Sik Infant]

I don't think the amnesty clause will be used but if it does it will definitely be Gana in my opinion.

The problem apart from not gaining much by cutting him is magnified as we have noone to play his role.

Currently our rotation if Biyombo comes over & Kwame re-signs is-

Augustin/Walker
Hendo/Carroll
Maggette/Cunningham

Thomas/Biyombo/White/Cunningham
Brown/Biyombo/Diop

This works out well for our front court as Biyombo will get minutes to develop at both the 4 & 5 & has the required backups for expected foul trouble.

If Kwame doesn't re-sign & Biyombo is tied to spain through his contract buyout issues Gana will be our only recognised 5 on the roster.

I would like us to sign Josh McRoberts on a cheap deal to backup both PF & C as Kwame may not re-sign & Gana will be gone after next season leaving us with a rotation of-

Thomas/Biyombo/McRoberts
Biyombo/McRoberts/??

To summarise my tangent I think our front court is pretty decent depth wise if we re-sign Kwame & get Biyombo over this season but with those variables in play we have to keep Gana on the roster & only add a prospect if more depth is needed.

[WAM9]

That's great in concept........ for contending teams. The $6mil in savings wouldn't let us go out and get somebody who can help put us in contention. We'd use it to sign a couple of low level guys because we're rebuilding. We'd be paying him to just go away, and that's something MJ cannot afford to do.

I think it is exactly something MJ can afford to do.

Getting to go over the cap on a $1 for $1 basis is exactly the kind of value he is probably looking for.

Question: What is our current cap number (and what is the actual cap)? Where would we stand without amnesty vs with using it?

[SWedd523]

I think it is exactly something MJ can afford to do.

Getting to go over the cap on a $1 for $1 basis is exactly the kind of value he is probably looking for.

Question: What is our current cap number (and what is the actual cap)? Where would we stand without amnesty vs with using it?

Again, that would only make sense if we were a playoff team, or one player away from it. If this were two years ago? You bet he'd amnesty somebody so he could make a trade for a difference maker.

But now, with our team looking to be one of the 3 or so worst in the league, the potential gain from a better player isn't enough to make it worthwhile.

[SWedd523]

Bullshit.

He can afford a lot. It's whether or not his penny-pinching, stubborn ass self wants to or not.
That's yet to be determined until we see the new revenue sharing and Luxury Tax rules. If we really lost $20 million last year, you'd be silly to think he can sustain that.



My argument for Gana being amnestied has less to do with the cap and more to do with tossing Biyombo out there. If Kwame is re-signed, then that creates an even bigger logjam at the 4 and 5 and I don't want any reason for Biyombo to sit.I see it more as an insurance policy than anything else. What happens if Kwame doesn't resign? What happens if Bismack isn't able to come over? What happens if one of them gets injured? Foul trouble?

I'd rather pay Diop $6 million to sit on the bench and provide that insurance than pay him $6 million to go away so Diaw can get more minutes.


And if Diop is sitting behind Kwame and Biyombo, isn't that basically paying him to go away? Why not hope another team offers him a minimum contract, then go out and sign some rookie to play third center and still save MJ a few hundred thousand bucks?
Not since we have to have at least 85% of the cap committed. I'm not sure what the cap will be, or how much (and how many players) we have committed already. So we're going to have to pay somebody that money. Might as well pay $6 mil for Diop than $12 mil for Diop and whoever else.


The best bet moving forward is to save the amnesty until we absolutely need it in a trade or player signing. We can use it for any player currently under contract. So we have plenty of time to wait.

[spectre]

What Swedd said. It makes absolutely no sense to amnesty Gana while paying him his full salary given our situation.

You guys know what would happen, right? No one would sign him...so the over tax teams would get a shot, Cuban would sign him for the vet min and we'd be stuck paying him to play for the Mavs.

Personally I'm downright tired of being Cuban's "bend over" whipping boy.

http://blogs.charlotte.com/inside_the_nba/2011/11/tap-the-brakes-on-amnesty-for-diop.html

Bonnell agrees (which probably means Swedd & I are wrong).

[WAM9]

Maybe I don't understand the amnesty clause well enough. I didn't understand it to be a one time thing. I understood it to be a once per year thing...

Do we know the actual answer?

[SWedd523]

When I read through the proposed deal, I got the impression that it was a one time thing. I think the one per year rumor came about on some RGM board.

[docend24]

It looks like a bad interpretation of written text it looks like one and done thing but you can wait with till last before last season of any contract of anyopne currently on roster. No trades, no newly side players. That way the obvious use of amnesty is keep the option of cutting Tyrus open just in case it would become needed. No other player has contract longer than two years (options included) so they are either tradeable or expire soon anyway. Meanwhile we have to fulfill those 85% of the cap, so we need to spend those money against the cap anyways.

[dav7z]

It looks like a bad interpretation of written text it looks like one and done thing but you can wait with till last before last season of any contract of anyopne currently on roster. No trades, no newly side players. That way the obvious use of amnesty is keep the option of cutting Tyrus open just in case it would become needed. No other player has contract longer than two years (options included) so they are either tradeable or expire soon anyway. Meanwhile we have to fulfill those 85% of the cap, so we need to spend those money against the cap anyways.
We at around 53 milion after we sign Walker and Smack
The salery cap is around 70 milion . So to reach the 85% we have to spend at least 59.5 milion


http://hoopshype.com/salaries/charlotte.htm

If this is the cap number we go by
http://www.blogabull.com/2011/11/28/2591196/more-new-nba-salary-cap-notes-did-you-not-get-the-memo

If this is right we will have to spend at least 6 more milion on one or two players ??
THOUGHTS

[SWedd523]

Are you sure about the trade part though? I may have missed that part, but I read it as any one player currently under contract so, for example, a team could trade for Dwight and dead weight, then amnesty the dead weight

[Sik Infant]

From my understanding you can amnestise anyone but can only use it once either this season or next.

So yes you could trade for Dwight & Arenas & then amnestise Arenas if you wanted to.

[SWedd523]

Where do you get the arbitrary "this season or next"

[Sik Infant]

Where do you get the arbitrary "this season or next"

I believe I read it in an article.

Now that you mention it it may be false.

[spectre]

Do we have anything other than the document Hunter sent the players?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_JqVMjKAfLYNzU3YzVlNDAtMDBlOS00Y2UwLWE5ZTI tM2RkZTdjN2FmMzI4&hl=en_US

"Each team permitted to waive 1 player prior to any season of the CBA (only for contracts in place at the inception of the CBA) and have 100% of the player's salary removed from team salary for Cap and Tax purposes."

Not enough info...but you have to doubt seriously that they'd allow teams to whack one player for each year. I've also read that you couldn't use it on a future traded player which would also make sense...most of this process was in keeping the bigger markets down. Trading then amnestying players...thus acquiring even more room under the cap...would only empower the big spenders more.

Per that doc Sik's right. 1 player...prior to any season of the upcoming CBA.

[spectre]

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: :facepalm::facepalm:

That's for me. Typing that into the box and then discovering Swedd had posted the entire 14 section in the other thread.

[SWedd523]

Do we have anything other than the document Hunter sent the players?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_JqVMjKAfLYNzU3YzVlNDAtMDBlOS00Y2UwLWE5ZTI tM2RkZTdjN2FmMzI4&hl=en_US

"Each team permitted to waive 1 player prior to any season of the CBA (only for contracts in place at the inception of the CBA) and have 100% of the player's salary removed from team salary for Cap and Tax purposes."

Not enough info...but you have to doubt seriously that they'd allow teams to whack one player for each year. I've also read that you couldn't use it on a future traded player which would also make sense...most of this process was in keeping the bigger markets down. Trading then amnestying players...thus acquiring even more room under the cap...would only empower the big spenders more.

Per that doc Sik's right. 1 player...prior to any season of the upcoming CBA.

I'm thinking the "only for contracts in place at the inception of the CBA" line means anytime until the new CBA runs out, not the next two seasons. We have a new CBA, they just won't put all the new rules in effect until then. It won't really affect us much because the only player we have on contract longer than the next two years is Tyrus

[WAM9]

I agree it is too vague but now think that the most likely interpretation is like you guys were saying: One existing contract, before any upcoming season...one time.

Based on this, I think the most likely guys are Nazr, Carroll or Tyrus...next season. I could see us being big players in next year's free agency so using the amnesty on which ever one of these made sense at the time could clear a lot of cap room (anywhere between 3.5M and 9M).

Count me now in the group who doesn't think it is likely for the amnesty card to be played this season (unless Jordan goes wild in free agency).

[Twan's Kin]

It would be nice if we still had Nazr on the roster.

[teej]

From everything I've read from NBA writers and such, the amnesty is for any player on the team's roster when the CBA is ratified. I.E., we can only Amnesty DJ, Hendo, Carroll, Maggs, Diaw, Ty, DJ2, Eddie, or Gana. And that's it. Ever.

Now, to SWedd and Spectre. I'm not saying we amnesty Diop on Dec. 9th. If we find out Kwame wants to go elsewhere, or Bismack has to spend another year overseas, then sure, sit Diop's ass on the end of that bench next to MJ. But if both Kwame and Bitchsmack are on the roster, then amnesty him and hope someone pays part of his salary.

Also, to those wondering about the salary cap, the CAP is going to be around or above 58 million. It can't be any lower this year or next. We have to spend near 49.4 million in that situation. Once Kemba is signed and Dante accepts his QO, we're at 50.6 million. If Bismack is able to come over, we're at 53 mil. Assuming Kwame's price is at least 2 million (though it's probably more), that's up to 55, with 13 players counting Gana. There's still a need for a wing, so let's say that's another 2 million, and that takes us to 57. I'm purposely going on the low end here. That means you can take off Gana's 6.9 million and still be over the necessary 85%.

Does that make sense?

[SWedd523]

Sure, but in your scenario, we're still under the cap so there's still no purpose to amnesty him now

[docend24]

Just to be sure by trading an amnestee you mean trading a player who is already currently under a contract to a team which happens not to use its amnesty option on anybody yet so then such a team can use iot on that acquired player OR do you actually mean players gets amnestied (?) by his current team and traded to a new team at the same time in act simillar to sign and trade deals so the acquiring team doest uses its own amnesty option thus can practically use more than one? The latter doesn't seem to be with the purpose of that rule, based on that doc (sigh) only, it doesn't seem doable as the ruel doesn't assume that. The former seems not to be prohibited by anything in that document although I thoguh even that won't be possbile (forget where I read that). Seem reasonable as it would still be one amnesty per team and the rule wouldn't be for team who need such a bail out but for those more tightly managed too. It would be liek trading for a dust chip.

[teej]

@docend, from what I can tell there is NO trading involved with the amnesty. None. If you want to use the amnesty, it has to be someone who is already on your roster. For instance, if we traded for Haywood, we could not amnesty him, even if we had not used the amnesty.

And Swedd, I'm not trying to amnesty Diop for the money (although if he was signed for the 800k minimum I don't think MJ would complain), I'm trying to cut him because I'd rather give his roster spot to an UDFA bigman.

[spectre]

I don't know whether it'll make any difference or not, but we do have 2 trade exceptions from the Portland deal (3.5 million/2.8 million...can't be combined) that can be used in tweaking the roster in trade.

[millst2]

I think it is ridiculous to use it right now. Diop is on the books the next 2 yrs, as well as everyone else is. Outside of TT which we will see what he can do this year hopefully healthy.

The way I read it was that the CBA allows the use of the amnesty clause 1 time per team over the life of the CBA. Then the whole bidding process goes into effect for other teams to bid on how much they think the player is worth ( and moreso what they can steal the player for ) which is only really good for big market teams.

I think we stay in tact as we are now, get smack and kemba, hendo etc. I think if we shop anyone we may be shopping Augustine ( as it will give kemba more time to run the show ) and Doris. We want get any takers for diop unless we amnesty him and then the mavs are someone would come in and offer vet minimum so the cats still pay the majority of his contract, which would be stupid on our part.

I think we will be making a move for a big and then trade DJ + Doris for a pick and a big.

Just my opinion, but thats what I see happening as we want need to use the amnesty clause unless we have to take back a bad contract to get a piece we need, or to free up cap room for the 2012 FA Market.

Damn it is good to be back talking about basketball. woot

[ChuckHayes69]

I think the fact that people can bid for a portion of an amnestied contract makes Thomas a good candidate to be amnestied next year. If we can shed that space under the cap while saving say 70% of the money I think it could be worth it. If he shows a little more this year I would keep him, but there is no reason to amnesty anyone else since Diop will be a tradable expiring next summer and we don't need any cap space this month. I would also consider amnestying Maggette if I were running the team but I don't think we will.

[Chef]

I think the fact that people can bid for a portion of an amnestied contract makes Thomas a good candidate to be amnestied next year. If we can shed that space under the cap while saving say 70% of the money I think it could be worth it. If he shows a little more this year I would keep him, but there is no reason to amnesty anyone else since Diop will be a tradable expiring next summer and we don't need any cap space this month. I would also consider amnestying Maggette if I were running the team but I don't think we will.

this makes way too much sense. no way it happens this way.

[tondi]

this makes way too much sense. no way it happens this way.

Also many of the highest rated players coming out next year project to be PF's. So why not wait until the draft and see who we end up with before doing anything rash. That would also give us time to see which of our players can contribute beyond this season before deciding who needs to go.

[SWedd523]

this makes way too much sense. no way it happens this way.

Well that's how the rule goes so I guess it depends on how highly other teams think of him

[ChuckHayes69]

this makes way too much sense. no way it happens this way.

That's true I haven't seen a whole lot of Bobcats moves that have been predictable and made sense.


Also many of the highest rated players coming out next year project to be PF's. So why not wait until the draft and see who we end up with before doing anything rash. That would also give us time to see which of our players can contribute beyond this season before deciding who needs to go.

Yeah that definitely makes sense. I also think seeing how the market reacts to the blind bidding process this offseason helps make the decision easier as well. For instance, if teams are only bidding in the league minimum ranges it doesn't make sense to dump him, but if teams are acting more like they are free agents it is reasonable that we could shed a majority of his contract while taking it all off the books. I personally think it will lie in the middle since there is limited competition (since its limited to only teams with cap space).