Amnesty Clause.... Team by Team Candidates

I never said anything remotely close to "fuck you." So if that's what you think I "said" are you really open to discussion? Are you really qualified to judge what I write? I'm going to go with no on this one.

Have a nice day though.

 

Well, let's look at the empirical evidence.

The Blazers are over .500 during the Allen years.

Therefore, he has done better than average. More than half of NBA cities look up at us and wish they had done as well.

 

Are half of NBA cities below .500 during this time span?

 

So will you have to use the amnesty during the off-season? If you can do it during the season I could see the Blazers giving Roy a 20 game trial run before finally deciding to cut him. That way you only have to pay luxury tax on 20/65 (~30% or whatever) of his salary for this season and get complete relief in future offseasons when the salary cap space is of more use to us.

 

Pretty sure?

 

I agree there are a big difference between the two and that the Blazer conduct with the GMs was not handled well, to the point of embarassing for many. But did it really hurt the organization?

I'm not a vulcan fan, but if they are in control, they have showed athey are willing to spend money and make moves. I understand they need to make good moves, but that is easier said than done. I thought Wallace was a good mood. I also like the Felton move.

 

Yes it really does hurt the organization to have a capricious and vindictive owner. It hurts their chances of actually attracting a competent GM to run the team, it hurts their chances of competing over the long haul in a new NBA environment where simply having bags of money is going to be less of a competitive advantage, it hurts this team that Allen fancies himself a talent evaluator, it hurts this team that Allen thought this team was one move away from a deep playoff run by picking up a past-his-prime Wallace instead of taking the advice of his former GM and "blowing it up" (sort of) and trying to rebuild around Aldridge.

Allen and his cadre of boot-licking sycophants have certainly shown a willingness to spend in the past and there's nothing wrong with that, but has there ever been a coherent vision of how to sustain success except for throwing gobs of money around like Holloween candy? I certainly haven't seen it.

Whatever positive momentum this organization stumbles into almost always feels like it's destined for a short shelf-life as long as Allen is in charge and I don't believe it will ever change until he's gone.

 

I see this different. I do not see all the reprecussions you see from having an essentric owner. But it might come from a standpoint that I think GMs are overrated. What it really takes to succeed in the NBA, IMO, is to gather as many star and superstar players. And while it helps to have a good GM to do this, I think the essential ingredient in that recipe is an owner who will open up the pocketbook. So while Allen may have his many faults, the fact he can dish out max contracts and buy draft picks like candy, in my mind, overcomes whatever GM they may be missing out on (without PA's money they couldn't hire a top GM anyways).

It was just a couple years ago Ptd was rocking with the idea of Roy, LA, and Oden leading this team to the glory land. Nathional news had a consensus that the Blazers were the up and coming team. Things were looking great for the Blazers. Then injuries, not ownership, destroyed all that.

When the NBA changes, time to reevaluate PA's worth to the Blazers, but in the past and up to date, invaluabale, IMO.

Sounds like what all this comes down to is you beleive the Blazers should be blown up and they aren't seeing the reality of their team. I think that is possible. I am on the side of not wanting to see the team blown up, liking the Wallace trade, building around LA and trying to keep this team in the playoffs. Just because management isn't blowing up the team like you want, doesn't mean they don't see what is going on. They just have a different opinion of how to get a championship.

I don't know the quickest way to a title, new owner or with PA, but I am very concerned with the idea of gettting an owner with limited resources coming in and trying to make a profit running the Blazers. If it was me, I wouldn't take the oraganzation a cent over the cap . . . and I'm afraid the new owner will do this and that would create one boring medicore non-playoff team.

Maybe if I was a Cho fan, I would feel the same as you. But I was never that impressed with Cho and his firing was a non-event in my mind. In fact if he wanted Blazers to start all over, I'm glad they fired him.

 

Yes that was how the old luxury tax and old amnesty works. It would make sense to have the same luxury tax date rules, so yes in that scenario maybe we could get complete luxury tax relief from Roy for the 2011-12 season even if we wait until mid season to cut him.

I'm very curious on how exactly the new amnesty will work; the stories I've heard of it are that the new amnesty will definitely give cap relief and likely be useable during a longer time frame. We would get cap relief, but since we still have Camby, Felton, Wallace on deals this coming season it wouldn't be of any use in adding a free agent until possibly next summer, the summer of 2012.

We only have two contracts, LaMarcus and Matthews, on our cap next summer, if we are able to amnesty Roy. That is a boat load of cap space if this team is indeed multiple players away from title contention. Amnesty along with intelligent moves on extensions to Oden/Batum/Wallace/Felton could give us tools to start rebuilding instead of having to suck for 5 years like the Knicks did just to attempt to clear cap space.

 

The other factor, which the owners seem very strong on, is the proposal that teams over the luxury tax threshold will *also* lose roster exemptions such as the MLE.

Simple example: Freeland. Under the old CBA, Freeland is no longer bound by the rookie scale. The team could offer him the MLE instead - which means a good chunk of change in his pocket! Take that away, and he has no incentive to ever play in Portland.

Everyone seems focused on the money - but in terms of the team being competitive, the lose of roster flexibility is the real issue.

 

I've mentioned it a few times, but not many seem to care.

 

Well most of these rules such as luxury teams losing the MLE are unresolved issues and its hard to know how it will effect the Blazers since we don't even know the final rule. We would be the largest beneficiary of the amnesty clause in the league, based on ESPN's projection of dollars saved, and the amnesty clause is supposedly more or less an agreed upon part of any deal so obviously that issue is going to have much discussion on this board.