The Golden State Warriors have waived guard Charlie Bell under the new amnesty provision, wiping his remaining contract from the salary cap and avoiding any luxury tax penalties. Teams can only use the new amnesty clause on one player a year. http://www.nba.com/2011/news/12/11/warriors-bell.ap/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt2 Is the Amnesty Provision a one time deal or used once a year?
It says one player per year in your post, but I thought it was a one time deal. Is Bell's contract so bad they had to use it? I think Detroit just bought out Rip instead of amnesty.
I thought it was a one time deal and a wasted use of the Amnesty. If its one player per year, I feel a lot better about using it on Bell to create space for a free agent.
I was also under the impression that it was a one-time thing...but if we can amnesty another player next year, I feel much better about the Charlie Bell situation. Can anybody confirm one way or another?
You can only use it one time for players that were signed under the old CBA. It can't be used for traded players. For example, had we received Gilbert Arenas in a trade from the Magic, we would not have been able to use the amnesty on him. Anyway, that's all moot. Warriors used/wasted it on Bell.
More of the same? Warriors wasted expiring contracts of Speedy Claxton and Devean George before. Wasted trade exception 2 yrs ago. Same old, same old.
