next »

[JSD]

It punished the teams that made good finacial decisions and bailed out the teams that didn't. If it wasn't for that clause, the Celtics would have had an advantage over other team's in the league as above MLE level talent came down a notch in free agency price wise. Also, it made expiring contracts that the Celtics had last season less attractive.

[nickagneta]

Well f Danny had just signed Blatche instead of Collins and because of that we were 5-6 games over. 500 would this subject even matter?

[Who]

I don't think so.

I think expiring contracts where falling in value anyway. Teams have been trending this way for a few years now. Lots of teams had cap flexibility last summer and the year before + are expecting to have cap space next summer and the two summers beyond.

There are still a few teams that have bad cap situations but the number is much smaller than it used to be. Teams have more financial flexibility than they used to. It's become more of a focus league wide.

Plus, the new CBA with shorter contracts (now down to 4/5 years versus 6/7 years 10 years ago) has made it much easier for teams to manage their long term cap situation. I actually think teams are now more willing to overpay players per annum because the deals are shorter won't be stuck on their cap for as long if they don't pan out.

I don't think the amnesty clause has had much of an effect. The decrease in value of expiring contracts and increased financial flexibility was already happening.

Plus, the teams that have used the amnesty clause are mostly non-contenders. Both in terms of waiving a player and improving their cap situation + in picking up a player at low cost. Guys like B.Haywood and L.Scola went to lottery teams. Brand and Blatche went to playoff squads but non-title threats. And Blatche even cleared waivers and was available for anyone who wanted to sign him. Struggled to get a contract. So anybody could have gotten him including Boston.

Dallas are the closest team to a contender who has benefited but it still hasn't paid out for them yet and there is no guarantee it will. We won't know until free agency next summer or maybe the summer after.

So for me, I think the amnesty clause has had minimal effect.

[TripleOT]

Of what would be the playoff teams if the season ended today, the Knicks, Nets, and Hawks in the East and the Clippers, Spurs and Rockets in the West are the teams that benefited from amnesty, in one way or another. 

The last CBA did the Celticss no favor, especially when they put in the Catch and Release restriction the year the Cs had two big expiring contracts.  In past years, the Cs could have moved Allen last year for an asset from a team looking to clear out a long term $10m contract, and gotten him back in 30 days.

 

[JSD]

Well f Danny had just signed Blatche instead of Collins and because of that we were 5-6 games over. 500 would this subject even matter?

Blatche was the answer? I think that's a little premature. I too would have rather seen Blatche than Collins though

[Yoki_IsTheName]

Well f Danny had just signed Blatche instead of Collins and because of that we were 5-6 games over. 500 would this subject even matter?

Blatche was the answer? I think that's a little premature. I too would have rather seen Blatche than Collins though

No one wanted him here, although it's understandable though, but I mean, what risk do you have if he'll be on a non guaranteed minimum deal? He could've given us some off the bench boost in scoring and rebounding.

[pearljammer10]

Well f Danny had just signed Blatche instead of Collins and because of that we were 5-6 games over. 500 would this subject even matter?

How does Blatche put us 6 games over .500? Im in the camp that still thinks if we had Blatche he might have actually led us to be 6 games under .500 right now.
Blatche was the answer? I think that's a little premature. I too would have rather seen Blatche than Collins though

No one wanted him here, although it's understandable though, but I mean, what risk do you have if he'll be on a non guaranteed minimum deal? He could've given us some off the bench boost in scoring and rebounding.

[mctyson]

It punished the teams that made good finacial decisions and bailed out the teams that didn't. If it wasn't for that clause, the Celtics would have had an advantage over other team's in the league as above MLE level talent came down a notch in free agency price wise. Also, it made expiring contracts that the Celtics had last season less attractive.

Celtics have not had much FA money under the cap to spend regardless.

[crimson_stallion]

Well f Danny had just signed Blatche instead of Collins and because of that we were 5-6 games over. 500 would this subject even matter?

Blatche was the answer? I think that's a little premature. I too would have rather seen Blatche than Collins though

No one wanted him here, although it's understandable though, but I mean, what risk do you have if he'll be on a non guaranteed minimum deal? He could've given us some off the bench boost in scoring and rebounding.

Because people were too narrow minded to read between the lines.  All they saw was 'head case' and they bailed.

People failed to see:

1. The fact that his talents (inside/outside scoring, rebounding, size) were just what we needed

2. The fact that his deal would have been vet min and non-guaranteed, meaning even if he was utterly useless AND caused emotional problems for the team, we could have cut him at zero penalty

Doc and Danny probably still reminisce on 2008 and the boost we gained by making two last minute veteran signings (PJ Brown and Sam Cassel) and (just as they do with the Small Ball) keep pushing that same button in the hope it will give the same results. 

At the end of the day every move is a risk, and I'd rather take a risk on a young guy with high talent and updide (but a poor attitude) rather than a guy with no talent, no upside and a great attitude. 

The latter is no risk move, and as accountants would know "zero risk, zero gain".  Taking a safe move gets you a safe player - somebody who won't upset the status quo, but won't produce much (if any).  Greg Stiemsma and Ryan Hollins were rare examples of players who were productive for us despite practically zero risk being taken, but those moves are the exception rather than the rule.

[Celtics4ever]

I don't know I people have had a good reason to doubt Blatche.   I would not trust Greg Oden to run a marathon either but some guys still like him here.  Blatche was a huge risk in terms of his past and he is not a solid rebounder for his size.  You never know if a headcase will pan out sometimes they do and sometimes they don't just look at Sheed. 

Blatche would have been better than Collins in terms of youth and ability.  There is no guarentee he would have took such a deal, Crimson.  2.8 Million is what he is making.  He was looking at the HEAT to sign with which might indicate he does not like Boston or he wanted an easy ring.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/223383/Report_Blatche_Still_Considering_Signing_With_Heat

Doesn't sound like we were in the running folks.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/224669/Blatche_Takes_Shot_At_Wizards

It's water under the bridge, how about some cheese with that whine?

[LooseCannon]

The latter is no risk move, and as accountants would know "zero risk, zero gain".  Taking a safe move gets you a safe player - somebody who won't upset the status quo, but won't produce much (if any).  Greg Stiemsma and Ryan Hollins were rare examples of players who were productive for us despite practically zero risk being taken, but those moves are the exception rather than the rule.

I like gambling on players with a track record similar to Stiemsma rather than players with track records similar to Blatche or Hollins.

[droopdog7]

Well f Danny had just signed Blatche instead of Collins and because of that we were 5-6 games over. 500 would this subject even matter?

Blatche was the answer? I think that's a little premature. I too would have rather seen Blatche than Collins though

No one wanted him here, although it's understandable though, but I mean, what risk do you have if he'll be on a non guaranteed minimum deal? He could've given us some off the bench boost in scoring and rebounding.

Because people were too narrow minded to read between the lines.  All they saw was 'head case' and they bailed.

People failed to see:

1. The fact that his talents (inside/outside scoring, rebounding, size) were just what we needed

2. The fact that his deal would have been vet min and non-guaranteed, meaning even if he was utterly useless AND caused emotional problems for the team, we could have cut him at zero penalty

Doc and Danny probably still reminisce on 2008 and the boost we gained by making two last minute veteran signings (PJ Brown and Sam Cassel) and (just as they do with the Small Ball) keep pushing that same button in the hope it will give the same results. 

At the end of the day every move is a risk, and I'd rather take a risk on a young guy with high talent and updide (but a poor attitude) rather than a guy with no talent, no upside and a great attitude. 

The latter is no risk move, and as accountants would know "zero risk, zero gain".  Taking a safe move gets you a safe player - somebody who won't upset the status quo, but won't produce much (if any).  Greg Stiemsma and Ryan Hollins were rare examples of players who were productive for us despite practically zero risk being taken, but those moves are the exception rather than the rule.

I don't think anyone was narrow minded about blatche.  He was what most thought he was; a talented guy with a checkered attitude.  Some are willing to it ignore attitude more than others.  That's all.

[CelticG1]

I think its just about impossible for a vet minimum signing to be a "huge risk".


Anyway didn't the knicks benefit from the amnesty pretty drastically? Isn't that how they were able to nab chandler?

[Who]

Anyway didn't the knicks benefit from the amnesty pretty drastically? Isn't that how they were able to nab chandler?

I had forgotten about that one. Good call.