Rockets to amnesty Scola.

I'm sure the Jazz would have no interest in him. Seems kinda risky to amnesty a guy on the hopes of landing Howard. It's not like Scola is a scrub or anything.

Romoholic wrote:

I'm sure the Jazz would have no interest in him. Seems kinda risky to amnesty a guy on the hopes of landing Howard. It's not like Scola is a scrub or anything.

This is a bit of a suprise. The Rockets have pretty much gave away their entire team this offseason. Do they think Howard wants to come playther with absolutely no talent around him? Guess we'll find out.

Now Scola can go sign with one of the "big boys", just like the rest of the league.

zero24gravity wrote:

Romoholic wrote:

I'm sure the Jazz would have no interest in him. Seems kinda risky to amnesty a guy on the hopes of landing Howard. It's not like Scola is a scrub or anything.

This is a bit of a suprise. The Rockets have pretty much gave away their entire team this offseason. Do they think Howard wants to come playther with absolutely no talent around him? Guess we'll find out.

Now Scola can go sign with one of the "big boys", just like the rest of the league.

I may be completely wrong, but when a player is amnestied, I think they have go through a waiver process bidding where a team with the highest bid wins and the player is obligated to report to that team, regardless of whether they are big name team or a lousy team. The original team, Houston in this case, has to make up the difference between Scola's current ten million dollars salary and the winning bid.

Last year Chauncey Billups threw a bit of a new wrinkle in to the process by announcing that if any lousy teams won the bid for him off waivers, that he would not report. The NBA office subsequently warned him that if he didn't show up to the winning bidder, he would be in breach of contract. As it turned out, the Clips (a decent team) had the winning bid at only $2 million dollars. Chauncey reported and the Knicks had to pay 12 million dollars out of his total 14 million on his contract. The Spurs signed Michael Finley off amensty waivers for real cheap late in his career, and Dallas had to keep paying most of his high salary for the next three seasons while he played for the Spurs if I recall correctly. It was a great deal for the Spurs and had to have eaten at Mark Cuban some.

Crunchtime1 wrote:

zero24gravity wrote:

Romoholic wrote:

I'm sure the Jazz would have no interest in him. Seems kinda risky to amnesty a guy on the hopes of landing Howard. It's not like Scola is a scrub or anything.

This is a bit of a suprise. The Rockets have pretty much gave away their entire team this offseason. Do they think Howard wants to come playther with absolutely no talent around him? Guess we'll find out.

Now Scola can go sign with one of the "big boys", just like the rest of the league.

I may be completely wrong, but when a player is amnestied, I think they have go through a waiver process bidding where a team with the highest bid wins and the player is obligated to report to that team, regardless of whether they are big name team or a lousy team. The original team, Houston in this case, has to make up the difference between Scola's current ten million dollars salary and the winning bid.

Last year Chauncey Billups threw a bit of a new wrinkle in to the process by announcing that if any lousy teams won the bid for him off waivers, that he would not report. The NBA office subsequently warned him that if he didn't show up to the winning bidder, he would be in breach of contract. As it turned out, the Clips (a decent team) had the winning bid at only $2 million dollars. Chauncey reported and the Knicks had to pay 12 million dollars out of his total 14 million on his contract. The Spurs signed Michael Finley off amensty waivers for real cheap late in his career, and Dallas had to keep paying most of his high salary for three years if I recall correctly. It was a great deal for the Spurs.

Yeah from what I understand it's a blind bid, And yeah they have to report to the winning team.

It's actually a pretty good deal for teams that want to bid on him. They can get a good player for way below what his value is.

Romoholic wrote:

Crunchtime1 wrote:

zero24gravity wrote:

Romoholic wrote:

I'm sure the Jazz would have no interest in him. Seems kinda risky to amnesty a guy on the hopes of landing Howard. It's not like Scola is a scrub or anything.

This is a bit of a suprise. The Rockets have pretty much gave away their entire team this offseason. Do they think Howard wants to come playther with absolutely no talent around him? Guess we'll find out.

Now Scola can go sign with one of the "big boys", just like the rest of the league.

I may be completely wrong, but when a player is amnestied, I think they have go through a waiver process bidding where a team with the highest bid wins and the player is obligated to report to that team, regardless of whether they are big name team or a lousy team. The original team, Houston in this case, has to make up the difference between Scola's current ten million dollars salary and the winning bid.

Last year Chauncey Billups threw a bit of a new wrinkle in to the process by announcing that if any lousy teams won the bid for him off waivers, that he would not report. The NBA office subsequently warned him that if he didn't show up to the winning bidder, he would be in breach of contract. As it turned out, the Clips (a decent team) had the winning bid at only $2 million dollars. Chauncey reported and the Knicks had to pay 12 million dollars out of his total 14 million on his contract. The Spurs signed Michael Finley off amensty waivers for real cheap late in his career, and Dallas had to keep paying most of his high salary for three years if I recall correctly. It was a great deal for the Spurs.

Yeah from what I understand it's a blind bid, And yeah they have to report to the winning team.

It's actually a pretty good deal for teams that want to bid on him. They can get a good player for way below what his value is.

NBA player ebay ..... love it

Crunchtime1 wrote:

zero24gravity wrote:

Romoholic wrote:

I'm sure the Jazz would have no interest in him. Seems kinda risky to amnesty a guy on the hopes of landing Howard. It's not like Scola is a scrub or anything.

This is a bit of a suprise. The Rockets have pretty much gave away their entire team this offseason. Do they think Howard wants to come playther with absolutely no talent around him? Guess we'll find out.

Now Scola can go sign with one of the "big boys", just like the rest of the league.

I may be completely wrong, but when a player is amnestied, I think they have go through a waiver process bidding where a team with the highest bid wins and the player is obligated to report to that team, regardless of whether they are big name team or a lousy team. The original team, Houston in this case, has to make up the difference between Scola's current ten million dollars salary and the winning bid.

Last year Chauncey Billups threw a bit of a new wrinkle in to the process by announcing that if any lousy teams won the bid for him off waivers, that he would not report. The NBA office subsequently warned him that if he didn't show up to the winning bidder, he would be in breach of contract. As it turned out, the Clips (a decent team) had the winning bid at only $2 million dollars. Chauncey reported and the Knicks had to pay 12 million dollars out of his total 14 million on his contract. The Spurs signed Michael Finley off amensty waivers for real cheap late in his career, and Dallas had to keep paying most of his high salary for the next three seasons while he played for the Spurs if I recall correctly. It was a great deal for the Spurs and had to have eaten at Mark Cuban some.

amnesty provision was a one time thing that came out after the lockout. Finley was not amnestied.

therawns wrote:

Crunchtime1 wrote:

zero24gravity wrote:

Romoholic wrote:

I'm sure the Jazz would have no interest in him. Seems kinda risky to amnesty a guy on the hopes of landing Howard. It's not like Scola is a scrub or anything.

This is a bit of a suprise. The Rockets have pretty much gave away their entire team this offseason. Do they think Howard wants to come playther with absolutely no talent around him? Guess we'll find out.

Now Scola can go sign with one of the "big boys", just like the rest of the league.

I may be completely wrong, but when a player is amnestied, I think they have go through a waiver process bidding where a team with the highest bid wins and the player is obligated to report to that team, regardless of whether they are big name team or a lousy team. The original team, Houston in this case, has to make up the difference between Scola's current ten million dollars salary and the winning bid.

Last year Chauncey Billups threw a bit of a new wrinkle in to the process by announcing that if any lousy teams won the bid for him off waivers, that he would not report. The NBA office subsequently warned him that if he didn't show up to the winning bidder, he would be in breach of contract. As it turned out, the Clips (a decent team) had the winning bid at only $2 million dollars. Chauncey reported and the Knicks had to pay 12 million dollars out of his total 14 million on his contract. The Spurs signed Michael Finley off amensty waivers for real cheap late in his career, and Dallas had to keep paying most of his high salary for the next three seasons while he played for the Spurs if I recall correctly. It was a great deal for the Spurs and had to have eaten at Mark Cuban some.

amnesty provision was a one time thing that came out after the lockout. Finley was not amnestied.

Yeah the deal with Finley was the Mavs negotiated a buyout with him and the Spurs signed him cheap. The Mavs were still responsible for his contract and it still counted against their cap.

He was essentially getting paid by the Mavs and the Spurs to play for the spurs. Where compared to an amnesty he would have only be getting paid his original contract just divided by two teams.

therawns wrote:

amnesty provision was a one time thing that came out after the lockout. Finley was not amnestied.

Romoholic wrote:

Yeah the deal with Finley was the Mavs negotiated a buyout with him and the Spurs signed him cheap. The Mavs were still responsible for his contract and it still counted against their cap.

No, the Mavs used what then was another "one time amnesty" on Finley.
"Mavs Use Amnesty Clause, Waive Finley"
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2135039

"DALLAS -- Michael Finley was waived late Monday night by the Dallas Mavericks, who took advantage of a one-time amnesty provision that will allow them to avoid luxury taxes on the $51.8 million owed their captain over the next three seasons."

The Finley amnesty always stuck in my mind because it could be argued that Mark Cuban paid a whopping $52 million dollars for Finley to play for the Spurs, his arch rivals. But the Finley amnesty allowed Cuban to avoid paying luxury taxes on the 52 million dollars he owed Finley, and Cuban didn't know at the time he amnestied him that Finley would sign with the Spurs and come back to haunt him.

There are some differences between the one time amnesty then and now. For example, instead of throwing Finley in to a blind bidding process that Romo says occurs now, Finley became an unrestricted free agent and was able to sign with whatever team there was mutual interest. Finley received the entire 52 million dollars on his original contract from the Mavs (paid by Cuban) plus the money from his new contract with the Spurs, worth about another 8.7 million dollars. Finley double dipped and raked it in, earning about 20 million dollars per season his first three years with the Spurs. His third year he earned 21.7 million! But there was another provision that allowed Cuban to pay that 52 million over a long period of time in annual installments of less than 5 million dollars annually. The bottom line, however, is that the Finley deal was another "one time NBA amnesty" deal.

Scroll down to the bottom of this page to see Finley's salary during his first three seasons with the Spurs. Although it doesn't reflect the fact that Cuban was able to spread out the Finley payments over many more years, it shows the original contracted total due each year to Finley from the Mavs and Spurs:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/f/finlemi01.html

It is amazing. Absolutely amazing that Houston is just going to let go of a solid to great starting PF that can score from everywhere. Scola really is the ideal player and Houston is just letting him go. So glad I'm not a Rockets fan. Unreal. All in hopes they'll get Dwight. Stupid. It's going to be Dwight, Aaron Brooks, and Chandler Parsons as their best players. Stupid.

Mutangclan wrote:

It is amazing. Absolutely amazing that Houston is just going to let go of a solid to great starting PF that can score from everywhere. Scola really is the ideal player and Houston is just letting him go. So glad I'm not a Rockets fan. Unreal. All in hopes they'll get Dwight. Stupid. It's going to be Dwight, Aaron Brooks, and Chandler Parsons as their best players. Stupid.

I don't understand it can't put my mind around as to why they would be willing to let him go for nothing, I find it hard to believe that they could not find a team that would be willing to give up draft picks at the very least to acquire him. He is one of the best offensive post players in the NBA without a question who can also bring it on the defensive end of the floor, these kind of players don't grow on trees if they did the league would be full of them.

As to the Jazz not wanting him I am not so sure about that what team would not want a player who bring's the kind of things that he does he would be a very good add to any team in the league no question about it. The question is could the Jazz afford to get him he is not going to come cheap, he could very well go to a team like the Heat chaseing a title that would be the other thing that would keep him from landing with the Jazz.

dongibby wrote:

he could very well go to a team like the Heat chaseing a title that would be the other thing that would keep him from landing with the Jazz.

You must have missed the rest of the thread. This time around the amnestied players are thrown in to a blind auction. Romo told us the "blind" part. They have to report to whatever team has the highest bid. Unlike the amnestied Finley in summer 2005, Scola has no say in where he ends up.

Anybody want to take a wild guess on what the winning bid for Scola will be?

From Yahoo Sports:
"As confirmed by cap guru Larry Coon, a player with a partially guarantee salary requires a minimum bid of the non-guaranteed amount. Scola is set to make $9.4 million and $10.2 million over the next two years. His final season is for $11.0 million with just $1 million guaranteed.Therefore a minimum amnesty claim for Scola would start at the non-guarantee portion of exactly $10,041,037. That amount needs to be paid over three years, so the lowest claim would be $3,347,012."
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/luis-scola-set-free-now-wants-really-good-161145107--nba.html

Crunchtime1 wrote:

therawns wrote:

amnesty provision was a one time thing that came out after the lockout. Finley was not amnestied.

Romoholic wrote:

Yeah the deal with Finley was the Mavs negotiated a buyout with him and the Spurs signed him cheap. The Mavs were still responsible for his contract and it still counted against their cap.

No, the Mavs used what then was another "one time amnesty" on Finley.
"Mavs Use Amnesty Clause, Waive Finley"
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2135039

"DALLAS -- Michael Finley was waived late Monday night by the Dallas Mavericks, who took advantage of a one-time amnesty provision that will allow them to avoid luxury taxes on the $51.8 million owed their captain over the next three seasons."

The Finley amnesty always stuck in my mind because it could be argued that Mark Cuban paid a whopping $52 million dollars for Finley to play for the Spurs, his arch rivals. But the Finley amnesty allowed Cuban to avoid paying luxury taxes on the 52 million dollars he owed Finley, and Cuban didn't know at the time he amnestied him that Finley would sign with the Spurs and come back to haunt him.

There are some differences between the one time amnesty then and now. For example, instead of throwing Finley in to a blind bidding process that Romo says occurs now, Finley became an unrestricted free agent and was able to sign with whatever team there was mutual interest. Finley received the entire 52 million dollars on his original contract from the Mavs (paid by Cuban) plus the money from his new contract with the Spurs, worth about another 8.7 million dollars. Finley double dipped and raked it in, earning about 20 million dollars per season his first three years with the Spurs. His third year he earned 21.7 million! But there was another provision that allowed Cuban to pay that 52 million over a long period of time in annual installments of less than 5 million dollars annually. The bottom line, however, is that the Finley deal was another "one time NBA amnesty" deal.

Scroll down to the bottom of this page to see Finley's salary during his first three seasons with the Spurs. Although it doesn't reflect the fact that Cuban was able to spread out the Finley payments over many more years, it shows the original contracted total due each year to Finley from the Mavs and Spurs:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/f/finlemi01.html

So the only difference was he was not counted against the Mavs cap, but they still had to pay him the full contract, plus he got paid from the Spurs as well? I did not know that. That is a huge amount of money to pay a guy not playing for your team!

Romoholic wrote:

So the only difference was he (Finley) was not counted against the Mavs cap, but they still had to pay him the full contract, plus he got paid from the Spurs as well? I did not know that. That is a huge amount of money to pay a guy not playing for your team!

I think Finley still counted against the Mavs' cap, and that impacted their ability to acquire other players, but Cuban got out of a huge luxury tax by amnesting Finley. In addition, since Cuban had some provision that knocked down Finley's contract to something like 5 mill per year for ten years in the even he left, perhaps only 5 mill per year counted towards the cap instead of Finley's original contracted payments that were closer to 16 million per year. I don't think Scola will continue to count against Houston's cap at all in this new version.

Listen, I am not an expert on the two amnesty clauses, nor do I want to be. There is too much conflicting information out there on this subject. However, on the surface it appears to me that the NBA made significant improvements with the current amnesty version over the 2005 version. Under the current version, any team under the cap can participate in this blind bid auction for the amnestied player, and championship contenders, and/or attractive destination markets such as LA, Miami, Chicago and NY, no longer have the inside track to acquiring these amnestied players on the cheap. That's a good thing imo! In addition, teams have a period of years this time to shoot their one time amnesty bullet, up to summer 2015, versus it just being a one time thing for summer 2005 last time I think.

On a technical note, the ESPN story on Finley that I linked above and Basketball Reference.com that I linked above, both indicate that Finley double dipped, collecting his full contract amount from both the Spurs and Mavs, but another old 2005 story I read today on ESPN from Mark Stein indicated there was some kind of set off provision. The story doesn't say whether all of the money on the new contract or just part of the money on the new contract was a set off. Scroll down past section 10 in Stein's column:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&id=2121672

Scola was picked up by the Suns in the blind auction today. I didn't see for how much yet.

This seems like a decent FAQ on the current one time amnesty clause:

NBA's New Amnesty Clause Explained, Cause You've Asked!
http://allsportseverything.com/2011/12/the-nbas-new-amnesty-clause-explained-cause-youve-asked/