Would the Inclusion of an Amnesty Clause Lead NBA Owners to Exploit Rule?

According to reports, the owners have come to somewhat of an agreement that there should be an inclusion of an Amnesty clause in the next collective bargaining agreement (CBA) talks.

The owners are looking for something in the next collective bargaining agreement that would allow them to have a sort of “safety net” when it comes to signing players to long-term contracts.

Every now and then, some players that signed long-term contracts do not work out on some teams, and it becomes very hard to trade the player thus becoming a “bad” contract.

What this amnesty rule allows owners to do is to remove a contract of a player probably through a buyout, releasing the player and allowing the player to essentially become an unrestricted free-agent on the open market.

The salary cap of the team and the luxury tax will NOT be affected as a result. It is also important to note that it has not been decided yet whether there is going to be a “hard” or a “soft” cap in the new CBA.

Now, this has not been ratified yet, so things are still “up in the air” in terms of how this is exactly going to work.

For example, if the Orlando Magic decided to remove the contract of Gilbert Arenas (three years, $62,423,766 million) from their total team salary, it would make Arenas an unrestricted free-agent after the paperwork is completed.

Now, could the Orlando Magic re-sign Arenas to a one or two-year contract for the minimum amount (whatever that happens to be determined by the new collective bargaining agreement)?

If teams were allowed to re-sign players that they released through the Amnesty clause, then it might lead to exploitation of the rule potentially becoming another problem that will need to be dealt with in the next CBA talks.

Would a team use the amnesty on a player that they originally signed for four-years and 20 million, in order to re-sign that same player for two years and $6 million instead? It would free up more money, and the player would be making a lot of salary from the same team.

 Another issue are the differences that small-market owners’ (e.g. Milwaukee, Charlotte, etc.) face compared to big-market owners (e.g., Los Angeles, New York, etc.).

Big-market owners’ make more revenue through multiple sources, while small market owners are limited in where they can get money from. Would having such a rule help the small-market owners as well as the big market owners?

Small-market owners may be able to benefit by signing free-agents released by big market teams to short-term contracts, especially if there is a hard cap installed throughout the league.

Imagine if a team such as the Los Angeles Lakers had to let go of a player like Lamar Odom or Pau Gasol due to the new lower salary cap limit.

Well it is hard to forecast what will occur as a result of having an Amnesty clause in the NBA without seeing it all the way through.

Owners may look to immediately move players that do not “fit” their teams, but there is more to it than that.

With any decision to be made in the CBA negotiations, there are going to be both short-term and long-term consequences that have to be thought through completely.