Knicks · Could huge contracts from the previous cba be a commodity for teams that haven't used their amnesty? (page 1)

Not sure if a team could trade for a player with a contract under the previous cba with the intent on amnestying him but if they could Amare's deal could provide cap relief to a team if they hadn't used their amnesty yet.

Interesting scenario.

I thought of that but can't imagine that would be against the CBA.

MSG3 wrote:I thought of that but can't imagine that would be against the CBA.

I wish Larry Coon posted here.

Doesn't work like this. A player has to have been acquired prior to July 1, 2011 and must be on the current roster to be eligible for amnesty.

y2zipper wrote:Doesn't work like this. A player has to have been acquired prior to July 1, 2011 and must be on the current roster to be eligible for amnesty.

This is correct

if he stayed healthy until next year's trade deadline, i would say he had some value to a big team that can eat the deal,

but now, only in the last year as an expiring,

but be careful what if we resign him to a max extension?

hey, this is why they called it the amar'e clause when the new cba was announced, but we chose to use it to drop billups,

the question for the fans:

if you could choose in a vacuum, would you rather have tyson or have a team free of amar'e's contract, and maybe you get tyson or maybe you dont?