Tag: San Antonio Spurs

Is RJ fated to be a casualty of the amnesty clause?

Most observers are expecting that there will be some kind of “amnesty clause” as a result of the end of the lockout.

This, quite simply, will provide all teams with an out to get out from under one onerous contract.

ESPN.com reports that” is expected this year, according to sources close to the negotiations. Early reports are that teams will receive cap relief and tax relief: 75 percent of a player’s contract value will not count against the salary cap when it is shed via amnesty.

that San Antonio Spurs majority owner Peter Holt has been at the forefront of a successful push to allow teams to have at least two years to decide whether or not to release one player via amnesty, as opposed to the 2005 version that gave clubs two weeks in August to use or lose the amnesty option forever.

Holt strategy is an interesting one. It would effectively allow the Spurs  the chance to keep their current roster together for one more season — which also is likely to be Tim Duncan’s final season.

It would give the Spurs an opportunity to get some sizable cap relief in one more season.

Chad Ford and Marc Stein of ESPN.com have crafted a list of potential casualties that includes one per team. They have Richard Jefferson listed as the most likely player to be cut, although the Spurs are considered lukewarm at immediately using the provision.

Which helps explainwhy the Spurs can avoid casting Jefferson aside in spite of the $9.3 million, $10.2 million and $11 million that he is scheduled to earn over the next three seasons.

It makes sense that the Spurs want to keep fielding the strongest team possible before Duncan decides to retire. But the Spurs’ aims could be forced if the new luxury-tax scale is extremely punitive. That would be  financially crippling for a franchise that has lost money in each of the last  two seasons (according to Holt) and would still be above $65 million in 2011-12 even without him.

It’s also interesting to scan some of the names that are listed as potential amnesty candidates.

Considering the current weaknesses of the Spurs, players like Cleveland guard Baron Davis, Milwaukee guard Beno Udrih, Miami guard Mike Miller, Orlando forward Hedo Turkoglu and Philadelphia forward/center Elton Brand would help the team.

What about it Spurs Nation? Would you like to see Jefferson leave the franchise? And which of the potential amnesty candidates do you think would most help the team?

Or, would you prefer to use the amnesty clause next season?

Owners putting ball in players’ court

Facing an ultimatum from league owners and dissension within its membership, the leadership of the Players Association will conduct a conference call today to consider its options.

Spurs forward , a member of the union’s executive committee, said he expects a wide-ranging discussion. One topic will gauge the level of player interest in signing a petition to force a vote that could decertify the union.

The NBA late Saturday night gave the union a formal proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement that Bonner characterized as “basically another 50-50 split” of basketball-related income. It included some changes in the luxury tax system he said represented little change from the owners’ previous positions.

The union rejected the offer on the spot, but commissioner said it would remain on the table only through the end of business Wednesday.

Details of the league’s offer, which Stern promised to put in writing for the union to assess ahead of the deadline, include:

A “band” of revenue for the players between 49 and 51 percent, depending on revenue growth.

Restrictions on teams over the luxury tax threshold, including a ban on both sign-and-trade deals and full use of mid-level salary cap exceptions. The full mid-level would be replaced for tax-paying teams by a “mini” mid-level that would start at $2.5 million, half of the full mid-level.

An added penalty for teams that exceed the luxury tax threshold three times in five seasons.

If it is not accepted by Wednesday, Stern said the offer would be withdrawn and replaced by a much worse deal, with a revenue split giving the players only 47 percent of BRI and a “flex” salary cap system the players already have characterized as an unacceptable hard cap.

Lakers guard , the union’s president, told reporters in New York on Saturday that the NBA deal was not one the executive committee could take to its players for a vote.

Bonner said every member of the executive committee is behind the decision to reject it.

“We’re all on the same page,” he said.

Saturday’s session, which was conducted under the guidance of , head of the , was frustrating for the players.

“Saturday sucked,” Bonner said. “The way we saw to save the season and get a deal was by saying the system was more important to us, BRI more important to them; we can compromise on BRI if they can come more to us on the remaining system issues.

“That’s what we were hoping would get a deal, and we really thought the approach we took was going to get it done. But when George came back after taking our offer to the owners, what he came back with was five or six changes in system things, and all but one were what the owners wanted. It was basically their deal.”

Disbanding the union would allow players to file an anti-trust lawsuit against the league. The more important, immediate result would be some leverage for the union during the roughly 45 days it would take for the to arrange a vote of all 450 members of the union.

The threat of decertification and the uncertainty that comes with it could give the union the leverage it needs to coax a better offer from the league than the deal it rejected Saturday.

“I’m sure we’ll talk about everything on the call,” Bonner said.

Holt in middle, players in trouble

Peter Holt has been in a shouting match with Chris Paul, and he’s been called “unrelenting.”

“You haven’t felt enough pain yet,” Holt told player representatives, according to one report.

Holt, the most prominent owner in the NBA’s labor dispute, is carrying on a Spurs tradition. The late Angelo Drossos was known for a few fights, too.

But this isn’t Holt’s nature, and this isn’t an accurate portrayal of what has happened, either. He has strong views because of his franchise’s small-market status. Yet he’s mostly been by David Stern’s side as a consensus builder, and the result has gotten a new bloc of hard-line owners to agree to a deal that is now in front of the players.

This should scare the players.

Holt is a reasonable one.

If Drossos is looking down on these negotiations, he’s applauding. He was a creative and tough Spurs CEO, and he would admire Stern for what he has done. The players are now stuck in a half-court trap in which their best option is a painful one.

Drossos would have done the same. He once argued for a system that would allow only one-year contracts, and he long ago came up with an idea that is the basis of nearly every discussion going on today. Drossos was the father of the salary cap.

“The influence and power he had,” Stan Albeck said a few years ago, “absolutely dominated meetings. Spurs meetings, league meetings.”

Albeck felt that firsthand. When Albeck wanted to leave the Spurs to sign with New Jersey, Drossos squeezed players out of the Nets in return.

Hill Country Holt hasn’t been the same. He had the qualities needed to make a franchise work in a small market, such as money, patience and politics. But he’s been tie-less and pretension-less, delegating to those he trusted.

Holt isn’t built for meetings. With the Spurs, his attention often fades when talk turns to details. But now, at Stern’s side, more active than any owner, Holt has been working through marathon meeting after marathon meeting.

The spat with Paul was a fluke; Stern wasn’t there then, out with an illness. Holt has probably been “unrelenting,” but that isn’t a negotiating negative. And the “pain” quote was secondhand.

Holt’s role, instead, has been as a facilitator, trying to keep his peers in line. He’s doing what Jerry Colangelo once did for Stern, and Stern likely chose Holt because he wanted the perception Holt provided.

Holt’s Spurs have been successful winning games, yet continue to struggle making a profit. So the large-market owners understand, and the small-market ones believe he’s looking out for them.

Stern needed such a partner. Whereas he once was a one-man consensus, Stern now faces more than a dozen new owners, many of whom have wanted an even more radical economic model. Stern needed someone to engage them and pull them along.

Stern got that from Holt. While the players bristle at a 50-50 split, there was an undercurrent among owners such as Phoenix’s Robert Sarver who wanted even more. Now, if the players reject the current offer this week, Sarver will get his wish. The owners’ next proposal will go lower.

Drossos would have been ready to do the same. Holt, instead, waits to continue a process that has been both exhausting and exhilarating. The way this often goes, Holt will likely have to fly to New York a few more times; the owners’ ultimatum doesn’t necessarily mean the negotiations are over.

Still, the owners’ stance is one that could be seen coming a year ago. And as they force the players into a corner, a sign of their resolve has stood next to Stern throughout.

Holt, a symbol of small-market angst, is working the middle.

bharvey@express-news.net