Originally Posted by bjjs
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong - but a good portion of an amnestied player's second contract goes to the team that amnestied him.
I know I read that the first time the amnesty clause was introduced their was a clause to prevent 'double dipping', I'm assuming it's the same this time around.
Well, normally when a good player is amnestied, he is picked up through the waiver claim bidding process. And, yes, the money from the bid, or second contract, is deducted from the cost of the original contract. For example, Billups was owed $14 million by the Knicks when he was amnestied. The Clippers bid $2 mill and succesfully picked him up. Billups did NOT get $16 million. The $2 million from the Clippers was deducted from what the Knicks owed. He got 12+2=14. There is no "double dipping".
Blatche's situation is a little different because he completely cleared waivers. Now, given that the second contract is deducted from the original, it would seem that there is never an incentive for negotiating more than the minimum. But that's not entirely true. Because in some cases, the original contract is only partially guranteed. So, when the player signs the second contract, he might try to get more than the minimum so that he can recover some of the money he lost by completely clearing waivers. That's not really "double dipping". It's getting back some of what you lost. For example, suppose you had a $10 mill contract that is 50% guaranteed. You're losing $5 mill by being amnestied and clearing waivers completely. So when you sign your second contract, if it's below $5 mill, that ain't gravy. It would be stupid to reward players for being amnestied, and especially when they completely clear waivers.
That's my understanding of things. Sorry if the explanation is a bit convoluted.