Layne Murdoch/NBAE/Getty Images
The Thunder are working on a contract buyout of Nate Robinson, according to J. Michael Falgoust of USA Today. The Thunder evidently tried to get a buyout done before the lockout, but weren’t able to. Once Robinson is bought out, he’ll become a free agent.
Robinson is on an expiring contract worth $4.5 million for this season and is seen as a valuable trade asset for the Thunder because he can a) play and b) is $4.5 million coming off the books in 2012.
Some had seen Robinson as a potential amnesty candidate for Oklahoma City, but that never made a whole lot of sense considering his contract isn’t massive and that it was expiring after this season. Once Robinson were bought out, it would free up a roster spot and a little bit more cash to work with in free agency. If Robinson were bought out how it normally works, most of that $4.5 million would count against the cap this year.
OKC would see 50 percent of any new NBA contract Robinson were to sign for this season removed from that $4.5 million cap hit. For example, if Robinson were to sign with the Hawks for one-year $3 million, OKC’s cap hit would be for $3 million.
Why not keep him on and let him just expire? For one, the roster spot. It frees Presti to use it on a D-Leaguer he likes or even to sign someone. Secondly, you have to pay him less, presumably. And third, OKC doesn’t need a fourth point guard. Robinson wasn’t happy at all with his situation in OKC and with Reggie Jackson now in the mix, the Thunder don’t have any plans for Robinson.
Can someone explain to me why a buy out is preferred to amnesty? Amnesty wouldn't count against the cap, although the Thunder would still pay him - whatever he resigns vs does count against the cap - half of what he resigns? Are we just saving it just in case.
Nate kind of walked into a rough deal when he came to the Thunder. He is capable of doing great things for teams not loaded to the gills with guards.
I wish him well. If he wants to leave in order to get to play more, which he is certainly capable of, I think it is a good thing. I hate to see someone leave, but he is getting the short end of the stick right now. The guy can play, and will do well. Someone mentioned treating him right, and I am all for that.
Royce, just FYI, the amount saved by the Thunder if they were able to set off part of Robinson's new contract with another team is not precisely 50%, it's 50% of the difference between his new contract and a minimum contract for a player with one year of NBA service. Under the rules of the previous CBA (and assuming they don't change in the new agreement), the calculation would have been as follows:
$4,500,000 - ((new salary with other team - $788.872) / 2)
with $788,872 being the assumed minimum salary of a player with one year of NBA service.
So in your example, if he signed with the Hawks for $3 million, OKC's cap hit would actually be $3.394 million after setting off $1.106 million.
Probably too much information, I know.....
This isn't all that surprising. Reggie Jackson is a younger 6"3 version of Nate. He's got hops, a decent shot and can pass well enough. Nate's a great character but he just doesn't really fit into the scheme of things with the Thunder. He's not old enough to be left rotting on the bench so this is one good thing the Thunder can do for him.
From most recent Woj article:
The Thunder didn’t discuss a contract buyout with Nate Robinson on Wednesday, but he desperately wants to get out of the final year of his deal, a league source said. He’s just not going to play much for the Thunder. Orlando could be a landing spot for Robinson, should he become a free agent. …
I love the idea of buying out Nate. It frees up a roster spot for Presti to go get a PF or C who can shoot. That's the one thing that's been missing from our team since Green and Krstic were traded.
Russel Westbrook is ranked as the no 5 fantasy player
@Lambchop Well, he does contribute in pretty much every category except 3's. And he actually got better at shooting 3's in the 2nd half of last season so I think the #5-10 range is about right.
Wheres the link the fantasy basket ball?
Forgive me, Im not that inarticulate. Where is the link to the fantasy basketball league?
Hey we're talking players but hows about coaches? What do we need out of Scott this season to keep him on? I think he's got to show he can actually get this team to run offensive sets consistently. Otherwise this team is going to always underachieve. Sorry to say but it has to be said.
@Old Man Game 1) Stop starting Thabo 2) Make substitutions at the end of games based on personnel needs, not preplanned minutes allocations 3) Some semblence of an offense, especially in late game situations. If he fixes these three things, I can live with him staying, but regardless what happens, I want us to hire better assistant coaches. Unless the plan is to develop RJ into a point guard, with Russ in his fourth year in the league, Mo Cheeks' value seems to be done here.
This is good move. Nate wants to play. He was a good dude about it and acted like a pro putting on a happy face but he doesn't see himself as the 10th man on the bench just yet in career. Buy him out, treat him right, keep our organization looking good around the league and specifically with the players in this league.
@Old Man Game agreed. even if it's not the perfect move, it's 1) the right one and 2) not a bad one still.
I think it's a smart move, because what it says is that Presti wants to add someone specific to the roster. Looking forward to that.
And another thing: Where does it say that Ivey's contract isn't guaranteed for this season? I've not read that anywhere?
@Joe_ I have read it elsewhere as well, but both Ivy and Vaden are highlighted as non-guaranteed on hoopsworld's salaries page.
@Steve H Interesting. Hoopshype, where I was looking made no such distinction.
Thanks.
@Joe_@Steve H I can't point you in a specific citation but I recall Ivey being brought in on a 1 year deal last year.
Does anyone know if we would be allowed to trade our amnesty exception? probable not, but man if that's possible that would be a really valuable chip.
@SteveThunderfan You could probably make a deal that had the same effect as trading the amnesty by trading for a player who was a bad deal with you and the team that sent him knowing you could use your amnesty and that team paying you for your ability to end their pain. Make sense?
@SteveThunderfan LOL. I would highly, highly doubt it. What would it be worth? A first-round pick? Could you get Steve Nash for a combo of Nate Robinson, Cole Aldrich, Thabo Sefolosha and the amnesty clause? And what team would need/want 2 amnesties?
I know for sure the Magic would kill to have that extra amnesty lol. If they can get rid of the overpaid duo of Gilbert Arenas and Hedo Turkoglu they can actually sign on legit talent with which they can persuade Dwight Howard to stay put. Phoenix would also probably love it so they can get rid of Hakim Warrick and Josh Childress if they want to free up cap space for Summer 2012. @Daniel Hawaii @SteveThunderfan
@Olajuwon87@Daniel Hawaii@SteveThunderfan While it'd be nice, I don't think we have the means to make it happen. We don't have any bad contracts, and we don't have enough cap room or roster slots filled to absorb a contract, even if we're going to immediately amnesty the player. Hedo's making 11 mil (not even gonna entertain agent 0's 18 mil salary as an option). We'd have to trade at least about 8 mil to them for the trade to be legal, and not drop below 12 players after amnestying him. The only way this could work is if we signed Cook and kept Ivey or Vaden, then traded Nate (4.5 mil), and some combination of Byron, Cook, Ivey, or Vaden totaling 4 million more. Then if they added Ryan Anderson to the deal, that's even more money we'd have to figure out a way to match. I might be missing something, but I don't think the numbers work out.
@Olajuwon87 I would LOVE to trade our amnesty to the Magic for Ryan Anderson. A big man who can shoot the 3 ball? Yes, please.
why why why?? Some teams under the cap may need 1 year salary contract because:
1. This year free agency is not as good as next year
2. They need to have about $ 49M minimum salary
I think Presti is just being nice to Nate.
Teams line Denver, Sacramento and New York may need his contract. We can get an future 2nd round pick for him
@gnaygg Yeah, I agree that Presti should try to trade him first, before just buying him out. But maybe Presti wants to have the roster spot cleared on the very first day of free agency for some reason. Hmm...
I'll be the first to say that I wish Nate had a spot on the roster, but understand that the roster is already set. He just came in at a bad time, where the team had no spot for him. Thanks for the good times, Nate!
The amnesty provision becomes an important chip for the Thunder because it never expires. Not every contract you sign in the future will turn out well, this gives Presti a chance to make a mistake.
If you use amnesty for a minor contract, then you lose that "do-over" possibility for the future. What if Kendrick Perkins, god forbid, blows out his other knee? You might like amnesty for his contract at that point.
@DXL
I think that with the new cba that anything you sign in the future will not be able to be released with the amnisty clause. Only contracts signed before the cba.
@erics@DXL correct. the amnesty only applies to contracts given before the current cba. unless we trade for a player who is amnesty-able, it's highly unlikely we use it
@JimboSlice@erics@DXL That's why DXL's example of using the amnesty on Kendrick Perkins fits. I agree with him that maybe we should wait on using it, just in case something does happen to Perk.
I don't think he even dunked 1 time as a Thunderer.
@ScottyMac That was my first thought as well-- we were robbed a Nate dunk. The crowd woulda gone nuts!
@TempBoy Brandon Too bad, he must've forgotten how....I don't think I'll miss Mr. curbside pee-pee. Farewell Nate.
Fifth point guard. 1. Russ 2. Maynor 3. Reggie 4. Royal (assuming he makes the team)
@Clark Matthews I don't know why Presti would bring back Ivey after drafting Jackson. We don't need 4 point guards.
I still like the idea of using amnesty on Nate if it allowed us to front load an offer for Battier, but that might not have been realistic. In figuring how much cap space could be cleared, I hadn't allowed for the bump to KDs salary this year from the new "derrick Rose" rule. Ah well- nice if we could still pick up Shane, but not if we are having to pay significant $(4 mill+) 2 yrs from now.
Thanks for explaining this, Royce. I see the reasoning now. And I have complete faith and trust in Presti. Was kinda hoping that we could trade Nate and get something in return, but I can see why Presti would want to go this route.
Once Nate is gone, we are gonna have 2 free roster spots. Battier really might be a possibility. I'd be thrilled if one of those spots goes to Royal and another one goes to either Battier or McGrady.