Must-read SI.com writer, Zach Lowe recently riffed off of Nathan's post regarding the talk of an amnesty clause in the upcoming collective bargaining agreement negotiations that would be a boon for some teams and inherently punish other teams like the Pacers that have their salary cap under control and don't need the relief of dumping a bad contract.
Zach raises the counter-arguments for following through with the relief clause. Among the reasons is that it was well known that the current CBA was set to expire this summer and anything could happen going forward, so by planning to open up so much cap space this summer you have to deal with the unknowns.
I would agree with that sentiment and not stress about how the Pacers may lose some of the benefits of their cap space and roster flexibility. Regardless of how the CBA shakes out, the Pacers will be in great shape to continue building. If there is a hard cap for a lower number, there will also likely be salary roll backs that impact every team the same way, so the Pacers will maintain that flexibility to deal with other teams still trying to get their roster and cap situation in shape.
So while the amnesty clause may help other teams much more than the Pacers, it cetainly won't hurt the Pacers and if including it in the deal creates a more equitable system overall, then it will be worth it in the end.