Amnesty clause - waive Roy

[BrianFromWA]

Think outside the box...do you think a team (like, say, the Mavs) with a rich owner and looking to get over the hump would trade for Roy, use him as much as they can this year, and get over the hump for a championship. And then amnesty-waive him?

Also: maybe Boston, LAL, OKC?

Brings up a question...if this clause does come about, do the Blazers do damage to the "casual fan" base and waive him without being sure he's "done"? Or do you take the chance that in a year or two he's almost "back"...say, 85% of old Roy, and you just waived him for nothing?

 

[HailBlazers]

What does the mean exactly?

There is still a possibility he can play effectively.

 

[Nikolokolus]

There is still a possibility he can play effectively.

I guess that depends on your definition of "effective." Roy I think is completely done as an all-star and because of the way he plays the game (slashing penetrator, who likes to hold the ball) is very likely on the cusp of being completely done as an NBA caliber player. GO has a chance if he can ever get and stay healthy, but I'd say the odds of that ever coming to pass are pretty slim. So I'd say the jury's in on Roy and it came in on Oden too, but it's on appeal.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

There is still a possibility he can play effectively.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. "Effectively" means what, 70%? 75%? 80%? of Roy's previous level? If that's the case he's not worth almost 1/3 of our salary cap.

But if he comes back and plays similar or the same to what he has previously then we keep him.

 

[hasoos]

If the NBA goes to a hard cap like the NFL, we will probably be able to cut whoever we want, when we want anyhow. But that would probably take a year lockout to achieve.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Think outside the box...do you think a team (like, say, the Mavs) with a rich owner and looking to get over the hump would trade for Roy, use him as much as they can this year, and get over the hump for a championship. And then amnesty-waive him?

Also: maybe Boston, LAL, OKC?[\QUOTE]

You mean like the way baseball "rents" a player at mid season and then trades them away to lose the salary? I sure hope not. I hate that. Free agents could manipulate the system as well.

Brings up a question...if this clause does come about, do the Blazers do damage to the "casual fan" base and waive him without being sure he's "done"? Or do you take the chance that in a year or two he's almost "back"...say, 85% of old Roy, and you just waived him for nothing?

I think it's easy to tell when a player is pretty much done within NBA circles. That said, I also think a team will hang on too long to a player just to be safe.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. "Effectively" means what, 70%? 75%? 80%? of Roy's previous level? If that's the case he's not worth almost 1/3 of our salary cap.

But if he comes back and plays similar or the same to what he has previously then we keep him.

Best case scenario for Greg, IMO, is the Portland version of Dale Davis.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Best case scenario for Greg, IMO, is the Portland version of Dale Davis.

Except in Portland the police don't taser your ass, they just kill you.

 

[handiman]

whatever happens it's almost a guarantee that 17 million of the Blazers yearly cap number will be consumed by Roy's contract

Correct me wrong, but isn't Roy's contract a "max" contract where it's a percentage of the cap? So, if the cap goes down next year, so too would Roy's dollar amount. Probably not a big enough amount to be significant in the amnesty discussion, though.

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

At first I was gonna say that if the owners are looking to save money why would they do this? But then I started thinking that this might be used as an incentive to get the players to accept a lower cap, because it could allow a lower cap without any present salaries being lowered; the savings for the owners would be over the long term and only players drafted and signed in the future would have lower salaries.

 

[Pinwheel1]

At first I was gonna say that if the owners are looking to save money why would they do this? But then I started thinking that this might be used as an incentive to get the players to accept a lower cap, because it could allow a lower cap without any present salaries being lowered; the savings for the owners would be over the long term and only players drafted and signed in the future would have lower salaries.

Yep. the amnesty clause will help them get closer to a hard cap.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Correct me wrong, but isn't Roy's contract a "max" contract where it's a percentage of the cap? So, if the cap goes down next year, so too would Roy's dollar amount. Probably not a big enough amount to be significant in the amnesty discussion, though.

It's only a % of first-year BRI. Once the first year is set, the "max" is either 8% (new team) or 10.5% (Bird Rights) raises.

For instance, Roy's first year (based off the calculations) will be 13.6M. Therefore his raises will be 1.428M every year. If the cap became 40M next year, Roy's still getting his 15M. If it becomes 100M, he's still getting his 15M.

Edit: whereas, if we'd hypothetically signed Greg to a max extension in October, his first-year number would be based on next year's cap, so he'd have a big incentive to see a big cap. Or why Melo's signing an extension. B/c if he doesn't sign, and just accepts a max FA contract in the next CBA period, he's tied to whatever restrictions/cap there is in the new CBA. Vice just locking in his rate and raises now.

 

[handiman]

It's only a % of first-year BRI. Once the first year is set, the "max" is either 8% (new team) or 10.5% (Bird Rights) raises.

I see, thanks.

 

[MIXUM]

The blazers need to do whatever they have to and if it means saying bye to Roy to start contending, then so be it!!!!


I would make a great gm btw!!!