I don't think we'll drop Brandon Roy

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

This quote from Blazer's Edge talks about a provision in the waiver system for amnesty players that could be a big factor in the decision as to whether to waive Brandon:

A modified waiver process will be utilized for players waived pursuant to the Amnesty rule, under which teams with Room under the Cap can submit competing offers to assume some but not all of the player's remaining contract. If a player's contract is claimed in this manner, the remaining portion of the player's salary will continue to be paid by the team that waived him.

What that seems to mean: if the Portland Trail Blazers waived Brandon Roy, teams with cap space -- like the Sacramento Kings and Indiana Pacers -- could put in silent bids to take over a portion of Roy's contract, with the biggest bid getting his services. The entire contract would be wiped off Portland's cap sheet, and the Blazers would be responsible from the difference in Roy's contract and the winning bid in actual salary paid out. The bid amount (say it's 50 percent for the Pacers) would then be paid by the winning bidder, and that amount would also go on that team's cap sheet.
--------------------------

The end result would simply be additional and previously unexpected cash savings for Blazers owner Paul Allen in addition to the cap flexibility and luxury tax cash savings that were already expected prior to the end of the lockout.

This raises an interesting series of questions. How much would you bid for Brandon Roy (years/dollars) if he hit the open market? What's the largest amount you think he could command given his injury situation and play last season?

I like the fact that teams with cap space get first call on the amnesty players. It will be hard for me to see Brandon playing somewhere else, but seeing him play for the Lakers, Heat or Knicks would really suck.
 
This is a gift. Even Brandon Roy would understand this move. If you don't waive him his contract and his knees will cripple this franchise for the next four years.
 
This is a gift. Even Brandon Roy would understand this move. If you don't waive him his contract and his knees will cripple this franchise for the next four years.

So other teams are going to take a chance on Roy and make a worth while bid that will help the Blazers save money? Why would they take that chance? I don't see it. If he is healthy enough to bid on then he is healthy enough to keep.

And by worth while I mean over 1/3 of his salary. Not going to happen.
 
So other teams are going to take a chance on Roy and make a worth while bid that will help the Blazers save money? Why would they take that chance? I don't see it. If he is healthy enough to bid on then he is healthy enough to keep.
And by worth while I mean over 1/3 of his salary. Not going to happen.

Agreed. This is an interesting idea, but in practice it won't affect Roy. Every Lakers fan seems to be geeked at the idea of adding Roy - but only at a veteran's minimum. And no fan of any team actually under the cap is AT ALL geeked at adding Roy.
 
But who in the hell currently working for the Blazers in a position of power is going to take the heat for sending Brandon Roy to the Lakers?

Anybody?

Only Paul Allen can make that call.

And even then, he might fire Miller or whomever, after Roy drops 30 on us in purple and piss in the rose garden.

"Larry, you should have talked me out of it. Get the fuck out!"

Well I'm sure Allen will have an active say in whatever happens with Roy too ... regardless, the fear that he might go to a so-called rival and light us up 2 or 3 games a year is no reason not to remove him and worry about making your own team more competitive. The Blazers need to be worried about their own 82 games a year and how to make themselves as competitive as possible and not a slight handful where he could theoretically drop a "revenge" scoring outburst on them.

Are you seriously worried about this broken down version of Roy against Wesley Matthews, Nic Batum or Gerald Wallace covering him? I sure as hell don't.
 
Roy at best will have 1 really good game for every 5-6 games he plays on a different team imo.

I understand that with a max contract 1 realy good game out of every 5-6 is not that great. But 1 really good game every 5-6 games is still better than what most players can offer.

Now if he hurts us the other 4-5 games then that is counter productive, but I believe he won't. He may disappear for a few games, but we have other players who can contribute. I say wait a year.
 
I understand that with a max contract 1 realy good game out of every 5-6 is not that great. But 1 really good game every 5-6 games is still better than what most players can offer.

Now if he hurts us the other 4-5 games then that is counter productive, but I believe he won't. He may disappear for a few games, but we have other players who can contribute. I say wait a year.

Look at Roy's game log from last year

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_/id/3027/brandon-roy

The longer he played the worse he got and the longer the drought between so called good games was. We're not talking about "not so great" for a max player, that's pretty much abysmal for a mid-level guy too. Roy played barely above replacement level last year and with more wear and tear, it's unlikely to get better, but will probably get worse. Hanging on for a year is only delaying the inevitable and muddles the lineup and makes it harder to rebuild/re-tool when decisions on Nic and other players like Felton, etc. loom large.
 
I just feel like I can already hear Larry Miller at a PC justifying keeping Brandon Roy.

Regardless of the bs reason he would give, I think the ultimate reason why they would keep him is for ticket sales, which they obviously wouldn't admit.

Not that Roy would necessarily attract more fans, but cutting him could kill hopes and drive away fans, though. That said, winning does cure everything.
 
Look at Roy's game log from last year

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_/id/3027/brandon-roy

The longer he played the worse he got and the longer the drought between so called good games was. We're not talking about "not so great" for a max player, that's pretty much abysmal for a mid-level guy too. Roy played barely above replacement level last year and with more wear and tear, it's unlikely to get better, but will probably get worse. Hanging on for a year is only delaying the inevitable and muddles the lineup and makes it harder to rebuild/re-tool when decisions on Nic and other players like Felton, etc. loom large.

He had knee surgery last year and was playing injured. He probably could have pulled an Oden and just sat out the year to avoid being criticized, but Brandon is actually a competitor who lives and breathes basketball.

Remembering him getting torn apart on this board last year opens up some old wounds. I'm glad the lockout is over, because I was actually beginning to get along with everybody here, and that just ain't right!
 
Last edited:
if i were the blazers, id at least want to see if he is any improved, its a tough decision, but if allen is willing to spend the money, im not about to look that gift horse in the mouth
 
I just feel like I can already hear Larry Miller at a PC justifying keeping Brandon Roy.

Regardless of the bs reason he would give, I think the ultimate reason why they would keep him is for ticket sales, which they obviously wouldn't admit.

Not that Roy would necessarily attract more fans, but cutting him could kill hopes and drive away fans, though. That said, winning does cure everything.

I really don't see ticket sales as a reason. Like you said, it's all about winning.
 
Howard Beck:
Perhaps the most enticing candidate is Roy, a Portland Trail Blazers guard. Just 27, Roy is a three-time All-Star and a dazzling scorer. But he has chronic knee problems and played just 47 games last season, his scoring average plummeting to 12.2 points. He is owed $68.3 million over the next four seasons. Paul Allen, the Blazers’ billionaire owner, can surely afford the bill, but waiving Roy will not create cap room.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/s...nba-team-can-waive-one-bad-contract.html?_r=1
 
ESPNSteinLine Marc Stein
Amnesty Clause Rumble of the Day: Blazer coaches have been advised that using provision to waive Brandon Roy is strong possibility. AND ...
 
ESPNSteinLine Marc Stein
As @HowardBeckNYT notes in latest amnesty piece, releasing Roy wouldn't net cap room for Blazers. But if Paul Allen can stomach cost ...
 
ESPNSteinLine Marc Stein
If Allen can eat $60-plus mil left on Roy deal, full mid-level exception usage AND re-signing of Oden easier to pull off for GM-less Blazers
 
ESPNSteinLine Marc Stein
New Sota coach Rick Adelman, I'm told, would have level of interest in signing Roy after knee fears led to Wolves' Roy/R. Foye draft swap
 
It wont net cap room for the Blazers this year, but it will next year. Brandon will make 16.4 million dollars next year, and if Gerald Wallace picks up his option we'll have 49.5 million dollars. This does not count the cap holds for free agents/restricted free agents and draft picks which we would hold the bird rights to (if this is still in the CBA); but those can be renounced to take off the cap hold. If we use the amnesty on Roy we'd have 33.1 million. We'd then decide if we wanted to resign Greg, Nic and Felton (if we don't do so this year, with Greg's RFA status and I think Nic is eligible for an extension which Portland would probably be best to try to get this year incase Nic blows up), or if we wanted to waive their rights if we thought we could sign a big name (we could negotiate with them and get confirmation before waiving rights).

Or we could resign one of them and still have enough for a big free agent. Last year's salary cap was 58 million dollars, I thought I had heard this years would be closer to 60 but I admit to being unsure, as I believe I read it in passing. Next year's wont be available for a bit, IIRC.

But waiving Brandon very much does net cap relief - just not this year; and, it gives us most likely our only chance of getting another legit all-star level player (that doesn't have questionable health or potential like Greg and Nic) to play alongside LaMarcus during his prime. This is something we must take advantage of if we want to make the most of LaMarcus' best years. Otherwise we are most likely stuck in second round mediocrity unless a great trade is pulled off.

I love Brandon and I am thankful for all he did for the organization and for us as fans. But this is a business move, and Brandon still gets his money and has a chance to play with another team. There is just no team that is going to trade for his contract, and the reality is his current level of play will not be worth the 16-19 million he is going to make for the next four years, and will weigh the team down. I'd rather Brandon's twilight years not turn LaMarcus' prime years into nothing much accomplished.
 
Oh, I see it is 75% of the cap from his contract now, so not 33 million, but still a very nice chunk of change.
 
That is the consensus here on the forum, but I'd love to see a source for that opinion, from a qualified professional that has seen the x-rays. Is that too much to ask?

Yes that is to much to ask, you'll never hear that type of quote because its confidential medical information. Disclosure has to come from Roy, that's why all the Oregonian articles that talk about what the doctors opinions are of Roy's knees quote Roy. The doctor cannot disclose Roy's medical information to the press.
 
If Allen wants to wait a year before using the amnesty on Roy I'm fine with it. He will have to pay the contract either way, so the benefit to cutting Roy now is reducing luxury tax and possibly having the full mid level exception. Not having the full exception isn't necessarily a bad thing, it will prevent us from signing a player such as Landry or Crawford to a bad contract that we are stuck with next offseason. We can wait for a year then decide to cut Roy when we have better information on the contract status of Oden/Felton/Wallace/Batum.

But if Allen wants to pocket luxury tax savings and has confirmation Roy's knees are forever done then I'm fine with him cutting Roy now. I'm just glad we will be able to get out of his contract by next offseason when we actually have a chance at cap room. The PatterNash regime screwed us by signing ZBo/Miles/Theo to massive extensions for years with a team less talented then what we have now and no chance of cap room.

The only real bad scenario I could see is if we amnesty Camby then are stuck with Roys contract for years no matter how bad his knees get. Yuck.
 
If Allen wants to wait a year before using the amnesty on Roy I'm fine with it. He will have to pay the contract either way, so the benefit to cutting Roy now is reducing luxury tax and possibly having the full mid level exception. Not having the full exception isn't necessarily a bad thing, it will prevent us from signing a player such as Landry or Crawford to a bad contract that we are stuck with next offseason. We can wait for a year then decide to cut Roy when we have better information on the contract status of Oden/Felton/Wallace/Batum.

But if Allen wants to pocket luxury tax savings and has confirmation Roy's knees are forever done then I'm fine with him cutting Roy now. I'm just glad we will be able to get out of his contract by next offseason when we actually have a chance at cap room. The PatterNash regime screwed us by signing ZBo/Miles/Theo to massive extensions for years with a team less talented then what we have now and no chance of cap room.

The only real bad scenario I could see is if we amnesty Camby then are stuck with Roys contract for years no matter how bad his knees get. Yuck.

can't see us using amnesty on Camby when he has only this coming season left
 
Camby was injured last season and is better than he showed.
 
Howard Beck of the NYT on the Amnesty clause:

Under the amnesty provision, each team can waive one player and remove him from the salary cap — creating room to sign another player and potentially saving millions in luxury-tax penalties.
The money does not disappear. The player must still be paid. But the provision could give a few teams some relief and put an extra jolt in the free-agent market.
...
There is, however, one minor caveat for the amnesty watchers and World Peace enthusiasts: most teams will not use the provision.
“I don’t think there will be very many at all,” said one team executive, who asked to remain anonymous while the lockout remains in effect.

At most, three to six teams will take advantage of the amnesty clause this year, the executive said — a view that was echoed by others around the league. The reasons are varied and complicated.
Some teams are so far above the cap that removing one player will not provide room to sign free agents. A few teams have such low payrolls that they would dip below the minimum-payroll requirements. At least 10 teams have no obvious candidates for amnesty.
And many teams might simply hold onto their amnesty card for a future year. According to a draft of the rule, a team can use the provision in any off-season, subject to two restrictions: the player must have been signed before July 1, 2011, and must be on the team’s current roster.
In other words, a team cannot sign or trade for a player now and apply for amnesty later. The provision is meant for past mistakes, not future cap calamities.
Because there is no deadline, teams may wait and see whether their albatrosses learn to fly again before casting them adrift. No team executive wants to admit a mistake, or to ask his owner for permission to eat a $20 million contract.
General managers are also eternal optimists — convinced that a player will rebound from a bad season or that some other general manager will trade for him despite the bloated contract and poor play.
..
Perhaps the most enticing candidate is Roy, a Portland Trail Blazers guard. Just 27, Roy is a three-time All-Star and a dazzling scorer. But he has chronic knee problems and played just 47 games last season, his scoring average plummeting to 12.2 points. He is owed $68.3 million over the next four seasons. Paul Allen, the Blazers’ billionaire owner, can surely afford the bill, but waiving Roy will not create cap room.
 
But why stunt the growth of the team for yet another year?
The risk of that happening < (the possible reward of BRoy redefining himself + the risk of him killing us in the playoffs while playing for another team).
 
The risk of that happening < (the possible reward of BRoy redefining himself + the risk of him killing us in the playoffs while playing for another team).

you really believe that? Keeping Roy also costs us from being able to use the full MLE this year and perhaps picking up a solid big like Landry.
 
The risk of that happening < (the possible reward of BRoy redefining himself + the risk of him killing us in the playoffs while playing for another team).


Who cares if he kills us in the playoffs this year? It's not like Portland is some playoff juggernaut anyway. This team has three sets of players. Those who like to, and have the skill set to push the ball (Aldridge, Matthews, Felton, Wallace, Batum, Williams, Smith, Johnson, Babbitt, C. Johnson, Camby, Oden) Those who are good at both (Aldridge, Matthews, Felton, Wallace, Batum, Williams, Smith, Johnson, Babbitt, C. Johnson, Camby, Oden) and those who are like to and have the skill set to walk the ball up the floor and dominate it for 22 seconds on the shot clock (Roy)

I'd much rather use the dollars available with Roy gone on Landry, Chandler or another big and Crawford
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top