Will the Blazers amnesty Roy? Should they amnesty Roy?

[e_blazer]

I voted that they will and they should amnesty Roy. It pains me a lot to do that because Brandon Roy is in my top 3 favorite Blazers of all time. I also think that he is likely to have more left in his tank than many around here expect. The problem is, no matter how much I wish it were otherwise, I just can't see him being able to consistently play the kind of minutes that are necessary for a player who is taking up so much of the team's cap space. Keeping him for a year to see what he can do is where I have been on this issue, but I really think that the jury is in on that if you use your head instead of your heart. No meniscus means no All-Star-level game. Having Brandon lighting it up and playing great one game out of 3 or 4 just keeps his teammates from developing a consistent style of play and identity of their own. Keeping him on the roster means fewer options in terms of adding needed players. Any way I slice it, as a GM I'd have to waive him. I'll wish him the best and I'll root for him whenever his new team isn't playing the Blazers, but bottom line, Brandon has to find a new home...and that truly sucks.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

^^ Good post. You are probably right. But I still am hoping we give it one more year. I honestly think the situation will play itself out because his knee's wont allow him to play and he'll retire.

 

[Masbee]

I voted that they will and they should amnesty Roy. It pains me a lot to do that because Brandon Roy is in my top 3 favorite Blazers of all time. I also think that he is likely to have more left in his tank than many around here expect. The problem is, no matter how much I wish it were otherwise, I just can't see him being able to consistently play the kind of minutes that are necessary for a player who is taking up so much of the team's cap space.

Yeah, except for one problem:

Amnesty Roy now (as opposed to next summer) and the team still will have NO CAP SPACE.

Cap space if keep Roy = 0
Cap space if amnesty Roy = 0

 

[Mediocre Man]

Yeah, except for one problem:

Amnesty Roy now (as opposed to next summer) and the team still will have NO CAP SPACE.

Cap space if keep Roy = 0
Cap space if amnesty Roy = 0

We would be able to use the entire MLE though. That will make a huge difference in the ability to land a FA that can help us going forward. It's also a huge chunk of change in Paul's wallet. Save 10 mil tax, 5 mil salary, and also be able to receive tax money from taxed teams. It's quite a chunk like 20 mil ish

 

[Masbee]

We would be able to use the entire MLE though. That will make a huge difference in the ability to land a FA that can help us going forward. It's also a huge chunk of change in Paul's wallet. Save 10 mil tax, 5 mil salary, and also be able to receive tax money from taxed teams. It's quite a chunk like 20 mil ish

1) I have yet to see clear solid confirmation that the Blazers would have the full MLE if they amnesty Roy. So far just speculation.

2) The ideas expressed are contradictory. Either Paul Allen is excited to save money (my estimate $10mil, your $20mil) if he can amnesty Roy immediately, or he isn't excited about saving that money.

If he is interested in the savings, then why would he be so anxious to throw the full MLE contract at some 2nd rate free agent? (be honest, that is what we are talking about.

You need to get your theme straight:

A) Is Allen interested in saving bucks?

B) Or, is Allen interested in going all out for a playoff run before his cancer comes back?

C) Or, is Allen interested in maintaining long-term cost containment, while still having a competitive and popular roster?

A means amnesty Roy and DO NOT use full MLE (if available)

B can mean keep Roy for 1 year to see if he can hit some game winning shots. Or, it could mean amnesty Roy and use Camby in a sign and trade for a quality starter.

C means keep Roy to ease the PR hit and amnesty him next season. Don't use the full MLE this season on a 2nd rate player.

 

[oldmangrouch]

During the lock-out, PA was aligned with the hard-liners.

That makes it rather hard to believe he is still in a spend-to-win frame of mind.

 

[Pinwheel1]

During the lock-out, PA was aligned with the hard-liners.

That makes it rather hard to believe he is still in a spend-to-win frame of mind.

I still believed it was because he knew the league would be better off in the long run with the hard line approach, not because he wanted to save money.

 

[Draco]

Initially I thought taking a wait and see approach with Roy for a year would be ok. Lately I'm starting to lean away from that position though. If we intend on cutting him next season it would be better to just do it now and begin the transition into the post-Roy era. The team needs to see if Wes/Nic/Felton/Gerald can fill in for some of the things Roy did in the offense. Obviously none of them can replace what an all-star Roy did, but can they provide enough to be good contributiors on a contending team? We need to know how the rest of these guys fit before we hand out new huge contract extensions for them. If those guys can be key starting pieces we may only be one more player away from contening. But if those guys can't perform well enough, we should consider letting them walk as free agents and doing a complete rebuild around LaMarcus.

Cutting Roy comes down to this question; Can Roy's health improve to where he's worth keeping on the roster at a max contract? He doesn't have to be an all-star again, but he'd have to be an above average starting NBA player. If there is no realistic chance of Roy staying here for the duration of his entire contract then we should cut him now.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

We will still be over the cap if we amnesty Roy.
We can only use the amnesty on players that are under contract right now, so that really limits our options. Cant use it 4 years from now on a guy we sign this summer. We obviously wont use it on Matthews, Batum, Aldridge, Camby (one year left), Felton (one year left). Roy is really our only option.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Initially I thought taking a wait and see approach with Roy for a year would be ok. Lately I'm starting to lean away from that position though. If we intend on cutting him next season it would be better to just do it now and begin the transition into the post-Roy era. The team needs to see if Wes/Nic/Felton/Gerald can fill in for some of the things Roy did in the offense. Obviously none of them can replace what an all-star Roy did, but can they provide enough to be good contributiors on a contending team? We need to know how the rest of these guys fit before we hand out new huge contract extensions for them. If those guys can be key starting pieces we may only be one more player away from contening. But if those guys can't perform well enough, we should consider letting them walk as free agents and doing a complete rebuild around LaMarcus.

Cutting Roy comes down to this question; Can Roy's health improve to where he's worth keeping on the roster at a max contract? He doesn't have to be an all-star again, but he'd have to be an above average starting NBA player. If there is no realistic chance of Roy staying here for the duration of his entire contract then we should cut him now.

I can see your point. It is a tough decision. It may be mentally harder on Roy if we keep him. I can see the "dead man barely walking" references as the season progresses. I don't think he is done and i don't want him helping someone else. But I think between the media and the fans he will be reminded every day of his salary in Portland. No doubt there would be less pressure on him if he goes.

 

[Masbee]

Cutting Roy comes down to this question; Can Roy's health improve to where he's worth keeping on the roster at a max contract? He doesn't have to be an all-star again, but he'd have to be an above average starting NBA player. If there is no realistic chance of Roy staying here for the duration of his entire contract then we should cut him now.

I just don't follow this logic at all.

Roy gets his MAX contract no matter what. It is like buying a car for cash up front.

Let's say you buy a sports car with cash up front. Money is gone.

Now, you blow a gasket. Take it to shop, they fix it, but say it will never be the same, likely get worse over time.

Do you give the car away for free just to save the cost of storing it in a garage and the insurance? (lux tax)

Do you keep the car and take it on some drives and see if you enjoy the ride - then give it away if the car craps out or doesn't give you enjoyment any longer?

 

[Mediocre Man]

I just don't follow this logic at all.

Roy gets his MAX contract no matter what. It is like buying a car for cash up front.

Let's say you buy a sports car with cash up front. Money is gone.

Now, you blow a gasket. Take it to shop, they fix it, but say it will never be the same, likely get worse over time.

Do you give the car away for free just to save the cost of storing it in a garage and the insurance? (lux tax)

Do you keep the car and take it on some drives and see if you enjoy the ride - then give it away if the car craps out or doesn't give you enjoyment any longer?

I think if I could get back the money I would have spent on it had I kept it, as well as freeing up money to buy a good reliable car I would get rid of the car now. Also give me a chance to see if the other really nice cars I already own can run better now that I don't have to focus time on the broken down car that will never be the same. Maybe now I can supercharge the other cars and make them all better?

 

[Draco]

I just don't follow this logic at all.

Roy gets his MAX contract no matter what. It is like buying a car for cash up front.

Let's say you buy a sports car with cash up front. Money is gone.

Now, you blow a gasket. Take it to shop, they fix it, but say it will never be the same, likely get worse over time.

Do you give the car away for free just to save the cost of storing it in a garage and the insurance? (lux tax)

Do you keep the car and take it on some drives and see if you enjoy the ride - then give it away if the car craps out or doesn't give you enjoyment any longer?

I like your analogy!

So I have a restriction and could only own a single car. I have a couple hundred grand sitting in the bank. I can’t legally sell the car since it has a bad title. The car is a headache and needing to go to the shop often, it breaks down on me. But when its’ running its one of the faster cars on the road and a joy to drive, but its in the shop 50% of the time and I have to take the bus instead. I’d ditch the car and get something that I know will get me from point A to point B daily.