This, of course, hinges on what comes out of the new CBA. But that core would be title contenders for years to come.
yes but both parties like the clause because players can get paid for two contracts. and owners get a mulligan. if we didn't have paul allen no way we could do this. but with CP3 going to NY probably. what other team would have the cap room/talent we have to offer? no one...
Re: Kenny Vance on The Game If the league would just allow amnesty waivers, even just one a season, all the other changes they are talking about would be needless. There is no need for a hard cap or non-guaranteed contracts - there just needs to be a way for teams to correct mistakes.
Amnesty does not create cap room it only removes a player's salary for purposes of calculating the luxury tax.
fuck...well okay but with camby, miller, and pryz gone we should have enough, no? edit: depends on the contracts we get back i guess. but it's def. possible and should be our goal.
I refuse to depend on Oden, if he plays again, great. We should build as if he is not going to play again. Broy is wait and see, but I think it is doubtful at this point. Hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst.
The amnesty clause in the last CBA did not. A new amnesty clause might. If the owners are successful in reducing salaries 20%-33% and or a hard cap is implemented we could see an amnesty clause that allows the player's salary to be removed off of the cap too.
uh ... it all depends on a number of variables in the new CBA. 1. There could be a hard-cap with no luxury tax 2. There could be a soft-cap and luxury tax (like we have now) but both could be reduced 3. Things could stay somewhat the same (unlikely) 4. The NBA might move to an NFL style CBA with bonuses and non-gauranteed contracts The fact is we don't know what the agreement will look like until they agree to it and we have no idea what our salary commitments will be, but whatever happens it's almost a guarantee that 17 million of the Blazers yearly cap number will be consumed by Roy's contract -- I don't think we'll have significant cap room for free agents or lopsided trades until that contract expires in 5 years.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
