<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">? According to ESPN.com's Marc Stein, other teams that have used the provision include the Wolves (Fred Hoiberg), the Celtics (Vin Baker), the Pistons (Derrick Coleman), the Grizzlies (Troy Bell), the Heat (Wesley Person), and the Bulls (Eddie Robinson). In several of those cases, the players are no longer on the roster of the team releasing them but -- as with Mourning and Eisley -- each move provides luxury-tax relief.</div> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2134771 And all this time I was believing that RealGM article that said we were going to waive Raef.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting 44Thrilla:</div><div class="quote_post">http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2134771 And all this time I was believing that RealGM article that said we were going to waive Raef. </div> Shame on you! Believing a RealGM article!? Just kidding, I know that was a joke, no one belives RealGM, for any reason. And as well they should not. So tell me again, what's the point of waiving Baker? Just to have his name stricken from the team? For what? Religious reasons? I know my religion states that "thou shalt not honor any worthless, no brain center above Mark Blount." I guess Vin was just competition. A false idol I guess. We aren't anywhere near luxury money though. But the amnesty clause does cover luxury tax numbers in the coming years of Vin's deal, so I guess that could be a good sign for the future. Who knows? I don't pretend to know what goes on in Ainge's head, but...as always... In Danny I Trust!
Better Baker than Raef, who's still a very useful player, even if a surprising number of people have forgotten how good he can be when healthy. If Danny *had* let Raef go, thus risking letting Mark Blount back into our regular rotation ( ), my confidence in him would have taken a major nose dive. As for the point of waiving Baker, I'm guessing it was a "just in case" thing. We aren't in luxury tax land now but *could* get there before the new CBA expires. It's not likely but stranger things have happened.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Perk-a-Jeff:</div><div class="quote_post">Better Baker than Raef, who's still a very useful player, even if a surprising number of people have forgotten how good he can be when healthy. If Danny *had* let Raef go, thus risking letting Mark Blount back into our regular rotation ( ), my confidence in him would have taken a major nose dive. As for the point of waiving Baker, I'm guessing it was a "just in case" thing. We aren't in luxury tax land now but *could* get there before the new CBA expires. It's not likely but stranger things have happened.</div> I was actually thinking the exact same thing. You just never know what next year is going to bring. It's probably just a case of Ainge planning for the future. And with all these young players coming into the league at the same time, their contracts will come up at the same time; flexibility is a good thing in that case.
