Why in the world would you pay a player max money when you suspect he's only going to be able to produce at an above average level (were not even talking about star level quality here) about 15% of the games he's going to play in? You can't game plan around that kind of deficiency and you certainly don't want to pay an average of 16 million a year for that ... if you can help it.
They are going to pay it regardless. Even with an amnesty clause they are going to pay it. So you might as well keep him. He is a solid player, who on occasion plays awesome. Which is still more often then most players do.
There's a few problems here. Yes you may have to pay it regardless, but you won't be paying luxury tax on the amount his contract pushes us over the limit; that really adds up when the team is already 5 million over the line. Secondly, Roy has been more disruptive than helpful. He's not been happy with a reduced role, he's taken frequent shots at teammates regarding his role, shots, etc. ... that negative crap adds up and can create a toxic environment in a locker room. And lastly, he has NOT been a solid player, his shooting percentages are in the toilet, he can barely guard a chair and he's averaging one good (not even great) game about 1 in 10 outings. For a scorer (versus say a defensive stopper) his production is well below what most players in a similar role generate. Even if his contract wasn't as big as it is, and was say only for the MLE, he'd still be wildly overpaid for what he actually produces on the court. It pains me to say it because Roy was spectacular to watch at his peak, but he's barely a shadow of himself now; he is playing at the level you'd expect a d-league call-up to produce at
