Yes, he did game the system. Here's how and what he did: He knew that with his contract and knee history he would be amnestied. He would then be picked off waivers. He would then need to play in the short 66 game season. BUT he also knew he wasn't ready to play. He needed more time to heal and for treatment. So he "retired." He is then amnestied, but on his terms. He gets to sit out the short season. He gets to heal to the extent possible. He gets to pick his team. = Gaming the system. Loved the guy, but he played us like a fiddle.
He'll never be healed. He's delusional and the TWolves are just as bad for buying onto his agent's BS.
The question is not do I (or you) think he is fit to play. From what I know, the answer is no. But the question is 'did he game the system.' and to that I say clearly he did. Roy's agent, btw, did nothing without Roy's full consent and agreement.
There's no "gaming" happening here. Roy was pressured into the retirement and is still in denial about his health. It's not going to go well for his knees.
Where is the proof that he was "pressured into retirement"? What difference did it make to the Blazers if he was going to be amnestied? It was not a forced medical retirement, a la Darius, where insurance would have picked it up. He "retired", took a year off, and is now unretired. Its clever, but total bullshit form a Blazer POV.
You said Portland got "played like fiddle." What is the negative impact to Portland, if we assume that this entire scenario was planned from the start?
The damage to the Blazers? Because if he was not actually ready to retire (as we now know for a fact) he is now coming back to play for a different team. Let's say he actually was not in perfect health, but also not retirement ready. How does he tell the team he wants to take a year off to really heal? Especially given his salary, and the Oden issue, he could not. So he fake retired. Got a year off. And now he's no longer a Blazer. He got a full salary, and a year off. We got zilch.
When he decided he could play again, was his first thought to ask the Blazers if he could play for the team that was paying him about EIGHTY BILLION DOLLARS TO DO NOTHING ??? Did he show the team he had destroyed some RESPECT? ?? Or did he jump ship to their division rival without nicely asking first?
BTW, what I am saying is not original. I think it was a Kerry Eggers column where I saw this first posited.
You didn't mention where the negative impact, or damage, to the Blazers was. The salary was going to be paid regardless. He was going to be amnestied regardless, because why on Earth would the Blazers keep his salary on the books, when we all know he's never going to be an impact player again? Are you suggesting that if he had said "I'm still good to go," the Blazers would have kept him on the roster? I think there's no way that happens.
I remember when Jerry West retired. He hung on for the preseason, just so he could play one game against rookie Blazer Bill Walton, and then retired before the regular season began. (In Los Angeles, the two were each King of his own local basketball dynasty.) Now imagine if West had returned a year later--as a CELTIC!!!! You would have never heard of him again, as a coach, GM, or "immigrant allowed into Los Angeles."
Bingo. And Minstrel, yes, I do think that if Roy had said that he was not yet done, amnestiing him would have been much harder. Remember, it was only 5 days earlier, on Monday of that week, that we heard he was back and was going to be a starter. He was the face of the franchise. He had leverage and juice and the city on his side. So what happened? Maybe we didn't like what we saw in practice that first week back, or he didnt like it. Either way, the amnesty word was bantied about. Roy knows he doesnt want to play the short season, and doesn't want to be picked up off waivers with his crappy knees (Minny was ready even back then) So he "retires."
So what you're saying is that Roy actually helped the Blazers. It would have been difficult to amnesty him, from a PR perspective, had he not said "no mas," and not amnestying him would have been terrible for the Blazers...it would have saddled them with a horrendous contract for a player who's knees are shot. I actually don't believe the Blazers would have refused to use the amnesty on him had he said he was going to keep going. But if you are right, then we should be thrilled that Roy did what he did...it saved the Blazers from making a really bad decision.
Roy's contract got Pritchard fired. Roy's departure sank the team and got McMillan fired. In the entire season, he attended one game, despite living a 3-hour drive away in Seattle. He had long since sold his Portland house lickety-split, so he sped back to Seattle as fast as he could after the game to escape the adoring fans and media. At that game, he noticeably avoided Paul Allen, who was sending him a monthly check of a million dollars to do nothing. As soon as the season ended, he looked for a new employer and city and high-tailed it to Minneapolis. Why would this bother anyone? It happens all the time.
Like you jlprk, I'm miffed over what has transpired with Roy. I've always felt something was up since he only attended that one game. Never did the Blazers throw him a party, retire his jersey, etc. Mum was the word all season in regards to Roy and the Blazers. And my question is this: Had Roy simply retired, would the Blazers still be on the hook to "pay" him? Forget about the "books" and the "cap" - I'm talking about PA having to write him a check each month. Would insurance not have at least paid those millions rather than PA paying them? I'm just very confused and greatly disappointed over Roy (my favorite Blazer of all-time aside from Bobby Gross) and to watch him play in another uniform is just sickening.
That's exactly how we should be looking at it. Roy basically saved the team a massive PR hit that could have cost them millions in lost revenue or tied up their cap for years. It's almost like a deus ex machina; popping in at just the right time to rescue us from a bad or worse decision.
1) If he had voluntarily retired, it's like quitting a job. Allen would owe him nothing. 2) Had management gotten the league's permission to medically retire him, insurance would have paid most. 3) But they amnestied him. If insurance for amnesty exists then like flood insurance, it may not be standard in most policies. If any was covered, I doubt it was much. And Allen will pay for it anyway, when the insurance company increases his premium. I think that Allen spent a lot more by amnestying instead of medically retiring
