If the Bulls amnesty Boozer, they lose the MLE and BAE, right? That is my understanding, but I could be wrong.
Yeah, that's my understanding too. Under the new CBA, a team that is under the cap and can't use the MLE or BAE gets what's called a "Room MLE." The Room MLE for 2014-15 is $2.732mil. Source.
I'm not seeing the benefit of using amnesty on boozer. Seems like the cap space gained is close to BAE + MLE. And the bulls could re-sign DJ. A trade is a different matter.
My guess is that Boozer is not a part of the plan going forward. I've had this in my mind and have assumed that he'll be amnestied. Bad thinking on my part. Boozer is not worthless as a player. Amnesty him if it makes sense. Keep him if it makes sense.
My guess is he's our starting or backup PF and backup C, and Mirotic isn't coming over until next year. Even after an off year, 14/8 guys aren't easy to come by.
I think we've both couched our predictions enough that neither of us can possibly be considered definitively wrong. However, this will not stop both of us from claiming to be indisputably right.
I don't see it that way, unless I'm missing something (which could definitely be the case). Right now, if you just go forward as slightly over cap but under tax, you have 5.3M to split up among one or more players from the non-taxpayer MLE and then 2.077M from the BAE. Those can't be combined for, say, one 7.4M player. If you amnesty Boozer, I show your cap number using the following players: Rose, Noah, Gibson, Dunleavy, Snell, Butler, Randolph, McDermott, Mirotic (and Hamilton's 333k stretch) and 3 cap holds at 508k each as 52.4M, which means you're about 11M below projected cap. Maybe not enough for Melo, but having ~11M you can spend on one or more players is a lot better than 5.3M, and you can use the Room Exception (2.7M, more actually than the BAE) for another player to fill out a roster.
They had $11m in cap space by using amnesty, but before taking on Randolph's $1.9M. Looks like $9m compared to $5.3M +$2.7M ($8M). They're not getting anyone close to Boozer's level for the $1M difference. Plus they have to actually pay Boozer to play for the Spurs .
I've been saying all along they're not going to amnesty boozer. That's not couched in anything. I simply don't believe they're willing to sacrifice profits. Trade is possible, it won't hurt the bottom line.
I thought you allowed for the Boozer amnesty if it was needed to sign a superstar...maybe I have you mixed up with someone else.
