And anyways; hopefully we get our deals done before then. What I mean, we have cap space this summer. Possibly get our deals done, so it doesn't even matter anymore. With or without Roy's contract; our year of major signings is this summer. After that, we will be over cap for quite some time.
Assuming Roy ever retires, his salary will come off the books next April. Amnestying him would allow Portland to potentially sign a player that doesn't have an AARP card, but then PA has to pay the entire thing out of pocket. If he EVER retires, then insurance pays most of it
You lost me at the use of the word "trust". Certain words should never be used in discussing the Blazers. (eg "trust", "hope", "health", "potential")
Jason Quick @jwquick Looking like it makes more sense for Blazers to amnesty Brandon Roy rather than have him go medical retirement route Jason Quick @jwquick The insurance money owner Paul Allen would save is the same whether he is amnestied or medically retires
In that's the case amnestying him is the much better choice, because it immediately frees up the full mid-level and accelerates the time-table on cap flexibility. If Roy is really retiring then it's all semantics anyway, but I'd much rather the Blazers be proactive about this, than potentially sit back and let Roy hold the cards.
@jwquick Jason Quick Roy's last game was April 28, so the Blazers miss the 1-year cutoff to start saving tax by 2 days @jwquick Jason Quick Change in new CBA re: medical retirement: Salary goes back on the books if player comes back and plays in 25 games in reg season or playoffs Seems like amnestying would save PA all that money on luxury tax so he'll probably do it, as for giving Roy the deck and having him hold all the cards the new CBA rules on Medical retirement make it harder for him to come back.
It's not a no brainer. This amnesty can be used one time, for the duration of this bargaining agreement. Portland might want to use their amnesty in the future. Why spend that card now so we just get 2 mil more this year? If he tries to come back, we could use the amnesty on him. But perhaps Allen will do it to save luxery tax.
All I'm saying that if I was Paul Allen and I'd already been burned by one medical retirement gone awry, why would I ever expose myself to that same scenario happening again -- however remote the possibility -- when I can exercise the amnesty clause and achieve identical results financially, but also open up the opportunity for more cap room sooner and free-up the mid-level immediately. I agree that the odds of Roy coming back seem like slim to none right now, but why chance it?
The real question is "can you use the amnesty on a player that has medically retired?" If you can than nik's scenario won't happen. Paul was burned by miles, but if he has 3 years to use the amnesty, then why use it now? Why worry about tax, when the insurance will cover most the salary?
There was an interview with Tom Penn and Anna Canazano this weekend. Penn ended up saying they can do both medical retirement and amnesty. http://annacanzano.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/brandon-roy-explainer/
None of us know that. Hell a lot of us never even thought this medical retirement would even come up. If we can use a medical retirement and amnesty, then use the amnesty as insurance. If its true that a player like Crawford may come and play for min, then do that and wait this summer. We will have way more flexibility to either obtain higher draft picks or get in on the free agent market.
