One would assume that Roy's contract was included as being a part of "running the business", and is accounted for annually.
What are you talking about? When did he refuse to play or work out? Or, was he supposed to work out for the Blazers before they extended his contract? I'm not understanding you, and also, why didn't the Blazers just give him 4 years, with a team option on the 5th year?
Because he refused to work out until he had his contract and he refused to sign for 4 years as the team offered to him. And then he proceeded to bad mouth the team and the management. Where were you when all this was happening?
All I can say is I enjoyed every healthy minute Roy was on the court. The one great thing I remembered was no matter what situation, we had a good opportunity to win the game when he was on the court. Yes we didn't make it past the first round with him leading this club, but I blame Nate moreso than Roy. The Phoenix series when we were dominating them, then they put Nash on batum. Nate was like a deer in the headlights and had no counter. The Houston series where they put arrest on Roy, Nate didn't adjust. And the Dallas series was just awful when he didn't adjust to exploiting Dallas's weakness at guard. Regardless, I don't have a animosity bone in my body for Roy. I will remember the 4th quarter heroics and clutch 4th quarters. Hopefully one day we can look to Lillard as that clutch 4th player like we did with Roy.
Link? It must be difficult, because you don't get it. There is a difference between "only spending what you make" and being more fiscally responsible. Selling second round draft picks has nothing to do with Roy's contract. Again, we offered Roy Hibbert a MAX CONTRACT last year. Additionally, we don't know what would have happened with Batum if Hibbert would have accepted. It's possible we could have spent to keep Batun as well. You don't know and I don't know. How hard is that to understand? This is a non sequitur and irrelevant. What a load of crap. I don't care what you "buy in to". But if you really think that if it weren't for Roy's contract we wouldn't be selling second round picks, you don't have a clue about the business side of basketball.
@blazerboy - Didn't we already sign Batum the year before we put a max offer sheet to Hibbert? Or was that the same year? It's just a clarifying question, because I could have sworn that it was a year apart from each other.
From 2011 http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7...rs-brandon-roy-retiring-brings-mixed-emotions All that is out the window, although in some ways it eases the Blazers' pain. Much of the tab for Roy's remaining four years and $68 million will be picked up by insurance. In April, his contract will come off the cap entirely, which will put Portland in position to sign a max-contract free agent (provided it can find one who likes drizzle, bike lanes and independent bookstores). http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7335092/brandon-roy-portland-trail-blazers-retire-due-knees If the 27-year-old Roy files for medical retirement, insurance likely would take care of his salary in coming years. His salary would not count against the cap after one year. http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/index.ssf/2011/12/brandon_roys_retirement_leaves.html If the Blazers decide to "amnesty" Roy, his salary will instantly come off their books and the team will gain an addition $2 million to spend in free agency. If Roy and the team proceed with the retirement option, insurance will cover a portion of the remaining contract, but the roughly $15 million he is owed in 2011-12 — and his spot on the roster — will remain this season. Either way, Roy will receive the $63 million the team owes him.
None of those articles gives exact numbers, and each writer just guessed that insurance would kick in. The most precise number we have is from earlier in the thread, $17M coming from insurance out of the entire $84-88M contract. And if Roy plays again, zero. The thread title is inaccurate.
My interpretation is that if Roy stayed retired, insurance would have paid the $17M in question. But since he played, he clearly wasn't disabled, so no insurance. The CBA required the Blazers to pay since he was amnestied.
roy had no obligation to stay retard, although he probably should have...but anyone hear would gladly take another 5 million dollhairs of idiot kahns minny money im not putting hymn on a petal stool, but he had every rite to dew that, and wood be a fool knot two
I get it just fine. I have my eyes open. You refuse to look at the truth starting you in the face. What does Hibbert have to do with anything? No one ever said the team was going to slash their player payroll to the lowest in the league. They still have revenue coming in and are still trying to field a competitive team. The AVERAGE player in the NBA makes around $5mil. Starters not on rookie deals average well more than that. Offering Hibbert a MINI max (not a true MAX deal for a veteran player, ie, Dwight Howard and his $20+ salary) was decent risk for a team desperate for a starting center. Total team salary for the Blazers is down, total team spending on all things is down. Roy's MAX contract the team has to shell out for, still to this day, comes out of the pot and reduces what can be spent on other things. It isn't fucking rocket science. Don't know why you are so defensive about this? What are you president of Roy's fan club? If you don't want to know, than just stick your head in the sand. But, stop trying to shovel a bunch of shit around.
I, for one, am stoked Mo's number is retired. My season tix were directly under his banner, and I caught two tee shirts that hit it and fell straight down....
I call BS! There is no way a Wookee sized t-shirt could have hit Mo's number. You'd need a real canon to shoot one that far up.
