I know we need some jump shooting and he's arguably the best we got at that but I am so over watching him pass the ball out of bounds, dribble of his foot or launch errant airballs and get technicals with the game on the line.
That'd be great, but then we'd be short a two guard. I'm all for trading BG right now despite that, but with that horrid contract, no one will want him. The only other recourse is the amnesty clause.
Is Ben Gordon the most overpaid guy in the league? I've racked my brain to come up with some guys that have bad enough contracts to match-up with Ben Gordon's deal and it's pretty freaking hard. Rashard Lewis? - Makes twice as much as Bengo but only has one year left after this year. The salaries don't match anyway. Devon Harris? - I'm not totally sure what he makes but I believe that it's in the neighborhood for Bengo's deal. I think it's expiring after next season though. Aside from Lewis' deal (He might just be the most overpaid guy in NBA history), I can't think of ANY player in the NBA right now with a more untradeable contract than Ben Gordon. Joe should have owned his mistake and used the Amnesty Clause on this guy before the ink was even dry on the paperwork outlining this new rule. The Amensty Clause should be known as the "Ben Gordon" clause. GM's should be using Ben Gordon's name as a verb when discussing using the Amensty Clause on a player. For Example: "We're going to Ben Gordon John Salmons prior to next season in hopes of clearing cap space to rebuild our roster."
It's a tough call on who would be more worth amnestying - Villanueva or Gordon. BG at least produces, but will cost $9 million more than CV over the next two seasons. Yeah, they should amnesty BG. It's not like he's irreplaceable, and that $12.4/$13.2 million saved could buy a lot more talent than he's bringing to the table - we could fairly easily get someone like Humphries, Gerald Wallace, Brand, or Bass at that price, and those guys would help a lot more.
I didn't think we saved anything if we amnestied him... we just avoiding having his salary count against the cap. No way Gores spends an extra $11M per year to still suck.
It was my understanding that if you amnesty someone, they go into a silent auction and whatever team bids the highest gets the player when he clears waivers. And then we would be responsible for whatever is left on the contract. So, for instance if we amnesty Gordon and someone bids $10M for him, we would be responsible for the remaining $15M. If nobody bids on him, we would be responsible for the entire amount. In either case, it would not count against our salary cap, which is a plus. I doubt Gores would approve the amnesty clause any time soon, if ever. Especially after waiving Rip. However, I would definitely amnesty Gordon instead of CV. CV is more tradeable because his contract is smaller and he's taller. Undersized shooting guards are generally more abundant and therefore less valuable than 6'11" forwards who can't play defense.
I thought they waived Rip because then it went into a process like the one you describe and we save money when somebody else picks him up and pays him a fraction of what we were paying him. Why wouldn't we have amnestied Rip otherwise and had his entire salary removed from our salary cap while still saving on part of his salary?
We should send CV out west where they are allergic to defense and chuck up 3's. Golden State comes to mind.
Interesting. If you amnesty Bengo and DON'T pick up Austin's option we could save $15M. kind of scared of what Joe would do with the $15M.
We have to trade FOR EVERYTHING THEY OFFER US at this deadline. Trading Block: Austin Daye CV Maxiell Ben Gordon Will Bynum Rodney Stuckey Tayshaun Prince Even if we end up with a worse roster, I don't care, but we need to eliminate a lot of players from our rosters, just add some new faces and let's see what happens. Heading to the Lottery.
It doesn't make sense to use your 1 amnesty without a clear target. You can always negotiate buy-outs or flat out waive a player. There will be cap implications but in general teams can afford that because a player my have negative impact on the team.
By saving his 1 amnesty clause, Joe D is basically saying that it is possible that he might create a contract that is actually worse than the ones of BG and CV. Tell me that is not a scary thought.
