5 Amnesty players

[sunsfn]

The ESPN magazine arrived to day and there is a short article about the Amnesty and it mentions 5 players that may get dropped.

Michael Finley
Raef LaFrentz 1) 9,900 - 2) 10,900 - 3) 11,800 - 4) 12,700 -
Austin Croshere
Brian Grant
Derek Anderson

For Finley they mention the suns may be interested in him.

I was thinking the suns may be interested in LaFrentz. He has 4 years left at the salary I show above.
Here is what Hoopshype says about him.
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Excellent outside shooting skills for a big man... Creates matchup problems... Average low-post moves... Average rebounder... One of the top shot blockers in the league thanks to his huge wingspan and his timing... Not a solid post defender, though.[/font]

Take that for what it is worth, but he is a big man that can run, block some shots and hit from the outside. Sounds like what the suns could use.

They say the Celtics may drop him because they are going to have to pay big deals to Al Jefferson and Kendrick Perkins. They refer to them as two young studs. Not sure I agree on that with Perkins.

 

[cly2tw]

LaFrentz for the min would be great addition!

 

[Goldfield]

LaFrentz for the MLE would be awsome.

 

[Cheesebeef]

LaFrentze would be a ncie addition for little to no money. Can run the court, block some shots, and hit threes. Doesn't need to play big minutes, but could be a supporting player. If he were two inches shorter I'd go running screaming the other way though.

Does anyone know if there's some kind of deadline for when these players have to be dropped?

 

[George O'Brien]

LaFrentze would be a ncie addition for little to no money. Can run the court, block some shots, and hit threes. Doesn't need to play big minutes, but could be a supporting player. If he were two inches shorter I'd go running screaming the other way though.

Does anyone know if there's some kind of deadline for when these players have to be dropped?

I've been wondering the same thing. I'm guessing it won't be until close to the start of the season but I have information either way.

 

[Evil Ash]

LaFrentz for the MLE would be awsome.

1) Our MLE (well most of it) went to Bell

2) Those that get cut due to this stipulation get paid their full contract amount by the team that originally signed him. He'll still get paid the same amount total no matter what his contract value is that he signs for his next team.

In short, those cut by this stipulation will sign for the vet minimum.

3) Finley (if he doesn't mind playing sparse minutes) and LaFrentz ...

 

[Joe Mama]

Raef LaFrentz is not going to get waived this summer. The Boston Celtics would only be over the luxury tax limit by a couple million dollars if at all. HoopsHype has them at just $46 million this year. I doubt Anderson gets waived either.

Croshere
Grant
Finley
Doug Christie
Allan Houston


Joe Mama

 

[cly2tw]

Brian Grant would be good for 5-8 min on our roster.

 

[George O'Brien]

Grant's performance over the last two seasons has shown a marked drop in his production. He not only didn't play much (just under 17 minutes a game with the Lakers) but did not rebound well either.

I'm not familiar with his recent history, but his stats suggest he is either not healthy or declining from age. I was struck by how Traylor put up better numbers last season than Grant:

Brian Grant
Los Angeles Lakers
Position: F
Height: 6-9 Weight: 254
College : Xavier (Ohio) '94
Player file | Team stats

2004-05 Statistics
PPG 3.8
RPG 3.7
APG .5
SPG .33
BPG .33
FG% .493
FT% .722
3P% .000
MPG 16.5

Robert Traylor
Cleveland Cavaliers
Position: F-C
Height: 6-8 Weight: 284
College : Michigan '99
Player file | Team stats

2004-05 Statistics
PPG 5.5
RPG 4.5
APG .8
SPG .73
BPG .68
FG% .444
FT% .539
3P% .000
MPG 17.9

 

[Amaretotheline_]

Raef would be awesome, the Suns would have no need to go after Hunter if they could get him.

 

[lancelet's cousin]

If the Celts are barely over tha cap it would make no sense to release Raef.

The amnesty clause is an extreme move for teams that deperately need to save luxury tax spending. Releasing Raef means they still are over the cap, must pay his contract while losing his services, and strengen another team for pennies on the dollar. They won't do that to save a relatively small sum of money.

Releasing people like Houston or Finley saves tens of millions, not so in this case.

I agree with Joe Mama on this one, he's not going anywhere.

 

[HooverDam]

Raef would be awesome, the Suns would have no need to go after Hunter if they could get him.

I would hope they would try to get both Hunter and Raef, since they bring different things to the table.

But I agree, I kind of doubt the Celtics would use this clause on Raef unless maybe they sign an expensive free agent.

Not to derail, but I just had a thought about Hunter. Maybe someone has mentioned this before but: Has Hunter already turned down his option for sure? If so, I suppose he can't go back on that. Anyway, my thought was that the Suns should try to convince Hunter that they want him, but because of big useless contracts (Eisley, Voskhul) they cant. So sign him for cheap for one year, let him prove himself some more, and then give him what he wants after next year.

 

[Folster]

Does anyone know if there's some kind of deadline for when these players have to be dropped?

According to ESPN's Chad Ford the date is OCT. 1

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&id=2098094&contentType=insider&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba%2fcolumns%2fstory%3fcolumnist%3dford_chad%26id%3d2098094%26contentType%3dinsider

If I was a GM I would wait until the last possible moment to waive my guy just to throw a wrench into the plans of other teams. On the other hand that would be pretty messed up to do that to a player and would probably get you a bad rep around the league.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Question on this?

Does a team actually have to be over the tax cap now to take advantage of this?

For instance, if the Suns sign JJ and Amare, they will likely be over the tax cap in two years. If they had a big salary player with a long contract, that really isn't producing now, it might be good to waive that player now, so you wouldn't have to pay the tax down the road.

For the Suns, they really don't have a player like that. Voshkul would be the logical one, but his deal is done before Amare's new deal starts. It would be worthwhile to waive Eisley's deal, just because, but we waived him already, so I don't think that would count.

Anyway, if potential future cap liablity is kept in mind, you might end up with more players getting walking papers.

 

[HooverDam]

Question on this?

Does a team actually have to be over the tax cap now to take advantage of this?

.

Im 99% sure you have to be over the cap THIS year. The Suns probably wont be over the cap, and even if they are it wont be by much. Lets assume for instance that we cant find a way to move Voskul and we end up a bit over the cap, I think it would probably be more advantageous to the Suns to keep him on the team than save the small amount they'd be paying in luxury tax.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Im 99% sure you have to be over the cap THIS year. The Suns probably wont be over the cap, and even if they are it wont be by much. Lets assume for instance that we cant find a way to move Voskul and we end up a bit over the cap, I think it would probably be more advantageous to the Suns to keep him on the team than save the small amount they'd be paying in luxury tax.

But we would save more next yeart, when JJ's contract kicks in.

 

[sunsfn]

The salaries with the Celtics may not reflect what is going to happen yet. They may sign some players and that would put them further up in dolars where they might waive LaFrenz.

Have the Cletics used their MLE yet? I do not think they have.

 

[Joe Mama]

The salaries with the Celtics may not reflect what is going to happen yet. They may sign some players and that would put them further up in dolars where they might waive LaFrenz.

Have the Cletics used their MLE yet? I do not think they have.

even if they do use the mid-level exception and re-sign Walker to a deal around $5 million per they aren't going to be more than $2-3 million over the luxury tax. if they were going to waive somebody a would probably be Blount, and I seriously doubt they would even waive him.

Joe Mama

 

[sunsfn]

even if they do use the mid-level exception and re-sign Walker to a deal around $5 million per they aren't going to be more than $2-3 million over the luxury tax. if they were going to waive somebody a would probably be Blount, and I seriously doubt they would even waive him.

Joe Mama

Joe,
in the article the basis for this is this,
----------------------------------------------
They say the Celtics may drop him because they are going to have to pay big deals to Al Jefferson and Kendrick Perkins. They refer to them as two young studs.
-------------------------------------------------

Rmember, this is a one year, one time deal, if the Cletics do not do it now they can not do it next year.
As far as trading him, he is overpaid and they would have a hard time trading him.

-

 

[Joe Mama]

Joe,
in the article the basis for this is this,
----------------------------------------------
They say the Celtics may drop him because they are going to have to pay big deals to Al Jefferson and Kendrick Perkins. They refer to them as two young studs.
-------------------------------------------------

Rmember, this is a one year, one time deal, if the Cletics do not do it now they can not do it next year.
As far as trading him, he is overpaid and they would have a hard time trading him.

-

yeah, that seems like sound logic until you actually look at the numbers. I have a hard time believing any team would pay a big man who played well last season $42 million + over the next four years in order to possibly save $12 million in 2008 or something like that. I think it's much, much, much more likely that they plan on trading LaFrentz or Paul Pierce in a year or two if not sooner.

Joe Mama

 

[coloradosun]

yeah, that seems like sound logic until you actually look at the numbers. I have a hard time believing any team would pay a big man who played well last season $42 million + over the next four years in order to possibly save $12 million in 2008 or something like that. I think it's much, much, much more likely that they plan on trading LaFrentz or Paul Pierce in a year or two if not sooner.

Joe Mama

You have to add playing time into the equation. If LaFrentz is making big money he isn't going to be happy with a little playing time.

If they are going offer big money for Jefferson and Perkins, they will want to get them to a point where they produce results for the money. The only way to assure yourself that they will produce is to give them as much time on the floor as possible as soon as possible.

This is a one time offer by the league and some teams will want to take advantage of it. LaFrentz's contract is overvalued and he is not a good trade commidity, I can see Boston letting him go.

 

[Joe Mama]

You have to add playing time into the equation. If LaFrentz is making big money he isn't going to be happy with a little playing time.

If they are going offer big money for Jefferson and Perkins, they will want to get them to a point where they produce results for the money. The only way to assure yourself that they will produce is to give them as much time on the floor as possible as soon as possible.

This is a one time offer by the league and some teams will want to take advantage of it. LaFrentz's contract is overvalued and he is not a good trade commidity, I can see Boston letting him go.

Even if you take playing time into account that doesn't change the fact that the Boston Celtics are unlikely to be much over the luxury tax until 2008, and that's assuming the luxury tax stays at around $56 million. I can't imagine they would pay Raef LaFrentz or anybody $30 million + until 2008 to play on another team just so they can save $13 million in that last year of his contract.

Joe Mama

 

[George O'Brien]

There is an article in the Rocky Mounttain News stating that the teams have until Oct 1 to get the exemption. In other reports, Mark Cuban hasn't decided what he is going to do with Finley.

 

[Joe Mama]

There is an article in the Rocky Mounttain News stating that the teams have until Oct 1 to get the exemption. In other reports, Mark Cuban hasn't decided what he is going to do with Finley.

That's right. The teams do have until October 1 to make the decision. I know there is some risk that you would make players unhappy by releasing them just before the deadline making it more difficult for them to latch on with a contender. If I was an owner I wouldn't care. I know this sounds contradictory to my feelings about trading someone who has just been signed, but this is quite different. The owner is still responsible for paying the player all of his money. Michael Finley is going to get over $50 million over the next three seasons to play with another team.

I'm with whoever it was who said that they couldn't believe the rest of the owners agreed to this rule. If I remember correctly a New York Knicks executives was one of the three or four owners representatives who hammered out the deal in the end. I'm almost positive this was his contribution to the negotiations.

If Dallas releases Michael Finley and when the New York Knicks release Allan Houston it is going to cost the rest of the teams in the NBA more than $3 million over the next 2-3 seasons. even though it might end up helping the Phoenix Suns I think this is a terrible rule, and I'm shocked that most of the owners agreed to do it.

Joe Mama

 

[sunsfn]

I am thinking that there will be some deals made over this.

If there is a team that is thinking about releasing a player for the purpose of saving some money, but they also would just like to get the player off their team so other players could play more minutes, they may try to do some kind of trade with other players, or draft picks.

In other words, if the Celtics were thinking of releasing LaFrentz because of salary and playing other players, but the money saved was not significant, the teams could do something like exchanging places in the draft and adding a 2nd round pick etc., or they could trade other players where the Celtics have a definite advantage. But the suns get to sign the player released to a minumum contract that would really help their team. The suns would have a deal in place before the player is released to sign him and this would benefit both teams.

This kind of agreement could take place immediately, and it would solve player problems for both teams in reference to their next years roster moves.

Of course there can be no trades with the primary player invoved, because that would involve many players because of the salary problem.
I am not saying some of these players will not be traded, but not likely with their high salary.

-