I think the Jazz are making it amicable and that a scenario like this one may have been discussed before he even signed the deal. I’m also pretty sure the league pays a substantial portion of a veteran’s minimum deal and I’m not sure you can negotiate money returned.Full agreement except for the "asked out" part. If Green's demands were the impetus behind it, it only stands to reason that they would have negotiated a buy-out. Reports are that he walked with the full 2.5 mil.
I hadn't heard that, but I hope you're correct about the league paying a portion of the vet's minimum cause otherwise it just seems like a rash decision. I doubt anyone will claim him off waivers and ease our financial burden. I wonder if he'd still require to be paid the vet minimum once he clears waivers. Not sure how that works.I think the Jazz are making it amicable and that a scenario like this one may have been discussed before he even signed the deal. I’m also pretty sure the league pays a substantial portion of a veteran’s minimum deal and I’m not sure you can negotiate money returned.
Wrong. If he gets picked up, it doesn't matter when, his new salary will get deducted from ours and we only pay the difference, and since he's on the minimum, that's guaranteed to be nothing. And there's not a big market for minimum-salary guys, so they don't get traded very often on their own.Those that say we're freeing up money - WRONG!!!! We're eating the guys' full 2.5 mil according to sources unless somebody claims him within 48 hrs which I think is unlikely.
So let me get this straight, you're saying that because he's on the minimum, if he gets signed this year "whenever" the debt comes off our books? Is that the way it works? If so great because team' sites are already showing interest on the net.Wrong. If he gets picked up, it doesn't matter when, his new salary will get deducted from ours and we only pay the difference, and since he's on the minimum, that's guaranteed to be nothing. And there's not a big market for minimum-salary guys, so they don't get traded very often on their own.
Needs to do it for a while and know he’s getting those min. He’s also still developing
Yep. Normally cutting a guy costs money, because if they sign for the minimum (most teams are over the cap and can only offer the minimum anyway), that leaves you on the hook for the difference.So let me get this straight, you're saying that because he's on the minimum, if he gets signed this year "whenever" the debt comes off our books? Is that the way it works? If so great because team' sites are already showing interest on the net.
You and idiots like you said the same of Ingles. I think I called you and others idiots then too. Once an idiot always an idiot.I thought we don’t have time for development... You know win now ???
Creating more time for this stiff is going to be a disaster. If we don’t trade for another big body we’re fooked
I thought we don’t have time for development... You know win now ???
Creating more time for this stiff is going to be a disaster. If we don’t trade for another big body we’re fooked