Comments on: NBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement effect on the Pistons: Amnesty Clause

By: detroitpcb

detroitpcb — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 18:47:47 +0000

basically all we have is the midlevel after we sign our own players

By: tarsier

tarsier — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 18:26:52 +0000

Because he is Joe Dumars and Stuckey is his golden boy. He didn’t use his leverage for Gordon, Rip, or Billups. Villanueva, on the other hand, at least makes sense in that if he thought CV was his guy, he had to offer higher than the MLE to get him. Why would we expect him to for Stuckey?

By: tarsier

tarsier — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 18:23:52 +0000

The reason amnestying someone (Rip or Gordon) makes sense is that there is such a logjam at SG. Yeah, explore whether either can be traded. But if not, cutting one of them should increase the trade value of the other. Does anyone really think that all the malcontentedness of last season was all Kuester’s fault and that because Lawrence Frank says the right things at first and the orgnaization says the right things about him (you know, just like Kuester or Curry), he will be able to get much out of Stuckey, Knight, Rip, and Gordon? And that’s completely ignoring Bynum who really deserves some minutes too. Give me a break and get rid of one of these guys. I don’t care if it’s through trade or amnesty, but the release of either Rip or GOrdon would be addition by subtraction, no matter which coach you got.

By: Waulie

Waulie — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:52:05 +0000

Nice write up. The only quibble I have is regarding Stuckey’s estimated salary of $7.5 million. Being restricted, I think the most likely scenario is that Stuckey doesn’t receive any contract offers. Certainly, nobody is going to tie up their MLE for 3 days knowing perfectly well that Dumars will match it anyway. So, what team with cap space is going to offer Stuckey $7.5 million? If none, which I think is basically a lock, why would Dumars offer him $7.5 million?