Can someone explain why the Jazz waived Perkins?

[mrob]

It's the nature of guaranteed contracts that some players will end up getting money that they don't really merit anymore. And, because of trades, sometimes that money will end up being paid by teams that have no interest in that player. In this particular case, the Jazz had no interest in Perkins and his salary was part of price of moving Kanter and to make the salaries match to allow a trade.

I think these questions still illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened in the Kanter trade. Due to the status of his contract, we really weren't trading the player. There is a big difference between trading a player that has several years on a contract and one who will be open for bids at the end of this season. In these scenario, Kanter was likely gone at the end of the season regardless. Everybody knew this. There was no "fair value" to be had in this trade and we agreed to accept OKC's dead weight to make it happen.

We didn't want Perkins. We didn't really have a need for him. He was a bargaining chip and we bought him out.

 

[JFFR]

Thanks for the responses. Maybe I should have been mute specific in my question. I'm trying to figure out the logistics of it. Do we know for sure the Jazz saved money by buying him out? If so, how much money? Does the NBA give any insight to the public on these matters? (obviously the Utah Jazz won't share any info.)

I figure they save money, otherwise why not pull a Raja Bell on him.

 

[Former Member]

Thanks for the responses. Maybe I should have been mute specific in my question. I'm trying to figure out the logistics of it. Do we know for sure the Jazz saved money by buying him out? If so, how much money? Does the NBA give any insight to the public on these matters? (obviously the Utah Jazz won't share any info.)

I figure they save money, otherwise why not pull a Raja Bell on him.

Yes. The Jazz agreed to buy perkins out of his contract minus the minimum salary requirement with which he would have signed with the Cavaliers. The Jazz probably saved about 1 million (prorated I would have imagined).

Jazz save a bit of coin. Young'uns get to play.

 

[Beer]

He sucks *** at everything and I doubt he'd want to accept a miniscule role.

 

[b_line]

Thanks for the responses. Maybe I should have been mute specific in my question. I'm trying to figure out the logistics of it. Do we know for sure the Jazz saved money by buying him out? If so, how much money? Does the NBA give any insight to the public on these matters? (obviously the Utah Jazz won't share any info.)

I figure they save money, otherwise why not pull a Raja Bell on him.

Jazz saved money because whatever the cavs pay him gets taken out of the total they pay him. Other reasons include not being a jerk to the player, and remaining a viable option for future players to not be scared of getting Raja Bell'd. They also want to have the roster spot to try out D League guys like Jack Cooley. There is virtually no benefit to sitting perkins for the rest of the season.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Thanks for the responses. Maybe I should have been mute specific in my question. I'm trying to figure out the logistics of it. Do we know for sure the Jazz saved money by buying him out? If so, how much money? Does the NBA give any insight to the public on these matters? (obviously the Utah Jazz won't share any info.)

I figure they save money, otherwise why not pull a Raja Bell on him.

Besides the money, there are tons of reasons. You don't need a "vet" on the team to teach the young players how to suck.
You don't want a bad attitude on the team. You want to keep Homeytennis happy by keeping a spot open in order to cycle through D-League players throughout the year.

Is that enough?

 

[mrob]

Thanks for the responses. Maybe I should have been mute specific in my question. I'm trying to figure out the logistics of it. Do we know for sure the Jazz saved money by buying him out? If so, how much money? Does the NBA give any insight to the public on these matters? (obviously the Utah Jazz won't share any info.)

I figure they save money, otherwise why not pull a Raja Bell on him.

I would imagine that it was enough money that we were willing to accommodate him so that he could sign with a team right away. Otherwise, it would have made more sense financially to put him on waivers to see if we could get another team to take on his salary. Problem is that for that much money, there was unlikely to be any takers for more than the minimum, so might as well just buy him out.

 

[VINYLONE]

Sorry to bring up an old topic.

So what benefit do the Jazz get for letting Perkins go? Did they not have to pay as much? I don't really understand NBA salary rules. Is there anywhere I can go that offers a good explanation?

Thanks.

Because I believe that's the only reason he would approve to be traded...unless I am mistaken.