Bell to be Amnestied

[NCJazz]

I agree with all of that.

Reason to amnesty: salary will not count against our salary cap/luxury tax.If we waive him it still will. He has a guaranteed contract. This will help to perhaps go after another cheap FA. The amnesty clause only lasts for about a week I think. Perhaps he could be in a throw in in a trade, but realistically speaking who would want Bell after his miserable performance last year?As others have said Bell is the last player amnestying makes any sense for. Dont think we would blow close to 10 million on Harris. Plus Harris is still a servicable player.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Reason to amnesty: salary will not count against our salary cap/luxury tax.If we waive him it still will. He has a guaranteed contract. This will help to perhaps go after another cheap FA. The amnesty clause only lasts for about a week I think. Perhaps he could be in a throw in in a trade, but realistically speaking who would want Bell after his miserable performance last year?As others have said Bell is the last player amnestying makes any sense for. Dont think we would blow close to 10 million on Harris. Plus Harris is still a servicable player.

Jazz are over the cap and well under the luxury tax. Bell won't drop the Jazz under the cap, and signings via cap exceptions won't put the Jazz over the tax. No financial incentive whatsoever to amnesty Bell. Doesn't matter if he's paid to be on the roster while sitting at home or cut or amnestied. Doesn't matter.

 

[NCJazz]

Jazz are over the cap and well under the luxury tax. Bell won't drop the Jazz under the cap, and signings via cap exceptions won't put the Jazz over the tax. No financial incentive whatsoever to amnesty Bell. Doesn't matter if he's paid to be on the roster while sitting at home or cut or amnestied. Doesn't matter.

Hmmmm, in that case it will reduce our luxury tax which will indeed save us money. You have some interesting math.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Hmmmm, in that case it will reduce our luxury tax which will indeed save us money. You have some interesting math.

We don't have any luxury tax because we aren't over the luxury tax, right?

 

[cctrackstar]

Hmmmm, in that case it will reduce our luxury tax which will indeed save us money. You have some interesting math.

..................but we aren't over the tax, so we aren't paying any extra tax. However because we aren't under the cap, amnestying Raja won't get us any new flexability.....

Anyway, what duck says is right and I get it.

(way to go duck)

 

[GVC]

While I don't think Belll should be in a Jazz uniform next season (and think it was a mistake to sign him again at all), wasting a one-time only amnesty on an expiring $3m salary doesn't make sense and seems like a waster. Would make much more sense to just waive him or trade him for a future pick or a Euro that will never come over.

1. No one is trading anything for Raja.

2. There is no one else to use the amnesty on, so the Jazz are better off amnestying him than they are waiving him (for cap reasons AND in the unlikely case someone makes a small bid for him).

 

[NCJazz]

1. No one is trading anything for Raja.

2. There is no one else to use the amnesty on, so the Jazz are better off amnestying him than they are waiving him (for cap reasons AND in the unlikely case someone makes a small bid for him).

Amen. I find it strange anyone would be against amnestying him.

 

[gregbroncs]

Comparitively Bell makes very litte and is expiring - I can't believe no one will take him.

BTW, while I'm intrigued by this news about amnesty on Bell - I'll believe it when I see it and not one second before.

Really? I can believe no one will take him. He looked worthless for the Jazz this year. He is old and broken. And even when healthy he is a terrible player. What does he have that any team would want?

 

[Dr. Jones]

What's the rule re: how many times a team can amnesty? Sorry .. for not knowing.

 

[infection]

What's the rule re: how many times a team can amnesty? Sorry .. for not knowing.

Are you wanting to amnesty him twice, just to be sure?

 

[Stifle Tower]

bell has definitely been a distraction.

and i honestly expected the amnesty news at some point. as others have pointed out, the other expiring contracts at least have some trade value, both now and into the season. bell is someone the jazz have to be rid of before the start of camp.

that said, i'd be surprised if they used the amnesty clause on him NOW. there's a lot of offseason left and, even though i doubt anybody is interested in paying bell 3.3M, you might as well keep that card in your hand and only discard it when you have to. maybe when teams start striking out on their plan A, B and C guys you have someone willing to give you a second. or maybe you have a trade and the numbers don't quite work out so you need a little bit of a throw-in. or if those things don't happen, THEN you amensty his ***, but you lose absolutely nothing by waiting until later in the offseason to do it.

Yes. Agree w/ everything.
I wish there were an "auto-rep" feature on this board. Seems like every time you post you make solid points/arguments.

 

[mellow]

Really? I can believe no one will take him. He looked worthless for the Jazz this year. He is old and broken. And even when healthy he is a terrible player. What does he have that any team would want?

Old, broken, false sense of entitlement, confrontational, abrasive, but back in '05 he close-lined kobe.