Bonn1997 wrote:That's good advice for him but not for us if he's looking to come back for the vet min.
For vet minimum you might want to look at someone else who is much healthier. Why would you want to add Roy with his injury history and all. All you would be doing us investing in false hope. This move would be "clumsy".
Vmart wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:That's good advice for him but not for us if he's looking to come back for the vet min.
For vet minimum you might want to look at someone else who is much healthier. Why would you want to add Roy with his injury history and all. All you would be doing us investing in false hope. This move would be "clumsy".
You can wave him at any point if he has problems. People on the league min get waived regularly. You can wave him after the first few practices, in the preseason, etc. The talk about him being bone-on-bone is nonsense. He wouldn't be able to walk without severe pain if he were bone on bone. Here is a good article:
http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/11/15/18...
Bonn1997 wrote:Vmart wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:That's good advice for him but not for us if he's looking to come back for the vet min.
For vet minimum you might want to look at someone else who is much healthier. Why would you want to add Roy with his injury history and all. All you would be doing us investing in false hope. This move would be "clumsy".
You can wave him at any point if he has problems. People on the league min get waived regularly. You can wave him after the first few practices, in the preseason, etc. The talk about him being bone-on-bone is nonsense. He wouldn't be able to walk without severe pain if he were bone on bone. Here is a good article: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/11/15/18...
Nice article Bonn we definitely don't have enough info but we do know he retired because of it. I think that is huge piece of evidence to not take a chance. As far as waiving him the Knicks aren't In a position to take a chance like that since they need to use that vet minimum on a player that can contribute right away, since Shump is going to be a question until after next year. Put it this way we aren't going to see the Shump we saw maybe until November 2013. JR Smith might opt out which leaves the Knicks without a SG. Remember Fields is a FA too. In your heart can you truly rely on Roy to bring it every night, you can't. Put it this way I would take a chance on Allen Iverson or Gilbert Arena before Roy.
Vmart wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Vmart wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:That's good advice for him but not for us if he's looking to come back for the vet min.
For vet minimum you might want to look at someone else who is much healthier. Why would you want to add Roy with his injury history and all. All you would be doing us investing in false hope. This move would be "clumsy".
You can wave him at any point if he has problems. People on the league min get waived regularly. You can wave him after the first few practices, in the preseason, etc. The talk about him being bone-on-bone is nonsense. He wouldn't be able to walk without severe pain if he were bone on bone. Here is a good article: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/11/15/18...
Nice article Bonn we definitely don't have enough info but we do know he retired because of it. I think that is huge piece of evidence to not take a chance. As far as waiving him the Knicks aren't In a position to take a chance like that since they need to use that vet minimum on a player that can contribute right away, since Shump is going to be a question until after next year. Put it this way we aren't going to see the Shump we saw maybe until November 2013. JR Smith might opt out which leaves the Knicks without a SG. Remember Fields is a FA too. In your heart can you truly rely on Roy to bring it every night, you can't. Put it this way I would take a chance on Allen Iverson or Gilbert Arena before Roy.
Unless it changed, you can use as many vet mins as you want to, unless you're thinking of the MLE. The vet min, as I understand it, just means the minimum amount you are allowed to pay veteran players (as opposed to players still on rookie contracts).
Yes can sign as many vet minimums as they need to full out a roster without cap penalty. So its basically just the league minimum.
I think the problem is when you have to RELY on a player that has healthy issues. So long as you aren't solely dependent on that player logging heavy minutes, it shouldn't be a problem to simply add a guy like Roy. The problem we had is that the team lacked depth and so we had to rely on guys like Baron to play more minutes than they should.
Case in point is McGrady, who is only playing the amount of minutes he can handle. If the Hawks were desperate and had to play him more minutes it would not be a good thing. I don't know what Roy's limits would be but that is something the team would have to take into consideration. It's a tough decision but there's really very little downside. It's not like we'd be locked into big money as we are with Amar'e. I think Roy in limited minutes could be a big plus.
vet minimum is a no brainer. but will he want to come here? he'll probably get multiple offers at that salary
