There will be an amnesty clause

[chenaren]

Should JO be cut? 

[JSD]

Should JO be cut?  

JO has one year remaining at short money and he's our starting Center with limited depth at that position. Why in God's name would he be cut?

[Celtics18]

No.

[Who]

Should JO be cut? 

If Jermaine O'Neal was amnestied ... would that give the C's enough wiggle room financially to offer the full MLE + re-sign Jeff Green and possibly Glen Davis too?

If so, that may be worth some consideration.

[goCeltics]

Should JO be cut? 

If Jermaine O'Neal was amnestied ... would that give the C's enough wiggle room financially to offer the full MLE + re-sign Jeff Green and possibly Glen Davis too?

If so, that may be worth some consideration.

If you do that to your restricting yourself to a 74 million hard cap beyond which u couldn't sign veteran minimums but possibly only free agent rookies i think.

 

[bruinsandceltics]

Should JO be cut? 

If Jermaine O'Neal was amnestied ... would that give the C's enough wiggle room financially to offer the full MLE + re-sign Jeff Green and possibly Glen Davis too?

If so, that may be worth some consideration.

No it wouldn't. Because there is no reason Glen Davis should be back.

[JSD]

Should JO be cut? 

If Jermaine O'Neal was amnestied ... would that give the C's enough wiggle room financially to offer the full MLE + re-sign Jeff Green and possibly Glen Davis too?

If so, that may be worth some consideration.

[tyrone biggums]

I would love to the see the Celtics wave Vin Baker once again, for old times sake.

[Marcus13]

We don't benefit from cutting anyone this year and the clause can only be used once throughout the length of the CBA...it will be saved

[Chris]

I think it depends on JO's health.  If he is reasonably healthy, you have to keep him, simply because there is no one else there as good as a healthy JO, that they could get to replace him.

[droopdog7]

We don't benefit from cutting anyone this year and the clause can only be used once throughout the length of the CBA...it will be saved

Interesting.  I figured since there was no reason to use it now, we'd lose that right altogether.  It will be good to have it in our back pocket but even then, I am not sure the Celts will find themselves in need of it within six years.  But you never know I suppose.

And as far and JO, of course not.  No reason to use it on a guy on his last year.  Period.

[LooseCannon]

And as far and JO, of course not.  No reason to use it on a guy on his last year.  Period.

There is if that player doesn't add anything to your team and it either saves you luxury tax money or creates cap space to allow you to sign another player.


For the Celtics, the amnesty clause is mainly insurance against an injury to Rondo or Pierce.

[hpantazo]

I would love to the see the Celtics wave Vin Baker once again, for old times sake.

I second the motion!

[JSD]

For the Celtics, the amnesty clause is mainly insurance against an injury to Rondo or Pierce.

Yeah, this is definitely a good way to look at the clause. Though I think our savvy GM may try to get a little more creative.

[Jon]

If by miracles of all miracles, JO is healthy this year, he's still arguably a top 10 center.  He also just only turned 33 (Paul's age) and the high school argument isn't really relevant with him, as he played less than he would've four years in college his first four years in the NBA with Portland. 

Now granted, that's a longshot, still as JO proved last year, even when only partly healthy, he's still a heck of a defender and better on offense than many on this board would given him credit for.  The last thing this team needs is to be looking for 2 centers this offseason. 

Cutting him absolutely isn't an option.