I'm absolutely fine with using our various exceptions and non-guaranteed contracts to take on contracts other teams don't want. What I'd like to emphasize, however, is bad contracts can still be useful players. Their contracts are just larger than their use, and the team getting rid of them has a better use for those dollars (including their owners not Amnestying or being willing to pay the luxury tax.) Houston doesn't want to pay for Lin and Asik any more? Sign me up. Asik fills a void on last year's team, and Lin takes Bayless' role. Both of those players are useful, improve our team, and don't cost any future assets, so we can try to get a star again next summer, while improving for next season. If we get a draft pick to boot, all the better.
OKC wants to rid themselves of Perk? Fine. Perk again fills a role on this team, and if we get a first rounder, sign me up. Boozer costs too much for Chicago, but they don't want to amnesty? Bass plus non-guaranteed contracts will save them $10 million. Sign me up if we get pick #16 or #19 this year. Boozer is a useful player, probably better than Bass. He's just not $17 million useful.
There are a host of players like this. Taking bad contracts does not necessarily mean tanking. It can mean improving next year's team at no cost of future assets, or maybe even gaining assets. There's no reason to trade Rondo in this scenario, or even Green. It does not cost future cap space, so we can try again next summer, with an even better position than this summer.