Stevie Franchise on his way out ...

by BlazersPro on Jul 2, 2007 1:42 AM PDT

LA Times reporting the Clippers are looking to sign a bought out Steve Francis for the mid-level exception.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/clippers/la-sp-clippers2jul02,1,714414.story?coll=la-he adlines-sports-nba-clippe&ctrack=2&cset=true

According to the LA Times, a buyout has already been negotiated through Francis' agent, and the Clippers would be looking to sign him next week. Will post more on this if I see any more information.

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

YEAHHHHH!!!!

Make it so! Make it so!

by JPop on Jul 2, 2007 2:02 AM PDT reply actions

even at a full mid-level replacing what we owe him he still counts as $23 million against our cap for the next couple of years. The good news is...well...no mixed feelings about having Steve Francis. He would probably be a better fit with the Clips.

--Dave

by Dave on Jul 2, 2007 2:14 AM PDT reply actions

better

to pay 23 million and not have him than to pay 33 million and have him. The Clips actually need him so I wish him luck there.

by JPop on Jul 2, 2007 3:40 AM PDT up reply actions

It's possible he waived the 2nd yr

to get out of NY. We would then owe him 16 million. The report says the Clips want to sign him for part of their exception, so if he signed for 3 years at 3 million, we'd only owe him 11.5 million this year and nothing next year.

He wouldn't give up that much money! you say. But if he could get out of NY (where he absolutely hated it), go anywhere he wants, and still collect 2 paychecks this year for a total of 14.5 million, he could very well have done that.

I trust Pritchard and Penn could pull something like this off...

by Blazerholic on Jul 2, 2007 3:59 AM PDT up reply actions

Actually

I think half of his salary at the next team comes off the cap.

So if we buy him out and he signs for the full MLE, we get 2.5m off the cap.

Not enough to make a huge difference, I know, but still...

Plus we might get a favorable buyout from him.

- Sam

by Samuelson on Jul 2, 2007 7:32 AM PDT up reply actions

The way I read the rule

it said, "Whatever the parties agree to as a buyout counts against the cap, divided over the number of years remaining on the contract." Maybe that's incorrect though. I assumed that if he could sign for $5 million per year he'd agree to shave $5 million per year off of the buyout price, leaving us $10 million less to pay him.

--Dave

by Dave on Jul 2, 2007 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions

You read it correctly. However, I thought I read

that his 2nd year was a player option. If he waives that player option, the number of years remaining on the contract is 1 - this year. Also, it's true that half the new team's salary comes off the buyout, but it's the total salary. Therefore, if he signs for 3 years at 3 million, that's 9 million, and half of that is 4.5 million.

by Blazerholic on Jul 2, 2007 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions

We have to use this as leverage

If there is a team out there ready to hand Francis the mid-level, it seems like we have to use it as leverage to get Francis to waive his player option. As in, "Stay with us and have a limited role (if any role at all), or waive that second year, lose a few million, and play a significant role on a team that wants you." I hate the idea of buying out two years from Francis so that he can go to a competitor. If we're paying for two years from him, then keep him for two years. Honestly, I could even see using him as an instant-offense, backup shooting guard off of the bench. Like a more talented Juan Dixon. If he was willing to accept that role, I think he would thrive in it. So basically, I would lay out his options as, come in and play a role off the bench, sit out for two years, or waive that second year, let us buy out your first year, and go play for the Clippers.

by HarryManback on Jul 2, 2007 7:31 AM PDT reply actions

It would be nice to extract something...

out of ANYONE in saying goodbye to Frnacis. However, Francis is really the one with the leverage. He can show up and collect his check and the Blazers would either keep him, or buy him out. No one will be trading for him at his current compensation.

Best case scenario is to get Francis to take a slight reduction in the buyout to get to a city that actually WANTS him and will let him play. Let's not be greedy here.

by Cant Teach Height on Jul 2, 2007 7:48 AM PDT reply actions

He'll still get paid.

If Francis does opt out of his player option for the second year and takes a mid-level exception this year and next year after receiving full compensation for this year, it WILL amount to a slight reduction in pay. The mid-level is what...5.5m? 6m? If you pay him in full for this year, he loses maybe $4 million (which he would be likely to give up in a buy-out anyway).

I don't think it's accurate to say we have no leverage. We have him under contract. He can't play unless we let him. Sitting out for two years would basically end his career. Unless he's prepared to call it quits at age 30, he'll be motivated to work something out. And if he's not, then don't buy him out. What good does it do us to buy him out rather than just inactivate him and send him home?

by HarryManback on Jul 2, 2007 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions

In theory, I completely

agree with you. I've always been opposed to teams giving a player almost of their salary to walk away. Sit then on the bench if the player won't take a deep discount to be set free.

Unfortunately, that never happens. Even a few seasons ago, the Bulls told Tim Thomas to go home, and paid him to stay there. They traded him to Phoenix at the deadline and it obviously didn't hurt Thomas. He conned the Clippers into giving him big money. The Bulls had the guy talking to the media and being a pain for the entire season. It was ugly and I can't imagine too many teams want to deal with the ditractions. Plus, if he's not injured he'll want to travel with the team and be on the roster. Having him around is cancer for the team. Finally, if you force him to stay away, you'll likely have the player file a grievance with the Players Union.

by Cant Teach Height on Jul 2, 2007 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions

That's fine.

If Francis wants to get paid to do nothing, pay him to do nothing. It's what the inactive list is for. Do the same thing the Bulls did with Thomas and the 76ers did with Iverson--just say, "I don't want to see you. Go away." The Blazers are allowed to inactivate anyone they want. They're still paying him. I don't see how the Players Union comes into it. Frankly, if you sign a guaranteed contract you have to take the good with the bad--the good is you get paid no matter what. The bad is that the team owns you and can do with you what they please. There is no guarantee in that contract about playing time.

I'm just saying, the Blazers have no obligation to pay him to go play for someone else. And they have no obligation to let him play or be with the team. So we have the power. The worst he can do is make a fuss in the media--it's not like he'll be with the team messing things up in the locker room. So I'm against a buy-out unless it helps the Blazers in some way (namely, clearing cap space next year).

by HarryManback on Jul 2, 2007 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions

If the Blazers buy him out,

does that not free up a roster spot?

Seems they have more players than spots now with all the draft picks. Wouldn't want one occupied by someone they have no interest in playing or even having at practice.

by bbfred on Jul 2, 2007 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions

Well, we still have Darius

One boat-anchor on the roster is enough.

That said, I wouldn't expect all of our picks, even excluding the Euros, to make the team. Oden's a lock, for sure. McRoberts and Green aren't locks--and many think that Taurean Green rode the coattails of Noah/Brewer/Horford, and isn't all that good--which would make him this year's Anderson Hunt.

by EngineerScotty on Jul 2, 2007 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions

Nate likes Green's game

and they went ahead and picked him over some others and didn't trade the pick. That's good enough for me...

by Blazerholic on Jul 2, 2007 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions

Even with the D-League

there will, be at least 3 players who won't even be in the rotation. It's a nice problem to have too much talent, but it might come down to buying out Francis AND making a two for one trade as well.

by Cant Teach Height on Jul 2, 2007 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions

With the Lakers in decline...

...and a chance to play at Staples...a very tempting draw for Stevie.

"...though you may fail...aim at something high." Henry David Thoreau

by Dr Dave on Jul 2, 2007 8:07 AM PDT reply actions

Yikes...

That makes the Clippers a pretty scary team...

by Champs2009 on Jul 2, 2007 8:28 AM PDT reply actions

I've been meaning to post a diary about this

I thought the Clippers might of been a possible trading partner for the Blazers. They have a SERIOUS need at PG with Sam being 38 years old and his body breaking down and Shaun Livingston being out for possibly all next season. They have 3 SF's also in Tim Thomas, Corey Magette and Al Thornton, but I doubt we would want either Magette (horrible FG% and 3pt shooting) or Tim Thomas (old).

I do realize though that this is just a destination for Francis after his buyout, and the article doesn't mention us being trading partners with the clips.

by WarEaglePDX on Jul 2, 2007 8:41 AM PDT reply actions

it's funny how

here and there are these players like tim thomas who in a certain sense have "gamed" the system. jalen rose is another. both have have had big contracts and basically been paid not to play, during years when they're healthy and still have ability, at least on offense....

but they're deemed more trouble than they're worth. just because of their big mouths?

and in portland, darius miles......

ignacio

by ignacio on Jul 2, 2007 9:18 AM PDT reply actions