Lee a better candidate for amnesty than Biedrins

Yesterday I wrote that if Warriors owner Joe Lacob reallywanted to make good on his promise to make a bold move, he should considerusing the amnesty clause on forward David Lee, and erasing 68.5 million overfive years from the teams cap.The thrust of the post was this: If Lacob really wanted tochart a new course for the Warriors, now would be the time to do it. The tableis set beautifully to do such a thing.
Received some responses from people, saying that if theWarriors were going to go that route -- the overhaul -- then why not amnesty center AndrisBiedrins, set to earn 27 million over the next three seasons?Biedrins has been awful the past two seasons, andthere are no indications hes getting better anytime soon. Its just tough toenvision him turning it back around here. Love to see it, dont see ithappening.So, why then wouldnt you amnesty Biedrins? Well, two reasons.First, Lee would be a better use of the amnestyfrom amath and bottom line perspective. What is expected to happen when a player isamnesty-ed is that the NBA teams that are under the salary cap will have achance to bid for the players services.The waived players salary comes off the teams cap, weknow, but were talking about real dollars here. Anyway, the team that bids themost money gets the player, and then the Warriors make up the difference in theplayers overall compensation.If the Warriors used the amnesty provision on David Lee,there would definitely be teams interested. And why not? Hes a good playerwith a legitimate skill set. Nobodys denying that. The issue, however, is howmuch cap room hes taking up on the Warriorstoo much, and its going tohamper them going forward.But the larger point is that using amnesty on Lee doesntmean you have to eat 65 million. Not at all.Ill bet you there are teams out there that would want apiece of David Lee for 30 or 40 million over five years. Maybe somewhere Leeis the third-best player on the team, maybe even No. 4. Then you havesomething.Anyway, maybe you only end up having to pay half of Leesmoney. But youre not going to have to eat it all. But lets also make anotherpoint about Lacob and his ownership group. Hes called his ownership groupamong pro sports most dynamic and with pockets as deep as any other ownershipgroup.If thats really the case, eating 65 million is simply thecost of business, no? But again, the Warrior wouldnt have to eat it all.Bottom line is using the amnesty clause on Lee is a biggerbang for the buck (cap-relief wise) than Biedrins.But theres another reason to amnesty Lee instead ofBiedrins when playing the Whom to Amnesty? game: Biedrins is easier to tradethan Lee, so if youre going for a legitimate overhaul, the two moves can worktogether.Hey, Biedrins has been pretty lousy, no doubt. But everycontending team in the league wants as many big men as they can get, and someteam will absolutely want Biedrins. Now, dont expect the sun, moon and starsfor him in return, but you come out of it with a serviceable player and capreliefdynamite.Lee, on the other hand, youd have to trade with his 65million in tow, and thats a flat turnoff for every team. Like I said, theresa lot to like about Lee in another situation at less money. Thats my explanation of why Id rather use the amnestyclause on Lee rather than Biedrins. Though it just came to me that it likelydoesnt matter. Just cant see Warriors using the amnesty clause on either oneof them. Lee and Biedrins will actually be paid slightlyless than those figuresLee about 65-ish million and Biedrins about 25million or sobecause this years salaries will be pro-rated. Teamsusually play an 82-game schedule; this seasonbecause of the lockoutits a66-game schedule.