# Bobcats waive Ben Gordon after playoff eligibility ends



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...-deal-charlotte-bobcats?ex_cid=espnapi_public

I guess this is not unexpected. Truthfully Gordon wasn't terrible when he got minutes, but I see no reason not to part ways with him



> The Charlotte Bobcats and Ben Gordon are closing in on a buyout agreement that will make the veteran guard a free agent, a source close to the situation told ESPN.com's Ramona Shelburne.
> The 30-year-old Gordon is under a $13.3 million contract for this year after the team picked up his option for 2013-14 in June. He would become a free agent as soon as a buyout is completed and he clears waivers.
> Gordon, whose tenure with the Bobcats begain in 2012-13, has seen limited minutes in recent weeks, averaging 5.3 points in 14.4 minutes per game this season.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

*Bobcats waive Ben Gordon after playoff eligibility ends*



> Buyout season is technically over, even though NBA players can still be waived through the end of the season. But any player who had waivers requested on him by his team after March 1 is ineligible for postseason play, as per the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Any veteran looking to find a new team after the trade deadline is officially out of luck as of Sunday, including Ben Gordon.
> 
> A day after the last possible playoff eligibility, the Charlotte Bobcats announced they've requested waivers on guard Ben Gordon, who is in the last year of his contract. From the Bobcats:
> 
> ...


http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24464178/bobcats-waive-ben-gordon-after-playoff-eligibility-ends


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Did Ben just not want to play so they did it a day late?

Only reason that makes sense to me.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

R-Star said:


> Did Ben just not want to play so they did it a day late?
> 
> Only reason that makes sense to me.


My guess is that Gordon refused to give back any money for the buyout, so Charlotte held on to him until he was no longer playoff-eligible. He's been an occasional malcontent in Charlotte and no longer serves a purpose with Gary Neal in tow, so simply getting him off the roster makes sense.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Do players normally give money back? I've never paid much attention to buyouts. 

Is it just a negotiation between the player and the team, where a player could give back most of the term if they really wanted out to play with a contender?


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Dirty dirty dirty

Although Im not sure any contender would want him anyways


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

He must have wanted the money more than he wanted to play. I'd bet that he might have known that no playoff teams cared if he did.

The reason teams agree to buy outs is to save money. Players do it because they want to play meaningful games. Gordon has been kind of a bitch here at any rate, possible that this is personal. I wouldn't put it past MJ to do it out of spite if Gordon gave him a reason.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

R-Star said:


> Do players normally give money back? I've never paid much attention to buyouts.
> 
> Is it just a negotiation between the player and the team, where a player could give back most of the term if they really wanted out to play with a contender?


Yea, typically they agree to some reduced amount that saves the team money in exchange for being released from a situation that no longer makes sense. They don't typically give back a _ton_ of money, although that's happened, but just enough that the savings make it worthwhile for the team releasing them.


----------

