The Chicago Bulls will indeed use the amnesty clause to release Carlos Boozer and remove his $16.8 million salary from their cap sheet, according to multiple reports.
Carlos Boozer released by Bulls via amnesty clause, according to report
The much-maligned Bulls forward will not be on their cap sheet next year. Teams can bid on him to pick up the remaining part of his contract.


Bulls say goodbye to Carlos Boozer. Have used amnesty provision. Teams will be able bid for him.
— Sam Smith (@SamSmithHoops) July 15, 2014 Chicago informed Carlos Boozer and his agent, Rob Pelinka, this morning that it would use amnesty clause today, source tells Yahoo.
— Adrian Wojnarowski (@WojYahooNBA) July 15, 2014 The move was long expected because Chicago needed to clear his salary to make room for new acquisitions Pau Gasol and Nikola Mirotic. Teams can use the clause one time over the course of the collective bargaining agreement to remove a player from their cap sheet that was signed prior to 2011, though they still need to pay the difference between the player's current salary and whatever new figure he signed with another team. The Bulls had hoped to trade Boozer because owner Jerry Reindsorf was reluctant to pay Boozer to not play for Chicago, but couldn't find any takers.
NBA Deals
Any team under the salary cap can now bid for Boozer using a process akin to a silent auction. Charlotte and Atlanta, both of whom have lots of money left to spend, appear to be the early favorites. Should no team make a bid within 48 hours, Boozer becomes a free agent that can be signed by any team using available cap exceptions.
Boozer was signed to a five-year, $82 million deal by Chicago once it missed out on LeBron James in 2010 and immediately began a slow decline from his All-Star days in Utah. He averaged just 13.7 points and 8.3 rebounds per game last season and was benched in many fourth quarters for Taj Gibson. Boozer has always been a reliable post scorer, but his game has drifted further outside in recent years and he's always been a poor defender.
Nevertheless, he may have been a convenient scapegoat in Chicago for a lot of larger problems. In a smaller role at a smaller salary, he remains a useful player. He just never matched the price that Chicago paid for him back in 2010.











