PDA

View Full Version : Does the tax even matter?



warfelg
07-03-2017, 07:59 AM
So this morning I was cruising twitter and saw this:
881716245422276609

We were lead to believe that the tax was going to be a tool that was so strong that teams would avoid it because it wouldn't be possible. Meanwhile we're going to be hitting record highs in teams paying the tax, total tax dollars paid, and a record high team salary. Just an example of an upcoming record breaking tax bill:
881661684624052224

So the question becomes:
Does the tax even matter? Is it really working if this many teams are breaking it? Should the next CBA have even stronger taxes if they can't implement a harder cap?

lakerfan85
07-03-2017, 09:10 AM
Apparently not.. There should be a rule in place for ownership to the effect of, if your team isn't making a profit for 5 plus years then you're not allowed to go over the luxury tax threshold.. Take a look at the Cavs for example: They lost 40 million dollars for the 2015/16 season and they won it all... I see a lockout coming when the next CBA rolls around..

metswon69
07-03-2017, 09:32 AM
The NBA is making record revenue and the value of franchises are skyrocketing faster than any other sport (aside from the NFL). I dont think owners are worried in the slightest bit where the money is coming from so there is not much apprehension about spending it.

This is why guys like Otto Porter are offered 100+million dollar contracts.

LA4life24/8
07-03-2017, 09:45 AM
Yeah thats what i was gonna say, they are generating such revenue atm they dont even care about luxury tax that much esp the big franchises. I mean having harsher luxury taxes will it hurt the sport and the ratings ? Probably, because a lot of casual fans like this whole super team building chit going on atm they like to see stars play w other stars

Now do real bball fans like this? Ehh prolly not necessarily but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

And besides where does the luxury tax go to? The nba and where does the nba spend it? Revenue sharing and putting it back into the league... its not like its being taken away from the nba all together or something so its not a huge huge deal these owners are so rich they can spend a few hundred mill a season and not care lol

lucky bastards

BKLYNpigeon
07-03-2017, 09:59 AM
Yes of course it matters, that's why the warriors will be trading on of their stars in 2 years.

Cavs spent 56m last year and he Nets spent 80m a few years back.

thomass
07-03-2017, 09:59 AM
I mean if the extra revenue out weighs the tax...

warfelg
07-03-2017, 10:06 AM
I'm not talking about from an owners perspective. I'm talking from the NBAs perspective. The tax was meant to be a discouraging factor in signing multiple stars.

So to me, the fact that owners can be in the tax and still make money shows the tax system isn't strong enough.

And all of you saying if the revenue out weighs the tax are only backing up the point. The tax doesn't matter.

tredigs
07-03-2017, 10:29 AM
I'm not talking about from an owners perspective. I'm talking from the NBAs perspective. The tax was meant to be a discouraging factor in signing multiple stars.

So to me, the fact that owners can be in the tax and still make money shows the tax system isn't strong enough.

And all of you saying if the revenue out weighs the tax are only backing up the point. The tax doesn't matter.
Do you actually think the Warriors will pay 200 million in tax? They won't. It's a fluid market and they will adjust as necessary. Yes, of course the tax matters.

AllBall
07-03-2017, 10:34 AM
What's a an extra $100 million to an owner worth $31 BILLION?

Dade County
07-03-2017, 10:41 AM
Do you actually think the Warriors will pay 200 million in tax? They won't. It's a fluid market and they will adjust as necessary. Yes, of course the tax matters.

So who do you think they trade or don't re-sign?

warfelg
07-03-2017, 10:44 AM
Do you actually think the Warriors will pay 200 million in tax? They won't. It's a fluid market and they will adjust as necessary. Yes, of course the tax matters.

Why do you think this is about one team? The first tweet I linked showed that about half the teams will be in the tax next offseason. The Warriors are just projected to be the worse offenders.

tredigs
07-03-2017, 10:52 AM
Why do you think this is about one team? The first tweet I linked showed that about half the teams will be in the tax next offseason. The Warriors are just projected to be the worse offenders.

I'm responding to your example?


So who do you think they trade or don't re-sign?
Klay.

metswon69
07-03-2017, 10:59 AM
What's a an extra $100 million to an owner worth $31 BILLION?

Its technically not supposed to work that way. Owners aren't using profits from their other business endeavors to financially support a franchise. The NBA revenue alone is supposed to be enough money that teams can afford 100+ million dollar payrolls while still making a profit.

Scoots
07-03-2017, 11:44 AM
So this morning I was cruising twitter and saw this:
881716245422276609

We were lead to believe that the tax was going to be a tool that was so strong that teams would avoid it because it wouldn't be possible. Meanwhile we're going to be hitting record highs in teams paying the tax, total tax dollars paid, and a record high team salary. Just an example of an upcoming record breaking tax bill:
881661684624052224

So the question becomes:
Does the tax even matter? Is it really working if this many teams are breaking it? Should the next CBA have even stronger taxes if they can't implement a harder cap?

You said elsewhere that only Warriors fans were predicting the "big 4" would stay beyond 2 years ... and here you posted ESPN having them stay together ... that $20M jump, yikes.

Teams go in and out of the tax all the time which proves it works. The question should be which of the teams in the tax this year are repeaters. The Warriors were not in the tax last year so they are not, but they absolutely will be after that, and the Cavs and Blazers are ... but who else? THAT's the real disincentive of the tax line.

Scoots
07-03-2017, 11:46 AM
So who do you think they trade or don't re-sign?

Let's stay on topic :)

Ahriman
07-03-2017, 11:50 AM
I think half the NBA being in the luxury tax is more about GMs having poor long term vision during the cap jump. Seeing Kanter get 4/70, Mahinmi get 4/64 or Noah 4/72 (not even mentioning Mozgov :)) makes you wonder if they considered the cap increase would slow down at some point, which it seems they did not

Hopper15
07-03-2017, 11:57 AM
I'm responding to your example?


Klay.

I doubt it. I guarantee Lacob wants that core four when they move into that new SF arena.

BKLYNpigeon
07-03-2017, 12:13 PM
Crappy GMs are convincing teams to overspend to keep talent in the team. They keep winning in the short term so they don't get fired.

warfelg
07-03-2017, 12:23 PM
Crappy GMs are convincing teams to overspend to keep talent in the team. They keep winning in the short term so they don't get fired.

Agreed. Which to me shows the tax not working.

metswon69
07-03-2017, 12:24 PM
Agreed. Which to me shows the tax not working.

What's the incentive for the players to institute a harder cap or larger luxury tax repercussions?

See that's the thing with CBAs. If the players are going to agree to this in hopes of restoring some competitive balance, you have to give them ways they can make up for the loss in potential salaries.

LA4life24/8
07-03-2017, 12:25 PM
But this also part of the players fault too...they pushed for these higher and higher contracts knowing some team would give it to them knowing said player wouldnt go to said team other wise

and what are teams gonna do? They have to have players? And theres a floor minimum to the cap as well they have to meet.

warfelg
07-03-2017, 12:35 PM
What's the incentive for the players to institute a harder cap or larger luxury tax repercussions?

See that's the thing with CBAs. If the players are going to agree to this in hopes of restoring some competitive balance, you have to give them ways they can make up for the loss in potential salaries.

That's for people far smarter than ourselves to figure out.

Although the easiest trade off I can think of:
Players agree to harder tax (harder to spend over the limit)
Owners agree to drop max contracts (star players get paid actual value)

warfelg
07-03-2017, 12:36 PM
But this also part of the players fault too...they pushed for these higher and higher contracts knowing some team would give it to them knowing said player wouldnt go to said team other wise

and what are teams gonna do? They have to have players? And theres a floor minimum to the cap as well they have to meet.

Cap floor penalty in NBA is nearly taking the difference between what you spent and the floor and dividing it between everyone on the roster.

That's not a penalty at all.

metswon69
07-03-2017, 12:42 PM
That's for people far smarter than ourselves to figure out.

Although the easiest trade off I can think of:
Players agree to harder tax (harder to spend over the limit)
Owners agree to drop max contracts (star players get paid actual value)

You would have to do more than that because star players make up only a small % of the league.

BKLYNpigeon
07-03-2017, 12:55 PM
At the end of the day it's a business.

Some teams are better at it then others. Some owners are richer then others. Players will always collude and want to play for the bigger markets. At the end of the day it's entertainment.

There's no such thing as parity in the world or anything we do. I don't know why we look for it in the NBA.

Scoots
07-03-2017, 01:16 PM
That's for people far smarter than ourselves to figure out.

Although the easiest trade off I can think of:
Players agree to harder tax (harder to spend over the limit)
Owners agree to drop max contracts (star players get paid actual value)

But the players union likes the max contract, it's only the superstars who don't like it and they don't have enough votes to get rid of it.

tredigs
07-03-2017, 02:18 PM
I doubt it. I guarantee Lacob wants that core four when they move into that new SF arena.

Depends on the development/price of McCaw, potential free agent/trade acquisitions, whether they win the next two titles, etc. It's tough to imagine them spending 100+ million in taxes, but if they're printing championships along with gargantuan 10 year contracted season ticket sales in the new arena I guess they could afford it.

Scoots
07-03-2017, 02:36 PM
Depends on the development/price of McCaw, potential free agent/trade acquisitions, whether they win the next two titles, etc. It's tough to imagine them spending 100+ million in taxes, but if they're printing championships along with gargantuan 10 year contracted season ticket sales in the new arena I guess they could afford it.

They stopped trading away draft picks so they will have 2 first round picks before Klay's contract comes up too.

Hopper15
07-03-2017, 03:22 PM
Depends on the development/price of McCaw, potential free agent/trade acquisitions, whether they win the next two titles, etc. It's tough to imagine them spending 100+ million in taxes, but if they're printing championships along with gargantuan 10 year contracted season ticket sales in the new arena I guess they could afford it.

If anything McCaw in all likelihood is the one that could be the casualty of the luxury tax. If he gets a big offer sheet next summer he'll be gone.

Sactown
07-03-2017, 03:33 PM
We'll have to wait for the repercussions of repeating tax offenders , how will Portland feel paying the luxury tax and missing the playoffs? The bubble will burst, how will GSW feel about spending 1.2 Billion over 4 years in tax alone?

Raps18-19 Champ
07-03-2017, 03:35 PM
I don't like that it takes the money out of the owners hands directly to the league (when it should be going to the players).

There should be a higher cap and make it a hardcap with massive incentives that drive players to sign with their own team. Ie a Player can sign $300 mil over 5 years with their own team or $180 mil over 4 years outright somewhere else. If you sign that $300 mil contract, you can't be traded for 2 years or something. Or if you get traded within that 2 years, you have to forfeit a ton of money.

Change the bird rules so that you don't have guys signing the 1+1 deals, which try to circumvent those rules.

tredigs
07-03-2017, 03:47 PM
We'll have to wait for the repercussions of repeating tax offenders , how will Portland feel paying the luxury tax and missing the playoffs? The bubble will burst, how will GSW feel about spending 1.2 Billion over 4 years in tax alone?

Lol. GS won't. You guys are myopic as ****.

metswon69
07-03-2017, 03:51 PM
I don't like that it takes the money out of the owners hands directly to the league (when it should be going to the players).

There should be a higher cap and make it a hardcap with massive incentives that drive players to sign with their own team. Ie a Player can sign $300 mil over 5 years with their own team or $180 mil over 4 years outright somewhere else. If you sign that $300 mil contract, you can't be traded for 2 years or something. Or if you get traded within that 2 years, you have to forfeit a ton of money.

Change the bird rules so that you don't have guys signing the 1+1 deals, which try to circumvent those rules.

This makes a lot more sense if you want some parity and stars not pairing up to the extent they are. If you increase the cap and create a larger disparity in terms of salary for players staying with their team than going to another team in FA, you'll have more players stay where they're at.

Also limit the amount of guys you can use Bird rules on.

KB24PG16
07-03-2017, 04:07 PM
revenue sharing needs to stop

Bowman53
07-03-2017, 04:15 PM
Depends on the development/price of McCaw, potential free agent/trade acquisitions, whether they win the next two titles, etc. It's tough to imagine them spending 100+ million in taxes, but if they're printing championships along with gargantuan 10 year contracted season ticket sales in the new arena I guess they could afford it.

He'll be gone before Klay.

Scoots
07-03-2017, 04:27 PM
Really, the CBA just changed, we need to wait a few years to see how the last round of changes effects the way the teams are run.

hugepatsfan
07-03-2017, 04:38 PM
I wonder when NBA players will start doing what baseball players do. Those guys used to sign pre-FA extensions to lock in security early. Then they started taking loss-of-value insurance policies out. That way they can go to FA rather than extending early.

In the NBA players always play out their 4 year rookie deals. Then rather than sign an RFA tender they extend. Then their next deal is the one they look to leave on. I wonder if eventually they start signing those loss of value policies, playing out their tender, then forming super teams in their absolute prime.

HandsOnTheWheel
07-03-2017, 05:08 PM
Exactly why a hard cap needs to be implemented or just do away with the salary cap altogether.

Not sure they took into account the increased revenue/TV deals, etc. when agreeing to the last CBA, thus making these tax penalties way less harsh then they were supposed to be. Then like others have mentioned, the players negotiating these deals are the Chris Pauls and the players who want to make the most amount of money they can before they retire as well, allowing for these ridiculous contracts.

HandsOnTheWheel
07-03-2017, 05:15 PM
Problem is, is that Owners/Front Offices can't fathom removing the cap altogether and paying players even larger amounts of money and still build a winning team that will sell tickets, especially small market owners to some extent. Then on the other end of the spectrum players get greedy and want nothing to do with a hard cap because they want to get paid ridiculous money while still being able to team up to circle jerk their buddies. Gotta love unions.

Dade County
07-03-2017, 05:39 PM
I wonder when NBA players will start doing what baseball players do. Those guys used to sign pre-FA extensions to lock in security early. Then they started taking loss-of-value insurance policies out. That way they can go to FA rather than extending early.

In the NBA players always play out their 4 year rookie deals. Then rather than sign an RFA tender they extend. Then their next deal is the one they look to leave on. I wonder if eventually they start signing those loss of value policies, playing out their tender, then forming super teams in their absolute prime.

I've thought about these young players not extending too & just playing out that one year.

Never thought about the insurance part though so that's a very good idea.

I was thinking Ball would do that if the Lakers didn't draft him.

Scoots
07-03-2017, 05:53 PM
I've thought about these young players not extending too & just playing out that one year.

Never thought about the insurance part though so that's a very good idea.

I was thinking Ball would do that if the Lakers didn't draft him.

Or they just refuse to work out for anyone, sign a 1 year non-guaranteed 2nd round deal and rely on their own excellence to get to their big deal sooner ... oops CBA doesn't allow that to happen either.

tredigs
07-03-2017, 06:19 PM
KD just re signed for 26 mil per on a 2 year. He is a hero.

lakerfan85
07-03-2017, 06:25 PM
revenue sharing needs to stop

Agreed..

JasonJohnHorn
07-03-2017, 06:48 PM
Well... it hurts some teams more than others. But when you win, you make more money, so I guess the motivation is to win.

The Thunder could be winning titles right now with Durant, Westy, Harden, and Ibaka, but instead all they have is Westy because they didn't want to pay up for fear of approaching the luxury tax (when they could have just traded Harden off were that to be an issue when it came up).

The Warriors put a winner together and they are paying to keep it together. The Lakers and the Knicks, and the Bulls could do the same, but I mean... even the Bulls... who have money to spend, are stingy as all hell.


It matters... it's just not working the way it should. That said... that luxury tax gets split up over all the teams no? So the teams that profit the most and spend it share their revenue with other teams? I thought that was how it worked.

Cracka2HI!
07-03-2017, 08:12 PM
It kills bad front offices like The Clippers.

EDIT: Actually the salary cap killed Doc. He couldn't even figure that out.

Scoots
07-03-2017, 08:18 PM
Well... it hurts some teams more than others. But when you win, you make more money, so I guess the motivation is to win.

The Thunder could be winning titles right now with Durant, Westy, Harden, and Ibaka, but instead all they have is Westy because they didn't want to pay up for fear of approaching the luxury tax (when they could have just traded Harden off were that to be an issue when it came up).

The Warriors put a winner together and they are paying to keep it together. The Lakers and the Knicks, and the Bulls could do the same, but I mean... even the Bulls... who have money to spend, are stingy as all hell.


It matters... it's just not working the way it should. That said... that luxury tax gets split up over all the teams no? So the teams that profit the most and spend it share their revenue with other teams? I thought that was how it worked.

The tax is split between all teams that are not tax payers. Meaning all of the people complaining about "small market teams" and the tax ... those small market teams are EACH going to get $20M from the Warriors in a couple years.

Mr.B
07-04-2017, 12:50 PM
I'm not talking about from an owners perspective. I'm talking from the NBAs perspective. The tax was meant to be a discouraging factor in signing multiple stars.

So to me, the fact that owners can be in the tax and still make money shows the tax system isn't strong enough.

And all of you saying if the revenue out weighs the tax are only backing up the point. The tax doesn't matter.

It will matter once teams start becoming repeat offenders of going over the cap. As the penalties increase each year owners will be scrambling to dump these contracts they're doling out now. Billionaires didn't become rich by being ok with losing money. The Russian guy that owned the Nets figured that out within a couple of years. The Warriors owner will figure it out soon too. Now if they can squeeze out a couple more titles before then it would be worth it I'm sure.

Mr.B
07-04-2017, 12:54 PM
I'm responding to your example?


Klay.

Klay for sure, and I could even see Green being a cap casualty at some point within the next 3 years.