Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 163
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    No my position is all teams are affected because no team plans on a cap reduction.

    Now you are shifting to what I hope would happen rather than the reality. Of course no owner would want this because it would mean money out of their own pocket to stave off a huge cap reduction or 'borrowing' against the future earning of the league to offset spending more now. Owners are smart guys that understand this stuff and wouldn't do it. But if I had a seat at the table of both sides I would be arguing the benefits of it. Also that article doesn't indicate anything against cap smoothing being defeated to that level.
    The article doesn't indicate anything against cap smoothing, because there isn't going to be any...

    Again, The key phrase in the article is:

    "The luxury tax generally rises and falls with the salary cap. A lower luxury-tax line could burden many teams and produce a tremendous advantage for the teams with lower payrolls."

    Therefore, 24 or 25 teams gain a "tremendous advantage" (with respect to competition) and 5 or 6 teams are screwed.

    In other words, Nets, Sixers, GSW, Lakers and Rockets are screwed and all the others "gain a tremendous advantage", with the Clippers only under a question mark in which side they would co-line with.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    59,840
    Quote Originally Posted by mouseslept View Post
    The article doesn't indicate anything against cap smoothing, because there isn't going to be any...

    Again, The key phrase in the article is:

    "The luxury tax generally rises and falls with the salary cap. A lower luxury-tax line could burden many teams and produce a tremendous advantage for the teams with lower payrolls."

    Therefore, 24 or 25 teams gain a "tremendous advantage" (with respect to competition) and 5 or 6 teams are screwed.

    In other words, Nets, Sixers, GSW, Lakers and Rockets are screwed and all the others "gain a tremendous advantage", with the Clippers only under a question mark in which side they would co-line with.
    Actually the article points to cap smoothing being a possible solution.

    And so all teams are affected....and your set of teams “screwed” isn’t as long as it should be. There’s plenty of teams that might not be hitting the tax but will operate far closer to the tax, thought they would have cap wiggle room that won’t have it, and thought they would have the ability to over pay to retain a player that will struggle to justify paying.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,170
    If they add an amnesty I hope there’s some alternative that helps teams who don’t have a big contract to get rid of without sacrificing talent. An amnesty clause unfairly favors Philly and Golden State. The Warriors got a better asset than D-Lo was worth because they took on the future tax hit for Wiggins. An amnesty basically means they make out like bandits. Philly willingly set themselves up for a bad luxury tax future by splurging on Horford because they incorrectly thought he would be a short term boost. An amnesty would wipe out the long term sacrifice they willingly made and not even hurt them in the short term because they were wrong.

    I think if there’s an amnesty clause you should also have the option to have your tax number count at what it was previously projected or something like that. Because there are lots of teams that planned to those numbers and might not have candidates to amnesty without taking a huge hit in competitiveness.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Actually the article points to cap smoothing being a possible solution.

    And so all teams are affected....and your set of teams “screwed” isn’t as long as it should be. There’s plenty of teams that might not be hitting the tax but will operate far closer to the tax, thought they would have cap wiggle room that won’t have it, and thought they would have the ability to over pay to retain a player that will struggle to justify paying.
    You are wrong to relate the lux tax threshold with the willingness of a team to gain a "tremendous advantage" with respect to the competition.

    The Cs for instance, they would want to pay the lux tax for this following season, because they will then won't be under threat to pay it again for ages after and will have all their core roster locked and will never (within the visible future) be under threat to become repeaters tax eligible ending up to contend for ever.

    The Bucks are a similar case, they can retain all their roster this following season and still be under the lux tax threshold (despite a possible threshold decrease) and even improve further via trades. The Bucks know already that they will have to pay the lux tax another season later because of Giannis renewal, but they have already planned to stay over the tax for three continuous seasons, they will (hope to) land three consecutive championships in Milwaukee and then have timed Middleton's contract to expire before they ever become repeaters tax eligible, then back to be under the tax, hopefully resign Middleton at a lower contract (he will be 32 when his current contract expires) and then repeat the process contending for titles for all the following decade!

    Therefore it's more to the picture than first sight, there are teams which gain a "tremendous advantage" because they are no where near the lux tax threshold and the salaries of their renewals will drop thus gaining capital and there are other teams which gain a "tremendous advantage" because they lock their ability to contend with much less competition to challenge them being around.
    Last edited by mouseslept; 07-01-2020 at 09:47 AM.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    If they add an amnesty I hope there’s some alternative that helps teams who don’t have a big contract to get rid of without sacrificing talent. An amnesty clause unfairly favors Philly and Golden State. The Warriors got a better asset than D-Lo was worth because they took on the future tax hit for Wiggins. An amnesty basically means they make out like bandits. Philly willingly set themselves up for a bad luxury tax future by splurging on Horford because they incorrectly thought he would be a short term boost. An amnesty would wipe out the long term sacrifice they willingly made and not even hurt them in the short term because they were wrong.

    I think if there’s an amnesty clause you should also have the option to have your tax number count at what it was previously projected or something like that. Because there are lots of teams that planned to those numbers and might not have candidates to amnesty without taking a huge hit in competitiveness.
    You are correct (!) to use phrases like "make it out like bandits" and implement that it would be unfair for all others. But it's still more to it!

    When some teams don't pay for their arrogance and willingness to buy a championship than working to win it, it means that somebody else pays their toilet waists!!! It gets much worst, because if they ask for an amnesty, it practically means that they are asking for all others to fund them out of their pockets!

    it's certainly outrageous to ask for others to get screwed because you have your pants down and think that "it is fair"... It's their bottom, they should have taken more care to protect it!

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    59,840
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    If they add an amnesty I hope there’s some alternative that helps teams who don’t have a big contract to get rid of without sacrificing talent. An amnesty clause unfairly favors Philly and Golden State. The Warriors got a better asset than D-Lo was worth because they took on the future tax hit for Wiggins. An amnesty basically means they make out like bandits. Philly willingly set themselves up for a bad luxury tax future by splurging on Horford because they incorrectly thought he would be a short term boost. An amnesty would wipe out the long term sacrifice they willingly made and not even hurt them in the short term because they were wrong.

    I think if there’s an amnesty clause you should also have the option to have your tax number count at what it was previously projected or something like that. Because there are lots of teams that planned to those numbers and might not have candidates to amnesty without taking a huge hit in competitiveness.
    I’m of two feelings on this:
    1) Theyve never done anything like that in the past. Maybe there’s a team that benefits in that way now that didn’t in the past, or won’t in the future. What would be “unfair” so to speak with this is is the GSW were the beneficiary of the cap jump and the amnesty when no other team was.

    2) If done with some form of cap smoothing (to say like $102-106 mil) the amnesty would let some teams avoid the tax, but not necessarily be under the cap. So soothing the cap could be the “advantage” gained by having an amnesty.

    Ultimately I don’t know what the real answer is here. I don’t know if there is one because there’s going to be pros and cons with everything. Even just doing a one year waiving of the tax then reimplement it a touch higher. I don’t think this is something that could have ever been even planned for to know and say “here’s how we move forward”.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    59,840
    Quote Originally Posted by mouseslept View Post
    You are wrong to relate the lux tax threshold with the willingness of a team to gain a "tremendous advantage" with respect to the competition.

    The Cs for instance, they would want to pay the lux tax for this following season, because they will then won't be under threat to pay it again for ages after and will have all their core roster locked and will never (within the visible future) be under threat to become repeaters tax eligible ending up to contend for ever.

    The Bucks are a similar case, they can retain all their roster this following season and still be under the lux tax threshold (despite a possible threshold decrease) and even improve further via trades. The Bucks know already that they will have to pay the lux tax another season later because of Giannis renewal, but they have already planned to stay over the tax for three continuous seasons, they will (hope to) land three consecutive championships in Milwaukee and then have timed Middleton's contract to expire before they ever become repeaters tax eligible, then back to be under the tax, hopefully resign Middleton at a lower contract (he will be 32 when his current contract expires) and then repeat the process contending for titles for all the following decade!

    Therefore it's more to the picture than first sight, there are teams which gain a "tremendous advantage" because they are no where near the lux tax threshold and the salaries of their renewals will drop thus gaining capital and there are other teams which gain a "tremendous advantage" because they lock their ability to contend with much less competition to challenge them being around.
    Your post has completely nothing to do with my original point. The cap and tax going down affects every team. Everything you are saying is antidotal at best.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Your post has completely nothing to do with my original point. The cap and tax going down affects every team. Everything you are saying is antidotal at best.
    Yes it does affect every team! (At least) on 24 teams out of the 30, it gives them a "tremendous advantage" over the five (or six) that are screwed!

    It doesn't take a maths degree to be able and add, it's rather simple arithmetics!

    The Nets by adding KD and Kyrie, the Lakers by forcing an AD trade and the Sixers by paying huge and wasting their capital on Butler with no return got screwed, the Rockets insist to risk on experiments and GSW pays the penalty of winning titles with an ultra expensive team which no one else could afford to have!

    Now all the rest are raving on their arrogance turning against them and say "let them burn"! it's fair, ain't it?

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    59,840
    I don’t even get what you are arguing anymore. NBA teams should be screwed by a cap altercation that no one predicted when they made these moves?

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    59,840
    Basically back in Sept 2018 the NBA announced the a projected cap and tax for the 2020-21 season was to be $118 million and $143 million. Teams have been operating for 18+ months with those numbers in mind.

    Suddenly we have an unforeseen impact to not only the 20-21 season BRI which could lower the cap to $98 million but also the tax to $123 million or lower. No team was anticipating that happening and if you claim they were then I call bull **** to a massive degree. According to those numbers it would be 7 teams with active cap over the tax and 7 teams under the cap. Looking at total cap it would be 23 teams over the tax threshold and no teams under the cap.

    By advocating doing nothing you aren’t saying to teams you made your bed now lie in it. Your saying you want to actively **** over franchises for ***** and giggles.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    I don’t even get what you are arguing anymore. NBA teams should be screwed by a cap altercation that no one predicted when they made these moves?
    it's not me that is arguing on anything, it's you that is arguing on the obvious and the obvious is that a cap alteration to the lower, benefits the teams which can take the reduction with no losses of assets and screws the teams that couldn't even survive if it would stay as it was projected to be before, but have to part with their assets and start a (partial or total) rebuilt.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    59,840
    Quote Originally Posted by mouseslept View Post
    it's not me that is arguing on anything, it's you that is arguing on the obvious and the obvious is that a cap alteration to the lower, benefits the teams which can take the reduction with no losses of assets and screws the teams that couldn't even survive if it would stay as it was projected to be before, but have to part with their assets and start a (partial or total) rebuilt.
    Huh? That has nothing to do with my original point.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,562
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Basically back in Sept 2018 the NBA announced the a projected cap and tax for the 2020-21 season was to be $118 million and $143 million. Teams have been operating for 18+ months with those numbers in mind.

    Suddenly we have an unforeseen impact to not only the 20-21 season BRI which could lower the cap to $98 million but also the tax to $123 million or lower. No team was anticipating that happening and if you claim they were then I call bull **** to a massive degree. According to those numbers it would be 7 teams with active cap over the tax and 7 teams under the cap. Looking at total cap it would be 23 teams over the tax threshold and no teams under the cap.

    By advocating doing nothing you aren’t saying to teams you made your bed now lie in it. Your saying you want to actively **** over franchises for ***** and giggles.
    /thread

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    59,840
    Quote Originally Posted by NBA all the way View Post
    /thread
    Every now and then we see eye to eye. When we do <3 haha.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Basically back in Sept 2018 the NBA announced the a projected cap and tax for the 2020-21 season was to be $118 million and $143 million. Teams have been operating for 18+ months with those numbers in mind.
    No they were not, cap projections were already reduced by Feb. the 7th deadline as they ought to be so that the teams could know what to do by the trade deadline. Additionally, an extra week of transactions was added (it ended yesterday) where teams could waive contracts and add cheaper ones for every team which would want to adjust their roster for this season and curry it to the next. If no team waived a contract, that's their choice and responsibility on how they proceed thereafter.
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Suddenly we have an unforeseen impact to not only the 20-21 season BRI which could lower the cap to $98 million but also the tax to $123 million or lower. No team was anticipating that happening and if you claim they were then I call bull **** to a massive degree. According to those numbers it would be 7 teams with active cap over the tax and 7 teams under the cap. Looking at total cap it would be 23 teams over the tax threshold and no teams under the cap.
    How many teams would be over the lux tax threshold and how many teams didn't plan to be over the lux tax threshold deliberately whatever the cap threshold would be? Did you account for that?

    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    By advocating doing nothing you aren’t saying to teams you made your bed now lie in it. Your saying you want to actively **** over franchises for ***** and giggles.
    No... all am saying (and the NBC article agrees with) is that 24 (or 25) teams won't be willing to finance their "enemies", but will want to "kill" them instead, because they are now on a tremendous advantage and will use the opportunity to their favour just like the 5 (or 6) teams which are now screwed would do (and did in the past) if the situation was the other way around.

    You really expect the Cs and the Bucks to fund the Nets or the Sixers? Really?

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •