Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 163
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    4,617
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Every now and then we see eye to eye. When we do <3 haha.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    San Jose, Ca.
    Posts
    681
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    If they add an amnesty I hope thereís some alternative that helps teams who donít 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 thereís 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.
    If there was an amnesty clause, I am not even sure the Warriors would use it on Wiggins. It is not like cutting his contract would put them under the cap where they could sign a viable replacement for his position. The only advantage to cutting his contract would be for the owner to save money.

    The Warriors are trying to see if they can squeeze another championship out of this core, and cutting Wiggins would all but kill those chances. They already need a C, backup SF, and backup PG. This would add starting SF to that list. There is no way they would be able to fill all those spots this off season. The owner said he is willing to pay to win. If he cut Wiggins, He would be telling his fans that he was lying.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by Allphakenny1 View Post
    If there was an amnesty clause, I am not even sure the Warriors would use it on Wiggins. It is not like cutting his contract would put them under the cap where they could sign a viable replacement for his position. The only advantage to cutting his contract would be for the owner to save money.

    The Warriors are trying to see if they can squeeze another championship out of this core, and cutting Wiggins would all but kill those chances. They already need a C, backup SF, and backup PG. This would add starting SF to that list. There is no way they would be able to fill all those spots this off season. The owner said he is willing to pay to win. If he cut Wiggins, He would be telling his fans that he was lying.
    Of course he is lying... There is no way GSW will end this season over the lux tax threshold, other than Curry, Thompson, Chriss, Poole and the picks in the upcoming draft, no other is secure with the team, not even Green.

    The Warriors will be coming back another season later, when the repeaters tax threat will have been postponed for good.

    LOL, next time somebody will troll people with a Giannis to GSW "discussion", I'll troll him back with a Curry to the Bucks "discussion"!

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    50,621
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Than-Most View Post
    there has to be something to get out of a bad contract coming up because of the virus... on top of that the sixers have the ability to trade embiid or simmons rather easily for a ton.
    trade Joel to the Knicks.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    4,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Allphakenny1 View Post
    If there was an amnesty clause, I am not even sure the Warriors would use it on Wiggins. It is not like cutting his contract would put them under the cap where they could sign a viable replacement for his position. The only advantage to cutting his contract would be for the owner to save money.

    The Warriors are trying to see if they can squeeze another championship out of this core, and cutting Wiggins would all but kill those chances. They already need a C, backup SF, and backup PG. This would add starting SF to that list. There is no way they would be able to fill all those spots this off season. The owner said he is willing to pay to win. If he cut Wiggins, He would be telling his fans that he was lying.
    Plus they still have that Iggy TPE to use.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,830
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    All teams are affected the most on this because this isn't something anyone could have planned for. NBA teams don't look at their operations year by year. They look 5-6 years down the line, and a cap drop was not anticipated. We're going to see what teams are really set to succeed.

    There is one guy out there I can think of that teams need to be scrambling to do what they can to get Sam Hinkie on board for a consulting role. His ability to find players was pretty darn good, and teams that are going to be in the tax will need the help of filling out a roster with cheap players.

    On the other parts here, the NBA and NBPA need to work together on a cap smoothing program here. Hopefully the players learned their lesson last time ownership showed them and advised on a cap smoothing program. I hate to sound calloused saying this but there's a reason owners have MBA's and doctorates in things like business and finance while always "winning" negotiations with players. Many players don't have degrees and didn't go back to finish a degree, and owners know they can pull fast ones over on players because of that.

    I laid out an idea for what the NBA could do to improve this potential issue. Offer a one time amnesty, 3 year cap smoothing, 1 year tax layoff. But I doubt players end up going with something like that because sorry, they are ****ing dumb. Potential max contract players in the 2021, 2022 offseason will push for not having that because they will "lose" money on a contract like that, rather than look at all the FA's that will get basically **** contracts this off season. Reminds me of when the cap boom of 2015 happened, and the warning was given if the cap goes up like that, someone will join a super team, and there wouldn't be as much cap space available the following year. And what happened? KD went to the GSW and so many stupid contracts were signed, then the following year only 3-4 teams had significant cap space and players got screwed.
    I think you are right. There are things they CAN do to make it better, but the players don't want to re-open the CBA because they supposedly think they will lose in a re-negotiation.

    I saw one estimate that 25 teams will be over the tax based on the most pessimistic cap projections.

    There will be a lot of 1 year or 1+1 year deals signed this year.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    61,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I think you are right. There are things they CAN do to make it better, but the players don't want to re-open the CBA because they supposedly think they will lose in a re-negotiation.

    I saw one estimate that 25 teams will be over the tax based on the most pessimistic cap projections.

    There will be a lot of 1 year or 1+1 year deals signed this year.
    Yea itís going to be interesting. If it goes that route I could see a bunch of bigger names take smaller 1+1 deals to contending teams and think that they might as well get a ring if they canít get paid.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,830
    Quote Originally Posted by mouseslept View Post
    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!
    He didn't say "make it out like bandits" ... and what is "toilet waists"?

    To extend your argument, you think there should be no social support systems in countries, that everyone should pay an equal amount in their taxes regardless of their level of wealth. It's good to learn you are that kind of monster.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    He didn't say "make it out like bandits" ... and what is "toilet waists"?

    To extend your argument, you think there should be no social support systems in countries, that everyone should pay an equal amount in their taxes regardless of their level of wealth. It's good to learn you are that kind of monster.
    I think that?

    Stop trolling mate, the Lakers, the Nets, the Sixers, GSW or the Rockets aren't exactly poor fellers who should be getting charity from social care systems.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I think you are right. There are things they CAN do to make it better, but the players don't want to re-open the CBA because they supposedly think they will lose in a re-negotiation.

    I saw one estimate that 25 teams will be over the tax based on the most pessimistic cap projections.

    There will be a lot of 1 year or 1+1 year deals signed this year.
    Could you provide a link to the estimate which suggests that 25 teams will be over the tax?

    Also, do they mean the soft cap or is it the lux tax, because if it means the "soft" cap, then who cares? As long as they are not paying the lux tax and they have the roster locked.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    445
    Here is two actions that the league could take and the majority of the teams would agree with:

    1. Amnesty of a good portion of the dead cap money from the books for the next 7 seasons, 90% for the next season, 80% for a season later, etc until it is 30% in the 7th season.

    This would give teams the opportunity to release contracts and the players to get their money too.

    2. Withdrawal of the 125% salary matching rule for this season and until the mid season trade deadline.

    This would give the opportunity to trade a non affordable contract for a young asset with lesser salary to a team that can afford the player.

    But don't ask for teams to pay for other teams so that they can keep the rosters and beat them back, this is outrageous!

    LOL, "pay me so that I can beat you"!

    What? Say again please!

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,387
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    From Hayward's standpoint that doesn't make a ton of sense. Yes it helps Boston, but he'll likely end up making less over 3 years, than to play on his PO next year then signing a 2 year deal off that.

    I'll be honest that I think watching the Gordon Hayward situation will be an interesting one. I think you can make a compelling case for him to stay with Boston, but I do think there is a very compelling case for him to move on and go elsewhere.
    My hope would be for him to opt out and sign a new 3 year, $84.24M deal. That would lower his '20-21 salary from $34.2M to $26M. It adds 2 years, $50.1M to his current deal if you look at it that way.

    If that's still not enough, I'd be willing to take the contract to a partially guaranteed 4th year. His 4th year salary would be $32.24M but I would only partially guarantee up to like $9M. If you take the partial guarantee, that means Hayward is either adding 2 years, $59.1M to his current situation. Or if that team option got picked up it would be 3 years, $82.3M added on.

    Next move would be to use our pick (projected #26) to dump Kanter's $5M deal and then deal back from MIL's 1st to the second round in exchange for shedding Vincent Poirier's $1.4M partial guarantee. If the tax line holds constant year over year then Boston can get under by making these combinations of moves and then signing a vet min center to replace Kanter.

    My goal for Boston in this is the following here:

    '20-21 - stay under the tax one more year.
    '21-22 - tax
    '22-23 - tax

    Then in the 2023 offseason the Celtics would have Kemba expiring. Hayward would be expiring as well if he took the 3 year option above. If he takes the 4 year deal, then Boston can waive and stretch the partial guarantee so it's minimal.

    I feel like this are fair deals for him to opt out for.

    Only contracts Boston would have at that point would be Tatum/Brown, cap holds for Langford and Grant Williams, and then rookie deals of anyone drafted from this year until then. Boston would have financial flexibility to put a new core around Tatum/Brown. Then in the meantime, over these next 3 years, you make runs at winning the east with Hayward/Kemba.

    Since we're staying under the tax that hurts a little for '20-21. Depth won't be what it will be in the next 2 years where you commit to paying the tax for veteran help. But if they don't stay under the tax this year then instead of no tax/tax/tax their next 3 years will be tax/tax/repeater tax and that's much more expensive.

    Some will argue they should just go for it this year - keep Hayward at his option and pursue veteran help. Then let him expire to get below the tax. Problem with that is that Tatum's extension wipes out most of the savings and normal annual raises for everyone else have to be factored in as well. Theis is a FA himself. If Boston keeps their 3 picks and signs Tatum to a max extension they project to be at about $130M before re-signing either of Hayward or Theis. The tax line for '21-22 was projected to be about $151M before COVID. So Boston's options would be to re-sign Theis and add a MLE type player while squeaking under the tax or re-signing Hayward and Theis and blowing through the tax.

    I think our 3 year window looks much brighter with if we just use this year to stay under the tax one more time at the cost of some veteran depth. Then you get 2 years to really go all in.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    My hope would be for him to opt out and sign a new 3 year, $84.24M deal. That would lower his '20-21 salary from $34.2M to $26M. It adds 2 years, $50.1M to his current deal if you look at it that way.

    If that's still not enough, I'd be willing to take the contract to a partially guaranteed 4th year. His 4th year salary would be $32.24M but I would only partially guarantee up to like $9M. If you take the partial guarantee, that means Hayward is either adding 2 years, $59.1M to his current situation. Or if that team option got picked up it would be 3 years, $82.3M added on.

    Next move would be to use our pick (projected #26) to dump Kanter's $5M deal and then deal back from MIL's 1st to the second round in exchange for shedding Vincent Poirier's $1.4M partial guarantee. If the tax line holds constant year over year then Boston can get under by making these combinations of moves and then signing a vet min center to replace Kanter.

    My goal for Boston in this is the following here:

    '20-21 - stay under the tax one more year.
    '21-22 - tax
    '22-23 - tax

    Then in the 2023 offseason the Celtics would have Kemba expiring. Hayward would be expiring as well if he took the 3 year option above. If he takes the 4 year deal, then Boston can waive and stretch the partial guarantee so it's minimal.

    I feel like this are fair deals for him to opt out for.

    Only contracts Boston would have at that point would be Tatum/Brown, cap holds for Langford and Grant Williams, and then rookie deals of anyone drafted from this year until then. Boston would have financial flexibility to put a new core around Tatum/Brown. Then in the meantime, over these next 3 years, you make runs at winning the east with Hayward/Kemba.

    Since we're staying under the tax that hurts a little for '20-21. Depth won't be what it will be in the next 2 years where you commit to paying the tax for veteran help. But if they don't stay under the tax this year then instead of no tax/tax/tax their next 3 years will be tax/tax/repeater tax and that's much more expensive.

    Some will argue they should just go for it this year - keep Hayward at his option and pursue veteran help. Then let him expire to get below the tax. Problem with that is that Tatum's extension wipes out most of the savings and normal annual raises for everyone else have to be factored in as well. Theis is a FA himself. If Boston keeps their 3 picks and signs Tatum to a max extension they project to be at about $130M before re-signing either of Hayward or Theis. The tax line for '21-22 was projected to be about $151M before COVID. So Boston's options would be to re-sign Theis and add a MLE type player while squeaking under the tax or re-signing Hayward and Theis and blowing through the tax.

    I think our 3 year window looks much brighter with if we just use this year to stay under the tax one more time at the cost of some veteran depth. Then you get 2 years to really go all in.
    Don't understand, how would it get the Celtics not paying the lux tax if they would renew Gordon on a 27M salary for the 20-21 season? It wouldn't.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    1
    The Celtics are a team that will play Lux next season, but Hayward's contract has expired and he could face financial trouble after that, and this will be his third season this summer. A big clutch to make the roster to win the best in the title competition.

    Insects are also in very good financial condition. They have a mostly secure roster with only Sterling Brown and Pete Connote agreeing to renew this season, which is expected to be replaced by a cheaper 18-to-18 selection from Indy to change the rumors. Is. Retirement Corps. They can easily reach Lux tax while maintaining the full roster, and trading with one of the two clutch point guards (Blades or Hill) for a valuable refund can take advantage of the situation and further upgrade the roster
    .
    It can use arm and hand strikes; the fighter might use boxing skills (modified for MMA), or Muay Thai or kickboxing skills (again modified for MMA). However, MMA also involves leg kickspunches you can secure yourself by wear the best mma gears, which usually come from Muay Thai or kickboxing, though some fighters also use traditional martial arts for the kicks
    Last edited by SusanSmith; 07-02-2020 at 06:53 AM.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    61,486
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    My hope would be for him to opt out and sign a new 3 year, $84.24M deal. That would lower his '20-21 salary from $34.2M to $26M. It adds 2 years, $50.1M to his current deal if you look at it that way.
    The issue is I just don't see this happening.

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •