Is GS the team to beat in the West? Or even be the favorites to win it all?

[Scoots]

Well yea when your view is only a hard cap will do and you are unable to discuss other aspects then yea you aren’t going to think this stuff. Based on what I’ve read I would be more surprised by no changes to structure than I would be surprised by changes. Owners are ready to dig in and put an end to the player empowerment era.

I didn't say only a hard cap will do, but you were pointing out that the NFL has "compensation" for losing players. And by the NFL rulebook the only compensation is draft compensation. You called cap space compensation, but that's not the league giving something to the team that lost a player which would be compensation, it's just cap space.

I don't think the soft cap is going anywhere, the league likes it too much. I said I would be surprised if there were not changes and you said you'd be "surprised by no changes" so on that we agree.

I think the owners are annoyed with other owners for caving to players, but that is why the tax was put in place, why it's hard to cut a player, why teams can't trade consecutive first round picks, etc. My guess is that the owners look to change the structure to help as many owners as possible while making the narrative as good as possible for the league. That said they know the players are their main product and what differentiated them from the other sports, and I doubt the revenue split changes much.

[NYKalltheway]

There should be a hard cap and the salary should be based on net pay and not gross pay.

Having a cap system where 30m in one state means something different than 30m in another is silly.

[Scoots]

There should be a hard cap and the salary should be based on net pay and not gross pay.

Having a cap system where 30m in one state means something different than 30m in another is silly.

So adjust it by local cost of living and tax rate? That would be a major assist to big cities I think

[warfelg]

I didn't say only a hard cap will do, but you were pointing out that the NFL has "compensation" for losing players. And by the NFL rulebook the only compensation is draft compensation. You called cap space compensation, but that's not the league giving something to the team that lost a player which would be compensation, it's just cap space.

Most teams in the NFL aren’t losing players because they are over the cap. So yes having the space to pay someone else is compensation because it’s money you can allocate elsewhere.

I think the owners are annoyed with other owners for caving to players, but that is why the tax was put in place, why it's hard to cut a player, why teams can't trade consecutive first round picks, etc. My guess is that the owners look to change the structure to help as many owners as possible while making the narrative as good as possible for the league. That said they know the players are their main product and what differentiated them from the other sports, and I doubt the revenue split changes much.

That’s far from the story that’s out there right now. They are more annoyed that the players know they are the main product and know how they can effect their own value. I’d expect the next big things for owners to attack is movement, trade requests, and value. Hence the earlier linked tweet that Kyrie taking the exemption with LAL would likely cause a lengthy holdout.

[warfelg]

So adjust it by local cost of living and tax rate? That would be a major assist to big cities I think

That’s not what he’s suggesting.

Florida/Texas state tax is 0%
California has the highest potential at 10.5%

So a player making $50mil:
FL/TX - $50mil take home
CA - $44.25mil take home

(Not counting federal taxes)

What’s being suggested is gross pay:
FL/TX - $50mil
CA - $55.25mil

[NYKalltheway]

So adjust it by local cost of living and tax rate? That would be a major assist to big cities I think

Aren't the lowest taxed states in the NBA Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Texas and Pennsylvania?
And aren't the highest California, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, Oregon and Arizona?


Sure, New York and Los Angeles are there, but why is Portland and Minneapolis here while you have Houston, Dallas, Detroit, Philadelphia, Miami and even Chicago benefit?


The only adjustment here is how much it costs to make a team competitive. If I fill my salary cap at Minnesota, my players are getting less paid than their Detroit, Dallas and Miami counterparts.

The league makes enough money to cover the franchises' excess tax if it gets to that. If the idea is parity, then this is how the salary cap should be measured. There's geopolitical inequality here. A max contract from Miami is worth more than a max contract from Phoenix.

[Scoots]

Most teams in the NFL aren’t losing players because they are over the cap. So yes having the space to pay someone else is compensation because it’s money you can allocate elsewhere.



That’s far from the story that’s out there right now. They are more annoyed that the players know they are the main product and know how they can effect their own value. I’d expect the next big things for owners to attack is movement, trade requests, and value. Hence the earlier linked tweet that Kyrie taking the exemption with LAL would likely cause a lengthy holdout.

Does any team have cap space they can't allocate elsewhere?

I don't think you are using "compensation" in a way that matching my understanding of the word. Something, typically money, awarded to someone as a recompense for loss. The NFL isn't awarding anything to the team it didn't already have.

And I agree the owners don't like trade demands either. The problem with that is I don't think that can be gotten rid of. The players now have more power mainly because they realized they have had that power for a long time it just took them a while to wake up to it, and the growth of social media helps protect them and let them spread their message.

[Scoots]

Aren't the lowest taxed states in the NBA Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Texas and Pennsylvania?
And aren't the highest California, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, Oregon and Arizona?


Sure, New York and Los Angeles are there, but why is Portland and Minneapolis here while you have Houston, Dallas, Detroit, Philadelphia, Miami and even Chicago benefit?


The only adjustment here is how much it costs to make a team competitive. If I fill my salary cap at Minnesota, my players are getting less paid than their Detroit, Dallas and Miami counterparts.

The league makes enough money to cover the franchises' excess tax if it gets to that. If the idea is parity, then this is how the salary cap should be measured. There's geopolitical inequality here. A max contract from Miami is worth more than a max contract from Phoenix.

Washington has no income tax either right? And Oregon has no sales tax? While Texas has the highest property taxes.

I think it's an interesting idea, but it certainly helps CA and NY teams more than any others, and those teams are already tough to woo free agents away from.

[warfelg]

Does any team have cap space they can't allocate elsewhere?

I don't think you are using "compensation" in a way that matching my understanding of the word. Something, typically money, awarded to someone as a recompense for loss. The NFL isn't awarding anything to the team it didn't already have.

And I agree the owners don't like trade demands either. The problem with that is I don't think that can be gotten rid of. The players now have more power mainly because they realized they have had that power for a long time it just took them a while to wake up to it, and the growth of social media helps protect them and let them spread their message.

The only way NFL teams have cap they can’t reallocate is if they have dead money on the books. Generally if a team ‘cant afford’ to resign someone, they still have plenty of money to spend elsewhere. It’s how it would work by going to a hard cap.

You’re thinking way to literal with what I’m saying. I’m referring to compensation as replacement. If a player on a team over the soft cap walks, they get no pick to replace them and no cap relief to replace them. It’s why so many players get paid contracts they don’t deserve.

Trade demands can’t be gotten rid of, correct. But one I’ve heard put out there is that owners might explore the idea of a “reverse trade kicker”. Meaning players would lose money by getting traded rather than gain money. Of course there are hurdles of players that have this that don’t want to be traded, but I’m sure loopholes can be found. I heard sliding max money based on how many years could be on the table, so a max on a 1+1 would be a whole lot less than a 5 year. Biggest suggestion I saw was someone saying the soft cap, the tax line, and the apron could all be pulled much closer together, and the floor turned into a hard floor the day the season starts; this would push teams to spend more and by pulling more teams into an area they can spend if they lose someone.

I don’t think the NBA is going to just jump to a hard cap. It’s too much to change with guaranteed contracts, injuries, and things like that. But pulling up the soft cap to be $15mil away from the apron, the tax to $7.5mil away, and make the apron so unsustainable of a cap can make a massive difference. So for this year the cap would be $140mi (rather than $122mil), and the tax would be $147.5 mil (rather than $149mil), apron at $155mil, and add in a hard floor at $122mil (old soft cap). As of right now 15 teams are under that hard floor number, and 5 teams would be in the highly penal apron area (I’ve read someone suggest a $1 tax for every $0.50 spent, meaning the warriors $171mil team would actually cost $235mil).

[Scoots]

That’s not what he’s suggesting.

Florida/Texas state tax is 0%
California has the highest potential at 10.5%

So a player making $50mil:
FL/TX - $50mil take home
CA - $44.25mil take home

(Not counting federal taxes)

What’s being suggested is gross pay:
FL/TX - $50mil
CA - $55.25mil

What he said was "30m in one state means something different than 30m in another" , he didn't limit it to just state income tax rate. It's why I asked him the question. Oregon has no sales tax at all, so if you earn $1M you may take home $600K in CA and $620K in Portland, but the Lambo you buy in CA will cost you $360 while the same car in OR will cost you $330. So the CA player loses on both income tax and sales tax. If you want to level the value of that $30M then cost of living matters too.

[Scoots]

The only way NFL teams have cap they can’t reallocate is if they have dead money on the books. Generally if a team ‘cant afford’ to resign someone, they still have plenty of money to spend elsewhere. It’s how it would work by going to a hard cap.

You’re thinking way to literal with what I’m saying. I’m referring to compensation as replacement. If a player on a team over the soft cap walks, they get no pick to replace them and no cap relief to replace them. It’s why so many players get paid contracts they don’t deserve.

Trade demands can’t be gotten rid of, correct. But one I’ve heard put out there is that owners might explore the idea of a “reverse trade kicker”. Meaning players would lose money by getting traded rather than gain money. Of course there are hurdles of players that have this that don’t want to be traded, but I’m sure loopholes can be found. I heard sliding max money based on how many years could be on the table, so a max on a 1+1 would be a whole lot less than a 5 year. Biggest suggestion I saw was someone saying the soft cap, the tax line, and the apron could all be pulled much closer together, and the floor turned into a hard floor the day the season starts; this would push teams to spend more and by pulling more teams into an area they can spend if they lose someone.

I don’t think the NBA is going to just jump to a hard cap. It’s too much to change with guaranteed contracts, injuries, and things like that. But pulling up the soft cap to be $15mil away from the apron, the tax to $7.5mil away, and make the apron so unsustainable of a cap can make a massive difference. So for this year the cap would be $140mi (rather than $122mil), and the tax would be $147.5 mil (rather than $149mil), apron at $155mil, and add in a hard floor at $122mil (old soft cap). As of right now 15 teams are under that hard floor number, and 5 teams would be in the highly penal apron area (I’ve read someone suggest a $1 tax for every $0.50 spent, meaning the warriors $171mil team would actually cost $235mil).

If a player on a team below the soft cap walks the team can use that money to sign another player. The same as the NFL. Because the rules are the same for both leagues when the team is under the cap I don't think that would be "compensation" for NFL teams. Now if you want to allow NBA teams to create a cap exception the size of a contract a player who walks signs well then that would have a MAJOR impact on player movement ... in that players would move a LOT more. I don't know that it would improve the league though.

S&T is the only way players leave a team that wants to keep them and is willing to pay them for another team and makes more money. If the team you are leaving doesn't want to pay you as much as the team you want to play for that seems to make sense to me. There are a lot of rules that make the team you are on able to pay you more than the other team you want to go to.

You know the tax as it is now increases the rate the farther over the tax line a team goes right? So, if a team has been over the tax for 3 of the last 4 years there is a jump in rate, but there is also a jump in rate in tiers how far over that line a team goes. IIRC the current range is $1.50 to $4.75 per dollar over. That last number I don't think any team has reached. I think the Warriors are under $40M over and their tax bill is around $170M because they have been over 3 of the last 4 years (2020 they got under) while the Nets are in the same tier but because they are not repeaters have a tax bill of around $98M. The Warriors would be delighted to just spend $235M on salary and tax as that would be a huge discount

I do think there is going to be some talk about a tax discount for home draft picks so teams can more comfortably build around their developed players. I think that helps small market teams a lot more than the big market teams.

[NYKalltheway]

What he said was "30m in one state means something different than 30m in another" , he didn't limit it to just state income tax rate. It's why I asked him the question. Oregon has no sales tax at all, so if you earn $1M you may take home $600K in CA and $620K in Portland, but the Lambo you buy in CA will cost you $360 while the same car in OR will cost you $330. So the CA player loses on both income tax and sales tax. If you want to level the value of that $30M then cost of living matters too.

I only referred to the income tax. Isn't that what's included in the salary cap?

Basically the idea is that the salary cap should be a Net Salary Cap. Significantly lower than the current cap.

If you wanna fill it up, pay your taxes on top of that. But when you have a salary based restriction that doesn't treat everyone equally, you're doing something wrong.

Orlando and Miami will always be more attractive than Minnesota for players that care about lifestyle, weather etc. But at the same time, it makes more sense financially to pursue a move there. It's literally millions of difference with the same NBA contract.

[crewfan13]

I only referred to the income tax. Isn't that what's included in the salary cap?

Basically the idea is that the salary cap should be a Net Salary Cap. Significantly lower than the current cap.

If you wanna fill it up, pay your taxes on top of that. But when you have a salary based restriction that doesn't treat everyone equally, you're doing something wrong.

Orlando and Miami will always be more attractive than Minnesota for players that care about lifestyle, weather etc. But at the same time, it makes more sense financially to pursue a move there. It's literally millions of difference with the same NBA contract.

But is there any real evidence that this is changing players behavior? Outside of Miami, the typical FA destinations are almost all higher cost of living states. A quick Google search indicates that Florida and Oklahoma are the NBA states with the lowest tax burden. Sure, Miami is a destination, but Orlando isn't getting FAs. And OKC isn't a destination either. Add in Texas which isn't far behind and you get Houston, Dallas and SA, but none of thsie are consistently a destination. Dallas won their ring behind their drafted stud and filled in with solid players. Not like they bought a bunch of top FAs, and if they win with Luka it's a similar story most likely. SA's dynasty was due to phenomenal drafting.

To me, this whole thing is just solving for a problem that doesn't seem to exist. There's very little evidence that players are choosing where to play based upon take home money from a contract.

[Scoots]

I only referred to the income tax. Isn't that what's included in the salary cap?

Basically the idea is that the salary cap should be a Net Salary Cap. Significantly lower than the current cap.

If you wanna fill it up, pay your taxes on top of that. But when you have a salary based restriction that doesn't treat everyone equally, you're doing something wrong.

Orlando and Miami will always be more attractive than Minnesota for players that care about lifestyle, weather etc. But at the same time, it makes more sense financially to pursue a move there. It's literally millions of difference with the same NBA contract.

Right and "equal" is a lot more complicated than state sales tax. Actually since players pay the tax rate of where the game is played, it would have to be adjusted on a per game basis. If you want to have a cultural adjustment too that gets even more complicated ... like a 1% kicker for Utah, Minny, OKC, etc. being boring places to live or places with less appealing weather.

I think this is a slippery slope so the NBA is unlikely to do anything about it.

[NYKalltheway]

But is there any real evidence that this is changing players behavior? Outside of Miami, the typical FA destinations are almost all higher cost of living states. A quick Google search indicates that Florida and Oklahoma are the NBA states with the lowest tax burden. Sure, Miami is a destination, but Orlando isn't getting FAs. And OKC isn't a destination either. Add in Texas which isn't far behind and you get Houston, Dallas and SA, but none of thsie are consistently a destination. Dallas won their ring behind their drafted stud and filled in with solid players. Not like they bought a bunch of top FAs, and if they win with Luka it's a similar story most likely. SA's dynasty was due to phenomenal drafting.

To me, this whole thing is just solving for a problem that doesn't seem to exist. There's very little evidence that players are choosing where to play based upon take home money from a contract.

A lot of that is also due to the circumstances of the teams.

New York is also a top destination but the Knicks aren't. Our organization had a fair amount of opportunities to bring in great players via FA but did not. Although several times we've seen the Knicks **** it up and not be able to afford a max contract.


Most teams don't plan for FA anyway. Or at least didn't.