- 425
- 10
- Joined
- May 23, 2010
Hoston, low key, has done good moves. Always seem to compete without a "superstar" on that team. Even how the team reacts with the whole Yao problem, amazes me.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Originally Posted by JPZx
For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.
Originally Posted by JPZx
For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.
Originally Posted by JPZx
For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.
EXCLUSIVE: Details of owners’ tax proposal
Many raised their eyebrows Tuesday morning when a few outlets, including The New York Times, Newsday and CBSSports.com, reported that the NBA’s proposed luxury tax could in theory penalize teams as much as $8 for every dollar they spend on player salaries over certain thresholds.
The old system taxed such teams only on a dollar-for-dollar basis, meaning if a team exceeded the tax threshold by $20 million, as the Lakers did last season, it had to pay an additional $20 million in penalties. On top of that, teams that came in even a single dollar over the threshold lost out on a chunk of the tax proceeds the NBA distributes to every team that doesn’t pay tax.
The league’s reported tax proposal was restrictive enough for the players on Monday to characterize it as essentially a hard cap. If you’re going to tax teams at an 8-to-1 ratio, the argument goes, big-money teams will stop spending so much, and when they do, players will have lost a key source of free-agency leverage.
The devil, of course, is in the details, and a source close to the labor negotiations explained to SI.com just how the owners’ tax proposal would work. (An NBA spokesman declined a request to comment or verify the details of the tax proposal, saying the league will not publicly discuss the specifics of the negotiations.)
• The tax would start at $1.75 in penalty payments for every dollar a team is over the tax threshold. Say goodbye to the dollar-for-dollar hit, which was the maximum penalty a team could pay under the old system.
• That $1.75-to-1 ratio would last for the first $5 million a team is over the tax line. For every $5 million increment after that, the penalty would jump by 50 cents per dollar. So, for spending over the threshold between $5 million and $10 million, the penalty would be $2.25-to-1. For spending between $10 million and $15 million, it would be $2.75-to-1. And so on.
• The tax threshold would begin near where it did last season, when the salary cap was $58 million and teams crossed into luxury-tax territory at the $70 million mark.
Let’s use the Lakers as an example, since they spent almost exactly $20 million above the tax line last season. Under the old system, they would (and eventually will) pay $20 million in penalties, and lose out on the slice of money every non-taxpaying team receives. We don’t know what that slice will be for the 2010-11 season, but it was $3.7 million the year before, and it won’t change much. (To learn how that is calculated, go here.) Total losses under the old system were $23.7 million.
Under the new system, the Lakers’ tax penalty would be close to $54 million based on these calculations:
$5 million x $1.75 = $8.75 million
$5 million x $2.25 = $11.25 million
$5 million x $2.75 = $13.75 million
$5 million x $3.25 = $16.25 million
Add the $3.7 million, and the Lakers’ taxes/losses end up at $53.7 million. That’s a lot. It might not be enough on its own to keep the Lakers from spending, but as SI.com has reported, the league has also proposed rules that would prohibit teams over the tax from using the mid-level exception, Bird Rights and other mechanisms that allow big spenders to spend more.
While the Lakers, who are about to enter into a massive new local TV deal, may spend right through the financial hits, teams that approached the old tax line a bit more cautiously might look at this one like a red-hot poker.
And the poker gets even hotter. As Yahoo! Sports’ Adrian Wojnarowski reported late Monday, the proposal would penalize teams that pay the tax in more than two seasons during any five-season stretch. That penalty is harsh, according to a source familiar with the matter. If a team has gotten into tax territory, say, twice over the preceding four seasons and finds itself over the tax line a third time, the penalty triples in each spending range. In other words, that $1.75-to-1 ratio that kicks off the tax in Year 1 would jump to $5.25-to-1 for a team paying the tax a third time. Do the math, and you could get to 10-to-1 or higher pretty quickly. Whether you’re the Lakers or the Knicks or the Bill Gates Billionaires (based in Seattle!), you are going to blink at paying $100 million in tax penalties alone. Fine, maybe Gates wouldn’t blink, but he doesn’t own an NBA team.
The players proposed their own revised tax plan, but it was far less restrictive, as you’d expect, and the union has opposed most moves to take exceptions like the mid-level and Bird Rights away from all or most taxpaying teams. The union’s proposal would have started with a $1.25-to-1 ratio and escalated much more slowly, and to a much lower ceiling, than the league’s proposal, according to a source. It’s unclear how different it really would have been from the tax system the league just had.
Look at these two plans, and you can see the “gulf
EXCLUSIVE: Details of owners’ tax proposal
Many raised their eyebrows Tuesday morning when a few outlets, including The New York Times, Newsday and CBSSports.com, reported that the NBA’s proposed luxury tax could in theory penalize teams as much as $8 for every dollar they spend on player salaries over certain thresholds.
The old system taxed such teams only on a dollar-for-dollar basis, meaning if a team exceeded the tax threshold by $20 million, as the Lakers did last season, it had to pay an additional $20 million in penalties. On top of that, teams that came in even a single dollar over the threshold lost out on a chunk of the tax proceeds the NBA distributes to every team that doesn’t pay tax.
The league’s reported tax proposal was restrictive enough for the players on Monday to characterize it as essentially a hard cap. If you’re going to tax teams at an 8-to-1 ratio, the argument goes, big-money teams will stop spending so much, and when they do, players will have lost a key source of free-agency leverage.
The devil, of course, is in the details, and a source close to the labor negotiations explained to SI.com just how the owners’ tax proposal would work. (An NBA spokesman declined a request to comment or verify the details of the tax proposal, saying the league will not publicly discuss the specifics of the negotiations.)
• The tax would start at $1.75 in penalty payments for every dollar a team is over the tax threshold. Say goodbye to the dollar-for-dollar hit, which was the maximum penalty a team could pay under the old system.
• That $1.75-to-1 ratio would last for the first $5 million a team is over the tax line. For every $5 million increment after that, the penalty would jump by 50 cents per dollar. So, for spending over the threshold between $5 million and $10 million, the penalty would be $2.25-to-1. For spending between $10 million and $15 million, it would be $2.75-to-1. And so on.
• The tax threshold would begin near where it did last season, when the salary cap was $58 million and teams crossed into luxury-tax territory at the $70 million mark.
Let’s use the Lakers as an example, since they spent almost exactly $20 million above the tax line last season. Under the old system, they would (and eventually will) pay $20 million in penalties, and lose out on the slice of money every non-taxpaying team receives. We don’t know what that slice will be for the 2010-11 season, but it was $3.7 million the year before, and it won’t change much. (To learn how that is calculated, go here.) Total losses under the old system were $23.7 million.
Under the new system, the Lakers’ tax penalty would be close to $54 million based on these calculations:
$5 million x $1.75 = $8.75 million
$5 million x $2.25 = $11.25 million
$5 million x $2.75 = $13.75 million
$5 million x $3.25 = $16.25 million
Add the $3.7 million, and the Lakers’ taxes/losses end up at $53.7 million. That’s a lot. It might not be enough on its own to keep the Lakers from spending, but as SI.com has reported, the league has also proposed rules that would prohibit teams over the tax from using the mid-level exception, Bird Rights and other mechanisms that allow big spenders to spend more.
While the Lakers, who are about to enter into a massive new local TV deal, may spend right through the financial hits, teams that approached the old tax line a bit more cautiously might look at this one like a red-hot poker.
And the poker gets even hotter. As Yahoo! Sports’ Adrian Wojnarowski reported late Monday, the proposal would penalize teams that pay the tax in more than two seasons during any five-season stretch. That penalty is harsh, according to a source familiar with the matter. If a team has gotten into tax territory, say, twice over the preceding four seasons and finds itself over the tax line a third time, the penalty triples in each spending range. In other words, that $1.75-to-1 ratio that kicks off the tax in Year 1 would jump to $5.25-to-1 for a team paying the tax a third time. Do the math, and you could get to 10-to-1 or higher pretty quickly. Whether you’re the Lakers or the Knicks or the Bill Gates Billionaires (based in Seattle!), you are going to blink at paying $100 million in tax penalties alone. Fine, maybe Gates wouldn’t blink, but he doesn’t own an NBA team.
The players proposed their own revised tax plan, but it was far less restrictive, as you’d expect, and the union has opposed most moves to take exceptions like the mid-level and Bird Rights away from all or most taxpaying teams. The union’s proposal would have started with a $1.25-to-1 ratio and escalated much more slowly, and to a much lower ceiling, than the league’s proposal, according to a source. It’s unclear how different it really would have been from the tax system the league just had.
Look at these two plans, and you can see the “gulf
EXCLUSIVE: Details of owners’ tax proposal
Many raised their eyebrows Tuesday morning when a few outlets, including The New York Times, Newsday and CBSSports.com, reported that the NBA’s proposed luxury tax could in theory penalize teams as much as $8 for every dollar they spend on player salaries over certain thresholds.
The old system taxed such teams only on a dollar-for-dollar basis, meaning if a team exceeded the tax threshold by $20 million, as the Lakers did last season, it had to pay an additional $20 million in penalties. On top of that, teams that came in even a single dollar over the threshold lost out on a chunk of the tax proceeds the NBA distributes to every team that doesn’t pay tax.
The league’s reported tax proposal was restrictive enough for the players on Monday to characterize it as essentially a hard cap. If you’re going to tax teams at an 8-to-1 ratio, the argument goes, big-money teams will stop spending so much, and when they do, players will have lost a key source of free-agency leverage.
The devil, of course, is in the details, and a source close to the labor negotiations explained to SI.com just how the owners’ tax proposal would work. (An NBA spokesman declined a request to comment or verify the details of the tax proposal, saying the league will not publicly discuss the specifics of the negotiations.)
• The tax would start at $1.75 in penalty payments for every dollar a team is over the tax threshold. Say goodbye to the dollar-for-dollar hit, which was the maximum penalty a team could pay under the old system.
• That $1.75-to-1 ratio would last for the first $5 million a team is over the tax line. For every $5 million increment after that, the penalty would jump by 50 cents per dollar. So, for spending over the threshold between $5 million and $10 million, the penalty would be $2.25-to-1. For spending between $10 million and $15 million, it would be $2.75-to-1. And so on.
• The tax threshold would begin near where it did last season, when the salary cap was $58 million and teams crossed into luxury-tax territory at the $70 million mark.
Let’s use the Lakers as an example, since they spent almost exactly $20 million above the tax line last season. Under the old system, they would (and eventually will) pay $20 million in penalties, and lose out on the slice of money every non-taxpaying team receives. We don’t know what that slice will be for the 2010-11 season, but it was $3.7 million the year before, and it won’t change much. (To learn how that is calculated, go here.) Total losses under the old system were $23.7 million.
Under the new system, the Lakers’ tax penalty would be close to $54 million based on these calculations:
$5 million x $1.75 = $8.75 million
$5 million x $2.25 = $11.25 million
$5 million x $2.75 = $13.75 million
$5 million x $3.25 = $16.25 million
Add the $3.7 million, and the Lakers’ taxes/losses end up at $53.7 million. That’s a lot. It might not be enough on its own to keep the Lakers from spending, but as SI.com has reported, the league has also proposed rules that would prohibit teams over the tax from using the mid-level exception, Bird Rights and other mechanisms that allow big spenders to spend more.
While the Lakers, who are about to enter into a massive new local TV deal, may spend right through the financial hits, teams that approached the old tax line a bit more cautiously might look at this one like a red-hot poker.
And the poker gets even hotter. As Yahoo! Sports’ Adrian Wojnarowski reported late Monday, the proposal would penalize teams that pay the tax in more than two seasons during any five-season stretch. That penalty is harsh, according to a source familiar with the matter. If a team has gotten into tax territory, say, twice over the preceding four seasons and finds itself over the tax line a third time, the penalty triples in each spending range. In other words, that $1.75-to-1 ratio that kicks off the tax in Year 1 would jump to $5.25-to-1 for a team paying the tax a third time. Do the math, and you could get to 10-to-1 or higher pretty quickly. Whether you’re the Lakers or the Knicks or the Bill Gates Billionaires (based in Seattle!), you are going to blink at paying $100 million in tax penalties alone. Fine, maybe Gates wouldn’t blink, but he doesn’t own an NBA team.
The players proposed their own revised tax plan, but it was far less restrictive, as you’d expect, and the union has opposed most moves to take exceptions like the mid-level and Bird Rights away from all or most taxpaying teams. The union’s proposal would have started with a $1.25-to-1 ratio and escalated much more slowly, and to a much lower ceiling, than the league’s proposal, according to a source. It’s unclear how different it really would have been from the tax system the league just had.
Look at these two plans, and you can see the “gulf
JPZx wrote:
For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.
This.
Why don't Amare/Melo/fill-in want to start their personal version of the Big 3 in Toronto CP? Hey, maybe Milwaukee? What about Sacramento? Minnesota winters are fun.
Geeeeee, why would that be???? Hmmmmm, why NY? Let's see.....I dunno, MAYBE BECAUSE THE KNICKS RID THEMSELVES OF EVERY CONTRACT THEY HAD TO GET UNDER THE CAP BY 50 MILLION DOLLARS OR SO????????
How much cap room did Sac have? Or Toronto? Or Minnesota. The Knicks had been playing for this summer for YEARS, they failed on purpose for a few seasons, just to make that push. Did those other teams do that? No, they did not. You'll also notice, the Heat did the exact same thing, rid themselves of every contract except 2, and there ya have it.
Now, am I saying that if Minnesota had 1 player under contract and 50 mil to spend, would everyone go there? I don't know. That depends. What if the 3 guys they were goin for were from the Midwest?Anyone ever think of that? I know when I look ahead with LA, I tend to target guys that came from UCLA, or USC, or even high school in LA. Not every player wants to come home of course, but it's where I tend to start. Like I have said over and over, you guys are looking for excuses for why poorly run franchises aren't succeeding.
Osh, hold up. Did you just throw big markets in my face, and then list Philly, Houston, and Detroit!!!!!!?????? Excuse me everyone, but when the @#$% did those 3 cities start runnin the NBA? What @#$%^& success have they had that makes them so unfair to the rest of the league? That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Face it, stop all the big market stuff, the Lakers and Celtics ALONE have 33 titles. ALONE. And Boston won like 11 of them when the league was 12 God damn teams. Magic and Bird came in, won some titles, and then Boston was DORMANT for almost 25 years!!!!! LA came in in 2000 with a lesser payroll than the Blazers by like 20 million for 3 straight years and beat the crap out of them anyways. The CHICAGO Bulls won 6 titles, with the goat, and have done exactly WHAT in ALL of their years without him? Before and after? The Knicks, the Nets, the Clippers, what have they done?
You have TWO teams, with rich traditions, that have ran things for a long time. One of them, went two decades without doing a damn thing. But it's sooooooooo easy for people to just make excuses for why small markets don't win. Yet small market Spurs have the same number of titles as the Celtics and Knicks do COMBINED for the last 30 years. But we want to just ignore that, we'll just skip over that fact, and make our argument hold more water by saying "oh, the Lakers AND the Celtics, AND the Heat, and now I can add, AND the Mavs all win titles cuz they live in big cities"You guys sound ridiculous. Serious, look in some mirrors, stop blaming failure on market size, it's pathetic.
JPZx wrote:
For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.
This.
Why don't Amare/Melo/fill-in want to start their personal version of the Big 3 in Toronto CP? Hey, maybe Milwaukee? What about Sacramento? Minnesota winters are fun.
Geeeeee, why would that be???? Hmmmmm, why NY? Let's see.....I dunno, MAYBE BECAUSE THE KNICKS RID THEMSELVES OF EVERY CONTRACT THEY HAD TO GET UNDER THE CAP BY 50 MILLION DOLLARS OR SO????????
How much cap room did Sac have? Or Toronto? Or Minnesota. The Knicks had been playing for this summer for YEARS, they failed on purpose for a few seasons, just to make that push. Did those other teams do that? No, they did not. You'll also notice, the Heat did the exact same thing, rid themselves of every contract except 2, and there ya have it.
Now, am I saying that if Minnesota had 1 player under contract and 50 mil to spend, would everyone go there? I don't know. That depends. What if the 3 guys they were goin for were from the Midwest?Anyone ever think of that? I know when I look ahead with LA, I tend to target guys that came from UCLA, or USC, or even high school in LA. Not every player wants to come home of course, but it's where I tend to start. Like I have said over and over, you guys are looking for excuses for why poorly run franchises aren't succeeding.
Osh, hold up. Did you just throw big markets in my face, and then list Philly, Houston, and Detroit!!!!!!?????? Excuse me everyone, but when the @#$% did those 3 cities start runnin the NBA? What @#$%^& success have they had that makes them so unfair to the rest of the league? That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Face it, stop all the big market stuff, the Lakers and Celtics ALONE have 33 titles. ALONE. And Boston won like 11 of them when the league was 12 God damn teams. Magic and Bird came in, won some titles, and then Boston was DORMANT for almost 25 years!!!!! LA came in in 2000 with a lesser payroll than the Blazers by like 20 million for 3 straight years and beat the crap out of them anyways. The CHICAGO Bulls won 6 titles, with the goat, and have done exactly WHAT in ALL of their years without him? Before and after? The Knicks, the Nets, the Clippers, what have they done?
You have TWO teams, with rich traditions, that have ran things for a long time. One of them, went two decades without doing a damn thing. But it's sooooooooo easy for people to just make excuses for why small markets don't win. Yet small market Spurs have the same number of titles as the Celtics and Knicks do COMBINED for the last 30 years. But we want to just ignore that, we'll just skip over that fact, and make our argument hold more water by saying "oh, the Lakers AND the Celtics, AND the Heat, and now I can add, AND the Mavs all win titles cuz they live in big cities"You guys sound ridiculous. Serious, look in some mirrors, stop blaming failure on market size, it's pathetic.
Originally Posted by JDiddy
Originally Posted by JPZx
For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.
This.
Why don't Amare/Melo/fill-in want to start their personal version of the Big 3 in Toronto CP? Hey, maybe Milwaukee? What about Sacramento? Minnesota winters are fun.
Originally Posted by JDiddy
Originally Posted by JPZx
For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.
This.
Why don't Amare/Melo/fill-in want to start their personal version of the Big 3 in Toronto CP? Hey, maybe Milwaukee? What about Sacramento? Minnesota winters are fun.
Originally Posted by CP1708
JPZx wrote:
For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.
Originally Posted by CP1708
JPZx wrote:
For small and non traditional basketball markets you almost certainly will have to draft both because star players rarely go to smaller markets through trade or free agency but Traditional basketball markets/large markets have the option of all three making it easier to get the 2 necessary to win a chip.