Why does Paul give a shit about being over the cap? Even if he is in luxury tax hell, why would he even care? It's like us getting a $6 parking ticket. Sign em all and let Stotts sort em out.
It's no longer like getting a $6 parking ticket. http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/i...ers_owner_paul_allen_praises_teams_stabi.html (interview with Paul Allen)
I definitely agree that Allen shouldn't Max every player to keep the core in tact. But I don't think signing Aldridge to max, Matthews to like 13 mil and Lopez to 12 mil will do that. And when Dame's rookie scale expires, we should have that new cap. The only time I think we would be in luxury tax hell is when we have 3 max or near max players.
The date of that interview was Sept. 30th, or about a week before the new TV deal was announced. I suspect that if he'd been asked a slightly different question a week later, the response may have been somewhat different: "If the current team roster is successful this year and builds on what it achieved last year, would you consider going into luxury tax territory for one season to re-sign the core, knowing that the team won't be anywhere near the threshold starting in 2016?" I don't see PA blinking at paying a one year penalty if he thinks that he's got a winning roster and won't be hurting financially in the near future.
I suspect he was asked about paying the luxury tax. He and most teams will be willing to pay up to the tax threshold, of course. It's not like a $6 parking ticket or whatever.. It's so massively expensive the $billionaire owner of the Nets bailed on paying a big tax after just one season.
I think you're missing my point, Denny. There's no doubt that the luxury tax isn't just a slap on the wrist to billionaires anymore, especially for repeaters. The cost for a first time offender up to $5 M over the threshold is $1.50 in tax for every dollar over the threshold. It goes up to $1.75 for $5-10M and escalates from there. Repeaters add another $1 in tax for every dollar over. On top of that, there are penalties that hamstring a team by eliminating trade and signing exceptions. No team can afford to be in luxury tax hell for long. That said, the question here is whether the Blazers should make use of an unusual circumstance relating to the new TV deal to re-sign their players knowing that it could put them into luxury tax territory for one season, but would have that problem eliminated starting in 2016. The current tax threshold is around $77 M and will probably rise to $80 M next season. Without any changes, the Blazers are presently on the hook for Batum, Kaman, Lillard, McCollum, Leonard, and possibly Blake and Crabbe next season, at a total cost of around $30 M. Let's say they max Aldridge ($17M) and re-sign Matthews and Lopez for a combined $25 M. That would bring the total up to $72 M. Add in a rookie first round pick, re-sign Freeland ($5 M?) and fill in the rest of the roster spots with guys averaging $1 M apiece, and the Blazers could nudge a few million into luxury tax territory next season. There's still room the following year to give Dame his max extension and be well under the 2016 tax threshold. I don't think that Allen worries about paying an extra $5 or 7 M in tax for one season to secure his roster under those circumstances.
I think it depends on how the team fares. Also, if I am a player, I sign no contract without a pkayer option after year one. This strategy gives the player a guarantee and the flexibility to negotiate a bigger MAX deal under the higher CAP coming up. If I were a GM trying to lure a player, I'd offer the PO, forcing the player's team to match that, too. It matters not RFA or UFA. So even if PA pays the LT for a season, you face opt out and bigger MAX to retain in a year, plus ongoing (repeater) tax. As well, you're committing current MAX as a gamble the players won't opt out and leave.
Just so the $6 ticket analogy thing is clear, non repeater tax is $1.50 for every dollar over. To use bird rights to go $15M over means you're paying $42.5M for the one player. You get reduced MLE, too. And if you repeat, the penalties are even harsher. If you're $4M+ over the LT, you cannot receive players in a S&T - this is probably far worse a penalty than the cash tax.
Not all players are life sucking cap vampires like the ones you mentioned. I would be surprised if any player does that in Portland
I don't blame the players. If they played like all stars or near all stars for rookie wage, they make it up with bigger contracts when eligible. I think the owners are greedy, but so are the players.
But there are always exceptions to the rule. LBJ, wade and Bosh took pay cuts to win a ring. All those players could have gotten max, but they decided not to
This is what I read, but not sure if I'm reading it correctly... "NON-TAXPAYER MID-LEVEL EXCEPTION -- This exception is available only when a team is below the "apron" (i.e., not paying luxury tax, or less than $4 million above the tax line). This determination is made after the exception is used, so a team below the apron cannot use this exception if doing so takes it above the apron. It cannot be used by a team that has already used the Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception or the Room Mid-Level exception. It allows a team to sign any free agent to a contract with a starting salary up to the following amounts3:"
I get that, but it's not like they couldn't be max players after. So you think they wouldn't have taken a pay cut to win a ring years before if given the opportunity?
That's the MLE. If the team is salary+MLE under the apron, they can use it. Obviously if they're paying LT, they don't get it because $5M MLE is greater than the $4M apron.
I think LeBron took a tad over $1M pay cut for a season. In year two, his contract was bigger than his last year in Cleveland.
I think you only have to worry about LMA and Wes immediately. Wes is likely to get a MAX offer from some team (there are lots who will have the cap space). Lillard's contract is up a year later and I don't know if he'd accept a MAX extension at this point (I wouldn't). I wouldn't touch a huge contract for RoLo with a 10 foot pole. Neil was able to get him in the first place, and I am quite convinced he's a shrewd talent evaluator and could make a deal for a replacement you'd all be quite happy with.
