- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Murray has 1.9 million tied to playing 65 games, Lux tax implications
Posted on 10/25/24 at 9:06 am
Posted on 10/25/24 at 9:06 am
From Christian Clark’s NOLA article:
If he misses the minimum amount of time you see with his injury, he would miss 16-17 games. So he wouldn’t be able to miss another game basically.
If he does Pels don’t have to make any moves to stay below the tax for another year…
quote:
One of the other layers of Murray’s injury is how it could potentially affect the Pelicans’ finances. Murray has roughly $1.9 million in incentives tied to him playing at least 65 games this season. If he misses 18 games or more this year, he won’t receive that $1.9 million because of his games played stipulations.
That is relevant because the Pelicans are right now about $1.6 million above the NBA’s luxury tax line, according to Cap Sheets. History says the Pelicans will maneuver under the NBA’s luxury tax line of $170.8 million by the end of the season. New Orleans is one of two franchises in NBA history to have never paid the luxury tax.
Practically, this means that if Murray misses 18 games or more, the Pelicans will be below the luxury tax line without having to make any roster changes. If Murray plays in 65 games or more this season, the Pelicans will have to make a trade if they want to get below the luxury tax line.
If he misses the minimum amount of time you see with his injury, he would miss 16-17 games. So he wouldn’t be able to miss another game basically.
If he does Pels don’t have to make any moves to stay below the tax for another year…
4
Posted on 10/25/24 at 9:09 am to Fun Bunch
Crazy situation. Of course Murray may want that money and want to rush back. Could get interesting.
Posted on 10/25/24 at 9:10 am to Fun Bunch
That's sad that this is the state that we're in.
This post was edited on 10/25/24 at 9:11 am
Posted on 10/25/24 at 9:18 am to supe12sta12z
Klutch bout to get to work making things uncomfortable
Posted on 10/25/24 at 9:21 am to supe12sta12z
quote:
That's sad that this is the state that we're in.
No point in ignoring the money stuff. It is what it is.
Posted on 10/25/24 at 9:42 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
New Orleans is one of two franchises in NBA history to have never paid the luxury tax.
Which also explains why they have struggled to find consistency of winning. Sometimes you need to pay more to win. This exact statement is why BI will be traded for peanuts.
Posted on 10/25/24 at 9:43 am to VA LSU fan
They haven't had a team that was worth paying the tax over.
Now with the new tax implications they definitely shouldn't. If you've got a conference finals contender I'm sure they would.
Now with the new tax implications they definitely shouldn't. If you've got a conference finals contender I'm sure they would.
Posted on 10/25/24 at 9:46 am to VA LSU fan
Yeah because all 28 other teams that have paid have all been very successful franchisees.
Posted on 10/25/24 at 9:47 am to Fun Bunch
Griffin has already confirmed that they'll never be an apron team so they'll never be serious enough to invest in a championship no matter the circumstances. If Ingram balls out this season, they probably still let him walk versus giving him his asking.
Posted on 10/25/24 at 9:48 am to Pelicans15
I mean you can’t really play basketball with a broken hand. So, I’m assuming he’s going to miss that incentive.
Posted on 10/25/24 at 9:50 am to Fun Bunch
I hope so.
I still think Zion can be a top 5 player. That is usually the first thing needed to win a championship.
Murray and BI if not traded and stops playing 90’s style basketball can be his two running mates while Herb and Trey provide defense and spacing.
I still feel CJ is the either trade candidate or bench leader. I wish BI would embrace the Ginobli role, but I don’t think he is wired that way. His last year with the Lakers he played some PG and was great.
I still think Zion can be a top 5 player. That is usually the first thing needed to win a championship.
Murray and BI if not traded and stops playing 90’s style basketball can be his two running mates while Herb and Trey provide defense and spacing.
I still feel CJ is the either trade candidate or bench leader. I wish BI would embrace the Ginobli role, but I don’t think he is wired that way. His last year with the Lakers he played some PG and was great.
Posted on 10/25/24 at 10:04 am to VA LSU fan
The roster argument is always interesting to me. Could you imagine if Jokic had Murray, CJ, BI, Herb, Trey, etc etc to play with. No star has a roster like that. If Zion is as good as he could be, the sky is the limit for the team. Unless you completely self sabotage and don’t put a center on the roster or something.
Posted on 10/25/24 at 10:29 am to Fun Bunch
Bobby Marks has different numbers. Seems we only need to shed 850k to be under the tax, I wonder if Murray misses the games played if we could guarantee him half of the incentive, still get under the tax and Murray gets paid? Both sides win
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.This post was edited on 10/25/24 at 10:32 am
Posted on 10/25/24 at 3:33 pm to Pelicans15
quote:
Yeah because all 28 other teams that have paid have all been very successful franchisees.
Congratulations.
The Hornets and the Pelicans have never paid the luxury tax.
Posted on 10/25/24 at 4:32 pm to Soggymoss
quote:Reads as if still over the tax by $850k after the credit. Sounds as if the tax credit received is not dollar for dollar? I am sure it is confusing. I would assume Marks knows a whole lot more about the accounting than Clark.
Bobby Marks has different numbers. Seems we only need to shed 850k to be under the tax, I wonder if Murray misses the games played if we could guarantee him half of the incentive, still get under the tax and Murray gets paid? Both sides win
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
This post was edited on 10/25/24 at 5:50 pm
Posted on 10/25/24 at 5:07 pm to Soggymoss
quote:
Bobby Marks has different numbers. Seems we only need to shed 850k to be under the tax, I wonder if Murray misses the games played if we could guarantee him half of the incentive, still get under the tax and Murray gets paid? Both sides win
I read what Marks said differently. Rather than being $850k over instead of $1.5M, it’s the Pels will get a $700k credit off the $1.5M if Murray plays less than 65 games, leaving the Pels $850k above the tax after the incentive is disqualified.
This post was edited on 10/25/24 at 5:09 pm
Posted on 10/25/24 at 6:08 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
I read what Marks said differently. Rather than being $850k over instead of $1.5M, it’s the Pels will get a $700k credit off the $1.5M if Murray plays less than 65 games, leaving the Pels $850k above the tax after the incentive is disqualified.
The 700k tax variance credit is due to signing Theis. The NBA credits part of the salary back for tax purposes to encourage teams not to only sign young cheaper players.
Posted on 10/25/24 at 6:31 pm to Soggymoss
OFFS.
If Murray plays less than 65 games will they or won't they be under the tax?
If Murray plays less than 65 games will they or won't they be under the tax?
Posted on 10/25/24 at 7:02 pm to Aussie_Pelican
quote:
OFFS. If Murray plays less than 65 games will they or won't they be under the tax?
Well using Marks number on what our tax variance credit will be that means currently we are technically only 850k over the tax. If Murray doesn’t play 65 games that means at years end we would be about 1 million under the tax, but we won’t be able to use any of that money because the credit and loss of Murray salary doesn’t hit until the end of the season.
So if it makes any sense, we would be under the tax but we wouldn’t be under the tax, I.E. we would not be able to use that space, but if our calculators work perfectly, we could make a lopsided trade and take around $900,000-1,050,000 and still stay right under the tax at years end.
This post was edited on 10/25/24 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 10/25/24 at 7:13 pm to Soggymoss
quote:
So if it makes any sense, we would be under the tax but we wouldn’t be under the tax, I.E. we would not be able to use that space, but if our calculators work perfectly, we could make a lopsided trade and take around $900,000-1,050,000 and still stay right under the tax at years end.
I would think that the bigger news is that it would make us quite a bit more likely to carry BI and CJ throughout the entire season.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News