- 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
There's no way we extend Mirotic, right?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 8:22 pm
Posted on 2/12/18 at 8:22 pm
Let's assume that Boogie is extended.
I'm starting to think that Mirotic is going to cost WAY too much to keep. I'd love to have the AD/Boogie/Mirotic trio for the next ~3 seasons, but unless Benson is willing to get into serious tax territory (or we go super cheap at the wing), then it doesn't seem realistic.
I'm thinking that they keep him until near the deadline next season, letting Boogie heal up, then trade him for a lesser big with a long term deal.
I'm starting to think that Mirotic is going to cost WAY too much to keep. I'd love to have the AD/Boogie/Mirotic trio for the next ~3 seasons, but unless Benson is willing to get into serious tax territory (or we go super cheap at the wing), then it doesn't seem realistic.
I'm thinking that they keep him until near the deadline next season, letting Boogie heal up, then trade him for a lesser big with a long term deal.
3
Posted on 2/12/18 at 8:23 pm to THRILLHO
It all depends on whether or not Benson is okay with going into the tax. I think they see how things go. If they look like a Top 4 team they keep the core in tact. If not either Nico, Moore, or Solo get moved.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 8:32 pm to THRILLHO
We're in a new era of NBA economics. Lou Williams just signed for 3/24 with the third year being a team option. Avery Bradley's asking price last year was $50 mil. He'll probably end up getting closer to 15.
It's a new era. Nobody has cap space. We'll be rethinking what contracts look like next offseason. Mirotic may be affordable when the time comes.
It's a new era. Nobody has cap space. We'll be rethinking what contracts look like next offseason. Mirotic may be affordable when the time comes.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 8:41 pm to Jamohn
Yeah, teams won't have money until the year after Mirotic becomes a FA. Because that's when a lot of the shitty deals signed in 2016 come off the books
Posted on 2/12/18 at 9:55 pm to Crewz
ESPN just had an article on the financial bubble from the free agent spending craze a few years back.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 11:36 pm to JabarkusRussell
To answer your question, yes we do
Posted on 2/13/18 at 12:12 am to JabarkusRussell
quote:
ESPN just had an article on the financial bubble from the free agent spending craze a few years back.
That bubble and the subsequent cap not increasing as anticipated reduced current contracts.
Remember the Ryno contract? That's absolutely arse right now.
Even this past offseason was pretty nuts, but the old money contracts are expiring and the current cap is starting to level with the current contracts.
The max players are gonna get paid, but the middling guys are going to get less than before. The raise in the cap floor makes shitty guys get paid well though. Its taking from the middle class of the NBA really...
Posted on 2/13/18 at 11:43 am to htran90
I'm betting a lot of the players are regretting how quickly they dismissed the idea of cap smoothing when the league proposed it a few years ago. If any of them had any vision they would have easily seen how predictable it was that all the teams would spend like drunken sailors to hit that cap floor and then the bill would come due.It's gonna be a nasty hangover for these players and agents.
Posted on 2/13/18 at 12:13 pm to Jamohn
quote:
I'm betting a lot of the players are regretting how quickly they dismissed the idea of cap smoothing when the league proposed it a few years ago.
The league wanted to "smooth the cap" by taking the excess money and giving it to the union to distribute to the players. The union rejected that because they rightly saw it as a way to keep players salaries artificially low.
Probably the only way for them to smooth the cap in a way that was acceptable to the players would be to spend the money before they got it and have teams artificially inflate the cap to say $85 million instead of $70 million in 2015-16. But the teams would have had to self finance $300 million added to the cap. They certainly could have afforded it with the new TV money only a year away, but we're talking about Billionaires vs. Millionaires here. Why would they do the Millionaires a favor like that?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 12:22 am to THRILLHO
Why on earth would you worry about the tax if you can do it and win? Still think all sports should have hard caps, but it's idiotic not to spend as much as you can possibly get away with.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 5:35 am to ForeverEllisHugh
Because the teams with high tax bills the last few years have lost money. The Warriors aren’t even planning to keep this team together long term. In a year or 2 they’ll probably dump Klay.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 6:17 am to TigerinATL
quote:
The Warriors aren’t even planning to keep this team together long term. In a year or 2 they’ll probably dump Klay.
where are you seeing that?
obvious tax issues, but someone said they arent planning to keep their core together?
here's GS state of mind (GS's TBW) on new revenue
LINK
and Kawakami thoughts on paying for it all in the wake of Iguodala re-signing
LINK
Posted on 2/15/18 at 6:46 am to corndeaux
quote:
where are you seeing that?
The stuff you're linking may be a little newer, but there were a bunch of people writing the same article last year about the Warriors paying some ungodly amount in taxes, like $400+ million, to keep this core together over the next 4-5 years.
If the Warriors are able to handle that tax bill, it's a relatively unique ability in the NBA, only a handful of teams and markets could do that. Certainly not the Pels. So maybe the Warriors are a bad example but if the question is why isn't winning enough to deal with the tax, the answer is that the repeater tax is very punitive and most teams couldn't handle building the best team money can buy for a sustained period of time.
This post was edited on 2/15/18 at 6:51 am
Posted on 2/15/18 at 7:02 am to TigerinATL
quote:
The league wanted to "smooth the cap" by taking the excess money and giving it to the union to distribute to the players. The union rejected that because they rightly saw it as a way to keep players salaries artificially low.
Saying it keeps salaries artificially low is tantamount to arguing that 6 doesn't equal half a dozen. At the end of the day, the players collectively bring home the same amount, but the association was extremely short-sighted and worked hard to benefit one year of free agents over all the others that come after.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 11:19 am to TigerinATL
quote:
Because the teams with high tax bills the last few years have lost money. The Warriors aren’t even planning to keep this team together long term. In a year or 2 they’ll probably dump Klay.
Why does that even matter if you can win championships?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 11:31 am to ForeverEllisHugh
quote:
Why does that even matter if you can win championships?
Because in the end these are businesses and only 1 team can win each year. Take a team like Toronto. They used a 1st and 2nd round pick to dump DeMarre Carroll and avoid the tax this year even though they could end up being the 1 seed in the East. They have a very rich owner and even they seem to want to not pay the tax for a team that is very good, but that they don't feel is good enough to win a title.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 1:29 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
about the Warriors paying some ungodly amount in taxes, like $400+ million, to keep this core together over the next 4-5 years.
their payroll will be unprecedented. but they are bringing in unprecedented revenue. Lowe pegged them at $92M in income after revenue sharing last year. they're getting a new stadium and new local tv rights deal in the coming years. that income will go up.
they may indeed have to break up their core. and i am sure that is a possibility they have thought about. just not buying the idea that they are planning to deal Thompson or Green at this point in time
obviously, not many teams can generate GS or LAL type of revenue. but a good question is how many teams can/are willing to take on even a small tax under the new cap/tv deal? does the influx of money make that idea more palatable?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 1:55 pm to corndeaux
I'm sure it helps sell the tax some, but we're talking about asking an owner to give up $10-$20 million to dip his toe in the tax for a team that probably doesn't get past the 2nd round. Making the playoffs this year and finding a way to get more than 2 home games could go a long way to convincing ownership that winning is worth it.
This post was edited on 2/15/18 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 2/15/18 at 2:44 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
I'm sure it helps sell the tax some, but we're talking about asking an owner to give up $10-$20 million to dip his toe in the tax for a team that probably doesn't get past the 2nd round. Making the playoffs this year and finding a way to get more than 2 home games could go a long way to convincing ownership that winning is worth it.
Avoid the 7 and 8th seed, win first round round, competitive in 2nd round and you can sell that with boogie we can go further
Posted on 2/19/18 at 4:34 pm to TigerinATL
MIchele Roberts was interviewed by Paul Flannery in LA. one of the topics was the smoothing
Part 1
Part 2
from part of part 2
Part 1
Part 2
from part of part 2
quote:
Were there some players who are luckier than others because they were free agents two years ago, as opposed to now? There’s no question about that.
But I’m heartened that those players who are not the LeBrons and the Stephs, whose compensation is typically what I call statutory because it’s set by the CBA; minimum guys, mid-level guys. All those salaries increased by 45 percent in the new CBA so that class of players is protected.
quote:
When the salary explosion happened and you rejected the smoothing idea that the NBA proposed, has anything that has happened in the last few years caused you to reconsider that stance?
No, in fact it’s completely confirmed the correctness of that position. I delight and the players delight in reading about some of these contracts because they know they absolutely deserve it.
There was going to be no smoothing of the owners’ profits at all. They were going to enjoy real money that reflected where we were financially as a game. Why in the world would players pretend that the game was not making as much money and therefore have smaller contracts?
quote:
It was an absurd suggestion, I thought personally. But what we did to make sure it wasn’t just Michele’s instinct was hire two separate economists to tell us whether this was something that was going to be of value to our players in the long run.
Independent of each other and not knowing what either of us felt, they both came almost saying, “Are you kidding? Why would you do this?”
I don’t have any regrets at all. I don’t think a single player does either.
Not a single owner came up to me and suggested that they thought we should do this. The league did. But I didn’t see any chorus of support from any of the owners. I thought it was a disgraceful request.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News