Tax Payer MLE Options

DGreenwood

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2003
1,329
Seattle
I'm a bit surprised there's a debate around whether they'd take #8 for Kemba. If the NBA offers the amnesty clause I think Kemba is the most likely player for the Celtics to use it on.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
42,308
Man, I really don't think Boston has buyer's remorse after 1 season of Kemba.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
580
Yes, he’s a guy that can produce, when healthy, 20/5/5 lines. Only here he won’t because he’s fourth in the pecking order.
So instead of 20/5/5 (which Hayward has never averaged in a season incidentally), his 17.5/6.7/4.1 line in 33.5 mpg is evidence of being “largely squandered?”

While it’s a nice luxury, they have, literally, one year of it before losing him and, literally, not replacing him because Jayson Tatum’s extension will kick in and they have to plan for Walker’s continuing decline. So, yes, a marginal reduction in their title chances for one year in order to create a longer window of contention is entirely rational.
I’m not saying that a trade of Hayward shouldn’t be considered, only that trading him for a #8 pick and a TPE shouldn’t.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
That’s literally the best case scenario for them, avoid the luxury tax, get a shot at a home run swing, and when teams start trying to shed salary to reduce their own tax problems, you have the chance to add a player in a GFIN move.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
580
Again, they actually have to replace Hayward’s production as he is literally in his last year here. They really don’t have a choice. It’s replace him now with whatever they can acquire in trade(s), or replace him with Romeo Langford in ‘22. Those are literally the options. As much as I like Romeo, more options are better than less.
This feels like a false dilemma. I somehow think that there are more options available than the two outlined here.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
580
That’s literally the best case scenario for them, avoid the luxury tax, get a shot at a home run swing, and when teams start trying to shed salary to reduce their own tax problems, you have the chance to add a player in a GFIN move.
How many home run swings at #8 yield home runs?

 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,598
Saint Paul, MN
His 3/108 is a bad contract and if I can get a mid lotto pick to get rid of it, allowing me to extend Hayward and make other moves, I do it 10 times out of 10.
I can't believe in the same sentence someone can argue that a 3 year max deal for Kemba is a bad contract yet yearn for an extension of Gordon Hayward
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
This feels like a false dilemma. I somehow think that there are more options available than the two outlined here.
The cap is going down. And if they hold on to Hayward all year, they’re going to be facing a pretty stiff tax bill. Pre-2020 they were facing an approximately $16 million tax bill. But with a path to shed money and get under the tax line. Thanks to a year of biblical disasters that bill could be as high as $50 million with no cap smoothing agreement, but even with one that bill is going to be pretty substantial. So, yes, doing nothing means replacing Smart’s bench production with a player making $5.8 million rather than $9.8 million.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
I can't believe in the same sentence someone can argue that a 3 year max deal for Kemba is a bad contract yet yearn for an extension of Gordon Hayward
In fairness we’ve all qualified a Hayward extension as “team friendly”. Hayward at 3/70 is a better deal than Walker at 3/108.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,598
Saint Paul, MN
In fairness we’ve all qualified a Hayward extension as “team friendly”. Hayward at 3/70 is a better deal than Walker at 3/108.
Are you saying he would sign for 4/104 then? If not, I think he would surely bet on himself that he could do a lot better than 2/36 on the open market the following year
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,384
I can't believe in the same sentence someone can argue that a 3 year max deal for Kemba is a bad contract yet yearn for an extension of Gordon Hayward
Uh, ok. Believe it. I would gladly take Hayward back for 3 years at a reduced salary. No, I would not want Hayward back at max levels.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
Are you saying he would sign for 4/104 then? If not, I think he would surely bet on himself that he could do a lot better than 2/36 on the open market the following year
I mean he is the player most likely to get moved to get the team under the ‘21 tax line. While I would prefer him over the next four years than Kemba, we’ve all admitted that there’s nigh on a 0% chance that Walker gets moved.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
The cap is going down. And if they hold on to Hayward all year, they’re going to be facing a pretty stiff tax bill. Pre-2020 they were facing an approximately $16 million tax bill. But with a path to shed money and get under the tax line. Thanks to a year of biblical disasters that bill could be as high as $50 million with no cap smoothing agreement, but even with one that bill is going to be pretty substantial. So, yes, doing nothing means replacing Smart’s bench production with a player making $5.8 million rather than $9.8 million.
One thing I see two different views around is the benefit of "going for it" in 2020-2021. For some of us, a big part (not all) of the value of keeping Hayward is that it maximizes chance of success in the upcoming year as a contender. For others, while not disputing that, the emphasis is much more on years 2-3-4 from now. For me personally, knowing the overall "investment willingness" of ownership and by inclusion the cap/tax, is pretty essential to weighing that choice. As has been noted, there's some huge unknowns here: what the new CBA will do around taxes/cap; what ownership is willing to pay now (vs when Walker was signed). We simply don't know.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,355
Santa Monica
As has been noted, there's some huge unknowns here: what the new CBA will do around taxes/cap; what ownership is willing to pay now (vs when Walker was signed). We simply don't know.
Can't argue with much here other than we do know the direction of revenues. Last year, this year and next year they will be lower. Revenues will be impacted by the # of games, arena attendance, concessions, the next TV contract, etc

Whether amnesty gets instituted, the CAP stays the same or gets reset to realistic levels, teams were not prepared for any of that when signing/adding players in 2019. So uncomfortable moves may be made, that would have been unthinkable in the past.

The losses are real. Some NBA owners (probably not the Celtic owners) are exposed to losses outside of their teams (Fertitta's hospitality biz must be getting smoked). Several teams may be motivated to move contracts, regardless of talent. I want the Celtics to have the flexibility to be buyers of talent in that market

Having CAP flexibility, young controlled players and TPEs will be worth much more in a declining revenue market than in years past when they were going up in a linear fashion.

"Cash is king, especially in times of crisis" -WB
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
I think we can all agree that those are some very uninspiring options for their bargain hunting.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
34,729
Augustin would be a good fit skill-wise, would probably come relatively cheap and is a clear upgrade on Wanamaker (except defensively but the C's can make that trade-off imo).

Teague is younger than Augustin but is not an big upgrade on Wanamaker based on the past few seasons. Its hard to say what is going with him but he could be a diamond in the rough as teams like the 76ers and Lakers are rumored to be interested in him. He could also be cooked as a function of wear and tear or simply his most recent fat contract.

I know nobody is saying this yet but its just too soon to deem Edwards anything other than an unknown.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
17,890
I keep reading this and that about the tax...is the tax negotiable given the surprising salary cap situation?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
I keep reading this and that about the tax...is the tax negotiable given the surprising salary cap situation?
The CBA is being renegotiated right now (at least, the deadline to opt out has been pushed back,presumed to be because they are negotiating). So everything is theoretically up for grabs. That said, most of us expect there to be only so much change---and a few are operating on the assumption there will be no change.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,355
Santa Monica
I keep reading this and that about the tax...is the tax negotiable given the surprising salary cap situation?
They are negotiating the Cap/tax now. The tax is an incentive system to keep teams inline/competitive.
The losses are real and another type of incentive system.

A flat cap is a change from Summer 2019 expectations when teams were spending/planning for this season.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
17,890
Thanks for those answers. Seems like there could be some type of compromise where the penalty is based of the previously forecasted cap or at least the severity of the penalty.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
I keep reading this and that about the tax...is the tax negotiable given the surprising salary cap situation?
The revenues have been wrecked by covid19 after the Chinese kerfuffle body blow that preceded it. The revenue sharing formula that exists in the NBA has certain spending requirements for small market teams to meet, tied to the tax/cap. It's why there's going to have to be a cap smoothing agreement to account for the revenue landscape. The smaller market teams can't afford to spend monies in the ways spelled out and still be profitable.

Per the BRI projections in the summer of '19, the '21 cap was supposed to be around $117 million. The China kerfuffle caused a warning to go out that BRI growth was going to be flattish and the cap wouldn't increase much past $109 million (I think the first revision was that the cap would be around $112 million).

Then came covid19 and the revenue implosion. Per current BRI projections the cap would be set at $25-$30 million below 2020's cap. So everyones economic planning is blown up. As the BRI formula would put most of the NBA over the luxury tax, everyone agrees that there's going to be cap smoothing. But casual fans keep assuming this means that the NBA will just keep things as they are. Which isn't going to happen as that will wreck the finances of the smaller market teams that will be forced to spend a whole lot more than they can afford at the moment in an environment where the only revenue sharing is likely to be the luxury tax checks.

So the cap/tax lines are going down, and it's going to hurt. The question is just how much they're going down. Things probably won't return to normal until '23 or so.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
17,890
The revenues have been wrecked by covid19 after the Chinese kerfuffle body blow that preceded it. The revenue sharing formula that exists in the NBA has certain spending requirements for small market teams to meet, tied to the tax/cap. It's why there's going to have to be a cap smoothing agreement to account for the revenue landscape. The smaller market teams can't afford to spend monies in the ways spelled out and still be profitable.

Per the BRI projections in the summer of '19, the '21 cap was supposed to be around $117 million. The China kerfuffle caused a warning to go out that BRI growth was going to be flattish and the cap wouldn't increase much past $109 million (I think the first revision was that the cap would be around $112 million).

Then came covid19 and the revenue implosion. Per current BRI projections the cap would be set at $25-$30 million below 2020's cap. So everyones economic planning is blown up. As the BRI formula would put most of the NBA over the luxury tax, everyone agrees that there's going to be cap smoothing. But casual fans keep assuming this means that the NBA will just keep things as they are. Which isn't going to happen as that will wreck the finances of the smaller market teams that will be forced to spend a whole lot more than they can afford at the moment in an environment where the only revenue sharing is likely to be the luxury tax checks.

So the cap/tax lines are going down, and it's going to hurt. The question is just how much they're going down. Things probably won't return to normal until '23 or so.

I get what you’re saying. But if everyone works to avoid the tax, then those small market teams are fucked that way too. This is a classic optimal taxation problem. We know old friend Art Laffer’s Napkin is correct about the endpoints, we just never seem to know what the proper rate is.

The small market teams need the big market teams to be willing to pay the tax. If the tax is too severe, no one will pay it.

The players want to earn money but if it costs 15m to sign a 5m player, teams won’t do it.

I’m having a tough time reading through the heated debate above seriously because everything is conditional on numbers not yet agreed upon.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
Well, here's the problem, BRI is dictating that the 2021 salary cap be around $85 million, meaning that the luxury tax will come in around $100 million. Anything different than that needs to be negotiated. The secondary issue is leaguewide revenue sharing. The way that works is that teams pitch around 50% of their total revenues into a pot (less expenses) and every team receives 1/30th of the pot.

Now, in 2021 attendance revenues are going to be nuked thanks to covid19. Some jurisdictions aren't going to allow attendance at all and some are going to have caps on how full arenas can be. But there are still going to be expenses to keep those arenas running. This means that contributions to the revenue sharing pool by the California and New York teams are going to be drastically lower. But participating in revenue sharing requires spending based on cap/tax lines. So the smaller teams want those numbers to fall in order to limit losses prior to revenue sharing.

So the whole thing is really complicated. What we know is that the cap/tax lines have to move a lot closer to the real number based on BRI in order to preserve the health of the smaller market teams. But it can't actually move to the real number because that would put three quarters of the league into the tax. And some of those are smaller teams that need to avoid the tax in this revenue environment. My guess is that you see the numbers decline by about 35%-40% of the real number (say $10-$12 million reduction in the cap/tax lines). But that will bring considerable pain for Boston.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,355
Santa Monica
Well, here's the problem, BRI is dictating that the 2021 salary cap be around $85 million, meaning that the luxury tax will come in around $100 million. Anything different than that needs to be negotiated. The secondary issue is leaguewide revenue sharing. The way that works is that teams pitch around 50% of their total revenues into a pot (less expenses) and every team receives 1/30th of the pot.

Now, in 2021 attendance revenues are going to be nuked thanks to covid19. Some jurisdictions aren't going to allow attendance at all and some are going to have caps on how full arenas can be. But there are still going to be expenses to keep those arenas running. This means that contributions to the revenue sharing pool by the California and New York teams are going to be drastically lower. But participating in revenue sharing requires spending based on cap/tax lines. So the smaller teams want those numbers to fall in order to limit losses prior to revenue sharing.

So the whole thing is really complicated. What we know is that the cap/tax lines have to move a lot closer to the real number based on BRI in order to preserve the health of the smaller market teams. But it can't actually move to the real number because that would put three quarters of the league into the tax. And some of those are smaller teams that need to avoid the tax in this revenue environment. My guess is that you see the numbers decline by about 35%-40% of the real number (say $10-$12 million reduction in the cap/tax lines). But that will bring considerable pain for Boston.
Here's a look at the NBA teams:

 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
For any of you looking, the columns to sort by are practical cap space and luxury tax space. With the caveat that these numbers were the pre-disaster ones. Actual cap/tax lines are going to be lower.
 

DGreenwood

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2003
1,329
Seattle
...With the caveat that these numbers were the pre-disaster ones. Actual cap/tax lines are going to be lower.
Is it? The cap and tax numbers listed for 20-21 are identical to what they have for last year so I thought they were estimating these numbers based off what we've heard so far about what they will likely do?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
Right, a year ago covid19 wasn’t a thing. They’re using the only ‘21 numbers they have, the projections from the CBA. Literally no one has any idea what the final number will be.
 

DGreenwood

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2003
1,329
Seattle
Right, a year ago covid19 wasn’t a thing. They’re using the only ‘21 numbers they have, the projections from the CBA. Literally no one has any idea what the final number will be.
Got it. I misunderstood what you meant when you said "pre-disaster". I thought you were talking about the $115m projection that existed post-Morey/China but pre-pandemic.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
3,065
Will the Celtics want to put any more big money into a player that just can’t stay on the court? I’m ready to move on from Hayward. If he opts in and plays well this season and can stay healthy, great. He can either help with a title run, or build some deadline trade value. If he’s injured again, it will be time for him to try to become successful again elsewhere
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
The potential that a TPE “could” open up options of $8-15M players is not enticing enough to sacrifice the production that Hayward likely ”would” offer.
Building on this, if you think quality players will become available from teams that need to cut salary to get through the pandemic and its aftermath, then the correct play is to keep GH for now and shop him at the deadline, not to move him at a fire-sale price. Expiring contracts are hugely valuable in a market where teams are looking to clear salary. And if that doesn’t come to pass, you get the benefit of GH on the current team, and you can probably still shimmy under the tax threshold if you staple a couple late 1st rounders to Kanter and Poirier.
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
The problem is how much Boston is paying to hold on to Hayward for the difficulty that trading contracts (rather than absorbing them into open space) presents. Because once people's cap space is gone they're trading for guys like Andrew Wiggins.

But the real problem is this, the estimates, based on BRI, were that the cap could go as low as $80 million. Assuming that they smooth it to a $13-$14 million dollar drop you're looking at a cap around $96 million and a luxury tax line around $116 million. That would put Boston $26 million over. So the tax on Hayward's contract could run as high as $46 million. I like Gordon. He's not an $80 million player.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,355
Santa Monica
Building on this, if you think quality players will become available from teams that need to cut salary to get through the pandemic and its aftermath, then the correct play is to keep GH for now and shop him at the deadline, not to move him at a fire-sale price. Expiring contracts are hugely valuable in a market where teams are looking to clear salary. And if that doesn’t come to pass, you get the benefit of GH on the current team, and you can probably still shimmy under the tax threshold if you staple a couple late 1st rounders to Kanter and Poirier.
that's why some of us (or is it just me?) feel the TPE is worth more this year than in years past when the salary cap was going up

the fire sale will be happening at the trade deadline IMO and moving GH then will be next to impossible (TPE creates much more flexibility for the C's at the deadline)
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
that's why some of us (or is it just me?) feel the TPE is worth more this year than in years past when the salary cap was going up
Yeah, teams would prefer to send contracts out and take zero money back this year. Unless they're sending out $40+ million they're going to have zero interest in Hayward's contract. And Boston's luxury tax bill would wipe out the TV money. Like before adding in the actual payroll.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,168
The problem is how much Boston is paying to hold on to Hayward for the difficulty that trading contracts (rather than absorbing them into open space) presents. Because once people's cap space is gone they're trading for guys like Andrew Wiggins.

But the real problem is this, the estimates, based on BRI, were that the cap could go as low as $80 million. Assuming that they smooth it to a $13-$14 million dollar drop you're looking at a cap around $96 million and a luxury tax line around $116 million. That would put Boston $26 million over. So the tax on Hayward's contract could run as high as $46 million. I like Gordon. He's not an $80 million player.
Bobby Marks among others seems to think that it is going to either be the orginally projected 139/145 or stay flat a 132.7M, looks like nobody involved has any interest in dropping the tax as low at 116M.
View: https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42/status/1320715660591304705
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
While I have no doubt that the west coast and northeast teams are unanimous in their support for eliminating the luxury tax (in effect) for the next season (I mean just look at the projected bills for the LAs, Golden State, Portland, Brooklyn, Boston, and Philly), I have a hard time believing that the Orlandos and Carolinas of the NBA are in favor of eliminating luxury tax revenues in a season where there isn't going to be much of anything from revenue sharing due to the lack of ticket sales next year.

EDIT: There's also a range for a projected cap drop of up to $15 million now, so with smoothing say the cap should come in around $100 million for the next couple of years, that helps Boston enormously because the luxry tax line would similarly only reduce by ten million or so.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
Not hard for me to imagine a majority of teams who want it higher, though. I agree there are teams who won't, but do you really think the majority of teams want the market to freeze?

This is part of why I've been saying this is more complicated and we need to see the CBA/Tax adjustments before we make assumptions on deals, as an aside.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
I think it's closer to a third, a third, and a third. Which is why there's going to be a compromise and a lowering of the tax line is inevitable. Smaller market teams relied on those revenue sharing checks, which made them more pliable on the luxury tax front. But this year attendance revues are going to collapse (the owner's reversing course on the season start is the tell here, there's no covid19 fix on the horizon so now they just want to get the season over), which means that the revenue sharing checks won't be there. So for the smaller market/subtax teams, the only revenue sharing you're going to get is the luxury tax.

Now Portland is one of the small market teams that's going to go in the opposite direction thanks to the late Paul Allen's spending habits, and if the Larry Ellison rumors are true, might continue down that path.

But if you're a well run team like Utah, are you really going to agree to lose money to help out the west coast/northeastern teams? Because that's what's going to happen to the Utahs of the world, they're going to lose money on home games and will need the national broadcast and local broadcast revenues to make payroll. Without revenue sharing cash, they're going to need those luxury tax payments to tide them over in the '21 and '22 seasons.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,355
Santa Monica
I think it's closer to a third, a third, and a third. Which is why there's going to be a compromise and a lowering of the tax line is inevitable. Smaller market teams relied on those revenue sharing checks, which made them more pliable on the luxury tax front. But this year attendance revues are going to collapse (the owner's reversing course on the season start is the tell here, there's no covid19 fix on the horizon so now they just want to get the season over), which means that the revenue sharing checks won't be there. So for the smaller market/subtax teams, the only revenue sharing you're going to get is the luxury tax.

Now Portland is one of the small market teams that's going to go in the opposite direction thanks to the late Paul Allen's spending habits, and if the Larry Ellison rumors are true, might continue down that path.

But if you're a well run team like Utah, are you really going to agree to lose money to help out the west coast/northeastern teams? Because that's what's going to happen to the Utahs of the world, they're going to lose money on home games and will need the national broadcast and local broadcast revenues to make payroll. Without revenue sharing cash, they're going to need those luxury tax payments to tide them over in the '21 and '22 seasons.
Besides helping the "coastal elites" wouldn't a flat cap help the players (& Players Union Chief) the most?

I'm sure there are some owners, that on principle alone, want the CAP (salaries) to go down with the BRI, as was negotiated.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
The fact that the cap/tax line might only reduce as much as $15 million mean that there will be some owners looking for that drop (because a $15 million drop won’t hit everyone). My guess is that we’ll see a cap/tax reduction of around $8 million or so as that will produce added revenues for the smaller market teams without being too onerous on the teams in the Midwest and South.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
356
The fact that the cap/tax line might only reduce as much as $15 million mean that there will be some owners looking for that drop (because a $15 million drop won’t hit everyone). My guess is that we’ll see a cap/tax reduction of around $8 million or so as that will produce added revenues for the smaller market teams without being too onerous on the teams in the Midwest and South.
Just so that we are on the same page, you are forecasting a 8 million drop from the 2019-2020 cap number? In order words around 101? Is there any sourced reporting that supports that conclusion?

On the Lowe Post, Zach Lowe and Marks indicated that the cap would be at least 109. Marks specifically said teams had been assured that the cap would be no lower than 109. Their discussion of the tax line was either keeping it at flat or going to the previously projected cap line (meaning the delta between the cap and the tax would increase).
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,168
I think it's closer to a third, a third, and a third. Which is why there's going to be a compromise and a lowering of the tax line is inevitable. Smaller market teams relied on those revenue sharing checks, which made them more pliable on the luxury tax front. But this year attendance revues are going to collapse (the owner's reversing course on the season start is the tell here, there's no covid19 fix on the horizon so now they just want to get the season over), which means that the revenue sharing checks won't be there. So for the smaller market/subtax teams, the only revenue sharing you're going to get is the luxury tax.

Now Portland is one of the small market teams that's going to go in the opposite direction thanks to the late Paul Allen's spending habits, and if the Larry Ellison rumors are true, might continue down that path.

But if you're a well run team like Utah, are you really going to agree to lose money to help out the west coast/northeastern teams? Because that's what's going to happen to the Utahs of the world, they're going to lose money on home games and will need the national broadcast and local broadcast revenues to make payroll. Without revenue sharing cash, they're going to need those luxury tax payments to tide them over in the '21 and '22 seasons.
I haven't seen anyone reporting many teams who want the tax to go down. Marks mentioned that maybe the 4 teams with cap space might, but he hasn't heard of anyone actively looking for it, and the players obviously want it to go up.

A couple of the teams you've listed are unlikely to be on that list... Utah is going to have difficulty getting under 120, and if they do the moves that most people expect they are going to be a tax team (until Conley comes off), Orlando is in the same situation. Milwaukee another smaller market, definitely NEED as high as possible to try and get better to keep GIannis, Indiana has a lot of money locked in, etc. That is part of the issue... so many teams spent last year on the assumption that the cap would keep going up, and so there aren't that many teams likely to be far enough below this year's tax line to be able to stay under a 15M drop. My guess is that it either stays where it is, or has a small drop of 2-3M.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
Just so that we are on the same page, you are forecasting a 8 million drop from the 2019-2020 cap number? In order words around 101? Is there any sourced reporting that supports that conclusion?

On the Lowe Post, Zach Lowe and Marks indicated that the cap would be at least 109. Marks specifically said teams had been assured that the cap would be no lower than 109. Their discussion of the tax line was either keeping it at flat or going to the previously projected cap line (meaning the delta between the cap and the tax would increase).
Reporters out west and in the northeast say that confidently. But keeping the cap flat only really helps the teams in those markets. In the real world revenues were off by a billion and a half and a lot of smaller market teams are going to have to host games with no/few fans for the foreseeable future. I'm betting that the Clevelands of the world aren't excited about losing a bunch of money to help out the Warriors and Nets.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,306
A couple of the teams you've listed are unlikely to be on that list... Utah is going to have difficulty getting under 120, and if they do the moves that most people expect they are going to be a tax team (until Conley comes off), Orlando is in the same situation. Milwaukee another smaller market, definitely NEED as high as possible to try and get better to keep GIannis, Indiana has a lot of money locked in, etc. That is part of the issue... so many teams spent last year on the assumption that the cap would keep going up, and so there aren't that many teams likely to be far enough below this year's tax line to be able to stay under a 15M drop. My guess is that it either stays where it is, or has a small drop of 2-3M.
Do you really see any of the guys on the Jazz's free agency list that they'd really want back? To be brutally frank, I'm not even sure they'd want Gobert back given his salary demands.
 

benhogan

Granite is his new binky
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
9,355
Santa Monica
Must be good to be an NBA player:

Heads - we win big when revenue goes UP
Tales - we break even when revenues go DOWN

 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
18,168
Do you really see any of the guys on the Jazz's free agency list that they'd really want back? To be brutally frank, I'm not even sure they'd want Gobert back given his salary demands.
Does it matter? Gobert isn't a free agent. Even if they let everyone walk they are at 121M for this season once Conley picks up his option, and that isn't even a full roster. So make it close to 130 in a best case scenario.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,354
Reporters out west and in the northeast say that confidently. But keeping the cap flat only really helps the teams in those markets. In the real world revenues were off by a billion and a half and a lot of smaller market teams are going to have to host games with no/few fans for the foreseeable future. I'm betting that the Clevelands of the world aren't excited about losing a bunch of money to help out the Warriors and Nets.
I hear your confidence, but as you've heard from several of us there is no reporting consistent with it, and all the plugged-in guys are saying the opposite.