While 90% of Clutchfans pines for old Uncle Les, the reality was he was just as unwilling to go into the luxury tax as Tilman is. According to data on Spotrac.com, from 2011-12 Les Alexander paid the luxury tax once - a whopping $3.6 million in 2015-16. Wikipedia cites Shamsports data that shows he paid slightly more - $760,000 in 2010-11 and $4.5 million in 2015-16 (this figure is only on Wiki and not on Shamsports). Whichever set of data you believe, it's clear that Les wasn't the free-spending owner everyone seems to think he was, so can we stop ******** on Tilman and wishing for Les back? Les deserves zero respect after taking the trophies with him, so please stop perpetuating this myth that he was some sort of amazing owner that was willing to spend whatever it takes to win.
Les Alexander also kept Barkley’s three million dollars he promised for allowing cap space to sign Pippen. That’s not dodging the luxury tax That’s just being an *******
Even if you don't want to praise Les, Tilman still deserves all the criticism he has been getting. They aren't mutually exclusive. Both can suck if you want to look at it that way. Tilman FOR SURE sucks though.
The only reason Shamsports doesn't show the figure is because the graph you've included only goes to 2014-15 lol. Also the correct figure paid is not 3.6 million in 15-16 but rather 5,471,169. 3.6 million was the amount OVER the tax threshold. Paying 5.4 million with a tax cap of 88 in 14-15 is equivalent to over 8+ million in 19-20 with a tax cap at 132million. For sure, Les wasn't a free spender like Mark Cuban, Mickey Arison, Dolan and others. No one is going to argue that he was the best owner ever or that he was willing to do WHATEVER IT COST to win. There's probably many reasons to criticize Les Alexander, but that's irrelevant to whether or not we should judge Tilmans ownership. Whatever Les' faults, at the very least, he's twice proven he's WILLING to go into the tax. As for Tilman, we'll just have to wait and see. Perhaps he'll prove every critic wrong, perhaps not... But whatever he does, he's definitely not helping himself with the LOUD talk & little action.
For BimaThug or someone else that understands the cap. (Bima I didn't tag you because I semi-frequently do and I'm sure it's somewhat annoying): I'm having a hard time understanding how we could have taken huge amounts of extra money back without hard-capping ourselves at the apron level. The cap is at 109 million (which I believe is just a baseline?) The tax level is 132.7 million We're currently at 133.7 million The apron level(aka the hard-cap?) is 138.9 million If we were taking money back during a trade, how were we supposed to get Iggy? It appears that we have about 6 million in non-guaranteed deals. Iggy makes 17.1 million. 133.7 - 6 (NGD) = 127.7 million Add Iggy at 17.1 million= 144.8 million So Iggy puts us over the cap by 5.9 million. Would Memphis be forced to take a S&T for Shumpert at 5.9 million or maybe 6.9 million in order to make this work, or does a trade exception allow you to go beyond the Apron-level? I think the numbers say that we only have 10.2 million we can take back with the 25% rule? (I'm reading thru this: http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q20 but struggling some with a few details)
Rockets are not hard capped. They only have to worry about the apron (hard cap) IF they: use their Bi-Annual exception, receive a player who is signed-and-traded, or use their Non-Tax Mid-Level exception. Trading for Iggy or anyone else already under contract would not have hard capped the Rockets. However as a team operating over the salary cap, Rockets can only take in 125% of the salary they send out. A team under the cap, can take in as much as their cap space allows. For example, Rockets trade for player A and send out player B. Player B makes 10 million, thus player A's salary is limited up to 12.5 million or lower. For the Rockets to trade for Iggy (without expanding the WB trade). The Rockets would need to send out approx. 13.7 million to take in Iggy's 17.1 million. Shumpert could only be sign and trade up to 13.2 million (some other arcane restrictions BYC) so they'll have add something else. In the expand the Westbrook trade scenario, Rockets could take in an additional 8+ million due to the fact that 125% of Westbrooks contract is around 8 million.
Les also didn't act like he was the richest dude out there and telling media he is willing to do anything and everything to win.
Les was way worse. The product on the field was the barometer. He inherited the championship teams and had an eye on the exit door by the time we acquired Harden. His legacy teams are the Stevie Franchise, Yao Ming, and TMac days. Allowing Carroll Dawson to vomit all over the draft from 1995 to 2006. Never allowing us to surpass the cap from 2004-2009 when we had a superbly talented core that now in retrospect was a huge letdown in terms of results. And just the nonstop propaganda mission, to have his GMs constantly fellate him in press conferences. **** Les
So it would be better if we were never in contention? You're giving him a pass for not being in contention? Snap out of it, people! Listen to yourselves!!
big difference is Les kept his mouth shut mostly meanwhile Tilman keeps going on tv talking about the Rockets before he's actually won anything The only thing this affects is how other players look at our team, you don't want the reputation of the owner is all talk like James Dolan of the Knicks.
No. The big difference is Carl didn’t start a Les Is Poor thing for a ton of mindless CFers to parrot before Les bought the team. On the ClutchFans website that didn’t exist in 1993. ‘93ers rule, amiright @tinman?
My critique on Tilman is that he never takes a good product and makes it better. He always marginalizes the product for the best ROI. This concerns me. If an owner is going to be a profit first - win second, then work in the background and stay out of the media.
