[CBS Sports] Howard no lock for Lakers; interested in Rockets

I have read it... You guys are just misunderstand the terms

Tax line is referring to any amount above the salary cap

At this point you can only add to your roster with exceptions cause you have no room under the cap.

This is not the same as the lakers who are above the tax kind and the threshold

Where they can't use any exceptions other then the tax payer mle

Being above the tax line does not automatically mean you are a taxpayer


Don't know how else I can help you

 

Haha justtxyank, I posted this to him like 3 pages ago. I don't think he reads anything that is linked, and maybe reads 50% of people's posts.

I have to sadly take a break from this -- I'm getting behind in my bar studying lol.

 

I also don't know how else to tell you you're just making those terms up. We have shown you links to Coon's faq on how he uses the terms, yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

You then just make up definitions of luxury tax line and level and threshold without linking to anything showing where you got those meanings from.

Again, Coon uses tax line and tax level INTERCHANGEABLY in his faq (look at #21 through 23), yet NEVER in the whole faq uses the term luxury tax threshold (ctrl F for threshold).

 

Nope. This is where you fall off the rails and why you aren't able to make sense of the rest of it.

Do you think a team pays luxury tax if it goes over the salary cap by say $1 million? The answer is no, because the tax line doesn't exist at the salary cap.

Threshold/line/etc. is the same thing. It is based on revenues and has nothing to do with the salary cap number of $58 million.

Edit: But yes, once over the salary cap it requires exceptions to add free agents to your team. But that is not related to the luxury tax.

 

Ok... look.

You explain this to me.

The golden state warriors are at 74 million in salary.

Say the salary cap is 60 million next year.

How much salary would they have to cut in order to be able to work a sign and trade.

So what is the 4 million above the tax line.

 

no.

Yes, it does.

By definition. if you are over the amount designated as the taxline(or whatever you want to call it), you are paying luxury tax

Its ok to get confused, just learn from the corrections and move on...thats what I have done over the years....it isnt easy to keep straight and without guys like aelliott and Bima, I wouldnt know half of what I do know now.

 

Ok then...answer my above question.

if the Gold State Warriors whose salary is 74 mil currently. Wanted to work a sign and trade for Howard. How much salary would they have to cut to be able to perform a SNT...if say the salary cap next year is 60 million.

 

No one can answer your question because you didn't give enough of information. How much salary are they taking back? What are they sending out? What is the luxury tax number set at?

If we say salary cap of $60 million and luxury tax line of $70 million, then they could take a sign and trade of a player for $14 million or less regardless of what they send out. If they want more than $14 million in salary back they'd need to send corresponding salaries back to make sure the trade did not put them over $74 million in total salary.

So, simplified:

Salary Cap (your scenario): $60 million
Luxury Tax Line: $70 million
Apron: $74 million
sign and trade could not put team over $74 million in salary.

 

$4M above the tax line of $70M is $74M, so GSW would be at the apron (let us pretend they are $74.1M so "above" the apron).

They have to cut or send out x, where 74.1 - x + 20.5 (Dwight's salary) = 74 (before apron).

So doing the math, they have to cut $20.6M to get down to $53.5M in order to absorb Dwight's contract. They can cut the $20.6M via SnT with LAL too if they want...thing is, why in the world would LAL agree to this haha.

 

It doesn't matter, at least as far as Howard goes. Just hypothesis on top of hypothesis. Aren't sign-and-trades more or less near-impossible now anyway?

 

ok if thats true the lakers salary for next year is 78 million.

if they amnesty metta at 8 million then they would be at 70 million. Thus they could work a SNT for Chris Paul

 

Not at all, this is just a myth.

It's impossible for a few teams that are above the apron going forward and it doesn't make much sense for a team with cap room to sign a player outright due to the lack of the financial incentive. However, teams over the cap, say a team at $63 million could still do a sign and trade to get a player.

 

No because they couldn't go over the apron of $74 million AFTER the trade.

In order to do the S&T they'd have to be able to send back enough salary to where they were under $74 million after the deal, and they can't do that with any combination of players that a team would want.

 

The salary cap doesn't matter in his hypo there as much. SnTs are still very possible, just harder to do than before, and will occur less often because the players themselves do not get the benefit of it. In the past, players could push for it to get that extra yr but sign with another team...home team would do it to be left with nothing. New team would agree in order to convince the player to come.

Now the player has no financial incentive to do this, so new teams have less of a reason to agree to a SnT as well.

 

I may not be using the correct terms...because I am talking to you guys from my phone and driving...but my math is right.

Thats why everyone says it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR LAKERS TO CLEAR ENOUGH SALARY to do a sign and trade...same for the nets.

If the amount you are talking about is correct then the nets could make one move and be able to do a sign and trade for howard as well. They can trade Wallace to a team with capspace (give anything they want...brooks and every pick from now on) and they could then do a sign and trade because their salary next year is around 80 mil

 

? Only if they send out a ton of money. They can't go ABOVE the apron of $74M AFTER the SnT. So CP3 is $18.6M max next year. If they amnesty Metta and are at $70M, they would end up at $88.6M after the trade (not allowed). They would have to send out $14.6M to make it work. Who do they have that can add up to or exceed $14.6M that LAC would AGREE to take just so LAL can steal CP3 away from them? lol

 

Nope. They couldn't do a deal where they received a sign and trade player back that put them over $74 million. Look at their roster and give me a hypothetical scenario where they trade players away, end up with Dwight and are under $74 million without giving up Deron Williams or Joe Johnson.

 

lol I may be wrong... I just got to my computer.

My math was right but the reason why I might have misunderstood what the issue was.

 

Your math isn't right because you are starting at the wrong number. That's the only issue you are having. You are starting at $58 million when that number is irrelevant to the luxury tax apron.

 

I think it has already been addressed, but the simple answer is:

As much as necessary so that they do not end up OVER the APRON when the deal is concluded.