Dwight Howard Aware That Houston Has Become More Attractive

Good big men in the NBA these days are rare enough. And good big men with great health is almost an extinct species. The best a GM can do is to factor in the risk in order to come up with an educated decision. So I am really happy that we have Asik on the team. His offense is lacking. Still we are really fortunate to have this young big man in perfect health with great defensive presence.

 

It is inaccurate because you didn't pay attention to the other point that Cw3k raised, that the state income tax is only applied to games played in that state.

So you can't apply a 13% income tax to the entire salary amount, only to the games played inside that state.

For more on what Cw3k is talking about, read this http://www.hodgsonruss.com/Home/Pra...eMultistateTaxQuandaryForProfessionalAthletes

So Rocket players still pay income tax in every state that they play in. They don't get to skip paying income tax just because they're in Texas.

Further, the 13% income tax on those making over a million a year in California doesn't mean they pay 13% of their whole earnings. That 13% is only applied to the amount they make that is OVER a million. The amount that they make that is under a million is probably taxed at a much lower rate. There are several tax brackets, and the percentage of income that falls in each tax bracket is taxed at that amount. It's not the entire income that is taxed at 13% just because you make over a million.

Also, even if he signs in California, he's not going to be paying those tax rates when he plays outside of California. When he plays outside of California or Texas, he would have to pay identical tax rates for games played in other states, no matter which state he signs in. And if he signs in Texas and plays in California, he still has to pay California tax rates. And if he signs in California and plays away games in Texas, he still gets the benefit of no income tax on those games.

So, when all is said and done, the advantage of no income tax in Texas isn't worth losing out on the extra money from signing a Bird Contract with the Lakers. Since they can offer not just an extra year, but also more money per year due to having his bird rights (7.5% annual bird raises instead of the usual 4.5%).

There's a good reason no one really considers state tax differences when signing with a team. It's just not that important when you take all the factors into account, and any benefit is relatively miniscule.

 

It does make you a contender......though that being a case is as probable as Dwight being healthy and playing like he did before injury...:grin:

btw heck rockets are contender even now:grin:

 

unstoppable my ass... are Lakers unstoppable?:grin:

 

Dwight at 50% is still better than Asik at 100%.
That's not a knock at Asik. I love Asik, but we are not winning a championship with him.

 

Do the lakers have cp3 and james harden?

If our team looked like that we would be unstoppable. I think there is a an extremely minuscule chance of it happening, but if it did...oh boy.

 

A guaranteed 50% of games played in the 13% tax state compared to 50% of games played in a 0% tax state is still not an amount of money to sneeze at.

Don't forget that superstars also get big bucks from endorsements, and that money is all subject to income tax based on the state they reside in.

It seems pretty dumb to argue that everyone completely ignores income tax when the Houston FO has said that it is something they highlight when trying to attract FA's.

 

I think this is a big point that many are overlooking. Back during Dwightmare: The Draft there was a supposed insider named cyberx who pointed out that the endorsements Dwight makes as being a laker are a large part of why Fegan (his agent) was pushing him to go there. While I don't have any kind of numbers to back up my case I think the amount of money in endorsements he makes in LA would balance the difference between any kind of tax difference here. Not to say he won't make good money from endorsements here, particularly asian deals, but he's a laker for crying out loud - hard to beat that when it comes to being in the spotlight.

 

This post is more circumspect, and I see where you are coming from now, but I still disagree with you.

The Mavs are a great example of your point (very similar to the Sonics who lost to the Nuggets in 94), but only if we look at a single season. An elite team can definitely be upset, and flukes occur. However, those teams both one multiple playoff series and competed for (or won) championships in those eras. If they would have NEVER won a single playoff series, I don't think we would be able to consider them elite.

Think about it -- what would the narrative on Dirk be if he would have NEVER won a playoff series? And would we Rockets fans still think of the dreaded Sonics defense if they would not only never have beaten us in the playoffs, but in fact never won a playoff series at all?

"Greater than Negligible"? This can't be what you mean. This is the crux of our disagreement by the way. I maintain that a team must prove they can win multiple playoff series to be considered elite, while you think they must merely have a decent chance of doing so. But, who or what determines what team has a that "greater than negligible" chance?

The only thing that proves the chance exists is the actual winning of the playoff series by a close facsimile of the roster in question.

 

Howard might be off the charts skilled, but I don't see him as mentally tough as he should be. I feel like he is more of the Tracy McGrady type when it comes to mental toughness. He seems to quit on his team to serve his own agenda and I do not want that **** again. LeBron won't ever happen but it would be nice.

 

If you're going to consider endorsements, then it would be disingenuous to not point out that the marketing, exposure, and endorsement opportunities are greater in California. If anything, the greater endorsement opportunities there balance out and probably outweigh whatever difference they save from state taxes. So if anything, he stands to make more money in California from endorsements even after accounting for taxes, compared to Texas.

And, as stated before, they don't pay 13% tax overall in California. The tax rate is graduated to decrease the differential. Further, the bird rights raises of 7.5% vs. 4.5% helps to negate some of the disparity even further to reduce the tax advantage of signing in Texas. There may be an advantage, but not a a significant one once all the factors are taken into account. And it may even be a net loss due to missing out on endorsement opportunities in a larger market like LA.

 

Asik has the best Defensive RAPM in the league besides Garnett (iirc). You can easily win a championship with him.

 

I don't think LeBron coming to Houston is in any way realistic so we can strike option B off - in reality the other option is keeping the space for TBD player(s) which could be via trade, sign and trade, FA acquisition etc.

That said, and I know the back issue is real, I think we'd be crazy not to get Dwight if we can. He is simply a beast and Hakeem could train him up in theft seasons even more. He's young and could form a formidable duo with Harden. Super-beard-sanity anyone?

 

Don't really like the poll options. Need option 3 "Hell No". Why would we want to tie up max money on a guy with a bad back? A guy on a stacked team with a LOSING RECORD??? Just say no to the Dwightmare!!!!!! I really thought we were through with this crap. I would rather wait for Kevin Love.

 

The problem is that Dwight Howard has become much less attractive since last year.

 

howard needs beauty tips from parsons to make himself more attractive

 

Bingo, but apparently the Dwightmare will only end when his back forces him into retirement.

 

Thanks to Parsons.too late dwight.

 

Consider the case for two different types of players. Big contract star players with endorsement potential. Blake Griffin has a bunch Kia commericals, CP3 has State Farm commercials. There are benefits to playing well in a large media market right next to Hollywood. They may not get such huge endorsements if they were in some smaller no tax market.

Then consider the opposite end of the vet min and low salary guys. If you're making less than 1 Mil as a minimum signing, you're not going to be hit by the top tax rate of 13%.

Let's say you're signed for more than minimum salary, at 2.4M per year. 50% home games means only 1.2M would be counted as California income. Of that 1.2, only 200K is above the 1M mark and can be taxed at 13%. The rest below 1M would be taxed at lower rates, going through the various income brackets. So for a player in California instead of Texas, signed at $2.4M per year, he saves a whooping 13% x $200K = 26k at the high end (plus whatever the lower tax brackets saves him). He probably blows that on a stripper or something.

The difference between bird rights raises of 7.5% and nonbird raises of 4.5% would be 3%. 3% of $2.4M is 72K. So, if bird rights raises had pertained in this artificial situation (which it obviously doesn't), he would have made more money in California despite the higher tax.

So you see why FA's aren't too convinced by Morey's sales pitch about tax breaks, especially if they're actually smart enough to cut through the hype.

 

Doubt dwight comes here, Hakeem told him to stay the hell away when he was training him. Poor yao didn't listen when Hakeem told him to request a trade, his calcium pills were replaced with placebo's and his shoe's had the heel cushioning taken out along with the ankle support.

Hakeem will always be Hou's #1 center...always...