And it doesn't have anything to do with him simply wanting more than he is worth, and being a problem. Isn't that the Okham's Razor approach? For every case where a team has claimed worries of a Luxury Tax, there are numerous players to receive overpriced salaries. For every Mason, there are 2 or 3 Todd McCollucgh's and Shandon Andersons. We have not demonstrated anything this off-season except the owners ability to use the Luxury Tax as an excuse....and everyone is biting. Your point is based on the owners not knowing their own accounting and projections. I think they very much know. It is their business to know. Besides, what is going to cause a Luxury Tax to kick-in is a higher % of players getting overpaid at the maximum salary, not more and more Marc Jacksons getting $1m more than GS warrants. imo, your argument is an overstatement buying into propoganda of the owners who continue to demonstrate that the CBA is a big win for them. Conversely, I could be buying into a big conspiracy theory saying the owners are out to screw the player's union...hmmmmm, I wonder if that has ever been demonstrated to be true?? Pay us an escrow tax of 10% of your salary each month to make sure we don't spend too much, to act as a buffer before a luxury tax kicks in.....hmmmmm.....
So basicaly the extent of your evidence that this is going to happen is your 'speculation', correct? That's how religions get started...
<i>And it doesn't have anything to do with him simply wanting more than he is worth, and being a problem. Isn't that the Okham's Razor approach? </i> CP, Mason can't get anybody to pay him $4.5M. I don't think that is over priced for a player coming off off an all-star season. Even with his off court problems, $4.5M is under his market value.
Let's see. Who needs a very good PG & what do they have that we might want in a S&T? Atlanta (Nazr Mohammed@$4.5 mill)-not till 12-15-01 Boston (Toni Battie@$3.6 mill or Vitaly potapenko@$4.76 mill) Miami (Laphonso Ellis@$3 mill)-not till 12-15-01 NY Knicks (Othella Harrington@$2.475 mill) Chicago (Eddy Curry@$2.23 mill or Brad Miller@$4.4 mill) Detroit (Jon Berry@$3.175 mill) Are there any others? Most, if not all, of the above are probably not available. I'd bet that Othella could be had though.
So Mason proves that the Luxury Tax threat works. I thought his agent earlier insisted on more than an exception; besides, the number of exceptions available on the market have been almost entirely depleted this summer. Also, how many years does he want. That is still placing too much emphasis on the Luxury Tax "threat" for me to make the following statement: I disagree with that. Again, isn't the Ockham's Razor approach to say that the <b>Salary Cap</b> is the main cause for change in the free agency and trade market? The Luxury Tax "threat" is minor by comparison. It won't occur as long as revenues continue going up, since the rise in the Salary Cap is pseudo-locked to revenues, and the monstrous salaries like Hakeem, Ewing and Robinson continue being retired. Further, a shortfall has to eat through 10% of the players' salaries (meaning they lose it) before a Luxury Tax hits. imo, backed by projections and statements from the Coon group, the Luxury Tax is weak....and meant to sound strong like the owners were going to penalize each other. They didn't galvanize around a lockout to penalize the media market teams like NY and LA as much as they did to cap them. I don't buy it. The Luxury Tax will likely never happen as long as revenues increase as they have the past 20 yrs. And with the new stadiums producing increased revenue, things are looking good....you must admit.
CP, No, I think that the difference this year is the threat of the Luxury tax. In the past, Utah wouldn't have demanded Stockton take a huge pay cut or SA wouldn't have lost Derek Anderson because they didn't want to guarentee the last year of his deal. Miami all of a sudden worries about the cap? What's the diffence this year? It's the luxury tax, the salary cap is basically the same as the previous years. You've got owners proclaiming that they absolutely won't pay the tax and their off season moves reflect exactly that. Why is it so hard to take that at face value. Do you think that it's just a coincidence that all of these teams suddenly got cost concience and are willing to lose out on talented players in order to keep their payroll down? Check out these quotes. <i>Lakers owner Dr. Jerry Buss has made it clear he does not intend to pay any luxury tax, which he will have to do should the Lakers; payroll exceed a figure expected to be around $54 million. With commitments to 10 players already totaling $51 million, Lakers GM Mitch Kupchak has had to low-ball every player in whom he has interest. That includes Mitch Richmond, Horace Grant and Samaki Walker. That explains why several NBA sources on Wednesday said backup point guard Tyronn Lue had agreed to sign a free agent contract with the Washington Wizards, likely for a substantial portion of Washington's $4.5 million average salary exception.</i> http://pub75.ezboard.com/flakersloungefrm4.showMessage?topicID=90.topic <i>"We will not pay taxes," Miller said. "It's a matter of simple economics." Not even for Stockton, 39, who is a free agent. "Not if it takes us into the tax," Miller said. "I will blanket say,'I will not pay the tax, no matter what that means."' </i> http://tsn.sportingnews.com/nba/articles/20010612/323064.html <I>Owner Micky Arison has laid down the law: he's not paying a luxury tax and that means that coach/president Pat Riley is trying to reconfigure a team which had the third best record in the Eastern Conference last season along with one of its most bloated payrolls.</i> <i>Last year, the Heat had a whopping payroll which, under any other, non-luxury tax scenario, would still be thus. The running joke around the NBA in the Riley regime was that he had no idea what his basketball budget was. But, he added, he would know exactly what it was when the Heat won a championship.</i> http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/may/1230916.html <i>Of the 24 teams that were capped July 18 and eligible to use the mid-class exception, only 13 have exercised the option. Of the 13, only six spent the entire block on a single player. Of the remaining 11 teams, only Milwaukee and Philadelphia appear to have any interest in a 34-year-old forward with combustible tendencies. And while Mason is a tough guy to handle, the Bucks' George Karl and the Sixers' Larry Brown have never backed away from players with strong personalities. Both are on the fringe of the payroll tax and neither appear willing to add salary, but might be willing to deal for Mason, dollar for dollar. The problem here: Pat Riley is looking to dump salary in Miami. The Heat payroll is $50.5 million without unsigned free agents Mason and Tim Hardaway. If Miami accepts a $3.2 million exception and deals Hardaway to Dallas, then anything it takes back for Mason puts the team over the tax line. </i> http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/denberg/1239336.html
I believe the NBA is guilty of collusion. Doesn't it seem like a few teams would have ventured into the area of luxury tax given the options of a) winning more games or b) loosing more games? If say, one could trade for a good player that put your team within a mil or two over the luxury tax... the costs don't seem too significant. Seriously... at least one owner must have thought "a dollar for a dollar isn't too bad... if we only do it this once". Instead the NBA has totally avoided any slippery slope disaster where even a handful of teams threatened profit margins for everyone else. If even a few teams had paid last year's salaries for this year's players, agents would have had more leverage. Instead what has happened this year, is a complete reversal of what you'd expect my probability... say 5-8 owners consciously entering into the luxury tax area... everyone except Paul Allen and Mark Cuban is 'sweating' over the luxury tax. Hell, even NY wouldn't be paying the luxury tax if they didn't have too. But because of the standard set for player salaries until the next CBA... neither NY or any other team will have to pay the luxury tax or a Garnett/Shaq/Jordan contract for these next few years. The owners completely cleaned house.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but according to the Chronicle the scenario listed by the author of this thread is impossible. Apparently the Warriors would have to wait a full year before trading Jackson. Call waiting Rockets general manager Carroll Dawson said he expects to get an answer from the Warriors about whether they will match the Rockets offer to Marc Jackson by the end of the week. If the Warriors match the offer, he cannot be traded for a year, making the decision solely a choice between accepting the six-year, $24.375 million offer the Rockets made and keeping Jackson or letting him walk without compensation. "Gary (St. Jean, the Warriors' general manager) said they weren't trying to hurt the guy, they were just trying to do what's right for their franchise," Dawson said. "He's talking like they would let me know this week. It won't take 15 days." Said Rockets owner Leslie Alexander, "They don't want to talk to us. They don't want to let us know. They have internal struggles about what they want to do."
<i>I believe the NBA is guilty of collusion. Doesn't it seem like a few teams would have ventured into the area of luxury tax given the options of a) winning more games or b) loosing more games? If say, one could trade for a good player that put your team within a mil or two over the luxury tax... the costs don't seem too significant. Seriously...</i> Achebe, The cost of the tax isn't just the amount you have to pay in. Teams that are forced to pay the tax also lose out an their share of the tax paid in by the other owners. So, if you just go a couple of million over the limit, it ends up costing you much more than just a couple of million.
