http://www.realgm.com/src_feature_article.php?articleid=8 It occurs to me that we could replace existing contracts with trades, but not add new ones. I'm thinking Rox need to keep Rice's expiring deal to get under the tax for the future. Makes me think Cat's deal is being shopped as default sweetener(maybe Eddie too) to help unload Taylor or Cato (or mooch, ugh). Big splash would be big cost, unless we dump some more guys for vet minimum replacements.
9. Houston - [Committed in 03-04: $54.6M] (Profits: +$4M in 00-01, +$7M in 01-02, and +$22M to +$32M in 02-03) Free Agents: Posey(r), Collier, J Hawkins, Morris, Maddox(t) (I assume Houston does not necessarily pick up Maddox’s team option.) After tasting the sweet honey of staying under the luxury tax threshold in 01-02, Houston will likely see their profits fall even if they don’t spend much in free agency. I do not see Houston adding anyone in free agency unless a deal was made to get Van Gundy. I also am not sure they will offer enough to keep Posey, even though they have extended him a qualifying offer. The article was a good read. Look at the huge profit by Les last year. I bet a good portion of this is the lottery fund kickback. Two issues: 1) Les may now agree to go over the threshold; and 2) the may not be a luxury tax next year.
It will be intersting to see what the effect of the luxury tax will be on the NBA in the coming years. I will not be surprised to see most NBA teams paying 2-3 players well and filing out their rosters with rookie contracts, MLE contracts, and ;eague minimum contracts. Just think that if an owner filled out his/her team with 10 MLE contracts the team would be over the salary cap and looking the luxury tax dead in the eye. No superstars. Little or no change for the playoffs.
