(10-14-2022, 07:35 PM)HoosierDaddyKid Wrote: [ -> ]Not buying it. Nobody can limit Giannis if he's on his game.
Well it’s kinda a joke, but they really do play well vs Giannis when we have played them.
Depending on team and player options, GSW's payroll is $190m+ for 10 players next year.
(10-15-2022, 02:13 PM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]Depending on team and player options, GSW's payroll is $190m+ for 10 players next year.
That doesn't include a new deal for Wiggins, whose contract ends this season, was a key player (and All-Star) for them last season, and whose max salary would be $45M.
It's possible (although it surely seems far-fetched they would decide to go here, to be sure) that GS's tax bill for 2023-24 could be HALF A BILLION dollars. Tax. For just one season. A max deal for Wiggins, added to their other commitments, puts them in that vicinity.
(10-15-2022, 02:48 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]That doesn't include a new deal for Wiggins, whose contract ends this season, was a key player (and All-Star) for them last season, and whose max salary would be $45M.
It's possible (although it surely seems far-fetched they would decide to go here, to be sure) that GS's tax bill for 2023-24 could be HALF A BILLION dollars. Tax. For just one season. A max deal for Wiggins, added to their other commitments, puts them in that vicinity.
wow...that is a ton. I guess I understand why bringing back Green is such a tough decision. If he opts in, are they almost forced to trade him for nothing?
(10-15-2022, 02:48 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]That doesn't include a new deal for Wiggins, whose contract ends this season, was a key player (and All-Star) for them last season, and whose max salary would be $45M.
It's possible (although it surely seems far-fetched they would decide to go here, to be sure) that GS's tax bill for 2023-24 could be HALF A BILLION dollars. Tax. For just one season. A max deal for Wiggins, added to their other commitments, puts them in that vicinity.
If the NBA ever truly wants parity they MUST implement a hard cap. Other teams just can't compete with ones who can spend above the cap like that.
Utah released Jared Butler which is a little suprising.
(10-15-2022, 02:48 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]That doesn't include a new deal for Wiggins, whose contract ends this season, was a key player (and All-Star) for them last season, and whose max salary would be $45M.
It's possible (although it surely seems far-fetched they would decide to go here, to be sure) that GS's tax bill for 2023-24 could be HALF A BILLION dollars. Tax. For just one season. A max deal for Wiggins, added to their other commitments, puts them in that vicinity.
Good point. One could argue that Wiggins was the biggest reason why GSW chipped last season.
(10-15-2022, 03:14 PM)audiosway Wrote: [ -> ]If the NBA ever truly wants parity they MUST implement a hard cap. Other teams just can't compete with ones who can spend above the cap like that.
Mavs were hard capped last season, no? But I get what you are saying. On the flipside, owners have to be willing to spend. There is a 100 million dollar payroll difference between GSW and SA this year. At the very least, maybe it is time to rethink the tax system. We have owners, like our own, avoiding it and other teams that don't care like GSW. As it sits now, it's widening the parity gap.
(10-15-2022, 03:14 PM)audiosway Wrote: [ -> ]If the NBA ever truly wants parity they MUST implement a hard cap. Other teams just can't compete with ones who can spend above the cap like that.
The players won't accept a hard cap ...
But it can be argued that the luxury tax is going to discourage teams from being willing to spend, at a certain point. I can't imagine that the Warriors revenues are big enough to support spending about $750M in a year just on player salaries (contracts plus tax), which is what we are talking about here.
The idea of giving Draymond away next summer sounds good financially (it would cut the $500M tax bill down to
only $250M), but it's hard to move giant contracts for no salary in return, because the teams with enough cap room are so limited. More likely, maybe they shop him at the deadline for expiring contracts?
But at some point, they just don't sign someone in the first place -- for example, if they just let Wiggins walk, and keep everyone else including DG, the savings to them (in salary and tax together) is over $400M! I would think that number is big enough to get someone's attention and make them inclined to say "Stop."
We will probably see lots of articles about this looming GS issue in the next 6 months, as the Warriors moan and groan about having to make choices. (Although perhaps just whispers to get the articles written, without speaking directly, since they got slapped down and fined for whining about it already.) They don't like it, but the tax is going to be doing what it was intended to do - spread the talent and force teams with varying revenues to spend closer to evenly.
(10-15-2022, 03:47 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]They don't like it, but the tax is going to be doing what it was intended to do - spread the talent and force teams with varying revenues to spend closer to evenly.
We will see with some of the contract decisions that GSW has looming but I'd argue that the tax in its' current form isn't aggressive enough. Then again, maybe there isn't a hefty enough tax system that outliers wouldn't mind outspending.
(10-15-2022, 04:05 PM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]We will see with some of the contract decisions that GSW has looming but I'd argue that the tax in its' current form isn't aggressive enough. Then again, maybe there isn't a hefty enough tax system that outliers wouldn't mind outspending.
The solution is simple - tier the tax based on 5 tiers of owner wealth and team income. Tax is low for the lowest tier, a bit higher for the next tier, the current valuation for the middle tier, higher for the second highest, and over twice the current tax for the richest teams. Make it hurt like hell.