(10-15-2022, 04:14 PM)Scott41theMavs Wrote: [ -> ]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.
It seems like a more simple solution would just to be more aggressive with every dollar spent over the cap and far more aggressive for the repeater tax. The problem I see with with your idea is calculating ownership groups and having to readjust the scale all the time. Mark Cuban was probably one of the wealthier owners in the league back in the day but someone like Ballmer dwarfs him currently.
(10-15-2022, 04:47 PM)Scott41theMavs Wrote: [ -> ]So much for the tax hurting the Warriors. Damn.
Prior to winning the first ring with their current core the franchise value was 750m (2014). Mavs value was 765m. Latest numbers from 2021 have the Warriors at 5.6b. Mavs at 2.7b.
In other words. No matter how much tax they pay. The revenue they make combined with the increased franchise value is worth the investment.
Depending on the source the Warriors have already replaced or are close to replacing the Knicks as the most valuable franchise. All of that in less than 10 years. Basically coming from the same starting point as Dallas.
(10-15-2022, 04:39 PM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]It seems like a more simple solution would just to be more aggressive with every dollar spent over the cap and far more aggressive for the repeater tax. The problem I see with with your idea is calculating ownership groups and having to readjust the scale all the time. Mark Cuban was probably one of the wealthier owners in the league back in the day but someone like Ballmer dwarfs him currently.
Everyone dwarfs in front of Balmer. However Cuban is more in the middle than at the bottom in terms of net worth of NBA owners. However in terms of taking risks he is now most probably at the bottom. Sure he will pay for a Luka or a Porzingis ( most teams would have ) but in general there is too much paralysis by analysis than taking bold decisions that a younger Cuban might have.
The fan base engaging in discussions on how to make the cap more equitable is making excuses and ignoring the fact that Cuban is still a very wealthy and relevant owner who just has gone into a shell post that championship or maybe post the Parsons fiasco. Let’s not forget again how the Warriors got Wiggins. They took a chance on DAngelo knowing he didn’t fit but being smart enough to know that they were getting an asset they could flip. The Mavs don’t do those types of things and even if they did get someone like DAmgelo, they would have been fleeced in a trade when trying to flip him with the fan base making the same excuse that no one would have given up anything for a player like that.
(10-15-2022, 06:22 PM)hakeemfaan Wrote: [ -> ]Everyone dwarfs in front of Balmer. However Cuban is more in the middle than at the bottom in terms of net worth of NBA owners. However in terms of taking risks he is now most probably at the bottom. Sure he will pay for a Luka or a Porzingis ( most teams would have ) but in general there is too much paralysis by analysis than taking bold decisions that a younger Cuban might have.
The fan base engaging in discussions on how to make the cap more equitable is making excuses and ignoring the fact that Cuban is still a very wealthy and relevant owner who just has gone into a shell post that championship or maybe post the Parsons fiasco. Let’s not forget again how the Warriors got Wiggins. They took a chance on DAngelo knowing he didn’t fit but being smart enough to know that they were getting an asset they could flip. The Mavs don’t do those types of things and even if they did get someone like DAmgelo, they would have been fleeced in a trade when trying to flip him with the fan base making the same excuse that no one would have given up anything for a player like that.
My point was the eventually Balmer will be dwarfed.
I do agree with your analysis about how the Mavs operate though. I always get a kick out of how this board, me included, overanalyze fit especially with the state of the end of our rotation and end of our bench.
Ya, we did get to a championship with a philosophy of getting the best player in the trade. The toine/tawn year set us up well.
(10-15-2022, 06:53 PM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]My point was the eventually Balmer will be dwarfed.
I do agree with your analysis about how the Mavs operate though. I always get a kick out of how this board, me included, overanalyze fit especially with the state of the end of our rotation and end of our bench.
Sorry didn’t mean my remarks as against your post. Just quoted the latest post I read about this topic.
(10-15-2022, 07:47 PM)hakeemfaan Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry didn’t mean my remarks as against your post. Just quoted the latest post I read about this topic.
No reasons for sorry brother. I just don't see how an owners worth could fairly effect the tax.
Maybe the league to take the tax money from offenders and let non tax teams use that money for signings that don't count against their cap. *shrug*
Joe Lacob is one of the “poorest” owners in the NBA. People bitching about the cap are just crying because our owner won’t do what it takes.
(10-15-2022, 04:47 PM)Scott41theMavs Wrote: [ -> ]So much for the tax hurting the Warriors. Damn.
They didn't pay him max money (and in fact did AW's new deal starting salary at more than $20M below AW's max) - which is obviously helping lessen the tax hit* ... but they may still whittle some more, because "as is," it's still going to be massive. We'll see.
EDIT - They are still staring at a tax bill of over 300M and total player-payroll cost of about $525M. If you compare that to the tax free team (which would be under $160M total), that's an extra $360M they are burning on player payroll compared to everyone else. I don't think they will be willing and able to choke that down.
*
Will run the "looming tax hit" numbers for GS 2023-24 later -- now nowhere near HALF A BILLION (which was figured based on a projected total team salary of a bit over $240M).
(10-15-2022, 03:47 PM)F Gump Wrote: [ -> ]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.
Yeah. I know the players won't accept that. The biggest problem that most of the Mavs fans don't see when discussing this subject is ticket pricing and other extras. I live in the Bay Area. An average GS nosebleed ticket will usually run you $125. That's for a week night game against a crap opponent.
There is no way Dallas could ever charge that kind of pricing. Between tickets, merch, ads, and other sources of revenue open to the Warriors other teams can't compete. The Warriors literally do not care about the luxury tax.
Think of it this way. These silicon valley guys are ok with a slight profit or break even to bring in a title or titles. The main reason is because they have plenty of other ways to monetize out here. They also are building up the value of the asset as a whole. The Warriors are now up to a $5.6 billion evaluation. Forbes says that they pulled in $258 million last year and lost $44 million dollars. Meanwhile, the local beat reporters said they brought in over $700 million in revenue last year counting outside sources. When you factor in the taxes they paid they probably walked away with around $100 million and a title. Plus a 19% growth in overall team valuation. They will take that every year.
Cuban may have gotten cheap or maybe he just realized that you can't lose money every year and continue to own the franchise. Even though Dallas is considered a larger market it's only for the Cowboys. The Mavs are an afterthought. They will never be able to throw down the kind of money that an LA, NY, Bay Area team can. The luxury tax is a joke to these guys out here.
(10-15-2022, 07:50 PM)cow Wrote: [ -> ]No reasons for sorry brother. I just don't see how an owners worth could fairly effect the tax.
Maybe the league to take the tax money from offenders and let non tax teams use that money for signings that don't count against their cap. *shrug*
Give every team two exemptions from counting against the cap and then put a hard cap against the rest of the roster.
(10-15-2022, 09:09 PM)audiosway Wrote: [ -> ]Even though Dallas is considered a larger market it's only for the Cowboys. The Mavs are an afterthought.
I waiver on this.
On the one hand, growing up in DFW, sports culture in my household was football and baseball.
On the other hand, I don't think Mark is a great businessman or all that good when it comes to marketing. That's probably a harsh criticism of a billionaire but how he got there initially is really fortunate timing. The Jones family might have a lot of flaws, but they seem to understand the ins and outs of the running a sports franchise, being creative in marketing and building a brand.
Could different ownership propel the Mavs above being an afterthought? I believe so. Could it ever match the Cowboys brand? Unlikely, but not many brands can. I think the reality is a combination of basketball not being the favored sport in Texas and less than ideal ownership, though I'd skew heavily to the latter rather than the former. And while we might not ever be able to compare to LA, NY or Miami, we certainly shouldn't be bottom dwellers like Utah.
This area supports the Cowboys first, then winners after that. If we’re winning the area will come. Just build a winner Mark.
More than half the job is done at this point in acquiring Luka, just finish the job!
(10-15-2022, 09:09 PM)audiosway Wrote: [ -> ] The Warriors literally do not care about the luxury tax.
....
Forbes says that they pulled in $258 million last year and lost $44 million dollars. Meanwhile, the local beat reporters said they brought in over $700 million in revenue last year counting outside sources. When you factor in the taxes they paid they probably walked away with around $100 million and a title. Plus a 19% growth in overall team valuation. They will take that every year.
"
The Warriors literally do not care about the luxury tax." .... While I agree with your general premise above (that the Warriors revenues make the tax less onerous to them), respectfully I don't think the specific statement here is accurate at all.
I would say they do care - at a certain level. And I would wager that the numbers we were envisioning earlier (HALF A BILLION in tax, and total player pay incl tax of about $750 MILLION) were FAR beyond their ability to stomach.
The growth in franchise value? That impresses on paper, but it isn't really the game-changer it seems, when the ownership isn't selling the team. They expect to also make the annual bottom line (revenues minus cost to generate it) work too, as a general rule, in order to allow the owners to personally profit year-to-year from their business's success (the huge revenue streams) AND keep the franchise. While they do want the franchise value to grow, they also want to be kings now, not merely create huge asset value for some heir to reap some day.
To that point, I do think that the AW contract at less-than-max will help to that end, but that they still will opt to shrink more.