Coming Luxury Tax implications (1 Viewer)

[TBpup]

Just curious where you got the numbers from? I picked Boston randomly and it kind of depends on options picked up. Plus you have guys like Jaylen Brown who would be on the final year of their rookie deal so even though they are expiring it's not quite the same. On the flip side those numbers don't factor in anyone who signs a one year deal this summer either.

I used only expiring contracts that were UFA's. Hope that helps. There were a bunch more RFA. And there will be some additional 1-year deals as well that will only add to the expiring money. But those can be more difficult to trade or not as attractive for the player. For instance, Hood was on a 1-year deal and had to waive his Bird Rights to get traded to a playoff team. So now it makes it tough for Portland to keep him even if they want to and he is relying on another team with cap space to pay him this summer.

 

[Pinwheel1]

just off the top of my head, I'm thinking without those stretch provisions, this would be Portland's 3rd straight year of paying tax. If so, then next year they'd be a repeater tax team if they went over the line. That would almost guarantee a big NYET from the Vulcans on breaching the threshold

So is it 3 years over the salary cap or 3 years over the luxury tax? Because they did not go over the Luxury tax last year.

 

[Titan]

So, we're boned?

Not if you are a free agent in 2020.

 

[hoopsjock]

So is it 3 years over the salary cap or 3 years over the luxury tax? Because they did not go over the Luxury tax last year.

It's 3 out of the last 4 years being over the luxury tax line. He was saying they'd be in the tax if it wasn't for the stretch provisions.

It's hard to say though. Last year probably for sure if we don't stretch Nicholson. If we didn't stretch Varejao then we wouldn't have had as much cap space in 2016 though thus probably altering who we signed and for how much. So who knows what would've happened moving forward.

 

[hoopsjock]

I used only expiring contracts that were UFA's. Hope that helps. There were a bunch more RFA. And there will be some additional 1-year deals as well that will only add to the expiring money. But those can be more difficult to trade or not as attractive for the player. For instance, Hood was on a 1-year deal and had to waive his Bird Rights to get traded to a playoff team. So now it makes it tough for Portland to keep him even if they want to and he is relying on another team with cap space to pay him this summer.

I'm not trying to say you did anything wrong but do you mind showing me how you got $52.4 million with 3 players for Boston? Assuming Kyrie opts out, Horford and Baynes opt in, and Hayward opts in for 2020-21 that leaves Horford and Baynes as the only non-RFA free agents in 2020. That's about $35.6 million. Am I missing someone else?

 

[TBpup]

I'm not trying to say you did anything wrong but do you mind showing me how you got $52.4 million with 3 players for Boston? Assuming Kyrie opts out, Horford and Baynes opt in, and Hayward opts in for 2020-21 that leaves Horford and Baynes as the only non-RFA free agents in 2020. That's about $35.6 million. Am I missing someone else?

The site I used for most of it showed Horford, Irving and Baynes as UFA's. Like I said, I found some errors and then gave up trying to correct them all. I'm sure there are more. It assumed player options as UFA's. It actually didn't have Marcus Morris listed as a UFA where another site did. Like I said, a bunch of inconsistencies. It was more for the bigger picture of how many ending contracts there are or could be by team.

 

[hoopsjock]

The site I used for most of it showed Horford, Irving and Baynes as UFA's. Like I said, I found some errors and then gave up trying to correct them all. I'm sure there are more. It assumed player options as UFA's. It actually didn't have Marcus Morris listed as a UFA where another site did. Like I said, a bunch of inconsistencies. It was more for the bigger picture of how many ending contracts there are or could be by team.

Perfect! I wasn't trying to call you out if that's how it sounded, I was just curious.

Edit: Just to be sure you weren't looking at this summer were you? Cause Morris is a UFA this summer not 2020.

 

[wizenheimer]

So is it 3 years over the salary cap or 3 years over the luxury tax? Because they did not go over the Luxury tax last year.

we were talking about not using the stretch provisions on Varejao, Nicholson, and Ezeli.

*Blazers were about 800K under the tax line in 2016-17 but Varejao's 10M salary would have put them well over.

* Blazers were $735.00 under the tax line last season (that has to be a record for closest margin) last year, but Nicholson's 6.6M salary + Ezeli's 1M guarantee would have put Portland well over the line

* finally, this season Blazers are close to 8M over the tax line. Deduct the 5.1M for the stretches but add 6.6M for Nicholson

so three years of tax meaning next season would trigger repeater tax if they were over. Like hoopsjock said, the 2016 summer might have been a little different if they didn't stretch Varejao but my guess is the only change would have been not signing Ezeli

I wish I would have had a stretch provision around here a few years ago...it would have kept my son out of the refrigerator and my liquor cabinet

 

[hoopsjock]

Perfect! I wasn't trying to call you out if that's how it sounded, I was just curious.

Edit: Just to be sure you weren't looking at this summer were you? Cause Morris is a UFA this summer not 2020.

Nevermind, I'll just leave it, ha ha. The Blazers are at $41.4 so I'll stop trying to figure it out.

 

[tester551]

The stretch provisions do suck but we'd be on the repeater tax clock if we didn't stretch those guys because there would have been no way to duck the tax last year. I don't know how much that matters but it would result in much larger tax payments down the road.

It really depends on which contracts you're talking about...

Verejo - would've been MUCH better to take the tax hit that year. We were far below the cap.

Ezeli - again, better to take it all in 1 season.

Crabbe/Nicholson - better to stretch it.

 

[hoopsjock]

It really depends on which contracts you're talking about...

Verejo - would've been MUCH better to take the tax hit that year. We were far below the cap.

Ezeli - again, better to take it all in 1 season.

Crabbe/Nicholson - better to stretch it.

The stretch of Varejao didn't take place until the following season so being under the cap that year didn't matter. What did matter is losing that cap space that summer (Ughhhh 2016 damn it!). @wizenheimer points out that we probably just wouldn't have signed Ezeli but it would have likely ended with offering Turner slightly less money too so that would be one of the benefits. Everything after that point would be different. Not having Ezeli means no need to stretch him. Trading Crabbe for Nicholson might have lead to not needing to trade Vonleh last year to get under the line. It may be fun to speculate but impossible to know for sure.

 

[TBpup]

Perfect! I wasn't trying to call you out if that's how it sounded, I was just curious.

Edit: Just to be sure you weren't looking at this summer were you? Cause Morris is a UFA this summer not 2020.

You're right, Morris is for this season. When I went back to check, was rushing and looked at something else. There will be some discrepancies but it's pretty close for the most part. But in adjusting the Knicks, I had to go back and accidentally used 2019 for their 2020 number. It should be around $7M instead of what is listed....which is for 2019.

 

[jlprk]

I used only expiring contracts that were UFA's. Hope that helps. There were a bunch more RFA. And there will be some additional 1-year deals as well that will only add to the expiring money. But those can be more difficult to trade or not as attractive for the player. For instance, Hood was on a 1-year deal and had to waive his Bird Rights to get traded to a playoff team. So now it makes it tough for Portland to keep him even if they want to and he is relying on another team with cap space to pay him this summer.

The site I used for most of it showed Horford, Irving and Baynes as UFA's. Like I said, I found some errors and then gave up trying to correct them all. I'm sure there are more. It assumed player options as UFA's. It actually didn't have Marcus Morris listed as a UFA where another site did. Like I said, a bunch of inconsistencies. It was more for the bigger picture of how many ending contracts there are or could be by team.

So the list is not as objectively authoritative as it looks. Some numbers may be way off, but the list is useful in the aggregate, in displaying how the Blazers don't have the expiring contract advantage that some posters were claiming.

The purpose of the list is to provide an answer in context of this board's arguments, rather than to serve as something people can cite in the future.

 

[TBpup]

^^^^Yes, the list was secondary to the original post. It took so long to put together and when it was obvious that not all the info I was relying on was completely correct, I just tried to make it as close as possible for a 'larger picture' example of what the Blazers were up against. I'm sure a more accurate list will be available after this summer when different players make decisions about opt-outs and the 1-year salaries are decided on.

 

[jlprk]

^^^^Yes, the list was secondary to the original post. It took so long to put together and when it was obvious that not all the info I was relying on was completely correct, I just tried to make it as close as possible for a 'larger picture' example of what the Blazers were up against. I'm sure a more accurate list will be available after this summer when different players make decisions about opt-outs and the 1-year salaries are decided on.

You did a good job.