Taxation vs Contention

[PtldPlatypus]

This'll probably be a much more relevant topic in about 4 months or so, but it's already been discussed for a while, and I think it'll be an issue all season, so I figured there could be a thread about it. I'm wondering where you all think the front office comes down on the possibility of going into the tax this year.

 

[Tince]

Unless it looks like we're going to contend for a title (highly unlikely) AND there is a piece we can get for great value, the front office is not going to put us in a position to be in the repeater territory. Nor should they.

 

[Cugel]

Naw they won't do it. The team already makes the owner money. It's a bidnis.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I think if a deal makes us the best in the west on paper for a couple of years they'd do it.

 

[Tince]

I think of a deal makes us the best in the west on paper for a couple of years they'd do it.

Making that deal and going in repeater tax would mean they would have to pass up future opportunties and likely give up on a current asset on this years roster (ex: not resigning Trent). Hard for me to think of a realistic deal that would justify doing this.

 

[blazerkor]

We would have to be getting a guy that pushed us into title favorite territory. I'm talking deals that would make no sense for the other team... unless it meant we were betting on winning a chip and keeping Giannis. I still think other teams might have more to offer for Giannis and don't think the Bucks ever let him go.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Making that deal and going in repeater tax would mean they would have to pass up future opportunties and likely give up on a current asset on this years roster (ex: not resigning Trent). Hard for me to think of a realistic deal that would justify doing this.

Yep, I can't think of a realistic deal that would fit here either. But I think they'd do it if we could get Giannis.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I think a lot of it has to do with what was in Paul Allen's will concerning the Blazers and his sister's right to sell the team.

It wouldn't surprise me if he had the stipulation that she could only sell the team AFTER it won a championship.

Remember, the Blazers were his first love, his first big shiny toy as a newly minted billionaire.

He doesn't want her dismantling and selling off his toys but he also doesn't want her running the team like Donald Sterling.

He has to keep her incentivised into running the team successfully.

If she can win a championship she will spend because I bet she can then sell.

#PokerDogSpeculation

 

[Tince]

Yep, I can't think of a realistic deal that would fit here either. But I think they'd do it if we could get Giannis.

1000% we'd take on all-NBA players regardless of going over the tax. Like you said, that scenario is not realistic, and therefore, we will not be going over the tax.

 

[wizenheimer]

I would have went with the first option but two absolutes seem a bit over the top

I don't think the Blazers have any intention of going over the threshold. There's always a chance of course, just like there's a chance I'll win the lottery and my wife won't touch any of the money

 

[SharpesTriumph]

There is no reason to go in the tax financially or strategically since the team is hard capped a few mil into it and it would trigger the repeater tax this year as well as potentially 3 future years.

It would be better to give up a second round pick if we need to unload a little salary in a trade, even involving a superstar trade.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Nobody else mentioned the hard cap... the team is hard capped due to DJJ full MLE so there is no point going in the tax since they can only go a few million into it.

 

[illmatic99]

You dont trade away 2 first round picks for Robert Covington unless you're going all in. Makes no sense to do that and then start penny pinching. If the opportunity arises to make us appreciably better come deadline time, and we are contending, Jody should have no trouble getting taxed again.

 

[riverman]

No..it's my belief that they won't go into the luxury tax...they believe they can win without doing that now and I think only in the case of a Giannis wanting to be here would they consider it at all...and I don't see that happening at the deadline either.

 

[blazerkor]

There is no reason to go in the tax financially or strategically since the team is hard capped a few mil into it and it would trigger the repeater tax this year as well as potentially 3 future years.

It would be better to give up a second round pick if we need to unload a little salary in a trade, even involving a superstar trade.

You're right I was thinking about a ridiculous trade like a Giannis trade but if it came down to a few million, we could just make that work with additional players and cash. There really is no reason that this team would go over the luxury tax threshold this season.

Now that begs the question, in order to avoid the repeater tax will we have the same discipline next season if Gary, Zach and DJJ have outstanding performances this season? At that point it wouldn't matter what we did with Hood, we would have to try and pay all three to keep this team going. If we made it to the finals and lost, would we just say fuck it and pay all three as much as we had to and roll with what we have for a chip?

I know that's an entirely different question but it's worth asking. If we stayed disciplined this season but got so close we could taste it, would we do whatever it took, with guys that would obviously be trending up in (Gary, Zach and Jones) to contend again? If so, what is the discipline needed to stay under the threshold worth this season... shouldn't the team just do whatever it looks like it takes to win the most now?

 

[SharpesTriumph]

You're right I was thinking about a ridiculous trade like a Giannis trade but if it came down to a few million, we could just make that work with additional players and cash. There really is no reason that this team would go over the luxury tax threshold this season.

Now that begs the question, in order to avoid the repeater tax will we have the same discipline next season if Gary, Zach and DJJ have outstanding performances this season? At that point it wouldn't matter what we did with Hood, we would have to try and pay all three to keep this team going. If we made it to the finals and lost, would we just say fuck it and pay all three as much as we had to and roll with what we have for a chip?

I know that's an entirely different question but it's worth asking. If we stayed disciplined this season but got so close we could taste it, would we do whatever it took, with guys that would obviously be trending up in (Gary, Zach and Jones) to contend again? If so, what is the discipline needed to stay under the threshold worth this season... shouldn't the team just do whatever it looks like it takes to win the most now?

Yes, no matter the player acquired this season, if its possible to acquire him going into the tax (as the team is hard capped) its also possible to duck under the tax with an additional minor low cost move. Thus there is no way the Blazers will be a tax team this year.

Your second paragraph is another reason the team will most certainly not pay the tax this season. The Blazers may have to pay it in a future season; avoiding it this year makes it easier to avoid the repeater tax in future years 2021-2025. Those future seasons could potentially impact multiple key or even starter level players and as much as 10-40 millions of dollars annually. The benefit of going in the tax this year would be maybe a 13th man or keeping a second round pick, there is no way that is worth it.

Also, future seasons the Blazers will likely not be hard capped so going well into the tax SPAM style to add someone in a trade could be possible. I'm not saying Jodi will do that, just that it could be possible. Its not possible at all this season because of the hard cap, which I suspect many posters don't understand.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Great question.

i honestly think it may be covid predicated.
Any other season and we go all in regardless. If we are top 6 half way, they go all they way in any way possible. Its still an extremely competitive West.

With that said, this wont be like any other season and with an ending being an uncertainty, will they want to go all in with assurances the season ends?

im not so sure.

edit: like many mentioned, It would have to be a clear "all in" move that makes us title favorites and those deals aren’t abundant. But if it were there? Still not sure they go for it because of lack of certainty of the season.

 

[blazerkor]

Great question.

i honestly think it may be covid predicated.
Any other season and ww go all im regardless. If we are top 6 half way, they go all they way in any way possible. Its still an extremely competitive West.

With that said, this wont be like any other season and with and an ending being an uncertainty, will they want to go all in with assurances the season ends?

im not so sure.

edit: like many mentioned. It would have to be a clear all in move that makes us title favorites and those deals aren’t abundant. But if it were there? Still not sure they go for it because of lack of lack of certainty of the season.

You make a good point not just about a move that would take us over the tax threshold but another idea. Moves that take gambling on potential free agents. Due to the uncertainty of this season, even if the Pacers (Oladipo), Clippers (PG13) or Bucks (Giannis) do decide to shop their star player that they determine is likely to leave, the value they will get back is going to be hampered because of the possibility that a Raptors Kawhi type return on that investment might not happen due to COVID. This would limit the teams that bid on those players to teams that are sure they can keep them and no one can be absolutely sure, so it will come down to a level of certainty and that will impact even more severely the incoming value for the outgoing star.

Basically I think that any team that has a possibly upcoming UFA that the team can't afford to lose for without a return... that didn't already move that player... are fucking idiots. Yeah that means I think Milwaukee is filled with a bunch of absolute fools for not getting everything they could for Giannis already. The most likely outcome is that Milwaukee will end up with a couple of worthless future firsts in a Giannis pity sign and trade. Obviously there's still a chance that Giannis will stay but I think it's way worse than a 50/50 gamble and that gamble is the next ten years of your franchise.

 

[Orion Bailey]

You make a good point not just about a move that would take us over the tax threshold but another idea. Moves that take gambling on potential free agents. Due to the uncertainty of this season, even if the Pacers (Oladipo), Clippers (PG13) or Bucks (Giannis) do decide to shop their star player that they determine is likely to leave, the value they will get back is going to be hampered because of the possibility that a Raptors Kawhi type return on that investment might not happen due to COVID. This would limit the teams that bid on those players to teams that are sure they can keep them and no one can be absolutely sure, so it will come down to a level of certainty and that will impact even more severely the incoming value for the outgoing star.

Basically I think that any team that has a possibly upcoming UFA that the team can't afford to lose for without a return... that didn't already move that player... are fucking idiots. Yeah that means I think Milwaukee is filled with a bunch of absolute fools for not getting everything they could for Giannis already. The most likely outcome is that Milwaukee will end up with a couple of worthless future firsts in a Giannis pity sign and trade. Obviously there's still a chance that Giannis will stay but I think it's way worse than a 50/50 gamble and that gamble is the next ten years of your franchise.

I think the 1st month and how it plays out will be the tell tail sign of what teams may be willing to do based on winning an actual title possibilities vs season being cut short.

The more I think about it though, if w get through the first half of the season, I believe there will be a playoff and a champ. They will go back to the bubble if need be.
I don't think the season will go anywhere near as planned, but I also think they will figure out a way to get the better teams into a playoff bubble and crown another champ.

 

[Phatguysrule]

You make a good point not just about a move that would take us over the tax threshold but another idea. Moves that take gambling on potential free agents. Due to the uncertainty of this season, even if the Pacers (Oladipo), Clippers (PG13) or Bucks (Giannis) do decide to shop their star player that they determine is likely to leave, the value they will get back is going to be hampered because of the possibility that a Raptors Kawhi type return on that investment might not happen due to COVID. This would limit the teams that bid on those players to teams that are sure they can keep them and no one can be absolutely sure, so it will come down to a level of certainty and that will impact even more severely the incoming value for the outgoing star.

Basically I think that any team that has a possibly upcoming UFA that the team can't afford to lose for without a return... that didn't already move that player... are fucking idiots. Yeah that means I think Milwaukee is filled with a bunch of absolute fools for not getting everything they could for Giannis already. The most likely outcome is that Milwaukee will end up with a couple of worthless future firsts in a Giannis pity sign and trade. Obviously there's still a chance that Giannis will stay but I think it's way worse than a 50/50 gamble and that gamble is the next ten years of your franchise.

I couldn't agree more. If one of your starters doesn't want to sign the extension before becoming an unrestricted free agent you trade them for the best return you can get.

Every single time.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I couldn't agree more. If one of your starters doesn't want to sign the extension before becoming an unrestricted free agent you trade them for the best return you can get.

Every single time.

Were the Lakers stupid to play last season with Anthony Davis on an expiring deal then?

 

[Phatguysrule]

Were the Lakers stupid to play last season with Anthony Davis on an expiring deal then?

I'm pretty sure they traded for him knowing he was expiring.

And quite frankly, the Lakers don't play by the same rules as the rest of the league anyway.

We were stupid for not trading Aldridge before he was unrestricted.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I'm pretty sure they traded for him knowing he was expiring.

And quite frankly, the Lakers don't play by the same rules as the rest of the league anyway.

We were stupid for not trading Aldridge before he was unrestricted.

It was a perfectly reasonable decision to not trade Aldridge. The CBA was setup back then in a way that more heavily discourage players from signing an extension, Aldridge would've given up a huge figure maybe as high as $50 million by signing an extension instead of waiting some months to resign the following summer. There were basically no franchise players in the NBA signing extensions at that time after their rookie extension. The Blazers had a strong starting 5 as obviously evident with the teams wins prior to Wes injury.

The Lakers had Dwight walk for nothing, they took a risk, it didn't work once another time with Davis it did. Toronto lost Kawhi but the Thunder resigned George. There is a risk with this, if a team tries to avoid 100% of risks the team will never win anything. Go hide in your bunker and keep your money under your mattress if you are so scared of every risk. I'm glad the Blazers took some risk and tried to win in 2014, instead of being safe, getting a draft pick, and accept a few years of losing. Sucks it didn't turn out better, but teams will never have perfect predictions on this stuff.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

By this logic, should the Blazers trade Nurk in the summer if he doesnt sign an extension?

 

[Phatguysrule]

It was a perfectly reasonable decision to not trade Aldridge. The CBA was setup back then in a way that more heavily discourage players from signing an extension, Aldridge would've given up a huge figure maybe as high as $50 million by signing an extension instead of waiting some months to resign the following summer. There were basically no franchise players in the NBA signing extensions at that time after their rookie extension. The Blazers had a strong starting 5 as obviously evident with the teams wins prior to Wes injury.

The Lakers had Dwight walk for nothing, they took a risk, it didn't work once another time with Davis it did. Toronto lost Kawhi but the Thunder resigned George. There is a risk with this, if a team tries to avoid 100% of risks the team will never win anything. Go hide in your bunker and keep your money under your mattress if you are so scared of every risk. I'm glad the Blazers took some risk and tried to win in 2014, instead of being safe, getting a draft pick, and accept a few years of losing. Sucks it didn't turn out better, but teams will never have perfect predictions on this stuff.

The Thunder traded for George on an expiring deal, with the idea that they were trying to convince him to stay. Same with the Lakers and Davis.

That's completely different.

And yes, if Nurk is unwilling to sign an extension before becoming unrestricted we should definitely trade him.