Teams and Luxury Taxes over the years.

[Spursfanfromafar]

Good compilation by Mark Deeks of Sham Sports -

Link here (http://www.shamsports.com/media/tax.jpg).

http://www.shamsports.com/media/tax.jpg

In other words,

LMAO Knicks!
LMAO Blazers!

[ElNono]

Ouch Cubes...

Dolan :lol

[gambit1990]

at first glance i'm most surprised by:
1) how much portland paid in 2002/03
2) how much dallas has paid over the last decade.
3) how chicago hasn't paid any. i know they haven't been a threat in the playoffs, other than the past couple years, but they're still a major city. i would've thought they'd have paid some. if anything, it shows they have a better front office than new york. but that goes for a lot of teams.

[racm]

at first glance i'm most surprised by:
1) how much portland paid in 2002/03
2) how much dallas has paid over the last decade.
3) how chicago hasn't paid any. i know they haven't been a threat in the playoffs, other than the past couple years, but they're still a major city. i would've thought they'd have paid some. if anything, it shows they have a better front office than new york. but that goes for a lot of teams.

Chicago has never gotten a marquee free agent. They don't pay tax because Reinsdorf is a cheapass.

They got lucky Stern gifted them gangbanger, tbh...

[Clipper Nation]

:lol Knicks
:lol Most expensive failure in sports

[NickiRasgo]

$12,597,554 = 3 titles. :toast Could have been five.

[wildbill2u]

The ultimate question of course is whether going into luxury tax territory by paying out-sized salaries to buy a championship works.

The secondary question is whether it is possible for small market cities to compete for the necessary "stars" --even when they overpay.

I'm going to set the bar at $20,000,000 for purpose of comparison.

You could say that going over the cap has paid off in championships for Miami (2) Dallas (1) Boston (1) Lakers (all).

Going over the cap has not paid off for Orlando, Portland, New York, Sacramento, Minnesota, Cleveland or Denver. Note that all but NY are in markets that are either small or not particularly attractive to free agents.

This leads me to the conclusion that even by overpaying, (probably for lesser or fewer stars), small markets simply cannot buy enough stars or 'great' stars to successfully compete for a championship.

The Spurs are the outlier that proves the rule. A small market with home-grown stars won 4 championships. The thing to note is that we tried to compete by going over the cap in the last few years in an attempt to crown the Big 3 with one more championship. However, we came up short since the overage on the cap was for a 'lesser' star (RJ) who couldn't help as much as expected. A Spurs experiment with the cap that failed. I don't see that failed experiment being repeated.

The League is developing a tiered status of teams. A bottom tier of teams mired in small markets where no star player wants to live and whose draft efforts are always thwarted by inept FO or the desire of their drafted stars to play elsewher.

The second tier of team are also small markets and/or of lesser desirablity for basketball players than 'destination franchise cities.' They have better FO, draft better and have good coaches and a 'family friendly' city ambiance. SA, Denver, etc.

A First Tier of major markets who are desired by players as 'destination franchise cities. These franchises can buy All-stars in free agency or by forced trades to these 'preferred destination" cities.

We are what we are--a second tier team which will probably fall to the third tier as soon as the Big 3 are gone. By a lucky twist of Fate we have a Big 3 who have been happy to play here. We are not likely to draft/trade for 3 All-Star caliber players who are happy to play here again.

[lurker23]

Using data from the chart, luxury tax payments of championship teams:

2002-03: Spurs, $187,000 (finals loser, Nets, $5.7 million)
2003-04: Pistons, $756,627 (finals loser, Lakers, $8.4 million)
2005-06: Heat, $3.7 million (finals loser, Mavericks, $17.4 million)
2006-07: Spurs, $196,082 (finals loser, Cleveland, $0)
2007-08: Celtics, $8.2 million (finals loser, Lakers, $5.1 million)
2008-09: Lakers, $7.2 million (finals loser, Magic, $0)
2009-10: Lakers, $21.4 million (finals loser, Celtics, $14.9 million)
2010-11: Mavericks, $18.9 million (finals loser, Heat, $0)
2011-12: Heat, $6.1 million (finals loser, Thunder, $0)

[Drom John]

Very old news to MLB fans, but Miami is a small market team.

[timvp]

Great work by Sham. This is something I've thought about putting together just out of curiosity but it was always too daunting.


On one hand, Holt deserves credit for not totally avoiding the tax over the years. Going all-in for RJ obviously didn't work out but props to the owners for shelling out the cash that season. Even last year, the FO obviously wasn't handcuffed and was able to spend relatively freely.

On the other hand, in retrospect, it's somewhat disappointing that Holt didn't go all-in back when Duncan was in his prime. Would ~$5-8M in tax in 2004, 2006 or 2008 have made a difference? It might have. I complained about it at the time and I still say the ownership should have greenlighted as much funds as the FO wanted to put the best possible product on the court. How often will this franchise have a top ten player ever surrounded by two Hall of Fame guards and a top five perimeter defender of all-time? Obviously, that will never happen again.



No way I can complain about four championship trophies -- and truthfully, no matter how much the owners shelled out, four titles was probably the max that could be expected -- but it's just odd that Holt opened his wallet years after it made logical sense to spend the freely. I mean, if you're going to spend $8M in lux tax, you should do it before Duncan is 34 years old, tbh.

[therealtruth]

Great work by Sham. This is something I've thought about putting together just out of curiosity but it was always too daunting.


On one hand, Holt deserves credit for not totally avoiding the tax over the years. Going all-in for RJ obviously didn't work out but props to the owners for shelling out the cash that season. Even last year, the FO obviously wasn't handcuffed and was able to spend relatively freely.

On the other hand, in retrospect, it's somewhat disappointing that Holt didn't go all-in back when Duncan was in his prime. Would ~$5-8M in tax in 2004, 2006 or 2008 have made a difference? It might have. I complained about it at the time and I still say the ownership should have greenlighted as much funds as the FO wanted to put the best possible product on the court. How often will this franchise have a top ten player ever surrounded by two Hall of Fame guards and a top five perimeter defender of all-time? Obviously, that will never happen again.



No way I can complain about four championship trophies -- and truthfully, no matter how much the owners shelled out, four titles was probably the max that could be expected -- but it's just odd that Holt opened his wallet years after it made logical sense to spend the freely. I mean, if you're going to spend $8M in lux tax, you should do it before Duncan is 34 years old, tbh.

I agree. Owner are not always logical. It's like Cuban spending like crazy over the years and then when he finally gets a title team he gets stingy. It's understandable with not wanting to pay the luxury when you're not good but when you're in the midst of winning you have to go all in. It really could have made a difference in the Spurs being able to defend their titles.

[DesignatedT]

Wow NY.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

I agree. Owner are not always logical. It's like Cuban spending like crazy over the years and then when he finally gets a title team he gets stingy. It's understandable with not wanting to pay the luxury when you're not good but when you're in the midst of winning you have to go all in. It really could have made a difference in the Spurs being able to defend their titles.

There have been a couple of articles lately on Cuban, and his reined in spending makes sense in light of the new CBA. Basically, he said he doesn't mind spending the money, but starting next summer, any team that pays the tax next year cannot take part in sign and trades, either sending out or receiving such players as a part of any trade. That's fucking HUGE. That means that if NJ or the LAL don't get Howard by the trade deadline in Feb., they don't get Howard at all. Cuban doesn't want his hands tied regarding player acquisitions.

If those rules had been in effect this year, Nash couldn't have gone to LA. If they had been in effect in 2010-2011, Carmelo would not be in NY.

[TimmehC]

:lol Jailblazers (02-03)

That is a ridiculous tax payment.

[TDMVPDPOY]

Chicago has never gotten a marquee free agent. They don't pay tax because Reinsdorf is a cheapass.

They got lucky Stern gifted them gangbanger, tbh...

dont forget the draft picks they stole from the knicks in trades

overvalue their current shit and trading to the stupid knicks every fkn year...

[therealtruth]

There have been a couple of articles lately on Cuban, and his reined in spending makes sense in light of the new CBA. Basically, he said he doesn't mind spending the money, but starting next summer, any team that pays the tax next year cannot take part in sign and trades, either sending out or receiving such players as a part of any trade. That's fucking HUGE. That means that if NJ or the LAL don't get Howard by the trade deadline in Feb., they don't get Howard at all. Cuban doesn't want his hands tied regarding player acquisitions.

If those rules had been in effect this year, Nash couldn't have gone to LA. If they had been in effect in 2010-2011, Carmelo would not be in NY.

Ideally I think what he should have done is signed Chandler before the new CBA then amnesty somebody later on.

[Lincoln]

Cuban has also openly stated that when the time comes, he will spend again. The newer CBA just restricts him a little bit and it is harder to build a team now if you're in massive luxury tax hell. If Howard can somehow make it past the trade deadline and into free agency, I think Dallas has a GREAT shot at signing him. Odds are he will be traded by the deadline and then sign an extension.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

Ideally I think what he should have done is signed Chandler before the new CBA then amnesty somebody later on.

I'm sure he considered it, and with the makeup of the team and what players they needed, there was no way to not pay the tax this season. They already had to amnesty Haywood, and that was without Chandler even on their payroll any more.

[Gagnrath]

I think it is going to be hilarious when Carmello's contract is up and every offer he gets is just slightly more than the mid-level.... He's going to be sitting there asking his agent why so hard it won't be funny.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

I think it is going to be hilarious when Carmello's contract is up and every offer he gets is just slightly more than the mid-level.... He's going to be sitting there asking his agent why so hard it won't be funny.

Your entire assumption is based on NBA GM's being smart and avoiding big deals for players who can't advance their teams in the playoffs. Plenty of evidence that isn't true.

New York will likely break the bank for him. The team is run by elements of CAA, and Carmelo is represented by CAA, so it's like they're negotiating with themselves.

[Cane]

And not one executive of the year trophy during the Duncan era

wtf