Why is every team striving so hard to be under the luxury tax?

[picnroll]

Was there some unwritten, unpublicized agreement by all owners to try to stay under or get under the luxury tax threshold? It seems like never before has virtually every owner made efforts to not add payroll to get into or go deeper into the luxury tax hole, even if it means giving up talent (i.e. Butler). Was this an unspoken agreementlas part of giving some owners the Alan Houston rule escape clause? Or is it simply that for the first time violating the luxury tax threshold has real meaning penalty-wise?

[Solid D]

Once bitten twice shy perhaps. Revenue sharing as a mechanism of lowering the pain threshold of the Lux Tax is still unhealthy.

[picnroll]

But all owners seemed to have gotten religion at once. Strange. Is basically a hard cap in place now?

[Solid D]

But all owners seemed to have gotten religion at once. Strange. Is basically a hard cap in place now?

Yeah, or maybe the NBA revenue sharing check is still in the mail. :lol

[Solid D]

Is basically a hard cap in place now?


There is a hard cap with exceptions as stipulated in the CBA. It's most def. adult money.

[Obstructed_View]

IF Luxtax="true" THEN $1=$2

[CaptainLate]

There is a hard cap with exceptions as stipulated in the CBA. It's most def. adult money.

How many more yrs with this tax apply?

[picnroll]

There is a hard cap with exceptions as stipulated in the CBA. It's most def. adult money.
There's been a "hard cap" for some time and teams have still managed to go significantly over it, piling up the salary by taking on bad contracts to acquire talent or always using their MLE and LLE. Now even some of the most profligate spenders of the past are abstaining even from MLE use.

[ChumpDumper]

Simple -- the owners actually had to start paying the tax a couple of years ago after guessing it would never kick in. Now they don't even have to guess about the level of the tax threshold anymore. No more wiggle room.

Championships won by the big spenders = zero. That probably had something to do with it as well.

[reydawg]

You should change the title of this thread to "Why is every team striving so hard not to waste money?" Just a thought.

[timvp]

What's ironic is that the more teams that go under the luxury tax threshold, the lesser the penalty is for actually being above the threshold. The Spurs were above the threshold last year by a couple dollars and that ended up costing them about $3M total, IIRC. In years past, it would have been three or four times more than that.

Soon enough there'll be little to no penalty to going over the lux tax threshold other than the dollar for dollar tax.

[exstatic]

Why are teams striving to be under the tax? REAL simple: Portland and NY. I believe they could be considered "cautionary tales". Spending like a fool only proves that you are one...

[Brutalis]

So let's watch every team make it under just so we can go over and pay about 20 bucks of hard labor.

[picnroll]

I suspect there's more to it. I suspect that there is an unspoken agreement among all owners to not violate the luxury tax cap, at least if so only by small change. To no longer use outspending as a competitve weapon the way some owners like Cuban, Dolan and Allen have in the pst.

Look for instance at the Butler deal. Most here, i.e. timvp, were absolutely sure Dolan would match. If you're to believe Butler's agent, Butler actually turned down better offers from others teams to sign with the Spurs, not at all unbelievable. Why didn't the Knicks sign him? If nothing else they likely could have turned around and packaged him with a bad contract to take back a less bad contract. Something else seems to be going on and I think it's an unspoken pact by the owners.

[scott]

Because owners are in the business of making money?

[picnroll]

Because owners are in the business of making money?
In the past some have been in the business of ego gratification.

[MannyIsGod]

Because owners are in the business of making money?No shit. I don't understand why the conspiracy theory is coming up when it seems like simple economics tells you all you need to know.

[exstatic]

I suspect there's more to it. I suspect that there is an unspoken agreement among all owners to not violate the luxury tax cap, at least if so only by small change. To no longer use outspending as a competitve weapon the way some owners like Cuban, Dolan and Allen have in the pst.

Look for instance at the Butler deal. Most here, i.e. timvp, were absolutely sure Dolan would match. If you're to believe Butler's agent, Butler actually turned down better offers from others teams to sign with the Spurs, not at all unbelievable. Why didn't the Knicks sign him? If nothing else they likely could have turned around and packaged him with a bad contract to take back a less bad contract. Something else seems to be going on and I think it's an unspoken pact by the owners.
Butler was their 15th contract, their 4th center, and would have cost $15M to keep on IR for 3 years behind contracts totalling $100M at his position alone on an already bloated payroll. I would say that Dolan just had enough of Isaiah's bullshit, and said no way. Denver wasn't much different, with Camby, KMart, and now Nene on contracts that total $208M. There's no conspiracy, just good smart investigative offers by RC and Pop.

[JamStone]

If everytime you went grocery shopping they charged you double, maybe you wouldn't be so heated the first or second time. How about 5 straight times you go grocery shopping, they charged you double what the items were worth.

Or, imagine oil companies charging you double what the gas should be worth ... oh wait.

[T Park]

imagine oil companies charging you double what the gas should be worth

Yet consumption isn't down.

So obviously gas isn't expensive enough.

[ChumpDumper]

It's so fucking simple.

Teams actually have to pay the tax now.

Owners are calling GMs saying "This $5 million dude is going to cost me $10 million? Fuck that -- get under the tax threshold and sign that guy when players almost cost what they are worth."

"Or you're fired."

[Obstructed_View]

Yet consumption isn't down.

So obviously gas isn't expensive enough.
Consumption of gas isn't down.

[GrandeDavid]

Most people don't want to pay avoidable taxes. They cost more money. :p

[boutons_]

"Consumption of gas isn't down."


It's not even stagnant, it UP!

=================

July 26, 2006

Oil Prices Rise As Gas Supplies Shrink

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 12:31 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Oil prices cruised higher Wednesday after U.S. government data showed a large drop in gasoline supplies, with summer demand almost 2 percent higher than last year despite $3-a-gallon pump prices.

[Obstructed_View]

"Consumption of gas isn't down."


It's not even stagnant, it UP!

=================

July 26, 2006

Oil Prices Rise As Gas Supplies Shrink

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 12:31 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Oil prices cruised higher Wednesday after U.S. government data showed a large drop in gasoline supplies, with summer demand almost 2 percent higher than last year despite $3-a-gallon pump prices.

Right. My point is that consumption of other things is down due to higher gas prices.