Reply With Quote
I can see why you didn't want to post this in the existing Salmons thread... where this item can also be found...
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...adeTalk-090218
Instant lux tax:
There is another complication for interested parties: Sources revealed Tuesday that Salmons has a 15 percent trade kicker in his contract that would require the team that acquires him to pay him a bonus of nearly $2 million and add that figure to its payroll. Salmons otherwise would rank as one of the league's better bargains, earning just $5.1 million this season while averaging 18.3 points and shooting 47.2 percent from the field and 41.8 percent on 3-pointers.
The Spurs would have to swallow that $2 million, plus the lux tax implications. After adding in all the costs, I bet Salmons would wind up costing around $9 million out-of-pocket. Somebody else might want to do the math to get an exact number, but it doesn't matter. It's too damned much money.
I can see why you didn't want to post this in the existing Salmons thread... where this item can also be found...
Yeah sorry we all already knew this it was posted in the 2 Salmons threads going on.
Kill it then. I try to go through every single ing post, but sometimes I miss one or two.
BTW... did anyone calculate just how much Salmons would cost the Spurs out-of-pocket in those other posts?
[Edit:] I see one of them disguised as another get-rid-of-Finley thread, which is why I skipped it.
Ugh... Salmons blows.
I'm not against it. I just wanted to bring up the math on what he would really cost. That extra $2 million is a tough pill to swallow, but it would wind up costing them a lot more than that in out-of-pocket expense.
Depending on the deal, Sac could include cash (up to $3M) and the Spurs could use that money to pay the trade kicker. So I don't think the trade kicker would necessarily kill the Spurs desire for Salmons.
hummmm interesting
AFIAK, Salmons has the ability to nullify the trade kicker . . .
Very nice... thanks for that. I assume the Spurs would have to give up more bodies? But they wouldn't get caught in lux tax , so it isn't out of the question.
Echhh... when I start thinking about what they would have to get in exchange for making that deal. Sort of a mixed bag, huh?
Even if Salmons didn't give up the trade kicker, it's still manageable. His $5.1M salary would jump to $7.1, but the Spurs would only have to cough up $5.6M to make it work. Trading away $5.6 and taking bay $7.1 wouldn't be enough to put the Spurs over the tax. The Spurs have about a $3 mil cushion against the tax.
Stein indicated that Sac would want Mavies to take back BENO and Salmons in a deal. Wow! Less than a year after signing him, the Kings have buyers remorse - just as I/we knew they would.
If all Salmons makes is 5.6, and you give up in essence just Ime Udoka for him?
That changes things ALOT.
I don't know why, but I was thinking that the Spurs were closer to the threshold than that. Yeah, if they could swallow that $2 mil without the tax and lost revenue, there's a potential deal there. Thanks for setting me straight.
Since the original thread turned out to be a duplicate, I'll throw in a kicker of my own in the form of a link. This article does a good job of explaining some of the jockeying going on right now, with teams trying to dump salary. The one big thing to note is that there is good reason to believe that the lux tax threshold will be a lot lower next season. I'm even wondering if the league will have to bend its formula a little to keep from killing some small market teams.
http://www.brewhoop.com/2009/2/14/75...lemma-all-abou
Yeah, and I owe Kori another apology for that one. Benoh showed his true colors after getting that big contract. And my statement that Pop was too hard on him looks pretty goofy now. She was right, and I was wrong. Neither thing is too surprising, I guess.
Spurs search for help
by Art Thompson III, OCREGISTER.COM
It’s wise of the San Antonio Spurs to realize that their current squad does not have what it takes to dethrone the Lakers in the Western Conference and reach the NBA Finals.
But would an offer of aging defensive ace Bruce Bowen of Cal State Fullerton and one-time Laker forward Ime Udoka for Sacramento swingman John Salmons put the Spurs over the top?
My opinion is an emphatic, no.
But according to ESPN senior writer Marc Stein, formerly of The Orange County Register, that is the projected trade that the Spurs are pursuing in hopes of adding a key piece to the team before Thursday’s noon NBA trade deadline.
It’s a far cry from the most desirable player on the Spurs’ wish list, seven-time All-Star Vince Carter of the New Jersey Nets. Although Carter is on the trading block, it would take a complicated and expensive deal for the Spurs to acquire him.
It probably would have to be a three-team trade and time is almost out for San Antonio to get another team involved.
Salmons is making $5,104,000 this year and has two more years and approximately $11.2 million remaining on his contract. But in addition, Salmons reportedly has a 15 percent trade kicker included in his contract.
It would require a team that traded for Salmons to pay him a bonus of $2 million. That money would be added onto the team’s payroll.
Don’t put it past San Antonio to not make a deadline-beating trade and beware if the Spurs pull off something significant. In 2005, San Antonio’s acquisition right before the trade deadline of center Nazr Mohammed was the linchpin, I believe, in galvanizing their drive to the NBA championship.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
