Reply With Quote
May be it's out of the context of the thread - How'bt this one?
Cut Rasho
Pick Finley (sure he'll be cut)
Sign Scola..
???
I'd have to see the details of the CBA clause, but I don't think this amnesty applies to teams that aren't over the tax threshold now.
May be it's out of the context of the thread - How'bt this one?
Cut Rasho
Pick Finley (sure he'll be cut)
Sign Scola..
???
You also need to find out what the threshold is...because the Spurs IMO are on it or over it after signing Horry...I don't know the PCT's but it's usually about 10 million above the cap right?
And they are looking into using the MLE to add additional players...The way I look at it is the Spurs are charging towards a 10 million tax hit next summer...
The same organization that was quibbling with Pakrer over 2 million dollars...
So either they know they can waive a player to get under the threshold...or else they know the tax isn't going to be triggered...I don't know how they could know if the tax will be triggered yet...
And remember...they can't do the waiving thing next summer.
The threshold is based on actual revenues and salaries from the previous season, so the Horry signing counts against the tax threshold next summer. The Spurs are nowhere near the tax threshold for this summer (2004-05 payroll).You also need to find out what the threshold is...because the Spurs IMO are on it or over it after signing Horry...I don't know the PCT's but it's usually about 10 million above the cap right?
Yeah, like we should listen to YOU, this thread as case in point.
Concerning the "waive Rasho" scenario, if it is possible to waive him the Spurs still have to pay him. You can say the Spurs won't pay any luxury tax, but are they really going to pay Rasho $30 million to not play for them? Is that any better?
If the luxury tax for next 4-5 years is expected to fall in the range of 30 mil (which is possible with our top 3 contracts running thru 2010)? You'd save on tax + if u can stay below cap sign a quality vet.??
No ...I know we're not over the tax threshold this summer...
My point is that Holt isn't going to paint himself into a corner for it next summer by signing contract he can't dump this summer...Remember how tight he got with Tony?
Waiving Rasho and paying him his full amount is basically equal to being $4 million over the tax threshold every year if the rest of his contract without having a player to show for it.
We can only make estimates of what the tax threshold will be next season when the cap projection is made around the 22nd. Trying to plot it out over the next four seasons is practically impossible.
So he's going to pay Rasho $8 million a year to not play for him?My point is that Holt isn't going to paint himself into a corner for it next summer by signing contract he can't dump this summer...Remember how tight he got with Tony?
What does that save him?
Um...Holt was almost willing to lose Tony Parker last season over 2 million dollars...
How quickly you forget.
Trading Malik made him less antsy...but that won't last long if the Spurs are giving out MLE equivalent deals to Horry and looking to spend their MLE, or more, on FA's...
Got it!!
Answer the question.Is that any better?
It's a stupid question...he has a choice of paying him 8 million to not play him , or pay him 8 million to play for him, while paying possibly that much in tax each year for the next 2 years...all for a guy who dindn't even make it off the bench in the playoffs.
You can't be that ing stupid,...oh wait...I forget who I am arguing with...
16>8
Why would he be exactly Rasho's salary over the tax threshold every year?he has a choice of paying him 8 million to not play him, or pay him 8 million to play for him, while paying possibly that much in tax each year for the next 2 years
What if it's just a couple of million?
Four million? It's actually cheaper to keep Rasho if you are even half his salary over the luxury tax threshold. I know you aren't smart enough to understand why, so just accept its being true.
Umm, why are those the only two choices? Wouldn't it be drastically cheaper to trade him for an expiring contract if we were desperate to dump him? It's not like there aren't teams that would have a use for him.
He wouldn't be necessarily...but you are talking about a man who was gripping over 2 million dollars to our starting PG last offseason.
You mean like the 2 million he squabbled with Parker over last summmer?What if it's just a couple of million?
Yeah? and what if you aren't? Holt and the Spurs are not going to hamstring themselves over Tony Parker...you think they are going to do it for Rasho?Four million? It's actually cheaper to keep Rasho if you are even half his salary over the luxury tax threshold. I know you aren't smart enough to understand why, so just accept its being true.
No, I mean $2 million over the tax threshold for one season. Would there be any savings in that scenario?You mean like the 2 million he was squabbled with Parker over last summmer?
No.
You're welcome.Prove it.and what if you aren't?
"IF" can work a lot of different ways...unfortunately for you...it doesn't jive with the tendencies that Holt has shown...You are no longer working on fact...you are using a best case scenario to make your point...While the CEO of the Spurs has been shown to look at things in a worst case scenario.
And you're stupid and full of ...and we both know it.You're welcome.
You prove it..."if"...
I can prove Holt was willing to lose a young starting potential super star player that plays the first or second most difficult position in the NBA to learn, last season, over 2 million dollars...
Now you prove he is willing to pay a tax of as much as 8 million for a guy that didn't even get off the bench in the playoffs...
Actually I'm not, I'm showing how waiveing Rasho doesn't mean instant savings at all depending on the Spurs level of spending. I said you wouldn't get it and you didn't disappoint.you are using a best case scenario to make your point.Hey, don't get all pissy because you don't know what you're talking about. Just shut up and let the grownups discuss this.And you're stupid and full of .
I never said it did...You OTOH are now making claims that Holt is willing to pay the lux tax for a guy that didn't get off the bench in the playoffs...
I want to you back that up. All I am asking for is some kind of past inclination that he will do so if he has a choice...that he will do so in the name of winning.
You and your little vague comments...you fool no one. I looking forward to owing you often in what was formerly my weakest area of knowledge...I said you wouldn't get it and you didn't disappoint.Hey, don't get all pissy because you don't know what you're talking about.
Again, I said there is no savings if we're talking about a tax up to even $4 million, and all you could do was throw a hissy fit.Now you prove he is willing to pay a tax of as much as 8 million for a guy that didn't even get off the bench in the playoffs.
He would pay tax if he concluded that amount would be less than the $30 million he would pay Rasho for not playing over the length of his contract.You OTOH are now making claims that Holt is willing to pay the lux tax for a guy that didn't get off the bench in the playoffs.
The terms of the new CBA are known now, but not back then. That seemed to be one reason why Holt Cat was pitching a fit about that extension last summer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
