They aren't but that's besides the point I was making....
The point I was making was on our own beloved Holt...and how quickly we have forgotten that he is a penny pincher in the truest sense of the word...
For a guy that's got an organization as well run and efficient as the Spurs...this guy is a tightwad.....IIRC his nixing negotiations with Parker last season..was his decision, and not the decision of the board.
This was guy wants as much rebate as he can get...and every dollar in tax that he pays is a dollar he will be taking out of his own pocket...
I know he said last he wasn't willing to go more than a few hundred thousand dollars over the threshold...he could have gone a couple of million over it and still recieved a nice rebate...
Like what...name those other routes...
Name them.
Chump said he wasn't going to want to pay Rasho 8 million to do nothing...well what did he do when we just won a le...you think Holt feels he got his moneys worth?
being 4 million over the tax is 4 million he will have to pay...that hasn't changed...his rebate will be even smaller now regardless of what he does...so the only way he will save is by paying less on the tax.
Okay, so Holt is going to say, "Here is a $30M check Rasho...take a hike because I don't want to pay an additional $6 million in luxury tax money over the next 4 years because of your contract. I would rather you just take this $30M and go find another team to play for. Of course, we probably could have traded you to about 60% of the teams in the league for an expiring contract or picks, but we didn't want to mess with it, so just take this $30M and go away."
You cannot possibly be that ignorant.
Trading Rasho for an expering contract. That is a much better route. And thats all the more easier with the 125% clause in the new CBA.
Rasho is a very very tradeable asset. There would be no problems getting back an expiring deal.
I so glad
Nope. Wrong again. You're getting close to setting the record for most incorrect statements in 1 thread.
If you were over the luxury tax threshold last year (old CBA), you got NO rebate (only teams under the threshold got a rebate). This year (new CBA), all the luxury tax money goes into a big pot and is split by all the teams.
Nazr was NOT the starter until Rasho got hurt. The same thing happened last year to Manu (remember Hedo? look where he is now). At the point that Rasho was able to come back full strength, we were too far into the playoffs to make the switch (and why would we, as well as Nazr had been playing up to that point. You are the one who keeps harping that "Spurs want to get rid of Rasho". I'm not saying it won't turn out to be true, I'm just saying I have not heard the Spurs SAY that and nothing has happened yet.
Um, no, you are wrong. Don't even with me on this anymore...I been reading up on this because I got tired of Chump's smug ass at ude on the one subject he/she/it had an advantage on.
There was a tax threshold, which caused you to have to pay the tax, and a higher figure called a cliff..being over the cliff would have caused you to get no rebate(in some cases)..being over the tax threshold you were still en led to one at a lesser PCT than a team under the cap....
Secondly...Holt did say he wasn't willing to go over the tax much more than 300,000k.
Link:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5196
Right on both counts...
man that makes me happy!
What if Rob were one of us?
Oh that's right! He is !
Hallelujah!
But even if a team is well over the threshold, it receives a rebate. Say the total rebate amount turns out to be $90 million (not a prediction BTW). Every team gets back $3 million regardless of their payroll -- so the Spurs can be $3 million over the tax threshold with no net loss. If a waived Rasho was making $8 million that season the Spurs would get the full $3 million rebate share but would have to pay Rasho his full salary.And IMO, the new cap rules will make him more tight, since he's going to be getting less back in rebates...he's going to want to pay even less in tax IMO.
Is it better to waste $0 or $5 million?
And it looks like we're trying to trade Rasho for SAR and use at least part of the MLE on another player.
Even more payroll.
Who gets waived then -- I mean NOW -- the decision has to be made rather quickly.
Alright well one down now Rasho to go.
hey Mr. Dio, calm down
i respect KG's game too!
if he's going to win more Olympic medals and be the GReatest Basketball Player in history, fine.
if he's a better golfer than Soft TD man(who's a better swimmer and surfer), so be it.
just let me do my "smug" thing, pls? it is better thanRasho showing his ring to KG thing.
He may look at money being paid to Rasho as a waste anyway...that if not waived cuts into his rebate...it's about the rebate with him.
I never said the Spurs were in that situation now...In fact I said if they were they probably wouldn't be adding payroll and pursuing S&T's like that...And it looks like we're trying to trade Rasho for SAR and use at least part of the MLE on another player.
Even more payroll.
Whether I mentioned it at the time or not...that was why I said what I said it in the first place...if the Spurs were uncomfortable with their cap situation...they would waive Rasho. I don't think they are uncomfortable with their cap situation right now...hence the handing out of contracts, and rumored pursuit of players via S&T...that will possibly make more than the MLE.
Who gets waived then -- I mean NOW -- the decision has to be made rather quickly.
If someone was going to get waived...it'd be Rasho...if the Spurs are uncomfortable with their cap/tax sitiuation...Rasho will get waived(assuming they can use the loophole).
Last edited by whottt; 07-06-2005 at 09:34 PM.
A rebate that isn't going to be maybe 1/5 what it used to be? Even if the money he spends on Rasho not to play is greater than the rebate?it's about the rebate with him.If Nazr is gone after next season?He may look at money being paid to Rasho as a waste anyway.I merely pointed out there are degrees of discomfort, and that it isn't so terribly black and white.Whether I meantioned it at the time or not...that was why I mentioned it in the first place...if the Spurs were uncomfortable with their cap situation.Wow. A lot of "ifs" there. Why would you get so cheesed about someone else using that word?If was some was going to get waived...it'd be Rasho...if the Spurs are uncomfortable with their cap/tax sitiuation...Rasho will get waived.
Of course not.
And Holt's discomfort starts @300K over the tax threshold...his words, not mine. And it's obvious it's the rebate he is most concerned with.I merely pointed out there are degrees of discomfort,
I got cheesed because your if is a best case scenario, that doesn't have much historical backing...My if is based on Holt's own words and actions...A lot of "ifs" there. Why would you get so cheesed about someone else using that word?
It's just different Chump, it just is...and my "if" is better...because it's based in part of Holt's past actions and words...yours is just based on your ass.
But they could be going over the threshold this coming season -- so they would have to waive Rasho in that case, no matter what the status of Nazr. It's all about the rebate, according to you.Of course not.Old CBA, not new.And Holt's discomfort starts are @300K over the tax threshold...his words, not mine.It has all sorts of historical backing. Sorry you can't get it.I got cheesed because your if is a best case scenario, that doesn't have much historical backing.Nah.It's just different Chump
You can't stick a hypothetical on top of my hypothetical...that's bull and you know it.
I don't think they are in danger of it, although they'd be a of a lot closer to it if Nazr got a new deal...and if they were close to it now they'd sign Nazr and waive Rasho...if they couldn't do that they'd trade Nazr and keep Rasho, or they might just take their chances...Holt was willing to risk it this past summer...
If the Spurs were antsy about their tax situation...they'd waive Rasho...I really don't think this point is that hard to get.
It is...according to Holt.It's all about the rebate, according to you.
He didn't specify...he's gonna get less now than he did before...he was about to lose a young stuperstar PG over a 2 million dollars...you don't think he'd let go of Rasho? You are on serious crack.Old CBA, not new.
It has none.It has all sorts of historical backing. Sorry you can't get it.Nah.
You are the one that doesn't get it.
Yah.
Why not? Is there a rulebook I haven't seen?You can't stick a hypothetical on top of my hypothetical.That wouldn't make any difference for this coming season.I don't think they are in danger of it, although they'd be a of a lot closer to it if Nazr got a new deal.How antsy? What is the antsy threshold?If the Spurs were antsy about their tax situation...they'd waive Rasho...I really don't think this point is that hard to get.So my hypothetical would be true then: Dump Rasho even though Nazr isn't under contract. The rebate above all else -- even if it's only a couple of million dollars. Understood.It is...according to Holt.He didn't have to. When did he say this? Before or after the new CBA was agreed to? You must have the article bookmarked.He didn't specify.How could that have anything to do with the luxury tax? Show me that Holt has the tax threshold for the next six years worked out within a minimum-salary margin of error. There has to be an article for that too.he was about to lose a young stuperstar PG over a 2 million dollars.And Nazr, according to you. It's the rebate above everything. You said so.you don't think he'd let go of Rasho?
Hip Hip Hooray!Spurs Re-Sign Horry
Seems he knows that now. New CBA. New projections.The team can't assess its financial future and accurately project any losses until it knows the terms of the new CBA, Holt said.So the antsy threshold is somewhere between $300,000 and $50 million. That's pretty exact.Holt said he is prepared to pay some type of luxury tax in the future, but he doesn't want the team's annual penalty to be much more than the modest $300,000 it paid following the 2002-03 season.
"I can live with that," Holt said. "But I can't pay $50 million in luxury tax. I can't pay the kind of tax (Dallas owner) Mark Cuban and (Portland owner) Paul Allen have paid.
Great news.
Um he's pretty straight forward on how he feels about paying the tax...Old or New CBA doesn't matter. And the truth is he wasn't paying anything under those conditions...he would have been getting back.
Um..no...it was between 300K and the 2 million Tony Parker wanted that he didn't want to part with.So the antsy threshold is somewhere between $300,000 and $50 million. That's pretty exact.
Hedo>ManuGreat news.
And under the new CBA he can go higher over the tax threshold and still get money back.he would have been getting back.That's not the quote, and that's not the only deal that gets bigger over time. Strangely enough all signs are pointing to more and more salary. Better waive him now.Um..no...it was between 300K and the 2 million Tony Parker wanted that he didn't want to part with.Your trying to change the subject is the surest sign I've won. Didn't take long.Hedo>Manu
That's great...now just show me he has the willingness to do so...
Hedo>ManuThat's not the quote, and that's not the only deal that gets biget over time.
Uh no....it's a sign that you refuse to see the obvious if you aren't getting beat over the head with it.Your trying to change the subject is the surest sign I've won. Didn't take long.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
