Author Topic: Ken Berger: Cs have called about Lowry;LAC and MInn frontcourt help;Asik to stay  (Read 4703 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline European NBA fan

  • Rajon Rondo
  • Posts: 936
  • Tommy Points: 136

(...)

You're right moving forward, but there seems to be a special difference for next season according to the Cap FAQ:

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q21
Quote
For 2014-15 teams pay an incremental rate based on their team salary. They pay the repeater rate if they also were taxpayers in all of the previous three seasons.


 1) yes, I suppose that I could have been more verbose. It impacts future moves in years that we'll hopefully be more amenable to exceeding the luxury tax. 2) Lowry makes over $6M. Who's going to take a player making that much from us without sending back salary?


I'm not sure what kind of moves would be out there for moving players if we did use the TPE on Lowry, but I suspect they're a little more plentiful than you might think.

The problem for the Celtics is that we were tax payers the previous seasons. That's why, we don't want to be tax payers this season.

Anyway the Celts have already used the non-taxpayer MLE, which implies a hard cap at the tax level.

We will only be able to use the Trade Exception if someone takes some of our salary (like Humphries) or in a very short window in July before the exception expires.

Online BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21150
  • Tommy Points: 944
I get that Danny is into collecting assets, but trading for Lowry wouldn't make much sense unless the plan is to trade Rondo.

Lowry costs too much to be a backup; won't be able to get return on the investment unless he's starting.

  I don't know that Lowry makes sense even if you do trade Rondo. Isn't he a FA this offseason? The two questions I'd have are how much (and for how long) you'd pay him and how long would it take for you to regret that contract?

The report says the trade exception would be involved.

Better to try to sign and trade Lowry's expiring than let the TE expire?

  That adds his entire salary to our total since we wouldn't be sending any contracts out, pushing us well into the luxury tax and putting us into the repeater category going forward. He's not worth going through that for.

1)To: "go into the repeater category going forward." That's a little misleading. You either qualify or you don't, and in order for us to qualify for the repeater tax we'd have to finish over the tax this year and next year. The repeater category doesn't start until next season, and then, in 14-15, it will only affects teams that have paid the luxury tax in the each of the last three seasons from then.

2)There's no reason why we can't use the TE on Lowry and then send out another player to get us below the tax threshold at a later date. Your tax level is determined at the end of the season, IIRC, not at every moment during it.

the repeater tax is going to be 3 out of the past 4 years, not 3 in a row.

You're right moving forward, but there seems to be a special difference for next season according to the Cap FAQ:

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q21
Quote
For 2014-15 teams pay an incremental rate based on their team salary. They pay the repeater rate if they also were taxpayers in all of the previous three seasons.


 1) yes, I suppose that I could have been more verbose. It impacts future moves in years that we'll hopefully be more amenable to exceeding the luxury tax. 2) Lowry makes over $6M. Who's going to take a player making that much from us without sending back salary?


I'm not sure what kind of moves would be out there for moving players if we did use the TPE on Lowry, but I suspect they're a little more plentiful than you might think.

  If there are a fair amount of moves out there where Danny can unload a decent-sized contract and not bring back any salaries without giving up anything of value Danny will do one or two such deals before the trade deadline.

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22209
  • Tommy Points: -29458
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
2)There's no reason why we can't use the TE on Lowry and then send out another player to get us below the tax threshold at a later date. Your tax level is determined at the end of the season, IIRC, not at every moment during it.

This isn't quite true.

Since the Celtics signed-and-traded for Bogans, they're hard-capped at the "apron" amount, $4 million above the luxury tax line.  They're not allowed to exceed the apron at any point in time during the season.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Offline D.o.s.

  • Antoine Walker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5450
  • Tommy Points: 333
Anyway the Celts have already used the non-taxpayer MLE, which implies a hard cap at the tax level.

We will only be able to use the Trade Exception if someone takes some of our salary (like Humphries) or in a very short window in July before the exception expires.

2)There's no reason why we can't use the TE on Lowry and then send out another player to get us below the tax threshold at a later date. Your tax level is determined at the end of the season, IIRC, not at every moment during it.

This isn't quite true.

Since the Celtics signed-and-traded for Bogans, they're hard-capped at the "apron" amount, $4 million above the luxury tax line.  They're not allowed to exceed the apron at any point in time during the season.

You're right, I forgot about the apron hard-cap. TP's to both of you for the correction.
Michael Jordan: It's a man's game, and you can't play.
 Bill Murray: It's 'cause I'm white, isn't it?
Michael Jordan: No. Larry's white, so what?
Bill Murray: Larry's not white. Larry's clear.

not sure the point of this thread.

Offline LooseCannon

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8100
  • Tommy Points: 604
Are Rockets' sources using Berger to try to create leverage?

The "Asik is staying" argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me, with the Rockets having to pay him $15 million next year.  I do agree that his contract will make him harder to deal next year, which is why I expect he'll be dealt this year.  (Teams just don't pay $15 million for their backup centers.)

Factor in Jeremy Lin's poison pill of $15mill and the Rox ownership will be paying two bench players $30 million? Yeah right.

It doesn't matter if it doesn't all count against the cap, ownership isn't paying all that.

This talking point seems quite overrated to me.  They paid the guys around $5m/year for the first two years of their deals, so ownership effectively ends up being able to defer about $14m in salary interest-free for the price of it being a bit harder to trade either guy.

If the Rockets do trade Asik, there is a good chance the other team will insist on Houston throwing in the maximum of $3m-ish in cash considerations, so it is possible that ownership ends up spending more money if the team trades Asik than if they keep him.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Offline bfrombleacher

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3342
  • Tommy Points: 367
Are Rockets' sources using Berger to try to create leverage?

The "Asik is staying" argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me, with the Rockets having to pay him $15 million next year.  I do agree that his contract will make him harder to deal next year, which is why I expect he'll be dealt this year.  (Teams just don't pay $15 million for their backup centers.)

Factor in Jeremy Lin's poison pill of $15mill and the Rox ownership will be paying two bench players $30 million? Yeah right.

It doesn't matter if it doesn't all count against the cap, ownership isn't paying all that.

This talking point seems quite overrated to me.  They paid the guys around $5m/year for the first two years of their deals, so ownership effectively ends up being able to defer about $14m in salary interest-free for the price of it being a bit harder to trade either guy.

If the Rockets do trade Asik, there is a good chance the other team will insist on Houston throwing in the maximum of $3m-ish in cash considerations, so it is possible that ownership ends up spending more money if the team trades Asik than if they keep him.

I agree.

I believe (iirc) that it's not about the money, it's about the cap hit. Although Asik will hit the jackpot, not all of his salary will count against the cap (same for Lin I believe).

The reason the Rockets are eager to trade the two is (again, iirc) because they need to re-up Parsons.

Asik's payday is counteracted by all the benefits of them signing a back-loaded contract.

Offline LatterDayCelticsfan

  • Rajon Rondo
  • Posts: 758
  • Tommy Points: 44
  • Rajon Rondo IS walking thru that door!
...and then somebody offers Chandler Parsons one of those poison pill contracts...
Kobe is Swahili or tortoise. Look it up!

Online BballTim

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21150
  • Tommy Points: 944
Are Rockets' sources using Berger to try to create leverage?

The "Asik is staying" argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me, with the Rockets having to pay him $15 million next year.  I do agree that his contract will make him harder to deal next year, which is why I expect he'll be dealt this year.  (Teams just don't pay $15 million for their backup centers.)

Factor in Jeremy Lin's poison pill of $15mill and the Rox ownership will be paying two bench players $30 million? Yeah right.

It doesn't matter if it doesn't all count against the cap, ownership isn't paying all that.

This talking point seems quite overrated to me.  They paid the guys around $5m/year for the first two years of their deals, so ownership effectively ends up being able to defer about $14m in salary interest-free for the price of it being a bit harder to trade either guy.

  First of all, while the contract isn't bad overall, the fact that it was favorable to the team for two years doesn't change the fact that it's now unfavorable. It's like signing a 31 year old star to a 5 year deal for $20M a year. The fact that it was a good deal for a while doesn't mean you aren't stuck with an overpaid former superstar the last two years. Also, Asik's playing a fraction of the minutes that he was intended to, so they're giving him a king's ransom to sit on the bench. That's on top of the fact that he's a malcontent that they'd love to trade but they're having trouble unloading the contract.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog