Author Topic: Cavs, potential 300 million - Why Boston will avoid the luxury tax this summer.  (Read 2219 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline droopdog7

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5099
  • Tommy Points: 341
I wouldn't be surprised if they find a way to unload Tristan Thompson and Kyle Korver somehow.

They may also explore trading Kevin Love for several cheaper younger pieces.

As valuable as TT and JR were for them in the 2016 Finals, this shows you why it's important not to drastically overpay for replaceable talent.

It’s going to be hard for them to unload Thompson. Their best bet is moving Love for cheaper players and a pick or two.
I don't know, Thompson will only have 2 years left this summer and while he is definitely overpaid at 17.4 and 18.5, he at least serves a useful enough role that they might be able to find a taker for an Asik type player (not necessarily Asik, but something like that where the Cavs get a worse player but on a cheaper contract).

And the Cavs really only have this problem for the 18-19 season. As they can get out from Korver, Hill, and Smith before the 19-20 season (they still might be in the tax, but not so far into it that it is a huge problem).

I think I just heard someone say Tristan Thompson serves an useful role. Other than rebounding, this guy just sucks in literally every facet of the game. Can't shoot, can't pass, can't even defend as well anymore, and literally doesn't know how to move on offense besides pick and rolling, (which even any competent big man can do at the start of high school,) no one is going to offer to take his contract on lest they get offered at least a second rounder or 1st pick with protections.
Since Thompson went back to the starting lineup (10 games), he is playing 26 mpg and averaging 8 and 7, while "shooting" 62% from the field.  He has even been a near 60% foul shooter on the season (so not the total liability he was last year).  Obviously, that isn't worth 18 million a year, but if you are the Bulls would you rather pay Thompson 18 million a year for the next two years or Asik 11.5 million a year for the next two years.  At least you can put Thompson on the floor.   Asik is completely worthless.
The bulls aren’t going anywhere in the next two years.  I’d rather pay Asik to do nothing by a mile.

Offline Phantom255x

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9737
  • Tommy Points: 718
  • On To Banner 18!
How much is Golden State going to pay next season?? And 2 years from now??

Surely they would also be paying a massive luxury tax in the coming years. I doubt Klay and Draymond take massive pay cuts to stay, and even with KD taking some pay cuts to keep some bench guys (Iguodala, etc.), they are still paying a pretty big luxury tax I believe.
2018 Mock Trade Deadline (New York Knicks)

Roster: Porzingis, Kanter, Hardaway Jr, Julius Randle, Schroder, Beasley, Alex Abrines, Jarrett Jack, Frank Ntilikina, Lance Thomas, Kyle Singler, Josh Huestis, Ron Baker, Trey Burke, Luke Kornet, Isaiah Hicks

Future Draft Picks: https://www.prosportstransactions.com/basketball/DraftTrades/Future/Knick

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35297
  • Tommy Points: -27792
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
How much is Golden State going to pay next season?? And 2 years from now??

Surely they would also be paying a massive luxury tax in the coming years. I doubt Klay and Draymond take massive pay cuts to stay, and even with KD taking some pay cuts to keep some bench guys (Iguodala, etc.), they are still paying a pretty big luxury tax I believe.

They’re going to get squeezed, but they made $90 million profit last year, so they’ve got a lot of wiggle room.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Online Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19127
  • Tommy Points: 904
I wouldn't be surprised if they find a way to unload Tristan Thompson and Kyle Korver somehow.

They may also explore trading Kevin Love for several cheaper younger pieces.

As valuable as TT and JR were for them in the 2016 Finals, this shows you why it's important not to drastically overpay for replaceable talent.

It’s going to be hard for them to unload Thompson. Their best bet is moving Love for cheaper players and a pick or two.
I don't know, Thompson will only have 2 years left this summer and while he is definitely overpaid at 17.4 and 18.5, he at least serves a useful enough role that they might be able to find a taker for an Asik type player (not necessarily Asik, but something like that where the Cavs get a worse player but on a cheaper contract).

And the Cavs really only have this problem for the 18-19 season. As they can get out from Korver, Hill, and Smith before the 19-20 season (they still might be in the tax, but not so far into it that it is a huge problem).

I think I just heard someone say Tristan Thompson serves an useful role. Other than rebounding, this guy just sucks in literally every facet of the game. Can't shoot, can't pass, can't even defend as well anymore, and literally doesn't know how to move on offense besides pick and rolling, (which even any competent big man can do at the start of high school,) no one is going to offer to take his contract on lest they get offered at least a second rounder or 1st pick with protections.
Since Thompson went back to the starting lineup (10 games), he is playing 26 mpg and averaging 8 and 7, while "shooting" 62% from the field.  He has even been a near 60% foul shooter on the season (so not the total liability he was last year).  Obviously, that isn't worth 18 million a year, but if you are the Bulls would you rather pay Thompson 18 million a year for the next two years or Asik 11.5 million a year for the next two years.  At least you can put Thompson on the floor.   Asik is completely worthless.
The bulls aren’t going anywhere in the next two years.  I’d rather pay Asik to do nothing by a mile.
Bulls are likely going to be below the cap though. A guy that you can actually play makes way more sense then a paper weight.  Of course the Knicks I thought of as well.  Noah and Lee for Thomson and Smith saves the Cavs over a million and other players could be added saving the Cavs more money (like Korver for Mudiay or Baker)

Offline celticsclay

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9305
  • Tommy Points: 1018
I wouldn't be surprised if they find a way to unload Tristan Thompson and Kyle Korver somehow.

They may also explore trading Kevin Love for several cheaper younger pieces.

As valuable as TT and JR were for them in the 2016 Finals, this shows you why it's important not to drastically overpay for replaceable talent.

It’s going to be hard for them to unload Thompson. Their best bet is moving Love for cheaper players and a pick or two.
I don't know, Thompson will only have 2 years left this summer and while he is definitely overpaid at 17.4 and 18.5, he at least serves a useful enough role that they might be able to find a taker for an Asik type player (not necessarily Asik, but something like that where the Cavs get a worse player but on a cheaper contract).

And the Cavs really only have this problem for the 18-19 season. As they can get out from Korver, Hill, and Smith before the 19-20 season (they still might be in the tax, but not so far into it that it is a huge problem).

I think I just heard someone say Tristan Thompson serves an useful role. Other than rebounding, this guy just sucks in literally every facet of the game. Can't shoot, can't pass, can't even defend as well anymore, and literally doesn't know how to move on offense besides pick and rolling, (which even any competent big man can do at the start of high school,) no one is going to offer to take his contract on lest they get offered at least a second rounder or 1st pick with protections.
Since Thompson went back to the starting lineup (10 games), he is playing 26 mpg and averaging 8 and 7, while "shooting" 62% from the field.  He has even been a near 60% foul shooter on the season (so not the total liability he was last year).  Obviously, that isn't worth 18 million a year, but if you are the Bulls would you rather pay Thompson 18 million a year for the next two years or Asik 11.5 million a year for the next two years.  At least you can put Thompson on the floor.   Asik is completely worthless.
The bulls aren’t going anywhere in the next two years.  I’d rather pay Asik to do nothing by a mile.
also Thompson brings the kardashian circus with him. This is actually a factor for a fringe useful player. Cavs will have a hard time moving him

Offline RodyTur10

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 375
  • Tommy Points: 50
How much is Golden State going to pay next season?? And 2 years from now??

Surely they would also be paying a massive luxury tax in the coming years. I doubt Klay and Draymond take massive pay cuts to stay, and even with KD taking some pay cuts to keep some bench guys (Iguodala, etc.), they are still paying a pretty big luxury tax I believe.

They’re going to get squeezed, but they made $90 million profit last year, so they’ve got a lot of wiggle room.

And Golden State has so much success I don't think the owners would care about the money.

I read that Abramovich (owner of Chelsea FC) has spend 2 billion since he became owner in 2003. They've won 5 national titles in England and 1 Champions League. I think he's very pleased with the result.
Idiot.

Online Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19127
  • Tommy Points: 904
How much is Golden State going to pay next season?? And 2 years from now??

Surely they would also be paying a massive luxury tax in the coming years. I doubt Klay and Draymond take massive pay cuts to stay, and even with KD taking some pay cuts to keep some bench guys (Iguodala, etc.), they are still paying a pretty big luxury tax I believe.

They’re going to get squeezed, but they made $90 million profit last year, so they’ve got a lot of wiggle room.

And Golden State has so much success I don't think the owners would care about the money.

I read that Abramovich (owner of Chelsea FC) has spend 2 billion since he became owner in 2003. They've won 5 national titles in England and 1 Champions League. I think he's very pleased with the result.
how much you spend has no relevance  it is how much you make or lose that matters

Offline RodyTur10

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 375
  • Tommy Points: 50
How much is Golden State going to pay next season?? And 2 years from now??

Surely they would also be paying a massive luxury tax in the coming years. I doubt Klay and Draymond take massive pay cuts to stay, and even with KD taking some pay cuts to keep some bench guys (Iguodala, etc.), they are still paying a pretty big luxury tax I believe.

They’re going to get squeezed, but they made $90 million profit last year, so they’ve got a lot of wiggle room.

And Golden State has so much success I don't think the owners would care about the money.

I read that Abramovich (owner of Chelsea FC) has spend 2 billion since he became owner in 2003. They've won 5 national titles in England and 1 Champions League. I think he's very pleased with the result.
how much you spend has no relevance  it is how much you make or lose that matters

I'm not sure I follow.

Abramovich has invested about 2 billion pounds (that is like 2,8 billion dollars). He bought Chelsea in 2003 for around 140 million pounds and he paid of some debts the club had. Then he financed transfers of players in the following years for about 1,7 billion pounds (in football/soccer you don't trade players but you just buy them, like the Celtics would pay 80 million to Phoenix to get Booker for instance).

Apparently most of this investments (like a billion) were in the form of interest-free loans. But that doesn't mean Chelsea has to pay this back, since Abramovich is the owner he just loaned money to himself. A football club generally doesn't make profits and of course he's not going to sell the club, so he spent 2 billion pounds and he won't get that money back. But obviously that doesn't really matter since the club has had great success by his investments.
Idiot.

Offline TheSundanceKid

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2226
  • Tommy Points: 185
How much is Golden State going to pay next season?? And 2 years from now??

Surely they would also be paying a massive luxury tax in the coming years. I doubt Klay and Draymond take massive pay cuts to stay, and even with KD taking some pay cuts to keep some bench guys (Iguodala, etc.), they are still paying a pretty big luxury tax I believe.

They’re going to get squeezed, but they made $90 million profit last year, so they’ve got a lot of wiggle room.

And Golden State has so much success I don't think the owners would care about the money.

I read that Abramovich (owner of Chelsea FC) has spend 2 billion since he became owner in 2003. They've won 5 national titles in England and 1 Champions League. I think he's very pleased with the result.
how much you spend has no relevance  it is how much you make or lose that matters

I'm not sure I follow.

Abramovich has invested about 2 billion pounds (that is like 2,8 billion dollars). He bought Chelsea in 2003 for around 140 million pounds and he paid of some debts the club had. Then he financed transfers of players in the following years for about 1,7 billion pounds (in football/soccer you don't trade players but you just buy them, like the Celtics would pay 80 million to Phoenix to get Booker for instance).

Apparently most of this investments (like a billion) were in the form of interest-free loans. But that doesn't mean Chelsea has to pay this back, since Abramovich is the owner he just loaned money to himself. A football club generally doesn't make profits and of course he's not going to sell the club, so he spent 2 billion pounds and he won't get that money back. But obviously that doesn't really matter since the club has had great success by his investments.

Just to be super clear on this point, they absolutely do make profits. The latest TV deal is the same size as the NBA one but only split between 20 teams.
Chelsea do tend to make a loss but they are an exception not a rule at the top. The latest available figures have Man Utd making £50m in 2015-16. 12 clubs made a profit, 8 didn't. But all 20 saw a huge increase in sale price which bodes well for when they eventually sell on.
On Abramovich, he probably won't get that money back but because of the way it's structured he could decide to milk the club until he does. I don't see him ever selling though, he seems to have too much fun, the club is just a play thing for him.