Financial Consequences to Players

[BadMofoPimp]

What some players want is for big market teams to have a competitive advantage over smaller market teams because of marketing appeal and location. That does not sound fair to me.

No they don't. What advantage does LA have over Charlotte when both teams can use the MLE? You had no problem with the Pistons having the MLE to sign Chauncey Billups back in the day, but you have a problem with the Lakers having the MLE now?

Basically, the proposal is that teams over the Luxury tax shouldn't have the same privileges as teams under the Luxury tax. Hence, big market teams shouldn't be able to spend more to obtain more talent than other teams in the league.

Besides the point that the Pistons were not over the Luxury tax at that time, so they should have full MLE rights under the new CBA Proposal. But, the Lakers shouldn't be able to add on Salary to that already $90 mil payroll to add significant talent to make them favorites to win another title for the next 3 years. That is competitive imbalance.

Pistons won their championship with the true Blue Collar players that played like a team. At this rate, we may never see anything like that again. Because, if the players get their way, then we will only see teams from New York or Cali winning. Then, forget about OKC or Memphis, they just had one year good runs.

[DanTown8587]

The way the players want it, the league would have to contract while many teams will go out of business putting many players on the streets with no job. There would be no parity and the league would be a Harlem Globetrotters joke of a league with people just watching 4-8 teams that have the best players while the rest of the teams will barely fill arenas. Why would someone pay money to see a team that has no chance of going no-where.

I find it laughable that players are already the best paid athletes in the world by a large margin while wanting the freedom to destroy that which makes the NBA great because of location. I would gladly move to another location in a state I prefer not to live in to make significant more money. That is why these players are idiots.

Irrational thoughts lead to irrational opinions. I mean you're so far off regarding what the players want that it's impossible to continue this.

What some players want is for big market teams to have a competitive advantage over smaller market teams because of marketing appeal and location. That does not sound fair to me.

Small market owners want larger market owners to share their revenue. Does that sound fair? The way the MLE is currently offered, every vet will sign with the Heat over any other team. Because of tax laws and the contract they can get.

For example, here's what the difference for a vet of ten years get's in Miami versus say Chicago if the owners get a 10% rollback of min salary.

Miami
Income: $1,259,556.30
Home Game Income: $629,778.15
Home Game Taxes: 0
Away Game Income: $629,778.15
Away Game Taxes (let's assume 4% average rate): $25,191.13
Agent Fee: $50,382.25
Federal Taxes (37%): $466,035.83
TOTAL LEFT: $717,947.09

Chicago
Income: 2.5 million
Home Game Income: 1.25 million
Home Game Taxes: $62,500
Away Game Income: 1.25 million
Away Game Taxes: $50,000
Agent Fee: $100,000
Federal Taxes: $925,000.00
TOTAL LEFT: $1,362,500.00

So now Miami is offering only about six hundred thousand less than any team with a tax MLE can. Same with Dallas. And if Miami and Dallas use their MLE, they save a player $62,500 in cash. I don't think you can have a fair system.

[BadMofoPimp]

The way the players want it, the league would have to contract while many teams will go out of business putting many players on the streets with no job. There would be no parity and the league would be a Harlem Globetrotters joke of a league with people just watching 4-8 teams that have the best players while the rest of the teams will barely fill arenas. Why would someone pay money to see a team that has no chance of going no-where.

I find it laughable that players are already the best paid athletes in the world by a large margin while wanting the freedom to destroy that which makes the NBA great because of location. I would gladly move to another location in a state I prefer not to live in to make significant more money. That is why these players are idiots.

What some players want is for big market teams to have a competitive advantage over smaller market teams because of marketing appeal and location. That does not sound fair to me.

Small market owners want larger market owners to share their revenue. Does that sound fair? The way the MLE is currently offered, every vet will sign with the Heat over any other team. Because of tax laws and the contract they can get.

For example, here's what the difference for a vet of ten years get's in Miami versus say Chicago if the owners get a 10% rollback of min salary.

Miami
Income: $1,259,556.30
Home Game Income: $629,778.15
Home Game Taxes: 0
Away Game Income: $629,778.15
Away Game Taxes (let's assume 4% average rate): $25,191.13
Agent Fee: $50,382.25
Federal Taxes (37%): $466,035.83
TOTAL LEFT: $717,947.09

Chicago
Income: 2.5 million
Home Game Income: 1.25 million
Home Game Taxes: $62,500
Away Game Income: 1.25 million
Away Game Taxes: $50,000
Agent Fee: $100,000
Federal Taxes: $925,000.00
TOTAL LEFT: $1,362,500.00

So now Miami is offering only about six hundred thousand less than any team with a tax MLE can. Same with Dallas. And if Miami and Dallas use their MLE, they save a player $62,500 in cash. I don't think you can have a fair system.

I agree, but Miami may not be over the Luxury tax yet as per the new CBA. So, they could possibly use the full MLE. Especially, if they use the Amnesty on a player like Mike Miller.