GutUNC wrote: Prospect Dong wrote:
This would probably work out better if you stopped putting words in my mouth. At no point did I say they were committed to these deals throughout their term. In fact, I specifically stated that once Richardson’s deal runs out after next season, that’s when the rubber meets the road both from a financial and team building standpoint and that it’s a virtual impossibility that all 5 would still be around by 2021-22.
Well, you've claimed that signing Horford and Harris at the start of this
season directly implies that ownership is will pay the luxury tax bill that would be assessed for having them on the roster after next
season's trade deadline. I think it's evidence for that belief, but I wouldn't be nearly as sure of it as you seem to be, because of the possibility of trades, like the ones we're discussing, and you're dismissing. I don't think you have a firm basis for the distinction between "ownership wouldn't have signed those deals if it didn't plan to keep the team basically intact for the next two seasons" and "ownership will definitely make a trade for financial reasons after the 20/21 season". That magic two season cut off is your idea, not necessarily theirs. And it probably depends on how they do this season.
It's not "magic", it's when Josh Richardson's bargain contract runs out. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that short of back to back titles, the Sixers aren't going to want pay 5 starters $25M plus while being subjected to the repeater tax. Being slightly into the tax for 1 year is pretty significantly different then being heavily into the tax as a repeater, hence things getting hairy after next season.
A second source if you don't want to hear what I'm saying:
Luxury tax concerns
This is the section that could get convoluted quickly, so we’ll try to keep this brief. We can get deeper into the weeds if, and when, rumors of substance start gaining traction.
This season, the Sixers sit at approximately $128 million in committed salary. That leaves them about $4.4 million below the luxury tax threshold. As noted above, the Sixers can receive up to their outgoing salary plus $5 million back in many of the hypothetical trades we would be talking about, so it is feasible that the luxury tax could enter the equation.
Under managing partner Josh Harris’ stewardship, the Sixers have never entered the luxury tax. A big part of that is because Harris bought the team just before the rebuild began, so it’s not as though moves were being made to duck the tax. And the Sixers are a virtual lock to head into luxury tax territory next season, so there would be no logical argument that says Harris won’t pay the tax. If he was unwilling to do so, he wouldn’t have given the green light to the moves made last summer.
Still, it’s notable how close the Sixers are to the tax, as it could factor into the front office’s justification in order for a deal to be approved by ownership. Would Harris dip into the luxury tax this year? Most likely, if the player was worth it. But for a marginal upgrade off the bench? That’s a bit more uncertain.
Heading over the tax threshold this year would also impact future luxury tax payments, as it would put the Sixers on the path to “repeater tax” penalties a year earlier than expected. In short, when a team is over the luxury tax three out of four years, the financial penalties become much more punitive. (For more on this, check out this piece Derek wrote this past offseason.)
It's not "magic", it's when Josh Richardson's bargain contract runs out.
Sure, but when does the team project to enter the luxury tax? Either of those could historically be the spur for a team to do some cost cutting, or it might depend on team performance. You think/hope it will be the former, come what may, some people here think it might be the latter, depending on how the season shakes out. There's no good basis for concluding that you're right - which is why you just keep asserting it.
so there would be no logical argument that says Harris won’t pay the tax. If he was unwilling to do so, he wouldn’t have given the green light to the moves made last summer
This isn't a source, it's just someone restating your opinion.
And I don't think it's a dumb point of view or anything like that, signing big contracts absolutely could be a sign that ownership is relaxed about finances. Just like trading for Butler absolutely could have been a sign that they planned to keep Butler. But you keep acting like it's a guarantee, which requires you, and this guy, to ignore the possibility of planned or unplanned trades after signing a contract. But I think you've gradually acknowledged that it is, in fact, possible to both sign expensive contracts and then make cost cutting moves while those contracts still exist. You just think it will be later, after paying some tax, and I'm not so sure.
"Cleveland would be foolish to move Bennett right now. Plus, other organizations have not had the opportunity to watch this kid"