Who should the Sixers trade to avoid luxury tax in 20-21?

Moderators: Mamba4Goat, Andre Roberstan, Texas Chuck, HartfordWhalers, Trader_Joe, loserX, pacers33granger

User avatar
GeorgeMarcus
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 13,999
And1: 16,569
Joined: Jun 17, 2006
   

Re: Who should the Sixers trade to avoid luxury tax in 20-21? 

Post#41 » by GeorgeMarcus » Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:00 am

dakomish23 wrote:
GeorgeMarcus wrote:Rather than making any huge deals, our best bet is to add 1 or 2 catch-and-shoot guys to compliment our existing core. We have a lot of draft stock to work with, as well as Thybulle (who I would rather hold on to).


We’ll give you Ellington for whatever filler and our 2nds back to us


If we strike out elsewhere, I would be ok with that. Wouldn't be my top choice but it's preferable to doing nothing.
"Where I'm from, bullies get bullied." - Zach Randolph

The Legend of George Marcus
Prospect Dong
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,892
And1: 515
Joined: Jun 04, 2008
Location: I come down like a hurricane

Re: Who should the Sixers trade to avoid luxury tax in 20-21? 

Post#42 » by Prospect Dong » Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:11 am

GutUNC wrote:
Prospect Dong wrote:
GutUNC wrote:
Fortunately, I never said "they definitely don't care at all about luxury tax payments". As stated before, they don't sign Horford and Harris this offseason if they're not comfortable going in to the tax. This wasn't some surprise development that has put them in a delicate spot - they simply don't sign off on one of those deals if they know at the time that it's unsustainable in 1 year and their hand is forced to move a Ben Simmons or swallow less value moving an expensive Horford or Harris.

I definitely don't see them ever being OK with being a heavy luxury tax team and don't see any circumstance where their starting 5 is still in tact after next season because of it. But if they weren't comfortable going into the tax at all, they simply couldn't make the 2 big signings they did in the summer. A+B=C there. Cashing in Simmons for a pile of lesser pieces instead of just staying away from Horford in the summer would be farcically bad planning.


Similarly, there is now way Philly would trade assets for an expiring Jimmy Butler unless they were definitely going to keep him long term, regardless of what happened in the interim. Or possibly, just possibly, if they felt able to course correct the following offseason.

I think the same is true of this year's moves. It certainly signals a potential openness to paying the tax, though that almost certainly depends on the results, but it might also mean they're open to exactly the sort of move we're discussing here. There's no reason why your projected payroll more than a year out is the payroll you want, and certainly not the one you want regardless of results...


The Jimmy Butler trade has/had nothing to do with the luxury tax so I’m not sure why you’d bring that up here. That was a mid season trade with equivalent money and no futures involved. Right/Wrong, that was simply a basketball decision from start to finish that had no commitment attached or implied from either party beyond that year. A complete trial run.


Sure, they were just going to give up a couple of pretty good assets in order to acquire someone they could have signed with cap space at the end of the season, with no real expectations of keeping him long term, because they were willing roll the dice on a short term improvement. But now, because they've signed guys to contracts, that definitely means they're committed to paying the full value of those deals over their full term, regardless of what happens on the court, because that's what you have to do after you sign a player.

In reality, keeping a team together rather than trading some of them is also a basketball decision. It's perfectly possible for a FO to make a decision to sign someone, either knowing that they'll need to make a move in the future, or realising later that they didn't get what they bargained for. Both of these things happen all the time, even when guys are under contract, because that is how trades work.
"Cleveland would be foolish to move Bennett right now. Plus, other organizations have not had the opportunity to watch this kid"

Mcfly
GutUNC
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,788
And1: 645
Joined: Apr 10, 2001
         

Re: Who should the Sixers trade to avoid luxury tax in 20-21? 

Post#43 » by GutUNC » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:07 pm

Prospect Dong wrote:
GutUNC wrote:
Prospect Dong wrote:
Similarly, there is now way Philly would trade assets for an expiring Jimmy Butler unless they were definitely going to keep him long term, regardless of what happened in the interim. Or possibly, just possibly, if they felt able to course correct the following offseason.

I think the same is true of this year's moves. It certainly signals a potential openness to paying the tax, though that almost certainly depends on the results, but it might also mean they're open to exactly the sort of move we're discussing here. There's no reason why your projected payroll more than a year out is the payroll you want, and certainly not the one you want regardless of results...


The Jimmy Butler trade has/had nothing to do with the luxury tax so I’m not sure why you’d bring that up here. That was a mid season trade with equivalent money and no futures involved. Right/Wrong, that was simply a basketball decision from start to finish that had no commitment attached or implied from either party beyond that year. A complete trial run.


Sure, they were just going to give up a couple of pretty good assets in order to acquire someone they could have signed with cap space at the end of the season, with no real expectations of keeping him long term, because they were willing roll the dice on a short term improvement. But now, because they've signed guys to contracts, that definitely means they're committed to paying the full value of those deals over their full term, regardless of what happens on the court, because that's what you have to do after you sign a player.

In reality, keeping a team together rather than trading some of them is also a basketball decision. It's perfectly possible for a FO to make a decision to sign someone, either knowing that they'll need to make a move in the future, or realising later that they didn't get what they bargained for. Both of these things happen all the time, even when guys are under contract, because that is how trades work.


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.
tcheco
Senior
Posts: 699
And1: 336
Joined: Jan 15, 2015

Re: Who should the Sixers trade to avoid luxury tax in 20-21? 

Post#44 » by tcheco » Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:44 pm

Meh, they won't be trading Simmons of Embiid.
Can see a trade involving Harris if they stay as competitive in the result, but I'm pretty sure Phillie will rather pay the tax next year rather than to trade a player for worse.

Also, mike scott is gone
User avatar
Blazer50
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,241
And1: 384
Joined: Aug 12, 2010
       

Re: Who should the Sixers trade to avoid luxury tax in 20-21? 

Post#45 » by Blazer50 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:54 pm

I would like a 3 way option with Sacramento and Portland - addresses some issues with all three teams and works on ESPN

Portland Sends Hassan Whiteside to Phily (27M); and sends Bazemore & Nassir Little & '20 1st to Sacramento (total 21M) (48M out)
Portland recieves Tobias Harris (Phi - 32M 5 yrs); and DeWayne Dedmon (SAC- 13M) (45M in)

Philly Sends T Harris to Portland (32M out) and receives Whitesides (27M exp) and Bogdan Bogdanovic (8.1M RFA) in ($35M)

Sacto sends Dedmon (13M) and Bogdanovic (8.1M) (22M out); and gets Bazemore (19M exp), Nassir Little (2.1) and 2020 1st (22M in)

Why
Portland needs to cash in on Expirings (created in 2016) and if they wait the Dame/CJ extension only allow $13M cap space asset. Trade for the long term SF with Dame/CJ/Harris/Collins and Nurkic.

Philly covers Embiid's Injury with Whiteside (having a great year) 27M expiring and downgrades? from Harris to Bogdanovic (not much of a downgrade - but with RFA can be signed for less that the $32M spent on Harris). Has Cap relief 20-21 with Whiteside walking.

Sacto - gets relief to be able to sign Bagley Jr and extend Fox with Bazemore's expiring - get great young prospect in Nassir and a 1st in 2020 (can put a llttle protection on it but it should go to Sacto this year).
Prospect Dong
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,892
And1: 515
Joined: Jun 04, 2008
Location: I come down like a hurricane

Re: Who should the Sixers trade to avoid luxury tax in 20-21? 

Post#46 » by Prospect Dong » Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:44 pm

GutUNC wrote:
Prospect Dong wrote:
GutUNC wrote:
The Jimmy Butler trade has/had nothing to do with the luxury tax so I’m not sure why you’d bring that up here. That was a mid season trade with equivalent money and no futures involved. Right/Wrong, that was simply a basketball decision from start to finish that had no commitment attached or implied from either party beyond that year. A complete trial run.


Sure, they were just going to give up a couple of pretty good assets in order to acquire someone they could have signed with cap space at the end of the season, with no real expectations of keeping him long term, because they were willing roll the dice on a short term improvement. But now, because they've signed guys to contracts, that definitely means they're committed to paying the full value of those deals over their full term, regardless of what happens on the court, because that's what you have to do after you sign a player.

In reality, keeping a team together rather than trading some of them is also a basketball decision. It's perfectly possible for a FO to make a decision to sign someone, either knowing that they'll need to make a move in the future, or realising later that they didn't get what they bargained for. Both of these things happen all the time, even when guys are under contract, because that is how trades work.


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.
"Cleveland would be foolish to move Bennett right now. Plus, other organizations have not had the opportunity to watch this kid"

Mcfly
GutUNC
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,788
And1: 645
Joined: Apr 10, 2001
         

Re: Who should the Sixers trade to avoid luxury tax in 20-21? 

Post#47 » by GutUNC » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:54 am

Prospect Dong wrote:
GutUNC wrote:
Prospect Dong wrote:
Sure, they were just going to give up a couple of pretty good assets in order to acquire someone they could have signed with cap space at the end of the season, with no real expectations of keeping him long term, because they were willing roll the dice on a short term improvement. But now, because they've signed guys to contracts, that definitely means they're committed to paying the full value of those deals over their full term, regardless of what happens on the court, because that's what you have to do after you sign a player.

In reality, keeping a team together rather than trading some of them is also a basketball decision. It's perfectly possible for a FO to make a decision to sign someone, either knowing that they'll need to make a move in the future, or realising later that they didn't get what they bargained for. Both of these things happen all the time, even when guys are under contract, because that is how trades work.


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.)


https://theathletic.com/1512579/2020/01/06/sixers-trade-deadline-primer-draft-assets-contracts-strategy-and-is-matisse-thybulle-untouchable/
Prospect Dong
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,892
And1: 515
Joined: Jun 04, 2008
Location: I come down like a hurricane

Re: Who should the Sixers trade to avoid luxury tax in 20-21? 

Post#48 » by Prospect Dong » Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:56 am

GutUNC wrote:
Prospect Dong wrote:
GutUNC 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.)


https://theathletic.com/1512579/2020/01/06/sixers-trade-deadline-primer-draft-assets-contracts-strategy-and-is-matisse-thybulle-untouchable/


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"

Mcfly
GutUNC
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,788
And1: 645
Joined: Apr 10, 2001
         

Re: Who should the Sixers trade to avoid luxury tax in 20-21? 

Post#49 » by GutUNC » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:00 pm

It’s someone “restating” that signing 2 huge FAs but being unwilling to pay any luxury tax money the following offseason are two opposing strategies that make zero sense together. But I’m through here - you’ve reached the point of being obstinate for the sake of being obstinate so time to move on.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
User avatar
CallMeKahn
Pro Prospect
Posts: 985
And1: 655
Joined: Feb 17, 2013
   

Re: Who should the Sixers trade to avoid luxury tax in 20-21? 

Post#50 » by CallMeKahn » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:14 pm

Harris ideally, Simmons maybe (I don't see it as likely though).
Jiminy Glick wrote:Ball is more valuable than Paul. He will improve drastically next season.

:o
pickprotection
Sophomore
Posts: 110
And1: 37
Joined: Dec 20, 2019

Re: Who should the Sixers trade to avoid luxury tax in 20-21? 

Post#51 » by pickprotection » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:02 pm

When this team loses in the first or at best second round I have no delusions that this cheap ownership that sells 2nd round picks for cash all the time and that did cost cuttin moves throught Hinkies time is going to pay the tax.

Also its absurd to pay the luxury tax for a team projected for the 5th-6th seed (given Embiids injury) and a first round exit while having the benefit of paying Simmons a bargain contract this year. When the team is worse next year due to having no money to spend since their starters plus scott plus vet mins is basically 10 million over the tax they are screwed. To keep a slightly above average team together for 2nd or 3rd highest payroll in the league is lunacy.
nbakid123
Ballboy
Posts: 48
And1: 17
Joined: Jan 10, 2020

Re: Who should the Sixers trade to avoid luxury tax in 20-21? 

Post#52 » by nbakid123 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:26 pm

They should trade Tobias
Prospect Dong
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,892
And1: 515
Joined: Jun 04, 2008
Location: I come down like a hurricane

Re: Who should the Sixers trade to avoid luxury tax in 20-21? 

Post#53 » by Prospect Dong » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:44 pm

GutUNC wrote:It’s someone “restating” that signing 2 huge FAs but being unwilling to pay any luxury tax money the following offseason are two opposing strategies that make zero sense together. But I’m through here - you’ve reached the point of being obstinate for the sake of being obstinate so time to move on.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums


Unless, and follow me closely here, there exist reasonable trades that the team could make after signing those deals that would bring them below the luxury tax. That's the premise of this thread, and you've chosen to repeatedly reject it because you'd much rather it wasn't true. And maybe it isn't - the sixers might, for practical purposes, have locked themselves into paying the tax unless they commit crazy acts of self harm. But that's the argument we're supposed to be having, rather than just asserting that big contacts today automatically means high payroll the day after tomorrow.
"Cleveland would be foolish to move Bennett right now. Plus, other organizations have not had the opportunity to watch this kid"

Mcfly

Return to Trades and Transactions