More Stupidity From Hunt: "Bucks Should Stand Pat"

LUKE23 · Post #21 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:27 pm

Nothing is guaranteed.

Keeping in mind that the Senator will be saving some $14 million by having insurance pick up Redd's tab, the conditions under which he might make some luxury tax payments have arrived.

1. Kohl does not get any insurance relief for Redd until he misses 41 consecutive games with this injury. That will not occur this season.
2. The injury relief does not count on the cap, Redd's cap number still remains the same

These are the FACTS (so guaranteed):

1. The Bucks are not going to pay the luxury tax (estimated as anything over $70M)
2. If the Bucks make no moves, they are sitting at $64.6M committed next year (assuming Elson/Allen pick up their player options). That leaves Milwaukee with $5.4M to work with under the luxury tax, with Sessions, CV, and our first round not signed.

It's best you do some research before making claims that are not true. If the Bucks stand pat, they will lose CV and the first rounder, and will be very tight to keep Sessions.

power4wardjinx · Post #22 » by **power4wardjinx** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:33 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
But nothing will happen, and that's a good thing.

1. Explain to me how that is a good thing for Milwaukee if no moves are made
2. Tell me what our rotation is next season if no moves are made

You want to guarantee doing nothing forces the loss of CV -- assuming Ramon is the priority. I'm saying that's simply not true, and I wouldn't panic. You've got big savings coming to Herb via Redd's injury and it's time to pay luxury tax. If Herb is still refusing to pay any luxury tax, well, good luck fielding a roster under any circumstances next season.

As for the rotation, dumping Ridnour out of it wouldn't hurt anything so maybe that's the one move that could be made now. There's a hint about Houston in the Hunt article.

Post #23 » by **MickeyDavis** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:37 pm

The question is would Kohl take the money he saves next year from Redd's injury and use it to pay luxury tax.

JoeHova · Post #24 » by **JoeHova** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:37 pm

can you imagine if Malik Allen's player option costs the team Sessions? Would that be the worst move in NBA history? I mean, in absolute terms it wouldn't be as bad as Bowie over Jordan or various things of that nature, but in terms of what the possible upside of having Malik Allen on the team was. Bowie at least had a slim chance to be good. Allen had none and there was never any way he would decline his option. It's those kinds of moves that have me skeptical about Hammond. The one guy who had any value at all among the 3 scrubs he signed (Lue) was the only one he didn't give a player option to.

LUKE23 · Post #25 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:38 pm

You want to guarantee doing nothing forces the loss of CV -- assuming Ramon is the priority. I'm saying that's simply not true, and I wouldn't panic. You've got big savings coming to Herb via Redd's injury and it's time to pay luxury tax. If Herb is still refusing to pay any luxury tax, well, good luck fielding a roster under any circumstances next season.

He's not getting big savings this season, and it is not counting on the cap when he does get the savings, it's only savings out of pocket.

Not true. If you move RJ and Ridnour in the Portland deal, you can bring back both Sessions and CV, use your draft pick, and bring over Ersan.

So you could do something like:

PG: Sessions/Bell
SG: Turner (pick)/Bogans
SF: LRMAM/Alexander
PF: Villanueva/Ilyasova
C: Bogut/Elson

that is better than (standing pat with pick forfeited, CV gone, and no Ersan):

PG: Sessions/Ridnour
SG: Bell
SF: Jefferson/Alexander
PF: LRMAM
C: Bogut/Elson

power4wardjinx · Post #26 » by **power4wardjinx** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:42 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
Nothing is guaranteed.

Keeping in mind that the Senator will be saving some $14 million by having insurance pick up Redd's tab, the conditions under which he might make some luxury tax payments have arrived.

1. Kohl does not get any insurance relief for Redd until he misses 41 consecutive games with this injury. That will not occur this season.
2. The injury relief does not count on the cap, Redd's cap number still remains the same

These are the FACTS (so guaranteed):

1. The Bucks are not going to pay the luxury tax (estimated as anything over $70M)
2. If the Bucks make no moves, they are sitting at $64.6M committed next year (assuming Elson/Allen pick up their player options). That leaves Milwaukee with $5.4M to work with under the luxury tax, with Sessions, CV, and our first round not signed.

It's best you do some research before making claims that are not true. If the Bucks stand pat, they will lose CV and the first rounder, and will be very tight to keep Sessions.

I understand all that better than you do, including the fact that the Bucks are clearly in a position where they would have been paying luxury tax anyway, just to field a roster next season.

I'm glad you're not running the team. They have 16 home games left, possible playoffs and REdd WILL miss more than 41 straight games with this injury. That's well over $20 million that can be counted on right now. I don't think you've considered this at all in making your wild claims about what reality is or isn't.

europa · Post #27 » by **europa** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:43 pm

If the max first-year salary Sessions can receive next season is $5.5M per fam's info, the Bucks will not lose him if they want to keep him. Nothing is 100% guaranteed in free agency, but if the Bucks want to keep Sessions (and based on Woelfel's recent report, they do), I don't think he's going anywhere.

LUKE23 · Post #28 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:46 pm

I understand all that better than you do, including the fact that the Bucks are clearly in a position where they would have been paying luxury tax anyway, just to field a roster next season.

It's quite clear you do not, actually. And I just posted what our roster could be very easily if we made the RJ/Ridnour Portland deal. That is a quality 10-man rotation right there that is under the luxury tax.

It's quite clear that we WILL have a problem fielding a good team under the lux tax if no moves are made. That is what is clear.

LUKE23 · Post #29 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:48 pm

europa wrote:If the max first-year salary Sessions can receive next season is $5.5M per fam's info, the Bucks will not lose him if they want to keep him. Nothing is 100% guaranteed in free agency, but if the Bucks want to keep Sessions (and based on Woelfel's recent report, they do), I don't think he's going anywhere.

That is good news, I was under the impression that the MLE would be higher.

Post #30 » by **MickeyDavis** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:48 pm

I'm not sure what 16 home games left have to do with anything. That revenue is all on this years budget, not next year. And our revenue is below what was budgeted so the team will be in the red (no pun intended) much more than anticipated this season.

power4wardjinx · Post #31 » by **power4wardjinx** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:48 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
You want to guarantee doing nothing forces the loss of CV -- assuming Ramon is the priority. I'm saying that's simply not true, and I wouldn't panic. You've got big savings coming to Herb via Redd's injury and it's time to pay luxury tax. If Herb is still refusing to pay any luxury tax, well, good luck fielding a roster under any circumstances next season.

He's not getting big savings this season, and it is not counting on the cap when he does get the savings, it's only savings out of pocket.

And the pocket doesn't count?? WTF. Who said ANYTHING about saving $$ with Redd's insurance this season??? That's all next season, and so will the luxury tax payments.

Do you READ what others are posting??? Please, panic and piss away millions over the next three months if you want. Trade half the roster ... but stop wasting my time.

power4wardjinx · Post #32 » by **power4wardjinx** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:50 pm

MickeyDavis wrote:The question is would Kohl take the money he saves next year from Redd's injury and use it to pay luxury tax.

Thank you, Mickey. That is exactly what I was suggesting.

europa · Post #33 » by **europa** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:51 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
europa wrote:If the max first-year salary Sessions can receive next season is $5.5M per fam's info, the Bucks will not lose him if they want to keep him. Nothing is 100% guaranteed in free agency, but if the Bucks want to keep Sessions (and based on Woelfel's recent report, they do), I don't think he's going anywhere.

That is good news, I was under the impression that the MLE would be higher.

I'm basing this on fam's info which Ayt said was correct. So hopefully both of them are right.

If they are, I think Sessions' salary could come in at around $4M next year. I think Villanueva's could be around $6M, maybe even $5M. That's why I think $10M combined could be enough to keep them both if that's what the Bucks want to do. Remove $7M in salary (i.e. Gadz's contract) and the Bucks are in a position to keep them both. Remove more than that and your flexibility increases.

Post #34 » by **MickeyDavis** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:51 pm

power4wardjinx wrote:
MickeyDavis wrote:The question is would Kohl take the money he saves next year from Redd's injury and use it to pay luxury tax.

Thank you, Mickey. That is exactly what I was suggesting.

Personally I don't think that he will. Yes insurance will save Kohl some money, but this team is still losing money big time and I can't see him taking that insurance money and pissing it away on paying luxury tax for an average, at best, team. But I guess only Kohl knows the answer to that.

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #35 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:52 pm

europa wrote:
power4wardjinx wrote:Maybe the Senator is prepared to pay some luxury tax.

According to GAD, Kohl won't pay any luxury tax next season. I trust GAD and his sources.

Not saying GAD is wrong, (it has always been in the past with Harris, too, that Kohl would not go over the tax), but I don't think even Kohl would know that til the end of the season. He is an emotional Bucks fan like the rest of us, if Jefferson continues like he's been playing, session's has a religion started after him, and CV takes us to the second round of the playoffs. He might be like "Hell, this team just needs Bogut and we got ourselves a championship. Pay the MEN!"

Not saying any of this will happen, but if we can't make an Jefferson/expiring trade it might be all we could hope for.

power4wardjinx · Post #36 » by **power4wardjinx** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:57 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
I understand all that better than you do, including the fact that the Bucks are clearly in a position where they would have been paying luxury tax anyway, just to field a roster next season.

It's quite clear you do not, actually. And I just posted what our roster could be very easily if we made the RJ/Ridnour Portland deal. That is a quality 10-man rotation right there that is under the luxury tax.

Sorry, we're not trading RJ to Portland. Forget it, and forget about Raef's contract.

LUKE23 · Post #37 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:58 pm

Sorry, we're not trading RJ to Portland. Forget it, and forget about Raef's contract.

Well, that settles it then.

LISTEN2JAZZ · Post #38 » by **LISTEN2JAZZ** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:00 pm

power4wardjinx wrote:Sorry, we're not trading RJ to Portland. Forget it, and forget about Raef's contract.

Insider info????

:eek2:

Post #39 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:06 pm

power4wardjinx · Post #40 » by **power4wardjinx** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:07 pm

adamcz wrote:
power4wardjinx wrote:Sorry, we're not trading RJ to Portland. Forget it, and forget about Raef's contract.

Insider info????

Noooooooooooooo. :lol: