RealGM

lol is that your blog?


and i believe that it is not true

this season the cap is

The tax level for the 2007-08 season has been set at $67.865 million. Any team whose team salary exceeds that figure will pay a $1 tax for each $1 by which it exceeds $67.865 million.

and it will for sure go up next season. the raptors pay roll is

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/toronto.htm

it looks as though we'll be around 11M+ under the cap next season and around 30M+ the season after.

edit: nvm i didnt read the whole thing, it was pretty long, but i didnt realize you added potential contracts.

Bargnani's the key to everything, right. I thought this was known since last year.

well i don't think we'll be paying Ukic $3 mill a year if he comes over, if we still have both Calderon and TJ....

that gives us $6 mill in capspace..the chances are we'll have to move somebody as well...

why does it always seem like we're maxed out when we really only have one player making star money...how do teams like the lakers, celtics, etc. afford their rosters? i guess we have to overpay everyone to come to this hole...

Indiana Jones wrote:why does it always seem like we're maxed out when we really only have one player making star money...how do teams like the lakers, celtics, etc. afford their rosters? i guess we have to overpay everyone to come to this hole...

We may not be able to afford signing an upper-tier free agent, but with a bundle of expiring deals and lots of room to the luxury tax we will be able to afford trading for a star with a rich deal next season. Free agents always get overpaid anyway (see Lewis, Rashard and Kapono, Jason).

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/raptors.jsp

This is a more accurate site for salaries.

Indiana Jones wrote:why does it always seem like we're maxed out when we really only have one player making star money...how do teams like the lakers, celtics, etc. afford their rosters? i guess we have to overpay everyone to come to this hole...

they are over the luxury tax cap.

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/toronto.htm - 63M

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/boston.htm - 70M+

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/la_lakers.htm - 70M+

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/dallas.htm - 90M+

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/miami.htm - 70M+

Indiana Jones wrote:why does it always seem like we're maxed out when we really only have one player making star money...how do teams like the lakers, celtics, etc. afford their rosters? i guess we have to overpay everyone to come to this hole...

Teams like that don't mind paying luxury tax. Plus honestly they get a bang for their buck. Look at the Spurs, everyone took smaller contracts to stay together and win. Duncan dropped from having a chance at 24 mill to 18.75 that's like an extra 5 mil. TP could have gotten close to 13 a season he took 10. They also go out and get a bang for their buck. Bruce Bowen took 4 mill, Brent Barry took the same.

It's a GM and selling a winning atmosphere

I've always believed that this summer's expiring contracts are going to be more meaningful than hard cap space the following summer. It's always been the more likely scenario. Few top tier free agents change teams. But lots of good deals are made with expiring contracts, and we have a huge number of ending contracts, with the bonus being ours are split up into fairly managable chunks, meaning we don't have to look for a big ticket in return.

Secondly, I'm not a firm believer, based on BC's history and the fact that we are a young team, that he will use both first rounders for a player who will go on the roster immediately. He could sell a pick, flip it for a first rounder in a later year, swap it for two second rounders... any number of possibilities. I believe this would be especially true of our pick in 2009.

Thirdly, the cause of asset building is better served with a payroll capacity closer to, or exceeding the luxury tax threshold. In other words, trading expiring contracts (possibly with other talent, picks, etc.) keeps more talent on the roster.

Of our expiring contracts, only one - Parker - is really a major part of our present. We have enough bench players - Rasho, Graham, Baston, Garbo - to deal and re-sign Parker to another contract, say for two years, so he can become a useful bench player for the last part of his career.

As for the blogger's assumptions, I don't believe we will re-sign/keep all of our players plus use our picks. I'm marking Calderon down for $8-9 million, Delfino for $5 million, Ukic for $1.3 million (if he comes). But by the summer of 2009, we might deal a point guard, and if we acquire a better wing player, I would expect us to trade one of our other wings. Moon isn't a sure thing, given his age. He needs a good pay day, and if somebody were to target him with more than a few million, I'd probably let him walk.

In summary, I see trades this summer rather than free agency in 09 as being more important because BC has the authority to spend up to, and perhaps beyond, the luxury tax threshold. I see active trading this summer and next. I don't see us keeping all of our current roster intact.

Bargnani is a key, but there is an awful lot of flexibility in our situation.

Shaazzam wrote:http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/raptors.jsp

This is a more accurate site for salaries.

How are they more accurate? They're exactly the same salaries as quoted...

CB4-TJ11-AB7 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Teams like that don't mind paying luxury tax. Plus honestly they get a bang for their buck. Look at the Spurs, everyone took smaller contracts to stay together and win. Duncan dropped from having a chance at 24 mill to 18.75 that's like an extra 5 mil. TP could have gotten close to 13 a season he took 10. They also go out and get a bang for their buck. Bruce Bowen took 4 mill, Brent Barry took the same.

It's a GM and selling a winning atmosphere

Actually, some of them do mind paying luxury tax. Boston doesn't appear ready to do so. They do have good contracts, and I agree there is a lingering benefit from being an elite team. A better example would be the Spurs scooping up Michael Finley for cheap after he was axed as part of the luxury tax amnesty (note that Cuban wasn't saying no to saving those tens of millions in luxury tax on Finley's contract, just as he went cheap on Steve Nash at exactly the wrong moment.)

Alvin is still on the books.

dagger wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Actually, some of them do mind paying luxury tax. Boston doesn't appear ready to do so. They do have good contracts, and I agree there is a lingering benefit from being an elite team. A better example would be the Spurs scooping up Michael Finley for cheap after he was axed as part of the luxury tax amnesty (note that Cuban wasn't saying no to saving those tens of millions in luxury tax on Finley's contract, just as he went cheap on Steve Nash at exactly the wrong moment.)

Boston will be paying luxury tax for the next 3 years at least and they paid during the Peirce/Walker era

Boston in the Pierce Walker era had a different owner. The current ownership set out to avoid luxury tax after the Garnett trade but eventually agreed to pay a relatively small amount - nothing like what some teams pay. This may be the case again next season, but not necessarily in two seasons.

DOnt alot of our contracts end in 2010 ?? Bosh, TJ,Rasho ???

I believe Bosh has a player option but does TJ have a team option ???


Because they both signed 5 year deals but both had player/team options after the 3rd year ??

Can anyone clarify this.

I don't know why neither one of those sites shows Humphries' extension.

The Kapono signing went against everything I thought BC was attempting to do. That's 6 million more we could have used to get a useful player.

raps4life~ wrote:

this season the cap is

The tax level for the 2007-08 season has been set at $67.865 million. Any team whose team salary exceeds that figure will pay a $1 tax for each $1 by which it exceeds $67.865 million.

I believe you're referring to the luxury tax cap, not the salary cap

Grizzled wrote:I don't know why neither one of those sites shows Humphries' extension.

Which sites? The article in the thread accounts for Humphries' salary.