RealGM

Reports are that we were in the hunt for Josh Childress. A player that I like a lot and that I think would be perfect for us. He is athletic and long. He is a good defender and shooter and is rated as a SG. He is getting the full MLE. He is also deserves the full MLE, unlike Wesley. I think he makes the Jazz better than Wesley would and is more likely to earn his money than Wesley.

It was us against San Antonio, and Phoenix. Phoenix won out. Who do we think would have been second?

Even if we could have offered more money (which we couldn't because of cap restrictions) he may have still opted for the other cities because of the lack of a state tax in Texas and Arizona. It almost makes me want to see if the legislature wouldn't allow for professional athletes coming to Utah to not have to pay state taxes. Think about it: Florida, Texas, and Arizona don't have state taxes making any offer from those 6 teams better than any other team. Besides starting out with a disadvantage in attracting players to our state, we also have a state tax that 6 teams do not have.

Josh Childress would have been a great pick up for us, but players like him always have options.

My point is that we were in the running for a very good MLE guy, and lost out because good MLE guys always have more options. We will always, or almost always lose out on guys like this and that is why it so important for the Jazz to get talent in the draft.

Do you all think Childress would have been money better spent than Wesley?

Well, there is still Roger Mason

And further proof the Jazz can not afford to lose the talent which they do draft.

I disagree with allowing athleates to avoid state taxes. Why should joe blow have to pay taxes when someone who plays a game for a living and make millions doing so does not have to.


I do agree that it sucks that states with an income tax have to compete cap wise with teams that only have sales tax. It really isnt fair. I would more like to see the NBA make an some sort of exception for states that have to pay income tax....say teams with state income tax get to spend 25% (or what ever would be fair) more than teams with sales tax before they get into a luxery tax territory?

That is probably the better way to do it. With 6 teams in the league (20% of the league), having a distinct advantage over other clubs it is just unfair. Arizona, Florida, and Texas already have an advantage by virtue of their location, the league should level the playing field tax wise.

The way to enforce it would be to simply lower the contract value that teams in those states can offer.

Everyone is saying that Lebron and CB gave up $15M in their contracts to sign in Miami. That is just not the case. They gave up maybe $2-$3M after tax. They both will see their ability to do endorsements go up, so net on net it is a better deal for them.