RealGM

Continued from here

From the previous thread:

by Liverbird on Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:13 pm

They may be factoring the lack of income tax in Texas? Good question

I don't think the differences in income tax make up that difference.

California's tax rate on income past $1 million is 10.55%.

LA offered a 5 year 118 million dollar contract.

The max deal Houston can offer is 4 years for 88 million dollars.

The California tax rate means what, ~11-12 million dollars in taxes? That means the difference in money is still nearly 20 million dollars that Dwight would be walking away from. Plus a year.

And Dwight could probably make far more in endorsements in LA than Houston. The Lakers supposedly offered him his own TV show through their TV partners.

If he's really headed to Houston, then I think that means he got LA to agree to a sign and trade. I have a hard time seeing anyone just walk away from that kind of money.

He's young enough still that he'd likely have 1 more max contract after this one. Or close to it anyway.

Boy he wanted out of LA didn't he?

stevemcqueen1 wrote:From the previous thread:

by Liverbird on Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:13 pm

They may be factoring the lack of income tax in Texas? Good question

I don't think the differences in income tax make up that difference.

California's tax rate on income past $1 million is 10.55%.

LA offered a 5 year 118 million dollar contract.

The max deal Houston can offer is 4 years for 88 million dollars.

The California tax rate means what, ~11-12 million dollars in taxes? That means the difference in money is still nearly 20 million dollars that Dwight would be walking away from. Plus a year.

And Dwight could probably make far more in endorsements in LA than Houston. The Lakers supposedly offered him his own TV show through their TV partners.

If he's really headed to Houston, then I think that means he got LA to agree to a sign and trade. I have a hard time seeing anyone just walk away from that kind of money.

Comparing the $118M figure to the $88M figure is a false comparison. That $118 number is over 5 years while the $88M figure is over 4 years. Howard will likely resign after 4 years for another max contract (though there is admittedly some risk involved).

I haven't run the numbers, but my guess is that Liverbird is right in that 4 years at $88M at the Texas tax rate might be worth more than what Howard would earn in his first 4 years in LA at the California tax rate, even though LA would be offering 7.5% raises versus Houston's 4.5% raises.

I can't speak for the endorsement opportunities though.

Liverbird wrote:He's young enough still that he'd likely have 1 more max contract after this one. Or close to it anyway.

Boy he wanted out of LA didn't he?

I don't think his next contract factored heavily into the decision.

I'm waiting until an official announcement is made before I buy that he's just going to walk in UFA to Houston. If he does go to Houston, I want to see the details of the move. Common sense dictates it's going to have to be as a part of a S&T or he's going to stay in LA.

I think there is a lot of bad information swirling right now and some reporters might come out of this looking dumb.

I think $12M a year for Iguadola is too much. New Orleans also overpaid a ton for Evans.

Last summer, NBA GM's restrained themselves pretty well and avoided crazy contracts. I guess it was just an aberration.

nate33 wrote:

stevemcqueen1 wrote:From the previous thread:

by Liverbird on Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:13 pm

They may be factoring the lack of income tax in Texas? Good question

I don't think the differences in income tax make up that difference.

California's tax rate on income past $1 million is 10.55%.

LA offered a 5 year 118 million dollar contract.

The max deal Houston can offer is 4 years for 88 million dollars.

The California tax rate means what, ~11-12 million dollars in taxes? That means the difference in money is still nearly 20 million dollars that Dwight would be walking away from. Plus a year.

And Dwight could probably make far more in endorsements in LA than Houston. The Lakers supposedly offered him his own TV show through their TV partners.

If he's really headed to Houston, then I think that means he got LA to agree to a sign and trade. I have a hard time seeing anyone just walk away from that kind of money.

Comparing the $118M figure to the $88M figure is a false comparison. That $118 number is over 5 years while the $88M figure is over 4 years. Howard will likely resign after 4 years for another max contract (though there is admittedly some risk involved).

I haven't run the numbers, but my guess is that Liverbird is right in that 4 years at $88M at the Texas tax rate might be worth more than what Howard would earn in his first 4 years in LA at the California tax rate, even though LA would be offering 7.5% raises versus Houston's 4.5% raises.

I can't speak for the endorsement opportunities though.

Only four years is a huge negative though. Being able to offer the fifth year is a huge boon for LA, stars always want that final year. If Dwight's counting on his next contract making up the difference for that fifth year, then he needs to fire his agent. I seriously doubt that's a consideration in a negotiation like this. Especially for a player that has had health problems the past two years. That extra year and extra 30 million is real money.

And if Dwight is confident his next deal is going to be a max deal anyway, then why would he accept only four years on this one if he could get a fifth? Then he'd only be getting 9 years of max money instead of 10.

There is no way of getting around it, Dwight will have to walk away from tens of millions of dollars to sign in Houston as a UFA.

Does Dallas gamble on Bynum? I have no idea what he's worth on the open market. Its been mysteriously quiet on him.

stevemcqueen1 wrote:

nate33 wrote:

stevemcqueen1 wrote:From the previous thread:



I don't think the differences in income tax make up that difference.

California's tax rate on income past $1 million is 10.55%.

LA offered a 5 year 118 million dollar contract.

The max deal Houston can offer is 4 years for 88 million dollars.

The California tax rate means what, ~11-12 million dollars in taxes? That means the difference in money is still nearly 20 million dollars that Dwight would be walking away from. Plus a year.

And Dwight could probably make far more in endorsements in LA than Houston. The Lakers supposedly offered him his own TV show through their TV partners.

If he's really headed to Houston, then I think that means he got LA to agree to a sign and trade. I have a hard time seeing anyone just walk away from that kind of money.

Comparing the $118M figure to the $88M figure is a false comparison. That $118 number is over 5 years while the $88M figure is over 4 years. Howard will likely resign after 4 years for another max contract (though there is admittedly some risk involved).

I haven't run the numbers, but my guess is that Liverbird is right in that 4 years at $88M at the Texas tax rate might be worth more than what Howard would earn in his first 4 years in LA at the California tax rate, even though LA would be offering 7.5% raises versus Houston's 4.5% raises.

I can't speak for the endorsement opportunities though.

Only four years is a huge negative though. Being able to offer the fifth year is a huge boon for LA, stars always want that final year. If Dwight's counting on his next contract making up the difference for that fifth year, then he needs to fire his agent. I seriously doubt that's a consideration in a negotiation like this. Especially for a player that has had health problems the past two years. That extra year and extra 30 million is real money.

And if Dwight is confident his next deal is going to be a max deal anyway, then why would he accept only four years on this one if he could get a fifth? Then he'd only be getting 9 years of max money instead of 10.

There is no way of getting around it, Dwight will have to walk away from tens of millions of dollars to sign in Houston as a UFA.

So we should applaud him for taking less money, no?

He's going to get paid, regardless. Whether it's in endorsements or on the next contract, he'll be fine. He had already made max money prior to this contract yes?

Rafael122 wrote:

stevemcqueen1 wrote:

nate33 wrote:Comparing the $118M figure to the $88M figure is a false comparison. That $118 number is over 5 years while the $88M figure is over 4 years. Howard will likely resign after 4 years for another max contract (though there is admittedly some risk involved).

I haven't run the numbers, but my guess is that Liverbird is right in that 4 years at $88M at the Texas tax rate might be worth more than what Howard would earn in his first 4 years in LA at the California tax rate, even though LA would be offering 7.5% raises versus Houston's 4.5% raises.

I can't speak for the endorsement opportunities though.

Only four years is a huge negative though. Being able to offer the fifth year is a huge boon for LA, stars always want that final year. If Dwight's counting on his next contract making up the difference for that fifth year, then he needs to fire his agent. I seriously doubt that's a consideration in a negotiation like this. Especially for a player that has had health problems the past two years. That extra year and extra 30 million is real money.

And if Dwight is confident his next deal is going to be a max deal anyway, then why would he accept only four years on this one if he could get a fifth? Then he'd only be getting 9 years of max money instead of 10.

There is no way of getting around it, Dwight will have to walk away from tens of millions of dollars to sign in Houston as a UFA.

So we should applaud him for taking less money, no?

He's going to get paid, regardless. Whether it's in endorsements or on the next contract, he'll be fine. He had already made max money prior to this contract yes?

He'll just get paid at least about 18-20 million dollars less.

I'm skeptical that's how it's going to go down.

mhd wrote:Does Dallas gamble on Bynum? I have no idea what he's worth on the open market. Its been mysteriously quiet on him.

I think his market had to wait until the Howard domino fell. Same for Josh Smith and the other second tier FAs.

Personally, I don't think he's worth a max contract and should sign for something like Jefferson did. Who is going to make him that offer?

Howard is headed to LA to meet with Mitch.

Looks like someone is finally trying to get in on some action for Ryan Anderson, from Woj on Twitter:

New Orleans has shown strong interest in acquiring Omer Asik in exchange for Ryan Anderson.
Anderson seemed like he was untouchable a few days ago with the deal involving the Kings and Tyreke Evans, so it's a little surprising to see that they'd look to deal him for Asik. Anderson led the NBA in 3-pointers in 2011-12 and was second last year behind Stephen Curry, so he would help create more space for Dwight Howard and James Harden to operate. The Pelicans could really use a center and Asik would have a similar role as last year.

OMFG

[tweet]https://twitter.com/alexkennedynba/status/353313717406011393[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/alexkennedynba/status/353311406868795392[/tweet]

Why did the Jazz make that salary dump trade with GSW?

The NBA media has really shown its ass again in this Dwight Howard farce by reporting that Dwight to Houston was a done deal.

Common sense dictated that there would probably be only one of two outcomes for him:

1.) He stays in LA
2.) He goes to his next team in a sign and trade.

And the media was reporting that he'd walk in UFA to Houston. Common sense said that report is fishy and they should do some due diligence to figure out how this could be.

What I find unbearable about this is that Dwight comes out of this looking like the bad guy. He hasn't said or done anything this offseason and yet the fans and media have blamed and will blame him because of what a bunch of incompetent reporters are saying about him in near total speculation.

I think he probably stays in LA unless he can get them to agree to a S&T. I think LA is probably resistant to doing that, but I don't think it's out of the question. Cleveland did a S&T with Miami for LeBron.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/201 ... story.html

There's been some lazy thinking in this thread about the tax issue. It is an advantage for the 41 home games, but not on the road. Generally each state and some cities tax visiting athletes for "work days" there.

FAH1223 wrote:OMFG

[tweet]https://twitter.com/alexkennedynba/status/353313717406011393[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/alexkennedynba/status/353311406868795392[/tweet]

I would say to Alex Kennedy, you're a reporter right? Do some reporting and stop whining moron.

I doubt he realizes that he's essentially complaining about being incompetent. Don't accept or report anything that's not confirmed by reliable sources. It's really is as simple as that.

Benjammin wrote:http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/03/21/tax-season-crunch-time-for-accountants-serving-pro-athletes/rA1UqaYIA1AOOE59kHR5uI/story.html

There's been some lazy thinking in this thread about the tax issue. It is an advantage for the 41 home games, but not on the road. Generally each state and some cities tax visiting athletes for "work days" there.

Didn't know that. That's unbelievably complicated. So there is effectively no way of knowing just what the difference in taxes paid would be. Meaning that's probably not going to be a huge factor in Dwight's decision.

It also makes my assumed rate of about 11 to 12 million dollars an overshot. Probably by a fair amount if he spends a lot of time participating in team activities outside California.

Plus Dwight might have to take less than max money to go to Houston if he wants them to be able to sign another near max deal.

No matter what, it's going to be a huge difference in money--likely 20+ million--without a S&T.

NBA.com is reporting that Royce White is going to Philly.