Rumors, Random Thoughts, and Non-threadworthy Posts The 19th Hole

[jbk1234]

You sure? Because their motivation is different than yours. I mean Cuban is no longer one of the 30 but he's already come out supporting Ballmer. We've had reports about the Raptors being willing to do some shady stuff to keep Kawhi.

Discovery is something I'm sure more than 16 of the 30 would really like to avoid. For all kinds of reasons.

I hope the governors demand he be held to account. But I think that's fair from a fait accompli and I think it would be naive to belief otherwise.

Regardless, it will be interesting. I think I agree with jbk that most governors are not going to approve, but you never know.

My expectation, honestly, is that there are repercussions that matter, but likely not as debilitating as what the league did with Joe Smith. I am not sure they want to neuter a franchise in that way, it effectively prevented good teambuilding around Garnett.

The Governors of the NBA need to realize a bigger picture. They might NEED the off-the-books bribery, over a certain period. (Or they might need to simply do away with a large amount of the cap/tax rules).

The best players in the game are not American, and thus have less loyalty towards the US market. LeBron James is talking to European agents about leagues to rival the NBA. Money from the Middle East is eventually going to come for all the best players. The NBA puts limits on how competitive the US franchises can be with that other league. The US is becoming less welcoming to immigrants.

Real competition to the NBA isn't here yet and it might not ever reach viability, but a strict salary cap right now means that teams can't compete with foreign markets if it does come.

I have a lot of respect for you, but this is crazy talk. The current model has been wildly successful for the league and the Euroleague, which is already established with its own fanbase, doesn't come close to competing for the world's best players. Among other reasons, they don't come close to generating the necessary revenue.

[toooskies]

Regardless, it will be interesting. I think I agree with jbk that most governors are not going to approve, but you never know.

My expectation, honestly, is that there are repercussions that matter, but likely not as debilitating as what the league did with Joe Smith. I am not sure they want to neuter a franchise in that way, it effectively prevented good teambuilding around Garnett.

The Governors of the NBA need to realize a bigger picture. They might NEED the off-the-books bribery, over a certain period. (Or they might need to simply do away with a large amount of the cap/tax rules).

The best players in the game are not American, and thus have less loyalty towards the US market. LeBron James is talking to European agents about leagues to rival the NBA. Money from the Middle East is eventually going to come for all the best players. The NBA puts limits on how competitive the US franchises can be with that other league. The US is becoming less welcoming to immigrants.

Real competition to the NBA isn't here yet and it might not ever reach viability, but a strict salary cap right now means that teams can't compete with foreign markets if it does come.

I have a lot of respect for you, but this is crazy talk. The current model has been wildly successful for the league and the Euroleague, which is already established with its own fanbase, doesn't come close to competing for the world's best players. Among other reasons, they don't come close to generating the necessary revenue.

Like LIV in the golf world, it wouldn’t be about revenue. It would be about ultra-rich people throwing money around. It won’t happen unless they feel like losing money (at first), but there are reasons for the ultra-rich to spend money on things that aren’t directly profitable.

It will be about LeBron not wanting to play 82 games before he gets to the games that matter. It’s about Steph Curry wanting equity in the team.

12 teams, big cities internationally, 1-2 games a week for 3 months.

[jbk1234]

The Governors of the NBA need to realize a bigger picture. They might NEED the off-the-books bribery, over a certain period. (Or they might need to simply do away with a large amount of the cap/tax rules).

The best players in the game are not American, and thus have less loyalty towards the US market. LeBron James is talking to European agents about leagues to rival the NBA. Money from the Middle East is eventually going to come for all the best players. The NBA puts limits on how competitive the US franchises can be with that other league. The US is becoming less welcoming to immigrants.

Real competition to the NBA isn't here yet and it might not ever reach viability, but a strict salary cap right now means that teams can't compete with foreign markets if it does come.

I have a lot of respect for you, but this is crazy talk. The current model has been wildly successful for the league and the Euroleague, which is already established with its own fanbase, doesn't come close to competing for the world's best players. Among other reasons, they don't come close to generating the necessary revenue.

Like LIV in the golf world, it wouldn’t be about revenue. It would be about ultra-rich people throwing money around. It won’t happen unless they feel like losing money (at first), but there are reasons for the ultra-rich to spend money on things that aren’t directly profitable.

It will be about LeBron not wanting to play 82 games before he gets to the games that matter. It’s about Steph Curry wanting equity in the team.

12 teams, big cities internationally, 1-2 games a week for 3 months.

That sounds like a glorified Big Three league. The play would be to sign the best young prospects at twice the rookie contract rate like the USFL did with Hershel Walker and Jim Kelly. In either case, once the novelty wears off, you've either established enough of a sustainable audience to justify a TV contract that makes the league profitable, or not.

[gswhoops]

The Governors of the NBA need to realize a bigger picture. They might NEED the off-the-books bribery, over a certain period. (Or they might need to simply do away with a large amount of the cap/tax rules).

The best players in the game are not American, and thus have less loyalty towards the US market. LeBron James is talking to European agents about leagues to rival the NBA. Money from the Middle East is eventually going to come for all the best players. The NBA puts limits on how competitive the US franchises can be with that other league. The US is becoming less welcoming to immigrants.

Real competition to the NBA isn't here yet and it might not ever reach viability, but a strict salary cap right now means that teams can't compete with foreign markets if it does come.

I have a lot of respect for you, but this is crazy talk. The current model has been wildly successful for the league and the Euroleague, which is already established with its own fanbase, doesn't come close to competing for the world's best players. Among other reasons, they don't come close to generating the necessary revenue.

Like LIV in the golf world, it wouldn’t be about revenue. It would be about ultra-rich people throwing money around. It won’t happen unless they feel like losing money (at first), but there are reasons for the ultra-rich to spend money on things that aren’t directly profitable.

It will be about LeBron not wanting to play 82 games before he gets to the games that matter. It’s about Steph Curry wanting equity in the team.

12 teams, big cities internationally, 1-2 games a week for 3 months.

We saw what LIV's end game was - draw enough big names and fans to financially hurt the PGA long enough to force them to the table for a merger/acquisition. It was never about building a sustainable second league. And it couldn't have been, because the revenue simply isn't there to support two top-level golf leagues. The same is true about European basketball.

LeBron going to the Euroleague at age 42 would be more like Cristiano Ronaldo joining al-Nasser or Messi coming to Inter Miami than anything else. Maybe it starts a trend of past-their-prime stars going overseas to cash out for a couple more years but it's not a power shift away from Europe being the dominant soccer league(s) or the US being the dominant basketball league.

[Scoot McGroot]

Read on Twitter

?s=61&t=4P34sFh22Otrr6CybjJQ_g

[toooskies]

I have a lot of respect for you, but this is crazy talk. The current model has been wildly successful for the league and the Euroleague, which is already established with its own fanbase, doesn't come close to competing for the world's best players. Among other reasons, they don't come close to generating the necessary revenue.

Like LIV in the golf world, it wouldn’t be about revenue. It would be about ultra-rich people throwing money around. It won’t happen unless they feel like losing money (at first), but there are reasons for the ultra-rich to spend money on things that aren’t directly profitable.

It will be about LeBron not wanting to play 82 games before he gets to the games that matter. It’s about Steph Curry wanting equity in the team.

12 teams, big cities internationally, 1-2 games a week for 3 months.

That sounds like a glorified Big Three league. The play would be to sign the best young prospects at twice the rookie contract rate like the USFL did with Hershel Walker and Jim Kelly. In either case, once the novelty wears off, you've either established enough of a sustainable audience to justify a TV contract that makes the league profitable, or not.

The NBA may not be worried but the PGA went from complacency to crisis pretty quickly. The NBA got serious about starting their European league efforts at roughly the same time LeBron was talking to Jokic's agent, reportedly about a new league. See what Maverick Carter was up to 9 months ago: https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/43441356/sources-maverick-carter-advising-5b-effort-start-new-basketball-league

The strategy for a competitor is going to be flexible until something becomes real, and it may never be. Meetings may just be meetings and investors can come and go. The question is whether the NBA is vulnerable, because if they are too vulnerable then it will make sense to go after them.

The level of wealth required isn't necessarily concerned about profit anymore, and certainly not about whether the league itself is profitable. Elon Musk didn't overpay for Twitter to make a profit off of it, he values the control of information and political power it afforded him. LIV golf is losing massive amounts of money and for all intents and purposes was not created for the profits, it probably exists as a way for oil billionaires to influence other rich people at country clubs, if not launder other financial transactions. (They lost $400m or something last year.)

Cuban sold the Mavs partly because the profit around teams now is not about ownership of the team, it's about leveraging the team for real estate or development deals. Prokhorov in Brooklyn made bank off of the surrounding real estate near the Nets' arena in Brooklyn. Golden State's ownership justified paying mega-tax bills not just for championships but because the ownership group was making massive amounts of money from the nearby arena. Dan Gilbert leveraged the Cavs to make money off several Cleveland projects including changing laws to build a casino downtown. Team finances matter for old-guard owners like in Chicago or Washington but it may be irrelevant in today's markets.

It's a big red flag for players that league revenue isn't how rich owners plan to make money off the team. The cap increase this year not maxing out at 10% in the first year of a new TV deal is red flag number two. Third red flag is that team valuations are far outpacing the growth of player salaries anyway. Depending on how widespread this kind of under-the-table deal is, cracking down might be another reason for max-limited superstars to look elsewhere.

[daoneandonly]

What would the delta in trade value be between Derrick Lively and Jared McCain?

Lively, who is from Philly, would be great Embiid insurance. He'd make a solid young core to build on with Maxey-VJ. Dallas' best lineups would involve AD at the 5 with Flagg and PJ as forwards. McCain gives them a young gun guard that they currently do not have. Gafford is already there to be the backup 5 and is still relatively young.

Maybe I'm a Dallas homer, but I think Dallas would be owed some value. Just not sure what that value is?

[jbk1234]

Like LIV in the golf world, it wouldn’t be about revenue. It would be about ultra-rich people throwing money around. It won’t happen unless they feel like losing money (at first), but there are reasons for the ultra-rich to spend money on things that aren’t directly profitable.

It will be about LeBron not wanting to play 82 games before he gets to the games that matter. It’s about Steph Curry wanting equity in the team.

12 teams, big cities internationally, 1-2 games a week for 3 months.

That sounds like a glorified Big Three league. The play would be to sign the best young prospects at twice the rookie contract rate like the USFL did with Hershel Walker and Jim Kelly. In either case, once the novelty wears off, you've either established enough of a sustainable audience to justify a TV contract that makes the league profitable, or not.

The NBA may not be worried but the PGA went from complacency to crisis pretty quickly. The NBA got serious about starting their European league efforts at roughly the same time LeBron was talking to Jokic's agent, reportedly about a new league. See what Maverick Carter was up to 9 months ago: https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/43441356/sources-maverick-carter-advising-5b-effort-start-new-basketball-league

The strategy for a competitor is going to be flexible until something becomes real, and it may never be. Meetings may just be meetings and investors can come and go. The question is whether the NBA is vulnerable, because if they are too vulnerable then it will make sense to go after them.

The level of wealth required isn't necessarily concerned about profit anymore, and certainly not about whether the league itself is profitable. Elon Musk didn't overpay for Twitter to make a profit off of it, he values the control of information and political power it afforded him. LIV golf is losing massive amounts of money and for all intents and purposes was not created for the profits, it probably exists as a way for oil billionaires to influence other rich people at country clubs, if not launder other financial transactions. (They lost $400m or something last year.)

Cuban sold the Mavs partly because the profit around teams now is not about ownership of the team, it's about leveraging the team for real estate or development deals. Prokhorov in Brooklyn made bank off of the surrounding real estate near the Nets' arena in Brooklyn. Golden State's ownership justified paying mega-tax bills not just for championships but because the ownership group was making massive amounts of money from the nearby arena. Dan Gilbert leveraged the Cavs to make money off several Cleveland projects including changing laws to build a casino downtown. Team finances matter for old-guard owners like in Chicago or Washington but it may be irrelevant in today's markets.

It's a big red flag for players that league revenue isn't how rich owners plan to make money off the team. The cap increase this year not maxing out at 10% in the first year of a new TV deal is red flag number two. Third red flag is that team valuations are far outpacing the growth of player salaries anyway. Depending on how widespread this kind of under-the-table deal is, cracking down might be another reason for max-limited superstars to look elsewhere.

I understand that theory of the case - I simply disagree. LIV is the single greatest PR expenditure in history with its primary aim being the launder MBS's reputation. It has little to nothing to do with sports.

The fact that Boston's new ownership group is shedding salary with a vengeance would seem to indicate that concepts like revenue and profit are not irrelevant considerations to new owners. While I understand that concept of buying a team above market in order to make it back on the surrounding real estate, it's not clear that it will work at today's evaluation, or that it isn't an optimistic justification for the evaluation (see AI). Further, even if it does work, that value isn't transferable to the next buyer of the team as the seller will still own the surrounding real estate.

While you see the revenue projections falling short as a red flag for the NBA, I see it as a red flag for would-be competitors. If after a series of record-breaking TV contracts the NBA can't meet its payroll obligations, how is the new league going to poach the most expensive stars when it's starting with no audience?

As far as Musk, or Ellison, the incentives for controlling the flow of information are different from owning sports teams.

[bkohler]

I don’t know if anyone mentioned this but were the clippers also skipping out on potential luxury tax payments (more than they already paid) through this side deal?

[brackdan70]

What would the delta in trade value be between Derrick Lively and Jared McCain?

Lively, who is from Philly, would be great Embiid insurance. He'd make a solid young core to build on with Maxey-VJ. Dallas' best lineups would involve AD at the 5 with Flagg and PJ as forwards. McCain gives them a young gun guard that they currently do not have. Gafford is already there to be the backup 5 and is still relatively young.

Maybe I'm a Dallas homer, but I think Dallas would be owed some value. Just not sure what that value is?

I agree. Dallas would be owed significant value here. We are seeing undersized shooting guards are a dime a dozen here. Starting quality bigs are much harder to come by.
Lively is too 100 in most impact stats. McCain is way down the list in 300s and 400s
Is the value difference a first? Idk, maybe a moderately protected one.

[Scoot McGroot]

I don’t know if anyone mentioned this but were the clippers also skipping out on potential luxury tax payments (more than they already paid) through this side deal?

This is the angle that Zach Lowe has been bringing up. So, yes, possibly? It's also kind of a butterfly effect of "if we paid Kawhi fully on the books, would we have made other decisions to lower the luxury tax penalties in those years?"

So, yes, but also maybe? Hard to say?

[jbk1234]

I don’t know if anyone mentioned this but were the clippers also skipping out on potential luxury tax payments (more than they already paid) through this side deal?

This is the angle that Zach Lowe has been bringing up. So, yes, possibly? It's also kind of a butterfly effect of "if we paid Kawhi fully on the books, would we have made other decisions to lower the luxury tax penalties in those years?"

So, yes, but also maybe? Hard to say?

Leonard is already paid $50M on the books. There was no option of paying him $78M per as it would've been well in excess of the max limit.

[Godaddycurse]

I don’t know if anyone mentioned this but were the clippers also skipping out on potential luxury tax payments (more than they already paid) through this side deal?

This is the angle that Zach Lowe has been bringing up. So, yes, possibly? It's also kind of a butterfly effect of "if we paid Kawhi fully on the books, would we have made other decisions to lower the luxury tax penalties in those years?"

So, yes, but also maybe? Hard to say?

Leonard is already paid $50M on the books. There was no option of paying him $78M per as it would've been well in excess of the max limit.

50M was still short of his max. Ballmer saved lots from paying him less

[jbk1234]

This is the angle that Zach Lowe has been bringing up. So, yes, possibly? It's also kind of a butterfly effect of "if we paid Kawhi fully on the books, would we have made other decisions to lower the luxury tax penalties in those years?"

So, yes, but also maybe? Hard to say?

Leonard is already paid $50M on the books. There was no option of paying him $78M per as it would've been well in excess of the max limit.

50M was still short of his max. Ballmer saved lots from paying him less

And after you add in the value of the stock options at the time the contract was signed?

[Jojothewhale]

What would the delta in trade value be between Derrick Lively and Jared McCain?

Lively, who is from Philly, would be great Embiid insurance. He'd make a solid young core to build on with Maxey-VJ. Dallas' best lineups would involve AD at the 5 with Flagg and PJ as forwards. McCain gives them a young gun guard that they currently do not have. Gafford is already there to be the backup 5 and is still relatively young.

Maybe I'm a Dallas homer, but I think Dallas would be owed some value. Just not sure what that value is?

I don't think it helps anyone to look at these things in a vacuum. Context is everything. The Sixers as a franchise are not close to being able to trade picks for role players. Their franchise player may never play again.

To go beyond that, Morey has bristled over and over at the idea of Embiid insurance. Locally it's been a constant story written over the years about how he doesn't prioritize that concept. He has addressed this directly on multiple podcasts. It's like Tom Moore said in response to questions about why they don't give more Snaps in practice to Peyton Manning's backups -- "Fellas, if 18 goes down, we're ****ed. And we don't practice ****ed." No healthy Embiid means they're ****ed.

If you want to get picks out of the Sixers right now, Embiid has to show he's healthy first and then it has to be someone who is an ideal fit alongside him. There's no wiggle room on either of those.

[bkohler]

This is the angle that Zach Lowe has been bringing up. So, yes, possibly? It's also kind of a butterfly effect of "if we paid Kawhi fully on the books, would we have made other decisions to lower the luxury tax penalties in those years?"

So, yes, but also maybe? Hard to say?

Leonard is already paid $50M on the books. There was no option of paying him $78M per as it would've been well in excess of the max limit.

50M was still short of his max. Ballmer saved lots from paying him less

I think my point is that if they’re not only doing an end around of the salary cap rules they’re also doing an end around of the money they should be paying to other owners. The real people that matter here are the other owners. If they feel robbed there’s going to be issues.

[Scoot McGroot]

I don’t know if anyone mentioned this but were the clippers also skipping out on potential luxury tax payments (more than they already paid) through this side deal?

This is the angle that Zach Lowe has been bringing up. So, yes, possibly? It's also kind of a butterfly effect of "if we paid Kawhi fully on the books, would we have made other decisions to lower the luxury tax penalties in those years?"

So, yes, but also maybe? Hard to say?

Leonard is already paid $50M on the books. There was no option of paying him $78M per as it would've been well in excess of the max limit.

Well, it wouldn't have all been paid in the same year. Hypothetically, an extra $7-12m per year..etc.

He was already under contract on a full max, with full 8% raises, when the endorsement agreement was signed in April of 2022. In theory, the endorsement agreement couldn't have changed his nba salary (if it was paid fully from the team) for 22/23 or 23/24. He also got a full 35% in 24/25, so that wouldn't have changed. He agreed to less than maximum raises in 25/26 and 26/27, so in total, his salary could have been paid an extra $9.921m over those two years, if he was paid a full 35% max with 8% raises.

[Scoot McGroot]

Leonard is already paid $50M on the books. There was no option of paying him $78M per as it would've been well in excess of the max limit.

50M was still short of his max. Ballmer saved lots from paying him less

I think my point is that if they’re not only doing an end around of the salary cap rules they’re also doing an end around of the money they should be paying to other owners. The real people that matter here are the other owners. If they feel robbed there’s going to be issues.

This upcoming season is the first season that Kawhi's salary could have legally been any higher than he was paid by the Clippers. It couldn't have affected any luxury tax calculations the previous years.

[jbk1234]

50M was still short of his max. Ballmer saved lots from paying him less

I think my point is that if they’re not only doing an end around of the salary cap rules they’re also doing an end around of the money they should be paying to other owners. The real people that matter here are the other owners. If they feel robbed there’s going to be issues.

This upcoming season is the first season that Kawhi's salary could have legally been any higher than he was paid by the Clippers. It couldn't have affected any luxury tax calculations the previous years.

Correct, but this is what makes it appear to be a blatant circumvention of the CBA.

[Scoot McGroot]

I think my point is that if they’re not only doing an end around of the salary cap rules they’re also doing an end around of the money they should be paying to other owners. The real people that matter here are the other owners. If they feel robbed there’s going to be issues.

This upcoming season is the first season that Kawhi's salary could have legally been any higher than he was paid by the Clippers. It couldn't have affected any luxury tax calculations the previous years.

Correct, but this is what makes it appear to be a blatant circumvention of the CBA.

I've never said anything other than this appears to be blatant circumvention of the CBA? I was just pointing out that LA wasn't going to pay the extra $28m all in one season.

As for the tax question, I was just pointing out that this is the first season that LA could have been paying more tax. It wouldn't have changed tax penalties in any past season.

Again, and continually, it is likely cap circumvention.