why do you give a crap if the Jazz pay the tax?

idajazz · Post #1 » by **idajazz** » Wed Jul 1, 2009 7:58 pm

I don't give a crap if they pay the tax for a year.
I have given them a boat load of my cash over the years on exorbitantly priced Crap from hats to hot dogs.
They can pony up for a year and put a great product on the floor.

If they would have done so in the Stock/Malone era we would have a couple rings.
Doesn't hurt my feeling one tiny bit, and they will survive it.

HolyToledo · Post #2 » by **HolyToledo** » Wed Jul 1, 2009 8:22 pm

Jazz cannot survive in the Utah market is they are paying luxury tax. Simple as that. I could care less as I live in California but I am sure Utah residents want them to stay. Otherwise, you may see the Las Vegas Jazz in the future.

kamazilla · Post #3 » by **kamazilla** » Wed Jul 1, 2009 8:26 pm

That kind of puts it in perspective and I agree in principle. Just don't want to see us hamstrung by contracts no one else is willing to take on (AK for example). The interesting thing is, I feel resigning Millsap at $10M per is MUCH LESS of a risk than extending Boozer at $13M per; you know Millsap will always contribute something, while Boozer is going to be a no show 1/3 of the time.

When it comes to contract time, shouldn't averages be based on possible games played? I mean, why the hell should anyone ever be paid for anything other than actual production?! Its really no consolation at all knowing that you have a $60M pf who could be impacting the game were he not sitting on his ass in the stands in street clothes. I would exponentially prefer slightly overpaying for consistent production vs. grossly overpaying for occasional great production. So would the Jazz, and that is why the they will match any Millsap offers and trade Booze to redeem some value from his contract.

idajazz · Post #4 » by **idajazz** » Wed Jul 1, 2009 8:27 pm

Bullcrap!
They can survive it for a year or even a couple of years.
They put themselves into this spot by giving skinny boy a max deal.
Now they need to deal with it.
If they let Millsap walk they are going to tick off a lot of fans.
If they could somehow dump the skinny crybaby I would be fine with it.
I would rather have any of Booz, Sap, Okur than skinny boy crybaby.

carrottop12 · Post #5 » by **carrottop12** » Wed Jul 1, 2009 8:31 pm

Because spending money now can easily mean having to save money later.

The Jazz spending an extra $10,000,000 in a year when they aren't built to win a championship may mean they need to save $10,000,000 on a team that may be one $10,000,000 player away from being favorites.

Them wasting $10,000,000 now, is $10,000,000 they will have to save later.

carrottop12 · Post #6 » by **carrottop12** » Wed Jul 1, 2009 8:33 pm

Also realize that even though you have already

given them a boat load of my cash over the years on exorbitantly priced Crap from hats to hot dogs.

Expect to pay more if the Jazz continue to have to find $10 mil in the budget.

kamazilla · Post #7 » by **kamazilla** » Wed Jul 1, 2009 8:36 pm

They can definitely absorb the hit for a season or two- Greg Miller has said as much. With all of the salary set to come off the books next year, they'll re-sign Sap unless OKC offers him an absolutely unconscionable deal. They'll front load it and apparently load it with incentives. Better for the Jazz if they can come to terms with him first rather than him signing an offer sheet. If they try to be cheap now, it will cost them more.

idajazz · Post #8 » by **idajazz** » Wed Jul 1, 2009 8:39 pm

I agree.
The best move they could make would be to offer Sap a decent deal before hand and take other teams out of it.
I just hope that he is ok playing with Boozer another year and isn't dead set on being a starter.

carrottop12 · Post #9 » by **carrottop12** » Wed Jul 1, 2009 8:47 pm

The question comes down to whether or not Millsap is a guy you are willing to pay the luxury tax for. Is he the difference between being a champion this year, and not being a championship?

Does he cripple the franchise if he's gone next season, with or with out Boozer? Are you sure Millsap is the guy you want instead of Boozer, knowing that Stoudamire, Bosh, Nowitzki, Landry, Scola, Haslem and more are going to be available in the summer of 2010?

I'm not sure that I'd do that.

erudite23 · Post #10 » by **erudite23** » Wed Jul 1, 2009 9:25 pm

idajazz wrote:I don't give a crap if they pay the tax for a year.
I have given them a boat load of my cash over the years on exorbitantly priced Crap from hats to hot dogs.
They can pony up for a year and put a great product on the floor.

If they would have done so in the Stock/Malone era we would have a couple rings.
Doesn't hurt my feeling one tiny bit, and they will survive it.

Music to my ears, brother.

I seriously do not see why fans on this board are acting as if the Jazz will go bankrupt if they pay the luxury tax for one measly season. Next year Harp, Booz, Memo and Korver come off the cap with only Brewer likely to be due for a raise, and AK and his mammoth deal come off the year after that. The Jazz are assured of paying ONLY one year if they decide to match Millsap.

And stop with the "wow this is such a tiny market" stuff. The Salt Lake City market is bigger than at least a dozen other NBA cities, more than a few of which have paid the tax themselves at some point in time. This franchise has been living high on the hog with a top 5-8 team in the league versus a bottom 5-8 salary for 3 straight years now. They should have saved that excess money for times like this, when it evetually catches up to you.

Time to pay the piper.

babyjax13 · Post #11 » by **babyjax13** » Wed Jul 1, 2009 11:16 pm

HolyToledo wrote:Jazz cannot survive in the Utah market is they are paying luxury tax. Simple as that. I could care less as I live in California but I am sure Utah residents want them to stay. Otherwise, you may see the Las Vegas Jazz in the future.

The Miller family literally owns half of Utah and Idaho, I don't think we have to worry about the Jazz moving.

carrottop12 · Post #12 » by **carrottop12** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 12:06 am

The Jazz aren't going to move anywhere, that's obvious.

However I am worried that with Greg at the helm for the first time, and paying the tax this year for the first time, if the Jazz have a bad season, does he pay the luxury tax next time the Jazz are in a position to win and actually need to pay the luxury tax?

Now this could all be avoided by having a good year, and if everyone stays healthy and the Jazz bring back Millsap that's very possible. But if it's a bad year, the Jazz barely squeak into the playoffs again and get ousted in the first round, you have to think that would make him hesitant to pay the luxury tax again if it isn't a sure thing. And in the NBA, everyone knows there is no such thing as a sure thing.

idajazz · Post #13 » by **idajazz** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 12:35 am

It could all be avoided by getting rid of dead weight.............Skinny boy

Post #14 » by **DelaneyRudd** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 1:59 am

HolyToledo wrote:Jazz cannot survive in the Utah market is they are paying luxury tax. Simple as that. I could care less as I live in California but I am sure Utah residents want them to stay. Otherwise, you may see the Las Vegas Jazz in the future.

Do you understand economics? Do you understand Las Vegas is in a world of financial hurt? Do you understand that Las Vegas is the same size as the Wasatch front and a smaller media market? Do you understand that just because someplace is a great place to visit doesn't mean it is economically viable? I don't think you do.

Post #15 » by **DelaneyRudd** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 2:00 am

Oh and to answer the question, no I don't care about the owners finances, but I do care about cap flexibility. I think Scott Layden knows what happens to teams that spend unwisely (even if they have an endless supply of money)

erudite23 · Post #16 » by **erudite23** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 5:34 am

Great thread and great points so far. I particularly liked this little nugget:

Delaney Rudd wrote:
Holy Toledo wrote:Jazz cannot survive in the Utah market is they are paying luxury tax. Simple as that. I could care less as I live in California but I am sure Utah residents want them to stay. Otherwise, you may see the Las Vegas Jazz in the future.

Do you understand economics? Do you understand Las Vegas is in a world of financial hurt? Do you understand that Las Vegas is the same size as the Wasatch front and a smaller media market? Do you understand that just because someplace is a great place to visit doesn't mean it is economically viable? I don't think you do.

Well played.

All this said, though, I think we've established that it should (and hopefully will) all come down to what kind of deal Paul gets. As long as its a reasonable deal, we should match it, and damn the luxury tax concerns.

If its not a reasonable deal, we should pass....but NOT because of potential luxury tax issues, either.

It should be entirely a matter of the justifiability of Paul Millsap's contract. Which is, I think, what the OP was saying.

Paper Face · Post #17 » by **Paper Face** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 8:12 am

In a season such as the one coming up, the Jazz are in position to fleece teams attempting to shed salary and/or become free agent players for the summer of 2010. If they are able to barter for a good shooting guard or a defensive center, then they very well could be contenders... and then all of a sudden the extra salary would be justified.

If all else fails, they can still shed salary by the deadline to keep the LT to a minimum. There is plenty of time for the Jazz to pull this stuff off.

carrottop12 · Post #18 » by **carrottop12** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 4:00 pm

If the Jazz sign Millsap, I believe they will be looking to shed salary by the trade deadline in order to come as close to the tax limit as possible. I don't think they like the idea of paying the luxury tax and not getting something for the future out of it. And I don't think just getting Paul Millsap is enough of a bonus for paying the tax, I think the Jazz will be looking for more.

Also, the trib blogged about the reasons paying the luxury tax is a bad thing for a team like the Jazz.

http://blogs.sltrib.com/jazz/2009/07/day-after.htm

The Sheik · Post #19 » by **The Sheik** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 4:22 pm

Bat wrote:The question comes down to whether or not Millsap is a guy you are willing to pay the luxury tax for. Is he the difference between being a champion this year, and not being a championship?

Does he cripple the franchise if he's gone next season, with or with out Boozer? Are you sure Millsap is the guy you want instead of Boozer, knowing that Stoudamire, Bosh, Nowitzki, Landry, Scola, Haslem and more are going to be available in the summer of 2010?

I'm not sure that I'd do that.

Exactly.

I dont care if the Jazz pay the tax, I do however care about managing your cap effectively and having an opportunity to make a splash next summer. I think the market has really gone in Utahs favor thus far. Deriot is out. Memphis is out. If Im Utah I let the market play out. If OKC doesnt make a move Utah can get Milsap for the MLE or slightly more. If they do make an offer go after Brandon Bass. Milsap is not worth 8 mil and he is not all-star material IMO. Furthermore this team will likely not be a championship contender so why put us in a cap hold.

Dozer! · Post #20 » by **Dozer!** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 6:02 pm

I for one would not mind if the Jazz moved to Vegas.