Let's Talk Future Salaries

Red Larrivee · Post #21 » by **Red Larrivee** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:19 pm

If the Bulls are never going to pay the tax, then we should just stop trying now. This team won 62 games and made the ECF last year. What the hell are we stressing about salary for? Build a winner.

BULLHITTER · Post #22 » by **BULLHITTER** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:28 pm

JR made those statements under a completely different set of circumstances. There is a big difference between limitations to make changes to team rosters for tax payers, even if he had no problem with the much larger financial penalties. The majority of teams backed these steps to equalize the league, and no one should expect statements made under a different CBA should carry over.

seems to me those "circumstances" were he didn't have a championship caliber team. 62 wins later and an ECF appearance, many experts believe the bulls are poised to take the next step. they're still a piece or two away (imo) why on earth should the new cba create an out for managment to not go all in to get the talent necessary to get the team over the top?

rose has got to get his; those are just the facts with having a top 10 guy; they paid the others based on future production. if JR won't get what he needs to get the team over the hump, i'm highly dubious that they're banking on the mirotic's and asik's as championship caliber pieces alongside a franchise player like rose.

cot2 · Post #23 » by **cot2** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:33 pm

Red Larrivee wrote:If the Bulls are never going to pay the tax, then we should just stop trying now. This team won 62 games and made the ECF last year. What the hell are we stressing about salary for? Build a winner.

Now it is just not about the money. Restrictions for tax teams limit your flexibilty. I gave an example in another thread, where if the Bulls use the MLE this season, and fill out their roster with minimum salary players, they are right at the luxury tax level. If Orlando decided to trade Howard, or another team, another player, and wanted cap relief as a major part of the trade, the Bulls would not be allowed, under the new CBA, if it added another $4M in salary. If they did not use the MLE, the would have been allowed to take back 150% back in trade, and that is just one of the restrictions.

Saying just pay the tax does not even start to tell the story.

dafunky1 · Post #24 » by **dafunky1** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:36 pm

Well,we are gonna see now if ol JR is gonna pony up.Hell, its still dollar for dollar for the next 2 years,so I dont see any reason why he cant pay it for that long anyways.

BULLHITTER · Post #25 » by **BULLHITTER** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:49 pm

Now it is just not about the money.

i'll beg to differ....it is ALWAYS about the money.

Leto · Post #26 » by **Leto** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:02 pm

Correct me if Im wrong, but wouldnt the amnesty provision give us the opportunity to go after another max FA this summer? What am I missing?

Red Larrivee · Post #27 » by **Red Larrivee** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:09 pm

Leto wrote:Correct me if Im wrong, but wouldnt the amnesty provision give us the opportunity to go after another max FA this summer? What am I missing?

Unless Dwight guarantees you he's coming to Chicago (and there is 0 indication he wants to), then there's no other "max FA." And then you just made your team worse for no reason. The Bulls are done with all this tear your team down to build up stuff, it was one time. They won 62 games last year, they're trying to win now.

kristov · Post #28 » by **kristov** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:10 pm

I am skeptical that the "Derrick Rose" rule that is being reported is 100% fact compared to the new CBA. I don't question the 30% but rather 30% of the salary cap.In the previous CBA the NBA used a different formula to determine max salaries than they do for the salary cap. Basically this is suggesting that max players are getting raises while the rest of the players are taking massive paycuts.

cot2 · Post #29 » by **cot2** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:14 pm

kristov wrote:I am skeptical that the "Derrick Rose" rule that is being reported is 100% fact compared to the new CBA. I don't question the 30% but rather 30% of the salary cap.In the previous CBA the NBA used a different formula to determine max salaries than they do for the salary cap. Basically this is suggesting that max players are getting raises while the rest of the players are taking massive paycuts.

Max players are not getting raises. The 30% rule was there before, depending on years of service. Rose, and possibly Durant, if it applies, since his contract has not officially started are the only players effected this coming season. If you are just talking the smaller 48.04/51 factor there still may be something similar, it would put the 1st year salary at $16.4M instead of $17.4M, but that factor was also in the 25% of cap number. The 1st year of the last CBA used the raw number also, without the fudge factor, so it is more likely the higher number.

Leto · Post #30 » by **Leto** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:15 pm

Red Larrivee wrote:
Leto wrote:Correct me if Im wrong, but wouldnt the amnesty provision give us the opportunity to go after another max FA this summer? What am I missing?

Unless Dwight guarantees you he's coming to Chicago (and there is 0 indication he wants to), then there's no other "max FA." And then you just made your team worse for no reason. The Bulls are done with all this tear your team down to build up stuff, it was one time. They won 62 games last year, they're trying to win now.

Thanks, Red. I've been out of the loop for awhile cause it was just too frustrating :-?

kristov · Post #31 » by **kristov** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:36 pm

o2cats wrote:
kristov wrote:I am skeptical that the "Derrick Rose" rule that is being reported is 100% fact compared to the new CBA. I don't question the 30% but rather 30% of the salary cap.In the previous CBA the NBA used a different formula to determine max salaries than they do for the salary cap. Basically this is suggesting that max players are getting raises while the rest of the players are taking massive paycuts.

Max players are not getting raises. The 30% rule was there before, depending on years of service. Rose, and possibly Durant, if it applies, since his contract has not officially started are the only players effected this coming season. If you are just talking the smaller 48.04/51 factor there still may be something similar, it would put the 1st year salary at $16.4M instead of $17.4M, but that factor was also in the 25% of cap number.

30% of 51% > 30% of 48.04% and therefore equals to a raise.The language that is being presented as 30% of the salary cap which was ((BRI * 0.51) - player benefits) / 30.

It is unclear if max salaries for the next 2 seasons will be based off of new formula with lower percentage of BRI.A figure manually set by the new CBA like the last agreement in 2005 did.Or if it will be a set percentage(25,30,35) of the Salary cap.

boogydown · Post #32 » by **boogydown** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:42 pm

The Bulls are going to need shed cash at some point. The biggest two things we need moving forward are:

1). If we are going to let someone go, we need to at least get value back
2). We need to continue to use the MLE moving forward

There is no reason we should need to go above 80 million a year in payroll.

Summing up what I believe will happen

1). Omer Asik the Bulls Management is high on right now. If however he fails to step up this year, he could be dealt this Trade Deadline or we could S&T him in the 2012 Offseason
2). Taj Gibson will be moved regardless in the 2012 Offseason or at the 2013 Trade Deadline. Gibson is a backup PF and similar to what we did with Tyrus Thomas, I expect to happen with Taj Gibson except for a Lower 1st Round Pick to save money. Since nobody expects Gibson to step up, I think this is set in stone.
3). Kyle Korver, CJ Watson, and Ronnie Brewer are key contracts we need to move in order to get talent back being that the MLE is going to be limited to 3 million after this season. The problem is we never get lucky with this and I don't expect it to happen in the future. As a result, I expect that these guys will be simply let go either in the 2012 Offseason or 2013 Offseason and we get no value back for them. Personally, I would sign Delonte West and trade CJ Watson for a 2nd Round Pick. At least get something back in return instead of letting them go for nothing.
4). We will save the Amnesty for Boozer
5). We need to make a major trade here before the 2012-2013 Season begins. Either one which Boozer is liquidated allowing us to sign a cheaper PF or one which Noah/Deng or Noah/Boozer or Boozer/Deng and Assets are moved for a star player in return

Our goal really needs to keep our payroll low so we can continue to use the Full MLE. The problem is that with the combined salary with Deng, Boozer, Rose, and Noah, it will be next to impossible after this season until Deng expires in 2014. Until then, we will miss out on two years which we could have had a $5 a year MLE.

musiqsoulchild · Post #33 » by **musiqsoulchild** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:18 pm

This is a CBA tailor made for teams that have multi-skilled players. Specialists will lose their appeal or will see a decrease in their average salaries.

Korver, Boozer and Omer are the only specialists on this team. Everyone else is multi-skilled and versatile at their positions (or can play multiple positions).

This is going to be a problem going forward because that is potentially $ 21 million in salaries stuck in specialists for the next 2 years( Omer + Korver(2nd year unguaranteed) + Boozer). This is before Omer's new salary kicks in, which is probably in the $5 per range.

This screams trade to me and not amnesty.

jc23 · Post #34 » by **jc23** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:27 pm

How much is 7% of the BRI going to put in JR's wallet this season and future?

Whatever the number is JR needs to view it as luxury tax filler.

musiqsoulchild · Post #35 » by **musiqsoulchild** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:51 pm

jc23 wrote:How much is 7% of the BRI going to put in JR's wallet this season and future?

Whatever the number is JR needs to view it as luxury tax filler.

Why?

Would you be OK if it was the other way round? If JR saw a net loss in BRI, would that justify not getting an MLE addition?

We are in a new CBA. Period. All cash-flows and opportunity cost analysis should be contingent on this new set of rules.

Anything else is just emotion talking. There is a place for it, but good management should go by numbers first and then emotion.

kyrv · Post #36 » by **kyrv** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:00 pm

jc23 wrote:How much is 7% of the BRI going to put in JR's wallet this season and future?

Whatever the number is JR needs to view it as luxury tax filler.

Are you suggesting he is embezzling, or do you want us to figure out his split as minority owner and managing partner?

msq wrote:We are in a new CBA. Period. All cash-flows and opportunity cost analysis should be contingent on this new set of rules.

Anything else is just emotion talking. There is a place for it, but good management should go by numbers first and then emotion.

Crazy talk!

jc23 · Post #37 » by **jc23** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:09 pm

musiqsoulchild wrote:
jc23 wrote:How much is 7% of the BRI going to put in JR's wallet this season and future?

Whatever the number is JR needs to view it as luxury tax filler.

Why?

Would you be OK if it was the other way round? If JR saw a net loss in BRI, would that justify not getting an MLE addition?

We are in a new CBA. Period. All cash-flows and opportunity cost analysis should be contingent on this new set of rules.

Anything else is just emotion talking. There is a place for it, but good management should go by numbers first and then emotion.

If JR said he was willing to pay the tax under the old cba at 43% of the BRI then getting 50% in this new cba should make it easier for him to pay into a more punitive luxury tax.

I hope JR shows some emotion in the coming years to pay to win.

jc23 · Post #38 » by **jc23** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:15 pm

I was interested into how much more JR (ownership) would make in a season under this new cba.

I mean we all know he has been in the black with this franchise for the last 25 years but i still have doubts he will really do what ever it takes to win ala Mark Cuban.

So if he is banking an extra 15 million maybe it will make it easier for him to spend.

El Ridda · Post #39 » by **El Ridda** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:23 pm

jc23 wrote:
musiqsoulchild wrote:
jc23 wrote:How much is 7% of the BRI going to put in JR's wallet this season and future?

Whatever the number is JR needs to view it as luxury tax filler.

Why?

Would you be OK if it was the other way round? If JR saw a net loss in BRI, would that justify not getting an MLE addition?

We are in a new CBA. Period. All cash-flows and opportunity cost analysis should be contingent on this new set of rules.

Anything else is just emotion talking. There is a place for it, but good management should go by numbers first and then emotion.

If JR said he was willing to pay the tax under the old cba at 43% of the BRI then getting 50% in this new cba should make it easier for him to pay into a more punitive luxury tax.

I hope JR shows some emotion in the coming years to pay to win.

My guess is that the increased rev sharing will wipe out any gains that come to the bulls from the greater BRI split.

DanTown8587 · Post #40 » by **DanTown8587** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:08 pm

updated the salary number for Rose, I think the Bulls could sign a two guard and the first year they would be a tax payer would be 2013-14. Then you have deals expiring for Deng then Boozer then Noah so they could possibly not have to break the team up and only the tax that one time.