Moderators: Andre Roberstan, HartfordWhalers, BullyKing, Texas Chuck, MoneyTalks41890, Mamba4Goat, pacers33granger, Trader_Joe, loserX
dakomish23 wrote:GeorgeMarcus wrote:Rather than making any huge deals, our best bet is to add 1 or 2 catch-and-shoot guys to compliment our existing core. We have a lot of draft stock to work with, as well as Thybulle (who I would rather hold on to).
We’ll give you Ellington for whatever filler and our 2nds back to us
GutUNC wrote:Prospect Dong wrote:GutUNC wrote:
Fortunately, I never said "they definitely don't care at all about luxury tax payments". As stated before, they don't sign Horford and Harris this offseason if they're not comfortable going in to the tax. This wasn't some surprise development that has put them in a delicate spot - they simply don't sign off on one of those deals if they know at the time that it's unsustainable in 1 year and their hand is forced to move a Ben Simmons or swallow less value moving an expensive Horford or Harris.
I definitely don't see them ever being OK with being a heavy luxury tax team and don't see any circumstance where their starting 5 is still in tact after next season because of it. But if they weren't comfortable going into the tax at all, they simply couldn't make the 2 big signings they did in the summer. A+B=C there. Cashing in Simmons for a pile of lesser pieces instead of just staying away from Horford in the summer would be farcically bad planning.
Similarly, there is now way Philly would trade assets for an expiring Jimmy Butler unless they were definitely going to keep him long term, regardless of what happened in the interim. Or possibly, just possibly, if they felt able to course correct the following offseason.
I think the same is true of this year's moves. It certainly signals a potential openness to paying the tax, though that almost certainly depends on the results, but it might also mean they're open to exactly the sort of move we're discussing here. There's no reason why your projected payroll more than a year out is the payroll you want, and certainly not the one you want regardless of results...
The Jimmy Butler trade has/had nothing to do with the luxury tax so I’m not sure why you’d bring that up here. That was a mid season trade with equivalent money and no futures involved. Right/Wrong, that was simply a basketball decision from start to finish that had no commitment attached or implied from either party beyond that year. A complete trial run.
Prospect Dong wrote:GutUNC wrote:Prospect Dong wrote:
Similarly, there is now way Philly would trade assets for an expiring Jimmy Butler unless they were definitely going to keep him long term, regardless of what happened in the interim. Or possibly, just possibly, if they felt able to course correct the following offseason.
I think the same is true of this year's moves. It certainly signals a potential openness to paying the tax, though that almost certainly depends on the results, but it might also mean they're open to exactly the sort of move we're discussing here. There's no reason why your projected payroll more than a year out is the payroll you want, and certainly not the one you want regardless of results...
The Jimmy Butler trade has/had nothing to do with the luxury tax so I’m not sure why you’d bring that up here. That was a mid season trade with equivalent money and no futures involved. Right/Wrong, that was simply a basketball decision from start to finish that had no commitment attached or implied from either party beyond that year. A complete trial run.
Sure, they were just going to give up a couple of pretty good assets in order to acquire someone they could have signed with cap space at the end of the season, with no real expectations of keeping him long term, because they were willing roll the dice on a short term improvement. But now, because they've signed guys to contracts, that definitely means they're committed to paying the full value of those deals over their full term, regardless of what happens on the court, because that's what you have to do after you sign a player.
In reality, keeping a team together rather than trading some of them is also a basketball decision. It's perfectly possible for a FO to make a decision to sign someone, either knowing that they'll need to make a move in the future, or realising later that they didn't get what they bargained for. Both of these things happen all the time, even when guys are under contract, because that is how trades work.
GutUNC wrote:Prospect Dong wrote:GutUNC wrote:
The Jimmy Butler trade has/had nothing to do with the luxury tax so I’m not sure why you’d bring that up here. That was a mid season trade with equivalent money and no futures involved. Right/Wrong, that was simply a basketball decision from start to finish that had no commitment attached or implied from either party beyond that year. A complete trial run.
Sure, they were just going to give up a couple of pretty good assets in order to acquire someone they could have signed with cap space at the end of the season, with no real expectations of keeping him long term, because they were willing roll the dice on a short term improvement. But now, because they've signed guys to contracts, that definitely means they're committed to paying the full value of those deals over their full term, regardless of what happens on the court, because that's what you have to do after you sign a player.
In reality, keeping a team together rather than trading some of them is also a basketball decision. It's perfectly possible for a FO to make a decision to sign someone, either knowing that they'll need to make a move in the future, or realising later that they didn't get what they bargained for. Both of these things happen all the time, even when guys are under contract, because that is how trades work.
This would probably work out better if you stopped putting words in my mouth. At no point did I say they were committed to these deals throughout their term. In fact, I specifically stated that once Richardson’s deal runs out after next season, that’s when the rubber meets the road both from a financial and team building standpoint and that it’s a virtual impossibility that all 5 would still be around by 2021-22.
Prospect Dong wrote:GutUNC wrote:Prospect Dong wrote:
Sure, they were just going to give up a couple of pretty good assets in order to acquire someone they could have signed with cap space at the end of the season, with no real expectations of keeping him long term, because they were willing roll the dice on a short term improvement. But now, because they've signed guys to contracts, that definitely means they're committed to paying the full value of those deals over their full term, regardless of what happens on the court, because that's what you have to do after you sign a player.
In reality, keeping a team together rather than trading some of them is also a basketball decision. It's perfectly possible for a FO to make a decision to sign someone, either knowing that they'll need to make a move in the future, or realising later that they didn't get what they bargained for. Both of these things happen all the time, even when guys are under contract, because that is how trades work.
This would probably work out better if you stopped putting words in my mouth. At no point did I say they were committed to these deals throughout their term. In fact, I specifically stated that once Richardson’s deal runs out after next season, that’s when the rubber meets the road both from a financial and team building standpoint and that it’s a virtual impossibility that all 5 would still be around by 2021-22.
Well, you've claimed that signing Horford and Harris at the start of this season directly implies that ownership is will pay the luxury tax bill that would be assessed for having them on the roster after next season's trade deadline. I think it's evidence for that belief, but I wouldn't be nearly as sure of it as you seem to be, because of the possibility of trades, like the ones we're discussing, and you're dismissing. I don't think you have a firm basis for the distinction between "ownership wouldn't have signed those deals if it didn't plan to keep the team basically intact for the next two seasons" and "ownership will definitely make a trade for financial reasons after the 20/21 season". That magic two season cut off is your idea, not necessarily theirs. And it probably depends on how they do this season.
Luxury tax concerns
This is the section that could get convoluted quickly, so we’ll try to keep this brief. We can get deeper into the weeds if, and when, rumors of substance start gaining traction.
This season, the Sixers sit at approximately $128 million in committed salary. That leaves them about $4.4 million below the luxury tax threshold. As noted above, the Sixers can receive up to their outgoing salary plus $5 million back in many of the hypothetical trades we would be talking about, so it is feasible that the luxury tax could enter the equation.
Under managing partner Josh Harris’ stewardship, the Sixers have never entered the luxury tax. A big part of that is because Harris bought the team just before the rebuild began, so it’s not as though moves were being made to duck the tax. And the Sixers are a virtual lock to head into luxury tax territory next season, so there would be no logical argument that says Harris won’t pay the tax. If he was unwilling to do so, he wouldn’t have given the green light to the moves made last summer.
Still, it’s notable how close the Sixers are to the tax, as it could factor into the front office’s justification in order for a deal to be approved by ownership. Would Harris dip into the luxury tax this year? Most likely, if the player was worth it. But for a marginal upgrade off the bench? That’s a bit more uncertain.
Heading over the tax threshold this year would also impact future luxury tax payments, as it would put the Sixers on the path to “repeater tax” penalties a year earlier than expected. In short, when a team is over the luxury tax three out of four years, the financial penalties become much more punitive. (For more on this, check out this piece Derek wrote this past offseason.)
GutUNC wrote:Prospect Dong wrote:GutUNC wrote:
This would probably work out better if you stopped putting words in my mouth. At no point did I say they were committed to these deals throughout their term. In fact, I specifically stated that once Richardson’s deal runs out after next season, that’s when the rubber meets the road both from a financial and team building standpoint and that it’s a virtual impossibility that all 5 would still be around by 2021-22.
Well, you've claimed that signing Horford and Harris at the start of this season directly implies that ownership is will pay the luxury tax bill that would be assessed for having them on the roster after next season's trade deadline. I think it's evidence for that belief, but I wouldn't be nearly as sure of it as you seem to be, because of the possibility of trades, like the ones we're discussing, and you're dismissing. I don't think you have a firm basis for the distinction between "ownership wouldn't have signed those deals if it didn't plan to keep the team basically intact for the next two seasons" and "ownership will definitely make a trade for financial reasons after the 20/21 season". That magic two season cut off is your idea, not necessarily theirs. And it probably depends on how they do this season.
It's not "magic", it's when Josh Richardson's bargain contract runs out. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that short of back to back titles, the Sixers aren't going to want pay 5 starters $25M plus while being subjected to the repeater tax. Being slightly into the tax for 1 year is pretty significantly different then being heavily into the tax as a repeater, hence things getting hairy after next season.
A second source if you don't want to hear what I'm saying:Luxury tax concerns
This is the section that could get convoluted quickly, so we’ll try to keep this brief. We can get deeper into the weeds if, and when, rumors of substance start gaining traction.
This season, the Sixers sit at approximately $128 million in committed salary. That leaves them about $4.4 million below the luxury tax threshold. As noted above, the Sixers can receive up to their outgoing salary plus $5 million back in many of the hypothetical trades we would be talking about, so it is feasible that the luxury tax could enter the equation.
Under managing partner Josh Harris’ stewardship, the Sixers have never entered the luxury tax. A big part of that is because Harris bought the team just before the rebuild began, so it’s not as though moves were being made to duck the tax. And the Sixers are a virtual lock to head into luxury tax territory next season, so there would be no logical argument that says Harris won’t pay the tax. If he was unwilling to do so, he wouldn’t have given the green light to the moves made last summer.
Still, it’s notable how close the Sixers are to the tax, as it could factor into the front office’s justification in order for a deal to be approved by ownership. Would Harris dip into the luxury tax this year? Most likely, if the player was worth it. But for a marginal upgrade off the bench? That’s a bit more uncertain.
Heading over the tax threshold this year would also impact future luxury tax payments, as it would put the Sixers on the path to “repeater tax” penalties a year earlier than expected. In short, when a team is over the luxury tax three out of four years, the financial penalties become much more punitive. (For more on this, check out this piece Derek wrote this past offseason.)
https://theathletic.com/1512579/2020/01/06/sixers-trade-deadline-primer-draft-assets-contracts-strategy-and-is-matisse-thybulle-untouchable/
It's not "magic", it's when Josh Richardson's bargain contract runs out.
so there would be no logical argument that says Harris won’t pay the tax. If he was unwilling to do so, he wouldn’t have given the green light to the moves made last summer
daoneandonly wrote:Utah doesnt have anyhting close value wise to get Dallas to even pick up the phone
GutUNC wrote:It’s someone “restating” that signing 2 huge FAs but being unwilling to pay any luxury tax money the following offseason are two opposing strategies that make zero sense together. But I’m through here - you’ve reached the point of being obstinate for the sake of being obstinate so time to move on.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
Return to Trades and Transactions
