What are the consequences of going over the LT?

[JSD]

I keep hearing about the importance of staying under the luxury tax, I'm wondering the ramifications of going over?

Signing Fournier to a 1 year $30 Million dollar deal, tremendously overpay to keep the flexibility, let's say, what are the consequences now? We have seen teams do this many times.

[hpantazo]

I can't see Fournier passing up on a long-term deal now that his market value is high just to postpone it to next summer when a ton of top tier free agents hit the market.

[Roy H.]

1.  We would be limited to the “taxpayers MLE”;

2.  We could not use our bi-annual exception;

3.  We could not bring in anybody by way of sign and trade;

4.  Wyc would pay a boatload of tax

The first three are likely outcomes, regardless of what we do with Fournier.

[keevsnick]

There aren't really any. It limits the salary exceptions you can use, but primarily the penalties are money related.

Its not so much the Celtics CAN'T go over the tax, as they are simply UNLIKELY to go very far over because they seem to operate under a certain budget.

[JSD]

I don't listen to terrestrial radio anymore, but has the topic of cheap owners come up on the Sports Hub or Felger and Maz?

To me, it would be inexcusable not to blow Fournier away with a lucrative short-term offer.

[Jiri Welsch]

I don't listen to terrestrial radio anymore, but has the topic of cheap owners come up on the Sports Hub or Felger and Maz?

To me, it would be inexcusable not to blow Fournier away with a lucrative short-term offer.

The penalties also progress and compound when teams go over the luxury tax in consecutive years.

My assumption is that Wyc and Co. plan on going significantly over the tax in a couple years. But they only want to do so if the Celtics are a contender. I don't think Fournier moves the needle into contender status, so they'll likely be reluctant.

[Vermont Green]

It is a progressive tax meaning the more above the tax line, the higher the rate of tax.

The other aspect is the "repeater" penalty:

The second way the NBA strengthened the luxury tax in 2011 was by introducing the repeater tax. If you pay the tax in three of the last four seasons, you are dubbed a repeat offender and the tax at each level is boosted

To me, the Celtics appear to be angling to clear salary for next off season where they can make a run at another star.  If they can avoid being in the tax this season, it pushes out the potential repeater penalty clock for another season.

[Jiri Welsch]

It is a progressive tax meaning the more above the tax line, the higher the rate of tax.

The other aspect is the "repeater" penalty:

The second way the NBA strengthened the luxury tax in 2011 was by introducing the repeater tax. If you pay the tax in three of the last four seasons, you are dubbed a repeat offender and the tax at each level is boosted

To me, the Celtics appear to be angling to clear salary for next off season where they can make a run at another star.  If they can avoid being in the tax this season, it pushes out the potential repeater penalty clock for another season.

You said it better than I did.

[JSD]

In order to clear enough space to sign a max guy, they almost assuredly would end any LT streak thus resetting the progression, wouldn't it? Like, if they sign Fournier, enter into LT territory, then let him walk after this season, stretch Horford's $14 Million for 7 years, and then sign Bradley Beal, they would be nowhere near that tax threshold until it was time to extend those of their current rookie deals, from what I can see.

So to me, it's inexcusable not to sign Fournier to a 1 or 2 year overpay. If Beal becomes available ship Fournier anywhere for a second-rounder just to clear the space. Heck, send Horford out with a 1st rounder if it means clearing the space and not having him linger on the books, for Beal.

[Celtics2021]

In order to clear enough space to sign a max guy, they almost assuredly would end any LT streak thus resetting the progression, wouldn't it? Like, if they sign Fournier, enter into LT territory, then let him walk after this season, stretch Horford's $14 Million for 7 years, and then sign Bradley Beal, they would be nowhere near that tax threshold until it was time to extend those of their current rookie deals, from what I can see.

So to me, it's inexcusable not to sign Fournier to a 1 or 2 year overpay. If Beal becomes available ship Fournier anywhere for a second-rounder just to clear the space. Heck, send Horford out with a 1st rounder if it means clearing the space and not having him linger on the books, for Beal.

The repeater tax is 3 out of 4 years (or 3 in a row).  So if they hit the tax this year, missed it next year to get cap space for Beal, and then hit it again once Beal is on the roster, they’d be subject to the repeater earlier than if they avoid the tax this year.

[Roy H.]

In order to clear enough space to sign a max guy, they almost assuredly would end any LT streak thus resetting the progression, wouldn't it? Like, if they sign Fournier, enter into LT territory, then let him walk after this season, stretch Horford's $14 Million for 7 years, and then sign Bradley Beal, they would be nowhere near that tax threshold until it was time to extend those of their current rookie deals, from what I can see.

So to me, it's inexcusable not to sign Fournier to a 1 or 2 year overpay. If Beal becomes available ship Fournier anywhere for a second-rounder just to clear the space. Heck, send Horford out with a 1st rounder if it means clearing the space and not having him linger on the books, for Beal.

The repeater tax is 3 out of 4 years (or 3 in a row).  So if they hit the tax this year, missed it next year to get cap space for Beal, and then hit it again once Beal is on the roster, they’d be subject to the repeater earlier than if they avoid the tax this year.

And just to clarify, the repeater tax penalty kicks in the season after a team has been subject to the tax three out of four years. So really, to actually have to pay the enhanced penalty, a team needs to be in the tax four out of five seasons.

[JSD]

In order to clear enough space to sign a max guy, they almost assuredly would end any LT streak thus resetting the progression, wouldn't it? Like, if they sign Fournier, enter into LT territory, then let him walk after this season, stretch Horford's $14 Million for 7 years, and then sign Bradley Beal, they would be nowhere near that tax threshold until it was time to extend those of their current rookie deals, from what I can see.

So to me, it's inexcusable not to sign Fournier to a 1 or 2 year overpay. If Beal becomes available ship Fournier anywhere for a second-rounder just to clear the space. Heck, send Horford out with a 1st rounder if it means clearing the space and not having him linger on the books, for Beal.

The repeater tax is 3 out of 4 years (or 3 in a row).  So if they hit the tax this year, missed it next year to get cap space for Beal, and then hit it again once Beal is on the roster, they’d be subject to the repeater earlier than if they avoid the tax this year.

And just to clarify, the repeater tax penalty kicks in the season after a team has been subject to the tax three out of four years. So really, to actually have to pay the enhanced penalty, a team needs to be in the tax four out of five seasons.

So what’s your position on this? Let Fournier walk?

[Roy H.]

In order to clear enough space to sign a max guy, they almost assuredly would end any LT streak thus resetting the progression, wouldn't it? Like, if they sign Fournier, enter into LT territory, then let him walk after this season, stretch Horford's $14 Million for 7 years, and then sign Bradley Beal, they would be nowhere near that tax threshold until it was time to extend those of their current rookie deals, from what I can see.

So to me, it's inexcusable not to sign Fournier to a 1 or 2 year overpay. If Beal becomes available ship Fournier anywhere for a second-rounder just to clear the space. Heck, send Horford out with a 1st rounder if it means clearing the space and not having him linger on the books, for Beal.

The repeater tax is 3 out of 4 years (or 3 in a row).  So if they hit the tax this year, missed it next year to get cap space for Beal, and then hit it again once Beal is on the roster, they’d be subject to the repeater earlier than if they avoid the tax this year.

And just to clarify, the repeater tax penalty kicks in the season after a team has been subject to the tax three out of four years. So really, to actually have to pay the enhanced penalty, a team needs to be in the tax four out of five seasons.

So what’s your position on this? Let Fournier walk?

It depends on the contract, but if it’s in the $15 million range I’d keep him.  Barring injury he’s an easily tradeable contract.

[keevsnick]

The Fournier decision hinges on his next contract. if its 4/80 or something like that its obviously a bad deal. If you can get him at like 3/45 then its obviously a good deal. If they are keeping space free for next offseason then you either A) let him walk or B) resign him if the deal is movable.