Hornets Regret Signing Posey Already?

[winsomme]

plus, who's to say that we would be a full 6.5 mil over the threshold for 2010. what if we are 3 mil over the threshold in 2010...even using your logic, we would only be paying Pose 9.5 mil not 13 mil.

  This is the only statment in your post that was correct.

and remember, we are only talking about 2010 because in 2011, even under worst case scenario (ie Pose is totally useless as a player) as you have acknowledged, he can be looked at as an expiring contract to be moved for a useful player.

  I haven't said anything yet about this, but you do realize that he expires in 2012, right?

you said the difference between Pose and Wally was the extra year....

and by 2010 and 2011, i am referring to the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 seasons....

so 2 years where we agree he would be useful, one year where he would be an expiring contract and one year (the 3rd) where he could be potentially a detriment because his skills had declined to the point of him not being useful.

  You're assuming, of course, that when he's an expiring contract that the salary cap fairy pays not only his salary but any luxury tax issues.

no, i'm just pointing out that the final season is not a season with an unusable contract totally dependent on the usefulness of that player.

[winsomme]

I think i figured out part of the problem with the way you are looking at this and it is based in part on what i already mentioned.

you are figuring that a player should be looked at as a double salary based on how much he would save the team if he weren't on the books in any particular year.

so, yes, under circumstances TA and Posey and Scals, as examples could be viewed as saving double what their salary is by either not signing them or trading them for an expiring contract...

so you're saving double by theoretically not having them on the books in a future year, but the problem with this construct is that it is predicated on the notion that at the earlier point in time every contract that could be moved or not extended should be simultaneously viewed as a double salary....

you're saving double in the future scenario, but you're adding it on in the current scenario in a way that it doesn't exist.

that is to say, while we might say that we could save double on all these contracts by not having them at a future date, we aren't paying double for ALL these contracts at the current date.

ie we are paying 8 mil in lux tax, not 16  mil.....

  Show me what you mean with numbers.

it's hard to use numbers because the problem is conceptual.

you're arguing that since the team is over the lux tax this season, any contract (either currently signed or to be signed) that is not a core player should be simultaneously be viewed as a double salary because not having that contract in those future years would save double....because again, the assumption is that in the future season we would be again over that lux tax....

while technically true, this predicated on the idea that you are viewing all current contracts (ie the money we are paying this season) as double salaries...

so yes, if we knocked TA or Scals or Eddie or POB off the books by trading them for an expiring contract or if we didn't sign any FAs in the next off season or made no picks or didn't bring over a player like Erden....what-have-you....we would be theoretically be saving double on all those moves (or non-moves), but that is tied to the notion that we are paying double on all those comparable contracts this season (ie everybody other than Ray, KG, Paul, Rondo or Perk - the core).

but the reality is that we are not paying double on every non-core contract, we are only paying double on the 8 mil that is over the tax.....

so yes, we would save double on TA or Scal or Eddie or POB or any other contract to replace ones that actually expire this year (ie BBD, Powe) if we knocked any of them off the books for next season...but we are not paying double for all those contracts  this season.

the problem is sort of highlighted by trying to answer this question: who are we paying double to this season?

[winsomme]

i think part of the roadblock between us is the difference between "paying" and "saving"....

maybe we won't get to a resolution here, but you have really put my brain to work with this.

TP to you...

while i do think that the way i am thinking about it is more fair...i do see where you are coming from.

[winsomme]

another way of thinking about this is:

I'm saying that if we DID sign Pose, we would be paying him 6.5 mil.


you're saying if we DIDN'T sign him we would be saving 13 mil.

both actually are kinda true. except we only actually save 13 mil if we don't pay the salary to someone else.

[BballTim]

I think i figured out part of the problem with the way you are looking at this and it is based in part on what i already mentioned.

you are figuring that a player should be looked at as a double salary based on how much he would save the team if he weren't on the books in any particular year.

so, yes, under circumstances TA and Posey and Scals, as examples could be viewed as saving double what their salary is by either not signing them or trading them for an expiring contract...

so you're saving double by theoretically not having them on the books in a future year, but the problem with this construct is that it is predicated on the notion that at the earlier point in time every contract that could be moved or not extended should be simultaneously viewed as a double salary....

you're saving double in the future scenario, but you're adding it on in the current scenario in a way that it doesn't exist.

that is to say, while we might say that we could save double on all these contracts by not having them at a future date, we aren't paying double for ALL these contracts at the current date.

ie we are paying 8 mil in lux tax, not 16  mil.....

  Show me what you mean with numbers.

it's hard to use numbers because the problem is conceptual.

  Conceptual for you. Real for Danny and Wyc.

you're arguing that since the team is over the lux tax this season, any contract (either currently signed or to be signed) that is not a core player should be simultaneously be viewed as a double salary because not having that contract in those future years would save double....because again, the assumption is that in the future season we would be again over that lux tax....

  I never said that the core players count differently. I said that if they have to make moves to reduce the salary I hope they don't remove parts of the core to do it.

while technically true, this predicated on the idea that you are viewing all current contracts (ie the money we are paying this season) as double salaries...

  No, salaries aren't seen as double. The impact of adding or removing salaries from the budget is double until we're under the threshold.

so yes, if we knocked TA or Scals or Eddie or POB off the books by trading them for an expiring contract or if we didn't sign any FAs in the next off season or made no picks or didn't bring over a player like Erden....what-have-you....we would be theoretically be saving double on all those moves (or non-moves), but that is tied to the notion that we are paying double on all those comparable contracts this season (ie everybody other than Ray, KG, Paul, Rondo or Perk - the core).

  Again, there's nothing theoretical about the money we'd save. It's real money and it's not tied to any notion other than adding or removing salaries has double the impact when we're over the tax.

but the reality is that we are not paying double on every non-core contract, we are only paying double on the 8 mil that is over the tax.....

  The reality is that we're not paying double on any contract, we're paying double on the 8 mil. You're getting it. If you add that thought to the fact that we're over the cap by a larger amount with Posey under contract than without Posey under contract, you'll at least be headed in the right direction.

so yes, we would save double on TA or Scal or Eddie or POB or any other contract to replace ones that actually expire this year (ie BBD, Powe) if we knocked any of them off the books for next season...but we are not paying double for all those contracts  this season.

  Yes, and similarly we're saving double on Posey's contract by not having it on the books.

the problem is sort of highlighted by trying to answer this question: who are we paying double to this season?

  While you're getting it, nobody actually gets paid double. That extra money goes to the league. Maybe that will help clear things up.

[BballTim]

another way of thinking about this is:

I'm saying that if we DID sign Pose, we would be paying him 6.5 mil.


you're saying if we DIDN'T sign him we would be saving 13 mil.

both actually are kinda true. except we only actually save 13 mil if we don't pay the salary to someone else.

  Both aren't kinda true, they're exactly true, as is your statement that we don't save the money if we give it to someone else. Posey wanted $5.5M this year, TA gets $2.5M, the difference is $3M so the savings is $6M. The problem is that if Posey isn't contributing at the same level in 2 years then we aren't paying him OR someone else, we're paying him AND someone else, so that's a significant drag on Wyc's wallet.

[winsomme]

  While you're getting it, nobody actually gets paid double. That extra money goes to the league. Maybe that will help clear things up.

the problem is that you want to attribute "double savings" to a particular player, but don't want to attribute "double payment" to a particular player.

it's not about who you pay the money to on the "paying" end, it is whose contract is the one responsible for the lux tax penalty money in that season.

and whose contract is responsible for that this season? you can't not attribute that money to a  player....especially when are doing that in your theoretical 2010 season....

you can see the problem with your line of thinking when you try and answer whose contract this season we are paying double for....not who are we paying to, who are we paying it for....

on your "core player" note, the problem is that you are focusing again on how to save money, not the question being posed of who you are attributing a lux tax penalty to (ie whose contract we are paying double for)...

[winsomme]

another way of thinking about this is:

I'm saying that if we DID sign Pose, we would be paying him 6.5 mil.


you're saying if we DIDN'T sign him we would be saving 13 mil.

both actually are kinda true. except we only actually save 13 mil if we don't pay the salary to someone else.

  Both aren't kinda true, they're exactly true, as is your statement that we don't save the money if we give it to someone else. Posey wanted $5.5M this year, TA gets $2.5M, the difference is $3M so the savings is $6M. The problem is that if Posey isn't contributing at the same level in 2 years then we aren't paying him OR someone else, we're paying him AND someone else, so that's a significant drag on Wyc's wallet.

again, i am acknowledging the possibility that in the 3rd year there is a possibility that Pose's game would fall off (although i disagree with the likelihood of that happening) and that they may have to sign other players that would potentially be over the lux cap.

but that is a different question than how much you are actually PAYING for both of those contracts.

the problem with your argument still remains the inability to answer the question of whose salary you are paying double for in any given season....not "to" but "for"....

your line of thinking necessitates that we attribute that money to every non-core player, but the reality is that if you did that, the actual money paid out this season in lux tax would be double what it is...which of course it isn't.

[winsomme]

I think i figured out part of the problem with the way you are looking at this and it is based in part on what i already mentioned.

you are figuring that a player should be looked at as a double salary based on how much he would save the team if he weren't on the books in any particular year.

so, yes, under circumstances TA and Posey and Scals, as examples could be viewed as saving double what their salary is by either not signing them or trading them for an expiring contract...

so you're saving double by theoretically not having them on the books in a future year, but the problem with this construct is that it is predicated on the notion that at the earlier point in time every contract that could be moved or not extended should be simultaneously viewed as a double salary....

you're saving double in the future scenario, but you're adding it on in the current scenario in a way that it doesn't exist.

that is to say, while we might say that we could save double on all these contracts by not having them at a future date, we aren't paying double for ALL these contracts at the current date.

ie we are paying 8 mil in lux tax, not 16  mil.....

  Show me what you mean with numbers.

it's hard to use numbers because the problem is conceptual.

  Conceptual for you. Real for Danny and Wyc.

nope. conceptual to everybody because they aren't actually paying 16 mil in lux tax....they are paying 8.

[winsomme]

another way of thinking about this is:

I'm saying that if we DID sign Pose, we would be paying him 6.5 mil.


you're saying if we DIDN'T sign him we would be saving 13 mil.

both actually are kinda true. except we only actually save 13 mil if we don't pay the salary to someone else.

  Both aren't kinda true, they're exactly true, as is your statement that we don't save the money if we give it to someone else. Posey wanted $5.5M this year, TA gets $2.5M, the difference is $3M so the savings is $6M. The problem is that if Posey isn't contributing at the same level in 2 years then we aren't paying him OR someone else, we're paying him AND someone else, so that's a significant drag on Wyc's wallet.

not to mention the fact that your whole argument is resting on the idea that Posey is not contributing at the same level to the point we absolutely have to sign someone that does those things that he no longer could do in 2010....

the other question that i would like to know your answer for is: how much of a drop off do you actually expect in Posey's numbers in 2010?

[winsomme]

  The reality is that we're not paying double on any contract, we're paying double on the 8 mil.

the reality is that we are paying the 8 mil that we are over the luxury cap to someone, not no one.

my way of determining who that is in any given season is the contract(s) that take you over the tax ...pretty straight forward.

until you answer that question for this season, I'm not sure how you are determining which contracts those are.

[BballTim]

  While you're getting it, nobody actually gets paid double. That extra money goes to the league. Maybe that will help clear things up.

the problem is that you want to attribute "double savings" to a particular player, but don't want to attribute "double payment" to a particular player.

  I've never attriuted "double savings" to a particular player. I've tried to unsuccessfully explain that the opposite is true.

it's not about who you pay the money to on the "paying" end, it is whose contract is the one responsible for the lux tax penalty money in that season.

  If the payroll for 15 players is $80M and the tax is $72M, which salary is responsible for the fact that wr're at $80M? Hint: all of them, because they're all part of the total.

and whose contract is responsible for that this season? you can't not attribute that money to a  player....especially when are doing that in your theoretical 2010 season....

  Try harder.

you can see the problem with your line of thinking when you try and answer whose contract this season we are paying double for....not who are we paying to, who are we paying it for....

on your "core player" note, the problem is that you are focusing again on how to save money, not the question being posed of who you are attributing a lux tax penalty to (ie whose contract we are paying double for)...

  I've been nice. I've been patient. I've acked you repeatedly to explain your point using numbers if such a point exists. You ignore the fact that I've explained concepts that you've been unable to disagree with. Come back with an example. If not, consider why you're unable to. Your argument boils down to "I don't really understand what we're discussing, but I know it hurts my Posey argument".

[BballTim]

  The reality is that we're not paying double on any contract, we're paying double on the 8 mil.

the reality is that we are paying the 8 mil that we are over the luxury cap to someone, not no one.

my way of determining that is that in any given season, it is the contracts that take you over the tax that you are paying the tax on...pretty straight forward.

until you answer that question for this season, I'm not sure how you are determining which contracts those are.

  We're paying the 8 mil to the league, not to nobody. It's based on the total of all salaries, not a particular one. Claiming that it's attributable to one contract and not another is ridiculous, but it's your right. But it still has to ft into this discussion. You can claim all you want that we're over the tax because of Rondo or Pierce and not because of Posey, but that doesn't matter. If you can show that, if the tax is at 70 and we're paying 80, that taking Posey's salary off the books will save us $6.5M and not $13M in that last year you have a point worth arguing.

[winsomme]

  While you're getting it, nobody actually gets paid double. That extra money goes to the league. Maybe that will help clear things up.

the problem is that you want to attribute "double savings" to a particular player, but don't want to attribute "double payment" to a particular player.

  I've never attriuted "double savings" to a particular player. I've tried to unsuccessfully explain that the opposite is true.

it's not about who you pay the money to on the "paying" end, it is whose contract is the one responsible for the lux tax penalty money in that season.

  If the payroll for 15 players is $80M and the tax is $72M, which salary is responsible for the fact that wr're at $80M? Hint: all of them, because they're all part of the total.

and whose contract is responsible for that this season? you can't not attribute that money to a  player....especially when are doing that in your theoretical 2010 season....

  Try harder.

you can see the problem with your line of thinking when you try and answer whose contract this season we are paying double for....not who are we paying to, who are we paying it for....

on your "core player" note, the problem is that you are focusing again on how to save money, not the question being posed of who you are attributing a lux tax penalty to (ie whose contract we are paying double for)...

  I've been nice. I've been patient. I've acked you repeatedly to explain your point using numbers if such a point exists. You ignore the fact that I've explained concepts that you've been unable to disagree with. Come back with an example. If not, consider why you're unable to. Your argument boils down to "I don't really understand what we're discussing, but I know it hurts my Posey argument".

BBall, if you are not going to answer the question of whose contracts we are paying double on for this season, then i don't know how else to show you the problem with your analysis.

Until i get an answer that question from you, we are at an impasse on this particular question...

on separate note, i would like to know how much of a drop off you expect in Posey's game in 2010.

[winsomme]

  The reality is that we're not paying double on any contract, we're paying double on the 8 mil.

the reality is that we are paying the 8 mil that we are over the luxury cap to someone, not no one.

my way of determining that is that in any given season, it is the contracts that take you over the tax that you are paying the tax on...pretty straight forward.

until you answer that question for this season, I'm not sure how you are determining which contracts those are.

  We're paying the 8 mil to the league, not to nobody. It's based on the total of all salaries, not a particular one. Claiming that it's attributable to one contract and not another is ridiculous, but it's your right. But it still has to ft into this discussion. You can claim all you want that we're over the tax because of Rondo or Pierce and not because of Posey, but that doesn't matter. If you can show that, if the tax is at 70 and we're paying 80, that taking Posey's salary off the books will save us $6.5M and not $13M in that last year you have a point worth arguing.

again, not who they are paying it "to", who are we paying it "for"....

you want to attribute luxury tax penalties in 2010 to Posey's contract, but for this season it is not any particular contracts...