Hornets Regret Signing Posey Already?

[winsomme]

  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.

please tell me you see the problem with this statement.

[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".

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.

  I've explained to you about 10 times that we're paying luxury tax on the sum of all of the contracts, not on particular contracts. We're at am impasse.

  BTW, we reached an impasse on the dropoff in Posey's game at least 20 posts ago. Go back and re-read them if you want.

[winsomme]

the question is not how much we save if Posey is not on the books, the question is how much are we paying him if he is...

[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.

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...

  If you can find a post where I said that we're paying luxury tax only because of Posey and not because of anyone else I'll respond to this.

[BballTim]

  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.

please tell me you see the problem with this statement.

  Of course I see the problem with this statement. I misspelled "we're".

[BballTim]

the question is not how much we save if Posey is not on the books, the question is how much are we paying him if he is...

  Maybe for you, but not for the Celtics.

[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...

  If you can find a post where I said that we're paying luxury tax only because of Posey and not because of anyone else I'll respond to this.

you claimed that paying Posey in a year where he is not contributing would necessitate that we would have to go out and sign another player and pay both....

and since your whole argument is predicated on the idea that we will be over the luxury tax, then it follows that Posey's contract is responsible for those penalties...

[winsomme]

the question is not how much we save if Posey is not on the books, the question is how much are we paying him if he is...

  Maybe for you, but not for the Celtics.

I'm pretty sure that every team is concerned with how much they are paying a player...

[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.

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...

  If you can find a post where I said that we're paying luxury tax only because of Posey and not because of anyone else I'll respond to this.

you claimed that paying Posey in a year where he is not contributing would necessitate that we would have to go out and sign another player and pay both....

  This is true.

and since your whole argument is predicated on the idea that we will be over the luxury tax, then it follows that Posey's contract is responsible for those penalties...

  No, it doesn't. Keep reading all of the prior posts until you understand why this isn't true.

[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...

  If you can find a post where I said that we're paying luxury tax only because of Posey and not because of anyone else I'll respond to this.

you claimed that paying Posey in a year where he is not contributing would necessitate that we would have to go out and sign another player and pay both....

  This is true.

and since your whole argument is predicated on the idea that we will be over the luxury tax, then it follows that Posey's contract is responsible for those penalties...

  No, it doesn't. Keep reading all of the prior posts until you understand why this isn't true.

I understand why it isn't true. it isn't true because when we signed Posey we were well under the luxury cap....

[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.

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...

  If you can find a post where I said that we're paying luxury tax only because of Posey and not because of anyone else I'll respond to this.

you claimed that paying Posey in a year where he is not contributing would necessitate that we would have to go out and sign another player and pay both....

  This is true.

and since your whole argument is predicated on the idea that we will be over the luxury tax, then it follows that Posey's contract is responsible for those penalties...

  No, it doesn't. Keep reading all of the prior posts until you understand why this isn't true.

I understand why it isn't true. it isn't true because when we signed Posey we were well under the luxury cap....

  Fine.

[winsomme]

[

  BTW, we reached an impasse on the dropoff in Posey's game at least 20 posts ago. Go back and re-read them if you want.

i don't know that we reached an impasse. you identified Pose as a "has-been" for his final two seasons of the contract, and i still would like to know what numbers you would give him to call him that.

[BballTim]

[

  BTW, we reached an impasse on the dropoff in Posey's game at least 20 posts ago. Go back and re-read them if you want.

i don't know that we reached an impasse. you identified Pose as a "has-been" for his final two seasons of the contract, and i still would like to know what numbers you would give him to call him that.

  No, we did reach an impasse. Go back and re-read the thread.

[winsomme]

[

  BTW, we reached an impasse on the dropoff in Posey's game at least 20 posts ago. Go back and re-read them if you want.

i don't know that we reached an impasse. you identified Pose as a "has-been" for his final two seasons of the contract, and i still would like to know what numbers you would give him to call him that.

  No, we did reach an impasse. Go back and re-read the thread.

can you give me a page number?

[BballTim]

[

  BTW, we reached an impasse on the dropoff in Posey's game at least 20 posts ago. Go back and re-read them if you want.

i don't know that we reached an impasse. you identified Pose as a "has-been" for his final two seasons of the contract, and i still would like to know what numbers you would give him to call him that.

  No, we did reach an impasse. Go back and re-read the thread.

can you give me a page number?

  You're a pretty funny guy. Try page 10 or so.