Author Topic: Luxury Tax  (Read 3245 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Luxury Tax
« on: June 03, 2017, 10:00:18 AM »

Offline spikelovetheCelts

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1616
  • Tommy Points: 113
  • Peace it's a board. We all will never agree.
Do you guys think our ownership will pay the luxury tax necessary to compete with the Warriors and Cavs? They have seem reluctant to do so in the past. It has me worried as a fan.
"People look at players, watch them dribble between their legs and they say, 'There's a superstar.'  Well John Havlicek is a superstar, and most of the others are figments of writers' imagination."
--Jerry West, on John Havlicek

Re: Luxury Tax
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2017, 10:06:41 AM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
Do you guys think our ownership will pay the luxury tax necessary to compete with the Warriors and Cavs? They have seem reluctant to do so in the past. It has me worried as a fan.

It depends what you mean by "luxury tax" and "reluctant".  They were one of the top taxpayers during the KG era, when they won a title and made a second finals.  So they've shown themselves willing to pay the luxury tax to put forth a true championship contender.

At the same time, I think the Warriors are going to show themselves as being willing to cross the $200 million cap+tax amount for multiple years in a row, which is a level I don't expect the Celtics to hit.  So pay the tax, yes, beginning in 2018 I think they'll do that for a couple of seasons.  Have the hugest salary in the league? No, probably not that.

Re: Luxury Tax
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2017, 10:13:42 AM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9047
  • Tommy Points: 584
Do you guys think our ownership will pay the luxury tax necessary to compete with the Warriors and Cavs? They have seem reluctant to do so in the past. It has me worried as a fan.

It depends what you mean by "luxury tax" and "reluctant".  They were one of the top taxpayers during the KG era, when they won a title and made a second finals.  So they've shown themselves willing to pay the luxury tax to put forth a true championship contender.

At the same time, I think the Warriors are going to show themselves as being willing to cross the $200 million cap+tax amount for multiple years in a row, which is a level I don't expect the Celtics to hit.  So pay the tax, yes, beginning in 2018 I think they'll do that for a couple of seasons.  Have the hugest salary in the league? No, probably not that.
Why would they pay the tax if we're not actually a true contender?  We should be a playoff team regardless.   

Re: Luxury Tax
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2017, 10:41:12 AM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
Do you guys think our ownership will pay the luxury tax necessary to compete with the Warriors and Cavs? They have seem reluctant to do so in the past. It has me worried as a fan.

It depends what you mean by "luxury tax" and "reluctant".  They were one of the top taxpayers during the KG era, when they won a title and made a second finals.  So they've shown themselves willing to pay the luxury tax to put forth a true championship contender.

At the same time, I think the Warriors are going to show themselves as being willing to cross the $200 million cap+tax amount for multiple years in a row, which is a level I don't expect the Celtics to hit.  So pay the tax, yes, beginning in 2018 I think they'll do that for a couple of seasons.  Have the hugest salary in the league? No, probably not that.
Why would they pay the tax if we're not actually a true contender?  We should be a playoff team regardless.

It depends on your definition of "true title contender".  They paid the tax for six straight seasons, during which we won one title, went to another finals, went to a conference finals, and had some early exits.  Were we a title contender that entire six-season stretch?

But essentially, if ownership is still talking about adding a max player this summer, and they are, that means they are willing to be a taxpaying team in 2018, even if you personally don't think adding Hayward or Griffin, or trading for George, brings us to "true contender."  They're going to tell Hayward, or Griffin, or George if he's traded for, that they will go into the luxury tax to keep their core players next year, particularly Isaiah.

Re: Luxury Tax
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2017, 10:54:49 AM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
I think they'll pay the tax for a few years if the team has a real shot at a title.  The league has made the luxury tax so punishing, though, that it may change the way every franchise operates.  Even the big market teams can't afford to pay it consistently.

It may become normal for even playoff teams to blow it up and rebuild rather than keep a roster together and pay the tax.

Mike

Re: Luxury Tax
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2017, 12:44:47 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9047
  • Tommy Points: 584
Do you guys think our ownership will pay the luxury tax necessary to compete with the Warriors and Cavs? They have seem reluctant to do so in the past. It has me worried as a fan.

It depends what you mean by "luxury tax" and "reluctant".  They were one of the top taxpayers during the KG era, when they won a title and made a second finals.  So they've shown themselves willing to pay the luxury tax to put forth a true championship contender.

At the same time, I think the Warriors are going to show themselves as being willing to cross the $200 million cap+tax amount for multiple years in a row, which is a level I don't expect the Celtics to hit.  So pay the tax, yes, beginning in 2018 I think they'll do that for a couple of seasons.  Have the hugest salary in the league? No, probably not that.
Why would they pay the tax if we're not actually a true contender?  We should be a playoff team regardless.

It depends on your definition of "true title contender".  They paid the tax for six straight seasons, during which we won one title, went to another finals, went to a conference finals, and had some early exits.  Were we a title contender that entire six-season stretch?

But essentially, if ownership is still talking about adding a max player this summer, and they are, that means they are willing to be a taxpaying team in 2018, even if you personally don't think adding Hayward or Griffin, or trading for George, brings us to "true contender."  They're going to tell Hayward, or Griffin, or George if he's traded for, that they will go into the luxury tax to keep their core players next year, particularly Isaiah.
Over those 6 seasons ownership paid a total tax of 47.28M.  The tax is a lot harsher now.  Paying tax while still trying to build a contender makes little sense.

They acquired Allen and KG for a 3 year window and ended up getting a 5 year window.  So ownership was willing to pay tax during that time frame.  When it became clear the window had closed, Pierce, KG and Allen became trade bait. 

Just getting a Max free agent this summer doesn't mean they are going to be willing to do so.  Wyc has rightly said we are two moves away.  If Ainge can make those two moves, I'm sure ownership would be willing to pay some tax. If we still get beaten down by the Cavs again, I don't see them willing to pay tax. 

Re: Luxury Tax
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2017, 01:24:48 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13796
  • Tommy Points: 2065
  • Sometimes there's no sane reason for optimism
If we sign Hayward and draft Fultz, then those are technically two big moves toward title contention. With Hayward on board, we are solidly one of the top 4 teams in the NBA and separates us from the rest of the pack in the EC (minus the Cavs, of course). One or two inopportune injuries from other teams and we are there.

As far as the tax goes specifically, I think ownership will be willing to pay it to an extent, but I am unsure of AB's and KO's future in green. I also wouldn't expect a 4th all star to be traded to our team needing a max deal within a year (George) without one of ours going out (IT or Horford).

Re: Luxury Tax
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2017, 01:46:50 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9047
  • Tommy Points: 584
If we sign Hayward and draft Fultz, then those are technically two big moves toward title contention. With Hayward on board, we are solidly one of the top 4 teams in the NBA and separates us from the rest of the pack in the EC (minus the Cavs, of course). One or two inopportune injuries from other teams and we are there.

As far as the tax goes specifically, I think ownership will be willing to pay it to an extent, but I am unsure of AB's and KO's future in green. I also wouldn't expect a 4th all star to be traded to our team needing a max deal within a year (George) without one of ours going out (IT or Horford).
If you're having to hope for injuries, you are not a true contender.  Fultz isn't a big "win now" move.  It is going to take time for him to develop.  If he does develop, he's most likely replacing IT.  IT and Fultz as a starting backcourt would be ugly defensively. 

Re: Luxury Tax
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2017, 02:05:22 PM »

Offline mctyson

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5087
  • Tommy Points: 372
Do you guys think our ownership will pay the luxury tax necessary to compete with the Warriors and Cavs? They have seem reluctant to do so in the past. It has me worried as a fan.

They just raised my tickets by +10%, so they better pay the tax.

Re: Luxury Tax
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2017, 02:52:00 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12765
  • Tommy Points: 1546
I do think Wyc will be willing to pay the new, higher luxury tax for as long as the team is realistically competing for the chance to go to the Finals.

The Celtics are one of the most valued NBA franchises. If Wyc sold the team today he'd stand to see a financial windfall that would make many billionaires blush. He can afford to potentially have operating losses for a period of time, especially considering in most every other year the Celtics operate at a healthy profit.

The real money for NBA owners isn't to be found in season-over-season profit/loss, it's to be found in franchise value. Those usually only go up, even teams that struggle to see an operating profit in good years still increase in value. New Orleans is the poster child for this, even after years of losing money they still sold for a huge profit.

Re: Luxury Tax
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2017, 04:11:34 PM »

Offline spikelovetheCelts

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1616
  • Tommy Points: 113
  • Peace it's a board. We all will never agree.
Do you guys think our ownership will pay the luxury tax necessary to compete with the Warriors and Cavs? They have seem reluctant to do so in the past. It has me worried as a fan.

It depends what you mean by "luxury tax" and "reluctant".  They were one of the top taxpayers during the KG era, when they won a title and made a second finals.  So they've shown themselves willing to pay the luxury tax to put forth a true championship contender.

At the same time, I think the Warriors are going to show themselves as being willing to cross the $200 million cap+tax amount for multiple years in a row, which is a level I don't expect the Celtics to hit.  So pay the tax, yes, beginning in 2018 I think they'll do that for a couple of seasons.  Have the hugest salary in the league? No, probably not that.
We traded Tony Allen to Avoid more tax and to me that hurt us.
"People look at players, watch them dribble between their legs and they say, 'There's a superstar.'  Well John Havlicek is a superstar, and most of the others are figments of writers' imagination."
--Jerry West, on John Havlicek

Re: Luxury Tax
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2017, 04:19:19 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12765
  • Tommy Points: 1546
Do you guys think our ownership will pay the luxury tax necessary to compete with the Warriors and Cavs? They have seem reluctant to do so in the past. It has me worried as a fan.

It depends what you mean by "luxury tax" and "reluctant".  They were one of the top taxpayers during the KG era, when they won a title and made a second finals.  So they've shown themselves willing to pay the luxury tax to put forth a true championship contender.

At the same time, I think the Warriors are going to show themselves as being willing to cross the $200 million cap+tax amount for multiple years in a row, which is a level I don't expect the Celtics to hit.  So pay the tax, yes, beginning in 2018 I think they'll do that for a couple of seasons.  Have the hugest salary in the league? No, probably not that.
We traded Tony Allen to Avoid more tax and to me that hurt us.

We didn't trade TA, we let him walk in free agency, same as James Posey.

Neither were really about luxury tax implications as much as they were about overpaying for a player who was in decline and would be a bad contract in the later stages of their respective contracts.

Ainge was right about Posey, but has since admitted he was wrong about TA.

Re: Luxury Tax
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2017, 12:07:36 PM »

Offline spikelovetheCelts

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1616
  • Tommy Points: 113
  • Peace it's a board. We all will never agree.
Do you guys think our ownership will pay the luxury tax necessary to compete with the Warriors and Cavs? They have seem reluctant to do so in the past. It has me worried as a fan.

It depends what you mean by "luxury tax" and "reluctant".  They were one of the top taxpayers during the KG era, when they won a title and made a second finals.  So they've shown themselves willing to pay the luxury tax to put forth a true championship contender.

At the same time, I think the Warriors are going to show themselves as being willing to cross the $200 million cap+tax amount for multiple years in a row, which is a level I don't expect the Celtics to hit.  So pay the tax, yes, beginning in 2018 I think they'll do that for a couple of seasons.  Have the hugest salary in the league? No, probably not that.
We traded Tony Allen to Avoid more tax and to me that hurt us.

We didn't trade TA, we let him walk in free agency, same as James Posey.

Neither were really about luxury tax implications as much as they were about overpaying for a player who was in decline and would be a bad contract in the later stages of their respective contracts.

Ainge was right about Posey, but has since admitted he was wrong about TA.
Wrong about trade but he was let go for cap reasons. I am sure of it.
"People look at players, watch them dribble between their legs and they say, 'There's a superstar.'  Well John Havlicek is a superstar, and most of the others are figments of writers' imagination."
--Jerry West, on John Havlicek

Re: Luxury Tax
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2017, 12:29:29 PM »

Offline Darío SpanishFan

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 981
  • Tommy Points: 141
I don't think Ainge was right about Posey. He's have been very helpful one more year, and I'm sure his letting go was expressed in salary cap reasons. At least in the press.

Re: Luxury Tax
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2017, 12:32:05 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9047
  • Tommy Points: 584
Do you guys think our ownership will pay the luxury tax necessary to compete with the Warriors and Cavs? They have seem reluctant to do so in the past. It has me worried as a fan.

It depends what you mean by "luxury tax" and "reluctant".  They were one of the top taxpayers during the KG era, when they won a title and made a second finals.  So they've shown themselves willing to pay the luxury tax to put forth a true championship contender.

At the same time, I think the Warriors are going to show themselves as being willing to cross the $200 million cap+tax amount for multiple years in a row, which is a level I don't expect the Celtics to hit.  So pay the tax, yes, beginning in 2018 I think they'll do that for a couple of seasons.  Have the hugest salary in the league? No, probably not that.
We traded Tony Allen to Avoid more tax and to me that hurt us.

We didn't trade TA, we let him walk in free agency, same as James Posey.

Neither were really about luxury tax implications as much as they were about overpaying for a player who was in decline and would be a bad contract in the later stages of their respective contracts.

Ainge was right about Posey, but has since admitted he was wrong about TA.
Wrong about trade but he was let go for cap reasons. I am sure of it.
According to this article with TA and Ainge quotes, neither is correct.  Ainge initially offered TA a 2 year deal rather then a 3 year deal in order to sync with Ray and KGs contracts expiring.  Ainge ended up matching the 3 year Memphis offer but TA felt slighted so he took the Memphis offer. 

http://www.espn.com/boston/nba/columns/story?columnist=forsberg_chris&id=6560546