It comes down to ASG... TRUTH TOLD...

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Diesel likes to argue and keep this chatroom lively so much that sometimes I can't tell if he's really this bad with math and cap rules. I'm sure glad he's not my accountant..lol.

I believe he read a part of the actual CBA (which is very dense lawyer speak) and tried to interpret from that. From what I have gathered over time on this board is that he has no background in law at all. So he is misinterpretting the CBA, but he believes since he read the primary source he is superior to all of us. He doesn't realize that others here have read some of the CBA and that Larry Coon has also done this and simplified it for others to understand.

So yes, I believe he is this bad with math and the CBA. Another example is seen here:

Quote:

---

JJ was eligible for 6.3 Million in raises over the period of his contract. That's 18.3 million up front possible.

I believe he is trying to say here that the signing bonus = eligible raises. He probably thinks this after seeing numbers that Mr. H threw out about potential contracts and trying to interpret from the numbers that your signing bonus is just all your potential raises added up. This is false, signing bonus is a certain percentage (17.5% in offer sheets, 20% for all other instances) of the total value of your contract given to you upfront.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

The purpose of frontloading is to make owners who are strapped for cash have to pay significantly more out of their pockets to retain a player.

Do you realize how freakin rich most of the owners in the NBA are? You truly don't have a clue! If there is no cap hit, then the frontloading of a contract is purposeless as a means to get a RFA. Do you think a frontloaded contract will make Paul Allen Blink? How about the owners of Indy? How about Cuban? How about PHOENIX's Ownership? You guys sit around and think that Phoenix collective ownership didn't have the upfront cash to pay Joe??

take a read

[Nicholasp27]

on the one hand, we have what Diesel believes based on his idea that 10+mil dollars is nothing (nor the millions in interest that it can make if they don't have to pay it up front)

on the other hand, we have the CBA and what the actual rules regarding signing bonuses state

which to believe? which to believe?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

How about PHOENIX's Ownership? You guys sit around and think that Phoenix collective ownership didn't have the upfront cash to pay Joe??

The Phoenix owners have repeatedly sold first round picks for cash. I wouldn't put them in the same boat with Paul Allen who was paying roughly $30 million last year for guys who didn't play.

Of course none of this has anything to do with how signing bonuses are handled in terms of the cap.

[jhay610]

god you are dense. I have never encountered someone who so relishes being on the wrong side of an argument, who so readily discards clear, irrefutable and factual evidence and steadfastly holds to unfounded opinion, time and time again.

Can this be who you really are or do you just enjoy getting a rise out of the board?

It has been said that no man is an island. Diesel clearly disproves that theory as he proudly stands alone in the middle of an endless ocean of clouded thought, miles away from the mainland of logic and reason.

[Diesel]

Trace.. trace... trace.... You should know better.

Quote:

---

Then understand that the 76ers, flush with just enough cap space once the cap holds are accounted for,

can sign Josh Smith a front-loaded contract that would have the Hawks perilously-close to next season's luxury tax level

(rumored to be about 71 million dollars) after the team re-signs Childress and adds to what would only be a nine-man roster once the two Joshes come back (Speedy Claxton may never play again).

Click here

Do you still think that the money doesn't count against the cap??

Quote:

---

tlanta forward Josh Smith, who is a restricted free agent, met with Hawks officials Tuesday and is expected to meet today with Philadelphia 76ers President and General Manager Ed Stefanski. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer's Joe Juliano, Smith is the top target of the Sixers. Philadelphia has $11 million in room under the salary cap, and team officials could be prepared to assemble a creative, front-loaded contract that would make it difficult for the Hawks to match. Atlanta already is paying point guard Mike Bibby $15.2 million next season and shooting guard Joe Johnson $14.2 million.

Giving Smith a huge contract could push the Hawks over the luxury-tax threshold. Smith, an Atlanta native, has been a driving force in the Hawks' resurgence to the playoffs and an increase in attendance.

The Sixers don't intend to stop with Smith either. According to the Inquirer, they also say they will try to bring in another Hawks restricted free agent, forward/guard Josh Childress. The Hawks have indicated they will match any offer for Smith or Childress, but it could be taxing financially to retain even one of them.

Do you still doubt?

Quote:

---

Maybe those teams that were throwing money at second-tier free agents this past summer weren't so crazy after all. Dan Rosenbaum, an economics professor at UNC-Greensboro who studies the NBA's salary cap, says the possibility of a luxury tax in 2004-05 is becoming more and more remote. The reason he says the tax might not kick in is because of a $74 million boost in Basketball Related Income due to a $37 million lump-sum local media payment made to the Lakers. For teams that held the line on player moves this summer out of luxury tax fears, the news could prove embarrassing.

The Nets, for example, might not have been so quick to let Martin bolt to Denver had they known they weren't going to have to pay a dollar-for-dollar tax on his front-loaded contract.

Then again, the confused ownership situation in New Jersey probably would have made K-Mart's departure inevitable.

Click here.

So here again ... an older article, but still proof that the frontload of the contract does indeed have an expected CAP HIT.

[Diesel]

Jhay,

When you are right, you don't need a committee of "me too" followers... Too many followers trying to share 1 brain cell.

[MemphisX]

Quote:

---

Jhay,

When you are right, you don't need a committee of "me too" followers... Too many followers trying to share 1 brain cell.

...you are wrong and you are right. For cap purposes, a bonus counts against the cap but it is spread over the life of the guaranteed years. However, the bonus must be paid to the player in year 1.

[jhay610]

I commend you for your confidence, but:

Just because the language "front-loaded" is used in the texts that you cite, does not do anything to prove your argument that a signing bonus counts in full in the first year of the cap.

Explicit evidence to the contrary has repeatedly been delivered by knowledgeable posters like AHF, hawkfanatic, mrH, exodus, et al. Yet here we are, debating the undebatable, for the 4th time in less than a week.

There is no reason to rehash the countless posts and links that disprove your argument, as you are not capable of assimilating new information and reforming your opinion. You have rendered your baseless judgment and in your mind it is set in stone.

Post a link to a reputable media outlet that states that the sixers can tender an offer sheet that would count as a 19 million dollar cap hit if it were signed today.

[jhay610]

Quote:

---

...you are wrong and you are right. For cap purposes, a bonus counts against the cap but it is spread over the life of the guaranteed years. However, the bonus must be paid to the player in year 1.

This is no new information to Diesel. This has been explained to him many times, memphis. He will counter with some more meaningless and irrelevant weblinks in 3...2...1....

[Nicholasp27]

Quote:

---

Post a link to a reputable media outlet that states that the sixers can offer a contract that will count as a 19 million dollar cap hit if it were signed today.

what would be the point of this? a reputable media outlet report doesn't override the CBA

[jhay610]

Quote:

---

what would be the point of this? a reputable media outlet report doesn't override the CBA

Very true. I still would like to see if Diesel has anyone, anywhere, on his side. It is somewhat of a useless exercise, but then again so is trying to explain the CBA to Diesel.

[Traceman]

Quote:

---

Despite these investments and a payroll that went from $45 million in 2004 to $71 million this year, Sarver is perceived as a parsimonious banker in the Suns' blogosphere and among diehard fans.

They point to his selling draft picks for $3 million a pop to the Portland Trail Blazers the past two years

(no one ever accused Portland owner Paul Allen of being cheap).

Next was a trade of forward Kurt Thomas and his $8 million salary to Seattle--widely seen as a salary dump that hurt the Suns' roster

. Sarver defends himself: "We're knocking at the door of winning a title, and a draft pick is not going to help us win a title."

Sarver says the money from draft picks will go toward $151 million in contract extensions for players recently signed, like Leonardo Barbosa and Amare Stoudemire.

Some of Sarver's actions can be traced to the NBA luxury tax. Teams whose payrolls exceed $68 million this year are on the hook for a tax rate of 100% for the amount they surpass the threshold. Those teams also relinquish the right to funds distributed to non-taxpaying teams. The Thomas deal saved the Suns $16 million in salary and reduced taxes. The strategy: pay for performance, but don't pay too much.

Sarver has a banker's background and his strategy is to pay for performance but don't pay too much and that includes NOT paying the luxury tax. Thanks for digging your grave deeper!

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Quote:

---

...you are wrong and you are right. For cap purposes, a bonus counts against the cap but it is spread over the life of the guaranteed years. However, the bonus must be paid to the player in year 1.

This makes sense.

I'm definitely not a "capologist", but if given the right info, I can try to plug in the numbers.

If the Hawks are sitting at 51 million in contracts right now for next year, and Smith ( with his new deal ) will make 19 million next year . . . according to Diesel, that would put the Hawks payroll around 70 million.

And this is before even dealing with Chill.

But if Smith's bonus doesn't fully count against the cap in full in the first year, and his starting salary is 11 - 12 million without factoring in all of that bonus money, then we still have some room to work with Chill, but very little room.

Smith starting at 12 million and Chill starting at 7 million, equals 19 million between the 2 for next year . . .taking us "periously close to the luxury tax".

And like Trace said, that bonus money is BIG TIME. It's the same reason why people who win the Powerball or Mega Millions almost NEVER take their winnings over a long period of time. They take the lump sum, even though that drasticaly reduces the amount of money they get overall.

So if Trace's numbers are right, 8 million RIGHT NOW vs 900K over the coming months, is a no brainer to most people . . no matter how much they "love their city".

And just think, Smith was probably making 300K or so a month last year.

So it's getting a 600K increase in salary per month . . or . . getting 8 million extra RIGHT NOW, in addition to that 600K per month.

That's why teams will frontload a contract when they really want a player, and don't mind paying upfront for their services.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Despite these investments and a payroll that went from $45 million in 2004 to $71 million this year, Sarver is perceived as a parsimonious banker in the Suns' blogosphere and among diehard fans.

They point to his selling draft picks for $3 million a pop to the Portland Trail Blazers the past two years

(no one ever accused Portland owner Paul Allen of being cheap).

Next was a trade of forward Kurt Thomas and his $8 million salary to Seattle--widely seen as a salary dump that hurt the Suns' roster

. Sarver defends himself: "We're knocking at the door of winning a title, and a draft pick is not going to help us win a title."

Sarver says the money from draft picks will go toward $151 million in contract extensions for players recently signed, like Leonardo Barbosa and Amare Stoudemire.

Some of Sarver's actions can be traced to the NBA luxury tax. Teams whose payrolls exceed $68 million this year are on the hook for a tax rate of 100% for the amount they surpass the threshold. Those teams also relinquish the right to funds distributed to non-taxpaying teams. The Thomas deal saved the Suns $16 million in salary and reduced taxes. The strategy: pay for performance, but don't pay too much.

Sarver has a banker's background and his strategy is to pay for performance but don't pay too much and that includes NOT paying the luxury tax. Thanks for digging your grave deeper!

You think that maybe Sarver regrets paying Diaw $9 million/yr for that triple single production?

[Guest]

Quote:

---

You now say that JJ's contract started at $18.3 million. Take his BYC status and that means for trade purposes Phoenix uses half of this which equals $9.15 million. Take this value less Diaw and that equals $8 million. That would generate a TPE of $8 million. But wait, YOUR "source" says the TPE was for $6 million! How can that happen per the current CBA???

It can't, you are wrong. His contract started at $12 million. His BYC status makes it $6 million. That is where your "source" came up with the TPE of $6 million, they did not take into account Diaw's cap hit. When you do it correctly, the TPE comes out to be $6 million less Diaw's cap hit. That is where I come up with the $4.9 million number, not from a source.

Diesel has posted 4 times in this thread after this post. I wonder why he has decided to not to respond to this. It probably has something to do with disproving his theory on the CBA or something like that.

[Traceman]

In the quote you provided below, you bolded the wrong text. Try this:

Quote:

---

Then understand that the 76ers, flush with just enough cap space once the cap holds are accounted for, can sign Josh Smith a front-loaded contract that would have the Hawks perilously-

close

to next season's luxury tax level (rumored to be about 71 million dollars)

after the team re-signs Childress and adds to what would only be a nine-man roster once the two Joshes come back

(Speedy Claxton may never play again).

According to your quote, we would be "perilously-close" to the luxury tax threshold AFTER we resign BOTH Joshes AND we add to our roster. Close does not equal over.

Your second quote needs context. Smoove's contract COULD indeed push us over the luxury tax threshold depending on what we pay Chillz and what we pay any other FAs we sign. My guess is that we will fill out our roster with minimum guys if we resign both Joshes in order to avoid paying the luxury tax.

Your last quote needs context as well. "The frontloaded" part of the contract was an adjective that further described what type of contract it was. NJ didn't want to have to pay all that money for K-Mart up front PLUS pay the luxury tax PLUS not get back any of the funds that the teams who are under the luxury tax were going to receive back from the league.

Again, frontloaded contracts are issue for teams with cash issues, PARTICULARLY when the team would have to pay the big money up front PLUS pay the luxury tax (as NJ THOUGHT they were going to have to do) PLUS not getting money back from the league.

You are wrong and you know it. You would be better off positing another Trade (Marvin) of the Day!

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You now say that JJ's contract started at $18.3 million. Take his BYC status and that means for trade purposes Phoenix uses half of this which equals $9.15 million. Take this value less Diaw and that equals $8 million. That would generate a TPE of $8 million. But wait, YOUR "source" says the TPE was for $6 million! How can that happen per the current CBA???

It can't, you are wrong. His contract started at $12 million. His BYC status makes it $6 million. That is where your "source" came up with the TPE of $6 million, they did not take into account Diaw's cap hit. When you do it correctly, the TPE comes out to be $6 million less Diaw's cap hit. That is where I come up with the $4.9 million number, not from a source.

Diesel has posted 4 times in this thread after this post. I wonder why he has decided to not to respond to this. It probably has something to do with disproving his theory on the CBA or something like that.

SOS different day.