Skip to content

Stricter luxury tax penalties in new CBA could actually help big market teams

Aug 18, 2013, 3:30 PM EDT

Boston Celtics v Los Angeles Lakers Getty Images

The NBA’s lockout prior to the 2011-12 season was certainly all about money, and how the owners could channel more of the league’s revenue into their pockets instead of those of the players.

But it was also about putting a system in place that would, in theory, make it more difficult for the teams in the largest markets to simply spend their way to a title.

While the new, harsher luxury tax penalties put into place make it severely punitive financially to go out and exceed the tax threshold season after season, there is a loophole that exists which works to the advantage of the large market teams in the long run, while working against their small-market counterparts.

From Larry Coon at HoopsWorld:

The first year of the repeater tax (2015) will only apply to teams that were also taxpayers in the three previous seasons — 2011-12 through 2013-14. So right now, only Boston and the Lakers are candidates. The Celtics will probably stay out of the tax this season, and the Lakers are clearing the books next summer. So I don’t think any team will be a repeater in 2015.

Starting in 2016 a team is a repeater if they were taxpayers in any three of the previous four seasons (for 2016 that’d be 2011-12 through 2014-15). That means any team that was a taxpayer in either 2012 or 2013 would be a repeater if they are a taxpayer in both 2014 and 2015. Most teams will be able to avoid the repeater penalty. A few teams like Brooklyn probably won’t care.

The system is set up — well, “set up” is probably a bad way to put it. I don’t think they did it intentionally — so that two years out of the tax buys you three years IN the tax without being a repeater. I think many teams will adopt this strategy.

That last part is the key.

Take a team like the Celtics, for instance, who had no problem committing to payroll that would put them over the tax threshold when they were trying to contend for a title over the last few seasons. They’re rebuilding this year and next at minimum, but after those two years out of the tax, they could add free agents and load up for another run at a title by spending whatever it costs for the next three seasons, all the while avoiding the dreaded repeater tax.

There are very few teams that won’t try to implement this strategy. This summer, we saw the Heat use the amnesty provision to waive Mike Miller, even after he was a part of winning back-to-back titles, because the move saved them a total of $17 million in salary and luxury tax costs. And we saw the Lakers make a similar move to cut costs when they waived Metta World Peace.

The Nets are one club that doesn’t seem to care about dollars, but they’re certainly in the minority. Most large market teams will use payroll to chase championships when the talent on the roster dictates it. Small market teams, wary of even the more basic tax threshold, still won’t be able to meet that standard.

  1. adamsjohn714 - Aug 18, 2013 at 3:40 PM

    This was pretty apparent when the deal was signed. Even if a team wanted to go over the tax repeatedly, only the largest markets would be able to afford it.

  2. ProBasketballPundit - Aug 18, 2013 at 3:46 PM

    Of course they are. These penalties destroyed the OKC Thunder dynasty. Hard cap is the only thing that makes sense.

    • adamsjohn714 - Aug 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM

      The GM destroyed their dynasty because he didn’t know how to spend his money correctly. They could have kept durant, harden, and ibaka, and possibly westbrook (improbable, but within reason to suggest). Instead, he wanted Kendrick Perkins. You’re right, though. Fear of the tax penalty compelled his actions. Sorry to hijack the main point; I just really hate the Perkins deal.

      • ProBasketballPundit - Aug 18, 2013 at 4:04 PM

        I hate Perkins’ contract too, but they still would have been over the cap if they signed Harden and amnestied Perkins. It would have cost them about $8 million more to do it that way and right now it’s become very clear that the owner is not willing to spend that amount.. or even go over the cap by a dollar.

      • miamatt - Aug 18, 2013 at 4:11 PM

        I wonder if they would be willing and able to pay the tax if they were playing in a new arena in Seattle…

      • adamsjohn714 - Aug 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM

        If I had to pick between Harden and Westbrook it’s obviously Harden. Even when they made the decision to sign Westbrook first it didn’t make sense.

      • casualcommenter - Aug 18, 2013 at 5:36 PM

        “Even when they made the decision to sign Westbrook first it didn’t make sense.”

        …Well, two things.
        First, Westbrook was going to hit free agency first because he was drafted a year before Harden, so it made sense to address his contract first.
        Second, Harden wasn’t that good in 2010-2011. He began growing into his role during the 2011-2012 season, the season in which he eventually won 6th man of the year, but Westbrook was clearly the better player at the time of the Westbrook extension being signed (during the middle of the 2011-2012 season).

        The season before Westbrook signed his extension, Harden had averaged just 12 points, 3 rebounds, and 2 assists per game, while Westbrook had averaged 22 points, 5 rebounds, and 8 assists. It was hardly conclusive that Harden would become a comparable player.

    • raysfan1 - Aug 18, 2013 at 4:01 PM

      I dispute (1) that they have ever had a dynasty and (2) that their winning ways, including contending for a title, are over.

      • ProBasketballPundit - Aug 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM

        I agree they were not a dynasty, I meant what seemed to be a future dynasty. They could still win a title but it’s seeming less and less likely with all these weird moves they’re making to stay under the cap.

  3. herlies - Aug 18, 2013 at 4:43 PM

    Payroll advantage absolutely sucks.

    It sucks in basketball, baseball and in club soccer.

    Thank God for the NFL where teams like Green Bay and Buffalo are obligated to spend the same money as NYC and Chicago.

    • miamatt - Aug 18, 2013 at 7:42 PM

      Indeed, but none of that matters unless said team has a franchise quarterback. 15-20 years ago virtually any NFL team could dream of a rags to riches super bowl season. With the rules (and enforcement emphasis) regarding the passing game now, you’ve gotta have a QB to win. There are practically as many NFL teams that have absolutely no shot at going to the super bowl this year as there are NBA franchises with no hope of making the Finals.

  4. elnogo - Aug 18, 2013 at 6:19 PM

    I’m pretty sure Westbrook was going to become a restricted FA the year the negotiated his extension. If you let him go to the market somebody would offer max $ and he did signed below max so they could resign Ibaka / Harden. OKC went for height against overall talent. Ibaka and Harden were elegible for extension the same year. More than blaming Perkins contract look at Ibaka as the the contract responsible for Harden not being in OKC.

    • adamsjohn714 - Aug 18, 2013 at 7:06 PM

      I look at Westbrook’s contract as the reason. Ibaka is better so they should keep him if forced to choose. Harden is better than both of them, so losing him was the worst move possible.

      • mckaymatt - Aug 19, 2013 at 7:31 AM

        I don’t know how you figure Ibaka is better than Westbrook…if Ibaka gets hurt instead of Westbrook I have a feeling they may have still beat Memphis. Ibaka is longer and plays PF so maybe they were hesitant to remove a front court player to have 3 wings but I feel you can find a guy to replace the scoring and rebounding numbers of Ibaka with a PF that is demanding a lower salary. I wouldn’t have kept Ibaka or Perkings and tried to peice together a front court with the money from those two. Neither plan is perfect but I feel Harden Westbrook and Durant > Westbrook Durant Ibaka/Perkins

      • adamsjohn714 - Aug 19, 2013 at 8:16 AM

        Well let’s leave Perkins completely out of it. He’s awful and should be cut immediately. I think Ibaka is better than Westbrook because he’s a much better offensive player. Not only is he way more efficient (he even was a better 3pt shooter this season), he also never turns it over. Westbrook’s turnover numbers are even more frightening when you know that increasing shot attempts automatically lowers your turnover numbers. So if Wesbrook wasn’t jacking up 15 of those midrange shots a game, he’d be turning it over even more than his ridiculous rate. So Ibaka is a better offensive player, and they’re both quite good defensively (I’d say about equal). Ibaka has a big edge in total defensive rebounding numbers, but Westbrook is actually better for his position. Ibaka has a huge advantage in blocks, Westbrook in steals. They also foul about the same when factoring in position. I’m not saying Westbrook isn’t good. He’s pretty good, but his value is from the defensive end, not offensively where he jacks up tons of shots and doesn’t make many, coughs the ball up incessantly, and limits Durant’s already incredible effectiveness.

      • bougin89 - Aug 19, 2013 at 1:49 PM

        Ibaka, a PF, averaged 1.8 TOs a game last year per 36 minutes. Westbrook, a PG who handles the ball much more averaged 3.4 TOs a game last year per 36 minutes. It’s hilarious you use that as an argument to compare two completely different players. It’s totally off base.

      • adamsjohn714 - Aug 19, 2013 at 4:08 PM

        Ibaka… a PF, averaged 2.4 TO per 48 minutes last year. The average PF commits 2.6 per 48 min. Wesbrook, a PG, averaged 4.6 TO per 48 minutes last year. The average PG commits 3.6 TO per 48 minutes last year.

        Hmmmm….. one guy is better than the average guy at his position and the other guy is much worse than the average guy at his position. Thanks for your opinion, though.

      • bougin89 - Aug 20, 2013 at 9:46 AM

        Do you really only use stats and not the eye test to compare players? You made the same arguments to say Tyler Hansborough and Tyson Chandler are really good offensive players. You don’t look at stats in perspective. Westbrook has been known to be a turnover prone, you are right, that does not make him a worse offensive player than Ibaka. To compare Ibaka, who isn’t an exceptional offensive player but can hit open jumpers when defenses collapse on Westbrook and Durant, to Westbrook who creates his own shot and creates for others is insane. Of course Westbrook is going to be less efficient. Look at their PER’s. Westbrook is the much better player overall (PER’s are based on total stats, I’m surprised you don’t use those in more of your arguments).

        Have you watched Ibaka play defense? He’s a good help side defender/shot blocker but overall he is very average as a post defender man on man, in an era that doesn’t have great post play anymore.

        My final point will be did you watch the playoffs the last two years? Ibaka disappeared against the Heat two years ago when the Heat went small. Westbrook and Durant were the only guys on the Thunder that kept it remotely close in the first few games. What did Ibaka do?

      • adamsjohn714 - Aug 20, 2013 at 10:09 AM

        bougin….PER is a mathematical joke. Of course Westbrook has a higher PER. He takes a ton more shots. Why one earth would I use the eye test? The eyes don’t see everything, don’t remember accurately, and lie to you. The eye test is the reason people think Kobe bryant is some clutch god. The eye test is the reason people think Avery Bradley is a good defender. I also don’t use one finals series (where it is most difficult to produce) to judge a player’s entire career. Why do 5 games against the best team in the NBA trump Ibaka’s entire career? That’s just silly. “shot creation” is also a joke. Nobody “creates shots.” Teams pretty much take the same number of shots per 100 possessions no matter what. You don’t create shots, you just take them. I have no doubt that Westbrook would be better with the ball at the top of the key with 4 seconds on the shot clock, but so what? This situation is a poor possession. Avoid it. He rarely takes a good shot. Ibaka is a better shooter (with better shot selection), better 3 point shooter too (bet the eye test didn’t reveal that), turns it over less, grabs more offensive rebounds. Some pretty major offensive categories. Also, for a stat that analyzes overall contribution, while also mapping back to actual wins much more accurately, Ibaka produces .222 wins per 48 minutes, while Westbrook produces .144 wins per 48 minutes. Average is .100, so both are good players, but Ibaka had better production, and the gap is pretty large.

      • bougin89 - Aug 20, 2013 at 3:00 PM

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to come across as a jerk, but listen to what you’re saying by blindly looking at stats such as FG% and 3pt FG%…

        Is Tyson Chandler a better offensive player than Tim Duncan because he shoots at a better clip? Is Ibaka better than Duncan? This is the type of case you are making. It’s as if you don’t understand the difference between being a go to player and a guy that is a 4th or 5th option as a role player. Ibaka is a 4th or 5th option on OKC’s team. Westbrook is basically 1b on the Thunder. I’m guessing if Westbrook had a PF that struggled to come out and guard him on the perimeter on a regular basis he would also make his 3PT attempts at a higher percentage. Ibaka doesn’t take many, and when he does it’s on a kick out where he has a slow big that doesn’t get out to guard him in time. There is ABSOLUTELY a difference in being a playmaker and being a role player. It’s easier to be a role player and it’s much easier being more efficient being a role player.

      • adamsjohn714 - Aug 20, 2013 at 4:28 PM

        I never mentioned Tim Duncan, but Tyson Chandler is an incredible offensive player. The year before this one he had the best TS% since Wilt Chamberlain. And if being a role player is so darn easy, why are there so many role players, with limited FGA, that are inefficient, and so few #1 options (or 1b) that are really efficient? It is extremely difficult to be efficient regardless of FGA. And perhaps if Westbrook is taking so many shots with a hand in his face because he “created” that shot, he should just let someone else take the shot. And I believe I listed quite a few offensive categories in which Ibaka held an advantage. You seem to be focused on excuses for why Westbrook isn’t as good at something, rather than results. Also, the final thing I listed, WinsProduced, is an all encompassing stat that is incredibly accurate. Perhaps you should read a little further than the first 2 sentences.

      • bougin89 - Aug 21, 2013 at 10:31 AM

        “I never mentioned Tim Duncan, but Tyson Chandler is an incredible offensive player.”

        Haha. That all I really need to read. Westrbook gets to the rim a lot. He’s exceptional in transition. I could go on but you’ll keep using FG% and TS% as your only reasoning. Keep doing that to think Tyson Chandler is an incredible offensive player(you really just said that?), as is Ibaka.

        I actually like Ibaka, but he’s isn’t nearly as important to the Thunder as Westbrook, mainly because he isn’t as good a player as Westbrook, if he were they would make him much more of a focus, but they don’t/won’t because he’s not as good. He is very limited with his back to the basket, he’s good as a spot up shooter for a big man(you pointed that out), very limited passer(Westbrook is a creator, at 7.4 apg i’ll let you figure out how many more ppg he creates) and clearly he’s not someone you can run your offense through. But dang, he’ll hit a 3 pointer once every four games while attempting 1 in 70% of the games he’ll play. That’s really valuable. Keep relying on that as being a great and really effective 3 point shooter…definitely more value than someone that takes a lot more and makes them at a rate of 2.8% less efficient.

      • adamsjohn714 - Aug 22, 2013 at 1:58 AM

        Congratulations Bougin… you just responded to an argument supported by facts and reasons with a convincing, “NO WAY, That’s just wrong because …… well……. its just wrong. IT JUST IS!!!” Perhaps Westbrook shouldn’t be taking many 3s. Again, you haven’t shown me how Westbrook is a really good offensive player; you’ve shown me excuses for why he is not a really good offensive player.

      • bougin89 - Aug 22, 2013 at 1:05 PM

        Congratulations, what I’ve been trying to say and which you don’t get, is that by your logic Tyson Chandler is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan. What you don’t understand is basketball roles and you have no concept of what an assist is apparently. Also, big men are more efficient “shooters” historically, care to argue that? Westbrook assists on more points per game than Ibaka scores and assists combined. I would say that makes him a better offensive player alone, statistically. Not to mention his 23.2 ppg. Comparing two opposite players and going strictly by FG% and 3PT% and not including assists or acknowledging anything else is pretty shortsighted.

      • bougin89 - Aug 22, 2013 at 1:12 PM

        And why should Westbrook shoot less 3 pointers than Ibaka? Because Westbrook makes 2.8% less on a much larger sample size?Are you saying Ibaka is so bad inside that he should just sit outside and wait for an assist from Westbrook on a three? No shots are created. They just happen. Ibaka is so much more efficient than Westbrook on offense that he should get the ball and just do his thing, nevermind that most of his makes come off of assists, mainly because teams focus on Westbrook and Durant. Have you never been in a game where a coach gameplans for the best players on the other team? Teams don’t gameplan for players like Ibaka, they do for Westbrook and Durant.

  5. tcclark - Aug 18, 2013 at 6:22 PM

    A HArd cap is the only way for the NBA to create parity. The league would be so much more profitable in a league where everyone has a chance. Think about the large markets that are small markets in the NBA like Philly, Phoenix, and Atlanta. Can you imagine if the people from those cities actually came to the games? Philadelphia is a huge market for baseball, football, hockey, and college basketball, but hasn’t been successful in professional basketball because year in and year out, the team doesn’t have a chance. It’s a league driven on winning the lottery and only a few teams have been able to do that.

    Parity is what allows cities like Buffalo, Winnipeg, and Green Bay to have huge fan bases in hockey and/or football. Parity is what all leagues should strive for. It’s what makes the NFL the pinnacle sports league. What drives that is a hard cap

    • adamsjohn714 - Aug 18, 2013 at 7:07 PM

      HAHAHA parity. The NBA isn’t interested in parity at all. Just look at the track record.

      • tcclark - Aug 18, 2013 at 7:36 PM

        Exactly. I agree. But it’s completely stupid not to strive for it. Lebron was so much more interesting when he was trying to win his first championship. Now that he’s on a team that seemingly can’t be beaten, the NBA has become a joke. I’m reading articles in July about who can beat the Heat? The season hasn’t even started yet and people are crowning a champion. This happens in a lot of leagues, but in the NBA it’s usually true

      • adamsjohn714 - Aug 18, 2013 at 7:46 PM

        Well the NBA isn’t interested in parity because this business model is working for the owners. Franchises are appreciating in value by hundreds of millions of dollars in just years, so I don’t think it’s stupid to not strive for it. And no, it’s pretty obvious that people find Lebron much more interesting as a member of the Heat than in his Cavalier days. You might not find it nearly as suspenseful or entertaining, but the majority of fans love winning and frontrunners. “Bandwagon fans” pay the same prices as “true fans.”

      • tcclark - Aug 18, 2013 at 8:58 PM

        Joshua Harris bought the Sixers two years ago for 280 million and then just bought the New Jersey Devils for over 320 million when they were going bankrupt. Not all teams are increasing by “hundreds of millions of dollars.” Some are worth less than bankrupt hockey teams. Teams like the lakers, and heat, and knicks, are thriving, but in a league with parity all would be thriving. Do you think the Lakers would lose fans, if the Timberwolves were also good? No.

        And who loves frontrunners? People like underdogs. People don’t watch March Madness to see UConn beat East Tennessee State. They watch it to see Lehigh beat Duke, or Florida Gulf Coast make it to the Sweet Sixteen. I’m also pretty sure more people were rooting for the Giants to beat the Patriots in ’08. They wanted to see them end their undefeated season and they did and it was exciting.

        The NBA would be a lot more profitable if it were possible for an 8th seed to win a championship. In the NBA it isn’t. People like watching David beat Goliath. Rooting for Goliath is like rooting for the blonde haired boy in Karate Kid.

        Parity doesn’t mean that their aren’t frontrunners. Look at the Penguins this year. They were as big of a front runner as you can get in the NHL and then they traded for a ton of good players at the deadline. They were looking good until they managed to score the fewest goals in a playoff series history on their way to being swept in the ECF.

        There’s no suspense in the NBA. No drama. It’s more predictable than a bad horror film. Spoiler alert, The Miami Heat will win the NBA championship this year. Few will have a chance, none will succeed. That’s the Motto of the NBA

      • adamsjohn714 - Aug 18, 2013 at 9:13 PM

        Case in point: Warriors’ value increased a ridiculous amount. And people absolutely love frontrunners. That’s why there is a strong correlation between winning and fan attendance/interest. Maybe that’s why you like watching March Madness (to see the upsets) and I’m sure people like them, but the dollars aren’t made from upsets. They’re made from UNC facing Michigan State, or Duke vs. Louisville in the Final Four. There is a much higher luck threshold in the NHL, so that’s why random teams win much more often. Basketball is much more consistent. Using the NHL’s parity (whether intentional or not) to show why it’s so much more exciting doesn’t make any sense. Very few people care about or watch the NHL. Financially it’s not doing so hot. There’s a short supply of tall talented people in the world, so the superstars of the NBA are pretty rare, and will generally be on the best teams. This means that parity is unlikely to result, and the NBA has no interest in pushing for it. This model is working quite well.

    • miamatt - Aug 18, 2013 at 8:01 PM

      Parity is overrated in the NFL. If you don’t have a franchise QB, you have no chance at the super bowl. You can say that winning the lottery drives the NBA- you’ll get no argument from me- but in the NFL it is similarly about sucking in the year when a can’t-miss QB is slated to go no. 1.

      Reality is we just don’t know what parity looks like in the NBA. Looking back it is iconic figures like Jordan, Magic, and Bird that define the game. I am not saying parity couldn’t or wouldn’t be exciting/successful, but we just don’t know, because we have never seen it. All I know is the NBA at it’s highest level is an unbelievable game. Bringing the best teams down in quality and the worst ones up might not make for the most compelling basketball, especially in May and June.

      In any case, I’d say the TV contracts and record ratings speak for themselves in terms of how profitable the NBA is. It may not be the NFL, but the NBA is light years ahead of baseball and any other american sport, save perhaps college football. The NFL has a model that works for them; it doesn’t necessarily follow that that is also the best model for the NBA.

      • tcclark - Sep 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM

        I disagree completely. First, you don’t need to suck in the NFL to get a franchise quarterback. Of the two superbowl quarterbacks this year, Flacco was a middle of the first round pick and Kaepernick was a second round pick. Brady was a 6th rounder, Manning was a 1st pick, but was signed as a free agent, Brees was a second rounder and then signed as a free agent, and Rodgers was a late first rounder. You don’t need to suck to get better in the NFL.

        Secondly, the sucess of the NBA has very little to do with the league itself and more to do with the fact that people love basketball. People will watch college basketball, D-League basketball, high school basketball, And-1 street ball. It doesn’t matter. People love basketball. In fact the NBA could be so much more profitable if people actually liked the NBA. I know a ton of people who love basketball, but refuse to watch the NBA. No other sports league has more of a hated following than the NBA. People generally love the NFL. The MLB has gotten a lot of support because of the way they crack down on cheaters. The NHL doesn’t have as big of a following, but that more because people don’t like hockey, not because of how much they dislike the league. People who watch hockey generally like the league (they hate Bettman though). But people don’t like the NBA.

        I understand what you’re saying about bringing down the quality of the better teams, and I know that that’s not just because you’re a Heat fan, but you have to remember that the worst teams in the NBA are still light years better than the best college teams. and people still watch college basketball. The reason people love college basketball come tourney time is because they love the competitiveness and because they don’t know what’s going to happen. The NBA playoffs are the opposite. Everyone knows what’s going to happen and the first round isn’t even competitive. Creating a competitive balance would make for more exciting basketball. Lebron vs. D Wade would be so much more compelling than Lebron and D Wade vs. nobody.

    • netsdaily - Aug 19, 2013 at 2:57 PM

      Building an entertainment brand in Green Bay, Buffalo and Winnipeg is a lot easier than in mid-sized cities. There is little competition for the entertainment dollar in those places. Same in Salt Lake City.

      As for the price Harris paid for Devils, the devil is in the details (pun intended.) Vanderbeek had HUGE debt. Did Harris assume it all, a percentage? Does the $320 million value include the assumption of debt. I will be cash outlay in that deal was nowhere near $320 million. Devils are a distressed asset

  6. elnogo - Aug 18, 2013 at 6:31 PM

    Going in the hard cap line. I think that non- guaranteed contract would be good too. Example when the Magics signed Grant Hill they had to pay him all that money and out the 6 seasons he signed for he only played like 2and a half. If the contract would have been non-guaranteed they might have a better product around T-Mac.

  7. kb2408 - Aug 18, 2013 at 6:38 PM

    As I’ve believed all along, the big market teams that choose to spend money, will still compete for titles. The smaller market teams, for the most part, will not.

  8. miamatt - Aug 18, 2013 at 8:11 PM

    Too many fans blame market size discrepancy for their teams’ failures when they should be blaming the front office. Luck plays a huge role, of course, but that is all sports.

    The Spurs have been in and out of the Finals for well over a decade now. The Magic and Cavaliers have been to the Finals in the past eight years. Miami is a middle-of-the-pack market.

    • tcclark - Aug 18, 2013 at 9:10 PM

      I don’t have a problem with market size discrepancy. What I object to is a system that allows a team to use all of their money on three players (four if you include Mike Miller) and then be able to continue to sign players over the salary cap. Had there been a Hard cap, the Heat would have consisted of Chalmers, Wade, James, Bosh, Anthony, and Pittman. That’s it. That team has a lot of star power, but you cannot win a championship with 6 players. They wouldn’t have been able to get battier, or Ray Allen, or even James Jones. They would have had to stop at two super stars and tried to fill out the rest of the roster with role players while maintaining cap flexibility for the next year’s draft class. That would have meant that LeBron would not have been taking his talents to south beach and we would have two competitive teams instead of one.

    • 00maltliquor - Aug 19, 2013 at 1:10 AM

      TELL ‘EM miamatt! Educate these guys!

  9. sportsnut101 - Aug 19, 2013 at 8:54 AM

    The thunder gm should be fired. Why do people say he made a great team. He got lucky with picks because his team sucked yr after yr

    Now for the Perkins trade and signing. Yes it was a good trade at the time because green didn’t want to sign extension for what thunder offered. So got something instead of nothing. Problem is why did they rush to give Perkins a contract of 4 yrs he was coming off injury as well

    The reason they signed Westbrook when he was ready for extension is to keep ur player happy. That’s why all teams do it
    If u know ur player is a max player then there’s no rush in singing him u can let him go to restricted free agent status another team will offer max but u can always offer more and match. U do this to see if any deals come up during the season

    Now as for harden trade. That gm honestly didn’t know he would be this good he should resign over such a horrible deal they traded him to save what 15 mill a yr and now I don’t think they will win a ring Ibaka is good but he barely gets touches with durant n Westbrook And no1 else is good to enough to shoot on that team They have young pieces but they hardly play I understand u want him to learn but they threw Westbrook n durant in early they were losing till harden n Ibaka got there I woulda traded Westbrook to warriors for Klay Thompson plus a few other players and picks and resign harden to max Yes westbrook is a top player but can’ shoot that well and that team needs a sg honestly

  10. netsdaily - Aug 19, 2013 at 2:38 PM

    Nets care about the repeater tax and luxury tax.

    They dumped Gerald Wallace’s deal on the Celtics and by doing so reduced their payroll in 2015-16 by nearly $11 million.

    As has been written, the Nets are positioning themselves to be within range of the tax threshhold that year, permitting them to use the S&T, MLE and BAE.

    As Prokhorov said last week, ” Two years from now, when our payroll will clear, we will be even stronger. I cannot reveal the names of the stars, which, having become free agents will want to go to “Brooklyn.” For such things, the NBA would fine me. But, believe me, there are such people. Our front office does not sit around and wait for the future.”

    http://www.netsdaily.com/2013/8/16/4628476/prokhorov-talks-money-and-the-nets-its-about-only-one-place-first

  11. Rajiv Radia - Aug 19, 2013 at 3:37 PM

    It will be interesting to see how teams like the Lakers and Heat will continue to react to the new rules. I can’t see Wade and Bosh staying in Miami if Lebron chooses to stay there. Wade is getting older and injury prone and Bosh might see himself as a better fit elsewhere. I wrote up an article awhile back explaining the NBA’s new tax and how it will affect different teams:

    http://www.jdsportsfan.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/nba-free-agency-the-salary-cap-explained/

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

What are impacts of NBA's new TV deal?
Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. B. Beal (4094)
  2. D. Rose (3930)
  3. J. Lin (3820)
  4. N. Noel (3658)
  5. L. James (3651)