Ok this is a salary cap question. How come there are teams such as Portland, LA and others that are way over the salary cap limit but still keep their players... what ? they don't mind paying that hefty penalty for going over the cap limit ??? whats the deal with it ? and why isn't Houston not doing it so we can have both Webber and Hakeem? is Les to cheap to do that ? ok please someone explain it to me.... thanks ------------------ My blood is made of Rocket fuel !
Some people have deeper pockets and are more willing to spend more of their own hard-earned $ for the team. Those guys also probably make more money in the league. The Rockets haven't sold a game out in how many seasons? You think they're interested in shelling out the big bucks? ------------------ Founding Father of the Refs Suck Club
okay. there's a difference between paying players you already have and getting FAs. With players you already have that have Bird rights(dream) you can pay them whatever you want and go over the salary cap. With FAs, you can only pay them enough money so that your team does not go over the salary cap. In order to get Webber, we need to be way under the cap(10-12mill). How do the Rocks get that far under the cap? By renouncing Hakeem's Bird Rights, making him a Free agent. So now you have 2 free agents, and that 10-12 million to sign them with. Webber would fit, Hakeem would fit(but not at 10mill) but Webber and Hakeem would be a tight fit, and apparently Hakeem doesn't want any Webber leftovers. there are, of course, exceptions, and different little wrinkles, but that's the gist of it. ------------------ snap crackle pop [This message has been edited by CriscoKidd (edited May 30, 2001).]
okey dokey 3pointer,,,but you owe me a cold one, then. And you are not allowed to say my answer is too complicated,,,blame that on Stern. re: the hefty penalty assumption in your outrage. The luxury tax DOES NOT necessarily happen from year to year!! The luxury tax is only a safeguard, and it is not even the first line of defense to overspending. The league withholds 10% of every players paycheck until they count their marbles at the end of the year. At the end of the year, the players are supposed to have no more than 55% of the marbles. If the players have more marbles than that, then the 10% is kept by the franchises (spread out in some equitable fashion I presume). If the franchises ended up with their fair share of marbles (45% owners vs 55% players), only then do the players receive a refund check for their withholdings (presumably with interest or their lock-out negotiators really sucked!). The luxury tax is not for going over the cap; it is for keeping the percentage of revenues going to players in line with a league-wide designated amount. In short, the league's revenue would have to flatten while player's salaries increase a great deal before a luxury tax would hit, and the players are hit first. At a maximum, the players can only lose 10% of their salaries when the league doesn't make enough revenue to hit the 55% mark on salaries. Only when the 10% player salary escrow account isn't big enough to make up for any overages do the owners start taxing the biggest spenders. There is no simple number anyone can provide for what the luxury tax limit would be. The formula is dependent on the league-wide revenue number. Hell, there may not even be an owner tax from year to year if the player's 10% covered any overages. To my knowledge, no owner has had to pay a luxury tax, yet. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited May 30, 2001).]
