magoon wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Free Agency 2013
Collapse
X
-
Mack North wrote: View PostYou got a link for that? I don't see it anywhere... and Al Jefferson just signed with the Horncats, so I doubt Utah lets him leave as well.If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?
Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.
Comment
-
Mack North wrote: View PostYou got a link for that? I don't see it anywhere... and Al Jefferson just signed with the Horncats, so I doubt Utah lets him leave as well.
edit: Wasn't trying to chirp anybody, my twitter machine just let me down on this one.Last edited by Mack North; Sat Jul 6, 2013, 01:56 AM.
Comment
-
Marz wrote: View PostI don't really understand why this is a good trade. Yes, they get two picks... for $24 million? That seems a bit steep to me, and Golden State's pick will be out of the lottery. I think they're in a good position because they have a young and promising frontcourt, plus Gordon Hayward, but I don't understand why this trade was made at all.
There is a floor in the NBA for salary. The Jazz have to pay $49M one way or another.
The Jazz are not competing in the near future. Getting draft picks in addition to their own is a good thing.
Utah is not a free agent hot spot. No big free agent is signing there right now. They have money to offer but they don't get a chance to win.
So with no free agents coming, they look to trade. They now have $32M in expiring contracts at a time when many teams are looking at financial deals just as much as basketball deals due to prohibitive luxury tax in new CBA.
If they don't get good players for expirings, strong possibility of getting more draft picks. Definitely not lottery picks but somewhere in 20's likely. If they have multiple high teen/20 picks they could package them to move up to late lottery to go along with their own.
I really like it for them. They have increased flexibility and opportunity.
Comment
-
Apollo wrote: View PostWhen you factor in the income tax maybe he cares even more about every million?
In fact at age 27 he's probably better off going 5 years and re-upping at a younger age on a long term contract to end his career than to risk an extra year's decline.
Comment
-
Letter N wrote: View PostI might be wrong but I'm certain over the length of the contract, plus endorsement money that having to pay no income tax would still get you more money than what he's leaving on the table in LA. As well that $30M is slightly exaggerated because it adds an extra year in to the mix and barring significant injuries Howard's next contract will be another max or close to max deal so a lack of a 6th year for him isn't exactly a back breaker.
In fact at age 27 he's probably better off going 5 years and re-upping at a younger age on a long term contract to end his career than to risk an extra year's decline.
Old CBa was 5/6; new CBa is 4/5
That actually improves your point IMO
Comment
-
Letter N wrote: View PostI might be wrong but I'm certain over the length of the contract, plus endorsement money that having to pay no income tax would still get you more money than what he's leaving on the table in LA. As well that $30M is slightly exaggerated because it adds an extra year in to the mix and barring significant injuries Howard's next contract will be another max or close to max deal so a lack of a 6th year for him isn't exactly a back breaker.
In fact at age 27 he's probably better off going 5 years and re-upping at a younger age on a long term contract to end his career than to risk an extra year's decline.
Comment
-
white men can't jump wrote: View PostI generally agree with what you're saying, as long as you keep endorsement money out of it. You can't really say he'll make more counting endorsements, because he'd have surely have better endorsement/sponsorship deals in LA.
Good example is the first four years of his contract in Houston vs. LA. After 4 years, despite annual increases of just 4.5% in Houston versus 7.5% in LA, Dwight comes out plus $2.6M net in Texas.
Sources said Howard had a possible change of heart because of the extra $30 million he would be leaving on the table if he signed with Houston. The Lakers could have given Howard a five-year deal worth $118 million while Houston can offer $88 million over four years.
By going to Houston, Howard will leave $9.3 million on the table in net guaranteed dollars, because he could have received a five-year deal and more money from the Lakers, rather than the four-year maximum deal he will get by signing with another team. This assumes that Howard will be a resident of Texas instead of California, since Texas has no state income taxes, while California has the highest state income taxes in the country.
Comparing just the first four years of what the Lakers could pay Howard with what the Rockets likely will pay him, Howard will net $2.6 million more after taxes in Houston if he becomes a Texas resident.
So when anyone says he is leaving $30m on the table, be sure to correct them he has left just $9.3M and actually comes out $2.6 ahead after 4 years. Assuming he gets another contract, he'll likely come out much farther ahead financially barring a catastrophic injury or decline.
Comment
-
Matt52 wrote: View PostBut then the tax issue comes in to it again. So even with less sponsorships, he still gets more.
Good example is the first four years of his contract in Houston vs. LA. After 4 years, despite annual increases of just 4.5% in Houston versus 7.5% in LA, Dwight comes out plus $2.6M net in Texas.
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/s...ouston-rockets
So when anyone says he is leaving $30m on the table, be sure to correct them he has left just $9.3M and actually comes out $2.6 ahead after 4 years. Assuming he gets another contract, he'll likely come out much farther ahead financially barring a catastrophic injury or decline.
Comment
-
white men can't jump wrote: View PostBut how much less sponsorships? This is more what I'm wondering about. I mean, is there anywhere better than LA for a basketball player to grow his brand and get opportunities off the court? I'm not even convinced NY is on the same level.
I think he is likely one of the (if not THE) least marketable players in the NBA.
For a popular athlete, I'm 100% in agreement. NY and LA are no better.
Comment
-
Matt52 wrote: View PostHow much brand do you think D12 has left after the last 2 years of Dwightmares?
I think he is likely one of the (if not THE) least marketable players in the NBA.
For a popular athlete, I'm 100% in agreement. NY and LA are no better.
Comment
-
Matt52 wrote: View PostHow much brand do you think D12 has left after the last 2 years of Dwightmares?
I think he is likely one of the (if not THE) least marketable players in the NBA.
For a popular athlete, I'm 100% in agreement. NY and LA are no better.
Comment
Comment