I don't think Diaw is so much the issue, more so that the LT needs to be addressed this year, and AK is most likely the solution.
The Current Finacial Situation 9/25/10
- Thread starter BabyPeterzz
- Start date
I don't think Diaw is so much the issue, more so that the LT needs to be addressed this year, and AK is most likely the solution.
And then there's the spilt milk argument, i.e. WHY ARE THE JAZZ ONLY NOW DOING SOMETHING ABOUT AK'S STUPID ****ING CONTRACT?
But I understand, again, that's an argument that is ultimately irrelevant. But they could've saved this $7-$9 million in addition to however many years of salary and last years net LT penalty in addition to whoever the Jazz would've picked in the '09 draft that they wouldn't have had to dump. But, again, I know this is a moot point.
I guess AK WAS a top-ten player.
But I understand, again, that's an argument that is ultimately irrelevant. But they could've saved this $7-$9 million in addition to however many years of salary and last years net LT penalty in addition to whoever the Jazz would've picked in the '09 draft that they wouldn't have had to dump. But, again, I know this is a moot point.
I guess AK WAS a top-ten player.
AK is clearly the guy you have to get rid of to save the necessary money, but Diaw is worth talking about because his cap number is the one everyone is using to come up with the savings figure. And then conveniently or inexplicably not addressing the fact that Diaw has another $9 million left on his deal.
If Diaw was an expiring? I'd probably be on board.
LunaticWolf
Well-Known Member
You are also not including the amount of money the team gets by being out of the tax
Locke's numbers show the Jazz saving 20M by making this trade. Thats is half of the amount of money the Jazz make off home games in a season.
Twin Towers
Well-Known Member
Ya this is only about savings this year.
If Diaw was expiring we would still use that money on somebody else (through free agency or trade). We really wouldn't be hurting next year. That is the reason for the trade. Save money.
Next year it wouldn't be a big deal Diaw is making 9 Million. It would suck because we couldn't sign any role players because his salary would take it up but it would not be nearly as bad as paying 16-20 Million extra this year for a guy who will always be the 4th or 5th option for scoring on the floor. I would rather pay Diaw 9 million for an extra year to play limited minutes rather than keep AK with those penalties.
You guys are idiots. Here's the real numbers, compiled from a number of sources and largely cribbed from my posts in the YB forum.
The luxury tax number for the upcoming season is $70.37 million according to Larry Coon.
Utah's current salary cap numbers (based upon the best info I can find)
Utah's current salary obligations:
AK: 17.823 million
Deron: 13.940 million
Jefferson: 13.0 million
Okur: 9.945 million
Millsap: 7.60 million
CJ Miles: 3.7 million
Bell: 3.0 million
Hayward: 2.356 million
Price: 1.381 million
Watson: 1.272 million (assuming veteran minimum contract)
Elson: $1.146 million
Gaines: .762 million (unguaranteed)
Jeffers: .762 million (unguaranteed)
Evans: .474 million (unguaranteed)
Thompson: .474 million (unguaranteed)
Total:
76.163 million guaranteed
78.635 million guaranteed + nonguaranteed
Add $1.088 million to each if you assume that Fesenko will be signed to his QO.
Utah's obligations post-trade:
Deron: 13.940 million
Jefferson: 13.0 million
Okur: 9.945 million
Diaw: 9.0 million
Millsap: 7.60 million
CJ Miles: 3.7 million
Bell: 3.0 million
Hayward: 2.356 million
Price: 1.381 million
Watson: 1.272 million (assuming veteran minimum contract)
Elson: $1.146 million
Ross: $1.0 million
Gaines: .762 million (unguaranteed)
Jeffers: .762 million (unguaranteed)
Evans: .474 million (unguaranteed)
Thompson: .474 million (unguaranteed)
Total:
$68.34 million guaranteed
70.812 million guaranteed + non-guaranteed
Again, add $1.088 million for Fesenko's QO.
After the trade Utah would have 12 players under contract (assuming they honor their agreement with Watson) If Fesenko signs the QO he's the 13th they need to meet the minimum.
That would push their salary to $69.428 million.
If Fesenko gets a $2 million offer from Houston, which the Jazz would pretty much have to match, the tax payout savings disappear entirely.
Locke's $20 million number is obviously wrong.
The reason this is magical Enron accounting: They take as a benefit all these saving this year and then pretend that the additional $9 million charge (and potential accompanying luxury tax payments and forfeited payouts) next season don't exist. They also pretend that this deal has no potential affect on their luxury tax level for 2011.
They're also claiming that they know they will receive a $4 million luxury tax payment this season. There's no way to know that, but that's a high end payment level historically. In any event, no one knows that number until you know how many teams are payers and how much they paid in.
They're claiming it saves them $18 million. It really saves them $9 million - (probability of luxury tax payment next season)(luxury tax payment) - (probability of luxury tax payment next season)(forfeited luxury tax benefit) - the difference between $4 million and the real luxury tax pay-out number this season.
So if you assess that there's a 20% probability the tax system stays in place and the Jazz will pay a tax bill of $3 million, forfeit a payment of $2.5 million (a more realistic number than the reported $4-5 million) next season, and there will actually be a $2.5 million luxury tax payout this season then the actual savings would be $6.4 million. Depending on your precise actuarial determination of the probabilities and numbers involved that number moves around some, but $9 million is the absolute "real savings" ceiling.
If Fesenko ends up signing a $2 million deal or the Jazz have to take on non guaranteed contracts, or people get injured and they have to sign someone for a small amount of money that pushes them over the tax line (since the margin is so small) then they forfeit the $2.5 million payment this season as well. That would make the actual savings number, using some very realistic assumptions and saying that not everything will go perfectly this season, at $3.9 million.
The $20 million estimate by Locke, when you actually think about the numbers involved, likely overstates the savings by between a factor of three and five.
Locke is an idiot, and if you're citing those numbers to defend the FO you're an idiot too.
The luxury tax number for the upcoming season is $70.37 million according to Larry Coon.
Utah's current salary cap numbers (based upon the best info I can find)
Utah's current salary obligations:
AK: 17.823 million
Deron: 13.940 million
Jefferson: 13.0 million
Okur: 9.945 million
Millsap: 7.60 million
CJ Miles: 3.7 million
Bell: 3.0 million
Hayward: 2.356 million
Price: 1.381 million
Watson: 1.272 million (assuming veteran minimum contract)
Elson: $1.146 million
Gaines: .762 million (unguaranteed)
Jeffers: .762 million (unguaranteed)
Evans: .474 million (unguaranteed)
Thompson: .474 million (unguaranteed)
Total:
76.163 million guaranteed
78.635 million guaranteed + nonguaranteed
Add $1.088 million to each if you assume that Fesenko will be signed to his QO.
Utah's obligations post-trade:
Deron: 13.940 million
Jefferson: 13.0 million
Okur: 9.945 million
Diaw: 9.0 million
Millsap: 7.60 million
CJ Miles: 3.7 million
Bell: 3.0 million
Hayward: 2.356 million
Price: 1.381 million
Watson: 1.272 million (assuming veteran minimum contract)
Elson: $1.146 million
Ross: $1.0 million
Gaines: .762 million (unguaranteed)
Jeffers: .762 million (unguaranteed)
Evans: .474 million (unguaranteed)
Thompson: .474 million (unguaranteed)
Total:
$68.34 million guaranteed
70.812 million guaranteed + non-guaranteed
Again, add $1.088 million for Fesenko's QO.
After the trade Utah would have 12 players under contract (assuming they honor their agreement with Watson) If Fesenko signs the QO he's the 13th they need to meet the minimum.
That would push their salary to $69.428 million.
If Fesenko gets a $2 million offer from Houston, which the Jazz would pretty much have to match, the tax payout savings disappear entirely.
Locke's $20 million number is obviously wrong.
The reason this is magical Enron accounting: They take as a benefit all these saving this year and then pretend that the additional $9 million charge (and potential accompanying luxury tax payments and forfeited payouts) next season don't exist. They also pretend that this deal has no potential affect on their luxury tax level for 2011.
They're also claiming that they know they will receive a $4 million luxury tax payment this season. There's no way to know that, but that's a high end payment level historically. In any event, no one knows that number until you know how many teams are payers and how much they paid in.
They're claiming it saves them $18 million. It really saves them $9 million - (probability of luxury tax payment next season)(luxury tax payment) - (probability of luxury tax payment next season)(forfeited luxury tax benefit) - the difference between $4 million and the real luxury tax pay-out number this season.
So if you assess that there's a 20% probability the tax system stays in place and the Jazz will pay a tax bill of $3 million, forfeit a payment of $2.5 million (a more realistic number than the reported $4-5 million) next season, and there will actually be a $2.5 million luxury tax payout this season then the actual savings would be $6.4 million. Depending on your precise actuarial determination of the probabilities and numbers involved that number moves around some, but $9 million is the absolute "real savings" ceiling.
If Fesenko ends up signing a $2 million deal or the Jazz have to take on non guaranteed contracts, or people get injured and they have to sign someone for a small amount of money that pushes them over the tax line (since the margin is so small) then they forfeit the $2.5 million payment this season as well. That would make the actual savings number, using some very realistic assumptions and saying that not everything will go perfectly this season, at $3.9 million.
The $20 million estimate by Locke, when you actually think about the numbers involved, likely overstates the savings by between a factor of three and five.
Locke is an idiot, and if you're citing those numbers to defend the FO you're an idiot too.
Twin Towers
Well-Known Member
Not sure how your post is that different from mine? A few Million or so maybe from Quinton Ross or assuming Fesenko will get a deal from Houston or keeping Gaines on roster when we know he will be released. or Keeping Thompson & Jeffers when one of them will be released.
How can the ceiling be 9 Million? That doesn't even make sense. You have to pay dollar for dollar when you go over the luxury tax (x2).
How can the ceiling be 9 Million? That doesn't even make sense. You have to pay dollar for dollar when you go over the luxury tax (x2).
Twin Towers
Well-Known Member
People need to stop adding in next years salary of Diaw and taking that away from the savings from this year by the way.
We are talking about savings from this year. And if we spend 8 Million over the tax than we pay 16 Million. Its dollar for dollar (luxury tax). Trading AK away will save us double of whatever we go over the tax at least. There is no refuting that. You can add the couple million or so once we get out of the luxury tax also.
You can also add in the money we would get from being under the luxury tax. The Luxury tax benefit if you wanna call it that. To say the ceiling is 9 Million this year is insane. If you want to add the savings from this year and next than go ahead but it doesn't make much sense for the argument. It saves us at least 16 Million.
It saves us 16-20 Million THIS YEAR. This is a luxury tax argument. You cannot argue that we do not save at least 16 Million in luxury tax penalties and salary. That is fact.
We are talking about savings from this year. And if we spend 8 Million over the tax than we pay 16 Million. Its dollar for dollar (luxury tax). Trading AK away will save us double of whatever we go over the tax at least. There is no refuting that. You can add the couple million or so once we get out of the luxury tax also.
You can also add in the money we would get from being under the luxury tax. The Luxury tax benefit if you wanna call it that. To say the ceiling is 9 Million this year is insane. If you want to add the savings from this year and next than go ahead but it doesn't make much sense for the argument. It saves us at least 16 Million.
It saves us 16-20 Million THIS YEAR. This is a luxury tax argument. You cannot argue that we do not save at least 16 Million in luxury tax penalties and salary. That is fact.
Thanks for a **** load speculatory garbage. And being a complete douche bag about it made it even more unreadable.
Or I'm drunk....
Exactly. This will save a ton of money this year. Plus, Diaw is not a terrible player, I would say worth about 4-5 million per year. So, we have to pay him about 4 million more next year than he's worth, so what? We save around 16-20 million this year.
Do I think we are better this year because of this? No. But sometimes a small market team has to do what they can to save some $$$, and I completely understand it.
Twin Towers
Well-Known Member
Sirkickyass: Lets just say Diaw was an expiring contract. And we had 9 Million to spend in free agency or a trade. We most likely would either get an overpaid player through a trade or signed old veterans for a small amount of money. The chances of those guys making a way bigger impact than diaw is very slim. It would most likely be comparable (I am speculating just like you did in your post). And we would for sure not just sit on our hands and not spend that money. So you can't say 9 Million being taken away from this years savings because we wouldn't have had to spend it with AK's contract. You can't speculate who we would spend that money on and how those players would perform because we don't know who they are.
This is why taking 9 Million from next years contract away from the savings from this years savings does not make sense. You cannot say that we would get way better talent with the saved money and you cannot say that they would be way better than Diaw. That is total speculation. That is a moot point to argue.
This is why taking 9 Million from next years contract away from the savings from this years savings does not make sense. You cannot say that we would get way better talent with the saved money and you cannot say that they would be way better than Diaw. That is total speculation. That is a moot point to argue.