martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:The Lakers didn't want to pay him $7.7 mil (basically slightly more than the average player). That was money they couldn't use on anyone else anyway. It's not like they were clearing cap space and it's not like they're known for being cheapskates.

Luxury Tax. Without Kobe they don't make playoffs (or don't go far if they make 7/8th seed). So it was pointless.

Then a much older Steve Nash with almost triple the remaining salary is gonna kill them with the luxury tax!

Do you just say stuff to say stuff or does any of it ever add to discussion?

Do you try to be the most inflammatory moderator of any forum I'm aware of or does it just come out naturally?

Naturally, especially with those I know who can do much better. I don't see any thought process, just dumping of whatever pops into brain.

You don't ask yourself why keep Nash over Artest? Swallowing 2 years of contract over just 1? Luxury tax line? Anything?

Removing Artest puts the Lakers just under the luxury tax line; his salary was the best - most economical - they could amnesty. Next year they only have 2 or 3 players on guarantees, so Nash prob won't count against luxury cap.

Wow, talk about embarrassing yourself. You don't even realize that if they amnesty a guy with a bigger salary it means they save more money.
They're already swallowing the money because they're spending it and getting no production.

Bonnie, please tell me how that is. How do they save more?

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:The Lakers didn't want to pay him $7.7 mil (basically slightly more than the average player). That was money they couldn't use on anyone else anyway. It's not like they were clearing cap space and it's not like they're known for being cheapskates.

Luxury Tax. Without Kobe they don't make playoffs (or don't go far if they make 7/8th seed). So it was pointless.

Then a much older Steve Nash with almost triple the remaining salary is gonna kill them with the luxury tax!

Do you just say stuff to say stuff or does any of it ever add to discussion?

Do you try to be the most inflammatory moderator of any forum I'm aware of or does it just come out naturally?

Naturally, especially with those I know who can do much better. I don't see any thought process, just dumping of whatever pops into brain.

You don't ask yourself why keep Nash over Artest? Swallowing 2 years of contract over just 1? Luxury tax line? Anything?

Removing Artest puts the Lakers just under the luxury tax line; his salary was the best - most economical - they could amnesty. Next year they only have 2 or 3 players on guarantees, so Nash prob won't count against luxury cap.

Wow, talk about embarrassing yourself. You don't even realize that if they amnesty a guy with a bigger salary it means they save more money.
They're already swallowing the money because they're spending it and getting no production.

Bonnie, please tell me how that is. How do they save more?

uhm, because they'd be over the luxury tax threshold by less money this year. And another benefit is they'd also have more room available to spend next year without going over the luxury tax.

Bonnie, between Artest and Nash, if you amnestied Artest, you pay him $7M less what NY pays him ($1.6), which puts LA bill around $5.5 for salary. Total salary is $79M, so luxary tax is $1-for-1 or an additional $8M. Total out: $13.5.

Nash: you amnesty him and you cover both years of his contract for $19m, less say the min at $3M for 2 years: $16M. Luxury tax for first year is $7M. Total out: $23.

Let me summarize: Artest: $13.5, Nash: $23.

What do you think?

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:The Lakers didn't want to pay him $7.7 mil (basically slightly more than the average player). That was money they couldn't use on anyone else anyway. It's not like they were clearing cap space and it's not like they're known for being cheapskates.

Luxury Tax. Without Kobe they don't make playoffs (or don't go far if they make 7/8th seed). So it was pointless.

Then a much older Steve Nash with almost triple the remaining salary is gonna kill them with the luxury tax!

Do you just say stuff to say stuff or does any of it ever add to discussion?

Do you try to be the most inflammatory moderator of any forum I'm aware of or does it just come out naturally?

Naturally, especially with those I know who can do much better. I don't see any thought process, just dumping of whatever pops into brain.

You don't ask yourself why keep Nash over Artest? Swallowing 2 years of contract over just 1? Luxury tax line? Anything?

Removing Artest puts the Lakers just under the luxury tax line; his salary was the best - most economical - they could amnesty. Next year they only have 2 or 3 players on guarantees, so Nash prob won't count against luxury cap.

Wow, talk about embarrassing yourself. You don't even realize that if they amnesty a guy with a bigger salary it means they save more money.
They're already swallowing the money because they're spending it and getting no production.

Bonnie, please tell me how that is. How do they save more?

uhm, because they'd be over the luxury tax threshold by less money this year. And another benefit is they'd also have more room available to spend next year without going over the luxury tax.

Bonnie, between Artest and Nash, if you amnestied Artest, you pay him $7M less what NY pays him ($1.6), which puts LA bill around $5.5 for salary. Total salary is $79M, so luxary tax is $1-for-1 or an additional $8M. Total out: $13.5.

Nash: you amnesty him and you cover both years of his contract for $19m, less say the min at $3M for 2 years: $16M. Luxury tax for first year is $7M. Total out: $23.

Let me summarize: Artest: $13.5, Nash: $23.

What do you think?

You don't get it. They're covering Nash's contract anyway, and they're getting zero production from him. As might as well save the $1.6 mil in luxury tax this year and have more room to work with and an extra roster spot next year.

so this is your end game: Amnesty Nash and you get a $1.6m savings this year. Recall what you originally said without much forethought (which was my first complaint):

Then a much older Steve Nash with almost triple the remaining salary is gonna kill them with the luxury tax!

You also just changed your position, adding in roster spot (as if 15th man makes a ton of difference) and production with regards to Nash.

If you amnesty Nash, you make absolutely sure you get zero production from him, something which I would disagree with (the amount of production he has left) albeit he is currently injured. Dude is a backup for sure and limited to minutes but still very productive.

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:The Lakers didn't want to pay him $7.7 mil (basically slightly more than the average player). That was money they couldn't use on anyone else anyway. It's not like they were clearing cap space and it's not like they're known for being cheapskates.

Luxury Tax. Without Kobe they don't make playoffs (or don't go far if they make 7/8th seed). So it was pointless.

Then a much older Steve Nash with almost triple the remaining salary is gonna kill them with the luxury tax!

Do you just say stuff to say stuff or does any of it ever add to discussion?

Do you try to be the most inflammatory moderator of any forum I'm aware of or does it just come out naturally?

Naturally, especially with those I know who can do much better. I don't see any thought process, just dumping of whatever pops into brain.

You don't ask yourself why keep Nash over Artest? Swallowing 2 years of contract over just 1? Luxury tax line? Anything?

Removing Artest puts the Lakers just under the luxury tax line; his salary was the best - most economical - they could amnesty. Next year they only have 2 or 3 players on guarantees, so Nash prob won't count against luxury cap.

Wow, talk about embarrassing yourself. You don't even realize that if they amnesty a guy with a bigger salary it means they save more money.
They're already swallowing the money because they're spending it and getting no production.

Bonnie, please tell me how that is. How do they save more?

uhm, because they'd be over the luxury tax threshold by less money this year. And another benefit is they'd also have more room available to spend next year without going over the luxury tax.

Bonnie, between Artest and Nash, if you amnestied Artest, you pay him $7M less what NY pays him ($1.6), which puts LA bill around $5.5 for salary. Total salary is $79M, so luxary tax is $1-for-1 or an additional $8M. Total out: $13.5.

Nash: you amnesty him and you cover both years of his contract for $19m, less say the min at $3M for 2 years: $16M. Luxury tax for first year is $7M. Total out: $23.

Let me summarize: Artest: $13.5, Nash: $23.

What do you think?

You don't get it. They're covering Nash's contract anyway, and they're getting zero production from him. As might as well save the $1.6 mil in luxury tax this year and have more room to work with and an extra roster spot next year.

so this is your end game: Amnesty Nash and you get a $1.6m savings this year. Recall what you originally said without much forethought (which was my first complaint):

Then a much older Steve Nash with almost triple the remaining salary is gonna kill them with the luxury tax!

You also just changed your position, adding in roster spot (as if 15th man makes a ton of difference) and production with regards to Nash.

If you amnesty Nash, you make absolutely sure you get zero production from him, something which I would disagree with (the amount of production he has left) albeit he is currently injured. Dude is a backup for sure and limited to minutes but still very productive.

Wow, I had to go really slow but at least you understand it now.

except for the fact that they would have to swallow $10M in salary without production - that's not saving money. Bonnie, I am still shocked you have a PhD, you don't think more than 1 step ahead.

martin wrote:

JohnStarksFan wrote:Although the money has to come out anyways to Nash, the -10M in cap space next year would have been a big benefit. But, the Lakers could try to move Nash's ending contract or gamble on him retiring. Maybe they have info we don't. martin, for a team that just signed a billion dollar TV deal, and the second highest grossing team (behind our monstrosity), I don't think that $10 million matters all that much to them.

you ask any businessman, $10M is still $10M and they don't throw it away.

You kind of just shot yourself in the foot. Nash is done. We all knew that last year. Maybe they just didn't want to disrespect him because he a first ballot. Keep him, you're throwing away $10 mill, release him, you're throwing away that money too, but saving more in luxury tax, and keep $10 mil off your cap next year, and with the completely clean slate LA has, that's 1/6 of the amount before the luxury tax kicks in, and keeps a rebuild team from approaching the higher tax levels. If they wind up getting there anyways resigning Kobe and other Bird's rights guys currently on the roster, at least Nash wouldn't have been part of the reason. But keeping him is more expensive than Amnestying him any way you look at it, unless he's playing and productive. He's a classy guy, maybe he'll retire.

JohnStarksFan wrote:

martin wrote:

JohnStarksFan wrote:Although the money has to come out anyways to Nash, the -10M in cap space next year would have been a big benefit. But, the Lakers could try to move Nash's ending contract or gamble on him retiring. Maybe they have info we don't. martin, for a team that just signed a billion dollar TV deal, and the second highest grossing team (behind our monstrosity), I don't think that $10 million matters all that much to them.

you ask any businessman, $10M is still $10M and they don't throw it away.

You kind of just shot yourself in the foot. Nash is done. We all knew that last year. Maybe they just didn't want to disrespect him because he a first ballot. Keep him, you're throwing away $10 mill, release him, you're throwing away that money too, but saving more in luxury tax, and keep $10 mil off your cap next year, and with the completely clean slate LA has, that's 1/6 of the amount before the luxury tax kicks in, and keeps a rebuild team from approaching the higher tax levels.