Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

And he went to a state with an even higher state income tax than NY!

He was retained there. It can only be offset by offering the extra year as evidenced by the article(s) CrushALot provided. Even with the salary increased allowed for teams retaining their own player, it is actually a decent amount less.

Maybe the Clippers can give him an extra 10 years to make up for the cost of living

They evened it out. Not sure what your issue is.

They evened what out? You know that they didn't give him the extra year, right?
The issue: The differences in state income tax are microscopic compared to many other issues, including cost of living. The league has already decided they don't want to adjust salaries for state income tax anyway. This is just bitter Knick fans complaining about something that probably isn't even one of the top 100 reasons for our team's struggles.

Yup, it's a sign of desperation and complete refusal to acknowledge reality when people go grasping for straws like this.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

And he went to a state with an even higher state income tax than NY!

He was retained there. It can only be offset by offering the extra year as evidenced by the article(s) CrushALot provided. Even with the salary increased allowed for teams retaining their own player, it is actually a decent amount less.

Maybe the Clippers can give him an extra 10 years to make up for the cost of living

They evened it out. Not sure what your issue is.

They evened what out? You know that they didn't give him the extra year, right?
The issue: The differences in state income tax are microscopic compared to many other issues, including cost of living. The league has already decided they don't want to adjust salaries for state income tax anyway. This is just bitter Knick fans complaining about something that probably isn't even one of the top 100 reasons for our team's struggles.

Yup, it's a sign of desperation and complete refusal to acknowledge reality when people go grasping for straws like this.

meloshouldgo wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

And he went to a state with an even higher state income tax than NY!

He was retained there. It can only be offset by offering the extra year as evidenced by the article(s) CrushALot provided. Even with the salary increased allowed for teams retaining their own player, it is actually a decent amount less.

Maybe the Clippers can give him an extra 10 years to make up for the cost of living

They evened it out. Not sure what your issue is.

They evened what out? You know that they didn't give him the extra year, right?
The issue: The differences in state income tax are microscopic compared to many other issues, including cost of living. The league has already decided they don't want to adjust salaries for state income tax anyway. This is just bitter Knick fans complaining about something that probably isn't even one of the top 100 reasons for our team's struggles.

Yup, it's a sign of desperation and complete refusal to acknowledge reality when people go grasping for straws like this.

So a guy can make 4-5 mil more playing in a state/city without income tax but bringing it up as a factor in players decisions as to where they want to sign is grasping at straws?

The way is being brought up as the sole driver for deciding making, it would definitely be the equivalent of grasping for straws. Any of the top FAs being discussed would make more than that in extra endorsements playing in LA or NY.

Vmart wrote:Quality of life. Most players know NY is a distraction. You have nightlife which is tempting, you have higher taxes which no one wants and you get the NY Media which has a mob mentality. The money isn't the same because of taxes and you get hounded and distracted by other things in NY. Some just want to play basketball and just play basketball because at the end of the day once you make millions who the hell really needs the other distractions.

Yeah but you can say the same thing for the Yankees or Giants or Jets etc... players want to play for the Yankees. Its the organizations fault for not being relevant for the last 15 years (OMG thats sad) no playoffs and pathetic management.

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

And he went to a state with an even higher state income tax than NY!

He was retained there. It can only be offset by offering the extra year as evidenced by the article(s) CrushALot provided. Even with the salary increased allowed for teams retaining their own player, it is actually a decent amount less.

Maybe the Clippers can give him an extra 10 years to make up for the cost of living

They evened it out. Not sure what your issue is.

They evened what out? You know that they didn't give him the extra year, right?
The issue: The differences in state income tax are microscopic compared to many other issues, including cost of living. The league has already decided they don't want to adjust salaries for state income tax anyway. This is just bitter Knick fans complaining about something that probably isn't even one of the top 100 reasons for our team's struggles.

Yup, it's a sign of desperation and complete refusal to acknowledge reality when people go grasping for straws like this.

So a guy can make 4-5 mil more playing in a state/city without income tax but bringing it up as a factor in players decisions as to where they want to sign is grasping at straws?

The way is being brought up as the sole driver for deciding making, it would definitely be the equivalent of grasping for straws. Any of the top FAs being discussed would make more than that in extra endorsements playing in LA or NY.

obviously Aldridge didn't feel that way about LA. I also think stars make money wherever they are now with endorsements. There are some articles posted in this thread that discuss players choosing states without income tax. Giving up millions of dollars is a factor on deciding where players sign.

Crush,this won't get anywhere and I'm not sure if it had to do with the cap adjustment but the 87mil and change over the same duration as the 4 yrs 80 mil is close to net but I got smoked for suggesting they evened it out for no reason. Basically if u give amy reason other than Melo, Phil, or Dolan...you're wrong. End of story.

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Well I guess Dallas isn't the destination we thought it was, nor is Parsons the free agent whisperer we thought.

Actually listening to ESPN Radio and the Herd talking about how Dallas is a hard sell for free agents, so perhaps the meme that Dallas > NY isn't that accurate.

And he went to a state with an even higher state income tax than NY!

He was retained there. It can only be offset by offering the extra year as evidenced by the article(s) CrushALot provided. Even with the salary increased allowed for teams retaining their own player, it is actually a decent amount less.

Maybe the Clippers can give him an extra 10 years to make up for the cost of living

They evened it out. Not sure what your issue is.

They evened what out? You know that they didn't give him the extra year, right?
The issue: The differences in state income tax are microscopic compared to many other issues, including cost of living. The league has already decided they don't want to adjust salaries for state income tax anyway. This is just bitter Knick fans complaining about something that probably isn't even one of the top 100 reasons for our team's struggles.

Yup, it's a sign of desperation and complete refusal to acknowledge reality when people go grasping for straws like this.

So a guy can make 4-5 mil more playing in a state/city without income tax but bringing it up as a factor in players decisions as to where they want to sign is grasping at straws?

The way is being brought up as the sole driver for deciding making, it would definitely be the equivalent of grasping for straws. Any of the top FAs being discussed would make more than that in extra endorsements playing in LA or NY.

obviously Aldridge didn't feel that way about LA. I also think stars make money wherever they are now with endorsements. There are some articles posted in this thread that discuss players choosing states without income tax. Giving up millions of dollars is a factor on deciding where players sign.

Crush,this won't get anywhere and I'm not sure if it had to do with the cap adjustment but the 87mil and change over the same duration as the 4 yrs 80 mil is close to net but I got smoked for suggesting they evened it out for no reason. Basically if u give amy reason other than Melo, Phil, or Dolan...you're wrong. End of story.

A few questions:
1) Why focus on taxes when they are microscopic compared to cost of loving? In many cases the cost of living discrepancy is 10 or 20 times larger than state income tax. Do you think the league should adjust for state taxes but not cost of living? Why?
2) The commissioner (who is elected by the owners) has already decided against adjusting for state income tax. This is like complaining that there's no 4 point shot. The owners don't want their league to have a 4 point shot and it's never been part of the game just like they don't want a state income tax adjustment and it's never been part of the game. What's the point of still complaining?
3) Would you agree that there are advantages to living in an area with higher taxes even if the tax itself is a disadvantage? It's not like the money is burned in a fireplace. So if you adjust for state taxes, you're basically giving the person all those advantages for free. You could say there is only a small benefit to the players (they'll probably send their kids to private school anyway) but surely there is still some benefit to living in a well educated, low poverty area that takes good care of its infrastructure, has many police officers, etc. Adjusting income for state taxes gives all those benefits for free.

That's a lil long for me to respond to everything. In short, I think it's impossible to ignore as a factor. No big UFAs have left their team for a high tax region. It's probably not the only reason but the league could easily address it. My problem with it came more with ppl complementing players for "taking less" in those regions when they were really just working that loop hole. More of a team than individual player advantage bc the team gets more effective cap space. I actually think the media is probably a much bigger deterent and the general stress/expectation set when deterung individual players.

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Don't forget the league has had a salary cap for 31 years and there have been unequal state taxes the whole time. (Apparently Knicks fans didn't realize this until their team sucked.) I'm sure there are many examples of players leaving places with low state taxes for places with higher taxes. Tyson Chandler did it twice actually. The current NBA champions come from the state with the highest taxes and of the seven teams with the highest state taxes, their winning % last year was .516. (And that includes us bringing the % down.) I really don't think you can make a case that those teams are suffering an undo hardship.

I think you're misinterpreting this and the angle that some have taken. It became an issue when they exploited the gap in Miami effectively giving them more cap space. It has zero to do with the Knicks and the fact that they suck. They should have a tiered structure to at least level the playing field since it is not really debatable that their has been an impact. It would be an easy fix in the next CBA, would benefit players and owners.

Chandler came here because we offered more than anybody else. There is certainly opportunity when going after players like that if we will overpay, but without leveling the playing field we screw ourselves from a cap perspective.

Not sure GS is relevant here as their team was primarily built through the draft. Retaining players is a non-issue from a tax perspective because you can pay more and come close to net under the Bird rules. To that point, yea...we need to do a better job of holding onto picks/building the franchise organically. However, other teams have been able to leverage FA, which is harder to do in high tax regions.

CrushAlot wrote:^^^^^The tax issue is becoming more prominent in the media. It is discussed a lot more on sports radio. Maybe that is because the fan base has more knowledge or because more ex execs are involved in the media.

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:^^^^^The tax issue is becoming more prominent in the media. It is discussed a lot more on sports radio. Maybe that is because the fan base has more knowledge or because more ex execs are involved in the media.

I'd be shocked if this movement went anywhere. Besides the dozen or so reasons against it listed here, the league won't be able to sell the argument that places like New York and LA have it too hard and need a higher salary cap than everyone else. If you can't even convince a clear majority of Knicks fans, good luck convincing the fans of all teams outside NY and California. You'll have millions and millions of angry fans listing the reasons that even many Knicks fans are giving here.

What reasons are those? I glanced through the thread and saw two. One is that marketing opportunities could make up for an almost 13 % income tax rate for state/city and the other was that players would come if the team was better. If you accept that the extra income tax is a handicap then it makes it harder to make the team better. The marketing factor is barely a factor at this point. Guys in smaller markets are being marketed effectively.

I'm sure there are more reasons too. Even if there weren't these reasons, the #s just aren't on your argument's side. The only teams that would benefit are in NY, California, and Oregon. You'll be upsetting too many people for every one person you're pleasing. I have no doubt that you and Swish will find arguments against each of these 8 points but you will have ten angry fans citing and convinced by these reasons for every one who is happy.

as soon as carmelo anthony leaves new york there will be plenty of free agents who will want to play here. just watch

my fav part of that is cali teams and the bulls can be double dipped for some games. most likely a main issue with avoiding some type of balance is you are dealing with tax laws of many states and 1 foreign country.

bonns point on cost of living is quite interesting. buy a house in texas vs dc. will players want a contract that is far less to play in a location where cost of living is much lower? would the owners want to trade for a guy who is coming from a low coi area to a higher one and pay the guy more to balance it out? would you somehow use a multiplier on a contract for regions/cities.. 80mil in ny is the cap hit, but you get paid 90. 80mil in tx is the cap hit, but you get paid 60. balance on tax/coi -- all just thrown out #s.

i just dont see the union or owners wanting to deal with that and how complex it could get.