I think you might be the only one who read it. Everyone else is suddenly abandoning this ship as if something drastic has changed.
I'll 3rd this point. They ensured profitability for years to come, just by signing Russ. I don't think they'll risk it all for a very slight chance at a championship with the squad they can construct with cap space scraps.
but we're back to where we started: what does it mean? it's not going to affect their offer to george. it may mean they jettison anthony to reduce the tax hit, but based on everyone's opinion of anthony, that may be a plus. those leaning on the financial argument need to convince me that they're going to sell off everyone else (adams, in particular) and that this will influence george's decision. i think they're planning to take the one-year hit if need be, but will try to do something to mitigate the cost. i think svtzr was largely right in that we've done what we can, and now most is out of our hands. though i'd argue we'd be in a better position had we managed to trade for a star whilst maintaining a max slot (as opposed to trading for two max slots).
Well then @svtzr 's post doesn't really matter? We're all already pretty much in agreement: The finances will be downplayed and particularly in the moment of George deciding where to sign, they won't matter. OKC will lie if they have to and tell him that they'll pay more than twice market value for the full team as long as he signs the contract. Then when the time comes for them to save money, they'll shed money. I have no illusions that the Thunder plan on paying the full luxury/repeater tax amount that they'd be due to pay with a George extension and no major losses to the payroll. It simply wouldn't make any financial sense to go that route. Why pay 300+ when I can pay almost half that for a similarly competitive team? Who would do that and why? If anything I need to be convinced of why they would take that hit and I would think you'd agree with that.
to keep two superstars in their prime--something only two other teams in the league can currently boast (gs, houston). it's worth a big hit for one year, imo. and again, i think they have plans to reduce anthony's salary--one way or another. and i think there are avenues to payroll reduction that won't kill the team. svtzr's post was just to refute some faulty logic (that bennett would be putting up half his net worth for one season of basketball). anyway, i still think melo's either opting out and signing for less or they're moving him. his no-trade clause didn't come back, did it?
Oh I didn't even see anything about Bennett and his net worth. No I'm not concerned about his net worth being a factor, but paying that much for a team that is unlikely to win is something I cannot see happening. When has that happened before? The Nets? How did that work out? And if the Thunder were willing to pay to keep two stars in their prime, they would have done it already. They've lost Harden and Durant. What makes George and this season different? They'll shed salary any way they can. That could mean Carmelo, but I imagine they'll get much better returns trading Adams and/or Roberson instead. That's a more likely play probably.
Melo hasn't so far had half the impact of PG or WB for OKC. His old self is too far gone. Trading for him was OKC's huge mistake. And I don't think he's even worth 15M next year tbh. In hindsight, what were they thinking? Sent from my E6533 using Tapatalk
Yeah. I think the argument wasn't hinged on their GM laying out half his net worth. It was all about the willingness of their organization to pay for what would cost them to win a championship and they didn't. So why would they pay more money, after securing their franchise player for a team that remotely resemble that KD-IBAKA-HARDEN-WB championship-caliber team? It wouldn't make sense. Sent from my E6533 using Tapatalk
Maybe losing harden/Durant has had their panties in bunch all these years and they wanna straightin that out? They have gotten a lot of crap for those decision. They may view this as an opportunity to make it right. That being said....MAN, thats a lot of money for a team going nowhere fast.
I think fans are going to believe what they want to. Laker optimists are going to believe that 2 max slots will finally yield some fruit while pessimists will look to our recent history of futility in that regard. Optimists will counter with Rob/Magic/Jeanie at the FA table as opposed to Mitch/Jimmy/Buss power struggle...but pessimists won't have it due to all of them being novices. There is no track record that can justify their faith in this current FO...so I guess it's really up to whether you're optimistic or pessimistic towards our current outlook. However when it comes to OKC, there is a precedent there...they have a track record of losing stars for nothing in return (unless you heavily favor Lamb & Adams). For as rich and competitive some are willing to portray Bennett (I'm looking at you @svtzr and @abeer3), you can't ignore what he's done already and how that may lead some to wonder if he'll do it again. The fact of the matter is that all teams are valued at over 1B according to Forbes and OKC hasnt been burning the bank up...over a 4 year span before OKC finally paid luxury taxes in the amount of 2.8M for the 2014/15 season, their profit was 90M during that 4 year period (about 22.5M per season). Remember, that is without paying a single cent in luxury taxes. They broke up a Finals team in 2012, because of the money...Harden pretty much confirmed it. Due to that penny pinching tactic, they were unable to advance that deep into the playoffs again and it cost them KD. That ownership group avoided taxes at all costs and this was before the punitive repeater tax was ever in place. After the big cable deal for the NBA went thru, revenue sharing for small market teams took a one year spike (ie cap went from 70M to 94M allowing 26 teams to suddenly have cap space capacitating KD to go to GS and the MozDengs of the world to breathe life) and OKC made 64M in profit last season (sans KD and not paying a tax bill). Now compare that to this season where their tax bill is 24.5M and with the cap moving up marginally to 101M. And some of you are still confident that this same ownership group is ready and willing to hand out 150M in taxes, 300M+ in combined team salary and taxes and will most likely be in the red as a result? Really? Fans are worried about Laker ownership striking out in free agency, when this is really their first go around at the big fish, meanwhile are supremely confident in OKC ownership who has lost not 1, but 2 MVP type players before. Really? Here's an article in 2013 that foretold KD, still with 3 years remaining on his OKC deal, leaving due to Clay's history of thriftiness. Pay special attention to what KD says and how similar it sounds to George. Enjoy it while you can, Clay. Either way, Im sure you wont lose sleep over it cause you already locked up your cash cow and you'd be saving millions with PG gone! @therealdeal keep fighting the good fight bro! I cant agree more with you in terms of all things pertaining to the #2018Plan
this is solid points....I only brought up the tax thing cause it makes it seem as thats it for OKC, they're not even gona try to bring PG back and its in the bag for us. I dont believe thats the case at all, OKC can deal with tax ramfication AFTER retaining PG, but yea PG has also said those same words as a Pacer and look at him now, so while I admit I was bummed to see some of PG comments lately I'm starting to take them in with a grain of salt now. Lots can still happen from now till playoffs, OKC can still miss it but even then I wouldn't say its in the bag for us either just improves our chances.
okc didn't lose harden and durant over cash. it's just false. in harden's case, he foresaw the supermax and knew it couldn't happen in okc (not their fault they had two better players) but could happen in houston. okc offered close to his max and would have certainly gotten there had harden shown real interest in staying. and they offered durant more money than gs did.
^^^ Clay and OKC ownership refuses to spend, so they lost core pieces of a championship contending team. Truth! I'm really hoping George is no dummy.
My point wasn’t that the cost won’t matter. My point was that 150m in taxes isn’t a 150m hit to Clay Bennett’s pockets. The team itself runs at a profit so it’s actually a much smaller operating loss. And if you have a look at the breakdown of how any team covers their shortfalls it’s usually via borrowing debt and then repaying that in future years - at historically low rates. Paying $50-90m of debt off could happen in 2-3 years. I don’t see any of that impacting what they offer Paul George in anyway. So like you said before, what they do after PG signs is all moot anyway. I agree with you on almost all your points. Apart from where you said they were willing to lose Durant. I don’t think losing Durant had anything to do with their ability to spend. Durant is a cupcake and wanted a cupcake walk to a ring. After all, they were 3-1 up on a 73 win team in the WCF, that’s about as competitive as you get.
Yeah @abeer3 set me straight on your point, I hadn't seen anyone saying it would bankrupt Bennett, I missed that. That was never something I'd even thought of. You're right about Durant, but in some ways is that not an even stronger indictment of Westbrook and by extension OKC? Durant was willing to leave even though he could have (and from a fan perspective should have) stayed... Could have had more money, nearly equal competitive fire, and instead chose to leave... Not a good look for OKC. And what is worse for OKC is the exact thing we've killed Mitch Kupchak for: should have seen the writing on the wall and traded Durant when they had the opportunity. OKC is in the unique stance to have two elite players walk away from their franchise in their prime for less money elsewhere and be left with nothing.
That 4 year span and 90m operating income was from 2008 season to the 2012 season. A lot is wrong with bringing up those figures as an arguement for now. For one thing they were establishing themselves in Oklahoma. Building a fan base and trying to raise their revenues. They’ve done that all now and have a great fan base. The second thing that is left out, is the NBA signed a huge tv deal. That’s why teams are worth so much more and why revenue has jumped so drastically - because some teams revenues doubled over a year period. So that 22.5m figure from 2008-2012 is really inconsequential. We’re looking at 60m+ per season with growing revenues. There is a big difference borrowing $90m when your team is valued at $500m and you bought $325m of that with debt, leaving you only $80m in equity. And borrowing against almost $1bn in equity. It’s an apples to oranges scenario. I’m not even going to get into the Harden and Durant thing too much. Durant signed for less money than his max in GSW, he was offered a 5 year super max by OKC. Money wasn’t the issue. Harden was offered 55.5m over 4 instead of his max at $60m. He just couldn’t get the super max 5 year deal because Durant and Westbrook were ahead of him. Also who knew he’d be an MVP back then? Has any exclusively 6th man gone on to be the MVP ever before?
