Re: Cap math (was: In pursuit on #17)

["j.hironaka" <j.hironaka@unesco.org>]

At 12:55 02/07/01 -0400, Alexander Wang wrote:
>Getting back to Mark's plan. Let's say we can't make the trade for 
>Coleman. Again, I'm guessing we'll be at $54M next year. We'll add another 
>$1M thru the draft and $3M in internal raises (since Kenny won't be 
>getting a raise :). We'll lose $9M off Kenny's salary and $3M off Randy 
>Brown, which puts us at $46M. That won't leave us in a position to pursue 
>a free agent; we'll probably be right at the cap. However, we can pursue a 
>middle class free agent with the exception since we'll have enough 
>breathing room under the luxury tax threshold.

A lot of good points in this post. I think some people might conclude that, 
at least in practice, the luxury cap would serve as a new NBA "hard cap" 
complementing the softer salary cap rules. That is to say, many teams may 
be skittish to exceed the luxury total, even if they are in a position to 
compete and have a good fan base.

My fear is that the luxury tax may actually drive a much deeper wedge than 
anticipated between the "have" and "have not" owners. The truth is it is 
not a "hard cap" at all in terms of levelling the playing field.

For instance, the billionaire owners and conglomerates can take this 
business opportunity to leave the small market and for-profit owners in the 
dust. The NBA might come to resemble European football, where the Man U's 
and Real Madrid's and Juventus' still play a regular schedule in their 
respective leagues, against for the most part, laughably lower-budget 
teams. Some of these top clubs go 15 players deep in World Cup caliber 
players from around the world, and pay a king's ransom in transfer fees to 
build this level of dominance. If those teams' develop a star out of their 
youth programs, they go directly on to the big boys.

America may be the biggest market for sports. If the Red Sox can afford 
over a 100 million dollar payroll, than surely NBA owners Portland or 
Dallas might not flinch at that staggering amount (more than double the NBA 
salary cap) upon factoring in the luxury tax if they deem it 1) affordable 
and 2) a clear path to a comparative advantage. This approach won't 
guanantee success, of course. From the Celtics' perspective, the draft 
takes paramount importance.

If we talking about the "small market" Red Sox or Patriots, let's at least 
admit that there would simply be no question management would feel 
obligated to fans to try to fill in some of the holes from the draft via 
the free agent market (addressing our horrible rebounding deficit most 
notably). That's not something we can count on from the Celtics.

Should that matter? Well, if the Celtics can't rebound next year, they will 
lose. If they lose, they will blow up the team.

In this light, I'd argue that Pierce and Walker might not be that different 
from Iverson and Carter. The diefference is they don't have the veteran 
support to give their team a chance to compete and, in turn, build faith 
and confidence in the overall direction of the program as a result.

There is even talk of trading Walker this summer, just as other loser clubs 
dumped Chris Webber at the same age for putting up big numbers on even 
worse-performing teams than the Celtics. He couldn't help those teams win, 
even with at least one All Star level sidekick on his team.

I'll say this much, Chris Webber never played on a team whose third and 
fourth most talented and valuable players were a one-armed Bryant Stith and 
a .350FG% type guy like Eric Williams. I know, someone out there thinks I'm 
being unfair to all the Walker-bashers right?

Okay, I also admit Boston was a lot deeper in talent than last year than 
our fearsome "big four". In fact, Blount or Potapenko may actually have 
been at least as valuable as Stith and Williams to the success of our 
36-win team. Oh boy.

I think it is of critical importance to fill out the edges of our young 
team with a monster rebounder in the Jerome Williams or Nazr Mohammad mold. 
The Celtics need to develop confidence in winning and a sense they are 
moving in the right direction, and that's just not going to happen with 
only Walker consistently in the double-double range.

If many teams are as skittish about the luxury tax a reported, then the 4.5 
million exception might go a long way for a team like Boston, which is 10 
million under the luxury threshold assuming they don't re-sign any of our 
five free agents. It is like we are wimping out of free agency like the 
rest of the league, even though we don't have to. Alternatively, perhaps 
Wallace can explore a one-year contract to a veteran center-forward with 
Stith type intangibles, and maybe offer a coaching/front office opportunity 
after or chance to re-sign at a rate that fits. I'd also like for Boston to 
explore sign-and-trades and three-ways and all the complicated things that 
an elite GM ought to do to earn his paycheck and build a winner. Maybe even 
exploit a luxury tax forced trade similar to the Cliff Robinson for Jud 
Buechler deal. Basically, Robinson was a 1.4 million dollar Summer free 
agent signing (the additional cost after you subtract Buechler and 
Wallace's salary). That's a pretty good deal.

If no one out there on the FA  or trade landscape can contribute more 
quality minutes and production than Poodle Boy is projected to next year, 
then fine back off it. I'll totally trust the experts on this, even if 
they've overrated Moiso every year he's ever played the game.

***