Re: [Celtics' Stuff ''There's no wiggle room there whatsoever,'' -Globe

[JB <JBMetzEA@yahoo.com>]

on 3/17/02 4:19 PM, davidp4660@aol.com at davidp4660@aol.com wrote:

{Complete, relevant portion  of today's Globe article, posted below}


''We know what our predicament is,'' team financial
boss Rich Pond said. ''We're going to work very hard
to try and meet both our needs, business and
basketball. But we've got our work cut out for us.''



The decision is simply to choose between maintaining a good team, or pay a
luxury tax.  Does a yacht owner worry about a luxury every year?  You bet,
but it doesn't force him/her to sell it, unless he  really can't afford it
in the first place.  If Gaston can't afford it, maybe he should consider
another venue less risky.  Since the fans are the real ones who should be
counting their pennies, it would be grossly unfair to be given a lesser
product, especially since the drought here in Boston has 10 plus years.  No
friggin way Gaston should squander away a significant piece to this team for
a few million.   Hey, he was willing to shell out big bucks for a
coach/gm/king/dicatator etc., so pardon me if I'm not sympathetic.  The
whole purpose of the deal was to have RR stay with the C's, as it would help
this team in the here and now.  But it is quite possible that Gaston ok'd
the deal, knowing that he could certainly assure himself of avoiding a
luxury tax by renouncing RR at the end of the season.  If such is the case,
than the whole deal was  nothing short of a travesty.  I'm hoping this is
not the case. 
    DavidP
       ****************
   Terrible timing, this AM's column. Although, perhaps the lobbying has
already started, from our coach/GM, towards upper management. None of the
basketball people could be happy with the economic constraints outlined in
May's column, not only  in the case of Rogers, but also in filling the other
three spots, that will be open on the roster, at the end of this season.
   My own thinking is, that if we make some noise in the playoffs, Gaston
will have to loosen the strings a bit. We have to have Rogers, another point
guard and probably Walter, even if they don't make a move to upgrade at
center. I also hope they re-sign Strickland. You can't play with a 10 man
roster and how many league minimum guys can you have, sitting on the bench,
next to our two untested rookies?
   The luxury tax is a good idea and those teams with unlimited funds and
payrolls way out of line with the league average/salary cap, need to be
penalized, to keep the league competitive, but there is a difference between
writing a check for 30 million (I have to laugh when scribes point out that
Dallas' and Portland's owners wont wince at this. As far as I know,
penalties are not deductible on their tax returns. Has anyone told that to
some of these "cowboy" owners?) and the possible small amount that Gaston
might have to write.
    A factor in favor of signing a few decent players, is that the tax won't
be known at the point we have to do the signing. This could push Gaston into
a narrow corner, as the full court press of media and fan pressure mounts,
this summer.
   
        JB

Link to current standings:
http://archive.sportserver.com/newsroom/sports/bkb/1995/nba/nba/stat/2000-01
confstands_lo.html



                Unchain My Heart !



NOTES
Celtics face a taxing decision with Rogers

By Peter May, 3/17/2002

Rick Pitino always used to call them ''budget
decisions,'' which didn't endear him to ownership or
the public. If he didn't, wouldn't, or couldn't sign a
player, it was always a budget decision. David Wesley?
Budget decision. Ron Mercer? Budget decision. Danny
Fortson? Budget decision.

Pitino is long gone now, but the Celtics are facing a
legitimate and important ''budget decision'' this
summer. The question is pretty simple: How on earth
are they going to re-sign Rodney Rogers and avoid
paying the dreaded luxury tax after the 2002-03
season? 

''We know what our predicament is,'' team financial
boss Rich Pond said. ''We're going to work very hard
to try and meet both our needs, business and
basketball. But we've got our work cut out for us.''

They do, indeed, especially since owner Paul Gaston
has laid down the law: He won't pay a luxury tax.

''There's no wiggle room there whatsoever,'' Pond
said. ''If we're going to err, we're going to err on
the side of being low. We have to be under the luxury
tax figure, whatever it might be.''

Whatever it might be. How scary is that? How do you
draw up a budget to avoid paying the tax when you have
no idea what the number is and won't know until a year
after you have to make a decision on Rogers? There
still is no luxury tax figure for this year, let alone
next year. Pond said his occasional queries to the
league have come up empty.

The Celtics' predicament is this: For the 2002-03
season, they have nine players under salary at a total
cost of between $51 million and $52 million. The exact
figure isn't known because Paul Pierce's first-year
salary on his new extension will be based on the new
salary cap. He'll get 25 percent of that, which looks
to be in the $10.6 million range.

Most teams are figuring the luxury tax will kick in
for the 2002-03 season somewhere in the low $50
million range. The figure might go as high as $55
million but, again, no one knows. Rogers is one of
five free agents on the Celtics and, well, free agency
ain't what it used to be because a lot of teams are
determined not to pay the tax.

What happens if you cross the Luxury Tax Rubicon? For
every dollar you're over, you pay the same amount into
a fund that is distributed back to the owners. The
Knicks, Trail Blazers, and Mavericks, for instance,
could all be writing checks in the $30 million range.
So, you're looking at anywhere from maybe $3 million
to $5 million in the Celtics' case if they re-sign
Rogers to a deal commensurate with his talents and
abilities. 

General manager Chris Wallace has played Mr. Welcome
Wagon to Rogers since the trade with Phoenix and
there's no secret he wants to re-sign the talented
forward. But, just looking at the numbers, how is that
going to happen with the Celtics also needing to add a
couple more players (most certainly minimum guys)
simply to field a roster of 12?

At first sight, there are at least three options, the
first of which is to do nothing. That would mean the
Celtics traded Joe Johnson and a No. 1 pick for Tony
Delk. That would not go over well. The Celtics can't
let that happen. 

Another option is the vaunted ''wink-wink'' deal in
which Rogers signs for short money with the
understanding he will get a bigger deal down the road.
That probably won't happen, not because such deals are
illegal (although many clubs have done them; see
Dudley, Chris v. the NBA) but because Rogers would put
himself at risk by signing one.

A third option would be to sign him to a fair contract
(he's earning $2.6 million this season) and deal with
the tax considerations when they occur. A lot of teams
thought there'd be a tax after this season, but
declining revenues have pretty much ensured there
won't be. Could the same thing happen next year? Most
teams think not. The Celtics certainly think not. So
the pressure is on to find a way to bring Rogers back.


The Celtics are helped by the fact a lot of teams will
shy away from free agency because of tax concerns.
Rogers is helped by the fact there is not a
particularly glittering group of free agents available
this summer. He and Rashard Lewis are probably the
best of the bunch. Some team might want Rogers and be
able to pay him what he wants.

There's also a chance the Celtics could do another
deal to rid one of their nine contracts and use that
money to bring Rogers back. But who do you deal? Tony
Battie, who is on the charts for $4 million? The
problem there is you'd likely have to take back a
player making similar money.

If this were Dallas or Portland, there'd be no issue.
Mark Cuban or Paul Allen would simply sign the check.
But Boston is like most teams, trying to be
competitive and cost-conscious, with one eye on their
payroll and another on that ever-mysterious tax
figure. 

As Pond noted, it's both a basketball and budget
decision and it's not going to be an easy one.