Re: Re: Catching up... The Mailman didn't deliver Celts news to m e over t he holiday weekend

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Two things here: 

1. He said he'd use it if he could get a $10 million player for the
exception. That's true. But he since has said they're not using it. And,
more importantly to this discussion, the Boston writers have repeated it as
gospel. This proves-to them, even if WE already believed it to be so-that
Ainge is willing to pay for the right guy.

2. Here's the other thing... This "if we spend the exception, it actually
costs us three times that (or four, depending on who's talking)" argument is
just wrong. I understand the thinking-the cost of the exception, the
dollar-for-dollar luxury tax, plus the lost payment from the league-wide
escrow account. BUT... The Celtics already have lost that payment. It
doesn't matter if you're over the luxury tax limit by $1 or $10 million, you
lose that payment from the league. So take that out of the equation. The
exception would cost $4.9 mill, plus the dollar-for-dollar tax. Effectively,
$10 million. That doesn't make it any more fiscally responsible, but it's a
question of doubling the contract amount-not tripling or quadrupling it. If
the Celtics were under the tax threshold, but the exception took them over
the threshold, then you could make the triple or quadruple argument. But
they're already over, so it's a straight dollar-for-dollar tax on any
additional contracts. That doesn't even take into account my problem with
counting that escrow payment as "lost" money. But that's another topic.

Mark

--- --- ---

Kim wrote:

>We've known that since Danny came in here, since he said as much in a post
press conference interview. He just pooh poohed
>using it for someone whose worth was only the dollar amount of the
exception since the cost would be 3 times that, because
>of the luxury tax.