It's a Pacers homage.
It's a Pacers homage.
I agree, losing Lance Stephenson because of a tax that is relatively miniscule in comparison to the taxpayer money that has been given to the franchise would be hard to take.
If the Pacers were funded exclusively by the Simons, then I guess none of us would have much right to complain. But since the community has given them so many taxpayer dollars over the years and helped them build that palace, we all have a sense of ownership in the team. Maybe not literally, but definitely figuratively.
I would guess this all comes down to if you believe that the Pacers were losing money or if you think the money the city provided went into profits for the Simons. If the former, and if going into the LT causes the Pacers to lose MORE money, why would it make sense to the city to subsidize it further? In fact, one might think the taxpayers would prefer the more cost-effective choice. If the latter, well, not much anyone can say, really, other than if they were willing to steal and disappoint the fans before why would they want to steal less now?
All the Pacers would have to do is go to the CIB and demand $x amount more. If there's one thing that's true about Indy, it's that there is no ceiling on how much it is willing to pay for sports teams. Taxpayers here never really have much choice when it comes to being forced to subsidize toy sports teams for billionaire owners.
I have immense, IMMENSE, respect for the Simons, w/o them the Pacers most likely don't exist. But I simply don't believe the monetary losses. There's a reason you've never heard a peep about Herb, or Mel before he passed, being interested in selling (which would bring what, 600 mil, ballpark?)
If the Pacers can't turn a profit while winning a NBA championship, then there's a real problem.
All of the profit things are just accounting tricks. I never buy what teams say they are losing. If NBA teams were such a money-loser, more people would be selling teams, and the Kings group and Tom Benson would not have been interested.
Agreed. Three years ago, weren't we told that they lost money in all but one of the first 11 years of the Fieldhouse, including the Finals year? You're telling me that these men who became self made billionaires couldn't even negotiate a stadium deal that would make them money when the team went to the NBA Finals? Yeah, I've never bought it.
I don't doubt that they lose money during the season. I would say that get their money based off the value of the franchise, which isn't liquid money.
You're asking good questions Bill, but my question is simple: Why should I spend my hard earned money on a franchise that isn't willing to do what takes in order to get a ring? If this is just a hobby, and not something worth going for the hardware, then that's fine but I'm going to go invest my time and money somewhere that is willing to take me the full way home, instead of dropping me off at the entrance to my neighborhood.
These circumstances (needing to exceed the luxury tax threshold) are hypothetical, and unlikely to even be tested, IMO.
I believe that Lance will be re-signed, and I believe he'll be re-signed in a circumstance where we stay within the cap, because both sides want to see this happen.
I think the question comes down to what will be sacrificed to see this through: certainly Danny Granger (unless he's willing to re-sign for below market value), and likely one other player unless Lance's agent OKs a deal that is backloaded for future years and fits within the lux tax window next year. In 2015-2016, things start to open up a bit.
PS: Don't forget that exceeding the luxury tax line comes with the additional "cost" of losing the revenue share that the below cap teams receive. I'm sure Mel wants to enjoy some of the Russian's money in the next couple of years.
Remember, I'm one of the guys that thinks going over the first LT threshold for less than the repeat offender period should be acceptable - though given the length of contract Lance wants, that also might not be easy to do (look! An original topic reference! :D). But, if I'm Herb and I remember the PR piling on I got the last time, and I have to go to the city again after having voluntarily thrown away a league subsidy in exchange for no more tickets being sold, that's a huge amount of thinking I have to do.
All this is purely hypothetical btw.
1) There's a more fundamental revenue sharing model that's based upon redistribution of 50% of all market revenues to smaller NBA markets, and this has nothing to do with the luxury tax. Last year for example, Indiana reportedly received almost $21 million additional dollars from this new program:
2) The new CBA guarantees that no more than 50% of luxury tax proceeds go to teams under the tax. However, there's thought that teams slightly above the tax line can still receive payouts from this. Per Larry Coon:
So yeah, Since86, if we somehow get into this circumstance next offseason, start getting your anger on. ;)Quote:
2005 CBA: Teams that did not pay tax each received 1/30th of the total tax fund. Taxpaying teams forfeited their tax distribution -- their money was used for "league purposes" such as the revenue-sharing program.
2011 CBA: No more than 50 percent of the tax funds can go exclusively to teams that did not pay tax.
Who benefits? The previous tax system created a "cliff" at the tax threshold -- a team that was $1 under the tax line received a full tax distribution (about $2.4 million in 2011), but a team that was $1 over the tax line didn't receive anything.
Because of this cliff, teams needed to be very careful with their spending when they were near the tax threshold -- in fact, it looks like Houston was burned in 2011 by straying just $800,000 above the limit. The new system softens the blow for teams that exceed the tax line by just a little. For example, under the new system, Houston would have had to pay $800,000 in tax, but may have been eligible for a payout to offset their tax bill.
However, while the new agreement stipulates that no more than 50 percent of the tax funds can go exclusively to teams that did not pay tax, it doesn't specify what happens to the other 50 percent. It is possible the remaining tax money will be distributed to all teams in equal shares, but it's also possible the NBA will reserve this money for "league purposes."
I'd understand if the Simons had not ever gone over the LT threshold before. But they did it back in the day - and the Pacers had one of the highest payrolls in the NBA - and were only ever able to get to the ECF (I believe the LT was not officially in effect for the 1999-2000 team so I don't count going to the finals. If I am incorrect then consider the statement amended accordingly). Therefore, the idea of a guarantee that if you pay the money you'll win the hardware has been disproven. It doesn't change the notion that NOT paying the money makes it VERY HARD to win the hardware, but it makes it much less of a no-brainer to pay the money and take your chances.
As I said, I find it very hard to believe we wouldn't go into the first tier if we "missed it by <i>that</i> much", so to speak. I think this has to be one of the things Larry and Herb discussed when he came back. I think they may have looked at Larry's success at putting a team together and felt like they could essentially play Moneyball, meaning when the cheap player breaks out and isn't so cheap, you let him go and get a replacement. Clearly Roy and Paul are not replaceable, and it may just be that 3 max players (or even 2 max and multiple players making above the MLE) is not necessarily an automatic decision. I would hate to lose Lance after the work we put into believing in him, same as I would hate to lose Danny if it turns out he can still ball. But, the priorities have been set, and the question really is whether spending the money gives a better percentage chance of getting the trophy or if there are other (less expensive) alternatives.