Pape Sy: 25 points in 20 minutes

[ATLSmith]

Not too many assists but his shooting % was great.

http://www.hoopinionblog.com/2011/10/pape-sy-explodes-for-25-points-in-20.html

[coachx]

Nice to see...........maybe he can be more then a defensive stopper that would simply make Mario West like cameos.

With Marivin Williams being a logical caualty of the amnesty clause there will be plenty of minutes for wings like Sy and Wilkens.

Edited November 2, 2011 by coachx

[willthepureshooter]

Sounds Pape's making good strides in development. I agree with coachx, we need to apply the amnesty clause to Marvin williams and divide his minutes with Damien and Pape...

[MaceCase]

Benson hasn't fared so well and got cut by his team but good news! They have his listed weight at 242 pounds, waaay up from the 217 he was at the draft combine.

[capstone21]

Benson will be nothing more then 12th man off the bench if he even makes the team

[AHF]

I wouldn't apply the amnesty clause to Marvin unless there was someone I knew I could slot onto the team roster that would make us better. If I were the owner, I'd rather have him playing for us if I am going to pay him anyway. It isn't like ownership wouldn't still be stuck paying his contract. Whether we could add anyone would depend on the exceptions to the cap that will be available in the next CBA.

I am betting on Marvin not being cut.

[capstone21]

I think people are mistaking the amesty clause to just dropping a player and their salary and contract is gone. Its not the case...we still have to pay most of it but it does not count against the cap.

[Vol4ever]

Sy is nothing more than a D league player along with Benson.

[AHF]

I think people are mistaking the amesty clause to just dropping a player and their salary and contract is gone. Its not the case...we still have to pay most of it but it does not count against the cap.

My understanding is that we still pay all of it but only 25% counts against the cap.

[Randy]

Benson was cut because he paled in comparison to........Othello Hunter. (See Cunningham's blog and the tweet.)

[coachx]

I wouldn't apply the amnesty clause to Marvin unless there was someone I knew I could slot onto the team roster that would make us better. If I were the owner, I'd rather have him playing for us if I am going to pay him anyway. It isn't like ownership wouldn't still be stuck paying his contract. Whether we could add anyone would depend on the exceptions to the cap that will be available in the next CBA.

I am betting on Marvin not being cut.

Will minimum salary contracts be excluded from the luxury tax ?

If not that will force Atlanta to use the amnesty clause on some one to avoid paying the luxury tax. Heck, Atlanta is already $8 mill over the reported $58 mill new salary cap. So they are pretty much forced amnesty now unless I'm missing something. Sure the owners still pay Marvin's salary but it saves them a load of luxury tax and I assume profit sharing similar to the last CBA.

Edited November 3, 2011 by coachx

[AHF]

Will minimum salary contracts be excluded from the luxury tax ?

If not that will force Atlanta to use the amnesty clause on some one to avoid paying the luxury tax. Heck, Atlanta is already $8 mill over the reported $58 mill new salary cap. So they are pretty much forced amnesty now unless I'm missing something. Sure the owners still pay Marvin's salary but it saves them a load of luxury tax and I assume profit sharing similar to the last CBA.

I think the new luxury tax line is expected to be about the same as last time - just with escalating penalties. I guess we will see where it ultimately falls, though.

[coachx]

I think the new luxury tax line is expected to be about the same as last time - just with escalating penalties. I guess we will see where it ultimately falls, though.

I thought the luxury tax limit was going to be the as the new salary cap ($58 mill.)

Where did you read the luxury tax threshold would stay at last seasons mark of $70 mill ?

Edited November 3, 2011 by coachx

[AHF]

I thought the luxury tax limit was going to be the as the new salary cap ($58 mill.)

Where did you read the luxury tax threshold would stay at last seasons mark of $70 mill ?

Everything I have read talks about new penalties over the luxury tax level but nothing about changing the luxury tax level.

All the numbers I have seen run are built in with assumptions of a flat luxury tax level, not starting from the cap:

Should the NBA's new luxury tax proposal come to fruition, the Lakers would have to think twice before taking on heavy costs. That's because, as Sports Illustrated's Zach Lowe first reported, the new proposal would begin at the $70-million mark with different ratios: $1.75-1 ratio for the first $5 million a team is over the tax line and then a 50-cent increase per dollar for every $5-million increment. Based on the Lakers' $91-million payroll last season, that would mean they would be paying an additional $53.7 million in luxury taxes.

http://lakersblog.latimes.com/lakersblog/2011/10/nba-lockout-new-cba-will-hurt-the-lakers.html

Tax Threshold?

This is the variable that’s too hard to compute. What is the final BRI split? Cap? Tax threshold? It’s up in the air and certainly significant to the Lakers and how they approach team payroll.

For the purpose of this analysis, last season’s $70.3 million will have to suffice.

Laker Contracts

The Lakers currently have 11 players under contract for the coming season, totaling $91.1 million. Second-year prospects Devin Ebanks and Derrick Caracter aren’t guaranteed at $789k each. Rookies Darius Morris and Andrew Goudelock have yet to be signed but would likely get minimum contracts in the $500k range.

Rosters have had a 13-player minimum, but the union brought up the idea of going to 12 and/or sharing players with the NBADL on a split contract (perhaps at less than the true NBA minimum).

Regardless, the Lakers have indicated that they’d like to bring in a backup center to Andrew Bynum and would consider signing an additional guard to replace Shannon Brown (who is likely to depart as a free agent).

Is there a way for the Lakers to trim salary for the 2011/12 season (if it actually happens) by $20.8 million?

http://www.hoopsworld.com/getting-the-lakers-under-the-tax/

Let’s use the Lakers as an example, since they spent almost exactly $20 million above the tax line last season. Under the old system, they would (and eventually will) pay $20 million in penalties, and lose out on the slice of money every non-taxpaying team receives. We don’t know what that slice will be for the 2010-11 season, but it was $3.7 million the year before, and it won’t change much. (To learn how that is calculated, go here.) Total losses under the old system were $23.7 million.

Under the new system, the Lakers’ tax penalty would be close to $54 million based on these calculations:

$5 million x $1.75 = $8.75 million

$5 million x $2.25 = $11.25 million

$5 million x $2.75 = $13.75 million

$5 million x $3.25 = $16.25 million

Add the $3.7 million, and the Lakers’ taxes/losses end up at $53.7 million. That’s a lot. It might not be enough on its own to keep the Lakers from spending, but as SI.com has reported, the league has also proposed rules that would prohibit teams over the tax from using the mid-level exception, Bird Rights and other mechanisms that allow big spenders to spend more.

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/10/11/exclusive-details-of-owners-tax-proposal/

No one is running numbers beginning at a lower tax threshold - just numbers with higher penalties for exceeding the same tax threshhold as last year.

[ATLSmith]

Some more good news on Sy and a blurb on Zaza. If you click on the 3rd link in the article you'll see his box scores for the past 2 games. I must say that the number of rebounds is impressive given his limited minutes. Great hustle.

http://www.hoopinionblog.com/2011/11/zaza-pachulia-pape-sy-productive-in.html

[sturt]

The issue of how the Hawks manage payroll is more likely to be resolved through trade than it is through amnesty... I mean, really, think about this... luxury tax means you're paying double (for these two years) on that portion of payroll you're over the cap... amnesty?... worse, you're paying a full salary of, say, $7 mil to someone who's not even on your team... either way, you're paying something for nothing... I think given the choice, they'd rather pay the luxury tax than what amounts to a different kind of tax called amnesty.

Edited November 29, 2011 by sturt

[DJlaysitup]

I thought the luxury tax limit was going to be the as the new salary cap ($58 mill.)

Where did you read the luxury tax threshold would stay at last seasons mark of $70 mill ?

I read that too (58-70)...I think from AJC and USAToday Sports...I can't get ESPN.com at work...but I read it from normally reliable sources...so we should be OK.

Edited November 29, 2011 by DJlaysitup