Scott Pilgrim
Philadelphia 76ers
Posts: 1,180
Likes: 821
Total Bank: 58,184
|
Post by Scott Pilgrim on May 20, 2019 23:16:22 GMT -5
I'm not sure how well a billy bucks tax would work. Mostly bc I haven't bothered to figure out how billy bucks work, since it seems tangential to what I want from a league like this. But given that, is the tax on the billy bucks I have (none, I think), or the billy bucks I could in theory collect (presumably a ton). I guess it could be like capital gains tax, but that gives opportunities for manipulation (like irl capital gains tax). I mean. I like it as an alternative to having an increasing penalty. Not much into the idea of forcing teams to go under the luxury after 2 seasons. Like there are teams in real life that pay the tax every year. Maybe the tax jump can be lessened, maybe 10% > 20% > 22.5% > 25%
|
|
Jackie Kong
Posts: 2,287
Likes: 2,077
Total Bank: 76,050
|
Post by Jackie Kong on May 21, 2019 0:05:40 GMT -5
Maybe the tax jump can be lessened, maybe 10% > 20% > 22.5% > 25% Too complicated. Keep it simple. There was a time when there was no hard cap or luxury and it was clear that we needed to implement something or else you would see some ridiculous payrolls. On the other hand, Forcing a team to do some really unwanted moves because they have been paying the tax for 3 years sounds like way too much if you ask me. A 10% penalty with a 150% hard cap means that you can't go higher than 140% and if you had any plan of using cap space the following season that could be a problem. I would say that is pretty harsh as it is. If you look at most of the teams that are on the list you will see most are over 140% cap so that penalty will certainly affect them as it.
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Post by Steve Jobs on May 21, 2019 5:15:52 GMT -5
There will be no better time to to bring back this debate than... roughly 3 years from now when we see whether the rule had the effect you’re imagining or if most tax teams made it their goal to power right through until they’d kept their core together all while naturally getting back under the luxury tax such that they once again have a full 50% over the cap to work with.
To me the most important thing is this - RL NBA has safeguards (money making, jobs on the line, etc.) that keep teams from jettisoning their best talent on purpose at a pretty consistent rate. Any given year, the tanking problem in the NBA results in a handful of teams that aren’t very good and a big pack of “we tried to make the playoffs but backed off when we had 15-20 wins at the all-star break” teams between the tankers and the playoff teams.
We have no fully effective safeguards to emulate this, so teams “blowing it up” is a little more common, and top tier playoff teams pick up huge talent in trades for minimal return all the time. I don’t think this is necessarily a bug as opposed to a feature, but it does make battling AGAINST a restrictive luxury tax feel short-sighted, since we need SOMETHING that counters the way tanking teams send off talent for cheap such that contending teams have incentives to do the same toward tankers, and help to effectively balance the league again over time. Imagine KG having made his Beal trade with a distaste for the idea of an 8th seed paying this luxury tax, and had his sights set heavily on moves that avoided the luxury tax in the first place. That kind of reasoning would have felt extremely viable and it would have functioned just like I mentioned - a contender dumping talent to a tanker to escape the tax penalty. (Worth noting, I’m speaking from experience, as a team that was just over the tax line for most of the season and spent considerable time pursuing deals to get under it so as not to incur a 10M hit on my books.)
Anyway... We’ve already been playing for 5 seasons and it’s not as if we’ve had any shortage of dynasties in that time. I think we need to allow time for this rule to have some perspective and we won’t get that without allowing at least a year beyond the rule being in effect to gauge the results. My guess is that most team’s will be able to avoid any kind of “Repeater Tax” penalty, being over the luxury tax line 2+ years in a row, without losing their core players and there won’t have been any major reason to worry about any of this. If it keeps teams from overspending without 100% ruining their team, it’s functioning exactly like it’s intended to - here and in the NBA.
|
|
Jackie Kong
Posts: 2,287
Likes: 2,077
Total Bank: 76,050
|
Post by Jackie Kong on May 21, 2019 9:49:21 GMT -5
2 of the most affected GMs like Scott Pilgrim and Nino Brown seem to be fine with being punished incrementally so I give up. Penny Hardaway might also be affected badly by this. Enjoy masochism I guess.
|
|
Nino Brown
Cleveland Cavaliers
Posts: 444
Likes: 239
Total Bank: 55,600
|
Post by Nino Brown on May 21, 2019 10:07:53 GMT -5
2 of the most affected GMs like Scott Pilgrim and Nino Brown seem to be fine with being punished incrementally so I give up. Penny Hardaway might also be affected badly by this. Enjoy masochism I guess. I think I speak for all of us when I say we knew the risks and sacrifices we’d have to make to maximize our shot at a ship, not only that but we had ample time to get under the cap to make sure we didn’t pay this luxury penalty. Ultimately though as Jobs pointed out, teams shouldn’t be in danger of disrupting their core, or paying the tax two years in a row if they’re competent in running their team.
|
|
Jackie Kong
Posts: 2,287
Likes: 2,077
Total Bank: 76,050
|
Post by Jackie Kong on May 21, 2019 10:14:25 GMT -5
Rule aside I have been long enough to know it is not just about being competent like you can't handle how much other people will offer for your players and if the cap will jump or not from one year to another like it is likely going to happen this year (saving a couple of teams not named 76ers, Cavs or Warriors).
But I am happy that you said 2 years instead of 3 but that's what it actually is. Like if you have an effective limit of 130% it will be very hard for you to stay between 125% and 130%. That assuming there is no big cap jump between years like the one we will see now (saying that because the tax is based on the previous season).
Edit: Also we do not have supermax contracts so I get that people would think that this would stops dynasties but in fact it could do just the opposite. Like there are multiple players that cost 30%/35% cap but some should be worth more than that like 40% or maybe even 45%, lol.
So in that aspect I suppose, that is not so bad for Warriors, Cavs or 76ers even though they need to get rid of some serious salaries, lololol.
|
|
Theodore Duncan
Portland Trail Blazers
Posts: 1,636
Likes: 1,414
Total Bank: 57,500
|
Post by Theodore Duncan on May 21, 2019 12:33:15 GMT -5
I wrote this on some older luxury tax topic. I think it's great rule that will work as it is now
|
|
Jackie Kong
Posts: 2,287
Likes: 2,077
Total Bank: 76,050
|
Post by Jackie Kong on May 21, 2019 12:39:31 GMT -5
Yeah. Ok. I get it. This is me right now with my request:
|
|
Theodore Duncan
Portland Trail Blazers
Posts: 1,636
Likes: 1,414
Total Bank: 57,500
|
Post by Theodore Duncan on May 21, 2019 12:57:17 GMT -5
Yeah. Ok. I get it. This is me right now with my request: Hehe.. I don't know if I was repeating what everyone had said already multiple times. Too much text to read and I feel lazy
|
|
billy
Miami Heat
Posts: 7,174
Likes: 6,145
Total Bank: 3,050
|
Post by billy on Jun 7, 2019 18:54:24 GMT -5
I'm not sure how well a billy bucks tax would work. Mostly bc I haven't bothered to figure out how billy bucks work, since it seems tangential to what I want from a league like this. But given that, is the tax on the billy bucks I have (none, I think), or the billy bucks I could in theory collect (presumably a ton). I guess it could be like capital gains tax, but that gives opportunities for manipulation (like irl capital gains tax). Think of Billy bucks as a way of rewarding owner investment in their team in real life its the form of spending money -- facilities upgrades, better trainers, better science, better testing, better medical facilities in sim life you can boost a player or two by a couple points by investing sim money in real life you can send real money in deals to sweeten nasty deals in sim life you can send billy bucks the only disconnect is the owners that are rich here are rich because of activity and shrewd GMing, as opposed to being born rich
|
|
Scott Pilgrim
Philadelphia 76ers
Posts: 1,180
Likes: 821
Total Bank: 58,184
|
Post by Scott Pilgrim on Jul 11, 2019 3:17:04 GMT -5
billyNext season, for a team who's been hit with a luxury tax penalisation of 10% of the hard cap, to slip under the luxury tax threshold, does their collective salaries have to be under the number of $136,250,000 or $146,436,900? A team could have the collective salaries that would be under the threshold of the 2020 luxury tax number but still be penalised due to their previous $10,186,900 penalty.
|
|
billy
Miami Heat
Posts: 7,174
Likes: 6,145
Total Bank: 3,050
|
Post by billy on Jul 11, 2019 3:26:22 GMT -5
billyNext season, for a team who's been hit with a luxury tax penalisation of 10% of the hard cap, to slip under the luxury tax threshold, does their collective salaries have to be under the number of $136,250,000 or $146,436,900? A team could have the collective salaries that would be under the threshold of the 2020 luxury tax number but still be penalised due to their previous $10,186,900 penalty. Yes, the penalty counts toward future penalty considerations. I remember a few years ago when people said these penalties weren't going to be stiff enough. I think it should work well at keeping teams from being over the tax multiple years in a row unrealistically.
|
|