JES you are obviously trying hard to pick a fight. But your "facts" are not accurate.
I am not a "self-proclaimed" know-it-all on the CBA, but I have done countless homework to keep abreast of it, as those who have read my contributions in the past will attest. And you are offering lots of concepts that, while they sound plausible, just aren't accurate this time. If you want to believe what you wanna believe, feel free.
Bradley does indeed count on the cap. That's an unfortunate fact for the Mavs.
Your statement that "the Mavs tried claiming that as a seperate injury so we would be eligible, but failed because the NBA knew the injury occurred in Denver no matter how we presented it" is unfortunately not supported at all by what really occurred. The Mavs never made any such claim. No such rule existed, so there was no need to try to skirt a rule that didn't exist. I don't know where you got that story, but someone just made it up out of thin air - either you listened to someone who made it up, or you made it up yourself just to try to bolster your idea here that isn't accurate. Either way it isn't factual whatsoever.
Does this change the Shaq Discussions?
Moderators: Dirk, HMFFL, Mavrelous
-
JES12
- RealGM
- Posts: 24,846
- And1: 122
- Joined: Jul 05, 2006
Look dude, whatever. I'm not trying to pick a fight as you were the one that that I was being condencending and trying to pick the fight yourself. But if you feel I was the one doing that, I'm sorry.
The fact is, all you heve said was I'm worng, my facts are off and since my facts are in line with everyone else they are wrong as well. And the only proof of you being right and everyone else being wrong that has been offered is a statement that you have done so much research and everyone else (who hasn't came forth yet) can attest to. Therefor, your homework can't be wrong and everyone else is the wrong party. Meanwhile, all your anonymous sources that can't be named is the only thing that back you up.
But once again, I'm just stating the facts, not trying to pick a fight, so this is my last post on this topic as I don't want anything to escalate.
The fact is, all you heve said was I'm worng, my facts are off and since my facts are in line with everyone else they are wrong as well. And the only proof of you being right and everyone else being wrong that has been offered is a statement that you have done so much research and everyone else (who hasn't came forth yet) can attest to. Therefor, your homework can't be wrong and everyone else is the wrong party. Meanwhile, all your anonymous sources that can't be named is the only thing that back you up.
But once again, I'm just stating the facts, not trying to pick a fight, so this is my last post on this topic as I don't want anything to escalate.
-
FGump
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,050
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Look JES, you began to try to make this some sort of war over and over and over.
You began with
"The info is free. What you do with it or believe about it is up to you. And you are welcome" in citing a FAQ that I know frontwards and backwards and whose author I talk to all the time - while citing a part of it that didn't apply at all to the situation being discussed.
And adding later "And it very much looks like you are the one that is "arrogant and you wanna strut around this forum and talk down to others condescendingly."
And then "Sorry if I embarresed you. Looks like I found your hot spot."
And "you self proclaimed know it all about the CBA, verus everyone else related to and reporting on the NBA"
And now you want to claim you weren't trying to start some sort of war? Come on dude, we can read. We saw what you were doing , without any luck.
So when it didnt work, you now claim you never wanted a war? Hell, who was fighting. Only you with those weak little barbs.
So we'll back up. And I'll let you go back up what you said. You said Bradley was approved for a medical exemption and that my KNOWLEDGE that isn't true because it's "versus everyone else related to and reporting on the NBA."
Can you back that up anywhere? You said EVERYONE ELSE reporting on the NBA said that. Sefko said it? David Moore? DMN? Garcia? FWST? Caplan? ESPN? Any media outlet of any repute? How about a few links to all these people reporting Bradley's medical exemption having been approved?
The same applies to the TAW situation. You say "everyone" said the Mavs were denied because he was originally injured in Denver while they were trying to claim it happened in Dallas? Hmm, how about a link to one or two of these credible "everyone reporting on the NBA" saying that.
It didn't happen, of course, in either case. But I'd love to know about how everyone told you differently if they really did. If I have a scoop for them, tell me who I need to educate.
If you hadn't been picking a fight to try to prove something somehow (though why, who knows), I'd have had no hesitancy to give all the data. I've offered fact after fact and piles of research here willingly over the years, when someone asks.
But given you tossing one insult after another, I just don't have any desire to spoon feed you. I don't mind you remaining uninformed.
You began with
"The info is free. What you do with it or believe about it is up to you. And you are welcome" in citing a FAQ that I know frontwards and backwards and whose author I talk to all the time - while citing a part of it that didn't apply at all to the situation being discussed.
And adding later "And it very much looks like you are the one that is "arrogant and you wanna strut around this forum and talk down to others condescendingly."
And then "Sorry if I embarresed you. Looks like I found your hot spot."
And "you self proclaimed know it all about the CBA, verus everyone else related to and reporting on the NBA"
And now you want to claim you weren't trying to start some sort of war? Come on dude, we can read. We saw what you were doing , without any luck.
So when it didnt work, you now claim you never wanted a war? Hell, who was fighting. Only you with those weak little barbs.
So we'll back up. And I'll let you go back up what you said. You said Bradley was approved for a medical exemption and that my KNOWLEDGE that isn't true because it's "versus everyone else related to and reporting on the NBA."
Can you back that up anywhere? You said EVERYONE ELSE reporting on the NBA said that. Sefko said it? David Moore? DMN? Garcia? FWST? Caplan? ESPN? Any media outlet of any repute? How about a few links to all these people reporting Bradley's medical exemption having been approved?
The same applies to the TAW situation. You say "everyone" said the Mavs were denied because he was originally injured in Denver while they were trying to claim it happened in Dallas? Hmm, how about a link to one or two of these credible "everyone reporting on the NBA" saying that.
It didn't happen, of course, in either case. But I'd love to know about how everyone told you differently if they really did. If I have a scoop for them, tell me who I need to educate.
If you hadn't been picking a fight to try to prove something somehow (though why, who knows), I'd have had no hesitancy to give all the data. I've offered fact after fact and piles of research here willingly over the years, when someone asks.
But given you tossing one insult after another, I just don't have any desire to spoon feed you. I don't mind you remaining uninformed.
-
Sken
- Junior
- Posts: 311
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 01, 2006
- Location: On the Bayou
- Contact:
JES12 wrote: Bradley does not count towards the cap. Yes, we pay him, but the Mavs are on schedule to pay about 3.4 mil in lux tax. And "multiple sources" have a ballpark figure in that same range. If Bradley counted towards the cap, we would be paying closer to 8.6 mil in lux tax, meaning he does not count towards our cap.
So here it is you, the self proclaimed know it all about the CBA, verus everyone else related to and reporting on the NBA. Needless to say, since you are the only one that says that, I tend not to believe you.
Hate to step in here but at least one source has a MUCH higher number for the Mavs TAX:
For example, the Dallas Mavericks have a payroll totaling $79,351,704 and the Luxury Tax for the 2007-08 season is $67,865,000 so the Dallas Mavericks will need to pay the league $1 for every dollar they are over the luxury tax threshold. In this case the Mavericks will owe $11,486,704 to the league as a penalty for exceeding the Luxury Tax number.
http://www.sportscity.com/NBA/Salary-Cap
Stein estimated the Mavs 06-07 LUXTAX payment at $7.205 million for the 06-07 season threshold of $65.42 for a taxable payroll of 72.625
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2935728
According to Patricia Bender
TOTAL $88,531,846
FINLEY $16,141,999
Balance: $72.389847
http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/mavs/mav ... vs-sal.txt
Based on those 3 sources: Bradley Counts.
10:20 (pm, 6/29/06) The Mavs take Maurice Ager at No. 28... Ager walks up to the stage in a triple-breasted, oversized beige suit, goes to shake hands with Stern and immediately gets whistled for a foul on Dwyane Wade.
-
JES12
- RealGM
- Posts: 24,846
- And1: 122
- Joined: Jul 05, 2006
Sken wrote:http://www.sportscity.com/NBA/Salary-Cap
Stein estimated the Mavs 06-07 LUXTAX payment at $7.205 million for the 06-07 season threshold of $65.42 for a taxable payroll of 72.625
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2935728
According to Patricia Bender
TOTAL $88,531,846
FINLEY $16,141,999
Balance: $72.389847
http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/mavs/mav ... vs-sal.txt
Based on those 3 sources: Bradley Counts.
Okay, I may be completely off and totally wrong about this entire thread, but:
1) Your 1st source does not know the mav's payroll and does not break down how they got that number.
2) Your second source (Stien) is using the 2005-06 lux tax threshold ($65.42), not the 2007-08 (67.87). If he used the correct year's threshold, his numbers would be closer to what I said.
3) Your last source (Patricia Bender) is one of the many sources that says, and I quote, "[retired, does not count against the cap]."
http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/mavs/mav ... s-con.html
Once again, yes Bradley gets paid and counts towards "team payroll," but he does NOT count against the cap.
Patricia Bender wrote:2007-2008
#free agent for summer 2007
*Nowitzki can opt-out and become a free agent for summer 2007
!restricted free agent for summer 2007
() amount free agent counts against the 2007-2008 cap until he is re-signed,
renounced, or signs with another team
Michael Finley $18,593,750 [released, still counts against the cap]
Dirk Nowitzki $16,360,094
Erick Dampier $10,590,500
Josh Howard $9,000,000
Jason Terry $8,898,000
Jerry Stackhouse $6,335,000 (estimate, don't have exact numbers yet)
Shawn Bradley $5,200,000 [retired, does not count against the cap]
Devin Harris $3,995,003
Greg Buckner $3,500,000
Devean George $2,369,111
DeSanaga Diop $2,146,000
DJ Mbenga $1,800,000
Eddie Jones $1,830,000
Maurice Ager $974,400
Brandon Bass $770,610
Jose Juan Barea $687,456
Nick Fazekas $427,163
-
FGump
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,050
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
JES, your last post explains a lot.
1. YOU don't know how to read and accurately comprehend.
2. YOU don't know how to accurately calculate the tax.
Read it again. Stein REPORTED the exact amount they would be paying, to the dollar. It was from the league and was not a number he guessed, calculated, or estimated.
Mavs $7,204,968
He also REPORTED (accurately) that said payment was based on a tax line of $65.42M.
As for Patricia's numbers
If you'll look closer, you'll see she said that Bradley DID COUNT against the 2006-07 cap, one paragraph above what you cut-n-pasted ...and she said Eschmeyer (who was indeed approved for a permanently-impaired designation) did NOT count, which is also accurate.
So the 2007-08 is obviously a typo, because nothing changed from one year to the next regarding Bradley. She's usually reliable but this time a bit sloppy and out of date (she also shows Buckner still on the Mavs' payroll, for example, and still doesn't have Stack's salary).
sKen was exactly right. There is ample information showing the Mavs were denied an exemption on Bradley. I have additional (private) sources that tell me the same thing. No one says otherwise.
And where are these reports by "every NBA reporter" you claimed, that Bradley had been approved, and that TAW was denied because a trade had occurred? If everyone else said such things, we should have articles from Sefko, D Moore, Stein, Garcia, Price, Caplan, ESPN, DMN, FWST, etc and I'm still waiting for you to produce any of this supposed mountain that told you Bradley was exempted, and that also at a different time said TAW was rejected due to a trade. I'm still waiting to see who I have a scoop for, but you haven't produced what you claimed to have.
1. YOU don't know how to read and accurately comprehend.
2. YOU don't know how to accurately calculate the tax.
Read it again. Stein REPORTED the exact amount they would be paying, to the dollar. It was from the league and was not a number he guessed, calculated, or estimated.
Mavs $7,204,968
He also REPORTED (accurately) that said payment was based on a tax line of $65.42M.
As for Patricia's numbers
If you'll look closer, you'll see she said that Bradley DID COUNT against the 2006-07 cap, one paragraph above what you cut-n-pasted ...and she said Eschmeyer (who was indeed approved for a permanently-impaired designation) did NOT count, which is also accurate.
So the 2007-08 is obviously a typo, because nothing changed from one year to the next regarding Bradley. She's usually reliable but this time a bit sloppy and out of date (she also shows Buckner still on the Mavs' payroll, for example, and still doesn't have Stack's salary).
sKen was exactly right. There is ample information showing the Mavs were denied an exemption on Bradley. I have additional (private) sources that tell me the same thing. No one says otherwise.
And where are these reports by "every NBA reporter" you claimed, that Bradley had been approved, and that TAW was denied because a trade had occurred? If everyone else said such things, we should have articles from Sefko, D Moore, Stein, Garcia, Price, Caplan, ESPN, DMN, FWST, etc and I'm still waiting for you to produce any of this supposed mountain that told you Bradley was exempted, and that also at a different time said TAW was rejected due to a trade. I'm still waiting to see who I have a scoop for, but you haven't produced what you claimed to have.