Is Kohl's Plan To Pay $70M+ Next Season?

midranger · Post #81 » by **midranger** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:21 pm

Hammond's cap will be the luxury tax. I claim no inside information on that, but let's remember....

Scenario 1:
1. Eastern Conference Finals team, his most successful as owner
2. All key players from team coming back
3. All-Star PF becomes available for MLE. A key need position and move expected to put team over the top.
4. Economy at all time high for non-dotcoms
5. Fan interest and attendance incredibly high

Scenario 2:
1. Mediocre team that would be lucky to limp to a .500 record
2. Star player expected to miss at least half of next year
3. Looking to resign young, inconsistent, fairly average players
4. Economy dropping like the depression and everybody has taken a 50% bath on their net worth
5. Fan interest and attendance at all-time low

What happened in Scenario 1? Fan favorite, and key lockerroom guy Scott Williams PLUS a 1st round pick are traded away for nothing to avoid paying even a million over the luxury tax IIRC.

Why anyone would assume that Kohl would be willing to go over the luxury tax for scenario 2 is beyond me.

Also, I'd be loathe to assume any projection that raises the luxury tax next year to be correct. Every thing I've read here and in other outlets indicate that NBA revenue is down.

Ayt · Post #82 » by **Ayt** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:29 pm

europa wrote:
craig wrote:That said, if indeed there is a way to unload Jefferson's contract, I would absolutely love to see that. Jefferson isn't taking us anywhere this year. And if the choice for next season and beyond is Jefferson versus both or either of Sessions/CV, that seems like a no-brainer to me. Keep the younger guy(s) and unload the declining old huge contract.

I agree that Hammond should be viewing RJ trade possibilities. I think it's the move to make. However, it's possible Hammond believes keeping RJ now and trading him in the summer will help the Bucks accomplish both the goal of getting to the playoffs this season and improving the team going forward. If that's what he believes, then not trading RJ shouldn't automatically be viewed as a mistake - especially if (and this goes to the heart of what this thread is all about), Kohl has given the OK for a $70M or slightly more payroll for next season. If Kohl has done that, then Hammond may not feel the sense of urgency to trade RJ now that so many in this forum are feeling. That's a significant point in my opinion and one that needs to be taken into consideration.

That being said, if it were me and the decision was to keep RJ or trade him to say Portland for Raef/Outlaw or the Lakers for Odom, I'd trade him without a second thought.

If the plan is to not make any moves until the offseason, then you have to factor in the fact that we'll be taking basically the same amount of salary back. That being the case, CV and Sessions are goners and we'll have very little flexibility in filling out the roster beyond whatever we get back in the hypothetical trades.

europa · Post #83 » by **europa** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:34 pm

Ayt wrote:
europa wrote:
craig wrote:That said, if indeed there is a way to unload Jefferson's contract, I would absolutely love to see that. Jefferson isn't taking us anywhere this year. And if the choice for next season and beyond is Jefferson versus both or either of Sessions/CV, that seems like a no-brainer to me. Keep the younger guy(s) and unload the declining old huge contract.

I agree that Hammond should be viewing RJ trade possibilities. I think it's the move to make. However, it's possible Hammond believes keeping RJ now and trading him in the summer will help the Bucks accomplish both the goal of getting to the playoffs this season and improving the team going forward. If that's what he believes, then not trading RJ shouldn't automatically be viewed as a mistake - especially if (and this goes to the heart of what this thread is all about), Kohl has given the OK for a $70M or slightly more payroll for next season. If Kohl has done that, then Hammond may not feel the sense of urgency to trade RJ now that so many in this forum are feeling. That's a significant point in my opinion and one that needs to be taken into consideration.

That being said, if it were me and the decision was to keep RJ or trade him to say Portland for Raef/Outlaw or the Lakers for Odom, I'd trade him without a second thought.

If the plan is to not make any moves until the offseason, then you have to factor in the fact that we'll be taking basically the same amount of salary back. That being the case, CV and Sessions are goners and we'll have very little flexibility in filling out the roster beyond whatever we get back in the hypothetical trades.

What it boils down to is I'm not worried about the salary issue if Kohl isn't. And if Kohl is fine with a $70M team salary and Hammond is making moves based on that knowledge then he likely has factored all of the variables into the equation - including what needs to be done with Villanueva and Sessions. I see no reason to believe that isn't the case.

Ayt · Post #84 » by **Ayt** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:48 pm

europa wrote:
What it boils down to is I'm not worried about the salary issue if Kohl isn't. And if Kohl is fine with a $70M team salary and Hammond is making moves based on that knowledge then he likely has factored all of the variables into the equation - including what needs to be done with Villanueva and Sessions. I see no reason to believe that isn't the case.

Right. But lets look at next year in terms of wanting to be competitive assuming we don't shed salary before the deadline this year. Redd could very well be out a substantial period of time, and very likely will not be as effective once he does come back. CV and Sessions will be gone because we won't have the money to bring them back. You may be fine letting them walk, but its still a rather large talent drain combined with the Redd situation. We'll have very little money to sign anyone as a free agent.

Other than our draft pick, the only tangible way to bring in substantial talent would be via trade, but it would have to be a hell of a trade to make up for the loss of CV, Sessions, and Redd.

Even the most optimistic should see that our flexibility next offseason is extremely limited if we don't make a move before the deadline. Its hard to see how our roster could be better next year without CV and Session, and no money to bring in adequate replacements. You may say trades are possible, but we'd also be shipping talent out in a trade, and two of our nice trading assets would no longer be under contract.

europa · Post #85 » by **europa** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:51 pm

I'm not fine letting Villanueva and Sessions walk. Let's be clear about that. It's possible Hammond believes he can move RJ the same way he moved Mo - in a trade that doesn't appear to bring back equal "talent" but brings back more of what this team needs to improve. Or maybe someone will believe Alexander has value the way the Nets thought Yi had value even though Yi was flat-out horrible in the second half of last year. Or perhaps the first-round pick and something else will get someone's attention. Ridnour's expiring deal is a lock to have some value at the very least.

I'm not saying Hammond has wonderful assets to work with and I'm not saying he's going to turn this team into a contender next summer. But I don't think he's backed himself into a corner the way so many here believe. If he's operating under the belief he'll have a $70M or so payroll for next season and he wasn't intending on trading Redd or RJ this season, then he clearly must have a plan in place to continue improving this team. I see no logical reason to believe otherwise. All I'm saying is I'm not going to panic about the future until we see some clear signs this team is regressing. And that clearly hasn't been the case this season in my opinion.

There's no question things got tougher with Redd's injury. But I doubt Hammond has lost his belief on what to do next. I'm confident he'll continue making the right moves that will keep improving this team.

Ayt · Post #86 » by **Ayt** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:55 pm

If he doesn't make any trades this year, I'll be very interested to see how competitive he can make us next year because our situation would be difficult for even the best GMs. Of course, we might miss the playoffs and get lucky in the lotto, which would change things, but that isn't likely.

europa · Post #87 » by **europa** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:57 pm

Ayt wrote:If he doesn't make any trades this year, I'll be very interested to see how competitive he can make us next year

Me too.

aboveAverage · Post #88 » by **aboveAverage** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:59 pm

I guess I am a Villanueva believer now. I don't want to lose him. He could easily become an All-Star, which would be an unexpected gift for the Bucks.

LISTEN2JAZZ · Post #89 » by **LISTEN2JAZZ** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:21 pm

A. He's never paid the lux tax before, and has given up valuable talent to avoid it
B. Revenue is at an all-time low
C. The big trade rumors we had this year (Landry & Conley) were both cost saving deals, and potential talent downgrades

Our payroll is near the top of the league. Hammond will almost certainly have to make do with that.

craig · Post #90 » by **craig** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:35 pm

europa wrote:I agree that Hammond should be viewing RJ trade possibilities. I think it's the move to make. However, it's possible Hammond believes keeping RJ now and trading him in the summer will help the Bucks accomplish both the goal of getting to the playoffs this season and improving the team going forward.....

So, some tradeoffs: with Redd presumably out for some/much of next year, we'd exchange CV/Sessions/Jefferson out (CV and Sessions out for nothing, Jefferson for whatever a declining old guy on a large and non-expiring contract will bring. Hammonds may be quite a bit shrewder than me, but my guess is that Jefferson isn't going to bring in a haul of better young talent than CV/Sessions.)

I understand your point. If it is possible to dump Jefferson for expirings to unload his salary now, but you get no talent that will continue into next year, is doing that combined with keeping Sessions/CV better? Or are you better off trading the CV/Sessions contract space for whatever talent (if any) you can get for Jefferson this summer. My feeling is that Jefferson will not be able to bring back talent comparable or as young as CV/Sessions this summer, so I'd prefer to hold those guys. This may be specious anyway, since it may well be that while Hammond might be able to unload Jefferson, that nobody will take him for expirings only. Unloading him now may necessitate taking on at least some salary that will burden us into the future.

But, clearly the budget question impacts everything and strongly impacts how much talent we'll be able to carry into next season, whether that talent includes any of Jeff/CV/Sessions.

Post #91 » by **paulpressey25** » Sun Feb 1, 2009 12:43 am

Redd's dead contract weight the the next two years will equal the dead contract weight the past two years of Gadz/Simmons/Bell combined.

europa · Post #92 » by **europa** » Sun Feb 1, 2009 12:58 am

If Redd can return even close to his current form a year from now, his expiring deal the following season is going to be a gigantic trade asset. And it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility that Hammond could utilize it in a trade before next season's trade deadline. Again, that's contingent upon Redd returning. Given his work ethic I think it would be foolish to bet against him. All is not hopeless for the Bucks no matter how loudly a segment of this forum continue to scream it from the rooftops.

AussieBuck · Post #93 » by **AussieBuck** » Sun Feb 1, 2009 1:12 am

Redd's work ethic. :lol:

Max Green · Post #94 » by **Max Green** » Sun Feb 1, 2009 2:00 am

AussieBuck wrote:Redd's work ethic.

Redd wouldn't be in the league now or have a consistent jumper if it wasn't for his great work ethic. Let alone the many other accomplishments he has achieved.

EastSideBucksFan · Post #95 » by **EastSideBucksFan** » Sun Feb 1, 2009 2:28 am

AussieBuck wrote:Redd's work ethic.

You fail here

Redd has had to work hard his entire career to get to where he is.

The fact he went as a almost not even on the radar for the NBA at Ohio to being chosen for the Olympic team shows the progress he has made as a player. You don't go that far unless you work hard and have put in the time.

Unlike many NBA players Redd can't sit back on his natural talent or freakish athletic ability. He's had to work for it, and he has.

europa · Post #96 » by **europa** » Sun Feb 1, 2009 2:34 am

EastSideBucksFan wrote:
AussieBuck wrote:Redd's work ethic.

You fail here

Epic fail. Redd has his flaws but a poor work ethic isn't remotely one of them. Anyone laughing at Redd's work ethic is clearly not viewing him with any type of legitimacy.

midranger · Post #97 » by **midranger** » Sun Feb 1, 2009 5:08 am

I'm not sure about Redd's work ethic on the court but the fact that he was constantly playing at near 20% body fat and only hired a personal trainer for the summer two years ago, leads me to believe that this guy doesn't kill himself in the gym.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #98 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Sun Feb 1, 2009 5:35 am

MickeyDavis wrote:I don't think Kohl or anyone from the team has publicly talked about the luxury tax but there have been unconfirmed reports that Kohl will not go over it.

Personally I don't think he will go over it. He might be tempted with a contending team. But we're not that.

I think we will get a good indication by what is, and is not, done by the trade deadline.

I think with the right mix of players that he believes is on the cusp of Championship contention, then he will gladly pay the luxury tax, without that, I foresee at least a couple of cost cutting moves some time in the near future.

yuedar · Post #99 » by **yuedar** » Sun Feb 1, 2009 8:13 am

europa wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:Yes, if we don't move RJ, we are going to be pushing $70M regardless (assuming we do bring in Ersan). Without Ersan and just the 1st rounder added, we'll be at like $67M or so.

But Hammond's biggest decision by far is CV/Sessions. You can't ride their salaries out and let them disappear for no compensation.

But he hasn't been planning to. That's what I'm saying, Luke. The two trades we know he's tried to make brought back salary. So again, everything we know to this point in time points to a team salary of $70M or more being in place for next season. Does anyone here honestly think Kohl isn't aware of that? If Hammond is making moves that would result in the Bucks having a team salary of more than $70M next season than it stands to reason Kohl has told him that's a salary he's prepared to pay.

Are Paul and I the only ones seeing this?

I don't post on here much and clearly im alittle late in this thread but I think the thing youre missing is the fact that in the conley trade you refrence that it was waiting for the approval of Kohl. The trade never happened. So that would mean that maybe kohl is aware of that and that he declined the trade for that reason. I don't think you see the full picture here. Both trades you refrenced didn't happen. Maybe they didn't happen because of the point you bring up of a 70mil payroll.
Yea both trades brought back more salary BUT they didn't happen. 1 of them didn't happen because we know kohl nixed it. The report was waiting on kohls approval and well it didn't happen. So that leads us to believe that hes not trying to take on extra salary currently. So... in conclusion I would say that he does not want a 70mil payroll if he can avoid it. Which seems like he is.

AussieBuck · Post #100 » by **AussieBuck** » Sun Feb 1, 2009 8:38 am

I guess there is another reason why Redd is the worst fast break defender in the NBA and a horrible help defender other than him only having the energy to score? The reason why he shoots under 30% in the 4th?

That's right guys if Redd isn't unfit he's just selfish, lazy and a massive choker.