Minnesota Sports Forum

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

Camden wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:It's seems really backward to me that this franchise should even be flirting with the luxury tax. We all know the reasons why, but if I'm the owner and you deliver me 34 wins, I better not see you even close to the tax line. You go over the tax when you're in a big market, or you're planning on having 10-12 extra home games during the playoffs. You don't do it to simply fill out your roster when you are a mediocre team at best. We should be looking to reduce salary before we add any 37 year old has-beens who won't be able to play every night.

For what it's worth, Paul Millsap has played over 50 regular season games the last three years -- including the shortened 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 seasons -- and has been a positive player at a position the Wolves sorely need help at. I would be thrilled with 50 games of Millsap next to Karl-Anthony Towns.

As for the luxury tax, what are you supposed to expect as an owner? Talent has a price. This front office inherited two max contracts. Were they supposed to let Malik Beasley walk in free agency? Should they have traded the number one pick because its salary slot exceeds 10-million annually? All of these things add up. How on earth does this team get better if they're operating under the circumstances of "don't even flirt with the luxury tax" when they were way above the soft cap to start with? As an owner, you'd have two options -- tell your front office to get better and start winning, or blow it up and shed payroll regardless of what it costs. What do you want them to do?

As an owner when I hire Rosas, I ask him whether he can win with what he has. If he says yes, he better not deliver 34 wins. If he says no, I give him some rope to shape things the way he would like them, but he would be directed to shed salary. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but he would not be allowed to spend near the tax line and deliver mediocrity. That's just business 101. Paul Milsap is not going to get us into the top 4 of the West. He may not mean anything in terms of wins and losses. I have nothing against Milsap as a player, but we should stay away and he should chase a ring. Now if ownership decides they can't live without him, as a fan I say go for it, it's not my money. But I was speaking from an owner's perspective.

The roster that Rosas inherited had already proven to be incapable of winning. I hope you can acknowledge that. If you're an owner, you make the hire knowing that Rosas is going to make moves because keeping the roster the same doesn't lead to anything. It only kicks the can further down the road with no chance of improvements. And then Rosas is out of a job.

And if you give him some rope to shape the roster, which is what ownership essentially did, then don't you have to see it through? How do you shed salary AND get better in the wins column? Frankly, that just doesn't happen. Talent has a price. To get that talent you have to be willing to pay. Like I said, the Wolves could have let Beasley walk. They could have traded the top pick in order to pay a smaller annual salary of a lower pick. They could have traded Karl-Anthony Towns and rebuilt the entire team. All of those moves lead to shedding salary, but none of them contribute to winning more games.

The roster has significantly upgraded in talent, especially considering where it was just a couple years ago. To get there, money had to be spent. That's just inevitable.

Camden wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

Camden wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:It's seems really backward to me that this franchise should even be flirting with the luxury tax. We all know the reasons why, but if I'm the owner and you deliver me 34 wins, I better not see you even close to the tax line. You go over the tax when you're in a big market, or you're planning on having 10-12 extra home games during the playoffs. You don't do it to simply fill out your roster when you are a mediocre team at best. We should be looking to reduce salary before we add any 37 year old has-beens who won't be able to play every night.

For what it's worth, Paul Millsap has played over 50 regular season games the last three years -- including the shortened 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 seasons -- and has been a positive player at a position the Wolves sorely need help at. I would be thrilled with 50 games of Millsap next to Karl-Anthony Towns.

As for the luxury tax, what are you supposed to expect as an owner? Talent has a price. This front office inherited two max contracts. Were they supposed to let Malik Beasley walk in free agency? Should they have traded the number one pick because its salary slot exceeds 10-million annually? All of these things add up. How on earth does this team get better if they're operating under the circumstances of "don't even flirt with the luxury tax" when they were way above the soft cap to start with? As an owner, you'd have two options -- tell your front office to get better and start winning, or blow it up and shed payroll regardless of what it costs. What do you want them to do?

As an owner when I hire Rosas, I ask him whether he can win with what he has. If he says yes, he better not deliver 34 wins. If he says no, I give him some rope to shape things the way he would like them, but he would be directed to shed salary. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but he would not be allowed to spend near the tax line and deliver mediocrity. That's just business 101. Paul Milsap is not going to get us into the top 4 of the West. He may not mean anything in terms of wins and losses. I have nothing against Milsap as a player, but we should stay away and he should chase a ring. Now if ownership decides they can't live without him, as a fan I say go for it, it's not my money. But I was speaking from an owner's perspective.

The roster that Rosas inherited had already proven to be incapable of winning. I hope you can acknowledge that. If you're an owner, you make the hire knowing that Rosas is going to make moves because keeping the roster the same doesn't lead to anything. It only kicks the can further down the road with no chance of improvements. And then Rosas is out of a job.

And if you give him some rope to shape the roster, which is what ownership essentially did, then don't you have to see it through? How do you shed salary AND get better in the wins column? Frankly, that just doesn't happen. Talent has a price. To get that talent you have to be willing to pay. Like I said, the Wolves could have let Beasley walk. They could have traded the top pick in order to pay a smaller annual salary of a lower pick. They could have traded Karl-Anthony Towns and rebuilt the entire team. All of those moves lead to shedding salary, but none of them contribute to winning more games.

The roster has significantly upgraded in talent, especially considering where it was just a couple years ago. To get there, money had to be spent. That's just inevitable.

Okay, so if we win 34 games this year, then what? Sometimes, actually most times, you have to get worse before you can get better. An owner is more likely to buy in to that type of scenario, then continually spend more for a failing product.

Gersson Rosas was hired May 1, 2019. The Wolves were coming off a 36-win season in which their taxable salary was $120,431,914 -- or just $3,301,086 below the luxury tax threshold of $123,733,000. Keep in mind that payroll included Karl-Anthony Towns' last year on his rookie-scale contract and he was set to see a significant increase in pay. That's what Rosas inherited.

Two years later, the Wolves are looking at $129,409,586 in taxable salary -- $7,196,414 below the luxury tax threshold of $136,606,000. So, the Wolves are even further away from the threshold than when Rosas took over despite significantly upgrading the talent level and having to deal with two max contracts on the payroll. Now, it's likely that number shrinks after the Wolves round out their roster, but they also have approximately $26-million off the books next summer, and could be more if Rosas wanted to get creative.

If you're the owner, Rosas has done everything you want and more from a financial standpoint. The wins certainly haven't shown up for a multitude of reasons, but it isn't from a lack of talent. Hasn't Rosas proven from a business standpoint that he can continue to do... exactly what you're wanting him to do? Why would you interfere now if you're ownership? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

Camden wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

Camden wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:It's seems really backward to me that this franchise should even be flirting with the luxury tax. We all know the reasons why, but if I'm the owner and you deliver me 34 wins, I better not see you even close to the tax line. You go over the tax when you're in a big market, or you're planning on having 10-12 extra home games during the playoffs. You don't do it to simply fill out your roster when you are a mediocre team at best. We should be looking to reduce salary before we add any 37 year old has-beens who won't be able to play every night.

For what it's worth, Paul Millsap has played over 50 regular season games the last three years -- including the shortened 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 seasons -- and has been a positive player at a position the Wolves sorely need help at. I would be thrilled with 50 games of Millsap next to Karl-Anthony Towns.

As for the luxury tax, what are you supposed to expect as an owner? Talent has a price. This front office inherited two max contracts. Were they supposed to let Malik Beasley walk in free agency? Should they have traded the number one pick because its salary slot exceeds 10-million annually? All of these things add up. How on earth does this team get better if they're operating under the circumstances of "don't even flirt with the luxury tax" when they were way above the soft cap to start with? As an owner, you'd have two options -- tell your front office to get better and start winning, or blow it up and shed payroll regardless of what it costs. What do you want them to do?

As an owner when I hire Rosas, I ask him whether he can win with what he has. If he says yes, he better not deliver 34 wins. If he says no, I give him some rope to shape things the way he would like them, but he would be directed to shed salary. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but he would not be allowed to spend near the tax line and deliver mediocrity. That's just business 101. Paul Milsap is not going to get us into the top 4 of the West. He may not mean anything in terms of wins and losses. I have nothing against Milsap as a player, but we should stay away and he should chase a ring. Now if ownership decides they can't live without him, as a fan I say go for it, it's not my money. But I was speaking from an owner's perspective.

The roster that Rosas inherited had already proven to be incapable of winning. I hope you can acknowledge that. If you're an owner, you make the hire knowing that Rosas is going to make moves because keeping the roster the same doesn't lead to anything. It only kicks the can further down the road with no chance of improvements. And then Rosas is out of a job.

And if you give him some rope to shape the roster, which is what ownership essentially did, then don't you have to see it through? How do you shed salary AND get better in the wins column? Frankly, that just doesn't happen. Talent has a price. To get that talent you have to be willing to pay. Like I said, the Wolves could have let Beasley walk. They could have traded the top pick in order to pay a smaller annual salary of a lower pick. They could have traded Karl-Anthony Towns and rebuilt the entire team. All of those moves lead to shedding salary, but none of them contribute to winning more games.

The roster has significantly upgraded in talent, especially considering where it was just a couple years ago. To get there, money had to be spent. That's just inevitable.

Okay, so if we win 34 games this year, then what? Sometimes, actually most times, you have to get worse before you can get better. An owner is more likely to buy in to that type of scenario, then continually spend more for a failing product.

Minnesota already did that, did they not? They've endured that scenario of 'getting worse before you can get better' in route to the number one pick. And I don't expect the Wolves to win just 34 games, but obviously if that happens we'll see a bevy of cost-cutting moves to include a new President of Basketball Operations. I expect to see a number in the 40's, though. If or when that happens, it's a clear indication that the talent that's been accumulated is moving in the right direction and that if I'm an owner I'm happy with my investment. I'm pleased with my front office. If anything it would make me even more willing to spend. That's how I see it.

Camden wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

Camden wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

Camden wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:It's seems really backward to me that this franchise should even be flirting with the luxury tax. We all know the reasons why, but if I'm the owner and you deliver me 34 wins, I better not see you even close to the tax line. You go over the tax when you're in a big market, or you're planning on having 10-12 extra home games during the playoffs. You don't do it to simply fill out your roster when you are a mediocre team at best. We should be looking to reduce salary before we add any 37 year old has-beens who won't be able to play every night.

For what it's worth, Paul Millsap has played over 50 regular season games the last three years -- including the shortened 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 seasons -- and has been a positive player at a position the Wolves sorely need help at. I would be thrilled with 50 games of Millsap next to Karl-Anthony Towns.

As for the luxury tax, what are you supposed to expect as an owner? Talent has a price. This front office inherited two max contracts. Were they supposed to let Malik Beasley walk in free agency? Should they have traded the number one pick because its salary slot exceeds 10-million annually? All of these things add up. How on earth does this team get better if they're operating under the circumstances of "don't even flirt with the luxury tax" when they were way above the soft cap to start with? As an owner, you'd have two options -- tell your front office to get better and start winning, or blow it up and shed payroll regardless of what it costs. What do you want them to do?

As an owner when I hire Rosas, I ask him whether he can win with what he has. If he says yes, he better not deliver 34 wins. If he says no, I give him some rope to shape things the way he would like them, but he would be directed to shed salary. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but he would not be allowed to spend near the tax line and deliver mediocrity. That's just business 101. Paul Milsap is not going to get us into the top 4 of the West. He may not mean anything in terms of wins and losses. I have nothing against Milsap as a player, but we should stay away and he should chase a ring. Now if ownership decides they can't live without him, as a fan I say go for it, it's not my money. But I was speaking from an owner's perspective.

The roster that Rosas inherited had already proven to be incapable of winning. I hope you can acknowledge that. If you're an owner, you make the hire knowing that Rosas is going to make moves because keeping the roster the same doesn't lead to anything. It only kicks the can further down the road with no chance of improvements. And then Rosas is out of a job.

And if you give him some rope to shape the roster, which is what ownership essentially did, then don't you have to see it through? How do you shed salary AND get better in the wins column? Frankly, that just doesn't happen. Talent has a price. To get that talent you have to be willing to pay. Like I said, the Wolves could have let Beasley walk. They could have traded the top pick in order to pay a smaller annual salary of a lower pick. They could have traded Karl-Anthony Towns and rebuilt the entire team. All of those moves lead to shedding salary, but none of them contribute to winning more games.

The roster has significantly upgraded in talent, especially considering where it was just a couple years ago. To get there, money had to be spent. That's just inevitable.

Okay, so if we win 34 games this year, then what? Sometimes, actually most times, you have to get worse before you can get better. An owner is more likely to buy in to that type of scenario, then continually spend more for a failing product.

Minnesota already did that, did they not? They've endured that scenario of 'getting worse before you can get better' in route to the number one pick. And I don't expect the Wolves to win just 34 games, but obviously if that happens we'll see a bevy of cost-cutting moves to include a new President of Basketball Operations. I expect to see a number in the 40's, though. If or when that happens, it's a clear indication that the talent that's been accumulated is moving in the right direction and that if I'm an owner I'm happy with my investment. I'm pleased with my front office. If anything it would make me even more willing to spend. That's how I see it.

Cam, we're projected to win 34 games. If we make it into the 40's that's an entirely different conversation. It would show growth and believe me I hope it happens. But you just agreed that winning only 34 games would mean we can't continue to hang at the tax line. But because we are still a team only hoping to get into the play-in tournament, signing Milsap and increasing our burden makes no sense to me. But again, as a fan I'm all for it.

This is a good old fashioned Cool-Cam back and forth. Now we just need Khansy to jump into the fray.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

Camden wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

Camden wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

Camden wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:It's seems really backward to me that this franchise should even be flirting with the luxury tax. We all know the reasons why, but if I'm the owner and you deliver me 34 wins, I better not see you even close to the tax line. You go over the tax when you're in a big market, or you're planning on having 10-12 extra home games during the playoffs. You don't do it to simply fill out your roster when you are a mediocre team at best. We should be looking to reduce salary before we add any 37 year old has-beens who won't be able to play every night.

For what it's worth, Paul Millsap has played over 50 regular season games the last three years -- including the shortened 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 seasons -- and has been a positive player at a position the Wolves sorely need help at. I would be thrilled with 50 games of Millsap next to Karl-Anthony Towns.

As for the luxury tax, what are you supposed to expect as an owner? Talent has a price. This front office inherited two max contracts. Were they supposed to let Malik Beasley walk in free agency? Should they have traded the number one pick because its salary slot exceeds 10-million annually? All of these things add up. How on earth does this team get better if they're operating under the circumstances of "don't even flirt with the luxury tax" when they were way above the soft cap to start with? As an owner, you'd have two options -- tell your front office to get better and start winning, or blow it up and shed payroll regardless of what it costs. What do you want them to do?

As an owner when I hire Rosas, I ask him whether he can win with what he has. If he says yes, he better not deliver 34 wins. If he says no, I give him some rope to shape things the way he would like them, but he would be directed to shed salary. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but he would not be allowed to spend near the tax line and deliver mediocrity. That's just business 101. Paul Milsap is not going to get us into the top 4 of the West. He may not mean anything in terms of wins and losses. I have nothing against Milsap as a player, but we should stay away and he should chase a ring. Now if ownership decides they can't live without him, as a fan I say go for it, it's not my money. But I was speaking from an owner's perspective.

The roster that Rosas inherited had already proven to be incapable of winning. I hope you can acknowledge that. If you're an owner, you make the hire knowing that Rosas is going to make moves because keeping the roster the same doesn't lead to anything. It only kicks the can further down the road with no chance of improvements. And then Rosas is out of a job.

And if you give him some rope to shape the roster, which is what ownership essentially did, then don't you have to see it through? How do you shed salary AND get better in the wins column? Frankly, that just doesn't happen. Talent has a price. To get that talent you have to be willing to pay. Like I said, the Wolves could have let Beasley walk. They could have traded the top pick in order to pay a smaller annual salary of a lower pick. They could have traded Karl-Anthony Towns and rebuilt the entire team. All of those moves lead to shedding salary, but none of them contribute to winning more games.

The roster has significantly upgraded in talent, especially considering where it was just a couple years ago. To get there, money had to be spent. That's just inevitable.

Okay, so if we win 34 games this year, then what? Sometimes, actually most times, you have to get worse before you can get better. An owner is more likely to buy in to that type of scenario, then continually spend more for a failing product.

Minnesota already did that, did they not? They've endured that scenario of 'getting worse before you can get better' in route to the number one pick. And I don't expect the Wolves to win just 34 games, but obviously if that happens we'll see a bevy of cost-cutting moves to include a new President of Basketball Operations. I expect to see a number in the 40's, though. If or when that happens, it's a clear indication that the talent that's been accumulated is moving in the right direction and that if I'm an owner I'm happy with my investment. I'm pleased with my front office. If anything it would make me even more willing to spend. That's how I see it.

Cam, we're projected to win 34 games. If we make it into the 40's that's an entirely different conversation. It would show growth and believe me I hope it happens. But you just agreed that winning only 34 games would mean we can't continue to hang at the tax line. But because we are still a team only hoping to get into the play-in tournament, signing Milsap and increasing our burden makes no sense to me. But again, as a fan I'm all for it.

Yeah, I guess it all depends on your view of this team's outlook. If you're of the mindset that this team and its core are only capable of 34 wins, then perhaps I can understand why you would be unwilling to spend any further than what you already are.

I just don't see it that way for a plethora of reasons that I've explained in detail in other threads. I maintain the belief that a combination of a healthier roster, continued improvement from second-year players who already found their footing last year, and the installment of a much better coaching staff will lead to a win total in the 40's. This roster has talent from top to bottom -- and real top talent -- and the wins have to be actualized, but if I'm the owner I'm doing everything in my power to assist that. If that means shelling out several million more to bring in a four that can help guide the way, then by all means.

Cool what is the move/s that keeps the Wolves from being a Lux tax worry team?

Jake Layman? No

Beasley? No I don't think so

Russell? No he actually makes less than Wiggins

Juancho? Sure

Trading Rubio for James Johnson? Yes

Still if we erase those moves the Wolves would still mean the Wolves would be over the cap. I think it's pretty likely that the Wolves would have spent at least Juancho money for some sort of free agent last year. Maybe they spend that kind of money this offseason on another FA this year and...then you are pretty much where we are now. Of course those guys might have more potential than prince and Beverly or they could have done some other things with that ability to add players. But really the Wolves wouldn't have been meaningfully under the Lux tax until this season if they didn't do anything on the trade front.

I assume the thing you want is being able to add young talent though right?

The Wolves currently have every player on the roster is 25 or younger besides Layman Prince (both 27) and Beverly who are expiring contracts that equal over 30 million coming off the books this offseason. That's a lot of young talent. I assume you aren't sad to see Culver and Juancho gone for Beverly.

I think the other thing we forget is how many games we lost to injury last year. And Vegas may also be looking at our franchise historically and simply factoring in how often disaster strikes - whether that be someone significantly underachieving or getting more than our fair share of injuries.

So if KAT, McDaniels, and Edwards collectively miss over half their games next season with various injuries and we win 27 games, should Rosas be fired? I'm not sure I know the answer to that.

monsterpile wrote:Cool what is the move/s that keeps the Wolves from being a Lux tax worry team?

Jake Layman? No

Beasley? No I don't think so

Russell? No he actually makes less than Wiggins

Juancho? Sure

Trading Rubio for James Johnson? Yes

Still if we erase those moves the Wolves would still mean the Wolves would be over the cap. I think it's pretty likely that the Wolves would have spent at least Juancho money for some sort of free agent last year. Maybe they spend that kind of money this offseason on another FA this year and...then you are pretty much where we are now. Of course those guys might have more potential than prince and Beverly or they could have done some other things with that ability to add players. But really the Wolves wouldn't have been meaningfully under the Lux tax until this season if they didn't do anything on the trade front.

I assume the thing you want is being able to add young talent though right?

The Wolves currently have every player on the roster is 25 or younger besides Layman Prince (both 27) and Beverly who are expiring contracts that equal over 30 million coming off the books this offseason. That's a lot of young talent. I assume you aren't sad to see Culver and Juancho gone for Beverly.

Monster, it's not my job to determine how we shed salary, or even if we should shed salary. But I know as an owner I'm not going to be content being near the tax line when we are a perennial loser. Nothing I'm saying is outrageous. If it was your money you would feel the same way. If your big salary players can't win enough to justify your payroll, something has to change.