The Oklahoman

Now introducin­g ...

Why the Thunder is willing to go into the luxury tax again

- Jenni Carlson jcarlson@ oklahoman.com

Patrick Patterson and Raymond Felton are formally welcomed by the Thunder.

Clay Bennett settled into a front-row seat after shaking a few hands and sharing a few laughs.

The smile never left his face.

Throughout the Tuesday news conference to formally introduce free-agent acquisitio­ns Patrick Patterson and Raymond Felton,

the Thunder chairman looked like a proud papa. Content. Pleased. Happy.

Here’s betting Bennett looks that way most of the time these days.

This has been a heck of a summer for his team. That would’ve been the case had the Thunder only traded for Paul George, but Tuesday was a reminder that Oklahoma City has done so much more than that. It has amassed a collection of talent that can contend. It has returned to elite status only a year after losing one of the best players on the planet.

“We’re back in business,” Bennett said.

The chairman said those exact same words a year ago when Russell Westbrook agreed to an extension with the Thunder, but in those days, the return was more emotional. The franchise, city and state were reeling from the departure of Kevin Durant. To have Westbrook sign on for two more years was a pick-me-up of epic proportion­s.

But in those days, no one was under the illusion that the Thunder had returned to contender status. Now, it has. Business, it seems, comes in many forms.

Still, as this franchise readies for its 10th season in Oklahoma City, it’s indisputab­le that Thunder business over the decade has been very good — and it’s similarly indisputab­le that Bennett and the ownership group that he fronts have been very good, too.

“Obviously, none of this is possible without support from our ownership,” Thunder general manager Sam Presti said, then acknowledg­ed Bennett specifical­ly. “Just the commitment that he’s made to the team, to put us in position to have a chance to win a championsh­ip year in and year out, that is an unusual amount of support.

“Everyone that works for the Thunder understand­s how fortunate we are to have the ownership group that we do.”

That appreciati­on is not universal in the basketball world. There’s a narrative out there that the Thunder is cheap. Won’t pay enough to get players. Won’t pay enough to keep them, either.

That ain’t true, my friends.

Naysayers will point to James Harden and Kevin Durant, and while it stinks that they are no longer in Thunder blue, that isn’t because of money.

In both cases, the Thunder offered as much as it could offer. In Harden’s case, it frankly offered more than many in the front office were comfortabl­e with pledging. But both left for reasons that had nothing to do with dollars and cents.

Harden wanted to start and maybe star while Durant wanted easier shots and an easier championsh­ip.

And while some might argue the Thunder could’ve built a roster to give Durant easier shots, the jet was fueled up and ready to go get Al Horford had Durant resigned a year ago. That wouldn’t have been a cheap roster in case you’re wondering, but Bennett and the ownership group was ready to go for it. Ready to pay for it, too. When the Thunder has a roster that can contend for a title, Bennett and Co. will ante up.

That isn’t hyperbole; that’s truth.

The Thunder has gone into the luxury tax twice in its first nine seasons, $2.8 million in 2014-15, then again $14.5 million in 2015-16. That’s already a pretty significan­t percentage of seasons in the tax, especially for a smallmarke­t franchise, but it gets even more marked when you consider that in the 14 seasons with the luxury tax, the average team has gone into the tax 3.4 times.

Thunder, two times in nine seasons.

Average NBA team, 3.4 times in 14 seasons.

That means the Thunder is right on par with every other team in the league.

The Thunder’s cumulative luxury tax bill of $17.3 million is similarly middle of the road. Fifteen teams have paid more in total tax than the Thunder. Fourteen have paid less. In that group of teams that has paid less — Toronto and Atlanta and Chicago and Houston and Golden State.

Anyone calling those teams cheap?

Then why would OKC be considered as such?

Granted, the Thunder doesn’t have a cumulative tax bill as big as the Knicks ($248.5 million), the Mavs ($150.5 million) or the Nets ($138.6 million). But those three franchises have one NBA title between them.

They aren’t cheap, but they also aren’t very smart.

The Thunder has to be smart with its money. It isn’t going to go into the luxury tax for a so-so squad. Squanderin­g funds is a good way to jeopardize future success and submarine several seasons, particular­ly in a small market where local TV money doesn’t provide the financial margin for error that it does in New York or Los Angeles or Miami.

But if the Thunder has a chance to win big, the ownership will pay big.

The players on the projected roster account for $127.4 million in salary, well over the luxury tax line of $119 million. The Thunder could make moves to get below that line, but it could also stand pat and pay the price.

This is a team, after all, that can contend, and the ownership recognizes that. You don’t squander the moment. You don’t pass on opportunit­y.

When Tuesday’s news conference was over, Bennett shook hands with Patterson and Felton, then made a quick getaway. The often seen but rarely heard owner is not one to dwell in a place where reporters are milling about.

But rest assured when the Thunder has its formal introducti­on of George on Wednesday, Bennett will be back.

So will the smile.

 ?? [AP PHOTO] ?? Thunder chairman Clay Bennett shakes hands with freeagent acquisitio­n Patrick Patterson after Tuesday’s news conference. Bennett and the rest of the Thunder owners are on the hook for a projected $127.4 million in salary, but they have shown a...
[AP PHOTO] Thunder chairman Clay Bennett shakes hands with freeagent acquisitio­n Patrick Patterson after Tuesday’s news conference. Bennett and the rest of the Thunder owners are on the hook for a projected $127.4 million in salary, but they have shown a...
 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States