Golden State Of Mind: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: ANIMATED BLOGPOLL: WE GOT ALL YOUR COACHING MOVES RIGHT HYAH Bar-right-arrows



NBA Payroll Playpen and Cohanomics

Like many other longtime Warrior fans I've been mouthing off for years about how it's so depressing that the Warriors are such a cheap, poorly run organization that isn't the least bit committed to winning or putting out the best possible product on the court. I often say the Warriors don't make sense, they just make cents for Cohan and company. The Warriors play in a big market and are the only one of the major 3 sports to not have to share the wealth with another franchise (i.e. 49ers and Raiders, A's and Giants) in the Bay Area. Throw in the Bay Area's infatuation with hoops and you have a product, no matter how terrible or cheaply assembled, will be big box office hit sure to fatten any tax evading billionaire's wallet.

At a preseason game earlier this season Hash and I were chilling at the Roaracle about an hour before tip off and he broke down Cohanomics to me by pointing out the steady increase of frosty, foamy beverage costs the past 3 years. I myself stick to that overpriced sweet and tangy lemonade, but I have to say I really feel for my man. Likewise I really feel for the best fans on the planet who continually shell out the green and have such unmatched support and love for their hoops team that it requires a decibel meter on ESPN telecasts at the Roaracle for an organization that hasn't exactly returned the favor the past decade plus.

But maybe I'm just another one of those Warrior fans still traumatized from those 12 years of mismanagement. Maybe I'm wrong and the Warriors really are trying to shell out the funds to put a winner on the court this season that will improve on last year's unBELIEVABLE run. Maybe I'm just another whining fan/ consumer. You know I have been wrong once in my life before!

So let's take a look at the payrolls and cap room from all the 30 teams in the NBA:

  1. Dallas Mavericks Payroll: $95,604,543 Cap Room: $-39,974,543
  2. New York Knicks Payroll: $95,394,773 Cap Room: $-39,764,773
  3. Denver Nuggets Payroll: $83,816,899 Cap Room: $-28,186,899
  4. Miami Heat Payroll: $75,015,603 Cap Room: $-19,385,603
  5. Boston Celtics Payroll: $74,233,753 Cap Room: $-18,603,753
  6. Philadelphia 76ers Payroll: $73,411,391 Cap Room: $-17,781,391
  7. Portland Trail Blazers Payroll: $71,471,949 Cap Room: $-15,841,949
  8. LA Lakers Payroll: $70,959,905 Cap Room: $-15,329,905
  9. Phoenix Suns Payroll: $70,843,875 Cap Room: $-15,213,875
  10. Washington Wizards Payroll: $67,757,751 Cap Room: $-12,127,751
  11. Cleveland Cavaliers Payroll: $67,723,135 Cap Room: $-12,093,135
  12. San Antonio Spurs Payroll: $67,493,962 Cap Room: $-11,863,962
  13. New Jersey Nets Payroll: $67,469,420 Cap Room: $-11,839,420
  14. (Tie-14) Houston Rockets Payroll: $67,178,388 Cap Room: $-11,548,388
  15. (Tie-14) Indiana Pacers Payroll: $67,178,388 Cap Room: $-11,548,388
  16. Toronto Raptors Payroll: $67,052,973 Cap Room: $-11,422,973
  17. Detroit Pistons Payroll: $67,037,076 Cap Room: $-12,371,285
  18. LA Clippers Payroll: $64,527,831 Cap Room: $-8,897,831
  19. Minnesota Timberwolves Payroll: $64,413,259 Cap Room: $-8,783,259
  20. Chicago Bulls Payroll: $64,153,975 Cap Room: $-8,523,975
  21. Sacramento Kings Payroll: $63,693,604 Cap Room: $-8,063,604
  22. Seattle SuperSonics Payroll: $63,521,101 Cap Room: $-7,891,101
  23. Milwaukee Bucks Payroll: $63,648,469 Cap Room: $-8,018,469
  24. New Orleans Hornets Payroll: $60,844,890 Cap Room: $-5,214,890
  25. Utah Jazz Payroll: $60,065,044 Cap Room: $-4,435,044
  26. Warriors Payroll: $58,586,885

    Cap Room: $-2,956,885

  27. Orlando Magic Payroll: $56,541,463 Cap Room: $-911,463
  28. Memphis Grizzlies Payroll: $55,630,000 Cap Room: $0
  29. Atlanta Hawks Payroll: $54,631,874 Cap Room: $1,098,126
  30. Charlotte Bobcats Payroll: $52,875,736 Cap Room: $2,754,264

* As of November 25, 2007 via ESPN's NBA Trade Machine. Please post any concerns or issues that should be noted about these figures in the comments.


Would you believe the Warriors have the 5th cheapest payroll in the league this season?


A few thoughts to jump-start what figures to be an enormously interesting discussion after the jump- and yes, that's a lot of jumping!

Star-divide

A few observations and thoughts:

  • 27 out of the league's 30 teams are over the salary cap, while only 2 are under, but maybe that really doesn't mean as much as the mainstream media and NBA front offices would lead you to believe. Check out my man Modi's thoughts about why getting under the salary cap isn't as useful as you may think.

  • For all the bashing the Knicks front office takes on a daily basis from the media you'd think they had the league's highest payroll (not including dead contracts), but they're actually a close second behind Cuban's Mavs. As the owner of the Dallas Mavericks Mark Cuban is the often the target of some Warrior fans' playful jokes, but I'll contend that he's a fan's dream. He's committed to treating his customers right and has a ton of pride in his product.

  • Let's say the Warriors didn't trade Jason Richardson on draft day 2007 in a move many hailed as a necessary cost-cutting move (putting aside all basketball takes on whether the trade helps or hurts in the Warriors in the short term and long term). Their payroll for this season would be at $67,374,915, placing them 14th in the league on the payroll scale. Note that the JR trade was completed before Adonal Foyle and Sarunas Jasikevicius' contracts were bought out and that isn't factored into that total. Also note that other team's bought out contracts are not factored into their totals above either.

  • When the Warriors made that draft day day deal with the Bobcats they netted a sizeable trade exception of $10 million. Let's say they use it up in its entirety this season even though in reality it would probably be less than that since no player I could see the Warriors bringing in makes exactly $10 million (ahem, Ron Artest at only a measly $7.4 mill!- well, relative). That would place the Warriors at the 10th spot. They don't play in the 10th largest market (it's the 5th or so) nor have the 10th largest fanbase- I'm just saying...

  • The Jazz and Warriors led the league in biggest increase of season ticket holders this year, meaning their fans are willing to shell out their hard earned dough for their hometown teams. With the 25th and 26th total payrolls in the entire association these two squads don't exactly seem to be using that newfound cash to reward their fans and improve their product. I'll give the Jazz a pass though since they're such a small market team that isn't exactly popular nationally or globally.

  • During last season's magical end of the season run and playoff excitement the Warriors capitalized on the We Believe fandom and they forced many fans who wanted to buy playoff tickets to agree to purchase season ticket plans for this current season (whether or not the Warriors even qualified for the 2007 NBA playoffs). Sure it made it impossible for non-wealthy Warrior fans to get those playoff tickets (or at least those who didn't have some serious hookups), but honestly it was a good sales plan that I can't really criticize other than to say it was pretty classist. However, what I do find problematic is the bait and switch tactic the Warriors used. They made all those fans think they were paying to watch that playoff team that went 16-5 down the stretch and shocked the world by upsetting the Mavs improve on that run this year or at least be that good. It's way too early to say how far the 2007-2008 Warriors will go (and they might use that trade exception before it expires to improve this team dramatically), but as of right now bettering or equaling last year's team doesn't appear to be the goal of this organization with their cost cutting payroll moves this past summer and claims that it's all about flexibility instead of winning now. Right now it looks like a case of fan and customer exploitation by the Warriors.

  • Not to confuse correlation with causation, but the 4 teams widely regarded as the contenders for the NBA Championship come June all place in the top 12 in terms of salary this season: Mavericks (1), Celtics (5), Suns (9), and Spurs (12).

  • I know the Warriors organization and some wise GSoMers will point out that it's about the future and next off season where they can sign some high impact free agent (history says that isn't going to happen though- see Modi's piece from above) or extend some of their own young players. My response: That's nice, but if the Warriors aren't committed to paying for the best club money can buy THIS year and are just trying to lower their payroll this season for these so called options, then why are fans giving their 110% rooting for this team and shelling out big bucks to meet their ticket price hikes for the second straight season THIS year? How about fans pay top dollar when the team is paying top dollar to put out the best product possible? (No shot at the current players and coaching staff intended whatsoever who I have nothing but respect for.)

    Besides there is no guarantee that the mastermind behind this operation Don Nelson will even be around next year since he's only on a 1 year deal. I'm sorry but I don't exactly trust Mullin and Rowell to keep this ship sailing when Nellie's gone. I also fail to see the logic in not maximizing what could be a hall of fame coach's last year on the sidelines as well as an all-world uber- talented PG in his prime and a potential candidate for defensive player of the year. How often do the stars line up that well for a basketball organization? I doubt the future is going to get much brighter than that.

    I don't know about the rest of you good Warrior fans, but I really enjoyed last year's playoff run and actually following and forking over the dough for an exciting, winning product. After 12 years of ineptitude the Warriors finally did something magical. The last thing I want to hear is that they're in any sort of rebuilding mode or planning for the future. Warrior fans deserve a team that is fully committed to winning now.

  • High ticket prices + higher concessions at the arena + the league's highest attendance + hungry, diehard fans regarded as the best in the league = a lower team payroll, no outright commitment to winning now (from the top, not the players and coaches who are giving their all night in and night out), and flexibility for a non-guaranteed bright future?

    I'm not a Mathematics PhD, but that just doesn't add up.

  • I find it interesting that we all know within a few web searches the exact dollar amount NBA players are making, but NONE of us can even give a estimate of how much owners like Chris Cohan are bring in annually (unless his accountant or the IRS are reading this). I think Chad Ford of ESPN had a great take on this in his recent chat where he was talking about the Anderson Varejao and Cleveland Cavaliers contract negotiations:
    The story is interesting to me because it highlights the current tension between players and management in respect to the collective bargaining agreement. The cap is quickly becoming a hard cap. That means players are going to be earning less and GMs will have more power negotiating. You, as a fan, may think that's awesome. But players and agents don't. This contract dispute is a microcosm of a much bigger issue going on in the league. And as much as fans like to side with management on this issues (who's going to lose sleep over the difference between $32 million and $45 million it's more than any of us will ever make) ... remember owners are usually billionaires complaining about losing money owning teams. It is in the fans interest for there to be free agency and the ability for teams to make trades. I think better management of the cap, not a hard cap, is a better answer for anyone involved.
    Quick someone tell me how much Baron Davis made last season. Quick someone tell me how much money Cohan made season. What does it tell you when many Warrior fans can answer the former, but not the latter? By design the NBA breeds fan jealousy and lack of sympathy for millionaire athletes who want to get paid, but never any resentment towards billionaire owners who at the end of the day are always the winners as long as they have some clue about management. (Somewhat related, but a great read: Time for the Take: Why Seattle Should Seize the Sonics by GSoM friend Dave Zirin)

    Look the NBA, NFL, and MLB are multi-billion dollar businesses. Whether it's the owners and management or players, someone's going to get paid and it sure as hell ain't you (the fans and the media). Does it really make you happy to see owners "saving money" with lower payrolls?

 

Future Topics
(Please feel free to research and answer these questions in the comments as well. Much appreciated.)

  • Next year's team payrolls and cap room projections (although it's probably way too early to make those calculations right now)- people talk about keeping your salary cap flexible, but does that really guarantee a better basketball team? What are the historical precedents in this era of the NBA's collective bargaining agreement?
  • Dead contracts (e.g. Allan Houston, Chris Webber, Adonal Foyle)- every team seems to have them, but should fans really care? What is their impact on a team's salary cap structure?
  • The NBA's luxury tax- how much in dollars does that actually boil down to? Does avoiding the tax as opposed to adding players to your payroll that will make your team win more games and go deeper into the playoffs really make cents?
  • Can Hash please get a frosty, foamy beverage at the Arena for a decent price? Can I get a sweet lemonade at Warriors games for less than the price of 3 gallons of gas?

 

Let's get this discussion jumping in the comments!

0 recs | Comment 59 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Wow
the Mavericks actually have the highest payroll?
But they did signed Devin "Flopper" Harris to an $8mil/year contract, so it's not that surprising after all.
On the other hand, sucks for Knicks, Sixers, and Blazers.

by semarubaka on Nov 30, 2007 2:14 PM PST   0 recs

Bam...
...you hit it on the head with this: "Look the NBA, NFL, and MLB are multi-billion dollar businesses. Whether it's the owners and management or players, someone's going to get paid."

The money's there, somebody's gonna get it. While the "feed my family" Sprees of the world have always bugged me, I've never been one to dump on players for wanting a piece of the pie. You're right--the owners get a free ride from the fans and media far too often in this debate.

That's why I'm an advocate in every major sport of the players owning the team, in conjunction with the league. Cut out the owners altogether. You have the smartest players serve as FO reps, along with the usual staff like scouts, coaches, GMs etc. Everything's the same, just no owner, no one skimming profits off the top.

I think this would engender more loyalty among players to the team they play for, and would eliminate the whole "us vs. them" aspect of the owner/player dynamic. Everyone, at the end of the day, would be working for/with the NBA, and sharing in the dough.

Brand me a Commie if you want, but I think this idea makes more sense the more I wrap my mind around it.

So much sense in fact that it'll never happen...

by read2achieve on Nov 30, 2007 2:29 PM PST   0 recs

Those numbers are worthless
Would you believe the Warriors have the 5th cheapest payroll in the league this season?

Would I believe it?  No.  And I don't because they don't.  

The money used to buy out Foyle and Cabbages is real money that counts against the cap and tax and is factored into their spending.  Not all teams are paying players to not pay.  Some, but not all teams are thus paying more.  The Warriors climb to about 20th (and $2.5 million from being middle of the pack) when you factor them in.  FWIW, Hoopshype presents more accurate numbers, though they don't always factor in smaller salaries with buyouts.  They also present an (outdated, but still pretty informative) list of owner net-worth.

They are not the 5th lowest payroll nor are they that close to the cap.  ESPN's numbers do not actually reflect team payroll or cap space.  The team is paying Adonal Foyle a shade under $6million that counts towards total payroll and the cap and a bit to Cabbages as well.

In terms of actual spending including released players, the Warriors are closer to $63 million, which puts them rather close to the median spending.  There are a whole lot of teams clumped in the mid $60s, trying to stay under the tax threshold.

No resentment bred for the Billionaire owners?  Please.  There's a tremendous amount of resentment voiced towards owners from fans.  Cohan gets flack here all the time, has gotten flack in the papers as well.  Just like the players, when the team is winning and players performing, no one seems to resent the salaries.  Similarly, if teams are doing well, their owners don't get flack.  Team goes south?  Owner is a money-grubbing skinflint who is out to screw the fans.  To say that no one resents the owners is simply not true.

Also FWIW, while Cohan's salary (if he draws one) isn't presented, the Warriors bottom line is.  in 2004, they lost 3.1 million in operating income.     In 06, they has an operating income of $6.1.  Over the last few years it looks like they've been flip flopping on either side of profitable.

by jae on Nov 30, 2007 3:05 PM PST   0 recs

Operating Income
Reminds me of this calculation in that classic book How To Lie With Statistics. You can play with the numbers, means, etc to really distort reality. My guess is that operating income does not equal how much Cohan, the minority owners, and  upper management are taking home at the end of the year. Plus it also doesn't consider how much their investment is appreciating.

But again, let's say you shop at Walmart and they're reporting an operating loss. Do you really feel bad for Walmart?

by Atma Brother ONE on Nov 30, 2007 3:13 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Appreciate Your Numbers
Thanks for the notes about the ESPN calculations, but given all the issues they look like the most accurate and up to date figures out there. I'm hesitant to say how close the Warriors with the dead contracts factored in are to the league median or how they stand with respect to other teams until I see every team calculated in the manner you proposed.

But again these payroll figures are still telling what the Warriors are paying for their current on court product compared to the rest of teams in the league.

by Atma Brother ONE on Nov 30, 2007 3:28 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

what they spend on players.
I did calculate all the dead contracts.  The Warriors came out 20th of 30th for this season. Last season, they were smack dab in the middle.

The numbers do tell us what they're paying for the on-court product.  The rules prevent them from simply going out and deciding to buy better, more expensive players just because they want to spend the money.  Once a team is capped, they're capped and it doesn't matter if they're a dollar over or 100million over.  They can only stick with what they've got or use the exceptions.  The Warriors used the exceptions.  How wisely they used them can be argued about, but they did use them.  They did what they could in the spending department.

The only legitimate case that can be made about them being "cheap" on players is moving Richardson for no returning contract.  That occurred before Foyle and Cabbages were bought out and, had they had an extra $7million from those two on the books plus Richardson on the books for $11 million (and subtracting out Wright's salary) they'd be up over $70 million, paying tax dollars on about $2 million that would equate to $2 million not actually going to a player, but going out, and losing out on the revenue sharing, which as things look presently, stands to be anywhere from $5 to $15 million.  Say it's $10, including the $2 million the Warriors would have paid in.  No, I wouldn't lose sleep about Cohan (who I consider a terrible own, but not because I believe him to be cheap--just stupid) losing money as I don't lose sleep about Walmart losing money.  But I understand why, as a business owner, he will try not to lose money and I can't find fault in him not wanting to part with $10million for what might be a better product either by keeping Richardson or getting equivalent salary players back.  

Beyond Richardson, how exactly were the Warriors going to spend more money to put together their roster?  They've got a full roster.  They burned their MLE.  Keep Foyle? Keep Cabbages? It's not as simple as just saying they're not spending enough.     They're spending right around the middle of the pack and they're a middle of the pack team.  If spending more could get them above that, it would be one thing, but I don't see where they were going to spend money on anything giving them a substantially better than middle of the pack return as it was, so staying put with some flexibility if things fall out positively makes sense, financially and strategically for longer term prospects of improving the team.

Really, the tools aren't there for them to just decide to spend more for the winner.  Doing that does mean that if you don't do it wisely (e.g. you keep Foyle) that you don't have the resources to spend money when it is more likely to result in more wins.  The way the big spenders got to be that way was by extending their players (and then in some cases, trading big contracts for other big contracts). If you do it wisely, you can be the Mavs.  If you do it poorly, you can be the Knicks.  If you're smart, you can be the Spurs, who were under the tax threshold as champions last year.

by jae on Nov 30, 2007 3:53 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Hmmm.
Beyond Richardson, how exactly were the Warriors going to spend more money...(cont'd)

Two words. Beer subsidization.

by Hash on Nov 30, 2007 4:03 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

word
hey jae, i didn't realize i just reiterated what you said (but not so thoroughly and well thought out). i mean, just because the knicks screwed up doesn't mean you just don't spend money at all... or thats the only way people end up spending money.. right?

by dj fuzzylogic on Nov 30, 2007 6:42 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

strategy
In my opinion it comes down to this:

You need to spend some to win, but you don't need to be reckless.  Overspending can hurt as often as it helps.  

The Knicks aren't an argument against spending.  They're an argument for thinking about how you spend.  

Spend some to stay in the hunt and spend smart so that when the chance comes along, you can spend to win if it's necessary and it may be necessary.  Spend unwisely all the time and you won't have this chance.  Save at all costs and you won't have this chance either.

There's no replacement for making good decisions, whether that decision is to save or spend.  

OK, perhaps blind luck replaces this at times.  It's clear that being fortunate enough to have the chance to draft and then pay Duncan or Lebron helps more than a little.

by jae on Nov 30, 2007 7:03 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

The Warriors fluxuating in and out of profit
That's very normal stuff for sports franchises.  Think of the franchises as stocks that don't pay a dividend.  Their value is not in income generated for their shareholders, but in the escalating price that the market is willing to pay them for.

The beauty of sports franchises is that every one wants to buy one (wouldn't all of us, if we had the money?), so the demand is there.  And the value goes up as their revenue does.  The market price doesn't really care about the rising expenses (player salaries, etc...) as long as the revenue increases.

As long as franchises like the Warriors are breaking close to even, their owners are happy.

by San Francisco Slim on Nov 30, 2007 3:54 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

i think foyle & cabbages are counted
in that 58 figure. a quick glance at the 15 salaries adds up to about 50-ish.

by the evil monkey on Nov 30, 2007 7:37 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

ugh
As a fan, I hate even thinking about this stuff.  All I know is the team now is better than it has been in a long, long time.  Nellie's doing us wonders.  The quality of play is exciting.  I'm happy.

by Don III on Nov 30, 2007 3:28 PM PST   0 recs

Cohan is cheap for sure
But at the end of the day it's his money and he can do whatever he wants. American sports is set up to give owners the biggest piece of the pie, which is why it's so rare and refreshing to see owners like Cuban and Steinbrenner shell out money like they actually care about winning more than making money.

by SpreeForThree on Nov 30, 2007 3:58 PM PST   0 recs

Respectfully disagree
I can see your point about beer subsidization... That would be fantastic.
In terms of payroll, I'm glad the Warriors are being prudent.  It's not like they are being the Florida Marlins and putting out the cheapest roster possible in order to turn a profit.  Instead, I think Mullin is being much more careful about entering into expensive contracts after several years of poor decision making (i.e. Foyle & Dunleavy).

Having financial flexibility means that the team can re-sign guys like Ellis and Biedrins.  I would much rather they do that then enter into ill-advised contracts with free agents just because the money is available.

In terms of profits?  Well, I'm a capitalist at heart, and if fans are willing to go to the game and spend $8 on a beer, well more power to Cohan for providing the product.  Personally, I like to pre-game it on BART because I don't like spending that much.  But if others are willing to do so, it's not Cohan's fault.  If the prices get too high, or the product isn't good enough, then people simply won't pay it.  I think it's that simple.

Does it limit lower class fans from attending?  I guess it does.  And that's a shame.  But ultimately the Warriors are a business, not a public trust.

by booya on Nov 30, 2007 4:15 PM PST   0 recs

this has nothing to do
with being capitalist or anti-capitalist IMO. holding cohan accountable to the product that he's pushing is why we have the better business bureau. part of the problem is that we keep paying for it like you highlighted, but just cuz the owner wants to make money doesn't mean that we as fans or consumers should just let him exploit us for our hard earned dollars and overpriced and sometimes horrendouly fashion backward throwback ts (we need tony.psd to revolutionize nba clothing).  capitalism is not natural rule, but something that's created, operated, perpetuated by live active agents meaning we can shape it how we would like based on collective power.  we talk about it like it existed before god and that dinosaurs ran the earth the same way (maybe that's the true reason why they're extinct).  if you (not you personally booya) think being exploited is okay, then i'd rather be a so called "commie."

also, i don't think you can conflate "cap management" and "flexibility" as one and the same as "stupid talent scouting of your personnel" in the cases of the Knicks and the Warriors. if you signed a mega player for the max and was over the cap but winning, would we still be talking about flexibility?  if mullin didn't overpay or overhype is garbage players and the warriors were like Dallas instead, would we worry about "flexibility" in a future dynasty that we have never seen ?  saying that flexibility is crucial because you can't just go out and sign (this isn't directed at you booya) crappy players is less a problem with the cap and the problem with the GM and Pres. of business operations evaluating players poorly.  

anyhoo, just my two cents...

by dj fuzzylogic on Nov 30, 2007 4:49 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Absolute
Nice comment, Fuzzy.

(And have I mentioned that DJ Fuzzy Logic is by far the best DJ name I've heard in a long, long time?)

by jae on Nov 30, 2007 5:45 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Boisterous Bums
Beer prices are high not only because they can make people pay that much for a beer but also because they don't want people throwing down too many.

Pregaming on BART is a great way to do it but come halftime you're just tired, unless you've sneaked in something a little harder that can be mixed into a coke (:

I'm surprised by the lack of lower-priced seating considering basketball is popular across all classes and the league's future success only suffers from alienating fans.  Also, as a student, I don't get to attend more than a couple games a year given the current prices.

This is a little off-topic but does anyone else wish they'd also turn off, or at least dim, the lights in the stands, showtime-style?

by BingBluNT on Nov 30, 2007 5:02 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I actually prefer the upper level.
Darker and cheaper.

Also, not as many distractions, such as people walking in front of you, people screaming non-sequiturs.  Although it's changed this season from previous years.  People sitting upstairs yell instructions at the players and refs through-out the game, as if they can hear them on the court.

by San Francisco Slim on Nov 30, 2007 5:19 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Money-vation
Motivate players with TEAM incentives - bonu$e$ for first round, second, etc.

Motivate coaches similarly

Motivate owners with perks & publicity

... it'll never happen of course, but it would work

by hardcore on Nov 30, 2007 4:58 PM PST   0 recs

coaches yes, players no
players contracts are set regardless of finish, same in MLB I'm pretty sure ...

by hardcore on Nov 30, 2007 9:31 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Hidden cost of overpaying
Another point that's important to make when considering spending is what overspending does in terms of fixing your roster.  If Cohan had money to burn, was willing to always over pay even at the expense of losing all his money, it still doesn't mean that this is always the best strategy though.  Because of the cap, you cannot get new players easily when you're over the cap.  You can overpay to keep players on the "well, he MIGHT develop" philosophy, but if this doesn't happen, it's not just a blow to the pocketbook, it's a real block to getting other players.

For example, last year Foyle was clearly not worth the contract he had signed.  No one would trade for him because of it. I believe he still had value to some teams (Orlando seems to think he has some value) but not at the price he was paid. No one was going to give up $9 million in talent to get him.  No one else wanted to pay him what we were on the books for.  He didn't fit our system and had no value to us and was paid too much.  But imagine if he had a contract paying him $4million.   Yeah, it's a ton of money to you and me, but for a backup center for half court team that needs 15 minutes of adequate rebounding and 6 fouls to give, it's not out of line with NBA economics at all.  It's under average salary for an under average player.  At that price, I suspect we could have moved him, perhaps for the backup point guard that could have spared Baron's knees. Imagine Foyle was paid $3.5 million. Would New Jersey, a eastern conference playoff team stuck relying on whatever Collins twin they have as their center have parted with Marcus Williams, a middle to late first round pick, because Foyle would have been a step up when the post gets more physical in the playoffs?  Maybe, maybe not, but at that price, it's not an unreasonable proposition and Marcus Williams would have helped last year in keeping Baron healthier for longer. (Yeah, I'm ticked we picked the POB when he was on the board.)

This isn't a unique problem to us.  Granted neither Philly nor NY were the ones to sign them to their contracts (and at the time, both players may have actually been close to worth their paychecks) but when Webber and Francis weren't worth what they were paid, neither team could trade them for anything because they were too expensive for others.  They both had value and could probably both help other teams (Webber did, verdict on Francis is still out) but not at the price. The former clubs got nothing back, not even an ability to downgrade to a lesser player.  Spend for the sake of spending and not only are out out cash, but your assets become fixed in your possession.

Evaluating players you acquire is important--probably the most important job of any GM, but I suspect only slightly less important is never get involved in a battle of wits with a Sicilian when death is on the line.   And right after that is evaluating the talent you have on hand and making them the right offers, deciding who to keep and at what price. A guy priced right for the market can be traded.  A guy at market value may have more value to another team, may address their needs better, and you may be able to address your needs better if you can trade them.  This flexibility means you can reshuffle the deck to get a better combination.  Guys paid too much can be traded, but usually it costs some other asset to unload them.  Guys paid foolishly, even ones who can produce something, you're stuck with else you let them go for nothing.

OK, no more afternoon Manhattans before I start spouting cap-o-nomics.

by jae on Nov 30, 2007 6:05 PM PST   0 recs

Keep drinkin' them Manhattans, JAE
Your thoughts are even more lucid than usual.
Evaluating players you acquire is important--probably the most important job of any GM

Given Mulson's obvious affection for JRich the person, you have to believe their evaluation of him as a player was a fairly huge factor in the decision to move him. People's motives for doing stuff are rarely as simple as we'd like them to be, but ultimately I think their decision was more scouting-based than "cheap."

Here's how I think of it: if you gave every team in the NBA a $12.5M TPE, and JRich were available, how many of them would blow it on him at 4/$51M? Charlotte maybe (though they could have changed their minds by now), the Knicks probably (because they're the Knicks), and...?

If JRich was slightly better at basketball -- if he had Monta's handles, played defense like Jax, and was better at getting to the line and hitting his FTs when he got there -- I suspect he'd still be on the Warriors; and we wouldn't be having discussion #1,587 on this subject.

by Sleepy Freud on Nov 30, 2007 9:22 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Great Post JAE
I feel like you really have carried the conversation so far and this post really nails the heart of the issue. Taking the short-sighted view that spending is not an issue so long as the player produces on the court can get you into a lot of trouble. You have really explained how it's easy to get stuck with a crappy team and no way to change it, if you don't spend a lot of your time as GM trying to read market values and determining where your players fit into this market accordingly.

For example, in my own experience as a fan who absolutely loved J-Rich the entire time he was a Warrior, I came to the conclusion a week before the draft that he was probably (at least slightly) overpaid and (at least mostly) redundant on our roster. That read of the market and our roster lead me to the sad conclusion that one of the many JRich trade rumors would probably go down and I posted as much here on GSoM.

For me it was a sad conclusion, but a necessary one to keep our momentum going beyond just this year. I imagine that the W's front office came to a similar conclusion.

I'm not even saying my read of the situation was right but it is an example of at least trying to take into account the financial landscape of the league and the future of our team.

.

by olympicmike on Nov 30, 2007 11:30 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Bring back Team Thunder
and maybe I won;t call them as cheap.

by Athletix Man on Nov 30, 2007 8:12 PM PST   0 recs

The TPE
The TPE counts against the cap until it is used or renounced. It operates as a $10M cap hold- thus for cap calculation purposes, the Warriors payroll is $68M, not $58M.

Now, we aren't in luxury tax land purposes AND when it comes time to "officially" calculate payroll for the purposes of assessing a tax the TPE will be renounced or expired if unused.

It's pretty easy to distort reality with statistics, but it's also easy to misuse them because you don't understand them or refuse to admit what they tell you.

But hey, what do I know. I had to take stats twice before I passed it.

24 > 23

WE NEED A BACKUP POINT GUARD

AIM: Jetforze

by OptionZero on Nov 30, 2007 8:40 PM PST   0 recs

so what does this have to do
with the actual point or discussion thread that is presently going on?

by dj fuzzylogic on Nov 30, 2007 9:02 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

nothing really
But the note on the bottom of the story asks for any addendums or notes to payroll calculations. I'm just helpin out.

24 > 23

WE NEED A BACKUP POINT GUARD

AIM: Jetforze

by OptionZero on Nov 30, 2007 9:03 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

also
5 of the top 10 teams have losing records (Miami, NY, Philly, Portland, Washington). If spending in the top 10 gives you, at best, a 50/50 shot at a winning record...then I don't see how "more money" equals "more wins".

Check out the New Orleans Hornets and Utah Jazz, ranked 24 and 25. Both teams are among the best teams in the conference.

To me, spending in the lower 1/3rd of teams but being in the top 1/3rd in wins is far more impressive than what the Mavericks are doing, racking up wins while spending a ridiculous amount of DEAD MONEY (Michael Finley waiver).

As a fan, it's easy to clamor, SPEND MORE MONEY. Easy, but not particularly perceptive.

Me? I'd rather scream and shout SPEND MONEY SMARTER.

It looks like we have some Mark Cubans in the crowd. I'm not impressed.

24 > 23

WE NEED A BACKUP POINT GUARD

AIM: Jetforze

by OptionZero on Nov 30, 2007 9:02 PM PST   0 recs

word
spending money smarter is def. needed. but so far, your explanation for spending money "smarter" is to note the idiotic choices bad teams (i.e. Warriors and Knicks) have made, which then structure how you think about spending in the first place. i think the mantra that it takes money to make money (or wins for that matter) holds true, but its exactly about spending money wisely.  spending money isn't equivalent with making dumb personal decisions just because mullin and thomas were like that.  

further, salary cap flexibility is also somewhat misleading. in the last few years, what players have actually wanted to play for the warriors?  if you salary dump players -- players that other players respect and want to play with -- how do you expect to draw free agents?  players want to be play with contenders if Kobe's no trade clause is any indication or Garnett's stern refusal to play in many different locations (GSW included).

by dj fuzzylogic on Nov 30, 2007 9:17 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Free Agency
I would like to see examples of major free agents that turned down less money to play for a "nice" team to play for.

Sure, there's the scrubs like Eddie House who go to a "contender" or Troy Hudson to go for an "exciting team".

Drawing the Kobe's and Garnetts in the first place?

It's the money. Period.

Don't agree? Then why won't Kobe waive his trade kicker? Why did Garnett demand $20m a year?

It's the money. That means its the cap space.

For all the talk about breeding an atmosphere where players want to play there because they trust management...that's putting the cart before the horse.

Whether or not someone wants to play for you is always secondary to whether or not you can afford to pay them.

Rashard Lewis was a free agent. Did he go to Orlando cuz he wanted to check out Disneyland? To play with Dwight Howard? Hell no. Orlando had major cap space and went out of there way to create even more cap space (stupidly). And guess what? They're FUBAR'd, good luck making the jump from top 4 Eastern team to contedner with NO FLEXIBILITY. Maybe being a good eastern team is good enough for their fans...or maybe their front office is idiotic for overpaying for short improvement.

Second, salary cap flexibility is also vital for retaining your own players when you have ones worth keeping (i.e. not Murphy). Remember the Gilbert Arenas guy? We would have no problem keeping him if we didn't have other crappy contracts (dampier, i think?) on the books.

Poor spending SHOULD impact your ability to acquire/maintain talent (and by extension, wins). If it didn't, then it would be major league baseball, the worst run professional sports league in the country.

About cheapness...we all agree that Mullin at least tried to get Garnett, right? And presumably, Cohan knew what Mullin was pursuing?

You think Cohan and Mullin didn't know Garnett would have required $20M/year extension? Thats luxury tax territory (when you count Baron's 17 and Jack and Al's $17, plus whatever deadmoney and Barnes and the like made).

Here's something to ponder:

Would a "cheap" owner pursue a Garnett?

Answer:

Hell no.

A cheap owner would have kept Mike Montgomery instead of firing him and signing a new coach to yet another contract.

Cohan is merely operating "normally". If that's something for "concerned consumers" to worry about...well, then the world is over.

24 > 23

WE NEED A BACKUP POINT GUARD

AIM: Jetforze

by OptionZero on Nov 30, 2007 10:54 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

i think you're assuming that
I and others believe that spending money wildly for people like Murphy, Foyle, Dampier, Jason Caffey is okay and totally legitimate.  Umm, we've slammed those decisions for a long time and i don't see how you think we advocate random spending on crap.  I assume that that was a foregone conclusion.  

what i 've seen from the beginning of this thread is that EVERYONE believes in spending smarter (who would care for spending dumber?).  but from what i gather, that spending is necessary but to what degree is what i think folks aren't agreeing on.  contrary to what you believe, this false disjuncture between your ideas and the writers of gsom is crazy because youre assuming we just want to spend frivolously.  if anything, i would have spent some extra money and hireed some more people to work concession stands, order a few deep fryers and got those garlic fries out pronto!

As far as super stars go... its not brand loyalty.. of course its about money too.  but would garnett go for 30 million to hang out with the bucks (maybe? maybe not?)?  Would Kobe be w/ the Bulls if they actually gave up the core pieces of their roster at the time they were discussing trades (rumors or not)?  Maybe... maybe not.  it's context specific right?  theres the joe johnsons the Rashard Lewis' but even Rashard Lewis had wanted to get out of Seattle for a while and had been talking about opting out forever.  Again, i'm not saying its NOT about the money, but its hard to deny, depending on the context and the players involved, thats place has nothing to do with it.

by dj fuzzylogic on Dec 1, 2007 9:31 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

more
I just can't stop.

Beyond any particular opinions on Cohan, the thing the disappoints me the most?

This is a front page article on Golden State of Mind, a site that, as far as I can gather, gets a grip of attention and is striving for more. To me, that means more responsibility to deliver the best content possible- that means delivering the most passion, delivering the most energy, devoting the most effort...

...but also offering the deepest insight, the most well-written articles.

It does not include spur-of-the-moment sensationalism, it does not include demagoguery, it does not include fanaticism.

Yeah, it's just a blog. But you're one of the biggest blogs around. Act like it.

Take the long view. Take the objective view. Celebrate the highs, mourn the lows; but when you post an article that's aimed at a serious topic, write that article like it's a serious topic. This comes off as another "fight the power, the man is ripping you off!" speech- mindless in its conception, aimed at getting more attention than in vindicating any point legitimately founded in reality.

Don't just act like a fan- be a well-informed fan, be an intelligent fan, be a fan that doesn't just care about the good and bad on the court, but a fan that seeks to understand the game he enjoys and the team he roots for.

I am not coma, nor can I speak for him- but I did speak to him. The way he delivers his comments are inappropriate, sure, but his beef has always been the same as mine. You run the big site, you should always deliver the heat. Instead, it seems like the goal isn't to be better- merely to be bigger. Articles like this don't do anything to dissuade either of us from that belief.

But hey. Again. That's just a regular user's opinion.

24 > 23

WE NEED A BACKUP POINT GUARD

AIM: Jetforze

by OptionZero on Nov 30, 2007 9:11 PM PST   0 recs

why not "fight the power"?
why is discourse about poor management for 12+ years considered irrational in your opinion (or sensational)? your going to redeem the owner and organization after one winning season?  

i don't see how this article is not based in "reality" unless you believe in a reality where things never change and people are just lemmings mindless manipulated (and okay with it) by larger structural determinations.  we deliberate over this because we want more.  all social movements are based on strategic collective action in whatever shape or form.  in fact, in the early twentieth century, citizens in fact had more consumer rights where they institutionally insured that products were safe, reliable, and able to reach the lowest common denominator.  why shouldn't consumers now be upset.  

is being a concerned consumer and economics outside of the purview of basketball?  why ignore something that we as fans face daily as we approach the ticket counter, concession stand, and also fan store.  granted, this discussion of economic and basketball has multiple threads, but calling lumping this as sensationalist for it's social movements rhetoric is ridiculous.  

by dj fuzzylogic on Nov 30, 2007 9:30 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

EXACTLY
"Fight the power" itself isn't necessarily a bad platform, but the solution that's being advocated undermines alot of the credibility.

Again, what's being proposed by GSoM is, essentially:

SPEND MORE MONEY. Fantasy junkie himself, has, just in the Jrich diary, said he doesn't care about the tax or the cap, win at all costs.

That's quite, QUITE different from:

SPEND MONEY SMARTER. Look the New Orleans roster, look at the Jazz roster, look at the Spurs roster (spending alot, reaping even more).

I wouldn't have a problem if GSoM would put the same effort into attacking Cohan for allowing his GM's to spend money on Derek Fisher, Adonal Foyle, Troy Murphy, or any of the wasteful contracts through the years- I'd be the first one on board.

Instead, I get "cohan is cheap, cohan spends so little".

Attacking the amount of money spent is, to me, lazy, shortsighted, and ridiculously ignorant, when other teams can spend the same or less and get even more results. If that doesn't underscore the value of smart spending more than more spending, then nothing will, and my cause is futile.

So how bout less WIN AT ALL COSTS and a little more, MAKE BETTER DECISIONs.

The Jrich trade exemplifies my point. AB1 was frequently commented that the trade is a failure because they didn't get Garnett or equivalent.

My analysis said that the J-Rich trade was well-conceived, but poorly executed. We failed to acquire sufficiently liquid assets to make subsequent moves, i.e. a large expiring or multiple medium expiring contracts; we didn't draft someone ready now.

See the difference? The former sees only the move and the result (or lack thereof); the latter looks at everything in between, from the logic behind the trade, the strategy it was meant to carry out, the execution of the entire offseason.

You can talk about being a concerned consumer- that's fine. What you do as a concerned consumer is quite different. You can rail against the price and try to rile up other people...OR you can look at why your product costs a certain amount, how it got there, alternatives, etc. It's not just the what, it's the why and the how that matters.

I don't have a particularly soft spot for concerned consumers who are more concerned with letting everyone else know how concerned they are and less with becoming more familiar with the commerce that's affecting them.

24 > 23

WE NEED A BACKUP POINT GUARD

AIM: Jetforze

by OptionZero on Nov 30, 2007 10:42 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

dude
talking about the dun, murph, foyle, fisher contracts is extraneous just cuz everyone agrees that they were way over paid! the only reason why -- at least to my knowledge -- we're talking about the cap issues is over JRich, a player who's worth -- game play and price -- was a contentious issue.  no one here ever said those were smart decisions and no one said we should even keep them.  if we had doled out the cash for super stars and landed two mega star ala Orlando (mcgrady and hill--if his ankles weren't busted) or Boston, would this be an issue.  no one is advocating mass signings at random ala mullin or thomas.  i don't know how you could read into that from what is stated above.  

by dj fuzzylogic on Nov 30, 2007 11:39 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

re
Take the long view. Take the objective view. Celebrate the highs, mourn the lows; but when you post an article that's aimed at a serious topic, write that article like it's a serious topic. This comes off as another "fight the power, the man is ripping you off!" speech- mindless in its conception, aimed at getting more attention than in vindicating any point legitimately founded in reality.

I couldn't agree more. Cohan is attacked for not spending money, when he's give big multi-year deals to Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, Derek Fisher, and Adonal Foyle? The problem isn't that Cohan is cheap, but that the money spent isn't used smartly.

Since just about everyone's over the cap, the teams that can sign a marquee free agent are limited. So basically the only way a team gets a high payroll is by extensions. We don't have any players on our team that have signed a recent pricey long-term extension, so we have a low payroll. The lack of extensions is a result of drafting players that weren't worthy of an extension. So the low payroll is more of an indicator of our drafting failures than the Cohan's willingness to spend.

It's almost like the Warriors have 6 guys out there... they always have a guy open! - Jon Barry commentating game 3 last year

by gsw4life on Dec 1, 2007 2:00 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

FWIW
the level of discourse in ANY thread is raised or lowered by the participants collectively regardless of where it started out & hence all the participants are responsible for raising or lowering it - particularly those which participate the most in it ... GSoM is a pretty high level site, and this thread at times got to a sophisticated level - more so than just about any other blog I've seen (granted, that's not many, for that very reason).

Every time I read posts by all you guys that understand the cap as well as you do it's greatly appreciated.

by hardcore on Nov 30, 2007 9:49 PM PST   0 recs

Historical perspective and looking ahead
I for one would like some historical perspective when looking at payrolls around the league and how they correlate with wins. I have tried to look around the web for yearly payroll charts and haven't been able to find much besides random charts for odd years here and there (most showing the W's near the middle of the pack). If anyone has a good resource for looking back at past years payrolls I would greatly appreciate it.

Part of the reason I'd like to see these numbers is because on the face of it, looking at this years payroll as a snapshot of how the W's like to run their team seems like it could be maybe more than a little misleading. We are currently preparing to re-sign two above average players (AB, Monta) who are reaching the end of their rookie scale contracts which will lead to a large increase in payroll. To go along with that we also have a hefty list of FA's to be (Kaz, Barnes, MP2, T-Hud, POB, Croshere) many of which will be looking for a raise next year as well.

Taking that into consideration, I think most competent GMs would make damn sure that your payroll this year was low enough to allow for at least some of these raises or be willing to blow the whole thing up and start from scratch. You have to remember that you need to work these things out at least a year in advance to avoid having an "oh sh!t" moment and sending your team well into the luxury tax and taking away most opportunities to better yourself.

Again this room is not being made to snatch some "high profile free agent" but just to keep our young developing team together if that seems to be the prudent move come seasons end.

Despite, the low payroll I can't really look back at the offseason and see anytime that the W's were blatantly cheap. Stingy? Yeah, they played a lot of hardball which totally paid off. The only thing you can really point to is the J-Rich trade which I have typed way to much about in the last week. So I'll just again point to Kaz's early season performances and Monta's recent performances at SG to say that the drop-off in talent has been slim to non-existent if not a flat-out upgrade.  

Oh yeah, as far as the only mildly related concession prices go, I've got a great idea... if you think the beer is too expensive, don't buy it. If the stuff doesn't fly out the tap at $8 a pop they won't charge $8. And don't even try to tell me you don't think the garlic fries are worth every penny because I watched you guys wait around for half an hour for those things on opening night. =P

.

by olympicmike on Nov 30, 2007 10:51 PM PST   0 recs

yes
By next year, the Warriors payroll with Ellis/Biedrins/whatever extensions or new signings will be pushing the luxury tax threshold. I guess it's possible to go back and delete this story, huh?

Olympicmike:
no easy answer, but what you could do...

  1. www.basketball-reference.com to find rosters for teams for every single year
  2. http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/NBA/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=74
To find the past contracts of various players.

More leg work.

24 > 23

WE NEED A BACKUP POINT GUARD

AIM: Jetforze

by OptionZero on Nov 30, 2007 10:57 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Hmm...
Is anyone else surprised that no one has put together this sort of resource despite the fact that the numbers have been readily available and fans love to talk about this sort of thing?

I wish I had the kind of time it would take to compile this sort of thing but sadly I don't.

.

by olympicmike on Nov 30, 2007 11:41 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

the debate is a good one
but i am disappointed how the front page article has yet to be amended even though JAE has pointed out the difference between the actual money being spent and the current "payroll" that ESPN is showing. in effect, even though you know your numbers are skewed, you're insisting on keeping them and using them to further your argument. that is bad.

as for the debate on whether we have a cheap owner or which mantra we should yell/argue to get a better result, my opinion is this: i don't think it's fair to pin Cohan as a cheap owner. Incompetent, yes. Uncaring, yes. A merciless-beer-price-raiser, yes. But cheap? Before we traded JRich away and had our buyouts, we were extremely close to the luxury cap ( i think a mil or two off). So now that we had the smarts to get rid of
a bad, redundant contract (JRich had heart), the owner is cheap?

even in the past... the idiotic max contract AJ has is from us. Dunleavy's/Murph/Fisher/Foyle... those are all our contracts. We were also the team to sign Danny Fortson to a lucrative deal.

in short, instead of thinking of the JRich move as a penny pinching one, it would be better to recognize it as a finacially prudent one that has saved us from the hell of the New York Knicks. And yeah, the Knicks have it bad right now, etc etc, but i'm referring to a more pertinent time when Isiah Thomas first took the job. they were so restricted financially that he had no choice but to make lateral trades, trading for Starbury and etc. These moves shook things up but in effect, you get what you pay for and the team never improved.

and if you are going to view the trade as a bad move the team, then you're going to need some objective evidence. Unfortunately, the best evidence is through the win-loss records and not the numbers you posted on the front page; i say "unfortunately" because IF W-L records is the best evidence, then you need us to lose to prove your argument.

kind of a tough position

by dso on Dec 1, 2007 1:32 AM PST   0 recs

ESPN's Numbers
but i am disappointed how the front page article has yet to be amended even though JAE has pointed out the difference between the actual money being spent and the current "payroll" that ESPN is showing. in effect, even though you know your numbers are skewed, you're insisting on keeping them and using them to further your argument. that is bad.

ESPN's numbers accurately reflect how much is currently being spent for this team's current on court roster. They do not take into consideration dead contracts as noted in the above post. That's what JAE calculated, but even with those numbers the Warriors are 20th out of 30 teams in the league which doesn't exactly disprove my point that they're being cheap this year when they're located in the 5th largest market in the nation with no other NBA competition, the highest attendance in the league, and the 2nd highest jump in season ticket holders. Pretty curious if you factor in the ticket price and concession hikes and forcing people to buy season tickets if they wanted playoff tickets last year, but then cutting payroll.

You suggested the W-L total as objective evidence which is sound, but I'd also like consider whether they make the playoffs, whether they reach the second round again, and whether or not that $10 million gets or could be used. I'm on record saying that I would've seen the logic in trading JRich for a forward of Drew Gooden's caliber. This isn't sour grapes about trading a popular player, this is about asking customers to shell out top dollar when not putting out the best product possible (again no shot at the players and coaching staff who bring it everyday).

Again this is not a JRich debate like many of the other posts that sparked similar discussions, but that's what people want to focus on. 1 out of the 10 above bullets is about what would've happened if they kept his contract (or a similar contract- this wasn't about saying whether trading JR was good or bad), but somehow that's what everyone likes to come back to.

by Atma Brother ONE on Dec 1, 2007 10:06 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

re
     The J Rich thing has been talked about a million times, but he was paid too much in comparison to his value to the team. Some people think that we're just as good playing Kaz instead of J Rich, some people disagree, but the argument that we would be a much better team with J Rich instead of Kaz cannot really be supported. Also we saved more than just J Rich's contract with the trade, since the move got us under the luxury tax. I'm too lazy to figure out exactly how much it saved us, but J Rich was going to make 11 million dolalrs this season, plus he put us over the luxury tax by a significant amount, at least 5 million.

    If you consider it cheap to get rid of 16 million dollars no matter how small the benefit is to the team, just look at some of the Spurs' recent moves. They basically cut Beno Udrih, saving them around 6 million dollars, and just look at what Beno's doing now. Their backup is Jacque Vaughn. It would've been clearly beneficial to keep Beno, but not at the price they'd have to pay. Also look at their Luis Scola trade. Again, they got nothing of value in return. This move was completely a money-saving move to get under the luxury tax. Scola is in the rotation of one of their biggest rivals', and many believe he will be starting and playing more as he gets used to the NBA game.

     The Phoenix Suns also made a money-saving move in the offseason when they traded Kurt Thomas to the Sonics. They had to give the Sonics 2 first round picks just to take Thomas. Now the Suns have no one that can guard Tim Duncan in the playoffs. The Suns were projected to be around 10 million over the luxury tax, and Kurt Thomas was making around 8 million with one year left at 8 million next year. Suns' GM Steve Kerr always talks about keeping their "core group" together and doing everything possible to do this. Well, there's no rule saying they can't just resign everybody - they'd just have to pay a ton in luxury tax. And almost no NBA owner wants to do that. The Pheonix Suns and the San Antonio Spurs, two legitimate title contenders, are doing everything possible to stay under the tax. I don't think we can be criticized for not wanting to go over considering we're much less of a title contender and J Rich's value to the team is debatable.

     And you absolutely have to count Foyle's and Jasi's contracts into our salary. Listing our salary as 58 million is pretty misleading because if our salary really was 58 million then the J Rich trade would become a lot more questionable.

It's al