Hey, it's not my money...
by jae on May 5, 2009 9:59 PM PDT
in Science
54 comments
There's a lot of blame to go around for the sorry state of the Warriors for most of the last decade and a half. Bad coaching, bad drafts and poorly constructed lineups, team chemistry problems and some plain old bad luck. But the constant is the guy who writes the checks (or more likely has some staff underling set up automatic transfers, least he accidentally get ink on his hands), majority controlling owner Chris Cohan. We know Cohan's made some mistakes and we should afford him the same sort of love that anyone who has ruined our hopes and crushed our dreams year after year should get. We deserve better, Chris. A common charge leveled at not just Cohan, but owners in general whenever teams perform poorly is that the aren't spending enough to win, that if they just shelled outmore cash, they could do better. But on this front, I think Cohan's getting a bad rap.
Stacey Brook, Economics Prof. at Nellie's alma mater, U of Iowa has studied the relationship between team pay and winning and finds that it isn't really all that clean. He's got better credentials to look at the $$$ and make conclusions than I do and presents a summary of his case at Hawkonomics (everyone's favorite University of Iowa Economics Professor blog). It's worth a read.
Sure, the Celtics shell out big bucks, but the Knicks have been paying more for less for a while now. And they aren't the only team that's spending like drunken sailors while the losses pile up.
Just for fun, here's a chart I tossed together this chart with team salary vs. wins in 08-09.
The dotted line is the lux tax threshold. and the solid upward slant is the correlation trend. While there's a loose relationship between what you spend and how much you win, the shotgun splatter of data points should indicate that there are teams that aren't gigantic spenders who still see the postseason and there's some teams leaking money who might be competitive in the NBDL.
And our Warriors are pretty close to the median in spending. They aren't breaking the bank, but there's plenty of teams spending in the same range who are getting more mileage out of their dollar. A lot of teams are right in their range, pushing close to the tax threshold, but not much more. That bunch isn't producing the top contenders, but more there's quite a few of them that saw court time after Nellie took off for Maui. From my vantage, it doesn't look so much like Cohan has been cheap as that he hasn't spent it wisely.
Just a note: Dr. Brook links to a story on NBA salaries in USAToday and their database of team salaries. Their figures include only players still on a team's roster and don't include money still being spend on retired players of contract buyouts. So the USAToday does not include the $6mil that was charged for Foyle's buyout even though that figure counted against both the cap and the luxury tax.
2 recs |
54 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Since when are you a mod guy?
Congratulations!
by ZaMzAm FiRe on May 5, 2009 10:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Cohan gets a bad rap about spending money....
He’s an owner who has shown he’s willing to open up the pockets books if his GM pushes for a guy (ie. J-Rich, Murph, Dun, Foyle, Fisher, Cap’n Jack, Biedrins, Monta).
I never saw the problem with Cohan as spending money, but rather his inability to put together a front office that has a plan and know how to win basketball games and building teams. I think this is due to the fact that Cohan is not a basketball fan and bought the club as a business venture, so he lacks the insight/passion to higher qualified GMs.
He’ll spend money and Rowell has gone on record saying they would go over the tax if it meant championship contention, but Cohan’s problem is the front offices he has assembled during his tenure.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on May 5, 2009 10:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
It’s not how much he spends, he has always paid players, it’s who he spends it on, he’s just not spending it on the RIGHT players.
This goes all the way back to Jason Caffey
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on May 6, 2009 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can't really fault Cohan for that...
He signs the paychecks, but it’s the GM’s (Mullin, Rowell, Riley, Nelson… whoever they say it is) job to find the players. Even Cuban, who’s loved by fans and players, I’m sure he doesn’t make the player personnel calls, even though he has a say in it. As an owner, they for the most part didn’t get to owning the team because of their basketball knowledge, so the only thing you really ask for is that they open up the wallet and listen to their basketball people. If you want to fault Cohan for hiring the wrong front office people, then yeah, he should be up for that criticism, but it’s not his job to put together the team.
by barrance on May 6, 2009 7:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was kinda the point
Cohan has always been OK with spending, I guess when I said it’s who he’s spending it on it should have been like a “Royal We” statement. This is why I’m not so down on Mully, sure he’s made some mistakes but I think he’s done more good than bad and you can look at his learning curve and see that he’s gotten better and that he’s tried to fix previous mistakes, which is not easy. And he started behind the eight ball to begin with.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on May 6, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hey wheres the 3rd option?
yes?
We Believe
by RunNdGun on May 5, 2009 10:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure which option to vote for
That first “Yes” spoke at my heart, but that second “Yes” really made me think. Anyway, as they say in business, you can throw more money at a problem, but that doesn’t always solve the problem. You have to have a plan, and sometimes a little bit of luck, at getting the right players together.
Nice first front page post, jae. My only gripe is that the poll made no sense on the front page on its own.
by IQofaWarrior on May 5, 2009 11:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Still learning the ropes as to how the page goes together. I couldn’t figure out where the pole was going to go and halftime was coming to an end.
by jae on May 5, 2009 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
good luck centering things
that was a pain to figure out
by IQofaWarrior on May 5, 2009 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s still surprising how close the poll is. I really thought that yes was the clear, correct choice, but almost equal numbers are voting for yes.
by jae on May 5, 2009 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*poll
A pole would go in the ground.
by ZaMzAm FiRe on May 6, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: pole
You’re lucky the old jae isn’t around to correct people’s misspelled homophones.
Congrats BTW (I was MIA for the big announcement) . If the front page was lacking in one major area, it is the area that you specialize in. I mean, there is a reason why I read this blog 300X more often than Wages of Wins Journal, but there are too many baseless assumptions and you can’t be running into every thread to explain that PPG is a poor measurement and good rebounders tend to always rebound etc . . .
If I may make a suggestion for one of your posts it would be a summation of popular misconceptions and the statistical refutation of those misconceptions. I guess you can do them one at a time, but if you were to develop a comprehensive lists, we could just refer to it as a reference instead of getting into it comment-by-comment.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on May 6, 2009 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks! I’ll add the summary of misconceptions to my ‘to write’ list.
If others have stuff you’d like me to look at, toss the ideas out. Can’t promise I’ll hit all of them, but I’ll do my best.
by jae on May 6, 2009 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about a summary of CBA rules that are especially germane to this offseason? Trading picks, RFAs, picking up options on Wright, Randolph and Belinelli. There are a lot of things that come into play as GSoM launches frantically into hypothetical scenario mode for the next several months. It would be good to have some parameters around what the Warriors can and can not do.
It’s stuff like this that makes me excited about you being on the front page.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on May 6, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few thoughts and questions
Thanks for dropping this piece JAE. I think we can all agree that we’d rather have Thunder over for dinner than Chris Cohan.
A few questions and thoughts:
1) What are the r and r-squared for the relationship between how much you spend and how much you win? Also it looks like there’s a few outliers there (i.e. the Knicks) that if I were doing the analysis I’d remove.
2) This shows that the Warriors are about middle of the pack in terms of spending THIS season, but what about since 1994? I’d be careful to conclude that Cohan spends “enough” based on this one season. I doubt you’re doing this, but I’m curious.
3) The Warriors play in the ~5th largest sports market in the country. Unlike the A’s/Giants and Raiders/ 49ers they don’t have to split the pie. I would like to see how they rack up in terms of spending to the other big market squads. I’m not impressed by Cohan’s spending relative to the Grizzlies, Hornets, etc.
4) Over the years Cohan has displayed “cheapness” numerous times, rather than striving to win. Do anyone really think an owner who wants to win and has pride in his product like Mark Cuban would let so many trade exceptions expire in just a few short years (e.g. $9.9 million from the J-Rich trade, $2.1 million from the Indy trade, $5 million back in 2005). The Warriors could have used those exceptions for some much needed upgrades, but they didn’t because Cohan didn’t want to shell out the dough to improve his product.
And I know how many folks still like that J-Rich for Brandan Wright trade, but it was downright cheap, especially after forcing playoff ticket goers to sign up from season tickets the following year then cut costs. I’m sorry but after jacking up season ticket prices 3 years in a row and given the Warriors payroll for their on court product last season was 5th lowest in the league, I don’t really want to hear about how the Warriors need to cut payroll costs.
From how Agent Zero tells it the handling of Gilbert Arenas was cheap if not cold-spirited. As Fitz likes to cite the CBA rules prevented the Warriors at that time from offering what the Wizards and other teams could offer, but it didn’t seem like Arenas would bolt if Cohan just looked him in the eye like a real man. (Pure conjecture here of course.)
Behind every Rowell, there is a Cohan— BD’s contract talks. FJ always tells me the rumors about how the Chris Webber- Don Nelson drama was used as an excuse for Cohan to get around paying CWebb a ton of dough. Aside from the last few years, I believe/ heard (not sure how to verify this) that Cohan how some of the lowest payrolls and employee totals for his coaching staff, front office, scouts, etc.
In the end it comes down to this- Warriors fans and the NBA are “blessed” with an incompetent owner in a large hoops crazy market who has next to no pride in his product, spends what it takes to give off the illusion that the team is trying to win, but in the end cares very little about his team’s performance. Witness the panic Corey Maggette big money deal after pushing Baron Davis out.
Cohan’s a business man. He’s not a very good one or else he’d have this team’s franchise value better than 18th in the league [Forbes], but he does care primarily about the bottom line. He’s not exactly a smart, or classy guy, let alone someone who genuinely cares about fielding a winning team. I get that.
If I were the Commissioner Stern I’d force Cohan out of the league. He’s proven to be completely inept and nearly ruined pro hoops in one of the nation’s most attractive sports markets. Imagine if the Warriors didn’t win on the last day of the 2007 regular season. That might have killed the NBA in the Bay Area. There’s no one else to blame but Cohan. I’ll give him credit though- he’s found the sweet spot between payroll amount, young talent with ridiculous upside, a playing style (Nellieball) to keep the gates busy despite a horrendous product and not giving a damn.
by Atma Brother ONE on May 5, 2009 11:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The R-sq on that line was 0.178. It’s a real trend, but it’s not strong. Without the Knicks, it jumps to .3, which is better, but still indicates a noisy dataset. If you eliminate them though, it doesn’t really due justice to the scope of the problem. Namely, if you spend poorly, not only will you not win, but there are very few mechanisms to get things under control later.
I seem to recall that Cohan has kept spending right around league average for most of his ownership, but that’s from memory. If there’s a place he’s been cheap, it’s been in the front office. At the point where things had really fallen apart after Adelman was canned, bringing in PJ and Saint, neither with track records indicating they’d win, was the cheap move that cost them several seasons in rebuilding. A real GM with a track record could have started to turn things around. Having someone with a brain telling Cohan how to spend the money would have been a net savings in the long run. Bringing in Mullin, even though he wasn’t terrible, but the learning curve when he extended Murphy and Dunleavy and got Fisher and re-inked Foyle cost a few seasons too.
Cheap just doesn’t accurately describe things. It’s more like bipolar disorder spending without an real sense of when it’s a good time to spend and when it’s a good time to save.
by jae on May 5, 2009 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Maggette signing as the perfect example
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
by Supafishal on May 6, 2009 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Knicks are an outlier and a unique situation- they ownership is so rich and the NY market is so big, that they can be in that situation and really not be and that bad of a spot. If you can predict 30% of a team’s wins just based on on their payroll totals, that’s not bad at all.
I seem to recall that Cohan has kept spending right around league average for most of his ownership, but that’s from memory.
I seem to recall that from 2005 onwards (the summer of Mullin spending) that was probably the case, but before that I don’t believe so.
If there’s a place he’s been cheap, it’s been in the front office.
100% agreed. I’ve also heard people say that the Warriors scouting staff has been severely understaffed over the years.
I think the main issue is that no one with other options would work for Cohan. The Warriors lucked into Nellie, a hall of fame caliber hoops mind, because of the Mullin connection and the word around the league back in 2006 was that he was washed up and burned out. Nellie’s burned a lot of bridges over the years, including one’s with lawsuit Cohan. It was a unique situation where two desperate men needed each other. Cohan got a great coach and Nellie got a great paycheck.
by Atma Brother ONE on May 7, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Knicks have had this problem the longest, but there’s usually another terrible team with huge payroll, the result of a failed attempt to buy their way past a blockage in the playoffs. Philly had that problem a couple of years back. Portland wound up with bloated salaries as their teams fell apart.
Being able to predict 30% of a league’s relative standings by payroll still doesn’t suggest that spending more means winning more. It means that there’s covariance, but I think it’s probably the winning leading the pay rather than the other way around. It means that enough of the league isn’t so stupid as to spend on worthless players and that there is some level of meritocracy (albeit rather imperfect) where better players are paid more.
If you’ve got good young players, they’re going to be cheap. You’ll win, but then you’ll have to pay more. I’d like to see a real economist look at that though, if the change in payroll indicates a change in relative standing, as that’s the real issue. It’s a complex situation since the decision to spend is not a real free market. You can increase spending usually through paying who you have, but with a salary cap, it’s tough to increase spending otherwise. And if what you have is making you lose, spending more won’t solve the problem.
by jae on May 7, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Spending money to get good isn’t a bad idea. Isiah/ Dolan’s mistakes were due to assembling a roster that just didn’t fit well (all poor defenders) and tons of in house drama. They paid guys like Marbury, Francis, Z-Bo, and Eddy Curry superstar money when they weren’t superstars.
Wasting money on bad players is a dumb idea. I don’t think anyone’s advocating for Cohan to waste his money and saturate the roster with bad contracts.
Being able to predict 30% of a league’s relative standings by payroll still doesn’t suggest that spending more means winning more.
It says it could be an important factor and it’s worth looking into why. It doesn’t say that you completely discard its merit and say that spending money doesn’t help you win.
I think it’s probably the winning leading the pay rather than the other way around.
I’m not sure I buy that. You don’t win then pony up and spend a ton. You spend in the offseason or increase payroll with trades, get or keep the good expensive players and then win.
It means that enough of the league isn’t so stupid as to spend on worthless players and that there is some level of meritocracy (albeit rather imperfect) where better players are paid more.
Unless I’m not reading that correctly, that argues that a higher payroll indicates a roster with better players.
You can increase spending usually through paying who you have, but with a salary cap, it’s tough to increase spending otherwise. And if what you have is making you lose, spending more won’t solve the problem.
Agreed, but my point is that Cohan had options- extending Monta and Biedrins and using those trade exceptions- to work within the cap. He didn’t. Those were cheap moves.
Again “cheapness” isn’t Cohan’s biggest problem. It’s a problem, but not the #1 issue for the suck.
by Atma Brother ONE on May 7, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He extended Monta and Biedrins...
As for the trade exception… what player was available for 9 million that would have truly made the Warriors a contender?
The only one I could think of was Artest, but he effect on the team would be questionable.
Most players worth acquiring had salaries more than 9 million and those that that made less than 9 million, no team would want to part with them.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on May 7, 2009 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My bad for the confusing writing. I meant the Warriors could’ve extended Monta and Biedrins regardless of whether they used the 9.9 trade exception (not the only one Cohan’s let expire by the way). That was also the excuse for the dumb J-Rich for Brandan Wright trade. Again trading JR was fine. They could’ve actually made a good basketball trade for a good/decent PF for JR and it would’ve made much more sense. This was a plain salary dump. The Warriors never wanted Brandan Wright- it still doesn’t seem that way.
Forget contention. This team in the spring of 2008 was in the middle of a playoff battle for the final spot. This is an incompetent organization that needed to build some credibility and establish themselves as a playoff mainstay, not a one hit wonder or a perennial joke. Something as simple as using the trade exception to get a backup PG like Baron Davis who was forced to play way too many minutes because of the J-Rich trade and the T-Hud signing was worth a shot. I’m talking about a relatively low contract like Earl Watson or Kyle Lowry. I would’ve loved to get Artest or Andre Miller as well.
by Atma Brother ONE on May 7, 2009 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
KThomas, PF – just to name one, good defender, rebounder, veteran … would have been Turiaf a year earlier and would have helped get us over the hump
by hardcore on May 8, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
While the Kings aren’t really in the Bay Area I’d argue that they are still splitting the Warriors’ “pie.” I’ve noticed that here in Davis, all the way north to at least Chico you still find rampant numbers of 49er and Giants fans, but the majority root for the Kings. While they aren’t splitting the major metropolitan areas like the 49ers/Raiders or A’s/Giants are, having two fan bases in northern California (and two basketball arenas within about an hours drive, minus traffic, from each other) clearly does still split the pie. In a way its even worse than the 9ers/Raiders or A’s/Giants because the Kings and Warriors are in the same conference and division and are thus competing against each other for playoff spots. I’d be willing to bet just about everyone here knows at least one person who claims to be both an A’s and Giants fan, but do you really know anyone who is a Kings fan AND a Warriors fan?
Thing A
by sam23 on May 6, 2009 12:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good thoughts, but how many people do you know who drive from the city, east bay, or the south bay to regularly watch Kings games in Sac. I can’t think of anyone who does that, but I can think of folks who do that for the Dubs. The Warriors have a strong foothold in the Bay Area and basically a great monopoly in a huge sports market that loves its hoops.
by Atma Brother ONE on May 7, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m willing to bet that more than 3/4 of fans think the same way about their team’s owners. Everyone wants an owner like Cuban, who doesn’t care about breaking even and regularly shows tremendous pride in his team and an eagerness to win (while at the same time looking like a substantial douche). But Cuban only owns one team, and so help me god if you change the name of this blog to Dallas State of Mind…
I don’t mind Cohan’s middle-of-the-pack spending, regardless of whether we’re in a big market or not. If we were fans of, say, the Bobcats, who were underspending for years, or even the Grizzlies who were doing the same, then I might be a little more ticked off. Cohan’s playing the cap game that the NBA created, and I think it’s OK to just accept that for what it is. Nothing to be happy about, but I don’t know if he deserves a crucifixion for it.
Some of your other points about the “man behind the curtain” are pretty unsubstantiated:
Would Gilbert have stayed if Cohan gave him a promise ring? Maybe, but Arenas isn’t exactly a predictable fellow, and it’s hard to see anybody turning down money when it’s presented to him.
Did they get rid of Webber early on because of cheapness? You admit it’s just a rumor, so can we really call Cohan out on that?
And about Baron: was lowballing Baron REALLY that bad of an idea? The Clippers probably wished they played that one a little more conservatively right about now.
The Maggette signing I think you can put squarely on the talent evaluators, whether that was Mullin or Rowell—it was a panic move, to be sure, and Cohan obviously agreed to it, but bringing Maggs in was a basketball decision. If anything, this shows Cohan’s willingness to spend.
The fact that the Warriors have been putrid for nearly his entire reign is a point that’s hard to swallow. He doesn’t make very good decisions, and he hires people that make even worse decisions. Does he hate puppies and small children? I don’t know, but I doubt that it would affect his ability to run an NBA franchise.
by ffgolden on May 6, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Webber/Nelson being a front to not pay Webber is quit absurd
This was a public feud that even had Nelson asking if he was out of touch with younger players.
If we didn’t want to pay him why would we have given so much for him?
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on May 6, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nicely put
The key is that Cohan, like many owners, is not a rich man looking for a toy to play with. He’s a business man who views the Warriors as a viable and profitable business (as evidenced by the recent forbes article). He’s not a guy who doesn’t care about losing $10M/year on a basketball team because it’s his COMPANY, not his toy.
For every Cuban, there’s a Bob Johnson.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK
by Dubs fan in Boston on May 6, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Webber move probably did come down to money. It was really Cohan’s first move as owner and it was the wrong one. One mistake, now much more than a decade ago, shouldn’t forever brand someone as ‘cheap’, but it was perhaps an indicator of ‘foolish’.
My guess is that realizing that mistake has led to many of the later ones. Since he didn’t pay Webber and that didn’t work out, he flip flopped and overspent on Dampier, Jamison (a good player, but not worth “max”), Foyle, etc. But then he got scared with Richardson (and I still don’t think that move hurt us, but hey, it probably was about money) and Baron. Never was there a real plan. It was all reacting to the last situation that came up and over-correcting when the next decision came up.
In the business-world, top-top management almost never sides with an individual worker in conflict with a middle/upper management character and I wonder if that was part of Cohan’s thinking, siding with keeping Nellie rather than Webber. Basketball is different. The workers are the product and you cannot simply plug in another desk clerk at PF like you can in the cable TV business.
by jae on May 6, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
another read on the Webber-Nelson fiasco is that was a clear choice between having to dump the petulant all-star in the making or the petulant coach with a long term contract, and while dumping the coach might seem more attractive these days it simply wasn’t being done as much then as now, not to mention that trading Webber brought back the #1 picks and a decent player in Googs (certainly not as great as Webber, but a decent NBA forward) while Nelson couldn’t be traded and replaced as easily for the inexperienced owner. Obviously, Nelson didn’t stick around a whole long time either so it was a lose-lose-lose scenario …
by hardcore on May 8, 2009 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone likes to say there’s only one Mark Cuban and that’s true, but there are plenty of owners who have shown tremendous pride in putting out a good product and are willing to spend.
Paul Allen of the Blazers- in the earlier part of this decade he was always willing to pay top dollar for his squad
Jim Dolan of the Knicks- terrible results, but he’s willing to front the bills
Robert Sarver of the Suns- some odd selling of draft picks, but he picked up those long and expensive Shaq and J-Rich contracts to try to win a championship
Jerry Buss of the Lakers pays for a great product and gets one. There was plenty of excuses coming from Warriors fans and I’m sure the mismanagement about taking on Gasol’s contract when he was on such a losing team.
One (of the many) rumors of the KG to the Warriors period was that the Warriors weren’t willing to give KG the extra years on his contract that the Celtics gave him. The Celts investment syndicate ponied up and you can’t fault them.
Cavs owner Dan Gilbert (mostly in an attempt to keep LeBron) has gone nuts and is fielding a 90 million payroll this season. There’s no doubt he’s playing to win and put out a good product for the fans and LeBron.
You think any of those guys would let that many trade exceptions expire or look to trim payroll after finally making the playoffs for the first time in 13 years? Don’t think so.
Chris Cohan is a cheap loser compared to all of these other (mostly big market) owners. After a 1/15 playoff success rate, Cohan needs to instill credibility in his franchise. If I were him, that would mean taking a short term loss in order to build a stronger and more powerful brand. This is a loser organization precisely because it has a loser owner.
There’s tons of companies out there that decrease their profit margins to put out better quality products. It comes down to pride and a long term vision. Neither of which Cohan has.
I don’t think Cohan’s #1 problem by any means is that he isn’t willing to spend what it takes- I think it’s a problem, but not the worst at all. It’s pure incompetence.
by Atma Brother ONE on May 7, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you about Cohan, ut you've picked poor comparisons
The Warriors stance has always been they’d pay the luxury tax if it meant keeping or putting together a Championship team. So far all the players the Warriors have failed to re-sign or trade for (except KG) would not have brought them a Championship. All the owners you listed had Championship teams when they spent the money.
Paul Allen – Blazers were Championship Material back then.
Dan Gilbert – Cavs are the best team in the East right now.
Jerry Buss – has had Championship teams.
You can’t just spend cash and expect to win. When you do you get…
James Dolan- Knicks spend money but what has that gotten them? Unable to make the playoffs in the EAST… com’n the EAST.
You list Robert Sarver – but being cheap is actually what caused that team to tank. They traded draft picks for cash. Traded Marion. The contracts of Shaq and J-Rich were still moves with Championship contention in mind.
You need to be able to build a team first WORTHY of going over the luxury tax for and sadly due to Cohan’s poor front office hirings we have never had that opportunity. We had one stab at KG but McHale decided to help his old team and friend.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on May 7, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
There are two things that motivate an owner to pay top dollar
And they’re f-ing related.
I’ll list each of the owners you reference
Paul Allen – Those early years you reference were the years he was Cuban before Cuban was Cuban. The guy founded Microsoft. I don’t know how much more of a “rich guy with a new toy” you can get.
Dolan – Because every time they sign a free agent to big money, their fanbase gets really excited and convinces themselves that they should go to a game, buy another jersey, etc. Because of past experience, they know this to be a financially viable business strategy.
Celtics – Team of historical importance with a rabid fanbase (have you ever heard of the Red Sox or the Patriots?) that was losing interest due to the downfall of the team. They already had two Top 100 ever players at the tail end of their prime, adding one more would take them over the top and reinvigorate their fanbase. As a guy who’d been to the games the Warriors played in town, I can tell you that tickets immediately turned around from “Hey, we’ll throw hot dogs and drinks and discounts at you” to “Hahah… hold on… hahahahhahaa… whooo, sorry we’re all sold out, you…. hahahhaha, can’t buy tickets… hahhahahah!!!” So, the moral of the story? Financial viable BUSINESS decision because of the gynormous fanbase.
Sarver – Cheapo who didn’t realize he had a contender until it was too late. He didn’t realize what a good thing he had when the fans were coming to see a winning SSOL team. Then when they went to make one last push to hold on, it was too late, they didn’t have any assets because they sold all their draft picks for cash, and they couldn’t get anything good. Yeah, this was a legitimate example of cheapness biting somebody in the behind, not an example of a guy willing to spend money.
Cleveland – Holding onto LeBron is the only way Gilbert will keep the value of his team. If LeBron leaves, they’ll be devastated financially.
Jerry Buss – He had the good fortune of having Shaq, Kobe, and Gasol land in his lap. He’s had a contender every year since 1999 and, of course, has had to pay to keep that team together.
The KG rumors you mention are just that, rumors. I think it’s far more likely that KG wanted to play with his buddies PP and Jesus in the inferior conference and have an incredible shot at championship rather than play with a gutted Warriors team that would have a marginal chance of earning home court advantage in a playoff series, let alone actually contending for a championship.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK
by Dubs fan in Boston on May 7, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ummm... that's the point.
Owners pay to keep championship teams together or add a Championship level piece.
The Warriors under Chris Cohan have yet to face that prospect of having a championship caliber team to pay or signing/acquiring a player who will put them into that category (LA with Shaq, Celtics with KG, etc).
So to say that Cohan isn’t willing to pay PLAYERS to build a championship is false as he hasn’t had the opportunity (his own doing due to the front office he assembled) to do so. He has shown willingness to pay to keep Jaimson, sign Danny Forton, J-rich, Dunleavy, Murphy, Foyle, Biedrins, Ellis, Jackson so I doubt it will be an issue in the future.
We all know Cohan is a businessman and he knows the $$$$ he’ll make if the Warriors are ever a championship caliber team. He got a taste of the money during our playoff run.
Cohan is a joke of an owner, but it isn’t because he doesn’t spend money, it’s because of the front office and work environment he has created.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on May 7, 2009 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We all know Cohan is a businessman and he knows the $$$$ he’ll make if the Warriors are ever a championship caliber team. He got a taste of the money during our playoff run.
Unfortunately I don’t think he’s even that smart or else he would’ve let Mullin use that 10million trade exception to upgrade the roster during the 2008 fight for the playoffs. That was a team with glaring holes. Remember Troy Hudson, Austin Croshere, Kosta Perovic, and Patrick O’Bryant were all on that roster. (Nice work Mullin?) That unused 5 million dollar trade exception could’ve helped in 2005 when the Warriors were in the playoff hunt as well.
The “we’ll pay the lux tax for a championship team” is just fake posturing by Cohan and Rowell. They’re just saying that to instill trust in the fanbase. Just like Donald Sterling they probably think they’ve found a sweet spot between fielding an entertaining bad team with “upside” at a certain price point and keeping the ticket gates moving.
Again all of those owners paid big bucks to make things happen. If they had that 2k7 Warriors playoff team they would’ve paid to upgrade it, not take it down to save money for extensions for 2 flawed players with mythical “ridiculous upside”.
by Atma Brother ONE on May 7, 2009 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Screw Cohan.
It’s not the money he spends its the way he runs the whole organization.
Stern needs to clean out the league. I’m with atma on this one.
Chris Cohan and Robert Rowell? Oh no hide the children!
by Nuck Chorris on May 5, 2009 11:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i like this link when trying to figure out where the warriors stand, financially
by Run Dubz on May 5, 2009 11:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That’s the one I reference first when I’m looking something up. They have an occasional error, but it’s more trustworthy than USAToday.
by jae on May 5, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Neat little salaries page. bookmarked
Who the heck was Dion Dowell? A google search showed that he was signed on Sept 9 for training camp and then waived around Oct 9. I wish I could earn $50,000 in a month.
by IQofaWarrior on May 5, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait a sec
how is it possible that Ronny Turiaf’s salary actually goes DOWN over the next 2 years???
by IQofaWarrior on May 6, 2009 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's front-loaded.
It was actually a really smart move. He was a restricted free agent and the Lakers were looking at paying the luxury tax if they matched our offer. When you take that into consideration front-loading the contract made it much more painful for the Lakers to match the offer because they would have essentially had to pay double what we offered for his services (luxury tax is a dollar for dollar penalty if you cross the threshold).
Thing 2
by olympicmike on May 6, 2009 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yessss....... He is our tastey turiaf now.
Chris Cohan and Robert Rowell? Oh no hide the children!
by Nuck Chorris on May 6, 2009 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like to subtract all the contracts I don't want using that site.
Chris Cohan and Robert Rowell? Oh no hide the children!
by Nuck Chorris on May 5, 2009 11:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Sry meant to reply
Chris Cohan and Robert Rowell? Oh no hide the children!
by Nuck Chorris on May 5, 2009 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice post...
I’m not a fan of Cohan, but I agree that it’s too easy to just call him cheap. I think he just doesn’t know what the heck he is doing. He’s incompetent and so is Rowell.
I don’t think that our problems are a matter of being too tight. IMO you spend (go into luxury tax) to keep a winner together or to go from playoff lock to title contender. The Warriors haven’t yet succeeded in getting themselves in that position.
You can’t complain that the guy overpaid Dunleavy, Fisher, Foyle, Murphy, Claxton and Jamison in one breath, and then call him cheap in the next. His biggest problem has been putting together a management team that can construct a winning basketball team. It took way too long to fire Gary St Jean and now he seems unable to keep the drama out of his front office. If I owned this organization and I saw the politics going on between Rowell, Mullin and Nelson it wouldn’t take long for me to let everyone (including the fans) know exactly who is in charge of what.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on May 5, 2009 11:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
I agree. If there is one thing to place blame on Cohan for, it’s that he put together a dysfunctional team in the FO.
by barrance on May 6, 2009 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. There’s no salary cap on how much you pay a GM or a coaching staff. Clearing that up and bringing in a top talent to make the personnel decisions would have been a smart move. I suspect it would have saved more money on the bottom line too, as a good GM doesn’t make (as many) bad contract signings.
by jae on May 6, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree so far
There are about 9 teams spending less money than the Warriors this year. Let’s just say for arguements sake that is a general trend that is true over the last five years and so are the Team Wins since few teams have made big changes in theri winning percentage over the last half decade.
6 of those teams are winning more games. It is absolutely a leadership issue, not a money issue with this organization. We have seen the same thing with the Giants and Raiders. Great amount of fan support, terrible leadership which leads to poor player selection, bad contracts that hurt the franchise over a period of time, and poor coaching/GM selections. I.E. everyone knew Bonds was going to retire about the time he did, where was the plan to find some run production when he left?
Can you imagine running your business this poorly?
by warriorsvictim on May 6, 2009 10:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You don't always want an active owner ...
For example, Jerry Jones basically pushed out Jimmy Johnson because Jones wanted to be perceived as being in control of the personelle decisions. In the process, he forced out not only a good coach, but an excellent talent evalutator, and once they started losing the Johnson-acquired talent they haven’t been as good.
That being said, I don’t know if this has improved lately, but there is an area where Cohan has been cheap:
Operations.
A few years ago, I know someone who tried to go to a game that wasn’t close to sold out. He got to the colleseum more than 30 minutes before tipoff, and because there was only a single ticket-seller working, couldn’t get in to see the game until midway through the second quarter.
I don’t know if the team has fixed this, but Cohan made his money, I believe, in cable TV – which had a reputation as one of the worst businesses for customer service ever (since the audience was captive anyway).
by Ronaldinho on May 6, 2009 12:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I have a question...
If this article gets enough recs does it also appear in the recommended FanPost section? If anyone reads this, give it a rec so we can find out.
It seems like articles on the Main page get pushed down so fast that some good conversation in the comments gets lost before everyone has a chance to weigh in.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on May 8, 2009 2:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good question
Unfortunately I don’t think it will appear in the recommended FanPost section.
I do agree that the main blog articles do get pushed down pretty fast and it does make it hard to have a lengthy conversation. We have the “Featured Stories” block, but I don’t know if that really serves well for this purpose.
Let me see if we can come up with anything. Feel free to post thoughts here.
by Atma Brother ONE on May 8, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks...
I’ve been thinking for a while that it would be handy to have something on the left column that looks similar to the fanpost section for the mainpage articles (just titles and comment counts) so that we can more easily keep track of all the different discussions. You know, just kind of a quick reference so we don’t have to scroll down so far.
It would extend the life of those articles a bit too. I’m sure that the people who aren’t as, um, enthusiastic as I am (at least I’m not the only one who spends an embarrassing amount of time here) miss out on a lot of good content just because they don’t check back here religiously.
I’m sure that kind of change would have to be worked in to the next SBN update. Maybe you could pass that along as a suggestion.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on May 8, 2009 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
