Why I’m Not Renewing
My esteemed colleague Adam drops science:
"Why should I spend money on this team when Chris Cohan won’t?"
Let me go one step further- Cohan is the worst owner in all of sports. How can an owner of a basketball team in a big market hoops mecca possibly churn out such a horrible product for the vast majority of a decade and a half? It takes "talent" to be that incompetent. If only David Stern didn't obsess over fashion issues and focused his efforts on not letting a wonderful hoops market go to waste.
Email
PrintComments
If only David Stern didn’t obsess over fashion issues and focused his efforts on not letting a wonderful hoops market go to waste.
Question for you Atma (or anyone). Can anyone think of an owner in professional who got kicked out by the league for being so poor? I’d love Stern to do it, but I can’t think of an actual example of anything remotely close. Or how he could even help?
It’s just depressing because of how GREAT GSW could be for the league. Instead we’re all but a forgotten story.
The thing is, Stern works for the owners.
Hard to fire someone when you’re their employee. Sterling would be first on that bizzaro chopping block, anyway, I’d reckon.
by Spider Jerusalem on Mar 7, 2010 10:43 PM PST up reply actions
I have to say Sterling is worse than Cohan, but they are both the most inept owners this league has to offer.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
Nah, Sterling is just cheap and trying to make a profit. Cohan spends, we still suck, and we have the most dysfunctional franchise in the league, and it starts at the top. It’s not even comparable, really – that organization is messed up through and through. I recently found out someone I know that does some part time work for the Warriors (that he gets paid to do) has been working for them a bit the last few months, and when I talked to him….well, he had yet to be paid at all. It’s a messed up organization through and through. Throw in a side of Cohan alienated/suing/backstabbing his “friends”, the amount of fan support the Warriors still have despite our performance…..yeah, Cohan runs away with it.
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 6:54 AM PST up reply actions
Can we put this to rest?
ohan spends, we still suck, and we have the most dysfunctional franchise in the league
when have Warriors EVER been in luxury tax? That’s my definition of spending. He spends on par w/ Sterling who won’t go in it either. Puts the bare minimum requires of NBA owner. This isn’t baseball where you have the pirates and Yankees. The cheapest owners tend to have payrolls at the cap/under luxury tax. Those willing to spend go INTO the luxury tax.
It’s no surprise of the 16 highest spending teams (http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm) only 3 are not set to make playoffs. Of those 3, two were thought to be locks for playoffs pre-injuries (CP3) and guns (Wizards). Portland is an anomaly simply because they have so many young players who will be getting paid within 2 seasons (like Brandon Roy who is on rookie scale but will receive a heavy increase next summer). Paul Allen also gave them lets of money to buy draft picks like Rudy Fernandez which turned out to be excellent business.
The one time the warriors had a playoff caliber team, Cohan refused to take them into luxury tax, instead constantly shedding payroll and (surprise surprise) they didn’t make it. Sure the team had poor contracts like Barons, but with it expiring, it would have been a one year hit.
Now look at last year plus. The product put out on the floor. The money constantly shed. Selling players like Belinelli who was, 23 and playing well pre-injury last year? Dumping Crawford for an expiring they never intended to use. You could go on and on. This team literally went from talent rich (albeit a lot of it raw/underdeveloped talent) to a team lacking viable NBA starting talent. Cohan may not be Sterling bad. But he is by no means anywhere in top tier of willing spending owners which is appalling because of the market size, TV contracts and ability to sell out the Arena, he should be able to put money in and at least make back his investment
by tafkasam on Mar 8, 2010 8:54 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I didn’t call him a top tier spender, but he’s pretty comparable to most NBA teams. Funny you bring baseball up – you know how many baseball teams tend to go into the luxury tax? You can generally count the number on one hand. I also think you’re mistaking some cause and effect here. To some degree – yes, spending on the luxury tax probably helps make your team better, but to a larger degree, being a contender makes spending into the luxury tax worthwhile. With the terrible product Cohan has given us, it actually makes a lot of sense to not go into the luxury tax. Many other NBA owners do the same thing – more than half the league is under the luxury tax for this season, based on Hoopshype’s salary data. Last year, only 7 teams went into the luxury tax according to NBA.com. The year before that, only 8 teams did. The Knicks were the high spenders both seasons, look where it got them.
You’re right that this isn’t baseball – with the way the NBA’s CBA is structured, you can’t just go out any offseason you have extra money lying around and just spend it to upgrade your team. Spending your money in a smart way is much, much more important than just trying to throw money at the problem to improve your team. Our problem is the money hasn’t been spent well. We’re only $4M under the luxury tax this year – what would spending an extra $4M, $5M, $6M do for this team? Add another Ronny Turiaf? No, spending is a very small issue compared to everything else that holds this franchise back.
This team literally went from talent rich (albeit a lot of it raw/underdeveloped talent) to a team lacking viable NBA starting talent.
The problem was, that “talent rich” team was largely talent rich because of Baron Davis, who opted out of his contract and ended up getting a new horrible, franchise crippling contract, and Stephen Jackson, who’s also getting up there in age with a contract I’d rather not have Stephen Jackson here on.
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 9:32 AM PST up reply actions
You’re missing the point. The Warriors had a team capable of challenging for playoffs. And decided not to spend to keep it or add to it and just rebuild AGAIN. Of course when you’re a young team it makes no sense to go into luxury tax unless you have legitimate deep playoff ability. But the 2007-8 team was one player away from making playoffs (trade exception) and really, with addition of a 4-5 mil Turiaf type player on the bench as well could have easily won 5 to 7 more games. Difference between 48 wins and mid 50s. Something we haven’t seen in Cohan Era. And he was unwilling to allow it. Never mind the oracle was packed nightly. He had his chance to prove he’d spend to put a winner on the floor and DIDN’T. Let’s be honest. That 07-08 team had a good enough starting 5 but was needle thin in depth particularly upront. Warriors could have spent to give them the necessary depth to not play Harrington at center. Baron 40+ mins etc. It would have made a difference.
you know how many baseball teams tend to go into the luxury tax? You can generally count the number on one hand
Is there even a luxury tax in baseball? What is it at?
The Knicks were the high spenders both seasons, look where it got them.
This was isiah’s blunders. But NY doesn’t play by the same rules as us cause of the massive TV contracts.
by tafkasam on Mar 8, 2010 10:12 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
But NY doesn’t play by the same rules as us cause of the massive TV contracts.
Yes, yes, they do. When you’re over the salary cap, which is far below the luxury tax, you can’t just go add players. You can’t just go out in the offseason and add as much depth as you want – being over the salary cap really limits your ability to do this kind of thing. The biggest thing you can do is resign your own players – but the point is, you have to have a sustainable core. If the rumors about our trade exception were true, yes, I would have liked it to be used, and that is one point against Cohan, but again, it’s just a small point. The bigger problem was that team wasn’t sustainable. Richardson, Baron and Jack were getting old and ended up being grossly overpaid (Richardson was already grossly overpaid). We even kept Baron/Jack around for another year and didn’t make the playoffs. All we did was move on without them – we didn’t actually get rid of any part of our future because of financial reasons.
The point is we aren’t being held back by financial issues. We spend enough to be competitive, if we were well run. Our problem is we aren’t well run, and it’s the single biggest factor (with nothing else being even close) to why we aren’t a successful franchise.
I think you should look into the CBA and the limits a team has to operate under when you’re over the salary cap, which we almost always are. We didn’t have the flexibility to just add meaningful depth, we were spending too much already. Not going into the luxury tax is only a problem when you get rid of players who are part of your future by cutting salary (since you can always resign your own players – that’s how you get in the luxury tax in the first place), in my opinion, we have yet to do that.
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 11:07 AM PST up reply actions
I think you should look into the CBA and the limits a team has to operate under when you’re over the salary cap
Dallas does a good job of using there MLEs and adding pieces. so do most title interested teams. (Yes, Cohan has no interest in winning)
Dallas is a well run franchise
It’s not just about money.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 11:39 AM PST up reply actions
It’s not just about money.
Yes and no. They don’t let the cap dictate moves to put a better product on the floor. The Warriors do….
Most teams do
most teams that go into the luxury tax only do so for a little while because it often loses money. Most teams are at or above the cap, like the Warriors are now.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 10:32 PM PST up reply actions
Above the cap
and they will be above it next season.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 10:32 PM PST up reply actions
An MLE doesn’t get you a whole lot. Title contenders do a good job with them because all they’re looking for is a 7th man type to add depth. They already have a long term winning core built, and that’s the difference between them and us. Not to mention a decent guy to spend your MLE on is going to prefer a title contender, ceteris paribus, rather than a losing franchise like the Warriors….
And let’s keep in mind the argument isn’t that Cohan spends a lot of money – it’s that he spends enough to contend, and spends in a similar fashion as most NBA franchises. It’s not money that’s our problem, it’s basketball decisions. (And Cohan does have an interest in winning – winning drives revenues, plus we already spend enough to be a winning team, he’s just really, really bad at running an organization capable of winning)
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 11:49 AM PST up reply actions
to end the circular argument
And let’s keep in mind the argument isn’t that Cohan spends a lot of money – it’s that he spends enough to contend, and spends in a similar fashion as most NBA franchises
He wont though! I would need to find the data, but I’m hard pressed to think of a time the GSW’s have been in top 10 in spending when the market is 4th biggest in US with a gigantic fan base. Just cause he spends some, doesn’t mean he spends enough to win. add to it half the spending is horrendous it’s definitely NOT enough.
Cohan has no interest in winning and all his decisions, basketball, financial etc. show that. He just wants to put out a team capable of bringing in profit. Aka market a ‘star’ (Monta, hardly a star but exciting), play exciting basketball over competitive basketball, market the future (always highlighting our draft pick)
The problem I’m seeing with your arguments is it’s always about being top 10, or crossing some arbitrary luxury tax line. Take note of how small the range in team payrolls is across the NBA. The difference between us at 21 this year and the Utah Jazz at #8 (based on Hoopshype) is under $9M. Add another Corey Maggette quality player to our team and we still aren’t good, but the problem is – you can’t even add that player because the CBA rules don’t let you just go out and do that. We outspend the Hawks. We outspend the Blazers. We outspend the Thunder. We outspend the Rockets by a lot if you don’t count Yao’s salary with theirs, and they’re still a lot better than us. What’s frustrating about this argument is you don’t seem to be considering just how little a factor simply spending money is – unless we’re actively not adding players that would fit well into our future from a basketball perspective and turning down good trades for our expirings, or just flat out not resigning some of our own young guys for money reasons, I just don’t see how money is holding us back. We’re over the cap, all we have available is the MLE in a given offseason, and that hardly gets us anywhere. When we had money to spend, management made big contract offers to various FA’s and when they didn’t land any of them, still spent the money on Maggette. Stupid, but it’s not like they’re just pocketing it.
I just don’t see how what we’ve done supports Cohan just trying to bring in a profit. Sterling already gave us the blueprint for maximizing profits – don’t spend anything, yet the Warriors are still in the $10M range that 15 of the 30 teams are in – from $65M-75M. Almost everyone spends a similar amount in the NBA, and we’re just like other franchises in that regard. Plus, if you were in charge of marketing on the Warriors right now, what, exactly, would you be doing differently? Sure, I think this team is poorly constructed, but I’d be marketing it the exact same way if I were the Warriors. What other choice do they have? They can’t market winning, so they have to try to market an individual. As long as we’re losing, you might as well make it as exciting as possible, and when the present isn’t very shiny, of course you’re going to get people excited about the future. Whether Cohan wants to win or whether he wants to make a profit – those things don’t change, given that we fail at winning.
We really are just rehashing the same things over and over – so I have a couple of questions to hopefully bring something new to this conversation. What specific evidence is there that financial reasons trump basketball competitiveness? What specific moves can you point to and say our basketball team is substantially worse off, taking both short and long term into account, because Cohan didn’t want to spend money? If you were in charge and allowed to spend whatever you wanted to make the team competitive, what would you have done differently, and how does that reflect spending money smarter compared to solving the problem simply through higher levels of spending? Where would we be if Cohan ratcheted up the payroll, and how?
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
the problem with your numbers is the treshhold is so small....
10 mil separating us from top spending teams is still a 16-20% increase in total salary. Where as $10 for giants won’t put them anywhere near the Yankees of red sox (for example).
I am not arguing with you one bit about your point “Warriors spend incorrectly”. That’s 100% dead on. And you’re right 10 mil alone won’t make Warriors from here to playoffs. I’m simply using the tired argument many site that “Cohan will pay if it puts a winner on the floor” is BS. He wasn’t willing to pay the times we were CLOSE to having a legitimate playoff team. Those are the instances that upset me. Not adding an MLE to this roster now.
Maybe if Monta was who some think he could be, and Curry, Randolph grow at an accelerated rate and all of a sudden we are like Portland/OKC then i’d be more on the case about adding an MLE type player who will give us that needed veteran depth. But we are not that team.
My problem is, when we were that team, they faltered and looked for ways to cut salary.
From my point of view we should shed more salary today and start over. We don’t need Maggette or Monta. Biedrins holds more use to us, but I’d trade him for an upgrade. but this has nothing to do with what i perceive as his problem.
The one opportunity he got to show the fans he was willing to spend extra to insure playoffs and a winner. He balked. Does that at least make some sense?
I’m simply using the tired argument many site that "Cohan will pay if it puts a winner on the floor" is BS.
Well, I think I found out problem. ;)
That really isn’t the argument I’m trying to make. I don’t know if Cohan would be willing to go into the luxury tax or not, and I could definitely see “not” even if we had a team it was worthwhile, my real point is just that we spend enough to be successful. Sure, we might still be at a disadvantage compared to some teams, I’m not arguing against that, but if we were a well run franchise, they could put a winning team on the floor given how much we spend. The point in talking about a $10M difference is “what does $10M buy you?”. In baseball, the difference between the Giants and the Yankees (let’s call it $80M) buys you about 20 extra wins. What does the extra $10M buy us? Corey Maggette – and adding him doesn’t make us a contender.
So my main point is just that we spend enough to be good if we made smart basketball decisions, so that’s why I don’t see money as a big problem – our problem is first making smart basketball decisions. Once we have a good team, THEN we can start to complain about Cohan’s unwillingness to take us to the next level (assuming he is unwilling to spend past a certain point like going into luxury tax, which very well might be a sound assumption).
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 1:06 PM PST up reply actions
If we could have gotten Mike Miller in 07-08 (he was playing like an all star, shot over 50% from the field and 3, while getting a ton of rebounds and assists), i think we would have made the playoffs.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 5:51 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, easy to say in hindsight, and as I acknowledged, if those rumors were true, that’s one strike against Cohan, but again – that’s one short term time, how would Mike Miller have fit into our long term plans and turned us into a respectable franchise?
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 6:08 PM PST up reply actions
Mike Miller is still cheap, and his production is high still. I love his game.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 7:48 PM PST up reply actions
Eh, does he give us any more than Maggette or fit into our long term plans any better than Maggette?
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 8:12 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, because his contract is more reasonable, and i think he’s a better player for many reasons.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 9:39 PM PST up reply actions
Mike Miller’s stats.
Corey Maggette’s stats.
Miller is the better player, while being younger, cheaper, and less injury prone.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 9:44 PM PST up reply actions
I’m honestly not seeing much of a difference. Miller is more efficient, but Corey scores at a much higher volume. Maggette’s a better rebounder. I’ve never thought of Miller as much defensively, though I can’t say I’ve really seen him play in a while now. Miller’s a better passer. Their contracts are pretty similar, though Miller’s runs out sooner….I dunno, it seems like with Miller we wouldn’t have signed Corey but we’d basically be in the same position we’re in now. The biggest upside I see of the deal is he’s younger when his contract expires, and it expires earlier (though we would have acquired him a year earlier, too)….
Should we have traded for him if that trade was really available without giving up meaningful talent? Sure. I just don’t see how it would change our long term prospects in any meaningful way.
by Missing Barry on Mar 9, 2010 7:41 AM PST up reply actions
Baseballs CBT plus some other tidbits
The cap on spending before the luxury tax (officially called the Competitive Balance Tax) kicks in changes during each season of the current collective bargaining agreement. The amounts for recent and future seasons are:
2007 – $148m
2008 – $155m
2009 – $162m
2010 – $170m
2011 – $178m
2009 Luxury Tax
New York is the only team to pay a tax for this season and has crossed the threshold in all seven years since the tax started. According to the collective bargaining agreement, the Yankees must send a check to the commissioner’s office by Jan. 31.
New York Yankees: $25,700,000
Top Five MLB Opening Day Payrolls for 2009
1) New York Yankees: $201,449,289
2) New York Mets: $135,773,988
3) Chicago Cubs: $135,050,000
4) Boston Red Sox: $122,696,000
5) Detroit Tigers: $115,085,145
2008 Luxury Tax
The Yankees were assessed a $26.9 million tax by the commissioner’s office on Monday, 12/22/08, up from $23.9 million last year and their biggest bill since paying nearly $34 million for 2005. The Detroit Tigers, who also failed to qualify for the postseason, are the only other team that must pay tax and owe $1.3 million to the commissioner’s office. While the Yankees pay at a 40 percent rate for the amount over $155 million, the Tigers pay at a 22.5 percent rate because they exceeded the specified threshold for the first time.
New York’s final payroll was $222.2 million and Detroit was second at $160.8 million for the purpose of the luxury tax. To compute it, Major League Baseball uses the average annual values of contracts for players on 40-man rosters and adds benefits. The threshold rose from $148 million last year to $155 million this season. It goes up to $162 million next year and rises by $8 million in each of the following two seasons.
NY Yankees: $26.9 million
Detroit Tigers: $1.3 million
from
http://www.stevetheump.com/luxury_tax.htm
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
The Warriors had a team capable of challenging for playoffs.
I’m sorry, but if you’re suggesting that Cohan (or any owner for that matter) pay luxury tax through the nose to keep together a team on the hopes that they might continue to be a tad bit better than a middle of the road NBA team, that’s ridiculous. Sorry, that team was not very good. If they had played any of the other 30 NBA teams besides Dallas in that playoff series, they’d have lost and been an afterthought. They were not a good team, they were a passable team that got really hot for 1/4 of a season, stayed hot against a team that deliberately let them walk into the postseason, a team they had an uncanny and completely unexplainable ability to beat.
He had his chance to prove he’d spend to put a winner on the floor and DIDN’T.
Sorry, I know it’s not something Warriors fans can really comprehend, but an 8th seed barely counts as a “winner,” and that team was A) flawed to begin with as they had one big man and relied on the small ball gimmick, B) not getting any younger, and C) needed tons of cash to keep together. It was not going to happen… unless you wanted to fast forward to the 2010 offseason when the fans were complaining about how Cohan stupidly gave out $80M in contracts to a flawed team that would be lucky to ever get out of the first round and would NEVER make it past the second round of the playoffs.
No, keeping JRich and spending lux tax through the nose on BD, Monta, & Biedrins was not the answer. There was no answer. The only thing that potentially could have been an answer was trading JRich for a lotto pick, hoping that guy turned into a quality PF, somehow keeping BD interested, and hoping that Monta & Biedrins kept developing. Unfortunately, none of those things panned out. But we’re in a better situation now than we would be with a maxed out JRich/BD/Jax lineup of 30 year old guys with knee problems on huge long term contracts.
In summary, it was not Cohan’s cheapness that did in the perceived future of the 06/07 Warriors “lightening in a bottle” team, instead it was the reality that they got very, very lucky to sneak into the playoffs, got very, very lucky to play the one team they could beat (just so happened to be the team that won the most games that year), and that they were an old, undersized team that could never hope to compete with the Lakers, Utah, or San Antonio… ever.
Do you seriously think it makes sense to financially handcuff your team to a group of aging good but not great guards on the hope that they’ll take you to the playoffs most of the time, even though they have little chance of winning once they get there?
I understand that the playoffs might be a welcome change to the status quo here in Warriorsville, but let’s not aim at the first round of the playoffs as if its an end goal…
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 8, 2010 4:06 PM PST up reply actions
48 wins!
I realize they barely missed the 8 seed. But 48 wins is second most in Cohan era. You know how many wins the #2 seed had? 56. Thats an 8 game difference. A couple key signings could have given warriors 4-5 more wins easily.
Now consider the fact, this franchises fans have had NOTHING to cheer for in 13 years. You don’t think it was worthwhile???
But we’re in a better situation now than we would be with a maxed out JRich/BD/Jax lineup of 30 year old guys with knee problems on huge long term contracts.
Always building for the future. I don’t necessarily buy the argument Baron would have gone downhill here as well. He was equally as mediocre and enigmatic before he came to warrior. The situation suited him and it’s hard to speculate whether it would or wouldn’t still now. That could have left Monta at his preferred position and on a smaller contract (lets be fair, we overpaid simply cause we had cap space. He had no other 11 mil or even 10 mil offers, and same probably holds true on Biedrins. Thats what agents do, they eat up your cap space if possible). Who knows what could have ACTUALLY happened with Al Harrington and Stephen Jackson? There was mismanagement everywhere. Ego’s or Cohan and his cronies over the team. And I realize the team was never set to ‘win it all’ but a few playoff runs would have suited me just fine.
As we saw, you can’t just clear space and sign bosh and lebron. They actually have to wanna come here. And that happens by showing you can be a good team for a series of years.
I dunno if we overpaid Monta/Biedrins or not – they weren’t unrestricted FA’s so comparing what other offers were available doesn’t really reflect what they could have gotten on the open market….
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 6:10 PM PST up reply actions
Spending the Luxury Tax on KG that year would have been worth it though.
A team built around KG, Baron, and Jackson could contend in the West. Top players help you win games. Then the other players would have been Al, Barnes, Buike, Biedrins, and Pietrus. Pretty Good team. Cohan wouldn’t pay the Luxury Tax for that team! That team, you should spend the luxury tax on. It has a chance to go deep in the playoffs.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 5:56 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t remember the rumors being that we turned down a KG deal? I thought a deal just never came together?
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 6:11 PM PST up reply actions
Atma has posted that they said no to a KG deal because they didn’t want to pay the luxury tax.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 7:49 PM PST up reply actions
I’m skeptical without strong evidence, especially since I’m not sure we could beat Boston’s offer without including Baron/Jack….
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 8:14 PM PST up reply actions
meh
they wanted young talent if they were going to dump KG (rebuild) so they weren’t interested in Baron or Jack. They wanteD Monta, Beans. Boston of course offered Al Jefferson.
I also read more than 1 article that he rejected GSW for Boston. Wanted to go to east and Peirce + Ray Allen are better than Baron and Jack
I’m skeptical he wouldn’t come here after the playoff run we had just had. He was desperate for winning, and it might have been a big risk to go to Boston, but we probably will never know the complete truth.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 9:40 PM PST up reply actions
yes BUT....
if you’re KG what’s more attractive. Baron + stackjack or Ray Allen and Paul Peirce. 2 are perenial all stars, 2 are not. He also wanted to get out of Western conference (supposedly). Think about balance of power then. It was ridiculousy scewed.
KG 4 Wright, Monta, Harrington (plus extra draft picks) hmmm… We would have had; Baron, Pietrus, Jack, KG, Beans with Barnes on the bench. We would have needed to add depth (aka Cohan open the wallet and what was discussed before) but I like that teams chances to win a couple series. Defensively they would have been VERY solid. Pity we never got to see it.
Just saying it is alot easier to add talent around a great starting five, because that is what inevitably matters.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 9, 2010 6:39 AM PST up reply actions
I thought one of the main things they wanted was Brandan Wright
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 10:41 PM PST up reply actions
yes. They wanted ALOT of young talent
Wright + Monta + Harrington I think.
and some first round picks.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 9, 2010 6:40 AM PST up reply actions
And they didn’t want to take on long term salary. To match Garnett’s salary, we’d give them Harrington and …? Monta was making the min (and no, you can’t up his salary to make the deal match. That’s why BYC was written into the CBA). Wright’s deal was about $2mil a year. Where does the rest of it come from? How long would Minn have been saddled with Harrington and the unknown-player-to-make-salaries-match? That’s an important part of the equation, perhaps the most important part.
To match Garnett’s salary, Boston could unload soon to be expirings to go with Jefferson and picks. We couldn’t match the expirings.
I dunno why but one of my pet peeves is when people criticize Cohan for not spending. He’s not a particularly cheap owner – he spends enough that we should be a successful team. The problem is he’s a terrible incompetent owner incapable of running a halfway decent franchise. Let’s get our criticisms right!
Cohan is cheap with his people, and with the fans, but he isn’t cheap when it comes to spending money on the basketball players usually.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 5:57 PM PST up reply actions
I dunno why but one of my pet peeves is when people criticize Cohan for not spending.
Shame on you for having one of your pet peeves be that people think realistically about the problem rather than taking the brainless “Cohan’s cheap” [or often “Cohen’s cheap”] option. Shame on you for actually examining evidence.
So him letting expirings go to waste are not cheap moves?...
I get what your saying MB but his ineptitude as an owner makes the moves, when he does spend, mute. The way he spends his money ends up working out the way it would be if he didn’t spend any money at all. Signing 2-3rd tier talent to big contracts aren’t justifiable moves any way you slice it. Plus him spending a little bit of money doesn’t forgive him for running the organization into the ground. Especially when he is cutting corners everywhere else in terms of vendor contracts, workforce development/practices, etc…
The whole point is him being cheap isn’t the problem – the problem is he runs a horrible franchise that gives us a crappy product because it’s so poorly run.
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 9:33 AM PST up reply actions
You mean *moot, not mute. Pronounced like what a cow says, then add a t.
Honestly, what did you all expect him to do with those expirings? We could have added Eddy Curry, or something.
by Reverend_Randy on Mar 8, 2010 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
So him letting expirings go to waste are not cheap moves?…
This is the mentality that lead to the Corey Maggette overpay.
Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.
-randolphforpresident
by Dubs fan in Boston on Mar 8, 2010 4:09 PM PST up reply actions
Can this help Cohan sell team faster ?
If there’s a significant drop in Season ticket renewals, would you think that it will make Cohan take Ellison’s offer or at least be more willing to negotiate ? or would this cheap skate just wait it out ?
or would this cheap skate just wait it out ?
If he has the means. He’d wait it out until the economic cycle turns. Right now he’d be selling at a low.
'economic cycle' is this owner's compass
when the bubble was rising, Mullin was granted an exec v.p. title, appropriate salary, and set out to show the league that the team would pay competitive rates for talent (even to the extent of essentially bidding against itself).
Mullin’s most successful moves were based on other teams wanting to rid themselves of problems—specifically, Davis and Jackson, who together with Mullin’s other opportunity signing, Nelson, were the essential parts of the two successful seasons. Meanwhile, the bubble had inflated to its maximum, and the owner pushed through ticket increases to exploit conditions to the fullest. Mullin over his tenure, however, made as many expensive errors as he had made the right phone calls at the right time, and with the collapse of the bubble, the owner via his college buddy, wouldn’t sign off on what seemed to be another over optimistic re-signing, Davis of course.
As a fan favorite, dream team, possible h.o.f. guy, Mullin will be free from the taint of the team’s demise—his ‘successor’, Riley, who possesses neither the salary, title, or authority over signings that Mullin did when the owner’s finances were flush, gets much more of the public scorn. The owner can justifiably say that the current economy dictates that business concerns (Rowell the conduit) have to dictate decisions. The best chance for the team to build a foundation for long-term success has passed for the present ownership, dissipated in signings like Fisher, Richardson, Foyle, Perovic, Jackson, M’gette, an overall lack of consistency and success in draft picks, and grasps after short term solutions like Davis, Nelson, M.Williams. Mullin fared well, to gain the experience as a novice exec, and get credit for the two successful season, but also had a chance to accomplish more.
Blaming the owner can be simplistic. The fans in Sea might have some unkind thoughts directed to OK’s owner, but the team is now touted as a model for rebuilding because a competent g.m. willing to deal aggressively within a long range plan has been in charge of the hoops side before and after the move. NY has the same owners it did but had the $$ to install Walsh and D’Antoni, so at least has the appearance of coming back to respectability. Cuban is highly regarded as an owner, and one of his best decisions, crucial to building his team’s foundation, was to retain Nelson from the previous ownership. Good hoops execs (Riley doesn’t have this level of authority/power) are more scarce that good coaches—Cohan has simply made mediocre decisions on whom to put in charge.
by the.monk on Mar 8, 2010 12:49 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Cohan has simply made mediocre decisions on whom to put in charge.
And that’s why we blame the owner. :)
(Also, the Warriors are a dysfunctional franchise that doesn’t really operate with integrity or class, so besides the losing, that’s another mark against the owner.)
by Missing Barry on Mar 8, 2010 1:08 PM PST up reply actions
if the fervent fans
who frequent this site focused their brilliant analyses and leisure time looking at other big league franchises, I suspect that GS would be close to the mediocre middle, and many other teams would be exposed to not ‘really operate with integrity or class.’ As devoted and knowledgeable the fans here might be, I suspect fans in NY, Bos, Chi make sustained mediocrity a little more difficult to tolerate for the owners/management of those teams—NY being an extreme example of the ownership’s vast wealth and market situation allowing them to remain near-deaf to the vox populi.
Given a great market for the mega-media combine of the nba, Cohan’s clumsiness in managing people wasted a chance to do something lasting and positive for the area’s sports addicts and community. But he’ll still get a couple $100-200m. for his trouble when he sells. So he’s successful on his terms of making $$, as incompetent, mendacious, or venal as he may (or may not) be. He might be o.k. with being one of the most reviled nba owners—the fans who booed him made him rich.
by the.monk on Mar 8, 2010 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Are there other Season Ticket Holders here?
What do you think? Are you planning to renew? I am still on the fence after 5 years of watching through mostly bad but some great times…
We can debate the Cohan tenure but there are plenty of other reasons not to renew even if you love Cohan as much as the monk.
If i were you, i would negotiate with them at seasons end. My Dad had season tickets in 05-06, and we were so disgraced that they raised season tickets after a 34-48 season that he dropped them. Ever since, they have been begging us to return, and reclaim those seats at a discounted price.
Just tell them you want large decreases in the ticket prices after another terrible year. If they don’t back off, don’t pay Cohan your hard earned money.
Nellie needs to go! but while we suffer....John Wall or Evan Turner please!
by MDB on Mar 8, 2010 7:51 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks
Good advice. I hope they drop ticket prices, as they did last offseason. The drop in ticket prices is really what got me to renew last year. But this year has been even more miserable than the last one with the D-League all-star. Even when the W’s draft a great rookie it’s bittersweet because it has to be combined with them alienating their best player.
Yes, I am a sucker because even amidst all that I am still considering buying tickets.
by Billy Frijoles on Mar 9, 2010 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
I’m considering telling them I renew only if the team sells. No sale, no renewal.
That recent Bill Simmons piece about being strung along by the Clippers year after year made me laugh and cry at the same time. Unfortunately, while he roasted Sterling for always keeping just enough hope alive for the next season (“Maybe we WILL sign LeBron”) only to disappoint by the time the season started, he never said if he was going to renew this year, or not.
I have felt the “next year” hope repeatedly regarding the Warriors and I laugh at myself that instead of hoping for that promising PF for the next season, I’m now hoping for that owner who cares about winning enough to throw financial caution to the wind. But could this Ellison hype just be the latest ploy of that marketing genious, Rowell? Sneaky :-)
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
It's funny that you mention that, because
In that season ticket holder survey, the last question was, what can we do to get you to renew? I just put if Cohan sells, I’ll renew. Ever since then I’ve been getting complimentary tickets, sideline club passes, got to see the post-game press conference (where Nellie made his “I just didn’t see any life there” comment about AB – talk about a picker upper), and our rep has been in near-constant communication.
Talking about the Bill Simmons column, yes that was great. He did mention somewhere in there that he will probably renew because of that .0005% chance they get LeBron.
We in the Bay have the luxury of next year looking completely hopeless, making that choice easier. But if the warriors have a T-wolves like discount in tickets, warriors fans (myself included) love basketball too much to pass it up.
Also I don’t own a TV and don’t want to pay for cable.
by Billy Frijoles on Mar 11, 2010 1:41 PM PST up reply actions
THERE'S NO NEGOTIATING
Sure they’d like to keep their STH as much as possible, but the prices are set! If anything, they’ll throw stuff at you…extend your payments, free parking, etc., but they’re not gonna give you more discount! It is a business remember?
The “discounted” price you’re referring too is probably based on the tickets your dad had, which may have went down in price last year, and going down more this year. Sucks for my section (105), because even though they’re lowering prices this year, they didn’t last year. So some sections got their prices reduced twice!
I’m still probably going to renew because if we don’t support the team, then Cohan won’t be able to afford even players we do like, and I don’t want that to happen!
Geeez Louf*ckingweeez!!!
by scottiepimppen on Mar 15, 2010 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Just watch them on TV...
don’t waste your money unless we have a new owner,regardless of the discounts.
by Cpt. Jack in the Box on Mar 9, 2010 9:48 PM PST up reply actions
Lets make demand a little more elastic
Stop supporting a crap owner, watch the games on tv. The way I see it, Cohan has been playing us fans for 15 years, sucks for us, not him.
Stop supporting a crap owner, watch the games on tv.
But don’t let anyone know you’re watching it on TV. TV revenue is based largely on the contracts signed with the broadcaster, which is based largely on viewership. Watching games aids Cohan’s revenue stream too.
by jae on Mar 14, 2010 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
