Total Salaries : Bos = $80 M ; LA = $82 M ; Cle = $90 M ... Spurs = $68 M

[timaios]

According to shamsports, the total salaries of the contenders are :

$90,620,275 for the Cleveland Cavaliers
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/cavaliers.jsp

$81,812,711 for the Los Angeles Lakers
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/lakers.jsp

$80,284,135 for the Boston Celtics
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/celtics.jsp

and

$68,134,289 for the San Antonio Spurs
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/spurs.jsp

It is ridiculous !

So the Spurs have :
$12.1 Mil less than Boston.
$13.7 Mil less than Los Angeles.
$22.5 Mil less than Cleveland.

The Spurs are not in the same league.
Could you imagine that team with a $12-14 Mil player added to his roster in place of Vaughn or Udoka ?

Today, it is not about who is the better, it is about who is the richer !

The Spurs are the "best value for money" team in the NBA but is it sufficient to win another title when the other contenders have no limit in their payrolls ?

What do you think ?

[Agloco]

According to shamsports, the total salaries of the contenders are :

$90,620,275 for the Cleveland Cavaliers
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/cavaliers.jsp

$81,812,711 for the Los Angeles Lakers
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/lakers.jsp

$80,284,135 for the Boston Celtics
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/celtics.jsp

and

$68,134,289 for the San Antonio Spurs
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/spurs.jsp

It is ridiculous !

So the Spurs have :
$12.1 Mil less than Boston.
$13.7 Mil less than Los Angeles.
$22.5 Mil less than Cleveland.

The Spurs are not in the same league.
Could you imagine that team with a $12-14 Mil player added to his roster in place of Vaughn or Udoka ?

Today, it is not about who is the better, it is about who is the richer !

The Spurs are the "best value for money" team in the NBA but is it sufficient to win another title when the other contenders have no limit in their payrolls ?

What do you think ?



A statistical comparison of salary vs games won is in order. I'll bet there's an r-square of at least .7 on a simple regression. You also might want to look at who won the championship as well.

A look at how the other playoff contenders fared in those years would be beneficial too.

[exstatic]

Current version of the Spurs: 3 titles (99 was a different team)
Current version of the Celts: 1 title
Current version of the Lakers: 0 titles
Current version of the Cavs: 0 titles

I'd say the Spurs spend their money wisely and well. If titles were all about spending, the Knicks would be like 10 time champs.

[weebo]

wow the spurs a cheap

[stéphane]

The Cavs are a little bit different because they have some horrible contracts (Wallace, Snow, Szczerbiak). But 10M is the difference between big markets and the spurs. They have to be financially wise to compete given this handicap and that's what they do.

Grats on 500th post bro :p

[FreeMason]

lol Dallas.

[timaios]

Grats on 500th post bro :p

Wow, i didn't even notice. Thanks.

[DDS4]

According to shamsports, the total salaries of the contenders are :

$90,620,275 for the Cleveland Cavaliers
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/cavaliers.jsp

$81,812,711 for the Los Angeles Lakers
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/lakers.jsp

$80,284,135 for the Boston Celtics
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/celtics.jsp

and

$68,134,289 for the San Antonio Spurs
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/spurs.jsp

It is ridiculous !

So the Spurs have :
$12.1 Mil less than Boston.
$13.7 Mil less than Los Angeles.
$22.5 Mil less than Cleveland.

The Spurs are not in the same league.
Could you imagine that team with a $12-14 Mil player added to his roster in place of Vaughn or Udoka ?

Today, it is not about who is the better, it is about who is the richer !

The Spurs are the "best value for money" team in the NBA but is it sufficient to win another title when the other contenders have no limit in their payrolls ?

What do you think ?


Using this logic, the Knicks should be the best team in the league.

[Buddy Holly]

According to shamsports, the total salaries of the contenders are :

$90,620,275 for the Cleveland Cavaliers
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/cavaliers.jsp

$81,812,711 for the Los Angeles Lakers
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/lakers.jsp

$80,284,135 for the Boston Celtics
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/celtics.jsp

and

$68,134,289 for the San Antonio Spurs
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/spurs.jsp

It is ridiculous !

So the Spurs have :
$12.1 Mil less than Boston.
$13.7 Mil less than Los Angeles.
$22.5 Mil less than Cleveland.

The Spurs are not in the same league.
Could you imagine that team with a $12-14 Mil player added to his roster in place of Vaughn or Udoka ?

Today, it is not about who is the better, it is about who is the richer !

The Spurs are the "best value for money" team in the NBA but is it sufficient to win another title when the other contenders have no limit in their payrolls ?

What do you think ?

Some stupid ass logic if I've ever seen some.

Yeah, over pay players and you'll be a contender. I guess talent means jack shit nowadays huh? If we added Marbury we'd have a 88,000,000 million dollar payroll!!! Yay! And we'd add NOTHING of significance. Yay!!!

[timaios]

Some stupid ass logic if I've ever seen some.

Yeah, over pay players and you'll be a contender. I guess talent means jack shit nowadays huh? If we added Marbury we'd have a 88,000,000 million dollar payroll!!! Yay! And we'd add NOTHING of significance. Yay!!!

I don't speak about stupid teams.
I speak about Lakers and Celtics.
This topic is about contenders for the 2009 title.
And it is more easy to be a great team when you have $12-14 Mil more.

[Death In June]

I don't have a problem with the spurs being frugal. They've spent their money wisely for the most part and props to them for that, but adding another ten million dollar talent would be nice. The team is #10 in value among nba teams. You'd figure they could stand to match the cavs in terms of salary to better their chances at another championship.

[K-State Spur]

Wow, all of those are bigger markets than San Antonio.

If the Spurs had a payroll of $90 million, the team would be hemorrhaging money out all oraphaces.

It's the way things are - the Spurs have to find ways to contend with less. You'd best deal with it or become a bandwagon fan of a major market team.

[picnroll]

Hopefully, like the Memphis owner brought up, revenue sharing will come out of the next CBA. I guarantee the Lakers, for one, will be trimming payroll since Bussy isn't all that rich relative to some owners and depends on the Lakers' revenue to get a salary advantage over other teams.

[ducks]

the spurs are almost over the cap now
not sure how people can call them cheap
they paid the tax last year

[wildbill2u]

According to shamsports, the total salaries of the contenders are :

$90,620,275 for the Cleveland Cavaliers
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/cavaliers.jsp

$81,812,711 for the Los Angeles Lakers
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/lakers.jsp

$80,284,135 for the Boston Celtics
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/celtics.jsp

and

$68,134,289 for the San Antonio Spurs
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/spurs.jsp

It is ridiculous !

So the Spurs have :
$12.1 Mil less than Boston.
$13.7 Mil less than Los Angeles.
$22.5 Mil less than Cleveland.

The Spurs are not in the same league.
Could you imagine that team with a $12-14 Mil player added to his roster in place of Vaughn or Udoka ?

Today, it is not about who is the better, it is about who is the richer !

The Spurs are the "best value for money" team in the NBA but is it sufficient to win another title when the other contenders have no limit in their payrolls ?

What do you think ?

The Spurs should be getting a sizeable check from the penalty fund taxes paid by teams over the cap and shared by all those under the cap.

At least I think that's how it works.

[wildbill2u]

Don't the teams under the cap share the 'luxury tax" money that is paid as a penalty by the teams over the cap. Do the teams over the cap pay a dollar for dollar penalty tax?

I'm not exactly sure how it works, but I think the Spurs got a check for over $3,000,000 a few years ago.

[MarHill]

Using this logic, the Knicks should be the best team in the league.

+1

It amazes me how some Spurs fans don't get this!

The Spurs have done a pretty good job putting a team together around TD and they've won 4 titles in 10 years (3 in the last 6 years) and they are last Western Conference team to win a NBA Title.

And some people act like they've never won it at all!

I could see the logic if the Spurs' frugality didn't work. Then you might have a point in taking a big gamble. But you have a championship-caliber ballclub with the Big 3 each season. And being able to find role players that wants to win a championship has been successful.

Ask Phoenix and Dallas about overspending and making bad trades in trying to win a title.

The Spurs have a successful formula and some fans are ready to deviate from it...so they can build some kind of fantasy roster. Those types of rosters don't make you a contender.

I'm amazed at this attitude. Wow!!

:bang

[MarHill]

I don't speak about stupid teams.
I speak about Lakers and Celtics.
This topic is about contenders for the 2009 title.
And it is more easy to be a great team when you have $12-14 Mil more.


Don't forget...it's a business!

And the Spurs are not going to damage their franchise long-term to go way over the salary cap and paid a lot money in the luxury tax.

You have to manage those finances in good and bad times and overspending...to make some fans fantasy roster happy isn't happening!!

[exstatic]

I don't speak about stupid teams.
I speak about Lakers and Celtics.
This topic is about contenders for the 2009 title.
And it is more easy to be a great team when you have $12-14 Mil more.

You speak about impossibilities. The Spurs will never carry such a payroll. They can't afford it in this market, period.

You're also forgetting about the luxury tax. To come up with that extra $12M player over the luxtax, it costs $24M for the team, $12M to the player, $12M to the league in a tax penalty.

[igruex]

A statistical comparison of salary vs games won is in order. I'll bet there's an r-square of at least .7 on a simple regression. You also might want to look at who won the championship as well.


Not even close my friend. You'll find that salary doesn't explain much games won, therefore your r^2 would be weak as hell.

[The_Worlds_finest]

Wheres the comment from that ASS CLOWN SEQUSPUR?

[timaios]

You speak about impossibilities. The Spurs will never carry such a payroll. They can't afford it in this market, period.

You're also forgetting about the luxury tax. To come up with that extra $12M player over the luxtax, it costs $24M for the team, $12M to the player, $12M to the league in a tax penalty.

I am aware of the luxury tax ($71 mil).
I am not saying that the Spurs should spend more money, i am saying that the other contenders have more money.
So it is more difficult for the Spurs to win a title, especially this year.

[adidas11]

Cleveland is a big market??

[coyotes_geek]

Cleveland is a big market??

No, but they've got to pretend they're one if they want Lebron to hang around.

[picnroll]

Cleveland is a big market??
Cleveland is desperate to make LeBron happy.

[kace]

this guy has a valid point and most of you didn't even understand what he meant.

who said money won title ? who said the most expensive roster is always the best ?

who said the spurs didn't spend their money wisely by finding good players who fit well their system ?

but if the spurs had 12 M more to spend (and didn't care about the tax), would they spend this money stupidly ? wouldn't they be the same good FO but with one more great player to add to the roster ?

Let Pop and RC find a 12 M player and let's see if the team wouldn't be better.

i don't complain about the owner wanting to stay under the cap nor about the current roster but the OP has a valid point.

[K-State Spur]

i don't complain about the owner wanting to stay under the cap nor about the current roster but the OP has a valid point.

spurs are over the cap.

[ducks]

Cleveland is a big market??

get lost troll

[Buddy Holly]

I don't speak about stupid teams.
I speak about Lakers and Celtics.
This topic is about contenders for the 2009 title.
And it is more easy to be a great team when you have $12-14 Mil more.

You're a moron. There's more to the game than total salary. Go back to Spursreport.

[timaios]

You're a moron. There's more to the game than total salary. Go back to Spursreport.

So all you've got, are insults.
You are obviously the most intelligent person here.

I am a moron because i say a team with more money can have more talents.
OK.

[Buddy Holly]

So all you've got, are insults.

How else do you respond to a stupid ass post/thread?


You are obviously the most intelligent person here.

No shit.


I am a moron because i say a team with more money can have more talents.

Yes. Thanks for playing.

[timaios]

How else do you respond to a stupid ass post/thread?

I don't know...
Maybe with some respect, some class.
But i understand you are not familiar with those concepts.

[kace]

spurs are over the cap.

this year too ?

well, let's say that the owner doesn't want to bee too much over the cap.

but the OP has still a valid point.

[Buddy Holly]

I don't know...
Maybe with some respect, some class.
But i understand you are not familiar with those concepts.

This is a internet sports forum not the dinner table. Man up or GTFO. :toast

[timaios]

This is a internet sports forum not the dinner table. Man up or GTFO. :toast

You are such a great guy.

By the way.

2008/09 max salary cap figure: $58,680,000
2008/09 min salary cap figure: $44,010,000
2008/09 luxury tax threshold: $71,150,000

[Buddy Holly]

You are such a great guy.

Yeah I know. I'm not a fan of people who always state the obvious.


By the way.

2008/09 max salary cap figure: $58,680,000
2008/09 min salary cap figure: $44,010,000
2008/09 luxury tax threshold: $71,150,000

Could care less.

Did you want me to explain something to you?

[lefty]

That's what I call getting the most bang from your buck :hat

[timaios]

Could care less.

Did you want me to explain something to you?

For someone who doesn't care, you post a lot in that thread... and for the "salary cap" part, no it wasn't for you it was for kace.

[Buddy Holly]

For someone who doesn't care, you post a lot in that thread...

I care so little that I actually pretend to care. :hat


and for the "salary cap" part, no it wasn't for you it was for kace.

Well you did a great job of conveying that. :nope