Reply With Quote
careful, all the homers are going to come down on you for even questioning the ownership. they refuse to admit that the spurs is run by a tightwad.
Given all the salary/luxury tax issues that are creeping into the trade threads, I started to wonder what Holt is willing to spend. The spurs have creeped around (mostly under) the the luxury tax number for years, but do you think Holt would be willing to go significantly over that number if he knew that would get the spurs a fifth ring?
I know Holt's reputation and some past transactions (i.e. Scola) make it unlikely, but in this hypothetical (and yes ficitious) world, do you think Holt would be willing to lose $10 million if it guranteed a championship? 20mil? etc.
I know it's a business, but I also know that owners don't pro teams purely as investments.
careful, all the homers are going to come down on you for even questioning the ownership. they refuse to admit that the spurs is run by a tightwad.
every time the team stays under the lux tax, they get a reimbursement of 2m or a % whats in the loot......from the NBA.....
i say the board can overspend about 2-4m max only......
That tightwad has given us 4 championships in 10 years with his players. Maybe he just doesn't want to go the same route of all those teams that sign a bunch of big names and go NOWHERE. The Spurs work because they're a group of guys that work well together.
^^^ here they come
I don't care to argue whether Holt is cheap or not. But they gave Scola's money to Bonner. So I am not sure why Scola is always given is the example of being cheap. Just think of it this way, they chose Bonner over Scola with the same price tag. That's a player personnel decision, not a monetary one.
Catepillar has lost a lot of money recently and no owner is required to go onto debt for their fans especially since no team in the NBA has done so much in a wise and fiscal manner as the Spurs organization. The Spurs aren't frugal because they want to be, They are that way because they have to be. It's not optional.
Read a newspaper as a severe recession is ongoing and nobody is saying when it will end.
IMO, your comments are idiotic.
Pull out your checkbooks, es. Until you start sending the Spurs money to spend on the luxury tax, WGAF?
I thought Mr. Holt and the Spurs LLC paid the lux tax a few seasons ago..
I'm afraid Holt would rather to lose one of his 4 championships for some dollars.
The Spurs spend money just like everyone else. They just aren't stupid like Cuban. You all act like they are the Florida Marlins or something... wtf?
I think you're correct. If I remember right, they went about $700,000 into the luxury tax, They paid the additional $700.000 tax and lost out on the $2.5 million rebate given to non-over the cap teams.
That $700K cost the Spurs about $4 million dollars.
And some think he should go $10 to $20 million dollars into the luxury cap.
That's beyond stupid.
No Duncan no rings without Pop
I doubt Holt's position on not pay luxury tax is not only his own. He represents an group of owners.
It is so funny..how people can spend someone else's money!!
cat and holt are 2 different companies - cat is the mfg and holt is the dealer, but that said both companies have a related success/failure. I'm not sure if Holt is doing as bad as cat this year.
No Holt+San Antonio Ownership group... no SAN ANTONIO Spurs
Great point!!
But fans want them to lose money and hurt the organzation long term!!
Real smart!!
Jerry Sloan had that exact situation... with a top 3 point guard in all of existence... and didn't come away with a ring...Yeah I'am sure another coach couldn't work on some rings with the best power forward to ever exist in all of human existance.
cat made US$50b in sales revenue last financial year, and this year its forecast of a US$40b only
so great player = ring regardless of coach? bulls fans might disagree with youYeah I'am sure another coach couldn't work on some rings with the best power forward to ever exist in all of human existance.
He had the exact situation you described... the greatest power forward to ever exist... and he had him for 13 years before Duncan came to the NBA...
better example is doug collins with jordan
that's a huge decline in revenue for a mfg, but a lot of holt's business is parts and service on existing equipment. that piece of business fairs better in a tough economy vs. selling new equipment only.
I don't think so, and it's probably the best move he could make.
Let's just say that for some crazy reason, the Lakers don't pick up the team option on Kobe's contract this summer and he comes to us saying he'd love to play for us. He's arguably the best player on the planet and all we have to do is open up our pocketbooks.
Does that guarantee us a championship?
Here's some more food for thought. Three teams in recent memory come to mind when you talk about teams who tried to buy a championship.
1. Dallas Mavs under Cuban-- Just look at the stars who have come and gone. Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, Antawn Jamison, Michael Finley, Antoine Walker, Jason Terry, Josh Howard, Nick Van Exel, Juwan Howard, Jerry Stackhouse, and I'm sure there are others. Every single one of these people have, at one time or another, been an All-Star. Several have either won MVP's or been in the discussion. One was called "Baby Jordan" at the outset of his career.
2. Sacramento Kings under the Maloof Brothers-- You know the story. They had Bibby, Webber, Peja, Doug Christie, Vlade, etc, etc.
3. Portland Trailblazers, circa 2000-- Paul Allen really broke the mold for the team that spends too much with these 'Blazers. If any team ever should've won a le but got denied, it was these guys. Just about everyone on that team was either a former All-Rookie/ROY, former All-Star, or future All-Star.
I guess you could throw the Knicks in there, too, but these were the teams that were halfway smart with their money. They have a combined zero les between them.
I understand exactly where you're coming from, Buddha, but what exactly is a "sure thing?" One thing that Peter Holt realized a long time ago is that more money doesn't always mean an NBA Championship. The Spurs are the Patriots of the NBA. They're not spendthrifts, but they're also not willing to close their wallet to big players. That's why we're not paying guys like Steve Francis, Raef LaFrentz, and Juwan Howard anywhere from $13 million to $20 million per year.
How much $ would Holt be willing to lose for a championship?
I was thinking about that exact question earlier today.
Would another championship sell a lot more season tickets next year? Probably not. The Spurs have been so successful for so long that there is not much opportunity for a bandwagon effect like New Orleans has had over the past couple of seasons. Would it expand their television market substantially? Probably not much at all, for the same reason.
Boston got a huge bump in revenues from putting together a winning team. But that's largely because they had been so bad for so long, yet still had a legendary history. They were able to re-energize their fan base, and revive their large media market. So going into the lux tax was still a good financial move for them. None of that applies here.
It's obvious that Mark Cuban would go deep into the red, and essentially pay millions of dollars of his own money to buy a le. So would the Maloof brothers in Sacramento. The problem is, the "tight-wad" owners here in San Antonio have sent them home empty-handed year after year. So it's obvious that dumping millions of dollars is no guarantee of getting another banner in the rafters. Don't forget that even the Celtics came within a shot or two of losing in the early rounds last season.
They real question is why they would even consider a money-losing proposition. Would bragging rights mean so much that you would be willing to pay a lot more for tickets next season?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
