According to shamsports, the total salaries of the contenders are :
$90,620,275 for the Cleveland Cavaliers
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pa.../cavaliers.jsp
$81,812,711 for the Los Angeles Lakers
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pa...ies/lakers.jsp
$80,284,135 for the Boston Celtics
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pa...es/celtics.jsp
and
$68,134,289 for the San Antonio Spurs
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pa...ries/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 le 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.
Current version of the Spurs: 3 les (99 was a different team)
Current version of the Celts: 1 le
Current version of the Lakers: 0 les
Current version of the Cavs: 0 les
I'd say the Spurs spend their money wisely and well. If les were all about spending, the Knicks would be like 10 time champs.
wow the spurs a cheap
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
lol Dallas.
Wow, i didn't even notice. Thanks.
Using this logic, the Knicks should be the best team in the league.
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 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 le.
And it is more easy to be a great team when you have $12-14 Mil more.
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.
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.
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.
the spurs are almost over the cap now
not sure how people can call them cheap
they paid the tax last year
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.
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.
+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 les in 10 years (3 in the last 6 years) and they are last Western Conference team to win a NBA le.
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 le.
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 at ude. Wow!!
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!!
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.
Not even close my friend. You'll find that salary doesn't explain much games won, therefore your r^2 would be weak as .
Wheres the comment from that ASS CLOWN SEQUSPUR?
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 le, especially this year.
Cleveland is a big market??
No, but they've got to pretend they're one if they want Lebron to hang around.
Cleveland is desperate to make LeBron happy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
