Reply With Quote
Well that sucks.
Fair ball: Spurs and Jazz on the same side
Buck Harvey
This isn't baseball, and the Lakers don't have a pinstriped edge.
They have spent more this season than any NBA team, but the difference isn't substantial. The Yankees, meanwhile, are proudly triumphant today with a payroll that is more than double that of the league average.
Still, even the best NBA small-market teams are suffering. Owners are bleeding money, with a lockout looming in 2011, and those with the biggest gripe will meet tonight.
The Spurs and Jazz — similar coaches, systems, cities and books.
The Spurs got a lot of publicity this past summer by becoming a luxury-tax payer. Peter Holt tossed in his chips for the final years of Tim Duncan's career, and thus far, the franchise sees some return.
While ticket renewals fell about 10 percent, new season-ticket purchases doubled over the previous season. If the Spurs win games and the economy remains somewhat stable, the front office thinks gate revenue will be adequate.
With sponsorship goals also being met, the Spurs will reach the economic cliff right on schedule. Their losses will be measured in double-digit millions.
But more than 20 other NBA teams also will lose money this year, and the Spurs are merely in the middle of the pack of the 13 other luxury-tax payers. They are currently eighth in payroll.
Spending more, yet with a worse chance of winning a le, is the team Gregg Popovich once copied. He loved the Utah organizational approach, and little has changed.
The Spurs likely will see that tonight. Jerry Sloan will challenge his players, as well as their manhood. He will ask them how they allowed Dirk Nowitzki to score 29 points in a fourth quarter, and he will use bad words, because this is what he does after rough losses.
That's also how the Jazz rebuilt after the Stockton-Malone era faded. Just two years ago, Sloan was back in the Western Conference finals against the Spurs.
But Utah was losing money that season, too, as were others. Then the late Larry Miller joined seven other owners in a letter sent to David Stern urging for fundamental changes in how the NBA operates.
“If appropriately managed teams can't break even, let alone make a profit,” the letter read then, “we have an economic system that requires correction.”
Utah has been an appropriately managed team. The Jazz overspent in one notable case, on Andrei Kirilenko. Otherwise, Utah was smart, especially when finding second-round talent such as Paul Millsap.
He's DeJuan Blair with healthier knees and a longer track record. Millsap will bang the Spurs tonight, but he really banged the Jazz payroll last summer. Then, Portland front-loaded an offer sheet, with $10 million scheduled for this season.
Utah was stuck. Millsap was worth the contract, especially with Carlos Boozer looking for a trade. So the Miller family did what Holt did, joining the arms race that began when Memphis gave Pau Gasol to the Lakers.
Given that, Utah has the fifth-highest payroll in the league. Given that, the Jazz will likely lose $15 million or more this season for doing nothing more than trying to keep up.
Holt was not part of the group that sent the letter to Stern. But he feels the same pinch. His front office has been efficient, too, yet will lose a massive amount of money in this broken economic model.
So the Jazz might win tonight, with Sloan pushing his players as he always has. And the Spurs might win next spring.
But these small-market brothers underline why it won't be long before the games stop altogether and another lockout follows. Because they don't want this to become baseball.
Well that sucks.
Oh, DeJuan Blair vs. DeJuan Blair with healthier knees and a longer track record, I'm forward to that.
It could be anticipated next season the salary cap and luxury tax will be lower than we can imagine.
What if they gave a whoop-de-do free agent party in 2010 and nobody came? At some point in time, these high salaries will have to end or the teams will.
Looking forward to a leveler playing field. Maybe some of those cable deals will become equally divided. Maybe a truly hard cap.
The NBA is heading for another crisis. The economic implications for the small market teams simply can't continue like it has. As the article pointed out if these teams are efficiently run yet still lose money something is wrong. Owners of these teams didn't make all those millions from their other businesses to just lose them in pro sports. Something has got to give and god help us if the NBA indeed turns into what MLB has become. I don't think it will get that far but if many of the small market teams are financially strapped and aren't able to compete in the future then they will eventually fade away. These owners wont continue to lose double digit millions just to own a pro team. The major market teams are going to have to give something up in order to keep the current number of teams viable. A compromise is in order but what that would be I don't know.
After the much anticipated 2010 off season is completed then this will be the major issue with the league if not already. I'd hate to see another lockout happen in 2011.
We'll see. I'd rather see the players get locked out than a CBA that destroys small markets. Ideally neither.After the much anticipated 2010 off season is completed then this will be the major issue with the league if not already. I'd hate to see another lockout happen in 2011.
IMO the league needs to contract by a few teams and a few games. Cut 30-60 roster spots from the entire league. Play 72 games instead of 82. It would be a better product, with better players available, for a smaller number of teams. Obviously it wouldn't solve half the problems of the luxury tax and gigantic, cap-killing contracts- but it would go a long way towards ensuring fan satisfaction and viability in smaller markets.
To be honest, I don't know what will fix the problems and I dunno if there ever will be a solution. There are 2 huge factors and I don't know if you can fix or change this.IMO the league needs to contract by a few teams and a few games. Cut 30-60 roster spots from the entire league. Play 72 games instead of 82. It would be a better product, with better players available, for a smaller number of teams. Obviously it wouldn't solve half the problems of the luxury tax and gigantic, cap-killing contracts- but it would go a long way towards ensuring fan satisfaction and viability in smaller markets.
1) I think the biggest problem is that in basketball; there are superstar players that carry teams for a decade (unlike other sports). Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Shaq jacked up basketball compe ion for nearly a decade. 3 guys practically ruled an entire sport. If you didn't have one of those guys; you were pretty much screwed for 10 years. This follows the 90's Jordans and the 80's Bird/Magic. 30 years dominated by a handful of players.
2) Big Market teams will always draw the big players. Shaq specifically wanted to go to LA. Kobe specifically wanted to go anywhere but a small city (he was originally drafted by the Charlotte Hornets).
Classic Buck dialectics.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
