WT: Jazz Could Be Sold Without New CBA

[Amish Mafioso]

So team fires the hall of fame coach who's feuding with the star player and then turns around and trade said star player anyway. I think this article is bs, but blaming the Jazz possibly moving on the system is stupid.

You know what else is stupid. People who think Utah fired their coach.

[Xsy]

Utah still hasn't even fired anyone yet because of the lockout.

That's more than a lot of teams, even big market teams, can say.

[JazzyPhinz]

Solution, stop making teams in small markets. If you are, make them more regional like the Patriots or like the Green Bay packers (who also broadcasts as the home team in Milwaukee) instead of just a given state. I know states out west are must farther spread out and less densely populated, but still. If a given market can't support a team, then maybe they should move that team to a market that can instead of leaching from more prosperous areas? No NBA player wants to live in your market? Guess what? Apparently non-NBA player regular citizens also don't want to live there, because if they did it would be a large market. Why should NBA players be forced to live in a state they don't want to when the rest of the country also doesn't apparently want to live there?

Sincerely,
Remorseless Large Market Fan

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Oh wait, thats not enough huh?

I think the rest of the country would be willing to live in a small market to play basketball for millions.

Then after you retire live where ever the hell you want.

As a player you make more money with the small markets in the league, more jobs for players.
If the small markets cant survive, then lets just create 4-6 super teams all in large markets.

[Don Draper]

Solution, stop making teams in small markets. If you are, make them more regional like the Patriots or like the Green Bay packers (who also broadcasts as the home team in Milwaukee) instead of just a given state. I know states out west are must farther spread out and less densely populated, but still. If a given market can't support a team, then maybe they should move that team to a market that can instead of leaching from more prosperous areas? No NBA player wants to live in your market? Guess what? Apparently non-NBA player regular citizens also don't want to live there, because if they did it would be a large market. Why should NBA players be forced to live in a state they don't want to when the rest of the country also doesn't apparently want to live there?

Sincerely,
Remorseless Large Market Fan

Brilliant.

[Amish Mafioso]

Solution, stop making teams in small markets. If you are, make them more regional instead of just a given state. I know states out west are must farther spread out and less densely populated, but still.

Seriously. If only teams like Golden State would just move their team to a city, everything would be better. I'm thinking maybe somewhere like Oakland. Should be any easy transition.

[doctorfunk]

Wow. You actually believe in the Stern conspiracy crap?

It's not conspiracy, it's PR and lobbying, the article could be sponsored
it happens all the time in the world; sponsoring of articles in news papers/portals
why wouldn't he try to create a positive press for himself ? Not saying he did 100% etc, but he could have- it is a common practice.

[Lakers05]

As I've been saying, the ultimatum deal Stern offered would cause plenty of relocations in the next few years had the players accepted it. Not sure about the Jazz, but a lots of teams would need to be moved. Revenue-sharing is the only sustainable solution for the NBA, not suppressing players wages.

You need both for the small markets to be sustainable.

The real problem is that the NBA is making about 300 million short. The solutions to this are so simple that it amazes me that these guys are willing to lose everything, before even trying them out.

[Luigi]

The Duncan gravy train has been a long ride but it's coming to an end.

The Duncan gravy train has be over since 2007. Four years have passed since they were a real threat to win it all.

But I do agree with the Spurs lucking out with two HOF centers in a row. If that's the model for a small market to succeed, it is completely unrealistic.

[GreenHat]

I don't see what the problem is.

They might SELL the team, its not like they are in danger of being contracted.

The fact that other people are willing to buy the team makes the actual "loses" from owning the team (not the reported paper losses when they have an incentive to show greater losses) aren't that bad.

Also the article says the Jazz are claiming losses of 17 million. But they spent 28 million on Kirlenko and Okur.

How is that the players fault?

According to their own numbers (where they have an incentive to inflate their "losses") they would have made an 11 million dollar profit (probably more since they go from a tax payer to a payee so around 15 million) if they didn't give Kirlenko and Okur those contracts. That is bad management and has nothing to do with the players making too much. The Jazz used their Boozer trade exception to add Jefferson at 42 million in salary (13 million last year) even though they had Kirlenko at 17.8 mil, Okur at almost 10 mil and Milsap at 7.6 million. If a team spends more than 48 million on their mediocre front court that is their OWN FAULT. They even had Deron at a near max deal in addition to that at the start of the year.

So with good management the Jazz (one of the smallest markets) would have made an easy 8 figure profit. Through bad decisions they turned that into a "loss". Why are we blaming the players instead of blaming the Jazz?

This is why someone else would gladly buy the team.

You complain about the Heat in your opening post but the Heat spent 17 million dollars less than the Jazz last year (for a much better team). If the Jazz spent the same amount as the Heat they would have made a profit. Not giving Kirlenko that deal makes up the whole difference and the team would not have suffered much. Or if they didn't have Okur.

Its bad management. Let another person buy the team and make a profit and run the team on the court better as well.

Of course the Miller don't actually want to sell because they make more money on the team that they can just hide as non-basketball revenue.

[nofours]

I don't see what the problem is.

They might SELL the team, its not like they are in danger of being contracted.

The fact that other people are willing to buy the team makes the actual "loses" from owning the team (not the reported paper losses when they have an incentive to show greater losses) aren't that bad.

Also the article says the Jazz are claiming losses of 17 million. But they spent 28 million on Kirlenko and Okur.

How is that the players fault?

According to their own numbers (where they have an incentive to inflate their "losses") they would have made an 11 million dollar profit (probably more since they go from a tax payer to a payee so around 15 million) if they didn't give Kirlenko and Okur those contracts. That is bad management and has nothing to do with the players making too much. The Jazz used their Boozer trade exception to add Jefferson at 42 million in salary (13 million last year) even though they had Kirlenko at 17.8 mil, Okur at almost 10 mil and Milsap at 7.6 million. If a team spends more than 48 million on their mediocre front court that is their OWN FAULT. They even had Deron at a near max deal in addition to that at the start of the year.

So with good management the Jazz (one of the smallest markets) would have made an easy 8 figure profit. Through bad decisions they turned that into a "loss". Why are we blaming the players instead of blaming the Jazz?

This is why someone else would gladly buy the team.

You complain about the Heat in your opening post but the Heat spent 17 million dollars less than the Jazz last year (for a much better team). If the Jazz spent the same amount as the Heat they would have made a profit. Not giving Kirlenko that deal makes up the whole difference and the team would not have suffered much. Or if they didn't have Okur.

Its bad management. Let another person buy the team and make a profit and run the team on the court better as well.

Of course the Miller don't actually want to sell because they make more money on the team that they can just hide as non-basketball revenue.

I mean I feel for the Jazz they're one of the better run organizations in the NBA, but this post hits the nail on the head. Its all about management. The Jazz have 33 million dollars tied up in 3 players that play the same position, not to mention another 10 mil going to a player on injured reserve. They are a good example that small markets can compete considering that they can build such a deep front court to go along with their franchise PG.

[finnegan]

Wow. You actually believe in the Stern conspiracy crap?

It's not conspiracy, it's PR and lobbying, the article could be sponsored
it happens all the time in the world; sponsoring of articles in news papers/portals
why wouldn't he try to create a positive press for himself ? Not saying he did 100% etc, but he could have- it is a common practice.

I don't want to say that you are full of hoooey, because you seem to be a nice enough guy. But in general I am pretty informed guy, and I have NEVER heard of such a silly concept as tainting articles through "sponsorship". I tend to trust the legitimacy of the press in terms of not being "bought out."

The idea that David Stern is behind this article is nothing short of ridiculous.

[finnegan]

I don't see what the problem is.

They might SELL the team, its not like they are in danger of being contracted.

The fact that other people are willing to buy the team makes the actual "loses" from owning the team (not the reported paper losses when they have an incentive to show greater losses) aren't that bad.

Also the article says the Jazz are claiming losses of 17 million. But they spent 28 million on Kirlenko and Okur.

How is that the players fault?

According to their own numbers (where they have an incentive to inflate their "losses") they would have made an 11 million dollar profit (probably more since they go from a tax payer to a payee so around 15 million) if they didn't give Kirlenko and Okur those contracts. That is bad management and has nothing to do with the players making too much. The Jazz used their Boozer trade exception to add Jefferson at 42 million in salary (13 million last year) even though they had Kirlenko at 17.8 mil, Okur at almost 10 mil and Milsap at 7.6 million. If a team spends more than 48 million on their mediocre front court that is their OWN FAULT. They even had Deron at a near max deal in addition to that at the start of the year.

So with good management the Jazz (one of the smallest markets) would have made an easy 8 figure profit. Through bad decisions they turned that into a "loss". Why are we blaming the players instead of blaming the Jazz?

This is why someone else would gladly buy the team.

You complain about the Heat in your opening post but the Heat spent 17 million dollars less than the Jazz last year (for a much better team). If the Jazz spent the same amount as the Heat they would have made a profit. Not giving Kirlenko that deal makes up the whole difference and the team would not have suffered much. Or if they didn't have Okur.

Its bad management. Let another person buy the team and make a profit and run the team on the court better as well.

Of course the Miller don't actually want to sell because they make more money on the team that they can just hide as non-basketball revenue.

And the year before last, that Jazz were way better than Miami. Kirilenko and Okur were both under contract then too at nearly the same salary, so your point and detailed analysis is silly. They are just like every other team, and are simply trying to be competitive. The Jazz did pay Kirilenko and Oku one cent more than another team might have at the time, but in Kirilenko's case the contract was simply too long.

The picture is much more complicated than that. Before I make my point below, I just want to state that the day prima donna players start running the league is the day that I stop being a fan.

Because of the current rules, Melo and Deron Williams became overly bold in dictating to their teams what was going to happen. Admittedly Denver came out better after the trade than before, so it works a little against my argument. But with a hard cap Melo would not have the leverage that he did.

[GreenHat]

I don't see what the problem is.

They might SELL the team, its not like they are in danger of being contracted.

The fact that other people are willing to buy the team makes the actual "loses" from owning the team (not the reported paper losses when they have an incentive to show greater losses) aren't that bad.

Also the article says the Jazz are claiming losses of 17 million. But they spent 28 million on Kirlenko and Okur.

How is that the players fault?

According to their own numbers (where they have an incentive to inflate their "losses") they would have made an 11 million dollar profit (probably more since they go from a tax payer to a payee so around 15 million) if they didn't give Kirlenko and Okur those contracts. That is bad management and has nothing to do with the players making too much. The Jazz used their Boozer trade exception to add Jefferson at 42 million in salary (13 million last year) even though they had Kirlenko at 17.8 mil, Okur at almost 10 mil and Milsap at 7.6 million. If a team spends more than 48 million on their mediocre front court that is their OWN FAULT. They even had Deron at a near max deal in addition to that at the start of the year.

So with good management the Jazz (one of the smallest markets) would have made an easy 8 figure profit. Through bad decisions they turned that into a "loss". Why are we blaming the players instead of blaming the Jazz?

This is why someone else would gladly buy the team.

You complain about the Heat in your opening post but the Heat spent 17 million dollars less than the Jazz last year (for a much better team). If the Jazz spent the same amount as the Heat they would have made a profit. Not giving Kirlenko that deal makes up the whole difference and the team would not have suffered much. Or if they didn't have Okur.

Its bad management. Let another person buy the team and make a profit and run the team on the court better as well.

Of course the Miller don't actually want to sell because they make more money on the team that they can just hide as non-basketball revenue.

And the year before last, that Jazz were way better than Miami. Kirilenko and Okur were both under contract then too at nearly the same salary, so your point and detailed analysis is silly. They are just like every other team, and are simply trying to be competitive. The Jazz did pay Kirilenko and Oku one cent more than another team might have at the time, but in Kirilenko's case the contract was simply too long.

The picture is much more complicated than that. Before I make my point below, I just want to state that the day prima donna players start running the league is the day that I stop being a fan.

Because of the current rules, Melo and Deron Williams became overly bold in dictating to their teams what was going to happen. Admittedly Denver came out better after the trade than before, so it works a little against my argument. But with a hard cap Melo would not have the leverage that he did.

My point was that small market teams can compete with desirable markets (miami isn't a big market) through good management. You saying that the Jazz were way better than the Heat the year before goes towards my point.

My point is that the Jazz lost money last year through bad management. They could have had similar talent and made a huge profit. Paying Kirlenko 17.9 million last year was a horrible move. I feel no sympathy for their alleged 17 million dollar loss because of that. The fact that they were also paying Jefferson 13 mil, Okur 10 mil and Milsap 7.6 mil to all play the same two positions make me think that their finances were mismanaged. I blame that on management and not on the players.

The Jazz did not need Kirlenko to be at the level of competitiveness that they were last year. They didn't need Okur either. Those were bad management decisions. They paid a lot more than one cent with Kirlenko and you are right the contract did go for too long. But again that is mismanagement, not the fault of the players.

I never understood why posters make threats about ceasing to be a fan. No one cares if you are or not, least of all me.

First of all Melo and Deron didn't dictate anything. They just didn't sign the extensions that were offered to them. You are in favor of some rule where players must sign any extension offered to them? That's ridiculous. Both Melo and Deron were willing to play out their contracts for their teams. You said yourself that Denver improved and Deron was as surprised as anyone that he was traded.

I don't see how prima donnas are running the league. Even a guy like Lebron stuck it out in Clevland of all places for 7 years. How many years of his life does he owe to the team that was lucky enough to win him in a lottery and profit off of him for 7 years? At what point is he allowed to leave?

[Archerbro]

I don't see what the problem is.

They might SELL the team, its not like they are in danger of being contracted.

The fact that other people are willing to buy the team makes the actual "loses" from owning the team (not the reported paper losses when they have an incentive to show greater losses) aren't that bad.

Also the article says the Jazz are claiming losses of 17 million. But they spent 28 million on Kirlenko and Okur.

How is that the players fault?

According to their own numbers (where they have an incentive to inflate their "losses") they would have made an 11 million dollar profit (probably more since they go from a tax payer to a payee so around 15 million) if they didn't give Kirlenko and Okur those contracts. That is bad management and has nothing to do with the players making too much. The Jazz used their Boozer trade exception to add Jefferson at 42 million in salary (13 million last year) even though they had Kirlenko at 17.8 mil, Okur at almost 10 mil and Milsap at 7.6 million. If a team spends more than 48 million on their mediocre front court that is their OWN FAULT. They even had Deron at a near max deal in addition to that at the start of the year.

So with good management the Jazz (one of the smallest markets) would have made an easy 8 figure profit. Through bad decisions they turned that into a "loss". Why are we blaming the players instead of blaming the Jazz?

This is why someone else would gladly buy the team.

You complain about the Heat in your opening post but the Heat spent 17 million dollars less than the Jazz last year (for a much better team). If the Jazz spent the same amount as the Heat they would have made a profit. Not giving Kirlenko that deal makes up the whole difference and the team would not have suffered much. Or if they didn't have Okur.

Its bad management. Let another person buy the team and make a profit and run the team on the court better as well.

Of course the Miller don't actually want to sell because they make more money on the team that they can just hide as non-basketball revenue.

And the year before last, that Jazz were way better than Miami. Kirilenko and Okur were both under contract then too at nearly the same salary, so your point and detailed analysis is silly. They are just like every other team, and are simply trying to be competitive. The Jazz did pay Kirilenko and Oku one cent more than another team might have at the time, but in Kirilenko's case the contract was simply too long.

The picture is much more complicated than that. Before I make my point below, I just want to state that the day prima donna players start running the league is the day that I stop being a fan.

Because of the current rules, Melo and Deron Williams became overly bold in dictating to their teams what was going to happen. Admittedly Denver came out better after the trade than before, so it works a little against my argument. But with a hard cap Melo would not have the leverage that he did.

Melo has leverage if he can become a free agent. That doesn't really change with a hardcap unless NY didn't have cap room. His whole leverage was based on "i'm leaving." He can leave with or without a hardcap-

[finnegan]

Melo has leverage if he can become a free agent. That doesn't really change with a hardcap unless NY didn't have cap room. His whole leverage was based on "i'm leaving." He can leave with or without a hardcap-

But clearly the options aren't there when you limit the ability of someone like James Dolan from handing out bloated contract after bloated contract. Therefore, such transactions can only come about through legitimate trades, and because Melo is a semi-cancer (and proud that a rule is being named after him to limit player mobility in the future) then 2/3rds of the league has no interest in him and he stops acting like a whiny brat. Clearly corporate america doesn't tolerate such behavior, then why should the NBA tolerate it.

[Vides990]

^ Why didnt you answer Green Hat's post?

Oh thats right, no leg to stand on.......

[funkatron101]

Big market, small market. That means nothing to NBA players. They are divas, and the only athletes in the US who actively complain about the location in which they make their millions.

You don't hear about Chicago Bears players complaining about the cold, or Packer players complaining about the lack of night life in the area.

[JazzyPhinz]

^ Why didnt you answer Green Hat's post?

Oh thats right, no leg to stand on.......

The point is, how many small market teams have such excellent mgt like the Spurs and Jazz? And still lose money? If the Jazz and Spurs played in a large market (How about your large market? I assume you dont root for a small market team, just a hunch) we make $$$$.

The Jazz did what they had to do in order to compete. Put the Jazz with the EXACT same contracts in NY/LA, and we make a boatload.

Your "mgt is the only reason small markets lose $$" reasoning sucks.

So basically, you want us to not make the same type of moves that other (large markets) make (just to compete), just so we can make money, while the La's,NY's can make the same moves and make money?

Good for large markets bad for small markets. (Just like the way Large market fans like it!)

[doctorfunk]

I don't want to say that you are full of hoooey, because you seem to be a nice enough guy. But in general I am pretty informed guy, and I have NEVER heard of such a silly concept as tainting articles through "sponsorship". I tend to trust the legitimacy of the press in terms of not being "bought out."

The idea that David Stern is behind this article is nothing short of ridiculous.

wouldn't be the first time it happened..
http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55679/
I know, I know pharmaceutical companies are pure evil but it safe to assume it happens in many industries where large$$$ are involved.

[The Rebel]

My point was that small market teams can compete with desirable markets (miami isn't a big market) through good management. You saying that the Jazz were way better than the Heat the year before goes towards my point.

While Miami may not be a big market, their market is a full 40% bigger then the jazz market. also the Heat lost money last year, despite laying off most of their sales staff, and raising ticket prices.

My point is that the Jazz lost money last year through bad management. They could have had similar talent and made a huge profit. Paying Kirlenko 17.9 million last year was a horrible move. I feel no sympathy for their alleged 17 million dollar loss because of that. The fact that they were also paying Jefferson 13 mil, Okur 10 mil and Milsap 7.6 mil to all play the same two positions make me think that their finances were mismanaged. I blame that on management and not on the players.

Kirilenko was a bad contract by the end, but it was given to an all star player, nobody could have predicted that the guy would have decided to play world of warcraft instead of maintaining his game for all those year. Okur was a solid contract for a solid center, that happened to run into injury problems. Either the Jazz decide to just throw in the towel, or they do what they can to replace that production, and unfortunately that costs money. If a team in a market the size of SLC just decides to throw in the towel prior to the season even starting then not only do they lose more money, but they run into an unhappy superstar that causes worse problems then Williams did even with the bad season.

The Jazz did not need Kirlenko to be at the level of competitiveness that they were last year. They didn't need Okur either. Those were bad management decisions. They paid a lot more than one cent with Kirlenko and you are right the contract did go for too long. But again that is mismanagement, not the fault of the players.

Of course Okur and Kirilenko were not much help last year, but to look at only one year in a vacuum is misleading, but I think you know that. Okur was paid a market value contract, and happened to go through injury problems, AK was a 4th year all star that had just been the best player on a surprise team, the max extension was market value, without that contract he would have went elsewhere. Sure 7 years later both those contracts look bad, but they were both good decisions when signed, and to act as if they weren't is crap.

Now you say that neither one should have been with the team, maybe you are right, but please explain to me how the Jazz were going to solve that issue. Do you think teams were lining up to trade for a guy like Okur who has faced major injuries for the last several years and was known to be out for the year? By the way 80% of his contract was covered by insurance, so he only really cost the Jazz $2 million to their bottom line. Now tell me given that 23 teams reportedly lost money last year, how many were lining up to pay AK $17 million in the last year of his contract, when he has had problems over the last few years with the star player on his team, the head coach, and has admitted to not working out due to an addiction to online video games? Let's be real, AK became a borderline skinny eddie curry clone not long after signing his contract, teams were not lining up to take him on.

I never understood why posters make threats about ceasing to be a fan. No one cares if you are or not, least of all me.

The fact that nobody cares if the league keeps their fans is half of the reason that the league is struggling right now.

First of all Melo and Deron didn't dictate anything. They just didn't sign the extensions that were offered to them. You are in favor of some rule where players must sign any extension offered to them? That's ridiculous. Both Melo and Deron were willing to play out their contracts for their teams. You said yourself that Denver improved and Deron was as surprised as anyone that he was traded.

LOL, Melo was willing to play out his contract? Really, ask New York fans if they even believe that drivel, melo wanted a trade, requested a trade, had his agents trying to force a trade, and had his buddy world wide wes pushing to get Melo out of Denver and to New York. There is no way anybody can honestly say that Melo was not the one pushing to get out of Denver, as opposed to the Nuggets wanting to move him, unless you did not even pay attention to the NBA last year.

As for Williams, nobody really knows what went on behind the scenes last year, but after what Melo pulled, the Jazz really had no choice once Williams decided not to sign the extension.

I don't see how prima donnas are running the league. Even a guy like Lebron stuck it out in Clevland of all places for 7 years. How many years of his life does he owe to the team that was lucky enough to win him in a lottery and profit off of him for 7 years? At what point is he allowed to leave?

Lebron is allowed to leave at the end of his contract, which he did, nothing about the owners last offer would have changed that. Nobody is saying that he had to stay in Cleveland, the problem most have is in the way he did it, and the fact that he did not have the ball to actually sign on a team that was not stacked.

But you have prima-donnas openly discussing creating their own super teams, even in front of the owners of the teams they are currently on, you have players forcing trades to certain markets, rumors of where certain players will end up years from now, and you say that is not hurting the league? I understand that these prima-donnas are benefiting your team right now, but reality is that these players can turn on your team next year, then how are you going to feel about it?

Like it or not all this crap from the players are hurting the teams they have decided they don't want ot play for, which will hurt those teams now, and the league as a whole long term, if you do not see that I cannot help you. The fact that a team that has been as well run as the Jazz, the Spurs, or the heat or any other number of mid-small market teams have to lose money to even compete is not good for anybody involved in the league.