RealGM

Tayor is losing money. Lots of it. And you don't even need the financial data to see it, just check out the number of empty seats at the Target Center. Attendance is on all-time low:

Net gate receipts, the money teams make from ticket sales, fell to an average of $828,985 per game, down from $894,823 at the same point last season. Only nine teams were up or flat in average net gate receipts through Nov. 29, while 21 teams saw a decline.

The other teams suffering the most at the gate are the Sacramento Kings (average gate receipts down 36.2 percent), Minnesota Timberwolves (down 24.4 percent), Phoenix Suns (down 23.8 percent), Los Angeles Clippers (down 23.3 percent), Milwaukee Bucks (down 23.2 percent), and Golden State Warriors (down 22.3 percent).

Taylor lost about 7-8 million even before taxes and amortization last season according to Forbes. And this year it's gonna be much worse. Another factors to consider are: stagnant economy, new CBA in 2011 and a fickle fan base who didn't care much about the Wolves to begin with. The writing is on the wall: Taylor is not going to spent money on free agents in 2010. That’s why Kahn aquired so many draft picks for this and the next year drafts. Veteran free agents want large contracts, rookies come cheap. And the cost-cutting has only started. Al Jefferson is scheduled to make $54 million over the next four years. If you're Glen Taylor and you're looking at Wolves current record, you're starting to think, what's the point of paying max level money for a one-dimensional scorer who doesn't really fit in with Love (your best player) and has the team on pace to win 15 games this season. Chances are he's going to order Kahn to dump Big Al's contract Chris Wallace style. The only chance for the Wolves to stay competitive basketball-wise in this circumstances is to strike gold in the 2010 draft and flip Big Al for a young talented player hoping like hell that he turns out into All-Star.

That's were Pecovic comes into play. If he indeed wants to come here, he can provide 60-70% of Big Al’s production for 1/3 of a price. That makes Jefferson expendable, but who's going to give up young promising player on a rookie contract for him, knowing Taylor's financial situation? This is not gonna be pretty, but Knicks, that's who. They desperately need to open more cap space, but nobody's going to take on Curry and Jeffries both for expirings even if the Knicks throw in Gallinari. And even if they manage to do that, they still need some big names on the team to attract free agents. With that in mind:

http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade.ph ... id=5341350

Shades of LAL stealing Pau Gasol here, right? Well maybe, but look at Grizzlies now. New York sheds about 8.5 mill in salary and gets a proven low-post scorer to compliment whoever they get in free agency. Make them throw in some money and picks to compencate Taylor for taking on Curry/Jeffries contracts that expire in 2011. But eff the Knicks, what about the Wolves? Minny gets young sharpshooting SF in Gallo, who can pass and has very high bball IQ (ideal for the triangle), therefore adressing their biggest need - 3pt shooting and passing from the wings. After that draft Evan Turner and some bigman with potential, round out the roster with 2nd round picks and vet.min. signings. Starting five of Pecovic/Love/Gallo/Turner/Flynn with Gomes/Jeffries/Brewer/Sessions/draftees from the bench could win more games or at least show enough progress to convince Taylor to spent some money on free agents in 2011. That's when centers like Noah, Perkins, Mark Gasol and Chandler hit the market.

Taylor is definitely losing money, but you don't solve attendance promblems by cheaping out on talent. The way to start making money is to get people excited about the team again. It's not like the Wolves have very much committed salary anyway, and there is a mininum salary cap.
I'm confused by you're trade proposal, also. It doesn't save the Wolves any money. It actually costs as much money as it would to sign a free agent.

So, Taylor who apparently has dire financial problems decides that the best thing to do is trade away the best player in the deal and take on 20 million dollars worth of useless players. I understand that by getting rid of Jefferson's contract the net money spent next year isnt an additional 20 million, but what incentive does Taylor have to pay 20 million for players that dont play? I see you conveniently declined to elaborate on that. I am not sure Gallinari is enough. And under the assumptions you have made, the Knicks will gain a max free agent, so a potential for 2011 or 2012 draft picks isnt really that valuable.

Now I have no problem taking on salary in 2010 for 2011 cap room, or trading Al Jefferson, and I like Gallinari, but I think if you are willing to trade Jefferson and take on 2010 salary, you will probably be able to get back some more useful players with 2010 contracts than Curry and Jeffries.

Worm Guts wrote:The way to start making money is to get people excited about the team again.

And how are you going to do that? If you sign Gay or Joe Johnson and this team is maybe fighting for the 7-8th seed is it gonna be enough to attract people? Even when KG was here, they rarely sold out.

slinky wrote:I understand that by getting rid of Jefferson's contract the net money spent next year isnt an additional 20 million, but what incentive does Taylor have to pay 20 million for players that dont play?

That 18 million next season or 54 million over the next four. I'm sure New York will throw in cash in the deal too. And Jeffries will play.

Tirion wrote:
And how are you going to do that? If you sign Gay or Joe Johnson and this team is maybe fighting for the 7-8th seed is it gonna be enough to attract people? Even when KG was here, they rarely sold out.

A 7th or 8th seed would be a start, especially if it was led by mostly young players. But the point is that if Taylor is financially driven, his moves should focused on getting the fan base excited not cutting salary.

Tirion wrote:That 18 million next season or 54 million over the next four. I'm sure New York will throw in cash in the deal too. And Jeffries will play.

You have pay someone and the Wolves have very little committed salary. It doesn't to the Wolves any good to dump Jefferson contract because it's long.

Worm Guts wrote:
I'm confused by you're trade proposal, also. It doesn't save the Wolves any money. It actually costs as much money as it would to sign a free agent.

It's about 8 million in additional salary for one year. Free agents doesn't sign for 1 year, well they do, but it's not the kind you want to sign anyway, like Iverson.

Tirion wrote:

Worm Guts wrote:
I'm confused by you're trade proposal, also. It doesn't save the Wolves any money. It actually costs as much money as it would to sign a free agent.

It's about 8 million in additional salary for one year. Free agents doesn't sign for 1 year, well they do, but it's not the kind you want to sign anyway, like Iverson.

But you have to pay somebody. That money you saved on Jefferson will go to someone else. It doesn't necessarily save Taylor any money at all. If the Wolves don't sign a free agent this offseason, they would be very close to the salary minimum.

Why would we take on Curry and Jeffries?

If we were going to do such a deal it would be this:

http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade.ph ... id=5341646

I will stop watching nba if it does happen.

Worm Guts wrote:A 7th or 8th seed would be a start, especially if it was led by mostly young players. But the point is that if Taylor is financially driven, his moves should focused on getting the fan base excited not cutting salary.

The Bucks have a young exiting team fighting for 7th seed. They are still getting killed in attendance. The fact is unless you go and get somebody like LeBron, Wade or Durant, you're not going to improve attendance much. Not in this economy and not in this market.

I am not debating that Jefferson's deal is longer and more expensive that taking on Curry and Jeffries. I just am not sure what business sense it makes to take on 18 million dollars for two players who are not going to contribute or are not part of the future core. Jeffries MIGHT have value on a veteran team looking to contend but he wouldnt play here cause the wolves would (in your scenario) have Turner/Ellington Gallinari/Brewer ahead of him.

Right or wrong, your assumptions seem to be that the wolves are currently going in the wrong direction and that the wolves will not be competitive in the next 4 years. Is that accurate?

slinky wrote:Right or wrong, your assumptions seem to be that the wolves are currently going in the wrong direction and that the wolves will not be competitive in the next 4 years. Is that accurate?

They are going in the right direction. Trading Foye/Miller for 5th pick was a great move. They aren't going to be competetive till at least 2011-12 season, when Rubio comes over and they sign somebody like Noah.

Tirion wrote:

Worm Guts wrote:A 7th or 8th seed would be a start, especially if it was led by mostly young players. But the point is that if Taylor is financially driven, his moves should focused on getting the fan base excited not cutting salary.

The Bucks have a young exiting team fighting for 7th seed. They are still getting killed in attendance. The fact is unless you go and get somebody like LeBron, Wade or Durant, you're not going to improve attendance much. Not in this economy and not in this market.

The Bucks have been late lottery for awhile now, and they weren't expected to be any better this season. If they're in the race for the playoffs at the end of the season, the attendance will go up.

Worm Guts wrote:
The Bucks have been late lottery for awhile now, and they weren't expected to be any better this season. If they're in the race for the playoffs at the end of the season, the attendance will go up.

Maybe. Maybe not. But the Bucks have more talent than the Wolves, less distractions (no NFL team) and better history. If their attendance won't go up, what does it say about Minny?

Their attendance will go up if they're competitive, I have no doubt.

Worm Guts wrote:Their attendance will go up if they're competitive, I have no doubt.

Yeah, this is true for any sports franchise. I don't see how you can argue against that one.

The wolves need a face to the franchise. It's as simple as that.

Trading Jefferson away will alienate the casual fans.

Taking back curry/jefferies will just piss every fan off.

Good lord these are terrible.

Jefferson has more value than Gallo.

Sasha or Blount have more value than Curry and/or Jeffries.

New York doesn't have enough to add in to get Jefferson from us.

I don't see this at all Tirion.

Almost every industry is hurting right now. For many businesses, it isn't a matter of losing money but how much money companies are losing. The NBA is no different than any other industry right now.

Taylor is one of the richest owners in the NBA. He clearly knows how to make money. He probably has as pretty good idea of what it takes to turn his business around. He knew when he traded KG that would mean starting over with the typical causal fan and bleeding red in the short term.

Plus, this is assuming that finances are more important than winning for him. Taylor has always struck me as being more like Mark Cuban than Robert Sarver. He's always seemed willing to make less money/lose money if it meant a chance at a championship.

He has a good thing cooking in guys like Kevin Love & (hopefully) Ricky Rubio. He gets Ricky over here and we start winning, that will be like marketing gold for the Wolves. The revenue issue will more than take care of itself.

Wow. That trade is just...wow. If the Wolves were to trade Jefferson for young, cheap talent and picks(certainly a legit argument to be made there, not sure if I agree with it, but...), I would think that they would try to make a trade for...you know, young cheap talent and picks, as opposed to complete garbage. This would replace the Pau Gasol to LA debacle in the pantheon of horrible front office decisions.

No Max Free Agent!?



Rabble rabble rabble rabble