Page 7 of 8
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 3:59 am
by wco81
d-train wrote:wco81 wrote:Yeah but if he owned the arena, he could make money for non NBA events, which he doesn't have to share with the league.
There's an advantage to being landlord rather than the tenant.
You are assuming the "big events landlord business" is a good business. I'm not familiar with that business but I can assure your there are many factors that determine whether the business bleeds cash or is a license to print cash. The biggest factor is almost always location. I'll bet it's magnitudes better to own a fancy big area in LA than it is to own such a facility in Portland or Seattle. Yet, the cost to build a big fancy arena is about the same in all 3 locations.
I suspect the Moda Center is a huge money pit. I think it's likely many Blazers fans have the wrong idea about how great it is to own the Moda Center because of all the bad reporting and false narratives that were floated while Blazers and Moda Center had separate ownership. The Moda Center is a financial disaster and the only reason Paul Allen was better off to own it is because of the agreement Allen had with the banks that financed the building allowed the banks to confiscate almost all the ticket revenues from Blazers games. The telling fact is that Paul Allen lost less money while the banks owned the Moda Center than he did while he owned the Moda Center and made payments to the banks for the building's financing.
That's pretty much the business model of the Warriors new arena, the Chase Center. The owners wanted to build it with their own money so that they would control it and bank all the non-NBA events money.
So they've booked a lot of concerts but it's a lot of older groups like Metallica.
There have been some chatter that they've already booked $2 billion in revenues over some period of time. In addition to all the season ticket sales, they sold PSLs too.
But there are other music concert venues in the area and the Warriors owners clearly plan to take that business away. We will know they're succeeding when they book current acts like Ed Sheeran than oldies groups like Metallica, whose fans must be at least in the late'40s.
This also seems to be what Ballmer is pursuing in LA too. He's going to try to take away the concerts business from other venues, though it must be way more competitive in LA. That is why MSG which owns music venues down there is suing or trying to stop their arena some way.
When the Blazers aren't playing home games, a modern arena could be an attractive venue for other events -- concerts, ice capades, WWE, etc.
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 4:53 am
by Cactus Jack
wco81 wrote:d-train wrote:wco81 wrote:Yeah but if he owned the arena, he could make money for non NBA events, which he doesn't have to share with the league.
There's an advantage to being landlord rather than the tenant.
You are assuming the "big events landlord business" is a good business. I'm not familiar with that business but I can assure your there are many factors that determine whether the business bleeds cash or is a license to print cash. The biggest factor is almost always location. I'll bet it's magnitudes better to own a fancy big area in LA than it is to own such a facility in Portland or Seattle. Yet, the cost to build a big fancy arena is about the same in all 3 locations.
I suspect the Moda Center is a huge money pit. I think it's likely many Blazers fans have the wrong idea about how great it is to own the Moda Center because of all the bad reporting and false narratives that were floated while Blazers and Moda Center had separate ownership. The Moda Center is a financial disaster and the only reason Paul Allen was better off to own it is because of the agreement Allen had with the banks that financed the building allowed the banks to confiscate almost all the ticket revenues from Blazers games. The telling fact is that Paul Allen lost less money while the banks owned the Moda Center than he did while he owned the Moda Center and made payments to the banks for the building's financing.
This also seems to be what Ballmer is pursuing in LA too. He's going to try to take away the concerts business from other venues, though it must be way more competitive in LA. That is why MSG which owns music venues down there is suing or trying to stop their arena some way.
Exactly. MSG, which owns the Forum & is right down the street from the proposed site (land) is fighting it. It's also currently facing several other lawsuits.
https://la.curbed.com/2019/4/26/18518613/clippers-inglewood-nba-arena-lawsuit
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 6:46 pm
by JasonStern
Happy birthday, Wizenheimer!
https://www.nbcsports.com/northwest/portland-trail-blazers/report-neil-olshey-agrees-contract-extension-trail-blazers-0wco81 wrote:Surprised Knight wouldn't do it
Uncle Phil already has a basketball and a football team. #GoDucks
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 11:24 pm
by DusterBuster
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Fri May 24, 2019 11:30 pm
by DusterBuster
Sounds like Jody did some interviews on 620AM today and she sure isn't speaking like someone who has selling the team on the mind anytime soon...
I think it's fair to assume the reports about her keeping the team for Paul is very true. I can see Jody viewing the Blazers as a symbol of honoring and remembering her brother
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Fri Jun 7, 2019 3:07 am
by d-train
Has anyone noticed that Olshey totally dismisses any suggestion that Blazers ownership status is in flux? I would say any worries about direction and stability of the team without Paul are baseless. The course of the Blazers is unchanged without Paul and will likely stay that way. That's not to say that the status of NBA teams isn't normally somewhat fluid. Blazers fans will continue to enjoy great management and a steady hand (wallet) at the top.
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:38 am
by PDX MM
wco81 wrote:So they've booked a lot of concerts but it's a lot of older groups like Metallica.
That is exactly what you would want. Bands like Metallica are iconic and are a guaranteed big money draw not only for the arena/stadium owner but all local businesses.
Portland is an interesting city in the sense that we are big enough to draw in most of the top acts yet small enough that there are only a few places that can seat as many people as those acts will draw. I can see how that would be much different in the bay area with a lot more competition due to the fact that there are more qualified places. So profits certainly can vary from city to city. Myself if I owned the team I would also want to own the arena. At least until I actually saw the financial statements that would prove it one way or the other I could be changing my tune.
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Fri Dec 6, 2019 11:00 pm
by wco81
Didn’t want to start a new thread.
Mark Spears tells Zach Lowe that Dame would object to CJ being traded. May even want to leave if CJ is traded.
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Sat Dec 7, 2019 12:04 am
by Wizenheimer
wco81 wrote:Mark Spears tells Zach Lowe that Dame would object to CJ being traded. May even want to leave if CJ is traded.
Dame objected to Mason Plumlee being traded. He got over it pretty quickly when he saw the result
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Sat Dec 7, 2019 2:24 am
by Norm2953
Let's see what the return from any CJ trade but Dame's signed through the 2025 season for a
six year, $250 Million supermax extension. Thats a lot of money for even the big city teams
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Sat Dec 7, 2019 3:03 am
by wco81
Spears made it sound like trading away CJ would be a dealbreaker.
He could demand a trade but probably hard to accomplish, especially when he's under contract and that contract is maybe too big for other teams to absorb.
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Sat Dec 7, 2019 5:56 pm
by Wizenheimer
wco81 wrote:Spears made it sound like trading away CJ would be a dealbreaker.
He could demand a trade but probably hard to accomplish, especially when he's under contract and that contract is maybe too big for other teams to absorb.
I'm sure he'd be unhappy if/when CJ was traded. But he's under contract for 5 more years after this one and he's not the kind of person to pout for 5+ years and not compete. Blazers are now 1-9 against teams with winning records this year. In the close-out playoff series for the Dame-CJ teams since 2015-16, Portland is 1-16 and have lost 14 in a row; and the only win came against the Warriors 4 years ago when Curry didn't play. Blazers have been good at beating up on lesser teams and have rolled in the regular season. But when the competition is elite, Portland has wilted.
Just exchanging players in the lower part of the rotation isn't going to change Blazer trajectory. Rearranging role players won't make them a contender. They need a change to the core, and right now, the core is Dame, CJ, and Nurkic. Dame and CJ have never developed any mesh or synergy on offense other than just taking turns going iso. They don't have a 2-man game, and they don't work PnR together, they just weave on the perimeter and that accomplishes little. They are too redundant in style, size and position, and neither play good defense. The choice, IMO, is high level mediocrity with Dame & CJ (which is what Olshey will likely choose) or taking the risk of trading CJ for a shot at something different, and better
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Sat Dec 7, 2019 6:09 pm
by DaVoiceMaster
So what does McCollum and the large expiring contracts of Whiteside, and Bazemore bring you? Of course, the smaller contracts of the other players can be tossed in, but I would keep Lillard and Nurkic.
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:16 pm
by TBpup
@Wizenheimer "Blazers are now 1-9 against teams with winning records this year. In the close-out playoff series for the Dame-CJ teams since 2015-16, Portland is 1-16 and have lost 14 in a row; and the only win came against the Warriors 4 years ago when Curry didn't play."
Those are damning numbers and why I believe Portland has never been close to being an actual contender with this group. So there needs to be a reset/big change but it seems doubtful that will happen and this team will be what it was the last 4 years.....solid to good, but not a threat to win a tite.
Contrast that to what many Warriors fans I've spoken to (purely anecdotal) view this season as.
'Patience' is what many Warriors fans seem to have. There is a large group of my gf's friends down in the Bay area where her main office is. Almost without exception, they are all in on the tank. They can't wait to add a high Lottory pick or the asset that might bring to a healthy Curry, Thompson and Green...or whatever asset Green might bring.
They believe their reset time will be very short but think it is the best use of this season in the long run when winning enough games here or there to put them in the 4-14 Lottery range would be worth almost nothing. They are happy to see what talent they may have with the young kids and then make a legit attempt to make a run again starting next year.
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:00 pm
by BigPuma
For some reason your description of Warrior fans really irritates me. you make it sound like they are so wise and forward thinking to accept the tank this year. It doesn't take much 'patience' to go to the finals 5 years in a row, then have 1 down year, and then have a good chance to be elite again next year. The warriors have the most obvious, quickest, highest reward, least painful tanking situation in the history of the NBA. Of course they are all in on it. They don't even have another choice. Literally all of their good players are hurt.
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:31 pm
by wco81
Well that’s the theory and hope for warriors fans.
Local ratings have plummeted.
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 8:29 pm
by DusterBuster
Wizenheimer wrote:wco81 wrote:Mark Spears tells Zach Lowe that Dame would object to CJ being traded. May even want to leave if CJ is traded.
Dame objected to Mason Plumlee being traded. He got over it pretty quickly when he saw the result
Comparing Dame's relationship with Plumlee to CJ isn't exactly something on equal grounds.... He was teammates with Plumlee for a year and half. He's going on what, year 6 with CJ?
This post is pretty dismissive of a deeper human factor here.
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 8:31 pm
by DusterBuster
The Ringer has a report that Blazers are interested in Love and Gallo, with Love also having the Blazers as his preferred destination.
https://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/12/10/21004318/nba-trade-deadline-kevin-love-danilo-gallinari-robert-covington
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:54 am
by wco81
They want both in addition to Melo?
Can Melo and Love be on the court at the same time? Bad defensive combo.
I think Gallo has expiring deal but Love has big contract.
I guess spending isn’t an issue as one might have thought. Would think Loves deal would put the team into luxury taxes.
Re: Future of the Trailblazers
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2019 3:41 am
by DusterBuster
wco81 wrote:They want both in addition to Melo?
Can Melo and Love be on the court at the same time? Bad defensive combo.
I think Gallo has expiring deal but Love has big contract.
I guess spending isn’t an issue as one might have thought. Would think Loves deal would put the team into luxury taxes.
I think the article was suggesting one or the other, not both