No. 4 in the NBA !?

[Mezotarkus]

Fourth huh? Wow!

Just imagine if we had Okafor. We would be favored to win the NBA title.

Once again, if we still had Okafor then I doubt we would have Jackson right now. Which one would you rather have?

[W_HAMILTON]

Once again, we have a higher payroll with Chandler than we did with Okafor. If we can currently afford Chandler + Jackson, we could have afforded Okafor + Jackson, since it would have actually saved us money over this season and next.

If you buy into the argument that there would have been too much money tied up long-term, well, you would have had two seasons to solve that problem. And if the team with Okafor would have been as good as I believe, it may have been a moot point anyway because the added revenue from being a top NBA team, the added interest from outside investors looking to buy the team, etc.

[BigSlam]

No. 4 in the NBA !?

[spectre_]

If you buy into the argument that there would have been too much money tied up long-term, well, you would have had two seasons to solve that problem. And if the team with Okafor would have been as good as I believe, it may have been a moot point anyway because the added revenue from being a top NBA team, the added interest from outside investors looking to buy the team, etc.

Wasn't the articles coming out in the summer/beginning of the season about Johnson wanting to sell? If so they wouldn't have had 2 seasons to solve the problem and they were looking to decrease long term money invested right then.

I figure we moved Okafor for that reason, the team started out poorly, it looked like Raja was at worst not going to be 100% for the season and someone convinced Top Bob that taking on Jax's long term deal would be worth the difference.

The two moves weren't done with both in mind, they were totally separate:

1) reduce longterm money by moving Okafor but not hurt the team by getting a similar player (which obviously hasn't worked out).
2) take back more money (but not as much longterm) in hopes of improving the team to increase it's value.

The piddling value we had to give up for Jax most likely played a big part as well.

I'm the last person to support the FO's trade moves (or drafts either for that matter) as IMO we've gotten screwed in every one save Jax. That definitely includes the NOLA deal.

[Mezotarkus]

Once again, we have a higher payroll with Chandler than we did with Okafor. If we can currently afford Chandler + Jackson, we could have afforded Okafor + Jackson, since it would have actually saved us money over this season and next.

Your argument assumes away the issue. Everyone - including the Bobcats - knows Okafor is a better basketball talent than Chandler. Management wanted to reduce their future salary commitments. The trade was purely a move to reduce the total salary commitment (meaning the total contract commitment - not just what is paid this year) of the Bobcats. We owed Okafor $65m over the next 5 years. Chandler is only owed $24m over the next 2 years. Jackson is owed $36m over the next 4 years.

Okafor + Jackson = $100m

Chandler + Jackson = $60m

$60m < $100m.

[Mezotarkus]

The two moves weren't done with both in mind, they were totally separate:

1) reduce longterm money by moving Okafor but not hurt the team by getting a similar player (which obviously hasn't worked out).
2) take back more money (but not as much longterm) in hopes of improving the team to increase it's value.

Agreed, the Okafor trade was not done with the Jackson trade in mind. But ownership would not haven taken on another $36m of salary commitment (Jackson) if it still had Okafor on the books.

[BigSlam]

No. 4 in the NBA??

[pballa]

man

i wish i could watch more of the games, however, i did get that new league pass thing for my ipod, well trial version at least

[W_HAMILTON]

Your argument assumes away the issue. Everyone - including the Bobcats - knows Okafor is a better basketball talent than Chandler.

That's debateable (and has been debated on these boards), but okay.

Management wanted to reduce their future salary commitments. The trade was purely a move to reduce the total salary commitment (meaning the total contract commitment - not just what is paid this year) of the Bobcats.

Then you don't do the trades you do, because in the end, it saves us around 4m/year through the lives of everyone's contract. You don't say you want to clear long-term cap space, then take on a long-term contract.

In reality, most likely what happened is management did want to shed salary, and figured Chandler would be a comparable contributor to Okafor (in addition to appeasing Brown). Chandler was horrible, the team was horrible, and in another one of those "oh sh*t, we have to do something!" moves, they made a no-brainer traded for Jackson with one of our favorite trade partners.

If anything, you could say that with Okafor, we would have been better and steadier throughout the year, so maybe the team would haven't traded for Jackson because we wouldn't have been as awful as we were with Chandler, and hence management didn't reach that "oh sh*t, we have to do something!" moment.

But attributing it all to salary implications is silly. You don't take on long-term contracts if your only goal is to shed long-term salary.

[W_HAMILTON]

Agreed, the Okafor trade was not done with the Jackson trade in mind. But ownership would not haven taken on another $36m of salary commitment (Jackson) if it still had Okafor on the books.

Says who? So, there is no chance we will sign Felton to a long-term deal because we don't want to tie up anymore long-term salary, correct? Are we going to get rid of Wallace to retain Felton? Maybe Diaw? Jackson?

[Mezotarkus]

Agreed, the Okafor trade was not done with the Jackson trade in mind. But ownership would not haven taken on another $36m of salary commitment (Jackson) if it still had Okafor on the books.

Says who? So, there is no chance we will sign Felton to a long-term deal because we don't want to tie up anymore long-term salary, correct? Are we going to get rid of Wallace to retain Felton? Maybe Diaw? Jackson?

Then you don't do the trades you do, because in the end, it saves us around 4m/year through the lives of everyone's contract. You don't say you want to clear long-term cap space, then take on a long-term contract.

In reality, most likely what happened is management did want to shed salary, and figured Chandler would be a comparable contributor to Okafor (in addition to appeasing Brown). Chandler was horrible, the team was horrible, and in another one of those "oh sh*t, we have to do something!" moves, they made a no-brainer traded for Jackson with one of our favorite trade partners.

If anything, you could say that with Okafor, we would have been better and steadier throughout the year, so maybe the team would haven't traded for Jackson because we wouldn't have been as awful as we were with Chandler, and hence management didn't reach that "oh sh*t, we have to do something!" moment.

But attributing it all to salary implications is silly. You don't take on long-term contracts if your only goal is to shed long-term salary.?

What is so befuddling to you? You understand this is a business right? You are either just being argumentative or are so simple minded you can't grasp basic concepts. Either way you are being silly. Owners like Johnson definitely run their franchise as a business - unlike someone like Cuban who uses his wealth to subsidize losses. Owners like Johnson want to improve the bottom line of the team especially given Charlotte looks to have some bleak economic years given the Wells/Wachovia merger and cuts at Bank of America.

Johnson needs to keep his costs under a control but do so in a way that does not kill his revenue stream (season ticket holders and overall attendance). Trading Okafor for Chandler was a way to substantially reduce future payroll commitment while not (hopefully) suffering a significant team skill decline. Johnson no doubt has a salary cap that he's determined he does not want to exceed based on the franchise's revenue projections and he realized eventually Okafor would be a problem because he can't carry the team but would be taking up a big chunk of that salary cap.

As this season went on though the team was sucking wind. Season ticket holders, including myself, were very disappointed and communicated we would not be renewing our season tickets the following year if the team was going down the path of Donald Sterling. Then Johnson saw that his revenue stream now and in the future might go down. Thus, he made the move to trade for Jackson.

However, there are limits. Charlotte can only realistically produce so much revenue. If he had not traded Okafor and the team sucked and season ticket holders had complained he would have said "too bad" because he would not want to dance anywhere near the luxury tax and his own internal salary cap tied up with a few players. He would have either had to just deal with dissatisfied fans or sold the team to an owner that was willing to run the team less like a business.

Your befuddlement about this is comical. Based on your "theory", owners never trade for expiring contracts or care about the luxury tax. The facts show that they do.

[doc.end]

HAm, seriously don't bring Okafor to every thread and if the debate is already there don't feed it please.

[Walt Cronkite]

LOL @ Mezo claiming Johnson is trying to run this team like a business... wish I had the desire to find the articles about how the Bobcats have been bleeding 10s of millions of dollars each season...

[Mezotarkus]

LOL @ Mezo claiming Johnson is trying to run this team like a business... wish I had the desire to find the articles about how the Bobcats have been bleeding 10s of millions of dollars each season...

LOL @ Cronkite - GM has been bleeding tens of billions of dollars but that does not mean it hasn't been run as a business. Think then post. It works better that way.

[Walt Cronkite]

LOL @ Mezo claiming Johnson is trying to run this team like a business... wish I had the desire to find the articles about how the Bobcats have been bleeding 10s of millions of dollars each season...

LOL @ Cronkite - GM has been bleeding tens of billions of dollars but that does not mean it hasn't been run as a business. Think then post. It works better that way.

Owners like Donald Sterling run their franchises like a business. The guy is a creeper and a lowlife, but he knows how to manipulate a monetary situation in order to create more money. Bob Johnson isn't running his team like Cuban, that's true, but I don't think it's accurate to say he's running it like a business... this isn't an either/or suituation. Did you read the thread about the "business development thing"? Most relevantly, "NBA officals came in to go over ticket prices 'almost row by row' to make sure we are on the right track." That sounds like a business entity that has their revenue stream under control? No. The Bobcats are a mess as far as the financial side of things goes.

If he had not traded Okafor and the team sucked and season ticket holders had complained he would have said "too bad" because he would not want to dance anywhere near the luxury tax and his own internal salary cap tied up with a few players.

We are currently dancing very close to the luxury tax (Tax is 69.93 million, we're at 67.04). Next season will be the same and while there may be more season ticket holders because of team success, they're likely to come in at a lower price, so the difference is minimal and it's not going to yield a profit. Anyway, here's the kicker-- the major flaw in your argument about cutting future costs:

The 40 million difference between Okafor & Jackson and Chandler & Jackson is going to have to be offset by new contractual obligations or the team will suffer a significant team skill decline, which will lead to a decrease in revenue stream for a "business" that will have been bleeding money for over a decade with an owner that is no longer anywhere close to what he was worth when he got the grand idea to go into the professional basketball "business". Furthermore, looking at the situation from an overall contract commitment instead of an annual expense is... really dumb. Teams get revenue from the league annually for being under the luxury tax and from aspects tied to team success.

[Walt Cronkite]

Also, No. 6 in the NBA!?

[Mezotarkus]

Anyway, here's the kicker-- the major flaw in your argument about cutting future costs:

<drumroll of anticipation>

The 40 million difference between Okafor & Jackson and Chandler & Jackson is going to have to be offset by new contractual obligations or the team will suffer a significant team skill decline, which will lead to a decrease in revenue stream for a "business" that will have been bleeding money for over a decade with an owner that is no longer anywhere close to what he was worth when he got the grand idea to go into the professional basketball "business". Furthermore, looking at the situation from an overall contract commitment instead of an annual expense is... really dumb. Teams get revenue from the league annually for being under the luxury tax and from aspects tied to team success.

Yeah, owners never trade for expiring contracts right? Are you making stuff up or do you really believe what you are posting?

[Walt Cronkite]

One of your better responses. +1

[W_HAMILTON]

HAm, seriously don't bring Okafor to every thread and if the debate is already there don't feed it please.

I don't bring Okafor to any thread. If people are going to lie, or make questionable assumptions as if they are fact, I will dispute them. I've watched this crap happen to several former members of this organization, and I will not sit back and let people try to twist history after-the-fact. You should ask those that actually are bringing up Okafor in every other thread to pipe down.

As for Mezotarkus, you went off on a tangent, so I don't even know where to begin. If we were at such a point where this franchise needed to shed long-term salary IMMEDIATELY -- so much so that we would actually increase our payroll over the next two years to do so -- we would not have turned around and traded for Jackson's long-term contract just a few months later.

It's akin to selling your car to cut back on expenses, then buying a plasma TV a couple months later.

The trade for Jackson shows that we did not have to IMMEDIATELY cut back on long-term salary. The fact that we can afford Jackson + Chandler this season means that we could have afforded Jackson + Okafor as well.

We could have afforded Okafor and Jackson, and we did not have to immediately cut back on long-term salary. That all indicates that, yes, we could have still made a trade for Jackson if Okafor were still here.