Advice Jerry Reinsdorf gave former Marlins president: "Finish 2nd place every year" (full quote in OP)

[NWIBullsFan]

Also agree with the point CF was trying to make about the line between tax payers and non tax payers never being insignificant simply because non tax payers are always at least $6 million up before they even pay dime one due to the sharing of the tax pool among them. So, there really is an arbitrary line. At a minimum it is a $6 million difference even if a team is only a few hundred grand over the tax line for whatever reason.. 13th man, 14th man or signing a star to a large deal.

You and CF would both have a great point.... if what you're saying were true. But it's not.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q19

19. Where does the escrow and luxury tax money go?

Tax money:

- Up to 50% of the tax money may be given to non-taxpaying teams. Note that there is no requirement that any of the tax money be distributed to teams in this manner.

- Any tax money not distributed to teams will be used for "league purposes." In other words, at least 50% of the tax revenue will be used for league purposes each season.

- "League purposes" essentially means for any purpose the league decides, including distributing the money back to teams. Currently 50% of the tax revenue is used as a funding source for the revenue sharing program, and the remaining 50% is distributed to non-taxpaying teams in equal shares.

Since half of the luxury tax penalty money is reallocated to the teams that finished out of the tax, those non-tax clubs are in line for payouts of approximately $3.1MM, per Marks. (This is for 2018-19)

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2019/04/five-teams-finish-201819-season-in-tax-territory.html

The Heat, Wizards, and Rockets made in-season transactions to get out of tax territory and will now receive $3.1MM from the tax pool.

So the free-spending, win first-profit second Heat owner (Micky Arison) dumped salary to avoid the Luxury Tax??
And the Rockets owner (Tilman Fertitta) and his win-at-all-costs GM (Morey) dumped salary to avoid the Luxury Tax?? In a year when they were without any doubt contenders for a Championship??

I am just downright shocked and appalled!!!!!

That $3.1 million is really a difference-maker to a team with a $123,435,194 (HOU) or $123,520,833 (MIA) payroll. A 2.5% rebate.

What's really funny is that the Heat literaly gave away Tyler Johnson and Wayne Ellington for free, PLUS paid the Suns $1.8 million just to get under the tax.

2/6/19 — Traded Tyler Johnson, Wayne Ellington and $1,800,000 to the Phoenix Suns for Ryan Anderson.

Houston paid the Bulls just over $2.6 million to get rid of MCW and Melo's contract.

1/7/18 — Traded Michael Carter Williams and $1,065,696 to the Chicago Bulls for a protected 2020 second-rounder.
1/22/19 — Traded Carmelo Anthony, the rights to Jon Diebler (2011-51st) and $1,566,570 to the Chicago Bulls for the rights to Tadija Dragicevic (2008-53rd).

Obviously, even big-market and contending teams are smart enough to stay out of LT territory if it's at all possible.

But for some reason, people act like Reinsdorf is the only owner out there who watches the payroll. People rip on him for doing things that other owners do as well - even owners who are 2 or 3 (or 4) times richer than him.

Finally, the spend-money-at-will Lakers haven't paid the LT in the last 6 years, I guess they got cheap all of a sudden? NO, they're smart enough not to break the bank when they have absolutely no chance of winning.

I don't even care to defend JR, I'm fairly ambivalent about it because he's easily not the best owner in the league, and easily not the worst. I don't post much on any Bulls sites, I generally just read.

But when I do join the conversation, I want to be honest and based in fact. In this case, you have to compare him HONESTLY with other owners... but I have no doubt someone will come up with a reason why Arison and Fertitta have some reason for dumping salary to get under the tax that doesn't apply to Reinsdorf.

That's just disingenuous, but as LC pointed out earlier, some people seem to have an axe to grind. Which is their right.

[Betta Bulleavit]

I don't disagree with the logic, though it's obviously not something fans want to hear. Also, I think the quote comes off as condescending, because it makes fans sound like suckers.

Making money is the top goal of every franchise. Winning a championship is the optimal goal, because it's the best way to improve a franchise's value and make money. Unfortunately, only one team wins a title each year, so building a team that has a high floor of winning games, making the playoffs, and "being in it" is a wise thing to do.

Making money is not the top goal of every franchise.

OMG. Please tell me that you don’t truly believe that. Answer this question for me. How many franchises are owned by poor people? Second question. How many are owned by billionaires or billionaire groups? Last question, did any of those billionaires become such by accident? Every owner is looking to make money. All of them. Period. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be wasting their time. Billionaires don’t operate to lose money. They operate to make it. It’s jist that simple. Very black and white.

[coldfish]

Also agree with the point CF was trying to make about the line between tax payers and non tax payers never being insignificant simply because non tax payers are always at least $6 million up before they even pay dime one due to the sharing of the tax pool among them. So, there really is an arbitrary line. At a minimum it is a $6 million difference even if a team is only a few hundred grand over the tax line for whatever reason.. 13th man, 14th man or signing a star to a large deal.

You and CF would both have a great point.... if what you're saying were true. But it's not.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q19

19. Where does the escrow and luxury tax money go?

Tax money:

- Up to 50% of the tax money may be given to non-taxpaying teams. Note that there is no requirement that any of the tax money be distributed to teams in this manner.

- Any tax money not distributed to teams will be used for "league purposes." In other words, at least 50% of the tax revenue will be used for league purposes each season.

- "League purposes" essentially means for any purpose the league decides, including distributing the money back to teams. Currently 50% of the tax revenue is used as a funding source for the revenue sharing program, and the remaining 50% is distributed to non-taxpaying teams in equal shares.

Since half of the luxury tax penalty money is reallocated to the teams that finished out of the tax, those non-tax clubs are in line for payouts of approximately $3.1MM, per Marks. (This is for 2018-19)

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2019/04/five-teams-finish-201819-season-in-tax-territory.html

The Heat, Wizards, and Rockets made in-season transactions to get out of tax territory and will now receive $3.1MM from the tax pool.

So the free-spending, win first-profit second Heat owner (Micky Arison) dumped salary to avoid the Luxury Tax??
And the Rockets owner (Tilman Fertitta) and his win-at-all-costs GM (Morey) dumped salary to avoid the Luxury Tax?? In a year when they were without any doubt contenders for a Championship??

I am just downright shocked and appalled!!!!!

That $3.1 million is really a difference-maker to a team with a $123,435,194 (HOU) or $123,520,833 (MIA) payroll. A 2.5% rebate.

What's really funny is that the Heat literaly gave away Tyler Johnson and Wayne Ellington for free, PLUS paid the Suns $1.8 million just to get under the tax.

2/6/19 — Traded Tyler Johnson, Wayne Ellington and $1,800,000 to the Phoenix Suns for Ryan Anderson.

Houston paid the Bulls just over $2.6 million to get rid of MCW and Melo's contract.

1/7/18 — Traded Michael Carter Williams and $1,065,696 to the Chicago Bulls for a protected 2020 second-rounder.
1/22/19 — Traded Carmelo Anthony, the rights to Jon Diebler (2011-51st) and $1,566,570 to the Chicago Bulls for the rights to Tadija Dragicevic (2008-53rd).

Obviously, even big-market and contending teams are smart enough to stay out of LT territory if it's at all possible.

But for some reason, people act like Reinsdorf is the only owner out there who watches the payroll. People rip on him for doing things that other owners do as well - even owners who are 2 or 3 (or 4) times richer than him.

Finally, the spend-money-at-will Lakers haven't paid the LT in the last 6 years, I guess they got cheap all of a sudden? NO, they're smart enough not to break the bank when they have absolutely no chance of winning.

I don't even care to defend JR, I'm fairly ambivalent about it because he's easily not the best owner in the league, and easily not the worst. I don't post much on any Bulls sites, I generally just read.

But when I do join the conversation, I want to be honest and based in fact. In this case, you have to compare him HONESTLY with other owners... but I have no doubt someone will come up with a reason why Arison and Fertitta have some reason for dumping salary to get under the tax that doesn't apply to Reinsdorf.

That's just disingenuous, but as LC pointed out earlier, some people seem to have an axe to grind. Which is their right.

This is pretty disingenuous. First off, the point that not all the lux tax money goes to non taxpaying teams doesn't change the discussion point that paying tax really is an arbitrary line. The first penny of tax paid costs millions of dollars, not the "measley" amounts that was discussed.

Beyond that, just throwing out every anecdote is an attempt to muddy the waters. From a statistical standpoint, the Bulls:
- Have not performed well since MJ left
- Spend among the bottom 20% of teams in luxury tax
- Routinely make the highest profit in the NBA
- Routinely have the lowest payroll to revenue ratio in the NBA
etc.

We all can then throw out the anecdotes showing JR is cheap, like the PJ Brown for Gasol refusal, the Korver dump, the Deng dump, etc. If it walks like a cheap owner, talks like a cheap owner and acts like a cheap owner, its a cheap owner.

Jerry might not be the worst owner in the NBA because he doesn't meddle and doesn't force the team to do stupid stuff but he certainly isn't a good owner by any stretch of the imagination.

[Air Poohdini]

JR would have probably drafted Sam Bowie if had that chance.

[TheSuzerain]

I don't disagree with the logic, though it's obviously not something fans want to hear. Also, I think the quote comes off as condescending, because it makes fans sound like suckers.

Making money is the top goal of every franchise. Winning a championship is the optimal goal, because it's the best way to improve a franchise's value and make money. Unfortunately, only one team wins a title each year, so building a team that has a high floor of winning games, making the playoffs, and "being in it" is a wise thing to do.

Making money is not the top goal of every franchise.

OMG. Please tell me that you don’t truly believe that. Answer this question for me. How many franchises are owned by poor people? Second question. How many are owned by billionaires or billionaire groups? Last question, did any of those billionaires become such by accident? Every owner is looking to make money. All of them. Period. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be wasting their time. Billionaires don’t operate to lose money. They operate to make it. It’s jist that simple. Very black and white.

All owners grow richer due to the escalating value of their equity in the franchise.

But there are definitely owners who are in the red in terms of cashflow/yearly profits.

For some of the uber-rich, the NBA team itself is the luxury asset and is not a source of cashflow.

[johnnyvann840]

Making money is not the top goal of every franchise.

OMG. Please tell me that you don’t truly believe that. Answer this question for me. How many franchises are owned by poor people? Second question. How many are owned by billionaires or billionaire groups? Last question, did any of those billionaires become such by accident? Every owner is looking to make money. All of them. Period. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be wasting their time. Billionaires don’t operate to lose money. They operate to make it. It’s jist that simple. Very black and white.

All owners grow richer due to the escalating value of their equity in the franchise.

But there are definitely owners who are in the red in terms of cashflow/yearly profits.

For some of the uber-rich, the NBA team itself is the luxury asset and is not a source of cashflow.

Exactly. For a few of these guys, owning an NBA team is like having a toy. They can operate in the red but it is still a great investment simply because of the increase in value of the franchise. They are market makers. Look at Mikhail Prokhorov.. he bought 80% of the Nets and 45% of Barclays Center for $365 Million in 2010. He just sold his entire stake in both the Nets and the Arena to Joe Tsai for $3.5 BILLION.

He was a total failure running the franchise operating deep in the red, yet in the end he walked away with a HUGE profit of almost $2 BILLION when it was all said and done (He paid $1.7B for the remaining shares in 2015.

Who cares if you are losing $20 million annually in operating costs when the franchise goes up in value by over $2 Billion over ten years and you can sell for a $2 Billion profit in the end. Those operating losses are a nothing in the big picture. So you lose a couple of hundred million over a decade owning the team but you make ten times that in the final sale and walk away laughing all the way to the bank.

Spoiler:

Last question, did any of those billionaires become such by accident?

Probably. I would bet not all their mother's were trying to get pregnant when they did.

Not all, but some NBA owners inherited their wealth. Like James Dolan, for instance. Or Stan Kroenke who married the Walmart heiress. Jim and Jeanie Buss just happened to be the kids of Dr. Jerry Buss. Mickey Arison is another silver spooner who inherited his wealth. Robert Sarver was Jack Sarver's son. The Spurs owner, Peter Holt inherited his wealth. Greg Miller inherited the Jazz from his father.

Most NBA owners are self made, but I would say about 25% of them either inherited the wealth necessary to buy a team or just inherited the team or took over when their father's retired. Michael Reinsdorf will fall into that category.

[dice]

OMG. Please tell me that you don’t truly believe that. Answer this question for me. How many franchises are owned by poor people? Second question. How many are owned by billionaires or billionaire groups? Last question, did any of those billionaires become such by accident? Every owner is looking to make money. All of them. Period. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be wasting their time. Billionaires don’t operate to lose money. They operate to make it. It’s jist that simple. Very black and white.

All owners grow richer due to the escalating value of their equity in the franchise.

But there are definitely owners who are in the red in terms of cashflow/yearly profits.

For some of the uber-rich, the NBA team itself is the luxury asset and is not a source of cashflow.

Exactly. For a few of these guys, owning an NBA team is like having a toy. They can operate in the red but it is still a great investment simply because of the increase in value of the franchise. They are market makers. Look at Mikhail Prokhorov.. he bought 80% of the Nets and 45% of Barclays Center for $365 Million in 2010. He just sold his entire stake in both the Nets and the Arena to Joe Tsai for $3.5 BILLION.

He was a total failure running the franchise operating deep in the red, yet in the end he walked away with a HUGE profit of almost $2 BILLION when it was all said and done (He paid $1.7B for the remaining shares in 2015.

Who cares if you are losing $20 million annually in operating costs when the franchise goes up in value by over $2 Billion over ten years and you can sell for a $2 Billion profit in the end. Those operating losses are a nothing in the big picture. So you lose a couple of hundred million over a decade owning the team but you make ten times that in the final sale and walk away laughing all the way to the bank.

Spoiler:

Last question, did any of those billionaires become such by accident?

Probably. I would bet not all their mother's were trying to get pregnant when they did.

Not all, but some NBA owners inherited their wealth. Like James Dolan, for instance. Or Stan Kroenke who married the Walmart heiress. Jim and Jeanie Buss just happened to be the kids of Dr. Jerry Buss. Mickey Arison is another silver spooner who inherited his wealth. Robert Sarver was Jack Sarver's son. The Spurs owner, Peter Holt inherited his wealth. Greg Miller inherited the Jazz from his father.

Most NBA owners are self made, but I would say about 25% of them either inherited the wealth necessary to buy a team or just inherited the team or took over when their father's retired. Michael Reinsdorf will fall into that category.

does anybody think that jerry jones thinks that being GM of the team he owns is a good business decision? or are pride and enjoying the challenge a big part of it? my guess is that since he was a kid growing up in arkansas he dreamed of playing in the nfl. and by running a team/dealing with players and coaches regularly, he can live the dream vicariously

[dice]

So the free-spending, win first-profit second Heat owner (Micky Arison) dumped salary to avoid the Luxury Tax?? And the Rockets owner (Tilman Fertitta) and his win-at-all-costs GM (Morey) dumped salary to avoid the Luxury Tax?? In a year when they were without any doubt contenders for a Championship??

I am just downright shocked and appalled!!!!!

That $3.1 million is really a difference-maker to a team with a $123,435,194 (HOU) or $123,520,833 (MIA) payroll. A 2.5% rebate.

they're not avoiding the tax for the $3.1 mil so much as they're avoiding it to...avoid paying the tax and, more specifically, the repeater tax, which is quite punitive

Finally, the spend-money-at-will Lakers haven't paid the LT in the last 6 years, I guess they got cheap all of a sudden? NO, they're smart enough not to break the bank when they have absolutely no chance of winning.

eh, it's more that they needed cap space to lure big time free agents. and they did not clear contracts to get under the tax when they won 27 games the year kobe got injured. but certainly they at least CARE about the tax. and certainly the repeater tax

But when I do join the conversation, I want to be honest and based in fact. In this case, you have to compare him HONESTLY with other owners... but I have no doubt someone will come up with a reason why Arison and Fertitta have some reason for dumping salary to get under the tax that doesn't apply to Reinsdorf.

That's just disingenuous, but as LC pointed out earlier, some people seem to have an axe to grind. Which is their right.

i certainly think that fans go overboard in their expectations of reinsdorf's spending, but they also have a point in that the bulls trail only the knicks and lakers in terms of profitability but have paid a tiny fraction of the luxury tax of the other two teams. and the knicks have stunk for nearly two decades!

[Ben Wilson25]

If you want to assume that Jerry will open the wallet for a contender you also have to consider that he doesn’t show much diligence in finding a front office that is able to construct one. That’s not the standard they’re held to.

[kingkirk]

Finally, the spend-money-at-will Lakers haven't paid the LT in the last 6 years, I guess they got cheap all of a sudden? NO, they're smart enough not to break the bank when they have absolutely no chance of winning.

I don't even care to defend JR, I'm fairly ambivalent about it because he's easily not the best owner in the league, and easily not the worst. I don't post much on any Bulls sites, I generally just read.

But when I do join the conversation, I want to be honest and based in fact. In this case, you have to compare him HONESTLY with other owners... but I have no doubt someone will come up with a reason why Arison and Fertitta have some reason for dumping salary to get under the tax that doesn't apply to Reinsdorf.

That's just disingenuous, but as LC pointed out earlier, some people seem to have an axe to grind. Which is their right.

The Lakers haven’t paid the tax because the Lakers have been constantly turning over the roster in hopes of landing a star while rebuilding around rookie contracts.

Team’s typically doing that don’t carry salary or enter into the tax i.e. Chicago Bulls the last two seasons.

If your argument is every team will try to cut their tax bill if they can, then you’re right. But the obvious retort here is there are far more teams pushing the boundaries of being close to the tax / being over it than the Bulls. You won’t find many examples of the Bulls cutting salary to avoid the tax because they’re rarely ever close to pushing that boundary.

And no fan should give a **** about the team they support not breaking the bank in a year their team can’t realistically win, especially fans of the Bulls, an organisation who routinely banking revenue from its loyal fans.

[League Circles]

And no fan should give a **** about the team they support not breaking the bank in a year their team can’t realistically win, especially fans of the Bulls, an organisation who routinely banking revenue from its loyal fans.

Agreed. Thing is, sadly the Bulls have only had three offseasons in the past 20 years where they had a remotely realistic chance to win, and all three times they used all their exceptions on arguable, marginal upgrades over remaining solid players still under contract at those positions, plus extended key bench role players to long term significant money deal. These offseasons were 2007, 2011, and 2015. Other than imaginary trades, every time the Bulls have been in a good position, they've done everything allowed under the CBA to be as good as they could (which isn't a lot, but the rules are the rules). A cheap team let's Nocioni go instead of extending him in 2007 when they already had Deng, doesn't sign Joe Smith with the full MLE when they already have Wallace, Tyrus, Noah and Nocioni at the 4/5. A cheap team doesn't extend Taj and sign RIP to the full MLE in 2011 when they have Noah, Boozer, Asik, Brewer and Korver under contract. Etc.

The fact that they've only had three offseasons to evaluate in this context is worthy of talent-evaluation and strategy criticism, but not a sign of cheapness IMO.

[League Circles]

This is pretty disingenuous. First off, the point that not all the lux tax money goes to non taxpaying teams doesn't change the discussion point that paying tax really is an arbitrary line. The first penny of tax paid costs millions of dollars, not the "measley" amounts that was discussed.

That's the whole point. It's an arbitrary way to measure financial commitment to winning. Just like number of 20 ppg scorers on a roster would be an arbitrary way to measure quality of an offense. It's not arbitrary from an "effort" standpoint, as you imply of course, but it's most definitely arbitrary from a results standpoint. The difference between being a few hundred grand under vs a few hundred grand over the LT line is millions to the owner, but is still just a 14th man on the court. No different in winning impact theoretically than the same 14th man at any other payroll level, whether way above the LT line, just above the cap line, under the cap, etc.

An honest evaluation of financial commitment to winning would include all basketball related expenditures, which means total payroll over the years, not instances of LT incurred, and especially things the Bulls are known to spend on - dead coaching money which we basically have had perpetually, and dead player money like the Boozer amnesty, and player attraction stuff like the advocate center. Now I'm not saying an honest, thorough evaluation of that sort would put the Bulls near the top, nor am I suggesting it's readily available, but IMO it would likely put them much higher than the incredibly narrow LT instance count has them, which you present as sufficient for your position.

Beyond that, just throwing out every anecdote is an attempt to muddy the waters. From a statistical standpoint, the Bulls:
- Have not performed well since MJ left

Correct, they've performed very much average. Many frame their performance as poor which is false. I believe slightly below .500 since the dynasty. Of course, it's disingenuous to completely exclude the dynasty and all that came before but then conveniently start the evaluation exactly at the start of a natural downcycle that comes from riding out an all time great dynasty til the main guys were very old.

We all can then throw out the anecdotes showing JR is cheap, like the PJ Brown for Gasol refusal, the Korver dump, the Deng dump, etc.

It may be the case that the Gasol trade offer turned down was cheap. I think there was also a legit basketball aspect though. The Korver and Deng trades had very obvious, clear basketball reasons that I've explained in detail about a thousand times.

Jerry might not be the worst owner in the NBA because he doesn't meddle and doesn't force the team to do stupid stuff but he certainly isn't a good owner by any stretch of the imagination.

[/quote]
Yet previously in this thread you've suggested that the Bulls have been consistently bad over the last 20 years and that it's impossible to defend JR without mentioning Dolan. Which is it? Is he at the bottom of the barrel or is he pretty average all things considered. All I've been doing is arguing against the severe inaccurate hyperbole that many including occasionally you partake in.

[League Circles]

I don't know if JR's original alleged comment was true and accurately relayed by the marlins guy, true but relayed out of context, a lie, or gamesmanship by JR. But it's worth noting that trying to be second place every year is precisely what JR does NOT do. The way to be roughly second place every year is precisely what most here advocate, which is to spend a lot and thus lose out on the flexibility to jump on opportunistic ways to become the true favorite.

What JR does, at least with the Bulls, is strive to have a competitive team that is at least average but has lots of flexibility to jump on lucky opportunities to actually become elite when they apear to present themselves, such as 2010 and 2014 free agency, while reaping the significant financial benefits associated with that flexibility, both for their inherent value, and, IMO, so that if you eventually do get lucky and have the opportunity to have a true favorite on paper, you can afford to spend huge for a few years to chase an enormously brand building dynasty level of success, like we did in the 90s and like what GS and Cleveland did in recent years. Basically, being prudent financially both increases your chances of being truly elite, and increases your chances to stay truly elite if you get there.

The result of valuing flexibility this way is a lot of mediocrity. A lot of first round teams that are a couple plausible, but long shot moves away from winning titles, vs a lot of 2nd round and conference finals teams that actually have a lower chance of becoming title teams cause they're locked into flawed rosters.

IMO, this is a win win for an org cause its both best on the court in terms of winning titles and on the balance sheet long term.

Personally though, I'm at a point where, because I've already enjoyed 6 titles and have now suffered through a lot of mediocre and bad teams over 20 years, I'd rather have the limited 2nd roundish/conference finals teams that have virtually no shot to develop into a title winner. Essentially I'm long past title or bust. That's why I wouldn't have traded Rose, Butler or Niko and if I was running the Bulls we'd still have all three and a couple other pieces and be a good team that's enjoyable to watch all year, makes the 2nd round and has no long term hope for a title.

It's all about what trade offs you want to engage in.

[coldfish]

Jerry might not be the worst owner in the NBA because he doesn't meddle and doesn't force the team to do stupid stuff but he certainly isn't a good owner by any stretch of the imagination.

Yet previously in this thread you've suggested that the Bulls have been consistently bad over the last 20 years and that it's impossible to defend JR without mentioning Dolan. Which is it? Is he at the bottom of the barrel or is he pretty average all things considered. All I've been doing is arguing against the severe inaccurate hyperbole that many including occasionally you partake in.

To be blunt, you are one of only 2-3 people I have on ignore which is quite the accomplishment given how long I have been here. I only see your replies when you directly quote me or when I go out of my way to click them. You have stated in the past that you effectively like to play devil's advocate just to stir the pot so I can't tell when you are serious or not. As a result, I have no idea what you have said in this thread in the posts outside of the direct replies to me.

I would reply to this but lets be honest, there is no point in having an argument with quicksand. You just get drawn in and pulled down. Please just stop replying to me.

[Indomitable]

Making money is not the top goal of every franchise.

OMG. Please tell me that you don’t truly believe that. Answer this question for me. How many franchises are owned by poor people? Second question. How many are owned by billionaires or billionaire groups? Last question, did any of those billionaires become such by accident? Every owner is looking to make money. All of them. Period. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be wasting their time. Billionaires don’t operate to lose money. They operate to make it. It’s jist that simple. Very black and white.

All owners grow richer due to the escalating value of their equity in the franchise.

But there are definitely owners who are in the red in terms of cashflow/yearly profits.

For some of the uber-rich, the NBA team itself is the luxury asset and is not a source of cashflow.

The Bulls do not have this issue.

[DJhitek]

If you want to assume that Jerry will open the wallet for a contender you also have to consider that he doesn’t show much diligence in finding a front office that is able to construct one. That’s not the standard they’re held to.

Ben hit the nailed on the head when it comes to my thoughts.

I don't know if JR is cheap or not, or whether he prioritizes money over standing.

I do know that in both organizations he is a stake holder in, he provides a level of job security and loyalty not common with most teams/organizations. Sometimes that's a great thing (ex-players, legendary players within the organization) and sometimes it's not a great thing (Front office types getting multiple chances, preference to hire from within etc.).

[TheSuzerain]

OMG. Please tell me that you don’t truly believe that. Answer this question for me. How many franchises are owned by poor people? Second question. How many are owned by billionaires or billionaire groups? Last question, did any of those billionaires become such by accident? Every owner is looking to make money. All of them. Period. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be wasting their time. Billionaires don’t operate to lose money. They operate to make it. It’s jist that simple. Very black and white.

All owners grow richer due to the escalating value of their equity in the franchise.

But there are definitely owners who are in the red in terms of cashflow/yearly profits.

For some of the uber-rich, the NBA team itself is the luxury asset and is not a source of cashflow.

The Bulls do not have this issue.

We should want Reinsdorf to spend enough so that he loses money year-to-year.

And I'm not necessarily talking about a Lux Tax bill. Our organization and support staff is 2nd rate compared to the top teams.

Our head of analytics was a journalism student. Meanwhile other top teams are loading up on hyper nerds with advanced degrees.

[League Circles]

Yet previously in this thread you've suggested that the Bulls have been consistently bad over the last 20 years and that it's impossible to defend JR without mentioning Dolan. Which is it? Is he at the bottom of the barrel or is he pretty average all things considered. All I've been doing is arguing against the severe inaccurate hyperbole that many including occasionally you partake in.

To be blunt, you are one of only 2-3 people I have on ignore which is quite the accomplishment given how long I have been here. I only see your replies when you directly quote me or when I go out of my way to click them. You have stated in the past that you effectively like to play devil's advocate just to stir the pot so I can't tell when you are serious or not. As a result, I have no idea what you have said in this thread in the posts outside of the direct replies to me.

I would reply to this but lets be honest, there is no point in having an argument with quicksand. You just get drawn in and pulled down. Please just stop replying to me.

It is false to say the bolded part and I can prove it. I have discussed the alleged comment privately with multiple moderators over the years so that they could understand the true context. What I said (many years ago but which is still, though decreasingly true today) is that I like to argue (debate) for sport, which I'd say is true of well over half of the posters and is practically the reason for the forum. If people don't agree with that I'd say it's a semantic misunderstanding. I do NOT play devil's advocate to stir the pot. I DO genuinely enjoy debating positions that I believe in with those who believe otherwise. Other than occasional single phrase posts which are obviously humorously intended, I'm virtually always serious and intellectually honest on this site and always have been.

Quite a few years ago you made a similar public request for me to stop replying to you, which I was offended by because no other serious posters (I consider you a serious poster which is a good thing btw) had ever done such a thing. I honored it. Then after some time, perhaps multiple years, YOU started quoting me again, so I thought you had moved on and were ready to discuss basketball at a high level, and I started replying to you again. I would have had you on ignore after your offensive, public request the first time, but even former moderators cannot be placed on ignore by regular posters like me, so I had to read your thoughtful, smart, yet deeply shallow analysis in your posts. What you write is almost always smart and correct in its narrow scope, yet very limited because other than on court Xs and Os, you simply don't seem to want to take the time to absorb context and details about things. When such context and details are offered to you you simply ignore them and stick to your narrow guns. You're simply way too smart to post like you do with the confidence and conviction you do while not having genuine interest in context and details, which you usually dismiss as anecdotal.

I'll continue to call you out when you make false claims that are easily refutable. Your MO is to basically "round down" to the most critical possible take on a given issue as regards the Bulls. If RealGM were to address the fact that ex mods can't be ignored, maybe I'll stop.

I'm a fan because I love the Bulls, for the most part including their ownership, management, coaches and players. Despite me liking them, my analysis of them is not biased by that (I routinely rate them as mediocre which is what they've been for 20 years). You stated in recent days that the only reason you continue to be a nominal fan is because of this board. That's not exactly trolling, but it's as close to trolling as it is to being a fan. You know you genuinely dislike this organization. Just consider that at times that clouds your analysis.

[coldfish]

Making money is not the top goal of every franchise.

OMG. Please tell me that you don’t truly believe that. Answer this question for me. How many franchises are owned by poor people? Second question. How many are owned by billionaires or billionaire groups? Last question, did any of those billionaires become such by accident? Every owner is looking to make money. All of them. Period. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be wasting their time. Billionaires don’t operate to lose money. They operate to make it. It’s jist that simple. Very black and white.

All owners grow richer due to the escalating value of their equity in the franchise.

But there are definitely owners who are in the red in terms of cashflow/yearly profits.

For some of the uber-rich, the NBA team itself is the luxury asset and is not a source of cashflow.

If you are an uber rich guy, you don't need billions of dollars every year to live. With that said, most rich guys want to be richer.

So, how does your typical rich guy accomplish this? Pay themselves a nominal salary to cover their own expenses either through their sports team or other interests. Then they want NO money coming to them directly. The tax on profit going to an owner is absurd because the business pays tax on it and then the owner pays tax on it as income.

Effectively, a rich guy would far and away rather increase the value of his sports team by $100m than to get $100m in profit in his pocket. The former is only taxed at capital gains at a time of his choosing. The latter gets double taxed immediately. This gives them a pretty big incentive to plow profits back into the company to grow it. They want to *show* no profit with significant revenue growth, in effect.

The Bulls don't work like this. Reinsdorf is a minority owner. The original owner group has partially died off and been divvied up among the children. There are countless owners of the Bulls, many of which are not uber rich and have their hands out looking for that annual income needed to maintain a lifestyle. The Bulls have to make money and they have to distribute it.

Effectively, people here are right. The Bulls are handled differently than other sports teams and its not because JR is just foolish or greedy. Its due to the financial structure of the team. The end effect is that the team is run cheaply compared to other sports franchises and the Bulls would likely be better off with a new owner.

[jnrjr79]

Making money is not the top goal of every franchise.

OMG. Please tell me that you don’t truly believe that. Answer this question for me. How many franchises are owned by poor people? Second question. How many are owned by billionaires or billionaire groups? Last question, did any of those billionaires become such by accident? Every owner is looking to make money. All of them. Period. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be wasting their time. Billionaires don’t operate to lose money. They operate to make it. It’s jist that simple. Very black and white.

All owners grow richer due to the escalating value of their equity in the franchise.

But there are definitely owners who are in the red in terms of cashflow/yearly profits.

For some of the uber-rich, the NBA team itself is the luxury asset and is not a source of cashflow.

Bingo. The best-case scenario for an NBA fan is to have a filthy rich owner who wants to own the team for fun/vanity purposes rather than an investment vehicle.