Guess I'm an idiot? - Page 2 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

j0Shi · 05-06-2012, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Cubes is hypersensitive, as always. He makes it sound like it was not possible to bring Chandler back. As I understand it, he could have if he wanted to, but he chose not to.

Would give him the benefit of the doubt though. Very possible that bringing back Chandler and improving the roster would have made it impossible to dodge the harsher luxury tax in example. Remember that the Mavs have to get under the tax very soon, maybe even next year.

That makes the Odom situation twice as horrible because we were actually just a few mil over this year.

chumdawg · 05-06-2012, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j0Shi

Would give him the benefit of the doubt though. Very possible that bringing back Chandler and improving the roster would have made it impossible to dodge the harsher luxury tax in example. Remember that the Mavs have to get under the tax very soon, maybe even next year.

That makes the Odom situation twice as horrible because we were actually just a few mil over this year.

Why do they have to dodge the tax?

j0Shi · 05-06-2012, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Why do they have to dodge the tax?

Because Cuban wants to, at least that's what I took away from his comments in Dec.

jthig32 · 05-06-2012, 11:24 AM

Because in a couple years the repeater tax will make life miserable for them.

b_o_r · 05-06-2012, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Why do they have to dodge the tax?

Going over the salary cap determines whether are not a team can use the mle and I believe another type exception to sign a player with the new CBA.

chumdawg · 05-06-2012, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b_o_r

Going over the salary cap determines whether are not a team can use the mle and I believe another type exception to sign a player with the new CBA.

Presumably by going over the cap you would be retaining an asset perhaps more valuable than any asset you could obtain with those exceptions.

Is it strategic, or is it financial?

LonghornDub · 05-06-2012, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Because in a couple years the repeater tax will make life miserable for them.

This.

And it's not like Cuban's the only guy doing this.

dude1394 · 05-06-2012, 11:31 AM

From what I gathered was that being over the cap removes the Mavs ability to make more moves. For cubes that must be more restrictive to him than the salary. Like cutting off his ability to wheel and deal.

Underdog · 05-06-2012, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

If I knew last year that the season was going to be so screwed schedule wise and that cubes would dismantle the team I would have opted out, it was a real crappy product.

Did you get to see the ring ceremonies and banner get raised?

Just wondering, because I was completely envious of every Mavs fan who got to witness that in person... Not saying it was worth the price of season tickets, but damn, that was a nice silver lining in this sh!tty lockout-shortened season - better than what season ticket holders of 29 other teams got.

Hell, it seems like only Heat, Lakers and Spurs season ticket holders got their money's-worth - the NBA had a really crappy product this year.

dude1394 · 05-06-2012, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underdog

Did you get to see the ring ceremonies and banner get raised?

Just wondering, because I was completely envious of every Mavs fan who got to witness that in person... Not saying it was worth the price of season tickets, but damn, that was a nice silver lining in this sh!tty lockout-shortened season - better than what season ticket holders of 29 other teams got.

Hell, it seems like only Heat, Lakers and Spurs season ticket holders got their money's-worth - the NBA had a really crappy product this year.

Sure and that was nice, many a sports tear was shed.. But I'm just being honest with you. This is the first time in a decade that I did not look forward to having games to attend at the AAC.

chumdawg · 05-06-2012, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Because in a couple years the repeater tax will make life miserable for them.

There's more than one way to be miserable.

DevinHarriswillstart · 05-06-2012, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underdog

Did you get to see the ring ceremonies and banner get raised?

Just wondering, because I was completely envious of every Mavs fan who got to witness that in person... Not saying it was worth the price of season tickets, but damn, that was a nice silver lining in this sh!tty lockout-shortened season - better than what season ticket holders of 29 other teams got.

Hell, it seems like only Heat, Lakers and Spurs season ticket holders got their money's-worth - the NBA had a really crappy product this year.

This was the "pray your star doesn't get a season ending injury" type year. D. Rose, D. Howard, Andrea Bargnani, Eric Gordon, Ricky Rubio, Jeremy Lin, etc. etc.

jthig32 · 05-06-2012, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Presumably by going over the cap you would be retaining an asset perhaps more valuable than any asset you could obtain with those exceptions.

Is it strategic, or is it financial?

It's both.

With the new CBA, if Cubes kept up his past tactics, he would be paying way, way more in luxury tax, AND have significant restrictions on adding new players.

Underdog · 05-06-2012, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

This was the "pray your star doesn't get a season ending injury" type year. D. Rose, D. Howard, Andrea Bargnani, Eric Gordon, Ricky Rubio, Jeremy Lin, etc. etc.

No kidding - how many playoff teams in the East are missing one of their best (if not THE best) players right now?

Lockout basketball sucks.

chumdawg · 05-06-2012, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

It's both.

With the new CBA, if Cubes kept up his past tactics, he would be paying way, way more in luxury tax, AND have significant restrictions on adding new players.

I don't care what he pays in luxury tax. Restrictions on adding new players...versus retaining productive existing players (like Chandler and JJB). What are you gaining, by getting rid of players like that?

b_o_r · 05-06-2012, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Presumably by going over the cap you would be retaining an asset perhaps more valuable than any asset you could obtain with those exceptions.

Is it strategic, or is it financial?

Its both because the asset you retain may come down with an injury or their level of play declines. Another valuable part of the team may go down as well (just ask the Bulls). Running a team under a salary cap with guaranteed contracts is a crap shoot. You have to have some combination of financial flexibility, picks and/or talented young cheap players as trade bait going forward.

I can't believe one of the biggest spenders in the NBA is now being accused of being frugal.

DevinHarriswillstart · 05-06-2012, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Sure and that was nice, many a sports tear being she'd. But I'm just being honest with you. This is the first time in a decade that I did not look forward to having games to attend at the AAC.

I didn't really look forward to them either. I really tried to believe that having a season, no matter how short, was better than no season at all. Once the Odom drama took over, my interest seriously tanked. The team really never got fully on it's feet. It is what it is and Cubes needs to kill it in FA and trades.

jthig32 · 05-06-2012, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

There's more than one way to be miserable.

Look, the Mavs paid 17Mil in luxury tax last year. Fast forward two years, and that exact salary and tax level would have resulted in 60 Million in luxury tax.

You just can't expect Mark to pay that.

jthig32 · 05-06-2012, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't care what he pays in luxury tax. Restrictions on adding new players...versus retaining productive existing players (like Chandler and JJB). What are you gaining, by getting rid of players like that?

I realize you don't care, but there is a cap on what he can and will spend.

I realize you've enjoyed the bit of calling him cheap over the years, and it looks like you're going to start again, but pretty much anyone else is going to recognize that you can't ask mark to triple his luxury tax payments AND take on significant restrictions on how he can build his roster.

Oh, and productive players eventually become less productive (see Kidd and Jet). Being in the luxury tax makes it difficult to replace them.

SchumiWDC · 05-06-2012, 11:51 AM

How can you disregard what he has to pay in luxury tax? Some of you people amaze me with the things you say...

chumdawg · 05-06-2012, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

I realize you don't care, but there is a cap on what he can and will spend.

I realize you've enjoyed the bit of calling him cheap over the years, and it looks like you're going to start again, but pretty much anyone else is going to recognize that you can't ask mark to triple his luxury tax payments AND take on significant restrictions on how he can build his roster.

Oh, and productive players eventually become less productive (see Kidd and Jet). Being in the luxury tax makes it difficult to replace them.

See, the trouble here is that you are viewing the "AND" above as a double whammy. It's not a double whammy...it's quite the opposite! When you add luxury assets you don't need "flexibility in building the roster." Or in other words, that said "flexibility" has to become payroll eventually.

So...yeah...I think he ought to spend something. When it costs a hundred bucks plus to sit in the lower bowl, I think he ought to spend something.

LonghornDub · 05-06-2012, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

When you add luxury assets you don't need "flexibility in building the roster."

Well that's just not even close to true....

jthig32 · 05-06-2012, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

See, the trouble here is that you are viewing the "AND" above as a double whammy. It's not a double whammy...it's quite the opposite! When you add luxury assets you don't need "flexibility in building the roster." Or in other words, that said "flexibility" has to become payroll eventually.

Yes you do, because you can't just keep re-signing your own players. Especially not when they're all 33+.

Quote:

So...yeah...I think he ought to spend something. When it costs a hundred bucks plus to sit in the lower bowl, I think he ought to spend something.

This is nothing but trolling.

chumdawg · 05-06-2012, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Well that's just not even close to true....

What do you like better, flexibility or luxury assets? If you like flexibility better, what is it you value so much about that flexibility? How will you cash it in?

chumdawg · 05-06-2012, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Yes you do, because you can't just keep re-signing your own players. Especially not when they're all 33+.

If you are arguing Cuban's side, the last thing you want to do is bring up age. After all, he was the guy who thought in 2004 that Nash was already too old.

Quote:

This is nothing but trolling.

Trolling? Wow. That's pretty wild. There is a relationship in every case between a team's fan and its ownership. It is not uncommon for the fans to feel as though they are getting the worse end of the deal.

LonghornDub · 05-06-2012, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What do you like better, flexibility or luxury assets? If you like flexibility better, what is it you value so much about that flexibility? How will you cash it in?

This is a false choice. I don't like "luxury assets" or "roster flexibility." I like having a quality roster that wins games.

If you think that the way to get there is to spend indiscriminately into an incredibly punitive luxury tax, I don't know what to tell you. Having "luxury assets" (and by the way, I'm not even sure what you think that means) doesn't prevent the various unpredictable and volatile circumstance of sports--player decline, injuries, poor team chemistry, etc. If you completely remove all of your flexibility, you have lost all ability to deal with those incredibly common contingencies.

And by the way, your "spend something" argument is a huge red herring. Cuban has been well above the luxury tax for years, and in the future, he will undoubtedly be at the absolute max of the salary cap. To imply that he's not willing to "spend something" is preposterous.

jthig32 · 05-06-2012, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Trolling? Wow. That's pretty wild. There is a relationship in every case between a team's fan and its ownership. It is not uncommon for the fans to feel as though they are getting the worse end of the deal.

I don't care how common it is, it's idiotic for someone state that Cubes should spend more. He's consistently spent as much as or more than anyone in the NBA.

You bring up Cubes' decision to let Nash walk, meanwhile the team that signed him consistently made their team worse in the name of the bottom line.

chumdawg · 05-06-2012, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

This is a false choice. I don't like "luxury assets" or "roster flexibility." I like having a quality roster that wins games.

And I'm sure we all like chocolate ice cream. At some point you have to nut up and make a choice. I'm sure the Cowboys would have liked to have had that second round draft choice. Instead, they decided that they preferred Morris Claiborne, the "luxury asset" (to help you understand what I mean by that), and could let the pick go.

Quote:

If you think that the way to get there is to spend indiscriminately into an incredibly punitive luxury tax, I don't know what to tell you.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Where did "indiscriminate" and "incredibly punitive" come into play? Those are both entirely judgmental.

Quote:

And by the way, your "spend something" argument is a huge red herring. Cuban has been well above the luxury tax for years, and in the future, he will undoubtedly be at the absolute max of the salary cap. To imply that he's not willing to "spend something" is preposterous.

We talk a lot about spending, with Cuban. We don't talk much about revenue. His revenues are "well above" that of the average NBA team, are they not?

b_o_r · 05-06-2012, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

And I'm sure we all like chocolate ice cream. At some point you have to nut up and make a choice. I'm sure the Cowboys would have liked to have had that second round draft choice. Instead, they decided that they preferred Morris Claiborne, the "luxury asset" (to help you understand what I mean by that), and could let the pick go.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Where did "indiscriminate" and "incredibly punitive" come into play? Those are both entirely judgmental.

We talk a lot about spending, with Cuban. We don't talk much about revenue. His revenues are "well above" that of the average NBA team, are they not?

Revenue doesn't mean alot since the Mavs have been operating at a loss for the last decade. Even last year, they lost 45mil.

jthig32 · 05-06-2012, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

We talk a lot about spending, with Cuban. We don't talk much about revenue. His revenues are "well above" that of the average NBA team, are they not?

There's no real evidence to support this. Forbes says that the Mavs lost 17 Million in 2008.

I think we all know that between tax loopholes and the value of the franchise increasing, Cubes isn't actually taking that kind of bath. But there's absolutely no evidence that Cubes is making so much money that he can just spend whatever he wants in luxury tax.

chumdawg · 05-06-2012, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

I don't care how common it is, it's idiotic for someone state that Cubes should spend more. He's consistently spent as much as or more than anyone in the NBA.

Well, he "paid the freight," didn't he? As in, collected that championship. I don't see where it's a bad idea (I would not use the highly pejorative "idiotic") to continue to do same.

jthig32 · 05-06-2012, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Well, he "paid the freight," didn't he? As in, collected that championship. I don't see where it's a bad idea (I would not use the highly pejorative "idiotic") to continue to do same.

Because it will start to cost him over three times as much, AND remove several avenues of adding play players that the Mavs used to create their title team.

Windmill360 · 05-06-2012, 12:27 PM

Who says tyson would have re-segned. Maybe he just loved new york and carmala

chumdawg · 05-06-2012, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

There's no real evidence to support this. Forbes says that the Mavs lost 17 Million in 2008.

I think we all know that between tax loopholes and the value of the franchise increasing, Cubes isn't actually taking that kind of bath. But there's absolutely no evidence that Cubes is making so much money that he can just spend whatever he wants in luxury tax.

The Mavs have a longer sellout streak than anyone else in the NBA, if I'm not mistaken. They have a wonderful arena, which creates a lot of revenue. They have been one of the very most successful teams in the NBA over the last ten years. Their payroll is near the top of the league, yes, but so are their facilities, their revenue base, and their performance.

If you add all that up and still lose a bunch of money...then you can't make money in the NBA by having a good building and a good team.

Underdog · 05-06-2012, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Well, he "paid the freight," didn't he? As in, collected that championship. I don't see where it's a bad idea (I would not use the highly pejorative "idiotic") to continue to do same.

That was under the old CBA rules - the new rules were meant to punish teams that spend big to win rings (that's why the Lakers have to make a choice between Gasol and Bynum this summer...)

chumdawg · 05-06-2012, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Because it will start to cost him over three times as much, AND remove several avenues of adding play players that the Mavs used to create their title team.

Why do you keep saying "AND" like that? It seems that you want to eat your cake and have it, too.

jthig32 · 05-06-2012, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The Mavs have a longer sellout streak than anyone else in the NBA, if I'm not mistaken. They have a wonderful arena, which creates a lot of revenue. They have been one of the very most successful teams in the NBA over the last ten years. Their payroll is near the top of the league, yes, but so are their facilities, their revenue base, and their performance.

If you add all that up and still lose a bunch of money...then you can't make money in the NBA by having a good building and a good team.

And yet, Forbes has their revenue as 9th in the NBA last year, and WELL below the other teams that have consistently been in the luxury tax.

There are a lot of factors that go into revenue that we don't have any insight into. The tv deal is one of them. Also, the Mavs have lower ticket prices than most of the NBA.

chumdawg · 05-06-2012, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

And yet, Forbes has their revenue as 9th in the NBA last year, and WELL below the other teams that have consistently been in the luxury tax.

There are a lot of factors that go into revenue that we don't have any insight into. The tv deal is one of them. Also, the Mavs have lower ticket prices than most of the NBA.

Ninth? Really? Let's see...two New York teams, two LA teams, Chicago...Houston, maybe...how in the world does it get to nine?

jthig32 · 05-06-2012, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Why do you keep saying "AND" like that? It seems that you want to eat your cake and have it, too.

This doesn't make any sense. The Mavs have been luxury tax payers for a decade, and yet, somehow, they've needed to use the MLE, AND the Sign and Trade in order to build their roster.

They won't be able to use those tools anymore, along with other significant restrictions, if they are tax payers moving forward.

Being a luxury tax payer doesn't mean you don't have to go acquire players.

jthig32 · 05-06-2012, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Ninth? Really? Let's see...two New York teams, two LA teams, Chicago...Houston, maybe...how in the world does it get to nine?

Link

Like I said, there are a lot of factors that we don't see. I don't think the Mavs get 100% of the revenue from the arena, for one thing.