Cuban not afraid to dish out dollars, and he's not alone - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

kriD · 11-12-2006, 04:41 AM

Cuban not afraid to dish out dollars, and he's not alone

01:13 AM CST on Sunday, November 12, 2006
By David Moore / The Dallas Morning News]

You can question Mark Cuban's methods. You can question his courtside behavior and sense of style.

But you can't question his commitment to the Mavericks.

Cuban dedicated $158.9 million this off-season to keep the nucleus of Dirk Nowitzki, Josh Howard and Jason Terry intact. He added free agents Greg Buckner and Devean George along with first-round pick Maurice Ager for a total cost of $27.6 million.

And don't forget the $20 million or so he dished out to sign coach Avery Johnson to an extension.

Salary figures obtained by The Dallas Morning News show the depth of Cuban's commitment. If he purchases a small country in the next few weeks, French Guiana perhaps, his payroll would rival the one assembled by New York's James Dolan.

The Knicks once again win the NBA title for largesse with a payroll of more than $117 million for the 2006-07 season. The Mavericks are second at $91.1 million.

But Cuban's payroll for this season doesn't tell the whole story. He sunk more than $205 million into the long-term future of this club after losing to Miami in The Finals. The big-ticket items:

A three-year, $59.38 million extension for Dirk Nowitzki that binds him to the Mavericks through the 2010-2011 season.

A six-year, $57.89 million contract that keeps Jason Terry under wraps through the 2011-2012 season.

A four-year, $41.67 million extension for Josh Howard that expires with Nowitzki's contract.

Here are a few other items:

• The NBA uses a soft cap. Very soft. Only three of the league's 30 teams – Charlotte, Atlanta and Toronto – are under the $53.135 million figure.

• A much more significant number in the minds of owners is the luxury tax.

The trigger is $65.42 million. Every dollar over that amount requires the owner to put another dollar into the pot. Cuban must pay an additional $10 million this season – the Mavericks' payroll is just over $75 million when you erase Michael Finley's contract under the one-time amnesty clause.

There are 10 teams above the luxury-tax threshold, four of them by no more than $1 million. There are 12 teams that come in just below the luxury-tax number. That is the figure that drives trades and free-agent signings.

• There is no such thing as an average Joe in the league. But there is an average Trenton. Minnesota's Trenton Hassell is the only player in the league whose $4.35 million salary matches the league average.

• Would someone please give Jason Richardson a dollar? The Golden State guard makes $9,999,999 this season.

Thespiralgoeson · 11-12-2006, 04:48 AM

Yeah, but he let Nash leave and waived Finley. Of course that had nothing to do with improving the team. You know, it was just so he could save a few pennies... He's a cheap bastard and I hope he rots in hell. Now Dolan... there's an owner who knows how to commit to a team. I want Dolan.

seelenjaeger · 11-12-2006, 07:16 AM

Me too.

Drbio · 11-12-2006, 02:50 PM

Sarcasm when properly applied can be so much fun.

Darth Ape · 11-12-2006, 07:37 PM

Cuban will never live down his decision to let Nash walk to save a few bucks. 2 time MVP. Gone because Cuban thought that money was better served earning interest in his bank account.

Yes, you can question his dedication.

dude1394 · 11-12-2006, 08:18 PM

No he will never live it down, he'll try but it will be seen as one of the boneheadest moves ever.

HOWEVER....it's hard to rag him too much when the team did better once steve left. Now I think they'd have done better and anyone and everyone can say so as well, but the scoreboard disagrees with that supposition.

Darth Ape · 11-12-2006, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

No he will never live it down, he'll try but it will be seen as one of the boneheadest moves ever.

HOWEVER....it's hard to rag him too much when the team did better once steve left. Now I think they'd have done better and anyone and everyone can say so as well, but the scoreboard disagrees with that supposition.

but how much better would last year's team have been if Steve Nash were running point? The obvious answer is good enough to win the Miami series. If that's true, then Cuban sold the Mavericks championship for a couple million bucks.

Dirkadirkastan · 11-12-2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Ape

but how much better would last year's team have been if Steve Nash were running point? The obvious answer is good enough to win the Miami series. If that's true, then Cuban sold the Mavericks championship for a couple million bucks.

You can't just take last year's squad and add Nash to it, or even swap him with Terry when you're making what-ifs. The franchise would have developed in a completely different direction had Nash signed with Dallas, so in my mind the would-have-been's are all just one huge question mark. Maybe they would have won a championship, but they hadn't the whole time he was on the team, so who knows.

mqywaaah · 11-12-2006, 09:46 PM

He's trying to make up for the errors he did in the past. But even so, Cuban is a good owner. Dolan is stupid. LOL

chumdawg · 11-12-2006, 10:29 PM

I don't think there is anyone anymore who thinks Mark Cuban is a freewheeling, freespending owner. He probably spends a lesser percentage of revenues than the great majority of other owners in the NBA.

P.S. There is probably no one who spends a lesser percentage of revenues than Dolan, for what that's worth...

kg_veteran · 11-12-2006, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I don't think there is anyone anymore who thinks Mark Cuban is a freewheeling, freespending owner. He probably spends a lesser percentage of revenues than the great majority of other owners in the NBA.

Do you have some numbers to back this up?

chumdawg · 11-13-2006, 12:15 AM

There are some numbers that are published, but not the full details. Mostly this is because reports like the Forbes one report franchise revenues but do not account for arena deals. Arena deals are separate businesses.

As you know, arena deals are where NBA teams make or lose their money. Paul Allen's franchise was crippled by a terrible arena deal. The Mavs, on the other hand, have a very sweet one.

There is another factor that is hard to put a finger on, and that is the valuation of the franchise over time. Those this isn't revenue, in accounting terms, it is indeed very real.

Cuban has earned a very healthy penny on the Mavs. Kudos to him for that. But there are franchises that bleed money. To paint Cuban as a free-spending maniac is to...well, it's to be naive.

dude1394 · 11-13-2006, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Ape

but how much better would last year's team have been if Steve Nash were running point? The obvious answer is good enough to win the Miami series. If that's true, then Cuban sold the Mavericks championship for a couple million bucks.

You don't know, you think you do and it sounds logical but you don't know.. All you really know is that the mavs have gotten better(record-wise) without both he and mike.

kg_veteran · 11-13-2006, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

There are some numbers that are published, but not the full details. Mostly this is because reports like the Forbes one report franchise revenues but do not account for arena deals. Arena deals are separate businesses.

As you know, arena deals are where NBA teams make or lose their money. Paul Allen's franchise was crippled by a terrible arena deal. The Mavs, on the other hand, have a very sweet one.

There is another factor that is hard to put a finger on, and that is the valuation of the franchise over time. Those this isn't revenue, in accounting terms, it is indeed very real.

Cuban has earned a very healthy penny on the Mavs. Kudos to him for that. But there are franchises that bleed money. To paint Cuban as a free-spending maniac is to...well, it's to be naive.

In terms of profit and loss, I'd be willing to bet that Cuban makes a lot less than you think.

In terms of the appreciation of the value of his franchise, sure, Cuban has made a lot. He will sell the team for a lot more than the $280 million or so he bought it for, assuming he sells.

Either way, I think it is accurate to say that Cuban committed to a lot of additional payroll in the offseason, and I think he paid Jason Terry quite well precisely because he didn't want another Nash situation where he was second-guessed for letting a player go without compensation in return.

So, you could say that he learned from his mistake with Nash, if you are so inclined.

dude1394 · 11-13-2006, 12:23 AM

I don't think cubes make much of anything on the team until it comes to the playoffs. The team obviously is increasing in value, but I don't think it turns much of a profit, doesn't lose a lot anymore I don't think.

kg_veteran · 11-13-2006, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

I don't think cubes make much of anything on the team until it comes to the playoffs. The team obviously is increasing in value, but I don't think it turns much of a profit, doesn't lose a lot anymore I don't think.

I tend to agree with that take.

chumdawg · 11-13-2006, 12:26 AM

Let me get this straight. You guys think that a winning franchise in the #5 media market in the US is losing money?

Do you think the NBA is a non-profit organization?

chumdawg · 11-13-2006, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

I don't think cubes make much of anything on the team until it comes to the playoffs. The team obviously is increasing in value, but I don't think it turns much of a profit, doesn't lose a lot anymore I don't think.

Why would anyone want to buy an NBA franchise, if you could be as successful as Dallas has been and still not make money?

I'm afraid you just haven't thought this thing through deeply enough.

kg_veteran · 11-13-2006, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Let me get this straight. You guys think that a winning franchise in the #5 media market in the US is losing money?

Do you think the NBA is a non-profit organization?

I think I said not making much. There was a time when Cuban said he was losing money. I haven't heard him say that lately.

kg_veteran · 11-13-2006, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Why would anyone want to buy an NBA franchise, if you could be as successful as Dallas has been and still not make money?

I'm afraid you just haven't thought this thing through deeply enough.

Come on, dude. Clearly, you need to meditate on this subject -- like Chum has.

Or somesuch.

dude1394 · 11-13-2006, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Why would anyone want to buy an NBA franchise, if you could be as successful as Dallas has been and still not make money?

I'm afraid you just haven't thought this thing through deeply enough.

So how much "income" do you make on your home? If none, why buy it? And I'm not calling him a cheap bastard anyway, I think the burden would be on yourself to back up your charges.

chumdawg · 11-13-2006, 01:09 AM

Who pays $300MM to not net a return? In a romantic vision, the guy who just wants to win basketball games. I'm afraid that's not the case.

You guys floor me. I know you are both intelligent thinkers. But you are damn near blind on this issue.

Do you KNOW what a big business the NBA is? Who do you think is making all the money? Evidently you think the players are making off with the loot.

dude1394 · 11-13-2006, 01:36 AM

Not particularly do I know what a big business the NBA is, sounds like you don't really either, you certainly don't knkow how much the mavs do/do not make or you would tout the numbers out.

Until we have some numbers from somewhere this is just a pissing match. If baseball can (I don't know if it does) lose money on 182 games and 20-40K per night, then I guess the NBA teams can as well.

dude1394 · 11-13-2006, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Who pays $300MM to not net a return? In a romantic vision, the guy who just wants to win basketball games. I'm afraid that's not the case.

You guys floor me. I know you are both intelligent thinkers. But you are damn near blind on this issue.

Do you KNOW what a big business the NBA is? Who do you think is making all the money? Evidently you think the players are making off with the loot.

Chum if you pay 300MM and it's worth 600MM in 10 years what is that? 10% a year investment? I don't have any investments making 10% solid every year.

Pirate · 11-13-2006, 02:23 AM

Some points I believe are more accurate than some of the ones offered above ...

1. Media types tend to try to make an issue of "increase in franchise value" as part of the annual profit for an owner, as if it's a stock market investment. But it's not, and typically these aren't bought to sell. Franchises turn over quite rarely.

2. The NBA and NFL - the 2 most successful pro leagues - used to be family investments. Now they have become "vanity" purchases for the ultra-rich. In either case, turnover is going to be infrequent.

3. Annual profit is desirable but these are toys for the big boys. Can they make a profit? Absolutely. But in this club of owners, it's typically all a paper gain or loss and the size of the profit (or lack of one) can be irrelevant to most. Many have a greater desire for a winning toy than for a cash-producing one, and willingly spend their profit on trying to put together a winning roster.

4. Some owners dont have the outside assets to absorb negative operating losses, and have to make a profit - and in the NBA and NFL, it's quite doable with the caps if that is your need or desire.

5. The caps are negotiated based on owner revenue from all NBA sources. That's why they exist, to keep owners from bankrupting themselves. For that concession, the players get a cut of all of it. So when an owner exceed the limits like Cuban does, he's tossing his share of profits away, and then some.

6. Cuban isnt the richest on paper, but he is more awash in cash than most. He has the means to actually absorb a real loss each year. Because of the size of his payroll and tax bill, it's realistic to think he is likely to be absorbing a loss that he tries to make up via playoff revenue.

7. The tax is effective because it gives your profit to your competition. Many of these guys will spend, but they dont want their money used to compete against them.

92bDad · 11-13-2006, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

No he will never live it down, he'll try but it will be seen as one of the boneheadest moves ever.

HOWEVER....it's hard to rag him too much when the team did better once steve left. Now I think they'd have done better and anyone and everyone can say so as well, but the scoreboard disagrees with that supposition.

I don't get it...I thought getting rid of Nash was the single greatest move the Mavs have ever made!!! They got better by letting him go.

Had they kept Nash, they most likely would NEVER have made it to the finals and Nash certainly would NEVER have won MVP!!! The guy plays NO DEFENSE and is seriously overrated...he simply happens to be in a system that elevates his flair, but not his Championship potential or lack thereof.

Sure Nash is fun to watch...but I was thrilled to see him go!!! This team would only go so far with him...Cuban made a brilliant move that was gutsy and has proven to work out best for the team.

As for Finley...Good guy and all, but way OVERPAID!!! Not to mention in the end he was in the way of young talent. It was time for him to go.

dude1394 · 11-13-2006, 10:45 AM

Well I'll contend that letting nash go was a cluster and a really, really bone-headed move. Problem (if you can call it that) is that the result does not back up my contention.

Unless you include letting a rival get a heck of a lot better. Lakers were wise to force shaq to miami or nowhere.

bobatundi · 11-14-2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Let me get this straight. You guys think that a winning franchise in the #5 media market in the US is losing money?

Do you think the NBA is a non-profit organization?

That would be the NHL of a few years ago.

sike · 11-14-2006, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well I'll contend that letting nash go was a cluster and a really, really bone-headed move. Problem (if you can call it that) is that the result does not back up my contention.

a lot of this is hindsight though. In retrospect, seeing what Nash has been in PHX it looks bad. But I'd suggest if Nash were here he would in no way be even the one time MVP of the league and that perhaps the Mavs do not make the finals (because Nellie and his all O no D game plan might still be here). Nash just found the 100% pefect situation, coach, cast of teammates, and gameplan for him in PHX. If Cuban would have known that Nash goes from average at best playoff performer to 2 time MVP... Cubes probably resigns him...though I'm still not sold that it would have been for the best for either party.

so blame Cubes for Nash...it seems like it his was call/fault. But if I do this...I also give him a lot of the credit for the best season in Mavs history. It has to go both ways.

dude1394 · 11-14-2006, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sike

a lot of this is hindsight though. In retrospect, seeing what Nash has been in PHX it looks bad. But I'd suggest if Nash were here he would in no way be even the one time MVP of the league and that perhaps the Mavs do not make the finals (because Nellie and his all O no D game plan might still be here). Nash just found the 100% pefect situation, coach, cast of teammates, and gameplan for him in PHX. If Cuban would have known that Nash goes from average at best playoff performer to 2 time MVP... Cubes probably resigns him...though I'm still not sold that it would have been for the best for either party.

so blame Cubes for Nash...it seems like it his was call/fault. But if I do this...I also give him a lot of the credit for the best season in Mavs history. It has to go both ways.

Couldn't agree more. My gut still says letting a point guard of steve's caliber go is a cluster. My gut also says that AJ would have fixed some of steve's defensive deficiencies. But as I said, I can't prove it so I also can't rag him that much.

sike · 11-14-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Couldn't agree more. My gut still says letting a point guard of steve's caliber go is a cluster. My gut also says that AJ would have fixed some of steve's defensive deficiencies. But as I said, I can't prove it so I also can't rag him that much.

totally...if the only choice I have to make is between JT and Nash and all else remains the same....I do it in a second...I just have a huntch that it would not have been the case...

Flacolaco · 11-14-2006, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drbio

Sarcasm when properly applied can be so much fun.

Apply directly to forehead

sike · 11-14-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Apply directly to forehead

where?...I missed that....

jacktruth · 11-14-2006, 04:15 PM

Where was Steve Nash again when we were playing in the finals?

Also, you can't exchange Nash for Terry in an imaginary scenario. You have to exchange Nash for Dampier. Now dampier is no franchise player, but having a deep center rotation was a huge part of beating San Antonio. Would Avery been able to save Diop until overtime in game 7 against the spurs if we didn't have dampier? I don't think so, and that manuever won that game. I still support the walking of Nash. Although Terry is not a good defender, he does make a steal every now and then. Nash doesn't even try to defend. I personally got tired of seeing that. Anyway, in all of Nash's days in Dallas, was he even considered for MVP? Is it possible that he just wasn't a fit for a system with no inside players?

dude1394 · 11-14-2006, 04:20 PM

Well two years ago he was kicking our ass. I mean I really don't want to get into a big nash yes/no again. But we've been having point guard issues ever since steve left and we still do unless Devin turns it on.

It's not out of the realm of possibilities that with AJ at the helm a team with steve on it would have been better, in fact I think it would ,but no data.

A corrollary to the steve situation is would nelson have given up if steve had stayed, probably not. I don't know if that would have been good or bad for the organization to tell you the truth. I think that's more important than whether dampier showed up imo. Damps a solid center, but I don't think it's that difficult to get a solid center.

Nelson NEVER could because his center had to score, he couldn't stand a non-scoring center. If he could we would have found one.

sike · 11-14-2006, 04:23 PM

whatever else the truth about Nash is...he is certainly perfectly suited for PHX's system of zero D and run and gun...because that's what he does as well as any point guard in the history of the game.

sike · 11-14-2006, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

I don't know if that would have been good or bad for the organization to tell you the truth. I think that's more important than whether dampier showed up imo. Damps a solid center, but I don't think it's that difficult to get a solid center. Nelson NEVER could because his center had to score, he couldn't stand a non-scoring center. If he could we would have found one.

great post, dude. Let me clear up any murkey waters...Nellie leaving was the best thing for the long term of this team. Not a single doubt about it. The man cannot coach a team that plays D. And teams that don't play good D don't get where the Mavs got in their very first year without Nellie. I know its been said to death...but Nellie does not have a team that can beat the Spurs in 2006.

aexchange · 11-14-2006, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Ape

Cuban will never live down his decision to let Nash walk to save a few bucks. 2 time MVP. Gone because Cuban thought that money was better served earning interest in his bank account.

Yes, you can question his dedication.

while i don't agree with everything cuban has done, in hindsight signing terry to a big dollar long term extension sure makes him look like a boneheaded idiot, when he refused to commit the same amount of money to nash.

EricaLubarsky · 11-14-2006, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aexchange

while i don't agree with everything cuban has done, in hindsight signing terry to a big dollar long term extension sure makes him look like a boneheaded idiot, when he refused to commit the same amount of money to nash.

If they were parallel, but Terry's deal came out after Nash left.

Cuban knows nothing of the league, plays it kinda cheap
then
Cuban throws around his dollars and signs Raef for ridiculous money
then
Cuban gets shy and tries to make a good deal with Nash and loses Nash
then
Cuban has money burning in his pocket and signs Dampier for big bucks
then
The team gets to the NBA Finals for the first time in franchise history and Cuban remembers what happened to Nash and overpays Terry.