I do detect the smell of cash in the air... or a reminder why the Suns want Shaq and Nash back next season.
The NBA store announced it's list of this year's top selling jerseys, with Kobe back at #1.
Steve Nash is at #13, and Shaq is at #14. Amazingly enough, Allen Iverson's Pistons jersey is at #5, and Nate Robinson's is #8.
It's a reminder, btw, that the NBA is at its core, a business, and one that relies primarily on it's superstars, who fill seats, help sell TV time, and in this case shift merchandise. Despite the shared revenue from the NBA's TV partnership, gate receipts are still the lifeblood of most franchises, representing 33% of the leagues revenue. On top of that, there are concession sales at US Airways.
Forbes has a breakdown of the 2007 financial picture, and the 2008 numbers. Two things are clear from those:
- The Suns are still decently profitable, with revenue in 2008 of $148M, and income (i.e gross profit) of $28.9M (down from $145M/$37.3M in 2007).
- The Suns spend their player money effectively, getting a 122 wins-to-player ratio (essentially normalized wins/dollar. 100 is league average).
What does this all mean for the franchise?
Firstly, it's clear that Steve Nash and Shaq are the team's franchise players, as measured by jersey sales. Keeping them will likely result in continued attendance, season-ticket and regular ticket sales, despite the economy.
Secondly, despite the luxury tax, the team is actually in a good financial position, and that they can afford to pay players at the current level, and still make money. In fact, all the noise regarding the luxury tax (which we were told was *vital* to reduce), actually seems to be primarily a desire on the part of Robert Sarver, rather than a true financial imperative.
From my perspective this changes my point of view slightly. While it would be unfair to suggest that the franchise should run at a loss, so long as it *is profitable*, the Suns should do as much as they can financially to win a title, or come close to winning. And they should do this because they'll make money from merchandising and other sales, when the economy starts to recover.
0 recs |
39 comments
Comments
While it would be unfair to suggest that the franchise should run at a loss, so long as it is profitable, the Suns should do as much as they can financially to win a title, or come close to winning.
So… are you saying money doesn’t matter as much as talent when looking at potential trades since the Suns are in the black? Or are you going to be cool if they shed some payroll at the expense of contention?
by Mike Lisboa on Apr 30, 2009 6:24 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm saying...
that we should pay for talent.
I’m also implying that we should continue to be prudent with our money, and not spend it like a sailor on shore leave.
What that means, for example, if the Cavs decide to trade LeBron in exchange for Barnes, and it ends up costing us more money, that shouldn’t be an obstacle up to the point where we start to lose money.
Would I be cool if they shed payroll at the expense of contention. Yes, but only if the organization is going to rebuild with a solid plan. We should not behave like the Clippers or the Bucks.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on Apr 30, 2009 6:39 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
This year's bottom line is one issue
But so is long-term viability. If, for example, cutting spending on a non-contender helps to be able to spend more money down the road and contend, then that’s a good thing, too.
I don’t know that the Suns/Sarver ever claimed to be in the red. It’s simply silly to pay a luxury tax for a lottery team.
It may be an imperative from the standpoint of trying to make a real run in 2012.
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on Apr 30, 2009 10:31 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I think we agree on that point.
But the choices, as far as I’m concerned, are either to contend or to rebuild. There’s no middle ground. Mediocrity, to me, is not an option.
What I don’t want to have happen is to have a team that’s put together cheaply, but is just going through the motions, where reaching the playoffs is the ceiling to the team’s ambitions, and the ownership basically treat it as a cash cow.
Post Jordan Bulls was like that, where Jerry Reinsdorf basically milked the fan base for 4 or 5 seasons, and made a huge amount of money. Teams like the Bucks, Warriors and Clippers also fall into that category.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 1, 2009 12:43 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
let me rephrase that..
Planned mediocrity outside of rebuilding is not an option.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 1, 2009 1:05 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, it is.
For Sarver. Damn, if only I had the money to buy the Suns. Argh.
by felixthm on May 1, 2009 2:49 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
It kind of is for Sarver
When I posted after the Town Hall, I meant to describe this rather distinct impression:
He wants to win it all, but he isn’t willing to sit through a 25 win season to rebuild to win it all. Here are his three priorities (in order):
(1) title,
(2) having a 50+ win team without a legit title shot
(3) rebuilding for a legit shot at a title
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on May 1, 2009 3:14 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
My notion of planned mediocrity
is 2a) having a 40+ win team, and barely reaching the playoffs as a 7 or 8 seed.
Still, a no-hoper 50+ win team isn’t much better, imho, even if it does have a punchers chance at a title. I’m willing to give the current squad a little slack, since I’m optimistic about it’s highest level of play, which I think can exceed any other squad’s best, with the possible exception of the Celtics. Now this is just my personal opinion.
The point of the post, btw, was to try & explain why option 2), is a viable if not attractive option for the organization. And it’s their prerogative to run the organization any way they choose. But it’s my prerogative to abandon my support for this team if they choose not to try and contend, or rebuild.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 1, 2009 4:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Option #2
(or even 2(a)) is probably the best long-term, conservative approach to investing your money in a team and receiving regular dividends.
A cash cow, so to speak.
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on May 1, 2009 6:02 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think Sarver plays the lottery or invests wisely?
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on May 1, 2009 6:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but do you really want to be the Clippers ??
Sarver’s a banker.. What do you think??
Anyway, Donald Sterling pursued this model for years.. get a team that wins a few games, and even comes close to the playoffs, in order to generate some excitement, but be parsimonious when it comes to contracts.
I get Sterling’s point of view, which is that this is a business, and that he shouldn’t have to pay big salaries if his team isn’t winning, but it’s a chicken & egg type situation, in the sense that a single player can’t turn a team of scrubs into a contender. But I’d also say that the Clippers org. is almost completely disfunctional, and not capable.
Nash ignited a big turnaround, but the worst you could say about the Suns before he arrived was that they were talented underachievers. Likewise, LeBron only started to have success when they surrounded him with decent talent. Kobe needed Phil J to start winning post-Shaq.
So my point is that while Bobby S can do whatever he likes with his team, I personally will only continue to support this team if it is either contending or rebuilding, or while Steve Nash is still playing.
My support for rebuilding was predicated, btw, on the team being forced to shed salaries to end up under or close to the luxury tax threshold. Having done some superficial analysis, though, it appears that the current squad’s salary burden is comfortably affordable for the organization, and under those circumstances that call to rebuild may have been premature.
That’s not to say the organization should waste money, but it does mean, given the various trade rules and such, that if the right talent comes along (and that’s a big if), we should continue to be bold.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 1, 2009 6:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Sarver would gamble on the "right" talent
He wants to win enough — he just doesn’t want to forego a couple of pretty good seasons. E.g., if D-Wade put him $20M over the luxury tax, he’d do it. The concern I have (I don’t know if I’m even relevant, or close to the point) is that he won’t rebuild because he does not have the patience.
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on May 4, 2009 2:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only if you claim
That Amare and Gentry for a full season still makes us a lottery team. I don’t see it that way. This team, as constituted and at full strength, is arguably better than current playoff teams Utah, New Orleans, Dallas, Miami, Detroit, Chicago, and Atlanta. You must take that into account when throwing around the ‘silly to pay luxury tax for a lottery team’ claim around.
April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?
by Hawk42 on May 7, 2009 4:35 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Arguably
Trust me, anything can be argued. Throwing “arguably” in front of “better than current playoff teams …” does little to change reality. Coulda, woulda, shoulda …
Arguably, my invention should have won the Infomercial Reality TV Show and have an ad campaign next to the Sham-Wow guy. It just didn’t happen.
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on May 7, 2009 7:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, throw 'arguably' out. They are better.
April 29, 2008 Total Eclipse of the Sun. Is the sky falling?
by Hawk42 on May 7, 2009 8:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will throw it out, and they aren't better
They aren’t in the playoffs. Therefore, they aren’t as good. The really tough thing to swallow about the tax is that teams ahead of the Suns in the seedings are taking their cut of the Suns’ tax money. That’s the “silly” part of it all.
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on May 8, 2009 11:52 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting...
I find this fascination and it totally changes my perspective on the off-season. I know the Suns have some issues with pick and roll defense and picking up someone good that can help guard that is essential. However, now I am not so sure about getting rid of Shaq. In fact, if anyone goes now, it should probably be JRich. I think he can be a vital part of the team but we have too many midsize 2-3 plays and not enough 4-5 players. Its possible that re-signing Swift might work but I am not sure…
On a different note. I was kinda pleased with the Sarver interview in the Tribune the other day. Usually Sarver gets this rep of being a tightwad and an idiot with money. I have always thought this to be unlikely. He may not be sports savvy like Colangelo but saying a multi-millionaire buisness owner is stupid seems a bit of a stretch. Anyway, he was saying, in response to questions about resigning Gentry, that they learned a lot from last year (with Mike) about waiting out the emotions of the end of season before making decisions. More than ever, right now I feel the truth of that statement. At the end I was ready to make moves NOW, pronto Shaq, Rich, even Amare if need be but now…after a few weeks. I dont know. I still think this team has some really bright spots. After exit interviews I feel really positive about summer progress and where the guys will be next time around.
Call me an optimist, but I cant wait till next season!
Go read a book!
by N8lol on May 1, 2009 8:28 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Anyone who thinks Sarver is cheap is completely uninformed
Any owner who spends a luxury tax is spending money to make his team better. You think he brought Shaq here to save money? Or J-Rich? How about Marcus Banks or signing Boris Diaw to that long ridiculous deal? All moves made by Sarver were to become a better team. Sure, the moves didn’t work, but at the time no one could have seen that. I love the fact that he says he can’t stand a 30 win team. He seriously has be convinced he’s gonna do whatever it takes to win.
by Funky Flapsack on May 1, 2009 5:11 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
But at what cost?
He seriously has be convinced he’s gonna do whatever it takes to win.
But at what cost? Refusing to have a bad season for a chance to win the title? Not arguing … just sayin’
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on May 1, 2009 6:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
i meant he has ME convinced, btw
by Funky Flapsack on May 1, 2009 7:54 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sarver's reputation for cheapness..
is derived solely from the fact that he allowed draft picks to be sold, or traded, and forced the organization to maintain a minimum 13 man squad, rather than the 15 players we’re allowed.
Almost all those sold picks, have materialized into decent, if not good players, that would have allowed us to continue to contend, without a break, well after Nash, Shaq and Grant had retired.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 1, 2009 6:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
okay
I don’t understand how having one of the highest payrolls in the NBA doesn’t convince you he spends the money. In fact, there’s no need to argue this point. It’s not debatable. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a FACT that he’s not frugal.
We sold picks to have the room for the contracts that we gave to proven players. Many of those contracts turned out to be bad ones, yes. But we signed Diaw to his contract because he had a fabulous year and we didn’t want to lose him. We gave Banks that god-awful contract because we needed a backup for Nash. We brought in Shaq because we needed a big man to help with the boards.
All of his decisions were intended to improve an expensive championship caliber team. Clippers and Grizzlies fans would love to have an owner who’s willing to spend some money. And Sarver even said he’s willing to pay the luxury tax next year, because he wants a winner.
by Funky Flapsack on May 1, 2009 8:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't say he *was* cheap..
I just explained why people think he’s cheap.
The Boris deal is only hard to justify in hindsight. When he got here, he definitely played like someone making that kind of money, and I guess deserved the salary on the basis of that season’s work. No-one, myself included, expected him to
- Come back from the offseason in such bad shape.
- Be unable to co-exist on the same floor as Amare
The Banks signing was a mistake, but the guy is only making $4.6M next season, which is overpriced for him, but it’s not the second coming of Shawn Bradley. Bear in mind, we saved about $1.5M this year, by trading Marion & Banks for Shaq, so that trade clearly had it’s fiscal benefits.
But otoh, the organization did get rid of Kurt Thomas, for luxury tax reasons, and I know Nash was particularly upset about that particular trade at the time. We let Skinner go because he wanted a little too much money. And they did sell picks, for cash.
If it’s possible to be both cheap and a spendthrift at the same time, then Sarver is that person (y’know: penny wise, pound foolish).
My criticism of Bobby and the rest of the organization (and this includes Mike D., btw) is that we haven’t been particularly smart about how we spend our money, especially when it comes to role/bench players.
We should have been smart enough not to sign Banks, for example. Or, if we were going to go over the tax threshold, do it by trading Amare for KG, or a similar kind of trade. (I don’t know, though, what we would have done to extend Marion’s contract).
Sarver doesn’t need to justify himself to me, btw. It’s his team, and he can do what he wants. I merely pointed out a very crude take on the orgs’ current financial situation, highlighting the fact that the organization is in fact profitable.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 1, 2009 8:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the financial update. The comments on Sarver are fair and even handed.
My concern with ’ rebuild mode’ for the future stems from the fact that dropping into the 25-30 win territory does not mean with any degree of certainty that you can delevop a championship team….or even get back to a 50 win plateau. To me the suns are already there more or less, why put yourself through all trouble to get back here.
Take the best ‘least’ important piece and move it for one that may be an improvement. This is the best chance for a contending team in this (the suns) situation.
by overthere on May 2, 2009 5:12 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tend to agree
with this point of view…
Why blow it up and get bad unless you are certain to get great players to start rebuilding with. That’s not going to happen. No one is going to trade a franchise player for Amare, Shaq or Nash at this point in their careers or contracts.
Yes, we could get some high draft picks (maybe) but unless you are going to get a #1 or #2 pick then that’s just another big gamble that would take many years to pay off.
The Suns are not a championship caliber team if they come back in tact but they should be a decent enough playoff team in a western conference that has leveled off.
Remember that the Lakers have a big problem this off season. Odom and Ariza are both unrestricted free agents and b/c Bynum’s big deal kicks in they are at $77m w/o those two guys. I find it hard to believe they will be able to sign both of them which means next years Lakers are very likely to be worse then this years. The Hornets and Jazz are sliding. Denver and Portland are improving and who the hell knows what Dallas and Houston will do.
With a full season and IF Amare and Shaq come back healthy and fit then I tend to agree with the keep them together approach especially since blowing it up isn’t likely to yield a player good enough to build around.
I would still try and move JRich though and replace him with some depth and youth. That’s the one guy we can afford to lose and might be better without.
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on May 2, 2009 8:55 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except, of course..
that the window of opportunity for this Suns team is at most 2 years, imho.. I don’t think Steve Nash will be able to play at this high level, for these minutes he’s playing now, in 2 years. Even Stockton’s playing time dropped to under 30 mins/game at the age of 35. Same goes for Shaq.
That was always the consideration in the back of my mind, that the “we’re going to have to rebuild sooner or later” part is coming sooner than we’d hoped. If the team was going to be stuck in no-man’s land, because it had shed salaries and players to be under the tax threshold, then I’d rather we rebuilt and be done with it.
I profoundly agree with your point (and I’ve made it myself) about finding quality replacements for players who leave or get traded. And I do think this team, when it’s playing well, has a better than puncher’s chance to win the title, so I’m willing to cut it a little slack if they want to keep the thing together. This team’s best basketball is more than capable of handling the Lakers best or the Cavs best. Only the Celtics’ best might be better than ours.
My point really is that if the Suns org do choose to keep the team together, then it’s clear, in my mind, they can afford it financially, and that they’ll make their money on merchandise sales, if the team gets on a roll.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 2, 2009 10:48 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's almost as if
the last opportunity to blow up and start over was at the trade deadline if they had moved Shaq to Cleveland and Amare to Memphis. Now, they have no real option other then hang on with what they have.
I know that you and other “serious” fans are willing to suffer through a few down years if the plan is there but remember that about…oh I don’t know…70% of the fans are of the casual variety. They buy their tickets to see guys like Nash and Shaq even if it’s on a team that’s not a contender.
OTOH, if you really did want to blow up and shed salary fast aren’t you better off saying that you don’t need to? If the entire league thinks you are in fire sale mode you aren’t going to get good offers. This could be the double reverse maverick in action. We’ll know soon enough (if you consider 3 or 4 months soon…and I do)
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on May 2, 2009 12:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well... the Suns are in a better rebuilding position than that..
because they have a lot of expiring contracts and team options, and can build up cap space fairly rapidly. And aside from Amare, their core of young players isn’t that expensive (they’re not good yet, either, but I think Kerr actually drafted well).
So if they let Nash go this year, and Shaq next year, that’s not a bad position to be in ($30M+ off the books, plus the other expiring contracts.. Right now, for 2010-11, the Suns are only on the hook for $42M, including Amares’ player option, and for $10.5M for ‘11-’12). Of course, the point about who you actually sign with that free money is still valid. As is the point about not showing your hand.
The one favor the Pistons did for the league, was to show that a 7-deep bunch of good mid-salaried players is enough to win a title, if they’re well coached and mesh together on the floor. I wouldn’t be opposed to Steve Kerr constructing that kind of team.
Up until about 3 weeks ago, I was convinced that to move forward, the team had to rebuild around Amare, mainly because the organization has considered him the franchise player, and because he’s untradeable due to his tendency for serious injury.
Now, after he did that interview throwing Terry P. under the bus, and the fact the team played well without him (we’d have probably made the playoffs if Barbosa has stayed healthy, imho), I’m not so sure he hasn’t outstayed his welcome.
The Memphis trade attempt, and the NBA trade rules which force you to get value, at least financially, mean that we could trade down a little at the 4, and still be better. Make that trade, and the J-Rich trade close together, and possibilities arise.
And wrt J-Rich.. if he played more consistently, and better defensively, I wouldn’t be opposed to keeping him.
With Barnes, I’d make just one rule: you’re only allowed to shoot the ball if Nash passed it to you, and you’re open or the clock is running down. But he was a gamer to cover for Amare. Trix-lite, even.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 2, 2009 5:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yes
they certainly will be looking good after this coming season…
which is waiting it out one more year isn’t the end of the world. The Suns really don’t have any horrible long term contracts and if you look around the league there’s a lot of teams that can’t say that
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on May 2, 2009 9:17 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
NBA Salaries next & following season
I don’t know how to format this so the whitespaces/tabs work, but here’s a list of all the teams and their salary commitments for the next two seasons (from hoopshype.com).
Note, that these are commitments over which the team has no control, so it includes active contracts and player option years. It doesn’t include team options, qualifying offers or anything else.
You can see, for ‘10-’11, that there are a lot of good teams in a much better position than us, right now, the most notable ones being the Pistons, Spurs, Knicks, Bulls, Trail Blazers and Cavs who all have enough room to sign at least two all-star quality players, assuming a tax threshold of ~$60M in two years. Of course, some of that money will be spent to activate team options (Blazers..)
Team 2009-2010 2010-2011
Atlanta Hawks $40,865,197 $14,100,000
Boston Celtics $72,386,991 $44,726,729
Charlotte Bobcats $56,620,697 $50,649,075
Chicago Bulls $63,026,783 $26,163,850
Cleveland Cavaliers $71,852,316 $35,977,466
Dallas Mavericks $68,794,830 $49,538,524
Denver Nuggets $63,232,888 $58,204,697
Detroit Pistons $33,919,243 $11,148,760
Golden State Warriors $59,276,571 $55,494,000
Houston Rockets $64,566,752 $28,040,600
Indiana Pacers $57,786,131 $56,158,439
Los Angeles Clippers $56,677,949 $43,392,111
Los Angeles Lakers $74,105,091 $67,205,882
Memphis Grizzlies $34,239,354 $15,382,777
Miami Heat $69,591,821 $17,149,243
Milwaukee Bucks $64,664,260 $55,437,750
Minnesota Timberwolves $50,769,341 $15,700,000
New Jersey Nets $50,390,287 $23,928,000
New Orleans Hornets $76,475,998 $64,696,130
New York Knicks $69,877,946 $18,160,263
Oklahoma City Thunder $41,766,515 $13,485,484
Orlando Magic $70,609,036 $49,045,822
Philadelphia 76ers $57,215,531 $55,005,349
Phoenix Suns $62,272,538 $41,202,544
Portland Trail Blazers $50,567,802 $11,205,300
Sacramento Kings $51,949,515 $30,105,005
San Antonio Spurs $65,989,918 $32,200,000
Toronto Raptors $45,753,371 $42,192,683
Utah Jazz $71,179,799 $42,261,080
Washington Wizards $75,906,170 $53,881,676
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 3, 2009 1:34 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Updated salaries
For a very detailed look at team by team salary situations you can use this Salary Tool which is linked in the left side bar of the main page of this site. Here’s the link
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p04two3w1E2ZHhzBoBSzXQQ&gid=15
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on May 3, 2009 10:19 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
muy grazias...
nice….
as is often the case, you were thinking more clearly than I, although I am confused by the luxury tax and salary cap columns you have.. I presume they apply to this season.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 3, 2009 1:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't put this together
Wyn from Canis Hoopus did and he updates as needed. Great resource.
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on May 3, 2009 5:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think most fans are willing to go through a rebuild if there's a plan.
I think the Tim Floyd era in Chicago proved that. The Bulls continued to sell out for 3 or 4 years after the Championship team was dismantled, exactly on the basis that they needed to rebuild. Otherwise, why would they Scottie Pippen go, when he had 3 or 4 years of good ball left?
The Bulls only started to lose fans, after that time, once it was clear that the two Jerrys actually had no plan, and was just milking the franchise to recover the $63M he paid Jordan for his final two seasons. Moreover, it was clear that Tim Floyd had no business coaching an NBA team.
I don’t think Suns fans are necessarily more fickle than Bulls fans. I think they would accept an sincere and honest attempt to rebuild. People love to cheer for kids and underdogs.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 4, 2009 5:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very valid points, gentlemen.
I take it that the logical consensus would be to hold together this team and see what happens, what it can do, and make personnel changes only if opportunities arise. It’s the same with approaching women, if you come on too strong and appear desperate, it’s going to be a turn off. Holding out for one more year and letting The Big Contract free us of some salary, instead of getting into fire-sale/panic-rebuild mode would be wise.
I really hope Sarver and/or Kerr read this blog.
by felixthm on May 2, 2009 10:04 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
They do
Someone here apparently helped to get Bell shipped out.
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on May 4, 2009 2:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn bloggers!
Get a real job!
"Basketball doesn't build character. It reveals it"
by PanamaSun on May 8, 2009 10:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sarver is a banker, so money will always come before winning.
Colangelo may not have been perfect, but he had his head on straight when it came to putting a team together.
Aprende epsañol y esto tendra mas sentido para ti.
by Diosnomeama on May 3, 2009 7:02 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
word to yo mother
Steve Nash, the league's MVP, is a longhaired Canadian who spoke out against the war in Iraq and reads The Communist Manifesto. Quentin Richardson declared after a game-winning shot that it "was like Hamlet. It was a suspense thriller, and I killed them at the end." Amare Stoudemire, when asked to comment on a 22-point third quarter against the Kings, said, "I've got a tendency to jump over some guys' heads and throw it down."
by rsavaj on May 3, 2009 10:20 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 
















