drayton mcclane is definitely cheap. he always claims he's losing money until he netted 30 mil last year. when a reporter asked him about that he said that depreciation wasnt taken into account. cash flow rules.
Thank you, jeez, Les could have all the money in the world but, it still does not change the collective barganing agreement. Trades and signings are still governed by rules, since we are over the cap we can only offer our MLE its that simple, if we offered Mike James $7 mil a year we'd not only be over the cap but we'd be in violation of the CBA so David Stern would not allow it. The only way you can purposely go over the cap is with FA players that were already on your roster or through a trade where you assume a larger contract but the tranaction still has to be within reason (5% percent, I think). So we can't trade Luther head for Vince Carter because it is not allowed. I think the accusations that Les is cheap are just unfounded and moreover, show a fundemental misunderstanding of the finances of the NBA in the "hard cap" era. Cheap would be low balling Yao on his extension to try to lower his value, but he has always opened his wallet when it counted. The same people that are saying we didn't get James or Wells because Les is cheap are the same people that would say we should cut them from the team when they end up sucking.
I'm not sure I understand the defense of Les Alexander using the salary cap rules. I thought the argument was about the luxury tax. You know, like trading away a 1st round pick so we don't have to pay it, that sort of thing.
I'm absolutely shocked by the net worth of Leslie Alexander. As recently as 2004-2005 Les' Net worth was tied for the lowest in the league at $80 Million (coincidentally, he was tied with Peter Holt, the owner of the Spurs, a team that clearly can't compete with the Mark Cubans and Paul Allens of the League). For him to increase his net worth fifteen times over, I'm fairly sure that it wasn't solely due to the appreciation in franchise value in a 34 win season. Paul Allen, the wealthiest owner in the league, nevertheless had his net worth depreciated $4 Billion dollars last year, and that was with the Seahawks making the Superbowl last year. So if winning in the most popular sport in America isn't enough to increase your net worth, what is? Basic sports economics dictate that the best way to make a profit is not to make your team better, but simply lose the least amount of money per year. Sports accounting is quite a magic trick sometimes, with multiple loopholes that can turn a $10 million dollar loss on the books into a $5 million dollar profit, but franchises will generally appreciate each year in value regardless of wins or losses. If you can be the fourth most profitable team in the league while not even getting out of the first round of the playoffs, what incentive is there for you to spend more, when wins don't necessarily correlate to better income? Socially, I doubt an animal rights activist from New York holds any great sentiment for a town that in general doesn't like him, and wouldn't give him a decent venue deal until he threatened to move the team. Finally, I'm not really sure what stake Les Alexander has in the team; in fact, he is probably only the head of the privately held company "Rocket Ball Ltd." that owns the Houston Rockets. Anyone know if the limited partnership is like that of the Raiders, where Al Davis only owns about 30-35% of the team? So maybe Les has the cash to dole out ridiculous contracts, but what about the rest of his limited partners? Bill Davidson, the owner of the Pistons, once said that "We have a lot of good owners. That's the pity of it. Twenty five of the thirty owners are very, very good. It's the other five that cause all the problems." I highly doubt that Les was one of the five he was talking about. So back off, and appreciate whatever moves he's willing to agree to. So far this summer, there's been nary a hair out of place economically.
I hate to break it to you, but anyone that actually believed he was only worth 80 million, lived in La La Land.
Does anybody which NBA champions have paid the luxury tax? Lakers and Heat, maybe? I think that the Spurs and Pistons didn't pay luxury tax. I think Heat might have paid for it because of the trade for Walker and Jason Williams.
Nope, the Heat are just hanging on a thread until it goes to luxury tax land. And that's a primary reason why the Heat are cautious with Bonzi Wells, since giving him the full MLE would mean the owner has to pay double (ie, full MLE worth 5 mil, the Heat has to pay 10 mil including tax).
I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with how much $$ you spend. You need stars on your team to win (save the 04 Pistons), and stars cost $$$. Looking at the previous years Finals isn't really a good example because the Heat had Wade on a rookie contract. They still had to overpay for Shaq and had expensive role players. The Mavs had a high payroll. I don't know what Detroit's payroll was but I'm gonna assume it was high (was it?)? Suns had to break the bank for Nash and others. Spurs had to break the bank and got lucky that their players were willing to take below market to stay there. I consider those the best teams last year....
