In my opinion a good GM should be someone who builds a winning team and saves money for the boss. By that definition Cuban is not a good GM since he never saves money for himself.
It's pretty hard to buy a championship in a capped system. It takes some skills to pull it off even if you have unlimited money to buy one.
He's bought a perennial contender. Hopelessly hand-tied and over the cap forever! In this day of the semi-hard cap; free spending (overspending is just stupid) Spur's payroll in 1/2 Mavericks; Spurs are defending champs. Since Cuban got the Mavs: Spurs got: Mercer Nesterovich Bowen Turkoglu Parker Willis for Nothing.
Yes, you are correct, take Tim Duncan off the Spurs and they suck....but you know what? Duncan is now locked up for 7 more seasons, so what, exactly, is your point. Inadvertantly you have made the point that talent does not win championships, a team with a well defined system, and roles that are filled, built around a single dominant force, CAN win championships; economically. ....And A. Jamison is the all-star Cuban landed with all of his free-spending, wheeling and dealing. Genius is winning a championship; Pure Genius is winning a championship AND have Mark Cuban and Paul Allen pay YOU for the privilege.
point is, the reason the spers are any good at all is because they got lucky with some lotto balls, not because they have kickass owners. Inadvertantly you have made the point that talent does not win championships, a team with a well defined system, and roles that are filled, built around a single dominant force, CAN win championships; economically. uhm, talent does win championships. Usually it's the team with the most talented player who takes home the championship, and last year that was Duncan. No news there. ....And A. Jamison is the all-star Cuban landed with all of his free-spending, wheeling and dealing. Genius is winning a championship; Pure Genius is winning a championship AND have Mark Cuban and Paul Allen pay YOU for the privilege. I don't really care for Cuban, but he's more of a genius than the spurs management. Spurs had the best player in the league fall into their laps. That's luck. Cuban built his team from crap to contender from knowing when to take chances and wisely spending his cash. That's smarts.
You've bought into the hype... The Spurs were lucky landing Duncan, but in this day of free agency, in a small market, does the front office get no credit for keeping through two unrestricted free agency periods? Or how about keeping the team profitable in the lowest income, smallest market in the NBA? Why does Cuban get so much credit when Nowitsky, Nash & Finley were already on board when he bought the team? Aren't those 3 players about 95% of the Mavericks success? Don't we all know (and have known) the Mavericks absolutely NEED some kind of inside banger/defender. Don't we all KNOW that because they STILL don't have one of those they will not win anything - and we also know that for the forseeable future the Mavericks cannot get one because they are so far over the cap, they have now flexibility to acquire what is now a valuable commodity in the NBA and an asolute necessity to win the West. Also, regarding front office abilities; which draft picks have panned out for the Mavs since Cuban got there? Spurs have been drafting after Dallas and have several successes to show for it. Cuban is energetic, charismatic, competitive and free-spending; he is by no means "genius".
Also, Cisco: You make it sound in your post that the Spurs pretty much completely sucked before Duncan fell into their lap. Check your history books. Though no championship banners hung in the rafters, they have been a perenial contender & have more division titles than any team except LA since the ABA joined the NBA.
Do they get get credit for keeping Duncan? No, not really. It speaks more towards Duncan's loyalty imo. Profitable? When you're winning I don't think that's much of a problem. Why does Cuban get so much credit when Nowitsky, Nash & Finley were already on board when he bought the team? Aren't those 3 players about 95% of the Mavericks success? very valid point, but still, almost all of his moves have been the right ones so far imo. Don't we all know (and have known) the Mavericks absolutely NEED some kind of inside banger/defender. Don't we all KNOW that because they STILL don't have one of those they will not win anything - and we also know that for the forseeable future the Mavericks cannot get one because they are so far over the cap, they have now flexibility to acquire what is now a valuable commodity in the NBA and an asolute necessity to win the West. I don't think it's written in stone that they wont be able to make it to the finals w/o adding some stud defender, which btw, there are not a ton of in the league, esp available ones. And they would have been at or over the cap with just their big 3 and filling out the roster anyway, why not go over. Also, regarding front office abilities; which draft picks have panned out for the Mavs since Cuban got there? Spurs have been drafting after Dallas and have several successes to show for it. Najera has been pretty damn good. Spurs have exactly 2 success stories so far big whoop. Also, Cisco: You make it sound in your post that the Spurs pretty much completely sucked before Duncan fell into their lap. . I never said that. I said the only reason they are any good at all RIGHT NOW is because duncan fell into their lap.
1st of all as a fan I only care about wins and losses. Personally I don't give a crap about how much or how little my team spends to get there, only that they get there. 2nd, S.A. giving Duncan a wheelbarrow full of money was certainly no risk. Everyone in the league knows Duncan is one of the two most dominant players in the league. IMO it takes a hell of a lot more creativity to add the kind of players that Cuban has added than it does to keep one of your own free agents. 3rd and most important. Cuban took out a student loan and instead of spending it on his school he used it to open a bar in Indiana. The bar paid for his school as well as helped pay back his loan. So simple its Genius. Cuban also had the insight to put together Broadcast.com with a few thousand dollars after convincing people to work for him for what was at the time worthless stock and then sold it for Billions. Of course all of his friends that worked for the worthless stock became millionaires. Pure Genius. Cuban now buys the Mavericks and almost immediately turns them into a winner as well as a huge profit-making machine. Fans are excited for the first time in a decade and the AAC sells out every single night. Genius or luck? It sure looks like Cuban is good at creating his own luck...just plain Genius! Cuban now owns a company that provides High Def sports feeds that is doing well. Seems like everything the man touches turns to gold! Genius.
You have to be both lucky and smart to win anything in the NBA. The Spurs management is pretty smart in rebuilding on the fly. And getting Duncan was their luck. Cuban is pretty smart too. It is true that their success is due to the "big three." But Cuban is smart enough to keep them intact and have a guy like Nellie who isn't afraid to let them free wheel. BTW, I don't buy the notion that the Mavs cannot win without a bruiser in the middle. If they do get one, they'll be very tough to beat. But even if they don't, they still have a chance to win. Last year, it was really a toss up between the Kings, the Mavs and the Spurs. Only the Spurs were lucky enough to avoid the injury bug. As I said, you've got to be BOTH good AND lucky to win it all.
Funny how the smartest are the luckiest (or is that the luckiest are the smartest) [just my luck, I'm not smart enough to know]. BTW - Duncan, luck? Tanking during DR's injury riddled season led to their being in position to get 'lucky'. It is disgraceful ANYTIME when a sports team (or participant) tanks. Simply disgraceful.
Somebody said wins=profitable; Dallas is not profitable and won as many games as SA; Crash: I absolutely DO care if my team is profitable; otherwise they are not my team anymore. An SA guy (Holt) stepped up when the team was on the auction block & bought them to keep them in town. Holt is rich, but he ain't by NBA owner's standards. If the team don't turn a profit, he can't afford to keep them; if he can't afford to keep them, their ain't too many other San Antonians who can (Red McCombs is all about the Vikings - and already owned the Spurs once before). Draft picks: Parker, Ginobill, Claxton (traded for on draft day), Scola; and I would submit that Bowen has been better for the Spurs than ANY free agent has been for the Mavericks. Also, to rehash ancient debates - how exactly did the Spurs tank in '97? Robinson, Elliot, and most of the other starters from that team were injured. Also, the Spurs DID NOT have the worst record - not a very effective tank job. In fact Boston had a 4 times greater chance of landing TD than SA did - the Spurs leading scorer that year was, anyone; Dominique Wilkins; Monty Williams was #2! That team was injured and sucked. Rumor is that Robinson was cleared to play the last two weaks of that season; but wouldn't you hold the franchise out of those meaningless games for your's/his futures anyway? Send him in cold to play against playoff bound - in shape opponents fighting for position? For WHAT?? If Robinson was held out of any games it was for Robinson, not Duncan.
Dallas not profitable? By what accounting measure? Is increasing the value of the team by HUNDREDS of MILLIONS not part of profitability? Cubes did all that. Tanking -- whether by Rox or SA or ANYONE is D - I - S - G - R - A - C - E - F - U - L. If you don't put your best effort towards winning you should not be allowed to remain in the field.
101 6 7, I think Jerry Jones said it best when he first took over the Cowboys, “ Win and the money will take care of itself.” To break it down he was saying that if you put a quality product on the floor then the people will pay to see them play and you will have no money problems. In case you missed it Mark Cuban is a Billion, Billion, Billionaire. In other words the man has 3 billion dollars and is passionate about the Mavericks. No fan of the Mavericks has to worry about the Mavs leaving Dallas as long as Mark Cuban is alive. So suite yourself if you wish to worry about how munch money the team spends or not. I am only concerned with how the team does on the court. Sound pretty shallow on my part? Of course but then why do I watch basketball? Because I love the game not because I am a CPA want-a-be. And I don’t know where heard that Dallas was not profitable but I think you need to get some new sources. Cuban is not losing money…not at all. Further more I would submit to you that if you take away Duncan that Dallas is not just better but superior.
from ESPN Insider: Cuban's commitment can't be questioned By Terry Brown NBA Insider Updated: September 18 9:28 AM ET Cost to re-sign all-star power forward to six-year contract extension after receiving offer sheet from Miami Heat: $82.2 million. Cost to re-sign up-and-coming small forward to six-year extension after receiving offer sheet from Utah Jazz:: $45 million. Cost to see assorted league officials, media personnel and owners of other 28 NBA franchises, including Maverick owner Mark Cuban, when they realize that Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling has duped them again by having the lowest payroll in the league while making just as much money from the NBA's lucrative TV contract: Priceless. Sure, Donald Sterling is paying Elton Brand a lot of money. Even Corey Maggette is getting a substantial raise. But every other player on the Clippers' roster is making either rookie wages or minimum salaries. Before Lamar Odom signed his six-year, $65 million offer sheet from the Miami Heat, the Clipper payroll stood at $32 million. Fifteen days after that, the Clipper payroll was still at $32 million. It is two weeks before the opening of training camps and the Clippers have added Eddie House to their roster at $1.6 million for two seasons and the league's minimum payroll still stands at $32.9 million. In the meantime, the Dallas Mavericks added the remainder of Antawn Jamison's $90 million contract (ending in 2008) to their payroll, which stood at $72.1 million last year with the luxury-tax threshold expected to be around $52.9 million this year. Mark Cuban may be outspoken, but he'll outspend anyone to assemble the best team. The difference, of course, is that the Clippers won 27 games last year and will be lucky to get that many this season after losing their third-, fourth- and fifth- highest scorers from last season as well as their top two assist men and two of their top three rebounders. The Mavericks won a league-high 60 games last season and return their entire starting rotation while adding Jamison's 22 points and seven rebounds to the mix. Since Cuban became the owner of the Mavericks on Jan. 4, 2000, the team went from a 9-23 record that season to a 31-19 finish. Overall, the team's record was 40-42 that year. The following season, the Mavs went 53-29. The year after that, Dallas went 57-25. And the year after that, last season, Dallas was 60-22. That's 20 more wins in an 82-game schedule in less than four seasons. Cuban did this by continually adding and keeping key players on his team. In the 2000 season, Steve Nash was the second-highest paid player on the team at $5.5 million. Entering this season, Nash, about to become a very rich free agent, is still making $5.5 million but was only the fifth highest-paid player on the roster last year behind Michael Finley ($11.9 million), Nick Van Exel ($11 million), Dirk Nowitzki ($10 million) and Raef LaFrentz ($7.2 million). But don't expect Cuban to let Nash get away to free agency like Sterling let Odom, Michael Olowokandi, Andre Miller and Eric Piatkowski go. "We love having Steve as a Maverick and hope we can work it out so he stays a Maverick until the day he retires," Cuban told the Dallas Morning News. In 2000, the Mavericks' payroll was the 22nd highest in the league at $39.7 million. A year later, they were 12th at $51.9 million. A year after that, they were fifth at $57.3 million. Last year, they were third at $72.1 million. And you can just about tack on as much money as it takes for Cuban to re-sign Nash even if it means that his payroll creates a bigger and bigger gap between him and Sterling, who had the lowest payroll in the league in 2000 at $22.5 million, the lowest a year after that at ($29.6 million), the lowest a year after that at ($33.8 million) and, you guessed it, the lowest payroll a year after that, last season, at $42.7 million. It isn't hard to see why that Clippers won only 15 games in 2000, 31 in 2001, 39 in 2002 and only 27 last year. A big deal was made about the Clippers taking on $127 million worth of contract with Brand and Maggette. But that was only after the league's free-agency rules set the price. Few seemed to mention the fact that the Clippers let go of $140 million worth of contracts after those same set of rules set the prices for Odom, Olowokandi, Miller and Piatkowski. Mark Cuban may talk too much, too loudly with his mouth at times, but he backs it up with his wallet by making his franchise that much better and the league, as a whole, that much better because of his franchise. The shame is that he is often fined for telling his side of the truth while Sterling makes a lot of money, a reported $40 million last season, for hiding behind a payroll full of lies.
