Keep Roy, Add Oden, Add MLE = Tax Pain

I think Paul Allen has always been about winning first and payroll concerns second. I don't expect that to change.

If Roy can play at a high level, he'll stay. If he can't, he'll be waived/amnestied. If Oden can recover and help the team - he's probably still better than all but the top 5 centers in the league on one leg.
I see us remaining one of the Luxury Tax paying teams for the foreseeable future. There's few reasons other than money why PA wouldn't direct the team to re-sign Oden, Felton, Batum and add a serious MLE to the team in the near future. For him, its just money. That doesn't scare him except when the team sucks! We're past that point right now.

 

Red HOT and ROLLIN in FTW

 

I don't know? Sarver took over in 2004 and the Suns have been a pretty damn good team every year.

 

B. Every day, all day.

 

"Smart" "Winning" "Blazers"

Been awhile since those 3 words have appeared in the same sentence, so I wouldn't get my hopes up.

 

Doesn't Sterling turn a profit every year on the Clippers, too? Good business doesn't even have to correlate to good basketball, let alone have any causal relationship with it.

 

lets just say they would likely be better if they had kept rondo and deng, not traded 2 #1 picks and kurt thomas for nothing, traded marion so they could get rid of marcus banks, and let amare go


why would anyone rather have a cheap owner? i guess you will have to explain that a little better than "option b" for me to understand

 

why? say you hit gold in the draft and have all stars at every position, you would rather the owner let 3 of them walk?

 

Here were the choices

Myopic: Blurred with no long range vision.

Solid: Good quality, sound, dependable.


It's not a sexy pick, but of those two, solid is better than myopic. What people are doing is lumping guys like Sarver and Sterling in with the solids, yet they are not solid. Neither is stable or sound.

 

Letting three of them walk would not be prudent or solid though. Asking if I'd rather have Paul Allen or Robert Sarver, I'd take PA. But that wasn't the question

 

Exactly the reasons that MM stated. These were the choices offered, in a perfect world of course I'd prefer the rich and savvy owner, but with the two other "evils" I'll take the lesser which is average spending ability and competence over rich and incompetent.

 

So would you rather have Oakland A's owners or Yankees?

 

Yankees because both are competent, but the Yankees have more money

 

I don't follow baseball, so I really have no idea. If you want to talk about football, let's say it's the difference between a poorly managed high revenue team like the Cowboys vs. a low revenue team like the Falcons with an excellent GM and a hands off owner, then give me the second guy every time.

And really if the NBA is going to enter a new CBA that is much more punitive with with its tax then competitive advantages for free spenders are going to be muted.

 

Allen would look like a better financial manager if Pritchard hadn't given away the store to Roy. That's why Allen fired Pritchard. Blame Pritchard more and Allen less.

Allen critics, who say he shouldn't get involved in personnel issues, will answer, Allen should have gotten involved in the Roy negotiations, so we should blame Allen, not Pritchard.

 

The thread was complaining about changes in luxury tax and caps, so I noted that any changes in the CBA are being forced by the owners. The players would love no changes. So blame the owners.

I agree. Draco is saying that Allen hasn't changed his spending policy. His policy was always to spend a lot if we are close to being an elite team, and not to overspend if we're at our present good but not great status.

 

Which is exactly why Allen gave Roy a MAX contract.

 

You seem to forget that Pritchard got deeply into making promises to Roy before higher management could slow the process. It was late in the summer, and many posters demanded immediately giving Roy a max contract, and also a giant contract to Aldridge.

It's odd that now with hindsight, every poster now claims nonmembership in what was then the majority of posters.

 

Really, is that how you read it? Wow, talk about selective reading.

Yes one is myopic, but also ultra rich and essentric

Yes the other one is soild, but won't go over the salary cap

the question was not myopic v. soild . . . the other half is as or more important in my mind. At least the essentric owner will spend money and have a chance. The one that won't go over the salary cap doesn't even have a chance at a titile (unless some hard cap is put in place)