One thing I have never understood about Paul's money

You have to spend money to get a write off. The write off might be 50% of what was spent. I don't think rich people stay rich by losing money in their ventures. If someone owns assets that increase in value and are worth $billions, there's only tax paid if the gains are captured (by selling them).

A lot of teams are businesses, the sole business of the owner(s). So they do try to make money.

The $billionaire who owned the Nets a few years ago paid massive luxury tax. It stung him so bad he cut the payroll and ended up selling 49% of the team.

While it's one thing to pay a few $million extra on the team, it's another to lose a 1/4 $billion in luxury tax alone, to defeat the CBA.

To get that $.25B, the guy had to sell $.5B worth of assets, and had to pay cap gains/income tax on that.

 

We don't have the best roster, no. But, neither is Terry utilizing what he has. He is stuffing all of the players into his 3 point heavy style of play. A good coach builds the system around the players. There is no inside presence. He is ignoring his big men not running offense through the paint. Nurk could become a beomoth inside. Collins and Swanigan could do damage in there too. But, its mostly threes and most of portlands points in the paint come from the guards. Stotts doesn't seem to have a great understanding of fundamental defense. Though the Blazers have gotten better in that area. He is an offense guy through amd through.

Also a good coach can anaylze an opponents tendencies and patterns and figure out how to exploit them to win games. Stotts struggles here, especially in adapting to other teams playing styles and making in game changes. He often waits to long to take timeouts and bring starters back in the game.

A good coach understands and know how to motivate players, knows how to drive their potential. A good coach understands his players strengths and weaknesses and learns how to balamce them to get the best production for the individual plauer and team.

 

What did you want him to do with Crabbe? That option was to let him walk for nothing or match the Nets stupid contract offer. We matched it. You really think he didn't want to get something for Crabbe?

 

$250m is a LOT of money, even to a $billionaire.

 

In hindsight should have let him walk...but at the time Crabbe looked like he was going to become something good.

 

In hindsight, people would have blown a gasket over letting him walk for nothing in return.

 

Some would have yes...but after seeing how he has performed in Brooklyn...people would have relaxed on that.

 

Crabbe has started 46 of 53 games for them, upped his scoring from 10.7 with us to 12.3 for them. Only his shooting has suffered.

He is playing on an awful team.

 

Right, he's not. He's not losing money hand over fist on the team, yet.

I think he will pay what it takes when it's needed. As it is, he's been more than generous.

 

Excuses excuses, he is no where near worth the kind of money he was paid. He could get traded to a contender and hed play the same