This is some fairly loose talk. I really doubt that there is any owner in the NBA that wouldn't want to see his team be competitive. Even if he wasn't a fan, usually being competitive means more revenue. And if shareholders owned the Clippers, why would they kick Sterling out if he held costs down? By the way, I think most NBA teams don't make money, although so far I think anyone who holds on to their team for an extended period could sell at a good profit. The Blazers aren't exceptional in any way except that they have an extremely wealthy owner who is also a fan. That doesn't mean the writer should look down his nose at other owners.
The Clips just signed Baron to a $65 million contract... how's that not spending? They traded a second-round pick for Camby. Teams try, but there's just a lot of incompetent GMs out there... Chris Wallace for one.
Yeah Sterling has actually loosened the purse strings a little bit. He signed Brand, Magette, and now Davis to pretty big contracts recently.
If ALL the owners tried real hard to be competitive, wouldn't they just be competing against each other? And wouldn't some of the teams that tried really, really, really hard to be competitive, fail nonetheless? Every season, some teams win and some teams lose. It is a zero sum game. Sure, a few teams don't really try, and some milk their revenue stream. But, most try. It is just that teams are in different stages. Some teams that try hard to win and have good strategy would find retreat a viable option at certain stages. Better to nurse your wounds, regroup and obtain new recruits than to fight to the death against a stronger opponent.
Some teams might not make a ton of money, but the value of the franchise usually appreciates. How many times have you heard "Owner X" purchased "this team" in 1980 for $65 million and now it's estimated worth at $475 million.
This closing quote pretty much sums up the value of this article for me. Holding the notion that Stern is going to turn on two of his wealthy and profitable bosses is absurd and it doesn't surprise me the least bit that a typo slipped through. He's contending that if an owner, through his GM hires, makes what turn out to be bad decisions, the owner should lose their right to own the team. The W's and Clips are both spending money and of course the owners would rather have the extra return on their investment that winning brings right? The writer contends they "don't want to win" as evidenced by the scoreboard. The paint by numbers recap of the history of these teams leaves something to be desired as well. STOMP
