For all of the Mark Cuban fans...

[houheffna]

I think it's fair to point out that JR is chairman of the board because he holds a majority interest in the Bulls. It's not like we can know whether the other owners approve or disapprove of him, all we can tell is thus far nobody has disapproved enough to sue him.

We CAN tell that they all went in willingly, and most likely they bought in to make money...and if that is the case, they are definitely not disappointed, they got barrels of money...and 6 rings...

 

[Kush77]

Shakes wrote:

I don't think I'm taking your view to the extreme at all. It's not a matter of whether the Bulls would still make a profit if they paid the tax. They would. But they wouldn't be making the largest possible profit, and as a business, JR has a legal obligation to the other owners to do just that. The only way he can escape that responsibility is to become the 100% owner.

It's great for Mavs fans that Cuban has decided to hell with the law, but it could end up costing him a heck of a lot personally if this lawsuit goes against him. I think it's a bit rich for any individual fan to sit here and say that JR should take on that kind of risk. It's not just the few million dollars of luxury tax payments at stake here.

He doesn't have a legal obligation to make the biggest profit possible. If that was the case then they wouldn't sign anyone this offseason.

He has an obligation not to be reckless. and going into the luxury tax wouldn't be recless because the Bulls would still make money.

And you were taking my view to the extreme because you made the comment of - well we made 50 million in profits, lets put it all back in the team. Something to that effect.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying - don't make a profit. I'm just saying stop operating your team like it Charlotte or New Orleans. It's the 3rd largest market in the NBA. the fact that us Chicago fans talk about luxury tax as much as we do is a joke. It shouldn't be an issue. You think Lakers and Knicks fans ever have to talk about - well we can make this move, but the luxury tax...... No. Because those franchise operate like a big market franchise should.

And where's the fan benefit when Jerry and his board member make a mega profit? The last I checked ticket prices haven't gone down. Parking hasn't gone down. The price of merchandise doesn't go down. So fans can be happy about JR being a great businessman, but that benefits Jerry and his board members. Not fans. Having a good product on the court benefits fans. and an owner whose fully committed to doing that. JR is only committed to doing it when there's a perfect storm - the 2010 offseason. And even that can still be a huge bust.

 

[Kush77]

houheffna wrote:

You can have Cuban and his one time in the Finals. I don't see Reinsdorf embarrassing the team, yelling at player's mothers or acting a damn fool on the court. I am happy with Reinsdorf at times and I disagree with him at times...but lets not act like Cuban is a reincarnation of the Rooney Family. Thanks, but no thanks.

I agree. I never said Cuban wasn't a jackass at times or a glory hog. Like working at Dairy Queen etc..

I know this was a reply to Diddy but I never said Cuban was the greatest owner ever. although you do try to twist our points of view to make your point.

Cuban cares more about winning than Reinsdorf. JR cares more about making profits than winning. If his teams happen to win, great. But he cares about profits first.

And you and Shakes can admire him for being a businessman, and that's fine.

But like I said already, I started liking the Bulls because they were fun to watch, not because Jerry turned a 20% profit in 1987.

 

[Kush77]

Hou you always like to say JR has 6 titles to Cuban's 1 NBA Finals. But we need to compare the two owners from when Cuban became an owner.

Cuban became an owner in 2000. JR no longer had his golden goose (MJ) in 2000.

So how have both owners don in the 10 years (2000-2010)?

Cuban 1 NBA Finals and JR 1 playoff series win. JR has owned the Bulls for about 25 years, Cuban 10. So if in 15 years Cuban still only has 1 WC title as on owner, then you can say JR is better.

You can say JR has 6 titles until you're blue in the face, but that's because of MJ. Anyone would agree with that.

There's a reason it's called the post-Jordan era.

Not the post-Pippen era
Not the post- Jackson era
Not the post - Rodman era
Not the post - Grant era
Not the post- Kukoc era
Not the post - Krause put decent role players around Jordan era

The post- Jordan era. JR has 6 titles on his resume because of Michael Jordan. And he was lucky enough to buy a team that had the greatest player ever on it.

 

[houheffna]

Hou you always like to say JR has 6 titles to Cuban's 1 NBA Finals. But we need to compare the two owners from when Cuban became an owner.

Cuban became an owner in 2000. JR no longer had his golden goose (MJ) in 2000.

So how have both owners don in the 10 years (2000-2010)?

Cuban 1 NBA Finals and JR 1 playoff series win. JR has owned the Bulls for about 25 years, Cuban 10. So if in 15 years Cuban still only has 1 WC title as on owner, then you can say JR is better.

You can say JR has 6 titles until you're blue in the face, but that's because of MJ. Anyone would agree with that.

There's a reason it's called the post-Jordan era.

Not the post-Pippen era
Not the post- Jackson era
Not the post - Rodman era
Not the post - Grant era
Not the post- Kukoc era
Not the post - Krause put decent role players around Jordan era

The post- Jordan era. JR has 6 titles on his resume because of Michael Jordan. And he was lucky enough to buy a team that had the greatest player ever on it.

Yep, and there was the Babe Ruth era for the Yankees, the Magic Johnson era with the Lakers, the Larry Bird era with the Celtics...as I write this, I am trying to figure out what your damn point is man...you make no sense. Are you saying that Jordan won those titles by himself?

Where have you been the last 10 years? Kobe and Lebron tried to win on their own. Kobe won how many without other all-star players on his team? He won how many without a HOF coach? Lebron has neither on his team and how many has he won? You yourself put those players on Jordan's level, with Lebron potentially being the greatest ever...

between Magic's retirement (first one) and Shaq's appearance, how many playoff series did the Lakers win?

Between Larry Bird's retirement and Garnett and Allen landing in Boston, how many rings did Pierce get?

You NEED a MJ, Lebron, Kobe to win...but you also better put the right people around that player. Krause deserves credit for doing that. Stop the madness man...

 

[TheStig]

Kush77 wrote:

"The real issue is that he wants me to run the team the way he did in the '90s,"

That's exactly it.

As a fan, I want my teams to win and not be cheap. JR has a history of being cheap.

When a owner spends, a team typically gets better, that benefits the fans who are not on the board or on the team's payroll. When a team is bad and cheap, with little success what benefit is it to the fans. The fans get screwed.

Now I choose not to pay for games, and that's my choice. I think more fans should do that. But that the sweet position JR is in. He's in the 3rd largest market and a town that cares about their sports. So he can be conservative and still sell out because the fanbase is strong.

I'm sure Mavs fans will take the 2000s over the 90s any day. I'm sure Mark Cuban can cover the debt.

Exactly, I don't derive extra enjoyment from knowing my team is the most profitable in the league nor do we get bonus points for not going in the lt or leading the league in profit. I watch basketball for basketball. If I want sound investments and business, I'll go to the stock market. Professional sports teams are meant to be run at a massive profit. Thats why JR can have the second largest profit in all of sports, depsite the fact that most nfl teams gross more.

 

[houheffna]

You are not supposed to get any enjoyment out of JR's profits, unless you and he have a situation going on I don't want to know about....ha! That was funny, just laughed to myself Mr. Roper style...

However, just like on the North Side of town in baseball and in New York with the Knicks, if he mismanages his money, people complain, so I think it best that he spends on what is considered sure things that can get rings than spend money just because you got it on B.S. or BG...

 

[TheStig]

For every team with gross mismanagement issues, you can name 5 succeeding by spending more. 10 of 13 LT paying teams have made the playoffs this year. 1 of the 3 teams that missed the playoffs had a season ending injury to their star. All of the teams that are left in the playoffs are paying the LT. Spending for the most part equals success.

 

[houheffna]

The Bulls made the playoffs spending less...so what's the point.

I think Reinsdorf wants rings, he got 6 of em, he wants more...spending your way into mediocrity is very easy, and what most of those teams in the LT have done. He will go into the LT to get a championship...that makes perfectly good sense to me...

 

[TheStig]

Hmm, who has better odds, being 10 of 13 in the playoffs and 4 of 4 still playing or 6 of 17 making and 0 of 4 still playing? To take it up a notch, the only second round team not paying the tax is Atlanta. So add 1 of 8 non LT players making the second round. Clearly spending and winning have a direct correlation. Teams like NY are the exception to the rule. Not to mention a fan wants to see his team doing everything they can to win.

He can want what he wants but his plan clearly isn't successful since the guy he inherited left the team. With the way JR runs the team, would he have a title without MJ?

 

[houheffna]

The odds game doesn't work when over half the league goes to the playoffs. It would make sense that legit contenders are paying the LT, most of those teams have players the Bulls went after. I call that ambitious, not cheap...

I think the Bulls have done everything they can to win a championship. You may disagree with the decisions, I do on some of them. But I don't believe it was his decision to suck on purpose. And nobody has any evidence to back that up.

 

[TheStig]

Sure it does when there is such a big divide. Its not like its close at all. Its 77% vs 35%. Its not even close.

I don't think he tanked it but I also don't think he did everything he could to put his team in the best position to win. I don't think he would have a single NBA title if it weren't for #23 and his team value would be a 1/3-1-2 less then what it is now. JR should just be happy he is in the east and not the west, otherwise he would look like Sterling.

 

[Shakes]

The problem with the luxury tax/playoffs correlation is that it's not like teams just spend what they feel like then roll the teams out there. Teams that already know they're bad look to cut spending. Teams that know they're good look to add the final player that will bring them a championship. So the two aren't independent variables.

 

[TheStig]

No they aren't but is it a coincidence that two of the highest spending teams over the league history won half the titles. Or that guys like Sterling or the guy suing Cuban have had mostly laughing stock teams.

 

[Shakes]

I agree that when the time comes to make the final push for a championship the tax is something the Bulls will have to consider paying (assuming it exists under the new CBA). What I disagree with is the idea that the teams are contenders because they pay the tax. I think it's at least as much that they pay the tax because they're contenders.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

I agree that when the time comes to make the final push for a championship the tax is something the Bulls will have to consider paying (assuming it exists under the new CBA). What I disagree with is the idea that the teams are contenders because they pay the tax. I think it's at least as much that they pay the tax because they're contenders.

Which came first the chicken or the egg? My point is that there is a reason that the same teams are always on that list. If it isn't about money, why have the lakers and Celtics won as many titles as the rest of the league?

 

[houheffna]

Which came first the chicken or the egg? My point is that there is a reason that the same teams are always on that list. If it isn't about money, why have the lakers and Celtics won as many titles as the rest of the league?

didn't the tax just start a decade or so ago? Lakers and Celtics won most of their titles before that existed. I believe their titles have more to do with good personnel decisions.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

Which came first the chicken or the egg? My point is that there is a reason that the same teams are always on that list. If it isn't about money, why have the lakers and Celtics won as many titles as the rest of the league?

The salary cap came in in 84-85, when the Lakers and Celtics had already won most of their championships. If you exclude the ones before the cap, and the ones shortly after which were won with teams assembled before the cap, the Lakers have won 4 and the Celtics 1, less than the amount the Bulls have won.