Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never really thought of market size as much a factor for success as the right management and coaching staff. Obviously clear examples exist such as the Spurs. Boston always on top of New York. Detroit always on top of Atlanta and Washington.
Actually, the Bulls lead the league. Average out the last 13 years and I think the Bulls are #1
You can average it out all you want and the numbers wouldn't be valid based on different seating capacity per building. So the Bulls would obviously be higher if they have 2-3k more seats for their building.Currently the Warriors have more than 60 straight sellouts.
That's really the point. Good franchises with good teams have done well in the NBA and haven't suffered for being small markets like they have in the wild spending MLB.
The two biggest names in basketball right now are Lebron and KD and they play for small to mid-market teams. Meanwhile, the Knicks suck and can't pull a Yankees and spend another $150million on payroll next year.
It's not like people have a hard time following the Heat or OKC because they don't have a subscription to the Miami Herald or are within broadcast range for their transitor radio.
Every single day I can easily see box-scores and highlights. The games are on TV nightly unlike back in the day when they are on only locally or maybe weekends etc.
The Knicks can spend all they want but they just keep getting the wrong players. If they spent another $500 million or 1 billion it would just effect their tax burden and they'd be way over the threshold. Unfortunately buying injured players, backups, and ball-hogs doesn't convert to championships. Get some decent guys (not necessarily superstars) that like to play together and have good chemistry, and they'll win some games.
The Knicks can spend all they want but they just keep getting the wrong players. If they spent another $500 million or 1 billion it would just effect their tax burden and they'd be way over the threshold. Unfortunately buying injured players, backups, and ball-hogs doesn't convert to championships. Get some decent guys (not necessarily superstars) that like to play together and have good chemistry, and they'll win some games.
No, the Knicks can't spend all they want. They are capped out. If you were more making the point that the knicks could screw up anything then I agree with you.
The tax amounts trigger on some of the items that are allowed outside of the cap like re-signing your own player and whatnot.
That's why most of the teams in tax trouble are the teams with guys in the last year or so of a long contract.
There is no possible way for an NBA team to "pull a Yankees" even if they had a trillion dollars to spend.
Thank god. I couldn't stand to watch the Knicks (or anybody else) spend their way to victory and would stop following the NBA just like I gave up on the stank that is MLB.
No, the Knicks can't spend all they want. They are capped out. If you were more making the point that the knicks could screw up anything then I agree with you.
The tax amounts trigger on some of the items that are allowed outside of the cap like re-signing your own player and whatnot.
That's why most of the teams in tax trouble are the teams with guys in the last year or so of a long contract.
There is no possible way for an NBA team to "pull a Yankees" even if they had a trillion dollars to spend.
Thank god. I couldn't stand to watch the Knicks (or anybody else) spend their way to victory and would stop following the NBA just like I gave up on the stank that is MLB.
Look at a team like Miami. they have a huge financial advantage because any max deal they offer is state tax free if you are a Florida guy.
The tax ramifications are definitely different in basketball and there are certain stipulations for repeat offenders when going over the cap.
You can average it out all you want and the numbers wouldn't be valid based on different seating capacity per building. So the Bulls would obviously be higher if they have 2-3k more seats for their building.Currently the Warriors have more than 60 straight sellouts.
That link shows percentage.
The Bulls have 1000 more seats in the building than the warriors. But they sell 2000 more seats this season. So you have 1000 people buying standing room seats up top. That link shows 103.4% filled capacity vs 100% Warriors. And the Bulls don't even have their star.
I am. I happen to be an East Coast snob who hates Middle America, but that has nothing to do with IQ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
No, the Knicks can't spend all they want. They are capped out. If you were more making the point that the knicks could screw up anything then I agree with you.
The tax amounts trigger on some of the items that are allowed outside of the cap like re-signing your own player and whatnot.
That's why most of the teams in tax trouble are the teams with guys in the last year or so of a long contract.
There is no possible way for an NBA team to "pull a Yankees" even if they had a trillion dollars to spend.
Thank god. I couldn't stand to watch the Knicks (or anybody else) spend their way to victory and would stop following the NBA just like I gave up on the stank that is MLB.
Not exactly true. The Nets were looking to pick up Jordan Hill from the Lakers today, and with the luxury tax penalties it would have put them up to $210 million for this year. It didn't happen because the Lakers wanted a draft pick for him that Brooklyn didn't have to offer.
That link shows percentage.
The Bulls have 1000 more seats in the building than the warriors. But they sell 2000 more seats this season. So you have 1000 people buying standing room seats up top. That link shows 103.4% filled capacity vs 100% Warriors. And the Bulls don't even have their star.
I don't think you are figuring in road games. Chicage does have a national following especially since the Jordan years. The same can't be said for my Warriors, to that extent at least.
The Knicks can spend all they want but they just keep getting the wrong players. If they spent another $500 million or 1 billion it would just effect their tax burden and they'd be way over the threshold. Unfortunately buying injured players, backups, and ball-hogs doesn't convert to championships. Get some decent guys (not necessarily superstars) that like to play together and have good chemistry, and they'll win some games.
No they can't. Really, read up on the salary caps.
I am. I happen to be an East Coast snob who hates Middle America, but that has nothing to do with IQ.
Not exactly true. The Nets were looking to pick up Jordan Hill from the Lakers today, and with the luxury tax penalties it would have put them up to $210 million for this year. It didn't happen because the Lakers wanted a draft pick for him that Brooklyn didn't have to offer.
The cap is there, but it's circumventable.
PLEASE read the current salary structure.
OMG, Jordan WHO? You can add role players for veteran max and so forth...that doesn't mean they can sign any real talent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can add role players for veteran max and so forth...that doesn't mean they can sign any real talent.
