Is Robert Saver Worse than the Bidwells?

Is Robert Sarver a Worse Franchise Owner than the Bidwells?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 17 50.0%

  • Total voters
    34

Chris_Sanders

Not Always The Best Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
40,366
Reaction score
32,018
Location
Scottsdale, Az
I wonder how many of you would change your tune if you had a financial stake in the Phoenix Suns/Arizona Cardinals? Do you really want your employer deficit spending? There are no guarantees that says if you spend money you will win, the Knicks have proven that (even though they are retards). Sports is still a business first and sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

In the end the fans lose because ticket prices go up, games end up on PPV and all of the sudden you're in the nose bleeds not able to cheer because the guy next to you is closing a sale. This isn't NBA Live '08, there is still fiscal responsibility required

Our country is run on deficit spending and look where the economy is...In the toilet

I don't ask that the owner lose money. That isn't an issue with the Suns who have been the most profitable NBA franchise for the last 3 years.

The Suns could have kept everyone this year, paid the luxury tax, and still raked in more cash than more than half the teams in the NBA (including the Spurs). That's the facts.
 

Ryanwb

ASFN IDOL
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
35,576
Reaction score
6
Location
Mesa
I don't ask that the owner lose money. That isn't an issue with the Suns who have been the most profitable NBA franchise for the last 3 years.

The Suns could have kept everyone this year, paid the luxury tax, and still raked in more cash than more than half the teams in the NBA (including the Spurs). That's the facts.


I see your point, however from a business standpoint it's better to have an ROI of 10 million than 3 million. I guess it's sort of like going on a game show and missing the $250,000 question and 'only' taking home $50,000.

I don't know, I still deal in household budgets of 100's of dollars so it's all a lot to me
 

MaoTosiFanClub

The problem
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Posts
12,797
Reaction score
6,804
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
Wow.. so to recap you don't think a team

PG: Steve Nash/Rajon Rondo
SG: Andre Igudola/Barbosa
SF: Shawn Marion/Grant Hill
PF: Amare Stoudemire/Boris Diaw
C: KT/Diaw/#15 pick this year

And some may argue that Joe Johnson was partly becuase of Sarver's Cheapness....

So yeah.. This team, even when Nash Retired would have competed for NBA Championships year in and year out...

But in your world the thought of that team competeing for a Championship year in and year out is "Laughable?"....
First off, no owner in the NBA would dole out that much in contracts to keep such a team intact. Well, maybe Cuban or the Knicks but expecting Sarver to compete financially with those guys is unrealistic.

The best and most realistic opportunity that ensured long-term success was drafting Igoudala and keeping JJ to pair with Amare. But if that was the core of big money guys until Nash retired then Marion/KT were trade bait and Diaw and Barbosa walk last year in FA. So the scenario you envision is laughable. Sorry.

Such a roster that you suggest would be impossible financially to keep intact.
 

Darth Llama

Rise Up Red Sea!
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Posts
2,360
Reaction score
0
Location
Section 444 Row 4
just wanted to say if my post came off as kind of harsh with the "i don't understand people" thing, it wasn't my intention either. just didn't want to explain it any further. i think you know what i mean (and mostly that comment was geared towards myopic suns fans who point to shaq's contract as proof Sarver's not cheap).

No worries man, not harsh at all. You made a good point.. actually a couple of them. :thumbup:

To the Cardinals defense, they operated for years on a razor thin profit margin and still brought in free agents. They were pulling in 3-7 million in profits versus a team like the Cowboys who saw 100 million dollar profits.

There are locker room stories about cheapness, nothing has ever been substantiated and the fact of the matter is I've never come away from a season thinking the team management wasted an opportunity over being cheap. They've never sold draft picks, never traded away talent over contact $$$ and for a team that routinely drafts in the top 10 they found a way.

They had a really bad situation at ASU, but the signed that deal believing the promise of Arizona legislatures... They've built a modest team and I have little doubt when the next team values come out the Cardinals will be worth over 1 billion dollars. Not bad

A lot of people don't understand the financial position the Cardinals were in for so long. Not only here in ASU but in St. Louis as well. They weren't pulling in the revenue streams that every other team in the league was getting, they couldn't get premium players, and they were saddled with the contracts of top 5 picks every year. When the Cardinals got their stadium they moved to par with the rest of the league. The current incarnation of the Cardinals are basically in their 2nd year and they're up to .500 already. Not too shabby if you ask me.

What I don't get is, if people think the ownership will ensure that the team never wins, why stay on board with them? The ownership isn't going to change, so why keep pouring your heart and emotion into a team you think will never win? Isn't that kind of like continually investing in Enron?
 

Chris_Sanders

Not Always The Best Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
40,366
Reaction score
32,018
Location
Scottsdale, Az
First off, no owner in the NBA would dole out that much in contracts to keep such a team intact. Well, maybe Cuban or the Knicks but expecting Sarver to compete financially with those guys is unrealistic.

The best and most realistic opportunity that ensured long-term success was drafting Igoudala and keeping JJ to pair with Amare. But if that was the core of big money guys until Nash retired then Marion/KT were trade bait and Diaw and Barbosa walk last year in FA. So the scenario you envision is laughable. Sorry.

Such a roster that you suggest would be impossible financially to keep intact.

That roster wouldn't cost the Suns that much and they still would be immensely profitable. The numbers don't lie but Sarver does.
 
OP
OP
AsUdUdE

AsUdUdE

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Posts
3,375
Reaction score
44
First off, no owner in the NBA would dole out that much in contracts to keep such a team intact. Well, maybe Cuban or the Knicks but expecting Sarver to compete financially with those guys is unrealistic.

The best and most realistic opportunity that ensured long-term success was drafting Igoudala and keeping JJ to pair with Amare. But if that was the core of big money guys until Nash retired then Marion/KT were trade bait and Diaw and Barbosa walk last year in FA. So the scenario you envision is laughable. Sorry.

Such a roster that you suggest would be impossible financially to keep intact.


As of right now... The Suns are at about 72 million in total saleries...

With that team Our Total Saleries this year would be 80,660,000...

AI- 2.8
Rondo- 1.3
MArion- 16.4
KT- 8

Thats 8.6 million more.... The next year extending AI with what KT was making, to bring him to about 10 million, and still keeping around 80-82 million or about what Cleveland's Payroll is this year....

But I guess this too is "Laughable". and "unrealistic"...
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
AsUdUdE

AsUdUdE

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Posts
3,375
Reaction score
44
Is there a way that Sarver can be asked this question

"Highsight being 20/20 Do you now regret trading KT, AND 2 FIRST ROUND PICKS, to avoid paying a tax?"

What do you think his response would be?
 

Cheesewater

(ex-Uriah Heep)
Joined
May 27, 2007
Posts
2,186
Reaction score
729
Location
Armatage
You might want to get the input of some St. Louis Cardinals fans before you pull the lever there.
 
Last edited:

Cheesewater

(ex-Uriah Heep)
Joined
May 27, 2007
Posts
2,186
Reaction score
729
Location
Armatage
Even I know they are talking about the Arizona Cardinals, a FOOTBALL team rather than a BASEBALL team of the same name...

In case you're not joking...Bill Bidwill owned the St Louis FOOTBALL Cardinals before he moved them to Arizona.
 

nowagimp

Registered User
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Posts
3,912
Reaction score
0
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Sarver sucks, but to suggest this team had a window that could have lasted for "years" is about as laughable as your opinion that the Nuggets were going to match up well with the Lakers. (see Rod Graves).

Forget about the nuggest matching up with the lakers, but sarvers damage started with JJ. JJ, amare, marion, nash, add KT and a few FA's and #1 picks that were sold and you might have had 2-3 years of finals. Watching JJ take the celts apart, kind of brought that home for me.
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
92,165
Reaction score
70,357
Even I know they are talking about the Arizona Cardinals, a FOOTBALL team rather than a BASEBALL team of the same name...

andrew, what does your foot taste like?
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
92,165
Reaction score
70,357
I would assume poopy compaired to your cheese flavored foot.

just asking because you're post about "even I know what they're talking about" was as text book an example of sticking your foot in your mouth as i've seen for a while.
 

Cheesewater

(ex-Uriah Heep)
Joined
May 27, 2007
Posts
2,186
Reaction score
729
Location
Armatage
just asking because you're post about "even I know what they're talking about" was as text book an example of sticking your foot in your mouth as i've seen for a while.

What makes it even funnier is...

Andrew, don't you live in St. Louis?
 
Top