Sarver on playoffs: 'It still hurts, but time heals everything'

[Treesquid PhD]

Well, he's not going to reveal specific numbers, so I'm not sure what exactly you want from him. "Saving money" isn't going to be a good enough excuse for you.

Sarver could have gotten by just repeating his "keeping the core" spin. There is no need to imply that Phoenix is a small market town, that is an insult.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

The next time you complain about Sarver's cost-cutting, perhaps you should look at your own posts.

Sarver is in a no-win situation with a lot of you people. If he spends too much, he's hurt the franchise for the future, if he cuts costs to save money, he's sacrificing the present.

I firmly believe there is no way that Sarver (or any owner for that matter) will satisfy 75% of the people on this message board, so we're all going to have to get used to the complaining for the rest of our lives.

The suns were one of the highest profiting teams in the league last season. Spinning an excuse into claiming we are a 24th ranked market and trading away our front court depth with no other plan announced both warrant strong criticism in my book.

I dont see how you have contorted this into people putting him into a no-win situation

Why would I want him to spend too much? Why would I want him to cut costs? Why is there no middle ground with your backlash of my comments and criticisms? We dont get mad at sarver for either of those, we get mad at him for lessening our chances of getting over the hump and becoming the victor while sustaining a future. That may sound like asking a lot, but thats his job description.

Do you believe there is a difference in criticizing someone's actions and complaining? You harsh reply makes me think you dont. Your excessive hyperbole doesnt make your reaction very valid either.

 

[Mainstreet]

Those teams aren't nearly as profitable as the Suns and if we had traded nothing we still would be more profitable than them. And we would have a bench and our draft picks for the future.

Totally agree.

IMO, Sarver should just have stood pat with KT and watch the LT money roll off the books when KT's contract expired next season and Marion opted out (or expired) within the next two years. Yes, it would have cost the Suns especially this season, but the Suns could see daylight. I feel like the Suns have mortgaged their future to pay the bills today. Sometimes a business has to reorganize and suffer short term losses for the future benefit of the business. I think the Suns financial reorganization was short sighted and could have better taken place next year.

Also I do not like giving up first round draft picks routinely as a strategy. It will bite the Suns in the rear someday.

 

[Chaplin]

Sarver could have gotten by just repeating his "keeping the core" spin. There is no need to imply that Phoenix is a small market town, that is an insult.

Like it or not, in terms of the BUSINESS of the NBA, we are a small market town.

 

[SunsTzu]

Like it or not, in terms of the BUSINESS of the NBA, we are a small market town.

Yet so very profitable.

 

[azirish]

Yet so very profitable.

Since you appear to have inside knowledge about their finances, what is their cash flow?

In any case, the problem is not whether the Suns made money last season, but what their cash flow is after the salary increases for Diaw and Barbosa, much less when Amare, Steven, and Shawn are factored in.

People have been predicting a crunch for a long time. How long have people been saying the Suns absolutely had to dump Marion for expiring contracts because their salary structure was going to get out of line? Ever shince he signed that contract if I'm not mistaken. It has finally happened, but no one is saying "I told you so" because their goal was to dump Marion.

In the end, I have to respectfully disagree wtih Chris's theory that the Suns should pay a huge amount of luxury tax due to their unrealized capital gains. The message is, "you can afford it if you are willing to sell the team".

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Like it or not, in terms of the BUSINESS of the NBA, we are a small market town.

Please go back and look at my extensive research on this. We aren't a small market and there is no excuse for the cost shavings we have seen the last two years outside of greed.

 

[SunsTzu]

Since you appear to have inside knowledge about their finances, what is their cash flow?

.

If Forbes publishing them as one of the most profitable NBA teams then I guess I do have inside information.

 

[azirish]

Please go back and look at my extensive research on this. We aren't a small market and there is no excuse for the cost shavings we have seen the last two years outside of greed.

I'm not asking that. I just want to know what the Suns cash flow was and what it is projected to be.

 

[Cheesebeef]

The message is, "you can afford it if you are willing to sell the team".

good lord.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

I'm not asking that. I just want to know what the Suns cash flow was and what it is projected to be.

You keep term-dropping cash flow like its the argument killer.

If we can state 74 million dollars was profited in the last two years, you need to explain why you think its tied up in some unmovable way instead of placing the burden of proof on the people who just cited a FORBES article.

 

[Mainstreet]

I'll go with Forbes. Also I believe the Suns franchise has already increased in value.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

I'll go with Forbes. Also I believe the Suns franchise has already increased in value.

Considering we're the People's Champions of 2007!


Everyone and their dog will be watching us this upcoming season

 

[Chris_Sanders]

I'll go with Forbes. Also I believe the Suns franchise has already increased in value.

It has increased 10% since Sarver bought the team so they aren't even at a debt to value ratio anymore.

 

[azirish]

You keep term-dropping cash flow like its the argument killer.

If we can state 74 million dollars was profited in the last two years, you need to explain why you think its tied up in some unmovable way instead of placing the burden of proof on the people who just cited a FORBES article.

The Forbes article was measuring economic profit which inlcudes unrealized capital gains. This is fine for their purposes because their readership is made up of investors.

But you cannot spend unrealized capital gains. An extreme example would be if you bought some vacant land and then learned that land prices went up and it is now worth twice as much. It's great, but unless you sell or borrow on the increased equity, you have no more moeny to pay bills than you had before.

My guess is that the Suns cash flow was very good over the last two year because some of thei contracts had not kicked in yet. But it was not $74 million in extra cash, and talking as if it was is just wrong.

Don't get me wrong. I would not have traded KT; but it's not my money. But then again, if I was the Spurs I would not have traded Scola and Butler. They weren't key to the Spurs future, but that was a deal just to avoid going above the LT line.

It is reasonable to say that it is worth having to borrrow money to make up for a cash flow deficit in order to win a championship. But IMHO to take a number like $74 million out of context and use that as a reason to dismiss all concerns about the economics of the business is not reasonable.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Gaaaaahhh!!

The Spurs made 11 million last year not 34.5 million. That is why they have to worry about the luxury tax. You are comparing an apple to an orange.

The amount of money they made is including all salaries George. Operating expenses, player salary, luxury tax, everything.

I am done talking with you about this since you won't take the time to look it up yourself.

And no George, Forbes included the entire NBA Financial Breakdown, not just capital gains.

 

[azirish]

Gaaaaahhh!!

The Spurs made 11 million last year not 34.5 million. That is why they have to worry about the luxury tax. You are comparing an apple to an orange.

The amount of money they made is including all salaries George. Operating expenses, player salary, luxury tax, everything.

I am done talking with you about this since you won't take the time to look it up yourself.

I read what you posted. The Forbes article included unrealized capital gains to measure economc income. I subcribe to Forbes and they do that in all analysis of closely held companies.

You seem to think I'm ignoring their estimates of cash expenes, which is not at issue. My only issue is their use of unrealized capital gains in estimating profit.

 

[elindholm]

In the eyes of fans who want to win, it's simple: By turning healthy profits the last two years, the Suns have earned the right to go all-out for this year's title. It's like working overtime for eight straight weeks so that you can splurge on a three-day vacation with a clear conscience.

Chasing a title is bad for business, period, for any team. Some do it anyway and some don't. The question is how badly do the owners want to win. Any team can take themselves out of the running for a championship and explain their cowardice away as fiscal prudence. That course of action requires no passion or vision.

Cutting costs is smart business, which is why smart businessmen should avoid professional sports. The good businesses to own are the ones where having an excellent product is an advantage to your bottom line, not a disadvantage. Cuban owns the Mavericks for thrills and vanity, not profit. That is as it should be.

The Suns will, instead, be operated like a proper business, casting aside championship hopes in favor of 50-and-fade. Sarver and company could afford to spend their accumulated profits on a dream, but they don't want to. That's up to him and he is entitled to run the business however he likes -- finding takers to buy sports franchises is always difficult, and Colangelo probably didn't have any better options. But it robs the fans, and trying to spin it otherwise is simply dishonest.

 

[newfan101]

In the eyes of fans who want to win, it's simple: By turning healthy profits the last two years, the Suns have earned the right to go all-out for this year's title. It's like working overtime for eight straight weeks so that you can splurge on a three-day vacation with a clear conscience.

Chasing a title is bad for business, period, for any team. Some do it anyway and some don't. The question is how badly do the owners want to win. Any team can take themselves out of the running for a championship and explain their cowardice away as fiscal prudence. That course of action requires no passion or vision.

Cutting costs is smart business, which is why smart businessmen should avoid professional sports. The good businesses to own are the ones where having an excellent product is an advantage to your bottom line, not a disadvantage. Cuban owns the Mavericks for thrills and vanity, not profit. That is as it should be.

The Suns will, instead, be operated like a proper business, casting aside championship hopes in favor of 50-and-fade. Sarver and company could afford to spend their accumulated profits on a dream, but they don't want to. That's up to him and he is entitled to run the business however he likes -- finding takers to buy sports franchises is always difficult, and Colangelo probably didn't have any better options. But it robs the fans, and trying to spin it otherwise is simply dishonest.

Agree 100%. Well said.

 

[Mainstreet]

In the eyes of fans who want to win, it's simple: By turning healthy profits the last two years, the Suns have earned the right to go all-out for this year's title. It's like working overtime for eight straight weeks so that you can splurge on a three-day vacation with a clear conscience.

Chasing a title is bad for business, period, for any team. Some do it anyway and some don't. The question is how badly do the owners want to win. Any team can take themselves out of the running for a championship and explain their cowardice away as fiscal prudence. That course of action requires no passion or vision.

Cutting costs is smart business, which is why smart businessmen should avoid professional sports. The good businesses to own are the ones where having an excellent product is an advantage to your bottom line, not a disadvantage. Cuban owns the Mavericks for thrills and vanity, not profit. That is as it should be.

The Suns will, instead, be operated like a proper business, casting aside championship hopes in favor of 50-and-fade. Sarver and company could afford to spend their accumulated profits on a dream, but they don't want to. That's up to him and he is entitled to run the business however he likes -- finding takers to buy sports franchises is always difficult, and Colangelo probably didn't have any better options. But it robs the fans, and trying to spin it otherwise is simply dishonest.

Reading this post affirms why the Arizona Cardinals just plain suck year-in and year-out. They are really obssesed with the bottom line and they don't like to spend money for quality depth or that one key player that could put them over the top.

The Suns company line is beginning to sound much like the Cardinal's company line (except the Cardinals aren't close to a Championship). It seems the Cardinals are always broke even after they acquired that new stadium. Suns fans understand there must be fiscal responsibility over the long term, but can't the Suns just go for it one year?

 

[Chaplin]

In the eyes of fans who want to win, it's simple: By turning healthy profits the last two years, the Suns have earned the right to go all-out for this year's title. It's like working overtime for eight straight weeks so that you can splurge on a three-day vacation with a clear conscience.

Chasing a title is bad for business, period, for any team. Some do it anyway and some don't. The question is how badly do the owners want to win. Any team can take themselves out of the running for a championship and explain their cowardice away as fiscal prudence. That course of action requires no passion or vision.

Cutting costs is smart business, which is why smart businessmen should avoid professional sports. The good businesses to own are the ones where having an excellent product is an advantage to your bottom line, not a disadvantage. Cuban owns the Mavericks for thrills and vanity, not profit. That is as it should be.

The Suns will, instead, be operated like a proper business, casting aside championship hopes in favor of 50-and-fade. Sarver and company could afford to spend their accumulated profits on a dream, but they don't want to. That's up to him and he is entitled to run the business however he likes -- finding takers to buy sports franchises is always difficult, and Colangelo probably didn't have any better options. But it robs the fans, and trying to spin it otherwise is simply dishonest.

This makes us sound like we're the Clippers--and that is just wrong. Sarver is not Sterling.

 

[elindholm]

This makes us sound like we're the Clippers--and that is just wrong. Sarver is not Sterling.

What's the difference exactly? Reputation doesn't count; use hard facts. The Clippers didn't hesitate to max out Brand, and they've given hefty contracts to two pretty marginal players in Mobley and Kaman. They were willing to pay Tim Thomas when the Suns weren't. They're not the team that has sold six first-round draft picks in less than three years. And finally, they aren't turning a huge profit and aren't one or two good players away from being championship-caliber, so they have more of an excuse to be frugal.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Reading this post affirms why the Arizona Cardinals just plain suck year-in and year-out. They are really obssesed with the bottom line and they don't like to spend money for quality depth or that one key player that could put them over the top.

The Suns company line is beginning to sound much like the Cardinal's company line (except the Cardinals aren't close to a Championship). It seems the Cardinals are always broke even after they acquired that new stadium. Suns fans understand there must be fiscal responsibility over the long term, but can't the Suns just go for it one year?

the biggest difference is that the Cardinals are questionable as far as money AND brains are concerned.

I think we'll know more about this this organization once the BC-constructed Nash era is over. Then we'll see how smart they are and how willing they are to make moves that make them competitive. Until then, it seems like the jury's out IMO.

 

[F-Dog]

This makes us sound like we're the Clippers--and that is just wrong. Sarver is not Sterling.

I'm with Eric--at this point, we're in the same boat financially as the Clippers and the Spurs...which is fine (if a bit disappointing).

If they're going to have a budget, though, it would be nice to see them stop pretending otherwise, as they did when they signed Banks. And it would certainly be a pleasant change if they brought a less Stepien-esque approach to the draft.

 

[Errntknght]

Just think, a few years ago I was berating the Suns FO for treating second round picks like gum wrappers...