Buck Harvey: Sins of the Suns: One for the Books
Web Posted: 04/28/2008 11:10 PM CDT
San Antonio Express-News
The Spurs didn't lose Sunday to make Peter Holt some money.
It only looks that way. It only looks like the Spurs play every budgetary angle — with trades, with Tim Duncan taking less money, with Spurs execs obsessing over payroll flexibility.
So when the Spurs didn't close out the Suns, guaranteeing an additional home gate tonight for Holt, worth about $1.5 million, it only looks intentional.
But Robert Sarver, the Suns' owner, has to wonder.
The Spurs didn't sweep the Suns on the court, but they have in the front office. If the Spurs go on to lose this series, they will still have their three stars in their primes. They also will be obligated to only $53 million in payroll next season.
If the Suns lose? Steve Nash and Shaquille O'Neal are an aging part of an expensive core. The Suns are scheduled to pay six players about $68 million next year. Adding anyone of value will cost Sarver money he doesn't want to spend.
There was a time Sarver looked like someone who wouldn't mind. He paid a record price for the Suns, then waved a purple foam finger from courtside.
In his rookie season, in 2005, he also looked like Mark Cuban's better-dressed twin. When Gregg Popovich held out Duncan and Manu Ginobili in a regular-season game in Phoenix, Sarver made a series of chicken-flapping gestures at Popovich.
David Stern wasn't happy, and Sarver later apologized to Popovich. “I have to learn that during the heat of the game, you have to control your emotions,” Sarver said later. “Like with any business, there is a learning curve.”
Sarver has quieted down. He doesn't want to be Cuban on the court, and he doesn't want to spend like him off of it, either.
“I'm not as rich as most of the owners,” Sarver has said in the past, “so I really have to make sure the basketball team is successful.”
Holt is somewhere near the bottom of NBA richdom. His finances sometimes influence the Spurs' personnel moves (see Scola, Luis).
According to Forbes, Sarver ranks among the middle class of NBA owners. But even the wealthy would prefer not to burn money, and Sarver has demanded his franchise stay below the salary cap.
It's getting there that has been confusing. Sometimes the Suns hold the line, as they did a few years ago with Joe Johnson. Then, Sarver hesitated to pay Johnson's price, yet the Suns came out of it with some value.
Still, while the Suns didn't pay Johnson, they over-paid both Boris Diaw and Marcus Banks. Those economic airballs forced another move last summer, because Sarver wanted to dump salary to get below the cap. Kurt Thomas' $8 million contract was the logical target.
Sam Presti took advantage of Sarver then. The Sonics took Thomas, as well as two first-round picks for the trouble.
Those in the Spurs' offices say Holt has never impacted them like this. Then again, those in the Spurs' offices haven't made many mistakes.
This was a big one for the Suns. Without Thomas, their best low-post defender, the Suns saw they were heading toward playoff doom. That created last winter's gamble, as well as Sarver's new economic headache. Shaq will earn $20 million in each of the next two seasons.
Shaq also will be 37 next season. What's the chance over the next two seasons he slows down even more, along with Nash, and what's the chance the Suns crash?
Here's where Sarver begins to look more like Bill Bidwill than Cuban to those in Arizona: One of the draft picks he gave to Seattle, Phoenix's own in 2010, is unprotected.
This gets back to Sarver's learning curve. Isn't he still on it?
So tonight means a lot to Sarver. Lose, and he's stuck with an old, capped-out team that went out again in the first round. Lose, and he's forced to make a decision on Mike D'Antoni. Firing D'Antoni would cost the $8 million left on his contract.
But win?
Then Sarver would be guaranteed an additional home gate, and he'd get another $1.5 million, and he'd be like Holt.
At least it would look that way.
[email protected]
