we're for sale
not the spurs. ptr is for sale.
found this on amazon. notice that while we may be the 10th best selling basketball blog, we're the number one best selling spurs blog.
and really, that's all i care about.
0 recs |
9 comments
Comments
Re: we're for sale
Yeah, I had nothing to do with this. Every SportsBlogs Nation blog is on there.
by sungo on Dec 6, 2007 9:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Re: we're for sale
by rick2g on Dec 6, 2007 10:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: we're for sale
(sigh).
by Aaronstampler on Dec 7, 2007 7:02 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Re: we're for sale
by pollackj on Dec 7, 2007 10:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: we're for sale
by Aaronstampler on Dec 7, 2007 1:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Re: we're for sale
It was either last year or the year before that was the first year the Spurs showed a profit. They have had to achieve a great amount of success in the league to even have minimal business success. And don't forget, besides having the more limited small market, the Spurs -- like the Pacers, Nets, and Nuggets -- have the added handicap of having to give away 1/7th of their television income.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Dec 7, 2007 4:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Re: we're for sale
I'm not saying I want them to spend money stupidly like the Knicks. I'm just saying the Scola thing and a couple of other moves they made were money decisions much more than basketball ones.
by Aaronstampler on Dec 7, 2007 4:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Re: we're for sale
The contracts for Tony and Manu do seem like values to us, especially now, but when they signed they weren't discounts really. I think Tony signed his prior to the 2005 season when he hadn't really shown a consistent offensive game -- if you want to call his consistent now -- and Manu was the year before in 2004. Manu had only completed his second year and was still somewhat of an enigma. He hadn't become the Sickness. So, in a business sense, you could say the Spurs are currently being rewarded for the risk they took in signing both Tony and Manu to long term contracts. Of course, we all knew they were good signings at the time, unlike The Bill Simmons who dissed Manu's signing.
Looking at current rosters and the salaries players are getting, it is very difficult to determine how much of a "less than open market" value each guy is.
For Tony, looking at other shooting point guards, it's apples and oranges. Nash makes $11.3M and is clearly one of the great bargains. A lot of the guys are either WAY overpaid: Marbury, WAY underpaid: Paul, D. Williams and other rookies playing for $3-4M, or tough to compare: Kidd and Iverson at $19+. Devin Harris just signed an extension at $8M. I think Tony is better, by far, but I don't know by how much.
Manu, on the other hand, makes less than a LOT of wingmen in the league (12th best shooting guard my ass) and is a LOT better. Carter, Allen, Jefferson, Pierce, Josh Howard, The Jet (makes almost the exact same), Joe Johnson, Lewis, Stojakovic, etc. I'm still laughing.
NOTE: I found the purchase price at the Forbes site. I'll add that info later. Right now I have to go cook dinner.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Dec 7, 2007 6:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: we're for sale
You can find a bunch of information (which I'm not good at deciphering) here at Forbes.com.
It shows the Spurs having positive income for many years, so I don't know why I believe/heard that last year was the first year they made money. Maybe I'll research this whole bad boy at some point in the future.
After the Utah game, Manu is definitely underpaid. And Tony, well, he might be overpaid.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Dec 8, 2007 12:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 




















