With 24 hours until the trade deadline, the Newark Star-Ledger's Dave D'Alessandro, in a piece headlined NJ Nets: The Armageddon Option, wonders whether the money-losing Nets will try a "straight salary dump," moving star Vince Carter just to save money.
He writes:
So consider the wide-angled reality of the matter. The season is probably going nowhere. The franchise is going to lose upwards of $35 million again. The arena is not generating any revenue. The fan base, such as it is, is already apoplectic. Brooklyn is still a pipedream until it isn't.
And against that backdrop, you have a former All-Star making $16 million next year and $17.5 million the following year (that's 40 percent of their committed payroll in 10-11) who can't change any of those harsh realities.
As one thoughtful front office denizen put it, "It's not spoken of -- nobody knows what instructions Rod gets directly from the top -- but it's just naive to assume it isn't being considered -- seriously."
...So at this time tomorrow, they are going to tell us one of two things. Either they're going to stick it out and take another huge financial hit, or they'll be in full dump mode - which is precisely what they'll be doing if they pull the trigger on some of those idiotic proposals that have been bouncing around in the last 48 hours.
Some skepticism
The New York Post's Fred Kerber is doubtful:
But Carter is a talent, having a terrific year all around and the Nets aren't going to give him away. Thorn would be more apt to duck his head in a vat of acid then deal Carter on a straight salary dump.
Maybe, but that means that that the team and owner will continue to take a hit.
The Money Fallacy
On the NetsDaily blog, the redoubtable NetIncome (aka Bobbo) misses the point in a piece headlined The Money Fallacy.
He writes:
Okay, the Nets are losing $30 million a year…but unlike the Maloof family in Sacramento, Bruce Ratner didn’t lose tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of dollars to Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.
And yeah, the Nets’ debt-to-equity ratio is the highest in professional sports, but it doesn’t have a feuding, fractured ownership like they do in Atlanta.
And by the way, the Nets’ payroll is ALREADY the fourth lowest in the NBA and nearly $10 million below the luxury tax threshold!
...So it is entirely possible without moving anyone, the Nets could have the second lowest team payroll in the NBA next year.
Well, as onetime Net Derrick Coleman observed, "Whoop-de-damn-do."
Maybe the Nets "have managed their payroll quite well and not just for 2010," but in the short term, it doesn't help the team from losing money, and it doesn't help the developer's current cash flow.
He writes:
So consider the wide-angled reality of the matter. The season is probably going nowhere. The franchise is going to lose upwards of $35 million again. The arena is not generating any revenue. The fan base, such as it is, is already apoplectic. Brooklyn is still a pipedream until it isn't.
And against that backdrop, you have a former All-Star making $16 million next year and $17.5 million the following year (that's 40 percent of their committed payroll in 10-11) who can't change any of those harsh realities.
As one thoughtful front office denizen put it, "It's not spoken of -- nobody knows what instructions Rod gets directly from the top -- but it's just naive to assume it isn't being considered -- seriously."
...So at this time tomorrow, they are going to tell us one of two things. Either they're going to stick it out and take another huge financial hit, or they'll be in full dump mode - which is precisely what they'll be doing if they pull the trigger on some of those idiotic proposals that have been bouncing around in the last 48 hours.
Some skepticism
The New York Post's Fred Kerber is doubtful:
But Carter is a talent, having a terrific year all around and the Nets aren't going to give him away. Thorn would be more apt to duck his head in a vat of acid then deal Carter on a straight salary dump.
Maybe, but that means that that the team and owner will continue to take a hit.
The Money Fallacy
On the NetsDaily blog, the redoubtable NetIncome (aka Bobbo) misses the point in a piece headlined The Money Fallacy.
He writes:
Okay, the Nets are losing $30 million a year…but unlike the Maloof family in Sacramento, Bruce Ratner didn’t lose tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of dollars to Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.
And yeah, the Nets’ debt-to-equity ratio is the highest in professional sports, but it doesn’t have a feuding, fractured ownership like they do in Atlanta.
And by the way, the Nets’ payroll is ALREADY the fourth lowest in the NBA and nearly $10 million below the luxury tax threshold!
...So it is entirely possible without moving anyone, the Nets could have the second lowest team payroll in the NBA next year.
Well, as onetime Net Derrick Coleman observed, "Whoop-de-damn-do."
Maybe the Nets "have managed their payroll quite well and not just for 2010," but in the short term, it doesn't help the team from losing money, and it doesn't help the developer's current cash flow.
Comments
Post a Comment