Allow me to continue your line of thought ...From favored in NBA Finals to missing key free throws with little time left! From being up by 3 to getting tied with a buzzer shot! From a guaranteed win at home to a Finals Game 1 loss! From pretty-much-winning-game-one to getting swept in the series! That was the first Finals game I watched (parents did not believe in cable tv). I still vividly remember the way Nick Anderson giggled on the free throw line as he bonked them both, opening up for the Rockets to possibly tie the game and send it into OT... what a dramatic turnaround. The Magic under Shaq/Penny never even went back to the Finals. This year is the closest they've gotten since that year.
So... are the Clips actually a good money-wise franchise? I've just checked into this, just to know for sure. Did you know the NBA secured a bailout of sorts for struggling teams? That's can't be a good sign for the league. Upon researching the Internet, the most profitable NBA teams include the St. Louis Spirits long forgotten with the folding of the ABA. Don't question me, just read the article! According to Forbes, the Bulls are the actual most profitable team and here's how revenues breakdown: Top 10 valuations: New York Knicks ($613 million), LA Lakers ($584 million), Chicago Bulls ($504 million), Detroit Pistons ($480 million), Cleveland Cavaliers ($477 million), Houston Rockets ($469 million), Dallas Mavericks ($466 million), Phoenix Suns ($452 million), Boston Celtics ($447 million) and San Antonio Spurs ($415 million). The magazine also says that the Bulls enjoyed the biggest operating profit in the last year at $55.4 million, with the Lakers again being the runner-up with an operating profit of $47.9 million (on $191 million in revenues). Forbes claims all top 10 NBA teams are profitable, with one exception -- Mark Cuban's Mavericks posted an operating loss of $13.6 million. Here's the profits list: Top five NBA teams (profit from operations): 1. Chicago Bulls ($55.4 million) 2. Lakers ($47.9 million) 3. Detroit Pistons ($40.4 million) 4. Houston Rockets ($31.2 million) 5. New York Knicks ($29.6 million) Bottom five NBA teams (loss from operations) 1. Denver Nuggets (-$26.3 million) 2. Dallas Mavericks (-$13.6 million) 3. Oklahoma City Thunder (-$9.4 million) 4. Indiana Pacers (-$6.5 million) 5. Minnesota Timberwolves (-$5.7 million) Link here. I think it's clear that whether a team turns a big profit or not doesn't matter, because there's successful and unsuccessful teams on both sides of the profit spectrum.
No, I'm not calling anyone a liar. If I read correctly, his stats were from 2006, whereas these stats are the most recent available --- I think Forbes' report that I posted came out in December 2008. EDIT: The Clips turned about a $10 mil profit, ranking them 13th. Here's a link. As far as what their franchise is worth, it ranks 25th in the league... right behind none other than the Oklahoma City Thunder. (na na na NA na na NA NA!)
Technically this should read Seattle Sonics since revenues were from the final year in Seattle. I would be curious to see the numbers for the franchise's first year in OKC. I'm not sure anyone in the public truly knows how the team did financially this year.
It might be us, it might be Seattle... but it's still the same owner (thank you once again, Daddy Starbucks) and he probably had a lot of expenses to get the franchise to move and pay off Seattle to leave Key Arena. Whether it was OKC Thunder or Seattle Sonics operating losses doesn't matter to the owner. It was his loss, not ours.
Clearly it mentions in your link that this was based upon 07-08 revenues. True it is the same owner but I would imagine many folks around here would be curious to know what the OKC revenues look like in comparison. That is all I am saying.
As I do my nails (actually, I need to be doin' my nails, my nails haven't been done in so long)... I would once again say that Seattle Sonics or OKC Thunder only matters to us, not the dude paying the money... but yeah, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if our revenue went up... you know, because of higher attendance, higher merchandise sales, higher cost of living... oh wait, that would be Seattle, not OKC... make that LOWER cost of living
The season before landing Shaquille O'Neal, the Magic did, in fact, lose 21 games. However, Dennis Scott only PLAYED in 18 games, Nick Anderson MISSED 22 games, and Stanley Roberts, Jerry Reynolds, Bison Dele, Sam Vincent and Otis Smith all missed at least 27 games each. During that season, their 8-deep roster in minutes played was: - Nick Anderson - Terry Catledge - Scott Skiles - Anthony Bowie - Stanley Roberts - Jerry Reynolds - Jeff Turner - Greg Kite The next season, aside from getting Shaq in the draft, they also got back a number of players from injury. Their 8-deep that next season was: - Shaquille O'Neal - Nick Anderson - Scott Skiles - Dennis Scott - Donald Royal - Anthony Bowie - Tom Tolbert - Jeff Turner That is a considerable upgrade, even if you replace Shaq with an average center. (Basically, Shaq replaced Stanley Roberts and Greg Kite, and Dennis Scott replaced Jerry Reynolds... i.e. - Insta-upgrades. So, the fact that they won 20 more games that next season isn't surprising, but I also don't feel that Shaq accounted for all 20 of them. But, the next year, they added Penny Hardaway. The year after that, they kept their core players together for an entire season. It was the following year, '94-'95, that they went to the Finals. But, before they did that, they upgraded yet again, adding Horace Grant, only one year removed from three straight titles with the Bulls, and Brian Shaw, a capable backup that allowed Penny to play off of the ball sometimes as well, and gave them more defensive flexibility. So, basically, Shaq is the reason why they got there, but not the only one. Was that even what we were talking about? Lol. Nevermind, I remember now. Anyway, Blake, as much as we love him, and as much (Evolutionary Malone) potential as he has, he's no Shaquille O'Neal. Shaquille was, quite literally, a once-in-a-generation player. Blake is "the next big thing." Having seen the last two up close and personal, being in the Big 12 Conference and all, (Beasley, and Durant) which way he goes is up to a lot more than just him. Beasley landed in a less-than-ideal situation, and he's not playing up to his potential. Durant landed in an ideal situation, and he's starting to scratch the surface of his potential already. Blake's going to have one major (Clippers) strike against him from jump. His "team"mates are strike two. He's going to have to be perfect, and knowing him, he would expect no less from himself, to stay on track. But, that's an awful lot of pressure to put on a player who: 1) is from Oklahoma and moving to L.A. 2) is not dominant in any particular area of the game. 3) is more of a do-as-I-do-'cause-I-don't-say-sh*t leader. Is he up for it? Sure. I think he is. But, the money question is, "For how long?" ----- I guess I talk a lot. Sorry about that. I love basketball. the_ouskull
This will be repeated for a few more years until we all realize he's just not ever going to be that good. Too lazy, not enough drive.
God why the Clippers! They are the one team that has the ability to completely ruin a player. I don't see much chance that the Thunder trade for the #1 as we aren't willing to part with KD and we don't have enough pieces to get Blake after that, but hopefully Memphis will come to Blake's rescue!
He was a big fish in a small pond at KSU. He's a little fish in the big ocean that is the NBA, which houses the top talent from across the world in the game. He was the best at KSU... but he will be nowhere near the best ever again wherever he goes now that he has left college.
having watched Camby in Denver for 3-4 years (his best as a pro)...there's nothing he does that makes him worth the horrible shots he takes. he thinks he's got a top of the key stroke type range. he's a good guy apparently _________________________ Insurance Quotes | Atlanta Ediscovery
