ZoomSlowik

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 10:21 AM) I like how Bob Johnson is an author of that letter two f***ing years after the Charlotte Bobcats were born. Why'd you jump in head first to something where you can't possibly compete? MAYBE F*CKING DRAFT BETTER AND MAKE FEWER STUPID MOVES. Seriously, clearly when you bought the franchise you liked the idea, but that changes two years later? The lack of foresight and planning these owners has is absolutely the main problem the league faces. They can't save themselves from... themselves. I also love that Paul Allen is on the list of small market owners griping about unacceptable annual losses when he's worth more than the rest of the list put together. Seriously, he could probably cover the losses from money he finds in his couch. How many years worth of losses would it take to equal what he spent on that massive yacht of his? The biggest problem is not that the players are paid too much, the biggest problem is that the money is handed out in an extremely stupid manner. Instead of Lebron or Wade getting $25 mil, you have players that make no real impact on the team's success making $7 million-plus. Just look at the Bobcats; Corey Maggette, Boris Diaw, Tyrus Thomas and Desagana Diop will make a combined $33 million for a team that might not win 20 games. You can maybe handle one deal like that, but not four, and someone like Antawn Jamison getting $15 mil is just as painful. THAT is your main problem. The middle class of players (for these purposes that will be defined as everyone between $7 mil in salary and the top-20 players) are consistently getting about $4 mil more than they should. I love the idea that Mark Cuban may/may not have suggested: get rid of the salary cap but have a super-high tax at certain levels. That way the respective teams can spend what they want to spend, player movement will be a bit more fluid, and a fair amount of money will get funneled to the bottom tier teams. It seems to work reasonably well in baseball: the awful contracts are mostly grouped on major market teams that can absorb them more easily. Of course it would work even better if they simply contracted a few of the teams that can't turn a profit anyways, but the NBA will never admit defeat like that.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 10:03 AM) I completely didn't think of The Big Lebowski as a sports movie. This. I think both Rounders and Lebowski would be higher on general "movie" lists because neither is really a sports movie, especially after the original discussion about Lebowski. I put Rounders on mine using "the ESPN rule", but put extras at the bottom if Knight decided to remove it and/or the pool movies (which I consider more of a game than a sport as well).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 12:57 PM) And that number seems odd to me - non-premium tickets average $40+ at the Cell? We have front row UD tickets as a season package, and their regular face for non-premium games is like $20, $24 or $30 depending on the game. Curious what their definition is. "Non-premium" as in not in the boxes, scout seats, ect. Also, the season ticket face values are different based on what they actually charge you. The Sox pricing points aren't available on their site anymore, but I would bet those seats are at least $10 more if you tried to buy single game tickets. Face on our tickets (lower box) is $34-$48, but if you look at say a Twins game in the middle of the week for one ticket, it's closer to the $48 number.

I totally forgot about The Mighty Ducks (though boo to D2 being above The Program), and somehow despite being a big South Park fan I've never seen Baseketball.

They hooked me good with that multiplayer beta from Subway. I think I have to get all three now.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 19, 2011 -> 02:01 PM) Can't have it both ways. I understand what you're saying. But apply that when doing all-time rankings (not saying you're doing that). Bill Russell, for some reason, is viewed as a top 6 player of all-time. I don't think so. Players unequivocally better/greater than Bill Russell: MJ, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Kareem, Moses, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Erving, West, Robertson and a few others I'm probably forgetting about. This part I won't argue with, possibly even a few more. Russell's lack of a dominant offensive game hurts, if you're starting a team with him you need a big time perimeter scorer. To me, there's a big difference between saying he's not a top-10 player ever and saying he's Wallace/Mutombo (who weren't top-10 in the league at that time most likely).

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 19, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) Zoom: Dirk is a better shooter, had a better post-game, better ball-handler and better at getting to the basket. Rebounding comparison is miniscule at best. Yes, Bird was a better passer. Can't deny that. But when you get over the whole, "Bird and Magic saved the NBA" made for TV movie. It's easy to see that Dirk is the better player. Just no. Dirk only got 13% of his shots in the basket area this year. He thrives on mid-range jumpers and in the high/mid-post. I don't have the same data for Bird, but at nearly 50% from the field his whole career while averaged 24 PPG, I'd imagine he got quite a few easy shots and could shoot a bit. He also played SF and frequently ran the break/offense, so I'll go out on a limb and say he could handle it a bit too. You also had to deal with a lot more contact in the 80's, and the 3 wasn't nearly as big a part of offenses (Bird could hit them frequently, pretty sure he won two 3-point contests). I'll just leave it at that, this probably isn't going anywhere productive.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 19, 2011 -> 01:39 PM) Russell was built like Chris Sale. That was ok in the 60's. Now even if you added 20-25 pounds of muscle to his physique with modern training, he still wouldn't stand out in the modern game like he did back then. Those 11 rings have blinded just about everybody. Kevin Garnett and Chris Bosh are skinny as a rail too. Guys like LaMarcus Aldridge, Joakim Noah and Tyson Chandler aren't exactly super bulked up either. It's not like he'd only be facing guys that are 7-foot 270 (which is roughly what Wilt was by the way) every game. He'd probably be more of a PF, though who knows what his weight would actually be in the modern era. Crap, you're dragging me into this.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 19, 2011 -> 01:26 PM) Zoom knows his hoops. Anyway, I said this last year and I'll say it again: LeBron is still the best overall player in the game. Dirk > Bird. And Bill Russell = Ben Wallace or Dikembe Mutombo. I only endorse the first part of this post. Bird and Dirk are highly similar players. They're basically the same as scorers and neither is a stellar athlete. Bird was a way better passer and slightly better rebounder, Dirk commits a lot less turnovers because he doesn't handle the ball. I'd happily take my chances with Bird. Russell doesn't have nearly the bulk of Mutombo and though he wasn't great at that end had way more of an offensive game than Wallace. I'd say he's more like Josh Smith with exponentially higher basketball IQ. I really don't want to turn this into a 4-page debate (we might have done that before), so I'll leave it at that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 19, 2011 -> 11:16 AM) Yes, I'd say that in the NBA, the contracts that really hurt you are the ones that are at the MLE or in the area above it. Caron Butler getting $10 million, Tyson Chandler getting $12 million, Haywood (He's going to be making $9 million+ in 2015 for crying out loud), Terry for $10 million, Kidd at $8 million. If the Mavericks were playing to a $60 million salary limit, then every one of those contracts would be as much of an albatross as Luol Deng's looked to be or as the ones in Detroit are. The guys can all play, but none of them are worth that price. That's $50 million, basically the entire salary cap, locked up in Caron Butler, Tyson Chandler, Brendan Haywood, Jason Terry, and Jason Kidd. The Mavericks have an owner willing and able to spend well up and beyond the cap to make that work. Put that in Sacramento and that's an 18 win team. Only one of those guys was an MLE signing (Haywood), and clearly it killed Dallas' chances to compete. The others were acquired in trades and make well above the MLE (the MLE is only like $6 mil, though you can give raises above it in future years), so that's an entirely different category of contract. Butler used to be worth the money and then some. Chandler was pretty damn important to them winning the title. So were Terry and Kidd. If Butler were healthy, that would actually be a somewhat serviceable team. You'd have two scorers, a good post defender, an aging but effective PG. That team is easily better than the Cavs and Bobcats, probably several others too. That's all moot though because Dirk is there as well, which covers up a lot of issues. On the wrong team, those are awful contracts. I never argued that paying someone like Chandler $12 million when you suck is a good contract. Hell, I was arguing that it is the main problem with these teams, even a handful of them that do have good records. However, Sacramento won't (or I guess I say shouldn't) sign them because they're not going anywhere. That's not a system issue, that's a management issue. You don't see the Kansas City Royals signing $15 million players because they can't afford it and they know they're not going to win. So why can't GM's and owners realize the same thing even in a league that actually has a salary cap? The system didn't force the Magic to sign and trade for Lewis and give him $20 million even though reports suggested they could have had him for $14 million a year. The system didn't force the Wizards to give Arenas a max deal coming off a serious injury. The system didn't force the Hawks or Grizzlies to give Johnson and Gay max contracts before they found out if they would get anything close to that on the open market. There are only two problems I see with the actual structure of the systems and contracts: they're too long and they're backloaded because of the way the CBA is written. Fixing one or both of those would get rid of some of the bad contracts, but there are still an awful lot of them that are stupid from the second they are signed, and no rules are going to fix that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 19, 2011 -> 11:03 AM) Durant Re-upped because the system is structured where that is the right decision for a 3rd year player on his first team...he would have to go through 2 1-year contracts effectively in order to reach free agency and would take less money to do so, while he can instead sign a multi-year, rich deal and then be able to hit the market as an unrestricted FA after that 2nd contract ends. They added Perkins then spent stupid money on him because they're trying to "Win now"...which is what they need to do if they want to keep Durant and Westbrook after that first extension. It's unusual for a guy to go through the machinations like Ben Gordon, fail to sign an extension, and then manage to get all the way to the unrestricted FA market off of their first contract. The system is built against that for the real talent. Again, Perkins isn't the reason they're winning now. It's Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka and Harden. When you already have those guys, $8 mil for a guy to defend the rim isn't really a dumb decision. They have the core to support one somewhat iffy contract to fill a need, Orlando and Cleveland just ended up with total crap around their one star. And yes, Durant gets a bit more money now because he signed the extension. However, he's also making a bit less over the next few years. Instead of starting at the max salary next year, he's making $15 mil. That means he makes progressively less than he could have each of the next several years as well. If he really wanted to, he could have left or included an opt out clause like the other stars, but he's committed to OKC because they are built the right way; through good drafting and wise cap management rather than just picking up whatever $14 million semi-star they can get from a struggling team.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 19, 2011 -> 10:52 AM) Every one of those cases you're trying to exclude tells the exact same story though...a story of teams overpaying because that's what the NBA requires to keep a star around. Throwing "Massive money" at non-elite players is done by every single team in the league. What we've seen in the last 5 years though is that a few teams can still spend enough to get around that. Dallas, the Lakers, Boston. No, building a good team is what is required to keep a star around. Duncan didn't stay in San Antonio because they spent a ton of money, he stayed there because they smartly drafted Parker and Ginobili to give him a ton of help. They also let Stephen Jackson go rather than pay him a ton of money because they knew they couldn't afford it. I think you and I have different definitions of "massive money" as well. What awful contracts do those teams have exactly? A few MLE ones in the $7 mil range? Those aren't the deals that kill you unless you have like four of them. The Lakers' top four players are pretty much worth the contracts their getting (well, Bynum when he's healthy). Boston's big four are fine, in fact Rondo is probably underpaid. Dallas only have one guy making significantly over $10 mil. Everyone else is pretty much market rate (outside of Haywood, who was an MLE addition). There's a really big difference between using the MLE for some role players when you already have the core and making massive additions that are supposed to be part of your core but aren't that good.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 19, 2011 -> 10:00 AM) After signing Kendrick Perkins to....a stupid contract. And trading away Jeff Green so they woudln't have to....sign him to a stupid contract. Durant re-upped before they acquired Perkins because they had a young core with potential. Perkins is just a veteran role player to get them closer to their goal (albiet a valuable one because he helps protect the rim).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 19, 2011 -> 09:38 AM) There's more to it than that though...the problem is that failing to hand out stupid contracts is penalized with losing teams and losing key players to free agency. If you don't hand out stupid contracts to Shaq, Lebron walks. If you don't hand out stupid contracts to Boozer, you waste Rose's years and maybe he walks after being tired of the 6th seed. If you don't hand out stupid contracts to Joe Johnson, he walks and your team falls to 9th and misses the playoffs rather than being 4th. If you don't hand out stupid contract to Richard Lewis, Dwight Howard never reaches the finals and he walks. The system right now punishes owners who don't hand out stupid contracts. These are terrible examples and don't help your point at all. Lebron left anyways because their second best player was Mo Williams and they didn't have the talent/money to upgrade the team. Boozer is going to kill the Bulls towards the end of that contract and Rose is probably staying anyways because of Noah. The Hawks are mediocre with or without Joe Johnson, and because of that dumb deal they might have to trade Josh Smith. Howard is likely to leave anyways because they paid Lewis about $6 mil a year more than he's worth and traded him for Gilbert Arenas. Spending money isn't directly correlated to winning; spending money intelligently is directly correlated to winning. Throwing massive money at non-elite players is what killed Cleveland and is in the process of killing Orlando.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 18, 2011 -> 02:49 PM) I never claimed that Dirk was the best player in the NBA, in fact I don't know who I'd put up there at this point. And once again, LeBron has exhausted all of his excuses at this point, there are non left. And the plays here or there are the ones that weren't made by LeBron in the finals. I watched this guy against the Bulls and thought to myself "well he's finally reached that next level of greatness" and then he regressed right back to some of his old s***ty habits against Dallas. Yes, I admit that I exaggerated a bit on the most talented team of all time but they were the best team this year and LeBron couldn't get them over the hump. I have a hard time watching the NBA and declaring that LeBron isn't the best player in the league but until he actually wins a championship, I can't call him that. I guess I've just never bought into that. You're still the same player before and after you get your ring, people just look at you a lot differently. I don't feel like Michael only became the man in 1991. A lot of things have to go right for you to win a title. No matter how good you are, it's not a guarantee that you're going to win every year (yeah, I know Russell and MJ. Michael is an exception to every rule and Russell played with like 40 hall of famers in his career).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 18, 2011 -> 02:42 PM) Well you're crazy. I'll take the guy with a slightly lower fg% that has the balls to take the shot over the guy that passes on the shot. Didn't it become a joke midway through the season last year when Lebron continued to get the big shot to win the game and continued to miss? And again, i'm not saying that's the ONLY measure. But at some point skill and athleticism mean dick if you can't deliver wins. We're talking about who is the best of the great players. The intangibles come into play in that argument, and I think last year was pretty obvious what Lebron lacks. Wade was missing a bunch of them too. The entire team was like 1-12, not just Lebron. People also seem to have selective memories with this thing and ignore all the ones that everyone not named Lebron miss. It's not like Lebron has never come up in the clutch, he single-handedly beat Detroit in game 7 of the conference finals a few years back and hit a ridiculous last second 3 against Orlando. He also carried hit a ton of big shots against the Bulls and Celtics. Everyone seems to ignore that though because Mo Williams didn't bail him out in any of his off games like Kobe when he went 6-24 in game 7 against the Celtics.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 18, 2011 -> 02:30 PM) LeBron has exhausted all of his excuses at this point. I flip flopped about a million times on this last year but once again LBJ showed his true colors in the finals after being fantastic against the Bulls. And Zoom, it's not one series, it's happened numerous times with this guy, he's the most physically gifted player I've certainly ever seen but he has to win something, anything before I can put him at the top of the NBA again. If you can't win with arguably the most talented team ever assembled, then when the hell are you going to win? I really hate the rings argument because it ignores everyone's teammates. Lebron has played with a pile of crap in Cleveland for most of his career and still has two NBA Finals appearances, one of which came because he carried his team on his back to beat a superior Pistons team. It's not like Dirk has multiple rings on his mantle either, and neither does anyone else in the top-10 other than Kobe. He's played with superior teammates to Lebron his entire career and still finally just got his ring this year. He had a brilliant playoff run, but that doesn't wipe out things like losing to Golden State in the first round (though people treat it that way). It also had some seriously fluky occurrences, like the Game 2 comeback and Dallas shooting like 700% from deep in game 5. It's not like they thoroughly crushed Miami, a few plays here and there and it could have gone the other way. Miami also isn't close to the most talented team ever assembled, that would have to go to one of the Celtics dynasties or the early Showtime Lakers. They have two really good players and another All-Star caliber one, but the rest of the team is crap. In the end it came down to the same thing it has for Lebron's entire career: if he doesn't put up a 30-7-7 type line, his team is going to lose against quality competition.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 18, 2011 -> 02:05 PM) End of the game, championship on the line. Who do you give the ball to? Wade or Lebron? Unless you answer Lebron, I dunno how he can be considered the greatest. You give it to Lebron because he's a slightly better shooter and because he'll find the open man more often than Wade if the play breaks down. You want your guy to make the best basketball play, not force a shot just because he's "the man". Second, that's an incredibly limited argument that basically asks, "who is the best scorer"? The crunch time stats say that Carmelo is the best option down the stretch, and no one would argue that he's the best player in the league.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 18, 2011 -> 01:51 PM) Anyone been following ESPN's NBA player rankings? Pretty terrible top ten. Lebron - how? He's not even the best player on his team. Howard - Top 10, dunno about 2. Best defensive player, but still a liability on offense late in games Wade - when healthy and rested he's one of the best. #2 in my book. Dirk - #1 right now, not sure how anyone can question that. CP3 - too high. this is a list of greatest players, not potential greatest players. Durant - about right Kobe - about right Rose - few spots too low but can't complain DWill - love the guy but too high. Has yet to show he can lead a team to a deep playoff run like some of these other guys. Still a top 3 PG though. Griffin - ridiculous. no where close to top 10. Probably the best or second best PF in the game, but his team won about 30 games last year. Other questionables: Kevin Love at 16 Rondo at 17 Lebron- Have people really forgotten what he did in Cleveland already? That roster had no business winning 60 games. People put too much stock in one series. He's probably the most physically gifted player in the league and more skilled than most. Howard- He averaged over 20 points per game this past year while shooting an insane percentage. Just because he can't make free throws doesn't mean he isn't one of the most dominant players in the game (see Shaq) Wade- He's really good, but Lebron is basically a bigger, better passing version of Wade. Dwayne is also a lot more injury prone. Dirk- You're getting way too wrapped up in one good playoff run. He's had plenty of playoff failings himself and is an average defender and rebounder. He may be the best offensive player in the league, but overall is a bit of a stretch (it's nitpicking a bit in the top-5 though) Paul- 5 might be a hair too high, but he's arguably the best all-around PG in the league (though I think Rose makes a bigger overall impact). I'm not sure what the "potential" comment is about, he's the only reason the Hornets can make the playoffs. Deron- I'll agree here, especially since he's coming off a down year. Griffin- If he's the best or second best power forward in the league, how can that be a ridiculously high rating? He already averaged like 22-12-4 as a rookie and is only going to get better.

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 18, 2011 -> 12:19 PM) If you want a ruling on whether it's allowed or not, go to that website and check to see if it's listed there. That site lost all credibility when it listed The Color of Money and not The Hustler.

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Oct 17, 2011 -> 10:09 PM) I came up with about 30 and had to pare it down to 25 too. And most of mine were baseball movies also. Like with every list we make I probably hurried too fast and in so doing forgot a few that would have made my list had I remembered them. No Big Lebowski on my list. I don't think of it as a sports movie but I suppose it is. I had a big problem with this too. Exactly how big a part of the plot does it have to be for it to qualify for the list? I left off The Hurricane because it's not really about boxing, but you can stretch that a bit. Is Field of Dreams really a baseball movie? I guess, but it's mostly about a guy building a baseball field, not baseball itself. Some people argue that Bull Durham is really more of a love story, but it features way to much baseball for me to leave that off. Here's another one: what qualifies as a sport? One of my favorite movies is The Hustler. Now I consider pool to be more of a game than a sport, but they show it on ESPN. The same thing with poker, I'm sure a bunch of us love Rounders. Yes, I'm into arguing semantics today.

Good god, Northwestern's secondary is terrible.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 12, 2011 -> 02:35 PM) How many franchises lease a building though? I'm guessing if the owners are about to lose out on being owners of an NBA franchise, are they really content with just being landlords for a new league? Most of the stadiums are owned by a third party, not the NBA owners.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2011 -> 02:05 PM) There is a difference between being over the cap and paying the luxury tax. This pretty much summed up my next response, only in one sentence instead of several paragraphs.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 11, 2011 -> 12:15 PM) There's a difference between lowering the salary cap (has happened one time and it was a million bucks from 08-09 to 09-10) and imposing larger luxury taxes, which is what the owners want to do. How many teams pay the tax every year? A small minority right? So a small number of teams that already make tons of money and need not concern themselves with the level of contracts (since they can afford to over pay) probably aren't going to be all that upset with having to pay more. A reduction in some contracts? Sure, but for a few teams and a few players. More franchises aren’t going to suddenly pay the tax just because the tax rate goes up. First off, four teams are already over the luxury tax for 2011/2012 before a single player is signed or extended. That's going to result in quite a few luxury tax teams. You're also missing a major part of the point. The salary cap IS going down because the slice of the BRI that the players get is dropping AND they want to impose harsher penalties for the luxury tax. So yes, more teams are going to be paying it if they want to keep their roster intact. It also doesn't just affect the teams that actually pay it, it affects the teams that are near the threshold and have to make roster decisions. Utah is a major example. They had been straddling the threshold for a while before losing Carlos Boozer, and if they had managed to keep Deron Williams they would have been a tax team as well. Denver pretty much had to give Marcus Camby away because they were a tax team despite being a 5-seed caliber squad. Phoenix is another one, rather than keeping guys like Johnson, Marion and Stoudemire they overpaid some scrubs but avoided the tax. Atlanta is another one that's going to have problems because of the Joe Johnson salary and having to pay Horford and Smith as well. You really don't understand the salary cap structure, do you? Virtually every team in the league is over the salary cap because of the Bird Exemption and MLE. The cap last year was $58 mil. Again, using 2011/2012 salaries and ignoring that the cap is going to drop with a 53% player cut of the BRI, 10 teams are over the cap before a single free agent is signed. My favorite salary resource (hoopshype) doesn't have 2010/2011 info anymore, but probably 20 teams were over the salary cap last year. The MLE is an extremely valuable tool for teams to be able to add a rotational player here and there. With that rule, you're hurting the veteran role player considerably and making it way more likely that someone like Jeff Green ends up getting overpaid to chuck jumpers for an awful team instead of actually contributing to a team that matters. That player is "worth" a lot more to a team that's going somewhere. Paying $6 mil to a potentially valuable role player isn't going to kill you anyways. That's barely 10% of your cap figure and you can only sign 14 players. It'd absolutely kill roster flexibility for everyone in the league to eliminate contracts that aren't anywhere near their biggest problem. You're not "forced" into anything. No one had a gun to Orlando's head making them give Rashard Lewis $20 mil a year when the general belief was he would have signed for $14 mil. Hell, they engineered a sign and trade to get him more money. That trickles down to the lower level too. Is your team really going to suffer significantly if you lose Tyrus Thomas rather than paying him $7.3 million this year? The teams that are smart generally avoid deals like that. Sure, the Spurs probably would have like to keep Stephen Jackson way back when, but they knew he wasn't worth $10 mil a year and they couldn't afford to pay him. 5 years is perfectly reasonable for most players. s*** is always going to happen, but remember, most of these guys get their first big deal around age 25 or 26. Doesn't that make sense? The player wants the security, and the team wants to lock him up for his prime. It's not the players' fault that they often give monster second deals to guys in their late 20's/early 30's with an injury history like Elton Brand, Gilbert Arenas or Baron Davis. 3 years is just ridiculously low. Then the player takes a massive hit on their next deal if they get hurt. The teams will frequently suffer too because they're never going to know if their players will be around long term and they'll have to pay their next contract at a higher rate. No other league has contracts that short, even the NFL where careers are much shorter (yes, I realize they're not all guaranteed). You don't need to make a rule to mandate shorter contracts. Just because you can offer a 6 year deal doesn't mean you have to do it. If some other idiot wants to give them 6 years, that's their problem. They don't HAVE to be 100% guaranteed either, that's just the way they're typically negotiated. And without the players, there's no public interest and no league. They can't charge $500 for a courtside seat to watch Adam Morrison. ESPN and TNT aren't going to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars to broadcast Josh Powell. They'd have a hard time moving Jeremy Pargo jerseys. You're going to have a much harder time getting taxpayers to pony up for a new stadium if they can't see the best players in the world. The players are the entire reason anyone makes any money in the NBA, and why teams frequently sell for $400 mil or more. They're considered valuable commodities because of the revenue streams that are created by the players. If you're going to buy an NBA team, which these guys did even though they could have invested in plenty of other businesses, you need the star players. You can't just put any schmuck out on the court and draw interest and make money. Like any other business, you need to make smart decisions and bring in the best talent to have a successful company. The difference is if you run a restaurant into the ground, you go out of business and the bank takes all your stuff. If you run an NBA team into the ground, you cry about how all of those greedy players are causing you to lose money while your private jet is idling on the tarmac so you can fly off to Fiji until someone tells you that they're ready to play basketball again.