Since we're being cheap....

[Sevin]

Of course you shouldn't expect the same. THe Hawks aren't doubling ticket prices across the board that I know of. If the Hawks were putting an across the board 20% increase in ticket prices and lowering payroll then I'd think you would have reason to complain. But just because they have tickets that cost more than you would like to spend in my mind doesn't mean you should expect the team to pay the luxury tax.

I'm perfectly willing to increase my investment in the team, if the team invests in itself. If they have to pay the luxury tax to compete, then that’s what they have to do. If you want to be frugal, don’t go into the entertainment business and don’t ask me to splurge on your product.

[drzachary]

Payroll follows attendance and revenues, not vice versa. It's all well and good that you view the owners' job as simply spending whatever it takes to win. But the Hawks are a business, not a charity for the benefit of its fans. Expecting them to spend money when the ticket sales and TV ratings (--> TV contracts) don't support it is unrealistic.

That's so wrong. Attendance, fan interest and revenue don't sprout up in a vacuum. Those things follow winning, which follows payroll! To suggest otherwise is to flout both human nature and economics.

I go eat at a restaurant because it has awesome food, not because I reason, "Hey, if I eat here enough, they'll earn tons of money and then the food will be awesome one day."

Develop the product and sell it to us, ASG. Don't expect anything. Even "storied" fanbases like the Celtics stayed home -- averaging worse home crowds than the middling Hawks -- when the owners didn't invest in a championship-contending product.

Like you said, "the Hawks are a business." They should act like one that wants to succeed, not one that wants to stave off failure until they can get a buyout.

Edited July 19, 2010 by drzachary

[clicklandshopping]

That's so wrong. Attendance, fan interest and revenue don't sprout up in a vacuum. Those things follow winning, which follows payroll! To suggest otherwise is to flout both human nature and economics.

I go eat at a restaurant because it has awesome food, not because I reason, "Hey, if I eat here enough, they'll earn tons of money and then the food will be awesome one day."

Develop the product and sell it to us, ASG. Don't expect anything. Even "storied" fanbases like the Celtics stayed home -- averaging worse home crowds than the middling Hawks -- when the owners didn't invest in a championship-contending product.

Like you said, "the Hawks are a business." They should act like one that wants to succeed, not one that wants to stave off failure until they can get a buyout.

Well then, I guess the Lakers should be the only one you would pay money to see then. Not a team that is exciting,has made major improvement in win totals the last 5 year, has a top ten player in three positions on court, and finally a team that wants to keep their core together rather than breakup because fans only like champions not contenders. I really hope we win a championship in the near future and we may have to make a few tweaks on the way, but I do think we are going in the right direction.

[spotatl]

drzachary- the Hawks had a #3 seed yet were 18th in attendance. I wish I could pull gate receipts because I think the Hawks do even worse there. If the #3 seed isn't enough to get people through the door then why should the Hawks pay the luxury tax this season when they have virtually no chance of being a top 4 seed even if they did spend the full MLE?

[drzachary]

Well then, I guess the Lakers should be the only one you would pay money to see then. Not a team that is exciting,has made major improvement in win totals the last 5 year, has a top ten player in three positions on court, and finally a team that wants to keep their core together rather than breakup because fans only like champions not contenders. I really hope we win a championship in the near future and we may have to make a few tweaks on the way, but I do think we are going in the right direction.

I'll pay to see them regardless, so keep your "you should be a Lakers fan" garbage to yourself. And don't bring up the "improvement every year for 5 years" red herring. What does it matter to have improved from 13 wins? I think we're going in the right direction, but holding the purse strings when we shouldn't.

[Admin]

drzachary- the Hawks had a #3 seed yet were 18th in attendance. I wish I could pull gate receipts because I think the Hawks do even worse there. If the #3 seed isn't enough to get people through the door then why should the Hawks pay the luxury tax this season when they have virtually no chance of being a top 4 seed even if they did spend the full MLE?

That's how I feel as well. I know people will say well if the Hawks would spend the MLE then people would think that they're serious about winning but I don't buy it. Unfortunately unless we have a superstar on this team or blow teams out every night in our building I don't see the attendance problem changing either.

[drzachary]

If the #3 seed isn't enough to get people through the door then why should the Hawks pay the luxury tax this season when they have virtually no chance of being a top 4 seed even if they did spend the full MLE?

Because NOT spending the MLE means you are even LESS likely to win ... and even LESS people would come through the door.

Very simple.

Build the product, then sell it. Build on last year's successes (regular season, though they were) and infuse more talent, new impact players, better coaching. This takes money. They've done neither of the first two, but I'm hopeful that they've done the third.

As an aside, do NBA teams get their revenue from tickets, or is it mostly from TV/merch? I'm not sure, and I couldn't find a good source.

[drzachary]

drzachary- the Hawks had a #3 seed yet were 18th in attendance.

A couple thousand more fans per game would put them in the top ten in attendance. Teams with better attendance don't draw THAT many more fans per game. It's very possible that Atlanta just doesn't have the market to get those extra 2,000 people, regardless of popularity. With that in mind, what do you suggest?

[clicklandshopping]

I'll pay to see them regardless, so keep your "you should be a Lakers fan" garbage to yourself. And don't bring up the "improvement every year for 5 years" red herring. What does it matter to have improved from 13 wins? I think we're going in the right direction, but holding the purse strings when we shouldn't.

I never said to be a Laker fan, and improvement is the key to success. I know that we are walking slow in the right direction but if we run to fast we may trip up. I think why major free agent don't come here is because the media betrays us as a terrible sports town with no history. I hate to say this but only I believe 8 teams have won a NBA championship since the Eighties.

[Diesel]

To me the analogy would be that by upgrading the interior you would put the loan into a different category where your payment would be a ton higher. You have a 3000 a month payment with normal stuff inside but if you want granite countertops then you would have a $3600 a month payment. I think then you would have to decide just how much you really wanted the granite countertops.

Paying Shaq the MLE would cost them 11 million dollars... I don't htink its unreasonable to not want to pay it.

Trading for Shaq would not.

There are too many benefits to trading for Shaq. Most importantly, we need the size.

[Diesel]

Now if your wife or girlfriend made the same statement to you I bet you would consider her a little high in the maintenance area! :tongue:

Unfortunately, wives and girlfriends are not in the entertainment business (I hope).

Entertainment.

Let me ask you Peoria. Do you care how much Diddy (or your favorite singer) spends on his show? Or do you go to the show to be entertained? If you go to the show Drop $120 to see them and they get in the middle of the show and Diddy says, well, I was saving money on the synthesizer so for the next few songs, I will let the CD play and I will lipsync it. This is in essence what Dr. Z is saying. Dr. Z is saying what he wants from the Hawks is the best production that they can put on the floor. In other words, if you know that without a legit big man it's possible that we will get put out of the playoffs, lose our allstar C and be back to zero next year, the thing you would do is what??? Get a legit big man.

[Diesel]

Well then, I guess the Lakers should be the only one you would pay money to see then. Not a team that is exciting,has made major improvement in win totals the last 5 year, has a top ten player in three positions on court, and finally a team that wants to keep their core together rather than breakup because fans only like champions not contenders. I really hope we win a championship in the near future and we may have to make a few tweaks on the way, but I do think we are going in the right direction.

How do you think the Lakers became #1? When they had the chance to get good players, they spent the money and got good players. Number wins by saying, well, we're going to look at the bank account and cut accordingly? People wonder why there are only certain franchises that win championships? The winning franchises win championships because they were willing to go out and get what they needed.

[niremetal]

Because NOT spending the MLE means you are even LESS likely to win ... and even LESS people would come through the door.

Very simple.

Build the product, then sell it. Build on last year's successes (regular season, though they were) and infuse more talent, new impact players, better coaching. This takes money. They've done neither of the first two, but I'm hopeful that they've done the third.

Too bad history shows that no matter how much the Hawks spend or how many games they win, attendance always sucks. The Hawks have never once cracked the top third of the league in attendance since they moved to Atlanta. Not when we had a superstar like Nique. Not when we had a top 5 payroll after the Koncak deal. They finished 27th in attendance in a year (1997) where they won 56 games.

I've said it many, many times - if you look across the NBA, the rule has always been that teams don't pay the luxury tax unless they ALREADY had made at least the conference finals (exceptions: LAL/NYK/BOS, who have deep, loyal, and nationwide fan bases even when the teams suck). The 2009 Magic and Nuggets are the prime examples - they didn't pay the tax the year they made the conference finals, and only increased their payrolls to tax levels after they got the extra ticket revenues and future season ticket sales that came with a deep playoff run. The Mavs, Cavs, Suns, Heat, and Pistons - same thing.

People like you expect the Hawks owners to spend luxury tax money NOW, with the knowledge that they probably won't earn it back. That's not realistic. Doing so would make them unprecedently generous owners. Not doing so makes them just part of the playoff crowd.

As an aside, do NBA teams get their revenue from tickets, or is it mostly from TV/merch? I'm not sure, and I couldn't find a good source.

For the NBA as a whole, revenue from the national TV contracts and merchandising deals are distributed pretty evenly. But for each individual team, ticket sales are the top revenue source, if memory serves. I know this not from any publicly available source, but from talking to some people who work in the business. From what I understand, the NBA is second only to the NFL in terms of how much of the teams' revenue comes from the leaguewide revenue pot, but teams still get most of their revenue from their own ticket/merchandise/sponsorship sales, and ticket sales are by far the largest single revenue source for individual teams.

Edited July 19, 2010 by niremetal

[Diesel]

Too bad history shows that no matter how much the Hawks spend or how many games they win, attendance always sucks. The Hawks have never once cracked the top third of the league in attendance since they moved to Atlanta. Not when we had a superstar like Nique. Not when we had a top 5 payroll after the Koncak deal. They finished 27th in attendance in a year (1997) where they won 56 games.

I've said it many, many times - if you look across the NBA, the rule has always been that teams don't pay the luxury tax unless they ALREADY had made at least the conference finals (exceptions: LAL/NYK/BOS, who have deep, loyal, and nationwide fan bases even when the teams suck). The 2009 Magic and Nuggets are the prime examples - they didn't pay the tax the year they made the conference finals, and only increased their payrolls to tax levels after they got the extra ticket revenues and future season ticket sales that came with a deep playoff run. The Mavs, Cavs, Suns, Heat, and Pistons - same thing.

People like you expect the Hawks owners to spend luxury tax money NOW, with the knowledge that they probably won't earn it back. That's not realistic. Doing so would make them unprecedently generous owners. Not doing so makes them just part of the playoff crowd.

For the NBA as a whole, revenue from the national TV contracts and merchandising deals are distributed pretty evenly. But for each individual team, ticket sales are the top revenue source, if memory serves. I know this not from any publicly available source, but from talking to some people who work in the business. From what I understand, the NBA is second only to the NFL in terms of how much of the teams' revenue comes from the leaguewide revenue pot, but teams still get most of their revenue from their own ticket/merchandise/sponsorship sales, and ticket sales are by far the largest single revenue source for individual teams.

The Hawks lost the trust of the Fans when Babcock made the playoff guarantee. Sure, attendance wasn't great up until that point, but it's a bad thing to do when you've just moved into a new arena. Now, the new owners have to prove that they are not the same plan, different day. They have to prove that they belong and that they put out a product worth paying to see. We've won games before, but we've never been contenders. Right now, they are blowing a chance to be contenders.

[niremetal]

A couple thousand more fans per game would put them in the top ten in attendance. Teams with better attendance don't draw THAT many more fans per game. It's very possible that Atlanta just doesn't have the market to get those extra 2,000 people, regardless of popularity. With that in mind, what do you suggest?

A mere "couple thousand" more fans per game equals an extra $4.1M^ per year in ticket sales alone.

^ That's $50, which was the NBA average ticket price last year, times 2000 fans per game times 41 home games per year. And that doesn't even take into account corresponding increases in the rent they charge vendors, increased advertising revenues, and the innumerable other incidental revenue increases that are directly correlated with ticket sales. Also, just by the mere law of supply and demand, the existence of higher ticket sales would allow them to raise ticket prices (I know it sounds counterintuitive, but that's the way it generally works in the pro sports world).

[drzachary]

"Too bad history shows that no matter how much the Hawks spend or how many games they win, attendance always sucks."

Okay, so what's the point, then? We're not getting over the hump without spending any more money, and we're not going to spend any more money because attendance always sucks. We need owners with the creativity to break the mold, not ones looking to keep the status quo.

"People like you expect the Hawks owners to spend luxury tax money NOW, with the knowledge that they probably won't earn it back."

You are correct. I don't care if they earn it back or not. I want the Hawks to win a championship, which takes money. And I especially don't weep for operating losses, when the teams are sold at such high profits.

[clicklandshopping]

How do you think the Lakers became #1? When they had the chance to get good players, they spent the money and got good players. Number wins by saying, well, we're going to look at the bank account and cut accordingly? People wonder why there are only certain franchises that win championships? The winning franchises win championships because they were willing to go out and get what they needed.

But Diesel, the Laker had their bumps and bruise when Shaq said make a choice between him and Kobe. They chose Kobe and he couldn't win either and had to wait a while until management found the right fit. We don't have Kobe, Lebron or Wade but 28 other teams don't either. We do have a great team though that can contend and we just need a few more pieces and a little more time. I think the real problem is everyone doesn't agree on who the core should be.

[drzachary]

A mere "couple thousand" more fans per game equals an extra $4.1M^ per year in ticket sales alone.

^ That's $50, which was the NBA average ticket price last year, times 2000 fans per game times 41 home games per year. And that doesn't even take into account corresponding increases in the rent they charge vendors, increased advertising revenues, and the innumerable other incidental revenue increases that are directly correlated with ticket sales. Also, just by the mere law of supply and demand, the existence of higher ticket sales would allow them to raise ticket prices (I know it sounds counterintuitive, but that's the way it generally works in the pro sports world).

And? So the Hawks have 4.1M less in revenue per season due to our 18th-best attendance. That 4.1M, turned into payroll, would have made us the 15th-highest spending team. Still not a contender's payroll. All the incidentals you mention: let's be generous and say it would have made us an additional 10M in payroll. That would have made us... the 14th highest spending team! Still not a payroll for a team that wants to contend for a championship.

Also, my point in mentioning the 2000 fans/game difference is simply to indicate that it's not as if the Pistons pull 20,000 a game and we pull 10,000. The difference is a lot closer than that. Sure, they fill the arena 95% of capacity. Our 88% isn't so bad.

[Peoriabird]

Unfortunately, wives and girlfriends are not in the entertainment business (I hope).

Entertainment.

Let me ask you Peoria. Do you care how much Diddy (or your favorite singer) spends on his show? Or do you go to the show to be entertained? If you go to the show Drop $120 to see them and they get in the middle of the show and Diddy says, well, I was saving money on the synthesizer so for the next few songs, I will let the CD play and I will lipsync it. This is in essence what Dr. Z is saying. Dr. Z is saying what he wants from the Hawks is the best production that they can put on the floor. In other words, if you know that without a legit big man it's possible that we will get put out of the playoffs, lose our allstar C and be back to zero next year, the thing you would do is what??? Get a legit big man.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that we should at least spend the mid level exception on a guy like Shaq but i don't agree with the spend whatever it takes approach. That is just an unrealistic approach. I am just as entertained by this group as I am a Championship type team because these guys were raised as Hawks. I think a guy by the name of Isaiah tried to buy a team in New York. Didn't work out too well there did it?

[Diesel]

But Diesel, the Laker had their bumps and bruise when Shaq said make a choice between him and Kobe. They chose Kobe and he couldn't win either and had to wait a while until management found the right fit. We don't have Kobe, Lebron or Wade but 28 other teams don't either. We do have a great team though that can contend and we just need a few more pieces and a little more time. I think the real problem is everyone doesn't agree on who the core should be.

Nobody is saying kill this team. What we're saying is that we should spend the money to bring in what we need to be winners. I've heard every argument against bringing in Shaq and none of them really hold much water. To give Shaq a 6 Million dollar deal in a trade for Marvin is a win for us. Marvin's contract doesn't have a good future. Not when we can replace him with what's on the waiver wire and not miss him. In fact, we can replace him with dead air and let JC2 play in a 3 guard set and we'd probably do much better. Now's the time to get over Ego and start to think about what we have in front of us. What we have is the opportunity to improve our front court and all it will cost us is Marvin... and we can get 2 2nd rounders in the process.

So let me tell you how it will go.

We won't get shaq.

Teams in the east will beat on us because we're bringing in an undersized frontcourt and the only reason we were successful last season was because we were extremely healthy and everybody else wasn't.

We will want to trade Marvin because of his inconsistency and because he just doesn't try. But nobody will want him.

Marvin and Bibby's contract will side line us and people will blame Joe.

We will end up either losing Horf or trading Smoove to get something.