Breaking News: Sterling's wife tells Barbara Walters she will fight any attempt

[LooseCannon]

Meh.

To me which players you have on a team effect the value of a franchise like what color a house is painted does the selling price of the house. They make the entire franchise prettier if the color is good but really add little to no value to the franchise.

I think the correct analogy is a house with a recently renovated kitchen and bathroom vs a fixer-upper with things that need replacing, when they both have comparable location and structural integrity.  It takes time to acquire talent and people will pay more to skip the rebuilding period and go straight to contending.

[nickagneta]

Meh.

To me which players you have on a team effect the value of a franchise like what color a house is painted does the selling price of the house. They make the entire franchise prettier if the color is good but really add little to no value to the franchise.

I think the correct analogy is a house with a recently renovated kitchen and bathroom vs a fixer-upper with things that need replacing, when they both have comparable location and structural integrity.  It takes time to acquire talent and people will pay more to skip the rebuilding period and go straight to contending.

So  if Milwaukee had Griifin and Paul what do you think the sale price would have been?

I can't see that franchise being sold for any more than it was.

[Neurotic Guy]

Meh.

To me which players you have on a team effect the value of a franchise like what color a house is painted does the selling price of the house. They make the entire franchise prettier if the color is good but really add little to no value to the franchise.

I mean if Milwaukee had a winning team with star players would the old owners really have gotten that much more than the $550 million they did? Are we supposed to believe that because the Bucks have sucked since the 80's and have no stars that $550 million was the bargain price?

I'm not buying that.

Why do realtors tell you to paint and 'stage' the house smartly before selling if not to increase the volume of potential buyers and increase the possibilty of a bidding war?   We wouldn't have the expression 'don't judge a book by its cover' if people didn't frequently do so.

2%? 5%? 10%? -- not sure how much difference it makes, but smiling Doc Rivers, Chris Paul and Blake Griffin on the cover is a book you'd rather read than one featuring Keith Bogans and a bunch of 2018 draft picks.

[nickagneta]

Meh.

To me which players you have on a team effect the value of a franchise like what color a house is painted does the selling price of the house. They make the entire franchise prettier if the color is good but really add little to no value to the franchise.

I mean if Milwaukee had a winning team with star players would the old owners really have gotten that much more than the $550 million they did? Are we supposed to believe that because the Bucks have sucked since the 80's and have no stars that $550 million was the bargain price?

I'm not buying that.

Why do realtors tell you to paint and 'stage' the house smartly before selling if not to increase the volume of potential buyers and increase the possibilty of a bidding war?   We wouldn't have the expression 'don't judge a book by its cover' if people didn't frequently do so.

2%? 5%? 10%? -- not sure how much difference it makes, but smiling Doc Rivers, Chris Paul and Blake Griffin on the cover is a book you'd rather read than one featuring Keith Bogans and a bunch of 2018 draft picks.

That stuff doesn't work with smart home buyers. Dumb people don't buy NBA franchises.

[LooseCannon]

Meh.

To me which players you have on a team effect the value of a franchise like what color a house is painted does the selling price of the house. They make the entire franchise prettier if the color is good but really add little to no value to the franchise.

I think the correct analogy is a house with a recently renovated kitchen and bathroom vs a fixer-upper with things that need replacing, when they both have comparable location and structural integrity.  It takes time to acquire talent and people will pay more to skip the rebuilding period and go straight to contending.

So  if Milwaukee had Griifin and Paul what do you think the sale price would have been?

I can't see that franchise being sold for any more than it was.

I could see maybe $50m more.

The $550m price tag involved $425m to Kohl and the new owners assuming $125m in debt.  If Milwaukee had Griffin and Paul, the Bucks probably wouldn't be in so much debt and more money would be going directly to Kohl, so the numbers might have looked the same but the effective sale price from the perspective of Senator Kohl might have looked different.

[LooseCannon]

Dumb people don't buy NBA franchises.

All NBA owners ever are highly intelligent people?

[hwangjini_1]

Thank you. A lengthy and well done response that is appreciated. But it raises yet another question, which may be taking us too far afield.

Given the above, could not the automakers of the US band together in a similar fashion for similar reasons and brand the "league" as part of the larger "transportation" industry, and that they need to compete with public buses, airlines, bikes, etc?

Thanks again.

They could try.  I don't think it would work, however, because of the issue of substitution.  Most Americans don't substitute away from cars to enough extent.  Certainly some people live in areas without transportation alternatives.  They would be indisputably harmed.  If you've got a 50-mile commute, a bike isn't going to get it done, and most public transit options don't get that far.  Sure, you could buy a helicopter if you had a landing pad near where you worked, but that's expensive, and consumers would still be harmed.  Maybe public transit is an option for you, but it would take you 2-3 times as long -- that makes it not a very good substitution, and becomes one you choose only when other factors are considered like price, or maybe a desire to pollute less.  Additionally, some people/businesses use vehicles for transporting goods or providing services.  Police departments would only have one company to buy police cars from.  Delivery services would only have one company to purchase vehicles from.  Same with cab companies (which are going to see more business if fewer people want to own cars).

Sure, the automotive industry could try to argue it, but they'd have a very difficult hurdle to get over.  You can't just argue you're in a larger product market -- you need some evidence.  The NBA has, I would bet, the evidence on its side.  I bet car makers would not.

thank you, and, as i suspected this, as is often the case, is subjectivity at work. where the line is drawn has less to do with a specific, concrete, essential characteristic than how the authors of the line perceive where it should be given their subjectivities.

now, on with the summer's entertainment.... the sterling follies. 

[nickagneta]

Meh.

To me which players you have on a team effect the value of a franchise like what color a house is painted does the selling price of the house. They make the entire franchise prettier if the color is good but really add little to no value to the franchise.

I think the correct analogy is a house with a recently renovated kitchen and bathroom vs a fixer-upper with things that need replacing, when they both have comparable location and structural integrity.  It takes time to acquire talent and people will pay more to skip the rebuilding period and go straight to contending.

So  if Milwaukee had Griifin and Paul what do you think the sale price would have been?

I can't see that franchise being sold for any more than it was.

I could see maybe $50m more.

The $550m price tag involved $425m to Kohl and the new owners assuming $125m in debt.  If Milwaukee had Griffin and Paul, the Bucks probably wouldn't be in so much debt and more money would be going directly to Kohl, so the numbers might have looked the same but the effective sale price from the perspective of Senator Kohl might have looked different.

So you are saying the sale price would have been unaffected. And from that we can conclude that having those players under contract doesn't effect the price of the sale, is that not correct?

[BballTim]

Meh.

To me which players you have on a team effect the value of a franchise like what color a house is painted does the selling price of the house. They make the entire franchise prettier if the color is good but really add little to no value to the franchise.

I mean if Milwaukee had a winning team with star players would the old owners really have gotten that much more than the $550 million they did? Are we supposed to believe that because the Bucks have sucked since the 80's and have no stars that $550 million was the bargain price?

I'm not buying that.

  I think the difference in value for the Cavs with and without LeBron was pretty significant.

[nickagneta]

Dumb people don't buy NBA franchises.

All NBA owners ever are highly intelligent people?

Did I say that? I said dumb people don't buy NBA franchises. And while some NBA owners currently might not be well liked, do things that fans want or even do or say dumb things, that doesn't make them dumb.

Just don't see a smart business savy potential owner overbidding for a franchise simply because a certain player there is under contract. The volatility of retaining players makes increasing or decreasing a franchise sales price because of players almost obsolete. Again does a house sell for more or less because its painted blue rather than white? Does a player's trade value really change because he had one good or bad game? Of course not. Same holds true for contracts of players. Franchise value will not increase or decrease based on the players on the roster at any given time.

[footey]

Let us not forget that this is not about the league owners being offended by Sterling's remarks.  The only opinion that matters on these issues are the players, the vast majority of whom are African American, and, quite rightly, are deeply offended by Sterling's remarks. The players know they hold the power. They can boycott the games.   That is why Jay Z, until recently a part team owner, can sit next to the Nets bench in tonight's game, wearing a necklace that symbolizes racial hatred towards whites  (look up the 5 Percenters' philosophy), and have no accountability to the NBA owners or the media. Because that type of conduct, for the most part, does not seem to bother the players, Jay Z is cool, so nothing will ever be done about that.  That is why Spike Lee can say things much worse than Donald Sterling (Spike says he "throws daggers" at inter-racial couples because he hates them) and still enjoy the best seats in MSG, because Spike is cool, the players are not upset with that, so the league won't do anything about it.  This whole thing is about the current owners keeping their status control intact.  Keep the workers happy so that they (the owners) can keep their league intact. 

I may be getting off topic here, I am not addressing the NBA Constitution, Mrs. Sterling's rights, or lack thereof.  Just trying to bring some perspective on what I feel are some pretty interesting paradoxes, to say the least.

[Mencius]

[...]Just trying to bring some perspective on what I feel are some pretty interesting paradoxes, to say the least.

Interesting paradoxes indeed.  One wonders how pristine all the players would be if 500 hours of their presumed private conversations were illegally recorded.

[D.o.s.]

Let us not forget that this is not about the league owners being offended by Sterling's remarks.  The only opinion that matters on these issues are the players, the vast majority of whom are African American, and, quite rightly, are deeply offended by Sterling's remarks. The players know they hold the power. They can boycott the games.   That is why Jay Z, until recently a part team owner, can sit next to the Nets bench in tonight's game, wearing a necklace that symbolizes racial hatred towards whites  (look up the 5 Percenters' philosophy), and have no accountability to the NBA owners or the media. Because that type of conduct, for the most part, does not seem to bother the players, Jay Z is cool, so nothing will ever be done about that. That is why Spike Lee can say things much worse than Donald Sterling (Spike says he "throws daggers" at inter-racial couples because he hates them) and still enjoy the best seats in MSG, because Spike is cool, the players are not upset with that, so the league won't do anything about it.  This whole thing is about the current owners keeping their status control intact.  Keep the workers happy so that they (the owners) can keep their league intact. 

I may be getting off topic here, I am not addressing the NBA Constitution, Mrs. Sterling's rights, or lack thereof.  Just trying to bring some perspective on what I feel are some pretty interesting paradoxes, to say the least.

I don't know about the bolded. I do know that Sterling's position as an owner paints the entire league in a way that Spike Lee's opinions don't. In a way that directly impacts one of the premiere franchises in the league. Spike's just a foulmouthed Knicks fan -- surely you're aware that there's more than one of those?

[footey]

Let us not forget that this is not about the league owners being offended by Sterling's remarks.  The only opinion that matters on these issues are the players, the vast majority of whom are African American, and, quite rightly, are deeply offended by Sterling's remarks. The players know they hold the power. They can boycott the games.   That is why Jay Z, until recently a part team owner, can sit next to the Nets bench in tonight's game, wearing a necklace that symbolizes racial hatred towards whites  (look up the 5 Percenters' philosophy), and have no accountability to the NBA owners or the media. Because that type of conduct, for the most part, does not seem to bother the players, Jay Z is cool, so nothing will ever be done about that. That is why Spike Lee can say things much worse than Donald Sterling (Spike says he "throws daggers" at inter-racial couples because he hates them) and still enjoy the best seats in MSG, because Spike is cool, the players are not upset with that, so the league won't do anything about it.  This whole thing is about the current owners keeping their status control intact.  Keep the workers happy so that they (the owners) can keep their league intact. 

I may be getting off topic here, I am not addressing the NBA Constitution, Mrs. Sterling's rights, or lack thereof.  Just trying to bring some perspective on what I feel are some pretty interesting paradoxes, to say the least.

I don't know about the bolded. I do know that Sterling's position as an owner paints the entire league in a way that Spike Lee's opinions don't. In a way that directly impacts one of the premiere franchises in the league. Spike's just a foulmouthed Knicks fan -- surely you're aware that there's more than one of those?

Well, sure, Spike Lee is not an owner.  But he has far more name recognition with the NBA brand than Don Sterling, at least before this telephone call incident, and is very linked to the product that the NBA is selling to the public.  In that regard, he is more than a foul mouthed Knick fan, he is part of the marketing of the NBA and its players.  The Nike commercials, the NBA is FANTastic promotions.  Furthermore, the NBA surely has the power to force him to give up his front court seats if they felt that his behavior was inappropriate, and hurt the League image.  A fair number of NBA players who are African American have non-African American wives.  A growing number of NBA players are biracial.  Spike Lee's words are quite offensive to them, and to me as well, for personal reasons.   Yet so long as the players do not call him on it, the League will do nothing.  I don't mean to diminish the distinction here between what an owner is accountable for, and what a fan is accountable for.  But that is not really why the situations are being treated differently by the League.  They are being treated differently because it is what the players are dictating. 

[saltlover]

Dumb people don't buy NBA franchises.

All NBA owners ever are highly intelligent people?

Did I say that? I said dumb people don't buy NBA franchises. And while some NBA owners currently might not be well liked, do things that fans want or even do or say dumb things, that doesn't make them dumb.

Just don't see a smart business savy potential owner overbidding for a franchise simply because a certain player there is under contract. The volatility of retaining players makes increasing or decreasing a franchise sales price because of players almost obsolete. Again does a house sell for more or less because its painted blue rather than white? Does a player's trade value really change because he had one good or bad game? Of course not. Same holds true for contracts of players. Franchise value will not increase or decrease based on the players on the roster at any given time.

Some franchise players are worth more.  They sell more jerseys, which the team gets a cut of.  They bring more eyeballs to TV screens, which the team sees in it's local TV deals.  The Warriors, for example, haven't been a terribly strong brand over the years, but Stephen Curry has the team 8th in overall jersey sales.  He sold more jerseys than Melo, despite being in a much smaller market.  His presence clearly adds to the Warriors value, especially if the Warriors can turn that into long term brand recognition.