Marty Mac: Maloof's handling of decision was gutless
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
- Status
Exactly, that was my point. Half of the story. Ok, yes, the Maloofs put out the line that it was a mutual agreement, fine. However, how do we know that in the 5 minute conversation between RA and the Maloof Bros that there weren't some heated words being said by both parties and hung up with each other. Then, the decision was made by the Maloof Bros, who in turn called Petrie (which explains why he said he realized that things were beyond fixing or whatever), then Petrie called Adelman. I am not saying this is what happened, just that it is possible, which is the definition of being objective.
I am talking about after the conversation that may or may not have had some heated discussion between the two.
That is debatable.
Also, VF, while your statements are valid concerning Marty Mac being a real insider for years, my personal opinion of his writing over the years is crap.
I am talking about after the conversation that may or may not have had some heated discussion between the two.
That is debatable.
Also, VF, while your statements are valid concerning Marty Mac being a real insider for years, my personal opinion of his writing over the years is crap.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are making all kinds of assumptions and what-if, pie-in-the-sky scenarios up about this 5-minute call. Why don't we assume that it went the way it was described until we hear otherwise, especially since Rick has always been very forthright and upfront about things he is asked.
Why would Rick go off on the owner if he wanted to keep his job, and all indications are (from Rick and his staff, and not disputed by Petrie or the maloofs) that he was interested, unless the situation was that the Maloofs had lost faith in him. All he wanted was the chance to talk about the team and coaching before any decisions were made about a contract. Any manager knows if an employee who is important to the team wants to discuss performance and possible goal-setting, etc, you do it to help them perform better.
Apparently they thought it wasn't going to get any better and wanted to change coaches. That is their right and perogative as owners.
However, they went about it in completely the wrong way, and it may have damaged their chances of hiring a quality coach after watching how they treat "important" employees. It isn't just about Rick, you know. It's setting a tone for the organization and establishing a good relationship with employees - players, coaches, everyone else associated with the team as well. This was not the way to do that.
There is always a long and short term effect to an action. Although the short term effect for the Maloofs (not having to get their hands "dirty" by personally talking with the coach that got your team to where it is today vs. where it was 8 years ago) may be a little comfort in having Rick gone via a call with GP, for whatever reason they aren't sharing - the long term effect is the erosion of "goodwill" between management and employees.
Why would Rick go off on the owner if he wanted to keep his job, and all indications are (from Rick and his staff, and not disputed by Petrie or the maloofs) that he was interested, unless the situation was that the Maloofs had lost faith in him. All he wanted was the chance to talk about the team and coaching before any decisions were made about a contract. Any manager knows if an employee who is important to the team wants to discuss performance and possible goal-setting, etc, you do it to help them perform better.
Apparently they thought it wasn't going to get any better and wanted to change coaches. That is their right and perogative as owners.
However, they went about it in completely the wrong way, and it may have damaged their chances of hiring a quality coach after watching how they treat "important" employees. It isn't just about Rick, you know. It's setting a tone for the organization and establishing a good relationship with employees - players, coaches, everyone else associated with the team as well. This was not the way to do that.
There is always a long and short term effect to an action. Although the short term effect for the Maloofs (not having to get their hands "dirty" by personally talking with the coach that got your team to where it is today vs. where it was 8 years ago) may be a little comfort in having Rick gone via a call with GP, for whatever reason they aren't sharing - the long term effect is the erosion of "goodwill" between management and employees.
Last edited:
Thanks VF. That's how I meant for it to look I swear.
You know, maybe I am just trying to play a little devils advocate. Sometimes I think in a direction that is the opposite of what the majority is thinking/feeling. Not on purpose I guess, more subconciously I suppose. You guys are probably for the most part right about this whole thing, however I am trying to stay positive about the Maloofs. I really do feel that they have been good owners so far. Maybe not the classiest, but good nontheless.
You know, maybe I am just trying to play a little devils advocate. Sometimes I think in a direction that is the opposite of what the majority is thinking/feeling. Not on purpose I guess, more subconciously I suppose. You guys are probably for the most part right about this whole thing, however I am trying to stay positive about the Maloofs. I really do feel that they have been good owners so far. Maybe not the classiest, but good nontheless.
T
Gutless or business? That is for each of us to decide. Regardless, they did this for their franchise and us, the fans. They want a winner more than we do, when the team wins, they win, and they win $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Every move they make is to make this team better for us, the fans, but we sit and complain that what they did was classless, or gutless? They have business to conduct and if some people don't fit into their business plan, so be it.
Kings lose money every year until the playoffs, that's when the red ink turns black. The Sacramento bee detailed the Kings' financial situation a year or two back, and it probably isn't too far off from today.
Very rarely do teams actually make any serious $$$, the money is in the resale value of the team at a later date, which seems a bit odd on it's face.
This isn't the article I was referring to, but:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/basketball/kings/story/9858724p-10781055c.html
Thomas wouldn't estimate the value of the Kings' cable rights, though the NBA average last season was $7.5 million a year, according to Shaw Sports Business.
Such additional revenue could spell the difference between a profitable or financially losing season for the Kings. The club last year turned a $4 million profit, but has lost close to $30 million over the past five seasons, according to records provided to The Bee.
(July 2, 2004)
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/arena/story/9763918p-10686539c.html
The Bee conducted wide-ranging discussions over two days this week with eight senior Maloof executives.
The Kings also released exclusively to The Bee financial data summarizing six years of revenue and expense categories, usually a tightly kept secret for a private sports team.
The data show that Maloof Sports forecast a $4 million profit in the fiscal year that ends this month.
It is only the second time in the six years the Maloofs have owned the franchise that the company was in the black. Over the period, the enterprise has lost about $29.4 million.
(June 24, 2004)
Very rarely do teams actually make any serious $$$, the money is in the resale value of the team at a later date, which seems a bit odd on it's face.
This isn't the article I was referring to, but:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/basketball/kings/story/9858724p-10781055c.html
Thomas wouldn't estimate the value of the Kings' cable rights, though the NBA average last season was $7.5 million a year, according to Shaw Sports Business.
Such additional revenue could spell the difference between a profitable or financially losing season for the Kings. The club last year turned a $4 million profit, but has lost close to $30 million over the past five seasons, according to records provided to The Bee.
(July 2, 2004)
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/arena/story/9763918p-10686539c.html
The Bee conducted wide-ranging discussions over two days this week with eight senior Maloof executives.
The Kings also released exclusively to The Bee financial data summarizing six years of revenue and expense categories, usually a tightly kept secret for a private sports team.
The data show that Maloof Sports forecast a $4 million profit in the fiscal year that ends this month.
It is only the second time in the six years the Maloofs have owned the franchise that the company was in the black. Over the period, the enterprise has lost about $29.4 million.
(June 24, 2004)
Read closer - they were in the black for 2 of 6 years, but lost a total of about $29 million over that period. That's losses, not profits.
Now, I don't know about the last year or so, but I imagine things haven't changed that much except for the cable deal, which may push them into profitibility every year, I guess....
Now, I don't know about the last year or so, but I imagine things haven't changed that much except for the cable deal, which may push them into profitibility every year, I guess....
T
Yes, I read that. But KingKung was saying that a franchise never makes a profit. From your info alone, it showed the Kings had made a profit at one time. I'm not talking about just the Kings though, I'm talking about franchises around the league. I'm positive the Clippers franchise has made profits as I read an article outlining their profits.
I'm sure they have -- they are also the obvious exception because they don't play to win.
NBA teams are not good business. Never have been. They are corporate toys. In a normal business environement, the whole point is to make money. Not so in th NBA. Owning an NBA team is not abiout making money, its about prestige. And you don't evaluate whetehr the company has been successful or not by how much money it earns, but rather by how many wins the product on the floor produces. Its really not a business at all, beyond the attempts to at least break even or keep the losses to a minimum for their fun.
NBA teams are not good business. Never have been. They are corporate toys. In a normal business environement, the whole point is to make money. Not so in th NBA. Owning an NBA team is not abiout making money, its about prestige. And you don't evaluate whetehr the company has been successful or not by how much money it earns, but rather by how many wins the product on the floor produces. Its really not a business at all, beyond the attempts to at least break even or keep the losses to a minimum for their fun.
T
I mentioned earlier the reason they make money is because of how cheap ownership is there. The only reason I brought up the Clippers was because KingKung said no franschise made money. I was also wrong in the fact that I thought people bought teams to make money, guess they only sell them to make money.
If they want to win as much as they keep saying then they wouldn't be in the process of cost cutting ever since the 02-03 season. If they want a winner more than we do then they wouldn't be aiming to be under the luxury tax trashold every year. Quite simply they want a competative team on the floor at a reasonable cost.
They want a championship team without spending championship type money on the players. Well its not gonna work that way.
They want a championship team without spending championship type money on the players. Well its not gonna work that way.
You know that's simply not true. They WILL spend the money. Look at what they threw at Webber, and then Bibby, and then Miller. Unfortunately, they threw too mich money in some cases and have had to deal with the consequences. Do you honestly think they wanted to get KT, Corliss and Brian Skinner back for Chris Webber? Webber's salary was SO huge they couldn't find another taker, especially with his physical recovery still up in the air in some minds.
Now, we have Brad Miller who's making a very tidy chunk of change and, quite frankly, not earning it.
The Maloofs are more than willing to spend money. What they need to do is quit acting like it and either let Geoff Petrie run the show, and tell them how much to write the checks for OR get rid of him and run the whole show themselves.
They want their team to be the best and they think they know how to accomplish that. What they're totally missing is that they're good owners, for the most part, but horrible when it comes to public relations, personnel dealings, etc.
Now, we have Brad Miller who's making a very tidy chunk of change and, quite frankly, not earning it.
The Maloofs are more than willing to spend money. What they need to do is quit acting like it and either let Geoff Petrie run the show, and tell them how much to write the checks for OR get rid of him and run the whole show themselves.
They want their team to be the best and they think they know how to accomplish that. What they're totally missing is that they're good owners, for the most part, but horrible when it comes to public relations, personnel dealings, etc.
Both agree and disagree.
They have spent money in the past, which doesn't necessarily mean they will re-start spending it in the future. Time will tell on that. I am hoping they come to the conclusion that a bad product on the floor representing thier crown jewel doesn't reflect well on their other highly profitable entertainment enterprises. Image is important here.
It is debatable on whether they spent too much on those players salaries given the circumstances at the time. With Webber, IMHO, there was no choice. You were the laughing stock of the NBA and any sort of dickering would ruin any chance of being taken seriously. That could also go for Bibby. Having a history of being a sorry franchise makes your purchases so much more expensive.
I agree with this wholeheartly.
Time will tell on the willingness. The first years indicate one thing, the last few just the opposite. But it is a time of transition, so I'm willing to see how it comes out in the wash (hopefully not soiled)
It will be interesting to see how with new coaching whether he is the oddball piece that no longer fits or if the mix is changed in a manner that he can be a contributing part like he was and probably still is capable of. (not to change the mix for his sake but as a final result of whatever changes are made)
They have spent money in the past, which doesn't necessarily mean they will re-start spending it in the future. Time will tell on that. I am hoping they come to the conclusion that a bad product on the floor representing thier crown jewel doesn't reflect well on their other highly profitable entertainment enterprises. Image is important here.
It is debatable on whether they spent too much on those players salaries given the circumstances at the time. With Webber, IMHO, there was no choice. You were the laughing stock of the NBA and any sort of dickering would ruin any chance of being taken seriously. That could also go for Bibby. Having a history of being a sorry franchise makes your purchases so much more expensive.
I agree with this wholeheartly.
Time will tell on the willingness. The first years indicate one thing, the last few just the opposite. But it is a time of transition, so I'm willing to see how it comes out in the wash (hopefully not soiled)
It will be interesting to see how with new coaching whether he is the oddball piece that no longer fits or if the mix is changed in a manner that he can be a contributing part like he was and probably still is capable of. (not to change the mix for his sake but as a final result of whatever changes are made)
Oh really? That must be a misprint over at HoopsHype, then, because it looks like the Spurs paid out something like $63.9M, which is roughly $14M over the cap. Last season, Basketball-Reference indicates that they paid out $65.6M, which was nearly $22M over the cap, according to the salary cap figures posted at InsideHoops... The title before last, they were also nearly $14M over the cap... In 1999, they were a "mere" $10M over the cap.
If you're going to try and make a statement like this, you could at least *pretend* that you know what you're talking about...
If you're going to try and make a statement like this, you could at least *pretend* that you know what you're talking about...
I don't want to turn this political but even in the "real" business world businesses show huge paper losses while they are in actuality making record profits so they can avoid paying their fair share of taxes. So I'm curious when sports teams claim they are losing money - and pretty much every team makes that claim at some point or another, especially when they are trying to get a new arena - how many of them really are?
- Status