Team salaries

[jcassio]

While reviewing the NBA Salary Report just published by SI.com, it wasn't the players' individual salaries that surprised me as much as the discrepancy between the team salaries. Doesn't look like the luxury tax is working the way it was supposed to.

1 New York Knicks $117,024,192
2 Dallas Mavericks $91,171,846
3 Los Angeles Lakers $77,109,822
4 Philadelphia 76ers $75,206,185
5 Portland Trail Blazers $74,608,595
6 Minnesota Timberwolves $67,479,003
7 New Jersey Nets $66,985,348
8 San Antonio Spurs $66,359,832
9 Denver Nuggets $66,168,524
10 Golden State Warriors $65,832,355
11 Phoenix Suns* $65,399,240
12 Memphis Grizzlies $64,451,991
13 Sacramento Kings $63,731,020
14 Miami Heat $63,450,821
15 Cleveland Cavaliers $62,992,729
16 Boston Celtics $62,622,805
17 Washington Wizards $62,607,522
18 Indiana Pacers $62,397,586
19 Houston Rockets $61,682,117
20 Utah Jazz $61,158,598
21 Orlando Magic $61,013,311
22 Milwaukee Bucks $60,498,470
23 Los Angeles Clippers $58,484,155
24 Detroit Pistons $58,349,927
25 Seattle SuperSonics $57,644,508
26 Chicago Bulls $54,754,904
27 New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets $53,185,473
28 Toronto Raptors $51,131,694
29 Atlanta Hawks $45,690,622
30 Charlotte Bobcats $38,032,540
-http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/basketball/nba/team.salaries/index.html

 

[Bricklayer]

Actually its really done its job -- almost too well. There was much more discrepancy before it came in. The Mavs and the Knicks are really the only two teams blatantly overspending anymore, and you have about 80% of the league all clumped now in the $57-$67 mil range just south of the tax limit. The few teams below that are just teams trying to build and angle through the free agency market.

 

[jcassio]

The Mavs and the Knicks are really the only two teams blatantly overspending anymore, and you have about 80% of the league all clumped now in the $57-$67 mil range just south of the tax limit.

You're right about the two blatant overspenders, and obviously (in the case of the Knicks) that isn't a secret to success. What concerns me, though, is that 18 out of 30 teams are spending below the average of $64.5 million. That's not a healthy spread.

And maybe you're right about this being much better than it used to be. But is that good enough?

 

[supamari0]

You're right about the two blatant overspenders, and obviously (in the case of the Knicks) that isn't a secret to success. What concerns me, though, is that 18 out of 30 teams are spending below the average of $64.5 million. That's not a healthy spread.

And maybe you're right about this being much better than it used to be. But is that good enough?

Well the Luxury tax is right around 65 million and most teams generally like a little room around there so it's not surprising that salaries are below the median.

 

[kennadog]

You're right about the two blatant overspenders, and obviously (in the case of the Knicks) that isn't a secret to success. What concerns me, though, is that 18 out of 30 teams are spending below the average of $64.5 million. That's not a healthy spread.

And maybe you're right about this being much better than it used to be. But is that good enough?

To me that is a skewed average, as it seems to include all 30 teams. There are 3 teams, I think, that make an average of all 30 teams not a good basis for comparison. If you take out the Knicks, Mavs and Bobcats (who started at a lower cap as an expansion team) then you'd have a more realistic "average" of what the other 27 teams are paying in salary. My quick math may be off, but if you average the other 27 teams it looks like the "average" is around $57.5 million.

The Mavs and Knicks just pull the average for all 30 teams way up.

 

[jcassio]

Well the Luxury tax is right around 65 million and most teams generally like a little room around there so it's not surprising that salaries are below the median.

That's a good point. And with the two big overspenders, that helps to explain why so many teams are just under the average and, of course, under the luxury tax threshold.

Still, don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but I'd like to see more equality as far as team payrolls go. You can always point out a team like the Knicks and say 'See, they've got the league's highest payroll and look at them.' - But, more often than not, a team that can afford to spend bigger bucks has an advantage. (See NY Yankees) That doesn't mean they know how to use that advantage, but let's not pretend that it's a level playing field.

 

[Warhawk]

That's a good point. And with the two big overspenders, that helps to explain why so many teams are just under the average and, of course, under the luxury tax threshold.

Still, don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but I'd like to see more equality as far as team payrolls go. You can always point out a team like the Knicks and say 'See, they've got the league's highest payroll and look at them.' - But, more often than not, a team that can afford to spend bigger bucks has an advantage. (See NY Yankees) That doesn't mean they know how to use that advantage, but let's not pretend that it's a level playing field.

I'm trying to figure out what your point or arguement is.

You have a couple owners who make enough money that they can light their cigars with thousand-dollar checks and one team with an abnormally low payroll. Everyone else is fairly well lumped together (see kennadog's response).

What exactly are you looking for here?

 

[SLAB]

Every time I see the Knicks salary and look at their record I get a good laugh...Check this one out.

7.5 mil for Mo Taylor, now with us (yay...)

7.5 mil for Shandon Anderson, now with no one.

14 mil over two years for Jerome Williams, who got Amnesty Clause'd, and is retired.

14 mil for Jalen, now with Phoenix.

That's more money invested in players either not with the team, or out of the league than the entire Bobcats roster.

 

[jcassio]

I'm trying to figure out what your point or arguement is.

My point is that I'd like to see more equality as far as team payrolls go.
Not equality, but more equality than we have now. Or, at least be heading in that direction.
Even if we drop the Knicks & Bobcats from the salary listing, the range is still from $45.7 million to $91.2 million (with the average team payroll being $63.6 million).
Question: Why should any team have an advantage on the court just because the owner has deep pockets or the team has a big TV market? Because that's the way it's always been and it can't be questioned?

 

[kennadog]

As I said, I'd take out the Mavs too. They skew the average too. Then the average drops to about $57.5. And only 5 teams are under that. So with the exception of the 3 teams at the true extremes, that's pretty equitable.

 

[jcassio]

As I said, I'd take out the Mavs too. They skew the average too. Then the average drops to about $57.5. And only 5 teams are under that. So with the exception of the 3 teams at the true extremes, that's pretty equitable.

OK, remove the Mavs and their $91.2 million payroll.
Now you've got an average team payroll of $62.6 million, with a range of $45.7 to $77.1 million.
If you think that's equitable, fine. I just don't see the equality there, unless our standard is 'the way it used to be'...

 

[Warhawk]

OK, but why is that so important to you?

The highest and lowest payroll teams are among the worst in the league. $$$ do not necessarily equal a better team.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Who cares? There is absolutely no correlation between spending and winning here. Not only are the highest and lowest teams among the worst in the league but just go down the list, pretty much the whole way a bad team is next to a good team.

If anything the system is broken because its worked too well, as Brick said.

 

[jcassio]

OK, but why is that so important to you?

I think a few of you who have commented see the mix of good and bad teams in the salary spread and conclude all is well with the system. Or at least nothing to be concerned about.
I'm just choosing to focus (for the moment) on the inherent unfairness of owners with deep pockets who can afford to spend a lot more than other teams. But I understand that if you see the variation of team salaries as largely irrelevant, then my point about fairness means nothing. And I can live with that.

 

[BigWaxer]

Ya give props to Portland, Knicks, 76ers, Twolves, GS and Griz for spending a lot of money and getting nothing in return... This is an example of bad GM's

Our team ranks about were it pays out. The above fans should be very upset.

 

[Warhawk]

I think a few of you who have commented see the mix of good and bad teams in the salary spread and conclude all is well with the system. Or at least nothing to be concerned about.
I'm just choosing to focus (for the moment) on the inherent unfairness of owners with deep pockets who can afford to spend a lot more than other teams. But I understand that if you see the variation of team salaries as largely irrelevant, then my point about fairness means nothing. And I can live with that.

Gotcha.

I think that like with everything in life, some will be richer and some poorer, but that doesn't necessarily make them any better. The Maloofs were one of those free-wheeling spenders a few years ago because we were "close" (man, were we.... ).

And I think they might be again if we get an arena deal sorted out.