Poll: Biggest fear of the new ownership group (5 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

What is your biggest fear of the new ownership group and how they run the team?

  • Them staying cheap and ruining the quality of the franchise (coaching staff hires etc)

    Votes: 15 31.3%
  • Changing everything immediately and over stepping

    Votes: 9 18.8%
  • Pissing off players by trying to run it like it's a mom and pop store

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Making everything the cheapest possible/always scrimping to save money

    Votes: 13 27.1%
  • Other/none (comment below)

    Votes: 10 20.8%

  • Total voters
    48
Without researching, it seems to me the teams that spend on all these 'superficial' things - the amenities, taking care of employees, players wives and kids (like during game areas for them/VIP type stuff), arena, salaries, fan appreciation....are usually the successful teams, not some "dumb/overspending" teams. Those teams usually get piss poor feedback from players around the league (Cleveland Browns, Oakland A's, etc). What team is "cheap" and also great?
 
Once again, here is proof that the NHL and NBA are apples and oranges. They're both fruit, but they taste completely different.

NBA's largest contract - Jayson Tatum $313,933,410 (AAV $62,786,682)
NHL's largest contract - Kirill Kaprizov $136,000,000 (AAV $17,000,000)

NBA's most expensive team - Golden State $234,222,725
NHL's most expensive team - Las Vegas $107,487,474

NBA league wide revenue 2025-26 - estimated $14.3 billion
NHL league wide revenue 2025-26 - estimated $6.8 billion

NBA average viewership - 1.78 million
NHL average viewership - 795,000

It's just not even close. They're not in the same universe. You can't run the same playbook in the NBA that you run in the NHL. The players expect more. The fans expect more. The media expects more. You're not in the minors anymore Tom.
Those actually seem pretty similar to me. NHL is certainly less but it's within a decade of NBA values. Think of it NHL today = NBA 2016

Ultimately I don't think the cost cutting will really matter one way or the other. The main thing will be if the team makes good long term strategic roster decisions. That was something severely lacking in the Jody/Kolde era. Even Paul wasn't great in that regard. But some NBA owners have been even worse. Tom does seem intense, strategic, and focused in his approach. Guess we'll have to see how that does or doesn't translate to actual roster decisions.
 
Without researching, it seems to me the teams that spend on all these 'superficial' things - the amenities, taking care of employees, players wives and kids (like during game areas for them/VIP type stuff), arena, salaries, fan appreciation....are usually the successful teams, not some "dumb/overspending" teams. Those teams usually get piss poor feedback from players around the league (Cleveland Browns, Oakland A's, etc). What team is "cheap" and also great?
Spurs, cheap and won a lot. Thunder have been very cheap too. Both franchises might have the best future in the NBA.

Heat were on the cheaper end.

Pacers have been probably the cheapest franchise in the NBA for decades and in game 7 of the finals last year.
 
Spurs, cheap and won a lot. Thunder have been very cheap too. Both franchises might have the best future in the NBA.

Heat were on the cheaper end.

Pacers have been probably the cheapest franchise in the NBA for decades and in game 7 of the finals last year.
Just to clarify, cheap/frugal non-basketball related. The Heat and Warriors always rank near top across player surveys they do each year.
 
I don't really care that much about t-shirts, but not allowing Love to travel with the team in the playoffs is the definition of bush-league. I hope he gets a lot of hate for that and changes his tune. Not impressed so far.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top