CalgaryRapsFan wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Who makes up MLSE?
Collapse
X
-
psrs1 wrote: View PostDo you think Mark Cuban worries about winning to make a profit?
Comment
-
Bonus Jonas wrote: View PostBut you can have a bad team and still make a lot money a la Leafs.
I agree the OTP was just happy to make sure their investment was stable. I think Bell/Rogers realize that a successful team is a much bigger deal than a mediocre one, from the business side as well as from the fan perspective. Having Rogers involved in broadcasting helps a lot - viewership goes way up when the team is good.
MLSE has already started spending more money under Bell/Rogers. If anything screws this ownership group it won't be OTP-style disinterest and stinginess, it'll be two corporate competitors failing to work together and having their separate business interests spill over into boardroom politics/dysfunction."We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard
Comment
-
CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View PostVery much so. He is willing to spend big bucks to win, but when all the spending goes for naught, he holds people accountable and cleans house. He knows very well that the best way for him to make money is by winning. He certainly didn't buy his team to be a profit making machine; he's young, rich beyond belief and a huge basketball fan. He puts winning first and isn't afraid to lose money to do so, but I guarantee you that he's not a happy camper if he's losing both money and games.
Comment
-
psrs1 wrote: View PostI see it differently. His primary motivation is to win with making money secondarily. The reverse is true of MLSE. As evidence I point to this offseason knowingly overpaying Chandler Parsons. Do you really believe the primary motivation of all they do at MLSE is to win? Of course not....when you have one owner it is potentially a lot better situation re developing a consistent winning team ---nobody wants to lose money but what primarily motivated ownership is key to understanding why certain moves are made and why a SUSTAINED CULTURE of winning or losing can continue. Look at MLSE vs Mike Ilich.
I never said that owners didn't place a high priority on the financial well-being of their investment. I just argued with your presumption that profitability and winning are mutually exclusive, where an owner picks to be concerned about one or the other.
Comment
-
psrs1 wrote: View PostI see it differently. His primary motivation is to win with making money secondarily. The reverse is true of MLSE. As evidence I point to this offseason knowingly overpaying Chandler Parsons. Do you really believe the primary motivation of all they do at MLSE is to win? Of course not....when you have one owner it is potentially a lot better situation re developing a consistent winning team ---nobody wants to lose money but what primarily motivated ownership is key to understanding why certain moves are made and why a SUSTAINED CULTURE of winning or losing can continue. Look at MLSE vs Mike Ilich.
Also, in spite of his billions, he decided to let Tyson Chandler walk immediately after he anchored a championship team rather than pay the guy his next contract. Three years later and Cuban brings him back via trade.
All that aside, it's pretty goofy to say Bell/Rogers won't spend on players because they're more worried about the bottom line than championships. So far all they've done is spend $$$ at basically every opportunity that's come up for each of their teams. I think you're transferring opinions about OTP to Bell/Rogers and mistakenly categorizing them all as "MLSE." Two completely different owners."We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard
Comment
-
CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View PostIlich knows that winning in a sports-crazed town is what makes him his money. He also knows that Detroit fans are fickle; if the teams are losing, the fans stay home. Savvy owners understand that winning and profitability go hand-in-hand, and none of them would stand for spending money that doesn't result in winning.
I never said that owners didn't place a high priority on the financial well-being of their investment. I just argued with your presumption that profitability and winning are mutually exclusive, where an owner picks to be concerned about one or the other.
Comment
-
S.R. wrote: View PostMark Cuban is a great owner who swings for the fences with almost every big name FA, but part of the reason he overpaid Parsons is that everybody else turns him down. He's had a lot of trouble drawing players to Dallas.
Also, in spite of his billions, he decided to let Tyson Chandler walk immediately after he anchored a championship team rather than pay the guy his next contract. Three years later and Cuban brings him back via trade.
All that aside, it's pretty goofy to say Bell/Rogers won't spend on players because they're more worried about the bottom line than championships. So far all they've done is spend $$$ at basically every opportunity that's come up for each of their teams. I think you're transferring opinions about OTP to Bell/Rogers and mistakenly categorizing them all as "MLSE." Two completely different owners.
Comment
-
psrs1 wrote: View PostMy point is what motivates owners and people. You seem to focus a lot on money and profits in your analysis.
I (and others) have been trying to explain that the two things aren't mutually exclusive and that, more often than not, winning is in fact the most effective way to maximize your profitability.
Comment
-
CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View PostYou started out by implying that there are two types of owners: those who only care about profitability and those who only care about winning.
I (and others) have been trying to explain that the two things aren't mutually exclusive and that, more often than not, winning is in fact the most effective way to maximize your profitability.
Comment
Comment