The implications behind the concept of a "checkbook win" and the ethics of siding with billionaires who will or won't spend more money to improve their team's title chances.
Liked the piece. Here's where I disagree - I don't think Windhorst is moralizing ownership spending like you imply in this piece. He's simply pointing out the fact that there are key elements of this team that are reliant on having an owner willing to really spend - something not every team has, obviously.
I agree with both you and Windhorst - I agree with Windy in that ownership spending is key to this Warriors run. Like you said, the Wiggins deal is the operative piece of this puzzle, but that deal obviously does not happen (can't even be considered!) without the foreknowledge that Lacob may be willing to pay luxury (and repeater) taxes. Additionally, Wiggins has been a key piece throughout these playoffs and arguably their second most valuable player in the finals. The Suns were the best team in the West this year, but their margin for error was much lower than the Warriors, fundamentally because their owner is Bob Sarver and not Joe Lacob.
I also agree with you in that we should not respond to this information by celebrating cheap ownership. Instead, I believe fans of non-spending NBA teams should simply be constantly angry their owners aren't willing to spend like Lacob, Tsai, Ballmer, etc. There should simply be an expectation that the owner of your preferred team use their fundamentally disposable income to invest in the team's success like some of their peers in California and New York.
This team is in the luxury tax for the 4th time in 5 years. Is there any point at which their willingness to just ignore the cap gets the other owners to act? I understand Lacob likes to spend and Bob Myers is good at his job, but so what? You either abide by the guidelines or they should be eliminated.
Let us turn to the streets to break down Hooponomics. Despite Ja Rule's imploring, Money IS a thang (but also: money don't rebound - Dennis Rodman? Larry Smith?).
Players contracts seem outrageous, but remember two things: they are in the 50% tax bracket; and B) the NBA has a river of money running thru it - licensing, ticket sales, naming rights and all that tv money. Players do get 54% of 'income' but there are a few streams that are not included. In the real world 54% labor gets managers fired and factories shipped overseas. As far as what players are worth, owners are still getting more than market value on the rookies, undrafted free agents and non-superstar veterans. The paychecks are still mind boggling to the average fan, as well as WNBA players. NBA superstars on max contracts are getting around $44million a year. The WNBA max - on a hard cap - is around $260, 000. The Beard will make $7million more in one year by himself than if all the WNBA players for all twelve teams got the WNBA max. The numbers can be jiggled a little, some teams carry only 11 players, and the difference in the number of games is significant. The NBA has 75 years of equity built up, while the WNBA is only 25 years old.
Don't cry for the owners' pockets. Year long injuries are sometimes covered by insurance. Small markets and teams under the cap get a nice rebate from the luxury tax. And the money from 'sportsbetting' (aka bookmaking for those who remember how Connie Hawkins was mistreated) is gonna pay for some nice Hamptons real estate.
I've got no love for the Warriors, but you really broke down how ignorant Windhorst's take on the organization truly is. You're 100% correct, Tom: Any team that had drafted so well would be foolish to do things differently than Golden State has. You draft three guys who are Hall of Fame locks, and yeah, they're going to want to be fairly compensated. If there's a better basketball problem to have, I'm unable to think of it.
You're familiar with some of my takes through The Site That Shall Not Be Named, and I've said for a long time, if your NBA franchise is your main source of income, you aren't wealthy enough to own one.
And a big thank you for the link to Stein's piece, what an amazing essay about his family and their experiences during the Holocaust. The ability to tell stories like this is what separates writers from sportswriters, and they are a crucial reality check for those who are primarily interested in hot takes and faux outrage.
Great column. One other thing you didn’t mention is that the spending is good business. The Warriors franchise is worth at least 10x what Lacob paid for it, partially because he reinvests in the team.
It’s worth pointing out that Lacob made his money as a VC - aka investing in potential and growth. One thing VCs do very well is continue to invest in their companies along the way. That’s their entire mindset. “How do I keep Investing to grow faster?” That’s why he’s carrying Moody, Wiseman, Kuminga and even picked up Poole’s option before he was good. He’s investing for the future.
Contrast that with owners who inherited their team from their family or want to milk it for cash flow.
Thank you for this, Tom. I thought Windhorst was really out of line here. You could maybe talk about the Nets or other super teams notching "checkbook wins," but not a thoughtfully constructed roster with this longstanding core. (I have a Windhorst allergy in general, frankly. I'm not sure why he's so respected. Perhaps his reporting is more valuable than his punditry.)
Absolutely love this take. Windhorst’s argument at the time felt wrong to me, you articulated exactly why. It’s a salary cap league; every team has the choice to go for a “check book” win.
I agree with your takes, and want to add a reaction to this, coming from a Wolves fan:
"Andrew Wiggins, he’s not an underdog. He makes $32 million."
Windhorst says this as though teams were fighting to be the one to give Wiggins $32 million, and it was just the rich Warriors who won out. That contract was way, way over Wiggins' value, and that's why he's an "underdog," and that's the only reason he was available in that trade. He had reached albatross status in Minnesota. To act like Wiggins' play in these finals isn't surprising, or that he has ever been considered a legit $32-million caliber player is silly.
FYI - Fields is the GM, he was already an AGM
Liked the piece. Here's where I disagree - I don't think Windhorst is moralizing ownership spending like you imply in this piece. He's simply pointing out the fact that there are key elements of this team that are reliant on having an owner willing to really spend - something not every team has, obviously.
I agree with both you and Windhorst - I agree with Windy in that ownership spending is key to this Warriors run. Like you said, the Wiggins deal is the operative piece of this puzzle, but that deal obviously does not happen (can't even be considered!) without the foreknowledge that Lacob may be willing to pay luxury (and repeater) taxes. Additionally, Wiggins has been a key piece throughout these playoffs and arguably their second most valuable player in the finals. The Suns were the best team in the West this year, but their margin for error was much lower than the Warriors, fundamentally because their owner is Bob Sarver and not Joe Lacob.
I also agree with you in that we should not respond to this information by celebrating cheap ownership. Instead, I believe fans of non-spending NBA teams should simply be constantly angry their owners aren't willing to spend like Lacob, Tsai, Ballmer, etc. There should simply be an expectation that the owner of your preferred team use their fundamentally disposable income to invest in the team's success like some of their peers in California and New York.
This team is in the luxury tax for the 4th time in 5 years. Is there any point at which their willingness to just ignore the cap gets the other owners to act? I understand Lacob likes to spend and Bob Myers is good at his job, but so what? You either abide by the guidelines or they should be eliminated.
Let us turn to the streets to break down Hooponomics. Despite Ja Rule's imploring, Money IS a thang (but also: money don't rebound - Dennis Rodman? Larry Smith?).
Players contracts seem outrageous, but remember two things: they are in the 50% tax bracket; and B) the NBA has a river of money running thru it - licensing, ticket sales, naming rights and all that tv money. Players do get 54% of 'income' but there are a few streams that are not included. In the real world 54% labor gets managers fired and factories shipped overseas. As far as what players are worth, owners are still getting more than market value on the rookies, undrafted free agents and non-superstar veterans. The paychecks are still mind boggling to the average fan, as well as WNBA players. NBA superstars on max contracts are getting around $44million a year. The WNBA max - on a hard cap - is around $260, 000. The Beard will make $7million more in one year by himself than if all the WNBA players for all twelve teams got the WNBA max. The numbers can be jiggled a little, some teams carry only 11 players, and the difference in the number of games is significant. The NBA has 75 years of equity built up, while the WNBA is only 25 years old.
Don't cry for the owners' pockets. Year long injuries are sometimes covered by insurance. Small markets and teams under the cap get a nice rebate from the luxury tax. And the money from 'sportsbetting' (aka bookmaking for those who remember how Connie Hawkins was mistreated) is gonna pay for some nice Hamptons real estate.
I've got no love for the Warriors, but you really broke down how ignorant Windhorst's take on the organization truly is. You're 100% correct, Tom: Any team that had drafted so well would be foolish to do things differently than Golden State has. You draft three guys who are Hall of Fame locks, and yeah, they're going to want to be fairly compensated. If there's a better basketball problem to have, I'm unable to think of it.
You're familiar with some of my takes through The Site That Shall Not Be Named, and I've said for a long time, if your NBA franchise is your main source of income, you aren't wealthy enough to own one.
And a big thank you for the link to Stein's piece, what an amazing essay about his family and their experiences during the Holocaust. The ability to tell stories like this is what separates writers from sportswriters, and they are a crucial reality check for those who are primarily interested in hot takes and faux outrage.
Stay the course, Z, you're killing it.
Great column. One other thing you didn’t mention is that the spending is good business. The Warriors franchise is worth at least 10x what Lacob paid for it, partially because he reinvests in the team.
It’s worth pointing out that Lacob made his money as a VC - aka investing in potential and growth. One thing VCs do very well is continue to invest in their companies along the way. That’s their entire mindset. “How do I keep Investing to grow faster?” That’s why he’s carrying Moody, Wiseman, Kuminga and even picked up Poole’s option before he was good. He’s investing for the future.
Contrast that with owners who inherited their team from their family or want to milk it for cash flow.
Thank you for this, Tom. I thought Windhorst was really out of line here. You could maybe talk about the Nets or other super teams notching "checkbook wins," but not a thoughtfully constructed roster with this longstanding core. (I have a Windhorst allergy in general, frankly. I'm not sure why he's so respected. Perhaps his reporting is more valuable than his punditry.)
All these so called “analysts” for ESPN are either heavily biased or just like to say outlandish things to get clicks.
Absolutely love this take. Windhorst’s argument at the time felt wrong to me, you articulated exactly why. It’s a salary cap league; every team has the choice to go for a “check book” win.
I agree with your takes, and want to add a reaction to this, coming from a Wolves fan:
"Andrew Wiggins, he’s not an underdog. He makes $32 million."
Windhorst says this as though teams were fighting to be the one to give Wiggins $32 million, and it was just the rich Warriors who won out. That contract was way, way over Wiggins' value, and that's why he's an "underdog," and that's the only reason he was available in that trade. He had reached albatross status in Minnesota. To act like Wiggins' play in these finals isn't surprising, or that he has ever been considered a legit $32-million caliber player is silly.