Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: SABR/Sports Econ update/luxury tax

Expand Messages
  • harlanzo
    ... the ... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/marty_burns/news/2001/07 / ... The article did not come up for me when I clicked on it but I do recall
    Message 1 of 52 , Aug 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "doc319" <doc319@y...> wrote:
      > Here is a link to a story from a couple years ago that alludes to
      > well known fact that the Lakers' personnel moves in recent seasons
      > (including not getting Pippen)have been greatly influenced by the
      > luxury tax:
      > 30/burns_insider/

      The article did not come up for me when I clicked on it but I do
      recall the same. Basically, the whole finance issue kicked in after
      the Lakers gave Kobe a huge contract. Buss did not want to pay
      another guy. As a result, they traded impending free agent Eddie
      Jones for Glen Rice (and they dumped Elden Campbell's contract in
      the process). They then refused to re-sign Rice (not a bad move
      based on talent but the word was that they weren't going to pay him
      regardless. The finances were also rumored to be the reason that
      West could not acquire Mitch Richmond back in 1999.

      I don't really remember much talk of the Pippen and the lakers, but
      his contract was thought to be unmovable to anybody in the league
      after that first horrendous year in Houston (both on and off the
      court). Only the Blazers (or Knicks) would absorb that kind of cap
      hit for an older declining player. Can't really blame the lakers
      for that.

      The Devean George move was bad. I think it was compounded by the
      fact that there were few bidders for his service and they could have
      kept as a restricted free agent with a one-year qualifier if they
      had wanted but they chose to give that right up (before the 2001-02
      season) and then they changed their minds after a few good playoff
    • igor eduardo küpfer
      ... From: Gary Collard To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] SABR/Sports Econ update ... That
      Message 52 of 52 , Aug 8, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:13 PM
        Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] SABR/Sports Econ update

        Jim Armstrong wrote:
        > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:00:38PM -0500, Gary Collard wrote:
        > > I'm not sure why that was so controversial.  The concept of market size in
        > > the NFL is pretty much meaningless, since most league revenue is shared
        > > equally.  The reason that a Yankees in baseball have such an advantage is
        > > that they have local TV revenues that are an order of magnitude or more
        > > greater than most (all?) of the other teams and is significant compared to
        > > national revenue, thus they can afford to have a payroll that is 60%
        > > greater than any other team even before they pay the luxury tax as they do
        > > in 2003.  In the NFL, there is no local TV at all, and (over a period of
        > > years, letting spikes in bonus payments wash out) little payroll deviation,
        > Actually, if you look at the distribution of team player payrolls, the NFL
        > and the NBA are quite comparable (see standard deviation in data below).

        That is why I specifically said "over a period of years, letting spikes in
        bonus payments wash out" in the case of the NFL.  The one year payroll
        numbers you listed are meaningless to my point, do you have the data to run
        them for the last 5 years or more?  That will tell you who has the "harder"

        Gary Collard
        Maybe the coefficient of variation (SD / Mean * 100) is a more apt measure for comparing the variation of payrolls for different sports across seasons.
        Year     NHL     NFL     NBA     MLB
        1994    28.3     8.7    15.2    26.6
        1995    26.6    12.7    24.1    27.7
        1996    43.3    11.9    21.9    31.4
        1997    #N/A    15.3    28.9    33.0
        1998    #N/A    12.1    27.0    37.4
        1999    33.4    12.0    23.0    43.1
        2000    37.4    13.8    23.6    38.3
        2001    31.1    13.5    24.6    38.3
        2002    33.0    18.1    20.6    36.6
        2003    35.9    #N/A    24.0    38.9
        On this measure, NBA teams show less variation in payroll than baseball and hockey teams, but the NFL teams are more level than any of them.

        Data from Rodney Fort's excellent resource: http://users.pullman.com/rodfort/SportsBusiness/BizFrame.htm
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.