re: What leverage does Gayle have ?

I don't think there is any way we would extend and keep Ingram long term. I really don't think we should trade him either, unless it's for another expiring (plus draft picks).

We need to address the cap long term and put our house in order. Given our situation, we should be well under the tax line so that we can get our share of the tax distribution. That could be serious money this year

Also, can we talk about how Griffin wasted over 40M this year chasing a playoff birth? Our payroll in over 170M. We only had to spend about 130M, per league rules. Why spend more than that? Especially for 'stars' that aren't playing and don't sell tickets anyway. This is a flawed model..

Why do you care about Gayle’s money ?

This team will be under the luxury tax guaranteed. It literally always is .

Her new husband at the time bought this team for Penny on the dollar and now she is sitting on $2B due to no effort of her own and 0 on court success .

May be a moot point now that Ingram is out again but getting nothing in return for players that you are losing is the quick way to stay a bad team.

quote:

---

Why do you care about Gayle’s money ?

---

I care about the team being financially viable and successful. I don't get pleasure out of watching a team spend recklessly and irresponsibly. It's a huge measure of what I consider a good management team has for a goal.

quote:

---

This team will be under the luxury tax guaranteed. It literally always is .

---

It's not currently and they talked about us being a buyer. I do not agree with that strategy and was voicing my concern.

quote:

---

Her new husband at the time bought this team for Penny on the dollar and now she is sitting on $2B due to no effort of her own and 0 on court success .

---

Sweet. She only realizes that if she sells the team. She can't access the value any other way, other than selling off shares or borrowing against it. That doesn't seem necessary. Especially if you are getting a sub .500 team out of it.

quote:

---

May be a moot point now that Ingram is out again but getting nothing in return for players that you are losing is the quick way to stay a bad team.

---

I don't think it's that simple. There are many ways to grow and build a roster. Keeping the max amount of salaries is not the best, IMO. Taking in tons of picks isn't it either. Young players need opportunities to grow and play. Loading up to the point they don't get run ruins a lot of players. We need to be tactical and strategic. It's a fluid situation, so we'll see how they approach it going forward. But I do not care for the current direction..

quote:

---

Do you understand how the financials of the league work ? TV money , revenue sharing , etc ?

---

I am always willing to learn more. So I appreciate you sharing your knowledge.

I would be more apt to agree with you, if I believed that spending=winning or additional revenue. I do not believe that is the case. We are always going to be limited by our market. Teams like the Warriors, Lakers and Knicks generate more than triple the revenue that we do. They can massively outspend us. We shouldnt have the mentality to match them, that's not a good plan.

quote:

---

bet revenue will grow.

---

Winning will definitely help. But it's need to be about more than that. Saints fans supported a losing team for many years (still do mostly). But even so, we aren't winning now. So why defend this strategy or taking it to a higher level?

quote:

---

She is not hurting for money .

---

I don't count or spend other people's money. She shouldn't have to come out of pocket at this point. That's just bad business. If the people that run the team can't figure out how to win with what they have, she needs new people doing it..