Can you buy a championship?

[Stifle Tower]

Found this table pretty interesting. Over the last 12 years, the NBA champion has been a luxury tax payer 9 times: 75%.

New York and New Jersey haven't gotten any bang for their bucks. And Dallas had to pay a hefty price for their 1 championship.

It is interesting to note, however, that the last two NBA champions have not been over the luxury tax threshold.

 

[infection]

Having a championship team will often times require ponying up money, making it more of a necessary criteria but certainly not a sufficient one.

So, no, I don't believe you can "buy" a championship in general terms.

 

[franklin]

Most championship pushing money teams don't push for championships. I'm sure the CBA has worked this stuff out, but come on if we are talking Brooklyn and Portland in the early days as buying cups?

LA and NY could definitely buy cups if they planned in advance. The problem is they don't plan in advance and sell assets way too often. New York is utter **** and I hope LA goes the same route just to prove this point. And when they prove it, they laugh all the way to the bank making hundreds of millions per year laughing at Utah making maybe ten if they are lucky.

 

[franklin]

^And by that, yes LA can absolutely buy a championship if they manage their assets right.

 

[♪alt13]

When you loook teas that paid in the millions instead of just luxury tax periojd it's 50/50. The teams that paid the tax were mostlyby that time makking big bucks with established team. making it less of an issue. yes you cn by a chip but only after you;ve built you'r squad.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

Under the old CBA, yes. Now? Nope.

 

[Miggs]

When you loook teas that paid in the millions instead of just luxury tax periojd it's 50/50. The teams that paid the tax were mostlyby that time makking big bucks with established team. making it less of an issue. yes you cn by a chip but only after you;ve built you'r squad.

You okay? I wanted to make sure you didn't have a stroke or something.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

You okay? I wanted to make sure you didn't have a stroke or something..

Lol. Unfortunately a larger and larger percentage of posts arund hear fal ito dis katurgoree'.4$%

 

[Stifle Tower]

When you loook teas that paid in the millions instead of just luxury tax periojd it's 50/50. The teams that paid the tax were mostlyby that time makking big bucks with established team. making it less of an issue. yes you cn by a chip but only after you;ve built you'r squad.

Under the old CBA, yes. Now? Nope.

Both very good observations. You have to build the team and then will likely be paying the tax to keep that team together, whether you've built it through adding FA's or by internal growth - or most likely, a combination of both. That was the case with LA, Miami, Dallas, etc. SA, up until the LMA acquisition, has mainly had a home-grown team and just added supporting players each season.

And yes, I do agree the new CBA, with the punitive penalties for repeat offenders, makes it difficult for teams to stay above the threshold year after year.

 

[VINYLONE]

Having a championship team will often times require ponying up money, making it more of a necessary criteria but certainly not a sufficient one.

So, no, I don't believe you can "buy" a championship in general terms.

Good post.

I think spending money helps but I'd say chemistry and luck are bigger factors in a franchise winning the C.

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

Miami bought how many championship?

 

[karl malone]

I guess it depends on what you consider

 

[silesian]

6 championships by teams spending less than 1 million in luxury tax
6 championship by teams spending more than 1 million in luxury tax

Clearly no statistically significant correlation.

 

[silesian]

10 years ago, who woulduld have guessed that small market nba teams would benefit with an influx of ~125 million of corrupt Russian oil money.

 

[Stifle Tower]

6 championships by teams spending less than 1 million in luxury tax
6 championship by teams spending more than 1 million in luxury tax

Clearly no statistically significant correlation.

Arbitrary cut-off.
From 2003-20013, 9 championships by teams paying the tax; 1 by teams not paying tax. Clearly a correlation.
Last two seasons: champions did not pay luxury tax. A new era caused by the change in the CBA.

 

[silesian]

Arbitrary cut-off.
From 2003-20013, 9 championships by teams paying the tax; 1 by teams not paying tax. Clearly a correlation.
Last two seasons: champions did not pay luxury tax. A new era caused by the change in the CBA.

Your arbitrary cutoff is at zero luxury tax, the teams who are paying under a million in luxury tax are clearly not in the Dallas/ NJ/LA/ Miami camp of buying a championship. I'm sure you must see this difference.

I'm sure you do not believe that the Spurs "bought" two championships when they were under 200,000 over the luxury limit?

 

[silesian]

Arbitrary cut-off.
From 2003-2013, 9 championships by teams paying the tax; 1 by teams not paying tax.

In the nine years you reference:
First 4 champions (2003-2007)paid a total of ~1.2 Million in luxury tax (~0.3 million per championship)
The next 5 champions (2008-2013) paid a total of ~74 million in luxury tax (~15 million per championship)

There is a huge difference between spending a little bit extra to get an edge to win a title and binge spending to win a title. By setting the cutoff arbitrarily at zero, the analysis misses this nuance.