Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

Milwaukee Bucks Thread 2009–2010 (part 1)


milwaukeesportsfan
  • Replies 699
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Brewer Fanatic Contributor
If the RealGM boards were a real GM, they would be Sal Bando.
That is hilarious. I think I found my new signature.
"Dustin Pedroia doesn't have the strength or bat speed to hit major-league pitching consistently, and he has no power......He probably has a future as a backup infielder if he can stop rolling over to third base and shortstop." Keith Law, 2006
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article on the Bucks' financials here:

 

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/business/78958297.html

 

Forbes magazine, which annually examines the value of teams in the various professional leagues, has released its analysis of National Basketball Association teams.

 

The Milwaukee Bucks, according to Forbes, is the least-valued team in the 30-team NBA.

 

The magazine reports that the team is worth $254 million, $353 million less than the Los Angeles Lakers, the most valued team at $607 million.

 

Moreover, the magazine reports that the team's has dropped 9% in value from last season, and lost $7.4 million last year.

 

The franchise genereated an estimated $91 million in revenue, a whopping $118 million less than the Lakers and second only to the Memphis Grizzlies. NBA teams produced on average a total of $126 million in revenue,

The Paul Molitor Statue at Miller Park: http://www.facebook.com/paulmolitorstatue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Kohl says they lose money every year, but I would be interested in knowing what that figure is. They must have far less overhead than a team like the Lakers so what is the real margin on that revenue?

 

Edit: The Forbes article does have operating income so you could figure out a rough GM% based on that revenue basis (8%) but Kohl disputes any of the actual numbers and there is alot of expense below the line I'm sure. How accurate is that market value determination by Forbes anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Kohl says they lose money every year, but I would be interested in knowing what that figure is. They must have far less overhead than a team like the Lakers so what is the real margin on that revenue?

 

Edit: The Forbes article does have operating income so you could figure out a rough GM% based on that revenue basis (8%) but Kohl disputes any of the actual numbers and there is alot of expense below the line I'm sure. How accurate is that market value determination by Forbes anyway?

 

Forbes' valuation move around way too much year to year to be believable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could, but you have to have a viable place to end up if you leave Milwaukee. Not sure where that would be right now.

 

Louisville and Kansas City are two names that pop into my head right away. Both have new arenas either built or opening soon as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no offense but last year's team value is a bit different than this year's team value. Maybe I'm simply overthinking this but the contracts of Ersan and Brandon Jennings should definitely enliven the state-wide basketball itch (if it hasn't already). And while I could see Milwaukee Bucks basketball being sold, I don't see how they could seriously move one of the more storied franchises in basketball. That would be like moving the Minnesota Lakers. Not happening...unless Mike Jordan gets involved again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no offense but last year's team value is a bit different than this year's team value. Maybe I'm simply overthinking this but the contracts of Ersan and Brandon Jennings should definitely enliven the state-wide basketball itch (if it hasn't already). And while I could see Milwaukee Bucks basketball being sold, I don't see how they could seriously move one of the more storied franchises in basketball. That would be like moving the Minnesota Lakers. Not happening...unless Mike Jordan gets involved again.
The Bucks have had one good season in the last 20. The history was in the 70s and 80s.

 

Heck, look at the Sonics. They have the same number of titles as the Bucks, they had six straight years of at least 55 wins from 91-92 to 97-98 which is far better than anything the Bucks have done and they still moved after Clay Bennett bought the team, said Key Arena wasn't a viable NBA arena and moved them to his hometown which just so happened to have a brand new arena for them to move into.

 

Bottom line is if Kohl sells the team and the Bucks don't have a new arena, the Bucks will be moved at some point, most likely within a few years of the team being bought. The Bradley Center just isn't a viable NBA arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i guess i view the Bucks a lot like the Brewers in the late County Stadium years. the Kohl Center alone isn't enough to draw people to a game, and the team has been so bad for so long that a lot of potential and former basketball fans are still in hibernation, waiting for an exciting and playoff-caliber team to show up before they return. heck, me just posting on this forum is an example of that. seems like half the hype that Jennings is getting isn't so much for him specifically, but that maybe he might make this an interesting team to watch again.

 

i think the same "but where would they move?" sentiment was made when the Expos were looking for a new city. if the NBA needed a new location, they'd find one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main thing with the Bucks is, there's no TV market argument, Milwaukee isn't enough larger than Louisville or KC to justify an old, outdated arena. If the Sonics could move to OKC, the Bucks could easily go to KC, Louisville, Vegas, or a half-dozen other cities. Heck, if not for Herb Kohl (or someone just like him), they'd probably beat SEA out the door.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure they could find a new location, but whats the point? I don't understand the fascination with moving teams from one crappy market to another. Just contract a few (or better yet, create a second division with pro/rel) and be done with it. Why would anybody think that the Kansas City Bucks would be a success? When a franchise considers Sacramento to be a more viable market than your own, you should lose all sports privileges for at least 100 years.

 

Seriously, Sacramento...damn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it would be a shame for Milwaukee to lose pro basketball. I think it would be one of those things where after the team leaves, people would realize they miss it more than they thought. And I would guess after the Bucks leave, the chances of ever getting an NBA team again would be slim to none.

 

Hopefully the people of Milwaukee will somehow get a new arena built in the next few years. They should realize it's good for the city overall to have pro basketball.

The Paul Molitor Statue at Miller Park: http://www.facebook.com/paulmolitorstatue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Louisville and Kansas City and Louisville might have the same problems with pro basketball that Jacksonville has with football.

 

The Bucks, IIRC, had the third best record in the 1980s, it's just that they couldn't get past the Celtics.

 

As a Milwaukee resident, I don't understand why some people (Journal letter writers) seem to actively want the Bucks to leave. While it might not be possible to go to a professional basketball game that often, it's nice to have the option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Brewer Fanatic Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Brewers community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of Brewer Fanatic.

×
×
  • Create New...