Roses Aren't Green for Bulls

At least in the first season.
It's been a decade since the Chicago Bulls won a championship and tonight, for the second time in the post-Jordan years, they got first dibs on the best N.B.A.-ready player available.
Although there wasn't much mystery about who they'd pick -- hometown favorite Derrick Rose of the March Madness runner-up Memphis Tigers -- the great unknown is still left unanswered: How much should we expect Rose to contribute to the Bulls' bottom-line, both in terms of wins and dollars?
Since 1970, the team with the #1 pick has gone on to win an average of extra 10 games the following season. And if Rose stays with the Bulls, that win total should only improve. The following chart shows how the typical team faired after drafting first.
David Berri, an economist at Southern Utah University, has estimated that an extra win is worth roughly $270,000 in gate revenues. So if Rose is similar to the regular #1 draftee, then the Bulls should expect about $2.7 million in extra revenue at the United Center next year, right?
The only problem is that the Bulls are already selling out their home arena, so that figure is likely to be A LOT smaller.
(The Bulls also own 20 percent of Comcast SportsNet Chicago, and while Rose's addition is likely to increase ratings, it's harder to convert this into a dollar value, so I'll punt that for now. Berri says there are a few players who do impact T.V. ratings, but it's still an open question as to whether Rose will be one of them.)
Forbes estimates that the Bulls are one of the most valuable, and profitable, teams in the N.B.A. But that won't last with more seasons like this past 32-win campaign. Luckily for the Bulls, history tells us that the odds are the team will bounce back into winning territory with Rose.
And if Rose does help the Bulls win at least extra 10 games, that would give them 43 -- enough to nab a playoff spot and earn the franchise a minimum of $2 to $3 million. That result will likely be enough to offset the number one picks $4 million starting salary.
(Credit: Todd Spoth/Icon SMI)
- Should the Fed Go Long?
- Dec 1 2008 4:38PM EST
- Bernanke's Speech
- Dec 1 2008 2:58PM EST
- Even Nobel Economists Can Be Intellectually Dishonest
- Nov 30 2008 9:36AM EST
- A 5-Point Plan for Getting Out of This
- Nov 28 2008 1:24PM EST
- Do Markets Filter Irrationality?
- Nov 26 2008 11:25PM EST
- Are Percentages Really That Hard?
- Nov 26 2008 10:07PM EST
- Chart of the Day
- Nov 25 2008 3:27PM EST
- Highlights of the Citi Bailout
- Nov 24 2008 12:29AM EST
- 24 Hours in the Stock Markets
- Nov 23 2008 6:44PM EST
- Bloomberg Not Shy About Buts
- Nov 22 2008 12:55AM EST
- FDIC Not Insuring Fed Funds
- Nov 21 2008 10:30PM EST
- Counterparty Risk and Potential Losses from OTC Derivatives
- Nov 20 2008 4:27PM EST
- Dining Democracy
- Nov 19 2008 6:44AM EST
- Recession Dating
- Nov 17 2008 11:21AM EST
- The Best and Worst Restaurants in Manhattan
- Nov 17 2008 7:45AM EST
Categories
Links
- Email me

- Geary Behaviour Centre

- NBER Working Papers

- Social Science Statistics Blog

- Decision Science News

- Freakonomics

- New York Federal Reserve Research

- Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

- Marginal Revolution

- EconTalk

- MoneyScience

- VoxEU

- Journal of Interest

- Bluematter

- Economist's View

- Research Recap

- Social Science Research Network

- Institute for the Study of Labor

- EconPapers

- Real Time Economics

- Center for Economic Policy Research

- B.I.S. Working Papers

- C.B.O. Director's Blog

- Federal Reserve Working Papers

- Institute for the Study of Labor

- O.E.C.D. Factblog

- Philadelphia Fed Research

- St. Louis Fed Research

- Sabernomics

- Sabermetric Research

- Economic Principals

- Numbers Guy

- Econbrowser

- STATS Blog

- Jeff Frankel

- Junk Charts

- Predictably/Irrational

- Tim Harford

- TierneyLab

- Curious Capitalist

- DataPoints: The Dismal Scientist Blog










