PDA

View Full Version : NBA Should Contract -- Lebron was Right



Anilyzer
01-16-2011, 09:47 AM
NBA should contract. They should dissolve New Orleans, LA Clippers, Toronto Raptors, Cleveland Cavaliers... that should do it.


This would probably alleviate about 15% of the luxury tax burden from the other teams, and improve the overall profitability of the league about 20%.

The Clippers are just some dude's investment, and Blake Griffin and all those awesome players don't generate anywhere near the revenue for the league they could if they were on real teams. And every year, one of the top 2 or 3 players will go there, and NOT go to a high profile team.

Raptors are done... Cavaliers LoL I keep seeing these signs the fans hold up about "not fair"... ok they're done. I forgot them already. New Orleans... the league owns them now, so just dissolve them already.

revenue is in the TV... expense is in the stadiums/owners/luxury tax etc etc

Apophis
01-16-2011, 09:59 AM
The league is trying to expand across seas... Why would Stern and the rest of the NBA big wigs want to contract? To get less money? That is not how the business world works.. sorry man.. Its not happening..

Yes your idea is brilliant. :rolleyes: Lets dissolve the Rapters who are in one of the biggest markets in North America. :facepalm:

kblo247
01-16-2011, 10:07 AM
The Clippers and Raptors, while bad both generate profits. They aren't hurting the league financially and fans do ans have attended their game for years. To say getting rid of teams that have brought in revenue to the league for years is just illogical as it would only hurt the NBA.

The Wolves, Hornets, Bobcats, and Grizzlies are the teams that you should point at.

DWT
01-16-2011, 10:12 AM
NBA should contract.

This would probably alleviate about 15% of the luxury tax burden from the other teams, and improve the overall profitability of the league about 20%.


I'm not sure you understand the luxury tax correctly? I'm unsure on how getting rid of some teams would take away a tax paid to the league on being over a predetermained salary threshold?

What contraction would do on salaries would actually be to increase the amount an average team is over the cap, increasing the luxury tax paid by that team. By removing teams you free up higher priced talent to be signed by other teams. Once these players get market value or current contract value, the team's payroll of the team they goto increases as they introduce a larger contract, and in theory eliminate a smaller one. Which in turn puts more of a burden of the cap hit, which increases the chance of being in a tax situation.

Also unsure on how it would improve the overall profits of the league by 20% and would like to hear the reasons why.

Byronicle
01-16-2011, 10:15 AM
umm Raptors have a great attendance and fan base, why would you get rid of the only international team? even when the team is crap people still watch and show up

LanceUpperCut
01-16-2011, 10:21 AM
NBA should contract. They should dissolve New Orleans, LA Clippers, Toronto Raptors, Cleveland Cavaliers... that should do it.


This would probably alleviate about 15% of the luxury tax burden from the other teams, and improve the overall profitability of the league about 20%.

The Clippers are just some dude's investment, and Blake Griffin and all those awesome players don't generate anywhere near the revenue for the league they could if they were on real teams. And every year, one of the top 2 or 3 players will go there, and NOT go to a high profile team.

Raptors are done... Cavaliers LoL I keep seeing these signs the fans hold up about "not fair"... ok they're done. I forgot them already. New Orleans... the league owns them now, so just dissolve them already.

revenue is in the TV... expense is in the stadiums/owners/luxury tax etc etc

Such a compelling argument. You must either just be really stupid (which is what my moneys on) or just ignorant either way :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

jsumadchat
01-16-2011, 11:00 AM
LOL, worst basis for an argument EVER.

CB29
01-16-2011, 11:09 AM
NBA should contract. They should dissolve New Orleans, LA Clippers, Toronto Raptors, Cleveland Cavaliers... that should do it.


This would probably alleviate about 15% of the luxury tax burden from the other teams, and improve the overall profitability of the league about 20%.

The Clippers are just some dude's investment, and Blake Griffin and all those awesome players don't generate anywhere near the revenue for the league they could if they were on real teams. And every year, one of the top 2 or 3 players will go there, and NOT go to a high profile team.

Raptors are done... Cavaliers LoL I keep seeing these signs the fans hold up about "not fair"... ok they're done. I forgot them already. New Orleans... the league owns them now, so just dissolve them already.

revenue is in the TV... expense is in the stadiums/owners/luxury tax etc etc

yeah you're such a smart dude man. Raptors are in the top 15 in attendence with a horrible team eliminate them. CHarlotte who's a play-off contender deserves to stay. Sacramento with tyreke evans and cousins deserve to stay even though they're struggling to get even 10,000 fans in those seats... So because teams like cleveland and toronto are passionate about their team and their best players left that means you should eliminate their teams. Smart logic dude. you should apply for a job under david stern and put this post in your resume.

bulldog312
01-16-2011, 11:13 AM
Wow, I think you choose some bad teams there. I think there are definitely teams that are hurting the league and don't appear to have a good chance of turning it around. I wouldn't mind seeing them contracted, but I think the more realistic idea is probably relocation.

Gram
01-16-2011, 11:17 AM
Raps and Clips won't contract.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
01-16-2011, 11:23 AM
are you high?:confused:

3neSoulja
01-16-2011, 11:24 AM
NBA should contract. They should dissolve New Orleans, LA Clippers, Toronto Raptors, Cleveland Cavaliers... that should do it.


This would probably alleviate about 15% of the luxury tax burden from the other teams, and improve the overall profitability of the league about 20%.

The Clippers are just some dude's investment, and Blake Griffin and all those awesome players don't generate anywhere near the revenue for the league they could if they were on real teams. And every year, one of the top 2 or 3 players will go there, and NOT go to a high profile team.

Raptors are done... Cavaliers LoL I keep seeing these signs the fans hold up about "not fair"... ok they're done. I forgot them already. New Orleans... the league owns them now, so just dissolve them already.

revenue is in the TV... expense is in the stadiums/owners/luxury tax etc etc


stick to drinking beer and watching NASCAR buddz. maybe just maybe will you eventually realize that the orange sphere you see on them t.vs is something called a basketball..not a pumpkin

effen5
01-16-2011, 11:25 AM
Pretty sure Lebron also said he didn't know what contract meant and tried to retract his statement.

BALLER R
01-16-2011, 11:26 AM
Raptors :O smh...the fact that the team is horrible right now but yet they are one of the better teams attendance wise they are a keeper. imagine if the team was good they would probably be top 5 in attendance

Geargo Wallace
01-16-2011, 11:33 AM
This troll needs to go back under his bridge. The Raptors are very profitable with their strong fan base. Do you work for ESPN or something?

Shmontaine
01-16-2011, 11:41 AM
get this through your head... it has nothing to do with Lebron being 'right'... there's this thing, it's called the NBAPA, a union for the basketball players which every player in the nba belongs to... by lebron saying this, right or wrong, goes directly against the NBAPA, who continually tries to expand the league and get more players jobs... lebron continues to say the wrong things... if any players lose their jobs this summer because of contraction, they can look at one of their own members (the one with the loudest voice and most job security) as part of the reason the NBAPA lost negotiations in the CBA, simply because he just couldn't keep his mouth closed... way to stand behind your guys, lebron.. eh, better to push the weak into heavy traffic..

joepfarley
01-16-2011, 01:19 PM
Yes I do feel the NBA should contract as well as the NHL(the NHL should eliminate at least nine teams in the southren states and add more in Canada, I could give rats ace about the NBA or the Raptors but the T.V. contract for the Raptors maybe bigger than just about any other in NBA because the Raptors are televised threw out Canada appealing to over 30 million people in Canada not to mention there are 3 million people in Toronto alone, which by far is a bigger market than say Milwaukee,Portland, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Indiana, San Antonio, Memphis, Orlando, Charlotte, Sacramento

td0tsfinest
01-16-2011, 01:29 PM
I was gonna come here and say something but I see my friends have already. I will say a little bit though.

The fact that the NBA is a business foremost and the Raptors are ranked 11th in terms of team value and 16th in fan attendance (despite having a non-playoff team), contraction makes no sense.

On a side note, brent has been killing the sig game.

Sly Guy
01-16-2011, 01:47 PM
fail poster has failed.

BHF
01-16-2011, 03:27 PM
give him a break kid is only 12 to 13 years old

AddiX
01-16-2011, 03:52 PM
I think bron was wrong for what he said,

But hes right. By trade deadline your going to see all the bad teams dump there top talent for expiring contracts, draft picks, and young players. And there's a lot of bad teams in the NBA. And for the rest of the season these teams will be hopeless and completely pointless to watch. And many of them will be terrible for years.

There's way to many teams with a bench of a bunch of kids who don't play and aren't NBA ready. I support contraction and raising the age of draft picks.

There is far more bad games than good ones, that's for sure.

topdog
01-16-2011, 04:07 PM
The Clippers and Raptors, while bad both generate profits. They aren't hurting the league financially and fans do ans have attended their game for years. To say getting rid of teams that have brought in revenue to the league for years is just illogical as it would only hurt the NBA.

The Wolves, Hornets, Bobcats, and Grizzlies are the teams that you should point at.

I think this whole contration thing is ridiculous. You'd have to look at individual teams and see if they actually are losing money for realz (I think NOLA is but I can't say I have all the facts and figures). Just because a team isn't highly successful or on tv nationally a lot doesn't mean they don't sell tickets and merchandise. It's not simply a matter of looking at a couple years either - you've got to look at long-term profitability and owners' willingness to take losses in the short-term.

Further, you would not have the same level of talent. You would likely have less talent. When you have "star players" crowded onto teams taking 40+ minutes a game, you're not discovering or developing the Gerald Wallaces and Chauncey Billupses of the league. If Michael Beasley is still on the HEAT, what kind of player is he? He certainly isn't a 20+ pt per night scorer. And if Wallace never got expansion drafted to Charlotte?

What we really need is an expansion of player development and greater means of teams keeping the players they have invested in. Maybe 2 years of college is a good thing. Or maybe the D-League should be utilized more like the minor leagues in baseball. And when those young guys who are just starting to become the stars they were drafted to be are restricted FAs, maybe there should be a means for their team to retain them reasonably rather than dealing wit ridiculous cap-killing contracts.

topdog
01-16-2011, 04:14 PM
I think bron was wrong for what he said,

But hes right. By trade deadline your going to see all the bad teams dump there top talent for expiring contracts, draft picks, and young players. And there's a lot of bad teams in the NBA. And for the rest of the season these teams will be hopeless and completely pointless to watch. And many of them will be terrible for years.

There's way to many teams with a bench of a bunch of kids who don't play and aren't NBA ready. I support contraction and raising the age of draft picks.

There is far more bad games than good ones, that's for sure.

See, this is the balance of the NBA though. At any given time, you have a group of elite teams, a group of also-ran playoff teams and a group of rebuilding teams. The first two groups attempt to trade their picks and young players (their "future") for guys who can get it done now. The rebuilding teams give up their stars (or "present") to build for the future. Eventually the balance of power shifts where a bad Boston team becomes elite and a good Sonics team falls to the lottery (but then rises again).

If you are a diehard fan of a team, you are going to watch them so long as they at least give you hope. Does your team suck now? Maybe. But if they have some young guys with potential, you watch them grow and anticipate better days ...unless they leave in FA.

AddiX
01-16-2011, 04:35 PM
See, this is the balance of the NBA though. At any given time, you have a group of elite teams, a group of also-ran playoff teams and a group of rebuilding teams. The first two groups attempt to trade their picks and young players (their "future") for guys who can get it done now. The rebuilding teams give up their stars (or "present") to build for the future. Eventually the balance of power shifts where a bad Boston team becomes elite and a good Sonics team falls to the lottery (but then rises again).

If you are a diehard fan of a team, you are going to watch them so long as they at least give you hope. Does your team suck now? Maybe. But if they have some young guys with potential, you watch them grow and anticipate better days ...unless they leave in FA.

I get all of that, but none of this is a good thing.

There is about 18-19 terrible teams in the nba right now by my count. And all of them are in rebuilding mode.

82 games each, that's a lot of bad basketball being played. 7 game playoff series are also a joke, its completely pointless in the first round.

NBA has gotten way too greedy and over the years fans have really lost interest, because the majority of the product is terrible.

lvlheaded
01-16-2011, 04:45 PM
The teams that dont make money are the ones who would have to be contracted if that was the decision the league came too. Teams like Memphis, Minnesota, Charlotte and NO. Idk what Jerseys profit numbers look like but they would probably be safe based of Proky's ridiculous bank account.

llemon
01-16-2011, 04:47 PM
NBA should contract. They should dissolve New Orleans, LA Clippers, Toronto Raptors, Cleveland Cavaliers... that should do it.


This would probably alleviate about 15% of the luxury tax burden from the other teams, and improve the overall profitability of the league about 20%.

The Clippers are just some dude's investment, and Blake Griffin and all those awesome players don't generate anywhere near the revenue for the league they could if they were on real teams. And every year, one of the top 2 or 3 players will go there, and NOT go to a high profile team.

Raptors are done... Cavaliers LoL I keep seeing these signs the fans hold up about "not fair"... ok they're done. I forgot them already. New Orleans... the league owns them now, so just dissolve them already.

revenue is in the TV... expense is in the stadiums/owners/luxury tax etc etc

Is Lebron willing to take the pay cut?

topdog
01-16-2011, 05:09 PM
I get all of that, but none of this is a good thing.

There is about 18-19 terrible teams in the nba right now by my count. And all of them are in rebuilding mode.

82 games each, that's a lot of bad basketball being played. 7 game playoff series are also a joke, its completely pointless in the first round.

NBA has gotten way too greedy and over the years fans have really lost interest, because the majority of the product is terrible.

Why people have lost interest is because the league is so damn superstar-oriented. Between b.s. foul calls and and emphasis on 1-on-1, everyone is obsessed with "superstars." That's why it was so fun to watch Detroit - they were a real team of guys who other organizations gave up on. They had no superstar but no one had an answer.

I don't expect someone from a "major market" to understand why it's stupid to cut a bunch of small-market teams. You know your team is going nowhere no matter how crappy it has been. You just assume less teams means more talent for you.

As for the bolded part, how many of these teams are really rebuilding and how many are stuck in mediocrity? Rebuilding means starting over not re-tooling or trying to quick fix a roster. Apparently you don't appreciate teams like Portland or OKC who actually have full-on rebuilt and who were once contenders for the league's best record before that. Nor do you seem to appreciate how Golden State took out the "league's best" Mavs a couple years ago in the first round. Heck, Boston almost fell to the Hawks their championship year.

Sadds The Gr8
01-16-2011, 05:11 PM
i'd blast the OP but i see fellow Raptors fans already did it.

phoenix_bladen
01-16-2011, 05:14 PM
do your research

the raptors are one of the most profitable teams in the NBA

if we actually had a good team we'd be top 5 in attendance no doubt

this troll should be banned

Flash3
01-16-2011, 05:18 PM
NBA should contract. They should dissolve New Orleans, LA Clippers, Toronto Raptors, Cleveland Cavaliers... that should do it.


This would probably alleviate about 15% of the luxury tax burden from the other teams, and improve the overall profitability of the league about 20%.

The Clippers are just some dude's investment, and Blake Griffin and all those awesome players don't generate anywhere near the revenue for the league they could if they were on real teams. And every year, one of the top 2 or 3 players will go there, and NOT go to a high profile team.

Raptors are done... Cavaliers LoL I keep seeing these signs the fans hold up about "not fair"... ok they're done. I forgot them already. New Orleans... the league owns them now, so just dissolve them already.

revenue is in the TV... expense is in the stadiums/owners/luxury tax etc etc

you name really good financial teams who are ranked high in franchise valuations :facepalm: read up son.

gwrighter
01-16-2011, 05:18 PM
I get all of that, but none of this is a good thing.

There is about 18-19 terrible teams in the nba right now by my count. And all of them are in rebuilding mode.

82 games each, that's a lot of bad basketball being played. 7 game playoff series are also a joke, its completely pointless in the first round.

NBA has gotten way too greedy and over the years fans have really lost interest, because the majority of the product is terrible.

what's you definition of terrible? not in contention? Yes the majority of teams are sub .500 but that is to be expected with the amount of star power amassed on select teams.

Instead of getting rid of teams, the league has to focus on how to help small-market teams retain their good players. stiffer cap rules would help. if we distribute talent among teams more or less evenly you are going to have a better "team" concept. As you wouldnt have teams like MIA with 3 star players beasting everybody, players would have to focus on how to play effectively as a team to beat opposing squads as the talent level would be comparable. The incentive to work as a team has in my opinion been lost, if it ever existed in the first place.

i wouldn't say that the fans have lost interest per se as the NBA and basketball fandemonium continues to grow yearly. Just the interest has shifted to a select number of teams, and the fans watch and pay attention to these teams more intently than others. more of a transfer and not so much of a "loss".

82 games seems to be the optimal amount of games to keep the player turnover rate at an acceptable level. This gives the NBA time to "build" star players and market them while letting the weaker ones exit quicker as they can't live up to the physical demand of the season and playoffs if applicable. If we had less teams and less games the average career length would rise leading to what i believe would be a drop in competitive drive as players could see their careers lasting longer and therefore try less harder because there is always "next year".

Flash3
01-16-2011, 05:21 PM
are you high?:confused:

:laugh2:

Mudvayne91
01-16-2011, 05:25 PM
LeBron was right - "The Decision" was a smart move. Or tweeting about Cleveland and denying it.

See? I can say complete crap too, but that doesn't make it right.

AddiX
01-16-2011, 05:35 PM
Why people have lost interest is because the league is so damn superstar-oriented. Between b.s. foul calls and and emphasis on 1-on-1, everyone is obsessed with "superstars." That's why it was so fun to watch Detroit - they were a real team of guys who other organizations gave up on. They had no superstar but no one had an answer.

I don't expect someone from a "major market" to understand why it's stupid to cut a bunch of small-market teams. You know your team is going nowhere no matter how crappy it has been. You just assume less teams means more talent for you.

As for the bolded part, how many of these teams are really rebuilding and how many are stuck in mediocrity? Rebuilding means starting over not re-tooling or trying to quick fix a roster. Apparently you don't appreciate teams like Portland or OKC who actually have full-on rebuilt and who were once contenders for the league's best record before that. Nor do you seem to appreciate how Golden State took out the "league's best" Mavs a couple years ago in the first round. Heck, Boston almost fell to the Hawks their championship year.

That's the exception not the rule. Do your research, low seeds for the most part get the boot in a 5 or 7 game series. A lot of fans don't even care about the playoffs until conference finals because its so watered down.

And GS that year was injured all year until the playoffs which is why they were a low seed, and the way they ran up and down the court matched up well with Dallas.

Seriously, when has a low seed done anything in a 5 or 7 game series? It's completely pointless. Basketball is the one sport where the best teams always meet at the end of the year. There is no such thing as a team sliding in the finals or being a dark horse contender.

Anilyzer
01-16-2011, 08:06 PM
fail poster has failed.


Ok, you guys are right. My post is a complete fail. Does it make any
difference to say that it was the Scotch and soda talking at 5:30AM.

But yeah... the Clippers. Look at all the top-of-the-Draft first round talent they have hidden away on that team.

Look, I'm from LA, and I've seen the Clippers play and read the "Clipper News" for a long time. Back in the newspaper days, I would see the Clipper season ticket ads everyday, showing pictures of Lebron, Jordan, Kobe, etc--everyone except for any Clipper.

Why?

Because they are a sucky team, top to bottom. Donald Sterling has said that he "never sells anyting", he just buys it and hangs onto it till it becomes worth more and more. The Clippers may have a decent season every once in a while, when they simply have too much talent to fail, but they never really do anything to win or improve. Watch: when their free agents come up to be re-signed, they will all bail, every single one, unless they can make far more on the Clippers. And look for the Clippers to lobby the new CBA hard to restrict free agency and reduce salaries.

Nobody thinks the Clippers will win a championship, or even be a steady good franchise. People go to see the Clippers when there is nothing else to do--it's a choice between see a crummy movie or go see the Clippers: 50-50 choice, basically.

Meanwhile, the franchise goes up in value every year, piggy backing on the marketing investment of the NBA, and all the effort and star power of REAL teams actually trying to win championships. And they snag great players in the draft, because they are always at the top of the lottery.

Look at Blake Griffin. Possibly a player of Lebron-like pedigree. But--does he get drafted by a Boston, a New York, and Atlanta or even a Toronto? No. Instead he goes to the Clippers and the NBA loses all that extra star power for however many years he wastes there. He's not on TV much at all. And he's a player that could turn things around and increase revenues for the entire league. Instead, he's just in virtual storage on the Clippers, who won't help him develop, won't be able to re-sign him or probably won't even try that much, won't try to improve around him. In other words, just lock away the best new superstar in the NBA in the basement until 2014, meanwhile Donald Sterling can make 8% a year on his investment in the Clippers, which are only valuable because of one word: "NBA"

And in 2014, when Griffin leaves, the Clippers will draft some other #1 superstar, and the league loses all that.

somebody mentioned about math: if a few really meaningless franchises like the Clippers were contracted, then the overall television profit distribution increases for ALL teams. (Clippers contribute nothing to the TV revenue, they only take.)

Profit goes up for each franchise. Talent increases on teams, improving product. Popularity increases. Salary cap goes up. Luxury tax goes down. Less need to subsidize crummy teams with luxury tax.

Note, that I was wrong about Toronto... I thought I heard rumbles about them moving out of Canada or something. My bad. Grizzlies I wouldn't contract, they really try to improve and be good.

cargobox
01-16-2011, 08:11 PM
Wow okay, close the thread man

Anilyzer
01-16-2011, 08:22 PM
what's you definition of terrible? not in contention? Yes the majority of teams are sub .500 but that is to be expected with the amount of star power amassed on select teams.

Instead of getting rid of teams, the league has to focus on how to help small-market teams retain their good players. stiffer cap rules would help. if we distribute talent among teams more or less evenly you are going to have a better "team" concept. As you wouldnt have teams like MIA with 3 star players beasting everybody, players would have to focus on how to play effectively as a team to beat opposing squads as the talent level would be comparable. The incentive to work as a team has in my opinion been lost, if it ever existed in the first place.

i wouldn't say that the fans have lost interest per se as the NBA and basketball fandemonium continues to grow yearly. Just the interest has shifted to a select number of teams, and the fans watch and pay attention to these teams more intently than others. more of a transfer and not so much of a "loss".

82 games seems to be the optimal amount of games to keep the player turnover rate at an acceptable level. This gives the NBA time to "build" star players and market them while letting the weaker ones exit quicker as they can't live up to the physical demand of the season and playoffs if applicable. If we had less teams and less games the average career length would rise leading to what i believe would be a drop in competitive drive as players could see their careers lasting longer and therefore try less harder because there is always "next year".


Check this: A great NBA franchise, and great NBA basketball, isn't something you can just buy.

Some billionaire guy can't just buy a franchise, start throwing dollars around, yell at people, and make a top team. You can't draft some players and do it either. Playing in a big stadium in a trendy city and having a bunch of publicity doesn't do it either.

Remember when the Bulls started rebuilding. Jordan said they should watch out: that the Cubs have been "rebuilding" for 100 years.

Ok, the Bulls have only been rebuilding for 15 or so years so far... and how knows? Maybe in another 200 years they might win another 3 peat.

Teams like Boston, Lakers, San Antonio, Miami, Orlando work hard to develop players and become great teams. Teams that think it's "easy" or just takes a lucky draft pick won't get there. Some teams like the Knicks have great traditions and will get there eventually.

Yunqn
01-16-2011, 08:48 PM
People have to understand.

Lebron is goina say everything to repair his image and protect himself..

Like the tweet he put out. All of a sudden karma is ok?
That team is suppose to feel disrespected with the way u did it and u act like your right?

At the end of the day

Lebron doesn't care about competition. That's why he went to miami
He's goina say everything he can to make it seem like his decision was correct and it would help other players..

Go figure lebron would say what he's done is correct..
Stop defending his mouth becuase of his game..I get you guys are fans but he doesn't make sense. He put himself around the wrong people.

mrblisterdundee
01-16-2011, 08:54 PM
LeBron James is wrong, sort of. There should be a contraction of contract values and luxury caps. That would force through more of a division of talent among the existing teams, using tax structures that dissuade all the good players from gravitating toward certain markets (Los Angeles, Miami, New York and Boston). Teams can still stack talent, but they'll get the **** taxed out of them. Imagine if most teams depended on, say, two all-stars and some good team play. Then, most teams in the league would be more competitive. That's why I support contracting contracts and luxury caps.

cargobox
01-16-2011, 09:08 PM
Ok, you guys are right. My post is a complete fail. Does it make any
difference to say that it was the Scotch and soda talking at 5:30AM.

But yeah... the Clippers. Look at all the top-of-the-Draft first round talent they have hidden away on that team.

Look, I'm from LA, and I've seen the Clippers play and read the "Clipper News" for a long time. Back in the newspaper days, I would see the Clipper season ticket ads everyday, showing pictures of Lebron, Jordan, Kobe, etc--everyone except for any Clipper.

Why?

Because they are a sucky team, top to bottom. Donald Sterling has said that he "never sells anyting", he just buys it and hangs onto it till it becomes worth more and more. The Clippers may have a decent season every once in a while, when they simply have too much talent to fail, but they never really do anything to win or improve. Watch: when their free agents come up to be re-signed, they will all bail, every single one, unless they can make far more on the Clippers. And look for the Clippers to lobby the new CBA hard to restrict free agency and reduce salaries.

Nobody thinks the Clippers will win a championship, or even be a steady good franchise. People go to see the Clippers when there is nothing else to do--it's a choice between see a crummy movie or go see the Clippers: 50-50 choice, basically.

Meanwhile, the franchise goes up in value every year, piggy backing on the marketing investment of the NBA, and all the effort and star power of REAL teams actually trying to win championships. And they snag great players in the draft, because they are always at the top of the lottery.

Look at Blake Griffin. Possibly a player of Lebron-like pedigree. But--does he get drafted by a Boston, a New York, and Atlanta or even a Toronto? No. Instead he goes to the Clippers and the NBA loses all that extra star power for however many years he wastes there. He's not on TV much at all. And he's a player that could turn things around and increase revenues for the entire league. Instead, he's just in virtual storage on the Clippers, who won't help him develop, won't be able to re-sign him or probably won't even try that much, won't try to improve around him. In other words, just lock away the best new superstar in the NBA in the basement until 2014, meanwhile Donald Sterling can make 8% a year on his investment in the Clippers, which are only valuable because of one word: "NBA"

And in 2014, when Griffin leaves, the Clippers will draft some other #1 superstar, and the league loses all that.

somebody mentioned about math: if a few really meaningless franchises like the Clippers were contracted, then the overall television profit distribution increases for ALL teams. (Clippers contribute nothing to the TV revenue, they only take.)

Profit goes up for each franchise. Talent increases on teams, improving product. Popularity increases. Salary cap goes up. Luxury tax goes down. Less need to subsidize crummy teams with luxury tax.

Note, that I was wrong about Toronto... I thought I heard rumbles about them moving out of Canada or something. My bad. Grizzlies I wouldn't contract, they really try to improve and be good.

Dude seriously shut up man. I'm a die hard Clipper fan and Blake Griffin is the best thing that has happened to us. They don't need to leave because people are actually watching their games now. If you contract every losing team, then it'll be just the Lakers winning every year and ****. Yes, we do have a sucky owner and Blake Griffin might leave someday, so what are you trying to instigate man? The only reason why the league is losing so much money is because of overplaid players. Seriously man, what's your point? Blake's value is the same **** if he got drafted by another team. Look at LeBron, Cleveland sucked *** til he came there. You're probably a Laker fan, just get off our sack because we're not messing with your ***

topdog
01-16-2011, 09:19 PM
That's the exception not the rule. Do your research, low seeds for the most part get the boot in a 5 or 7 game series. A lot of fans don't even care about the playoffs until conference finals because its so watered down.

And GS that year was injured all year until the playoffs which is why they were a low seed, and the way they ran up and down the court matched up well with Dallas.

Seriously, when has a low seed done anything in a 5 or 7 game series? It's completely pointless. Basketball is the one sport where the best teams always meet at the end of the year. There is no such thing as a team sliding in the finals or being a dark horse contender.

I just gave you 2 examples. Yeah, Atlanta didn't quite pull it off but they had Boston on the ropes. And the exception is what it's all about. Most of the time things will go as predicted in the first round but that's what makes exceptions all the better.

I would disagree that the best teams always meet. Certainly the best regular season teams don't. You can go ahead and look that up. Was everyone predicting the Pistons to be in the finals? Or to beat the Lakers? I don't remember it that way. Indiana, Detroit, and Cleveland all were pretty much in the same boat as far as their odds of coming out of the East for a few years there, then came Miami upsetting the Mavs in the finals.

As far as research goes, maybe those of you in favor of contraction should actually look up the teams you are nominating for contraction. For the most part, they are not bleeding money or dragging the league down but you just assume because they have low records, but that doesn't mean low attendence.

Anilyzer
01-16-2011, 09:22 PM
Dude seriously shut up man. I'm a die hard Clipper fan and Blake Griffin is the best thing that has happened to us. They don't need to leave because people are actually watching their games now. If you contract every losing team, then it'll be just the Lakers winning every year and ****. Yes, we do have a sucky owner and Blake Griffin might leave someday, so what are you trying to instigate man? The only reason why the league is losing so much money is because of overplaid players. Seriously man, what's your point? Blake's value is the same **** if he got drafted by another team. Look at LeBron, Cleveland sucked *** til he came there. You're probably a Laker fan, just get off our sack because we're not messing with your ***

Wow... you're a Clipper fan... uh... I would ask why, but I might get banned or something. So, I will just say "yayyy Clippers!" Yeah, maybe Griffin might turn into an Elton Brand, and grind it out for the Clippers for 10 years or whatever. Let me know when you see him playing on NBC, TNT or ESPN on a Saturday or Sunday, or even a Wednesday or Friday night. Ok?

Flash3
01-16-2011, 09:26 PM
wtf are you arguing about you're "wrong". those teams wont be contracted cause they make alot of money, the nba is a buisness and thats how it is.

teams who are in the red right should worry about that.

Flash3
01-16-2011, 09:30 PM
dude clippers play in freaken L.A once they start winning he will get his exposure.

Anilyzer
01-16-2011, 09:31 PM
LeBron James is wrong, sort of. There should be a contraction of contract values and luxury caps. That would force through more of a division of talent among the existing teams, using tax structures that dissuade all the good players from gravitating toward certain markets (Los Angeles, Miami, New York and Boston). Teams can still stack talent, but they'll get the **** taxed out of them. Imagine if most teams depended on, say, two all-stars and some good team play. Then, most teams in the league would be more competitive. That's why I support contracting contracts and luxury caps.

Luxury taxes and restricting free agency and all that is communist BS if you ask me. Players should have the same rights as people at the top of any other profession.

We shouldn't have to legislate "salary caps" because stupid owners can't budget correctly, and don't know what talent is worth what money, and will bankrupt all the crappy franchises if left alone.

We shouldn't have "luxury taxes" because some teams are good, and some bad. Especially in the new information age, with 99% of specatators watching on TV and the internet, there's simply no excuse to say your team sucks because you have a "small market" so you're the worst team in the league for 20 years.

Owning and managing an NBA team takes skill like any other endeavor... it is a COMPETITIVE SPORT. Why should we constantly be trying to build up the crappy teams? I favor a Darwinian, open market, capitalist approach; AND I favor letting the players be free to play where they want.

And watch out NBA: One of these days, some players like Lebron and Wade aren't going to sign ANYWHERE, and they'll just start a mini 3 on 3 league on pay-per-view and make $200M apiece.

Who wouldn't want to see Lebron and Howard vs Wade and Carmelo in a pay per view 5 game series, 3 on 3, with exciting new rules and precision electronic officiating?

*BOOM*

Anilyzer
01-16-2011, 09:35 PM
The "decision" showed that Lebron can draw bigger ratings for a press conference than the league can for almost all playoff games.

So, think about it: where is the money coming from? What makes the NBA the "NBA"? All these whiners talking about "Lebron is selfish and bad for the NBA meh meh meh" get real. Lebron and Kobe and such players are the main product that NBA fans are paying for. Nobody wants to see a broken down Cavs franchise with a bunch of nobodies, embittered because they lost a free agent. That's not where the gold is.

Flash3
01-16-2011, 09:39 PM
so that should be a reason to contract them ? they still make the league money.

there are other franchise's that cant even seat 10,000 fans and are losing.

knicks4life33
01-16-2011, 09:40 PM
When is lebron ever right lol espicially when he said he didnt know the meaning of contraction lol and everyone misundersttod what he said

hotpotato1092
01-16-2011, 09:50 PM
I wouldn't mind contraction if done correctly. Get rid of the small market teams that DON'T have a fanbase. Getting rid of Cleveland would be stupid, they have fans showing up. Getting rid of the Grizzlies and Bobcats would make the most sense if contraction. If I had to pick two more I'd say Sacramento and New Orleans.

cargobox
01-16-2011, 10:57 PM
Wow... you're a Clipper fan... uh... I would ask why, but I might get banned or something. So, I will just say "yayyy Clippers!" Yeah, maybe Griffin might turn into an Elton Brand, and grind it out for the Clippers for 10 years or whatever. Let me know when you see him playing on NBC, TNT or ESPN on a Saturday or Sunday, or even a Wednesday or Friday night. Ok?

Um, I'm pretty sure he's the most exciting player on the league today. He's talked about everywhere, and I don't think it matters when he gets featured on TNT or ESPN. But anywho, NBA isn't about earning money all the time anyway, it's for the people's entertainment. But hey, everyone has their own opinion

mzgrizz
01-16-2011, 11:36 PM
I wouldn't mind contraction if done correctly. Get rid of the small market teams that DON'T have a fanbase. Getting rid of Cleveland would be stupid, they have fans showing up. Getting rid of the Grizzlies and Bobcats would make the most sense if contraction. If I had to pick two more I'd say Sacramento and New Orleans.

Well, I beg to disagree. Do you really know anything about my team? There is a fan base and we are growing daily. The Grizz are playing good ball now and that's what brings out attendance. 16000 at Friday's romp over Dallas ain't chicken feed.
During our playoff runs(and only after 3 years in Memphis),attendance was near capacity(+/-18000). A run of bad seasons caused a decline, but we now are in a true rebuilding mode and hope springs eternal.
Because there isn't a strong presence on PSD, please do me the favor of not equating one with the other.
Cleveland,Sacramento and New Orleans fans can speak for themselves.

gwrighter
01-16-2011, 11:43 PM
Check this: A great NBA franchise, and great NBA basketball, isn't something you can just buy.

Some billionaire guy can't just buy a franchise, start throwing dollars around, yell at people, and make a top team. You can't draft some players and do it either. Playing in a big stadium in a trendy city and having a bunch of publicity doesn't do it either.

Remember when the Bulls started rebuilding. Jordan said they should watch out: that the Cubs have been "rebuilding" for 100 years.

Ok, the Bulls have only been rebuilding for 15 or so years so far... and how knows? Maybe in another 200 years they might win another 3 peat.

Teams like Boston, Lakers, San Antonio, Miami, Orlando work hard to develop players and become great teams. Teams that think it's "easy" or just takes a lucky draft pick won't get there. Some teams like the Knicks have great traditions and will get there eventually.

The reason why I stated that stiffer cap rules would be better is because of a common argument heard hear on PSD. when you have guys making league average 5 mil a year they can all afford nice homes, cars, travel and anything else material that the average american/canadian can buy.

So when it comes down to where they would like to play, places like LA, NYC, MIA, ORL, BOS have a leg up because they are more desirable places to live for a millionaire as opposed to MIN, MIL, CHA, or DET (no offense to poster's that are from those cities). Whether it's the shopping, Club scene, weather or what have you the former get the nod over the latter.

Therefore when the cap rules are stiffer,desirable locations can not go over the cap to accomodate more star players. therefore impact players would have to take severe paycuts to team up instead of getting high on their imagination and just wandering off like towelie.

Playing on the theory that people are always trying to maximize their happiness they would rather take more money in their current city (DET) then take less in a more desirable location. This would make it easier for the small market teams to retain key players. Unless of course the players don't care about money, which would be nice to witness but unlikely.

With all of this said, there is one clause. Winning Cure's All. It would just be easier for small market teams to compete in the FA market.

ElMarroAfamado
01-17-2011, 12:00 AM
does anyone like Chili Cheese Pastrami Fries?

Ty Fast
01-17-2011, 01:19 AM
get rid of the knicks, lakers, celtics, and the spurs. 2 teams from each confrence.

Anilyzer
01-17-2011, 01:26 AM
The reason why I stated that stiffer cap rules would be better is because of a common argument heard hear on PSD. when you have guys making league average 5 mil a year they can all afford nice homes, cars, travel and anything else material that the average american/canadian can buy.

So when it comes down to where they would like to play, places like LA, NYC, MIA, ORL, BOS have a leg up because they are more desirable places to live for a millionaire as opposed to MIN, MIL, CHA, or DET (no offense to poster's that are from those cities). Whether it's the shopping, Club scene, weather or what have you the former get the nod over the latter.

Therefore when the cap rules are stiffer,desirable locations can not go over the cap to accomodate more star players. therefore impact players would have to take severe paycuts to team up instead of getting high on their imagination and just wandering off like towelie.

Playing on the theory that people are always trying to maximize their happiness they would rather take more money in their current city (DET) then take less in a more desirable location. This would make it easier for the small market teams to retain key players. Unless of course the players don't care about money, which would be nice to witness but unlikely.

With all of this said, there is one clause. Winning Cure's All. It would just be easier for small market teams to compete in the FA market.


That's like communism dude. If a team is good, has a great tradition and a winning spirit, then players will play there. Not every player wants to be in the big city... some of them are country boys who would rather play in a small city--but they do want to be on a good team, with a great coach, on a team that respects them.

If small market teams want to compete, they just have to learn how to play basketball and how to build a team. No rules restricting free agents, or lowering salaries, or making sure the crappiest teams always get the best draft players won't make any difference ultimately. Sucky teams will always suck, the best teams willl still win, you just won't see as many really talented younng players in high profile matchups.

Anilyzer
01-17-2011, 01:29 AM
get rid of the knicks, lakers, celtics, and the spurs. 2 teams from each confrence.

Fine. Do that. We'll start our own league, with the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, Orlando, Miami, Portland, Houston, Dallas and Chicago.

You can keep the rest of the teams and have that be the NBA. Outlaw free agency, put in a big salary cap, expand to europe and china, go for it.

abe_froman
01-17-2011, 01:32 AM
let me guess your team isnt one of those you suggest folding up? yeah..its much easier to be for something that doesnt hurt you personally

Anilyzer
01-17-2011, 01:32 AM
Um, I'm pretty sure he's the most exciting player on the league today. He's talked about everywhere, and I don't think it matters when he gets featured on TNT or ESPN. But anywho, NBA isn't about earning money all the time anyway, it's for the people's entertainment. But hey, everyone has their own opinion


Sure, yeah, it doesn't matter if he's on TNT, ESPN or NBC/ABC ever. The NBA can just cash in on all the sweet Youtube money I guess.

BKLYNNYRNYKNYY
01-17-2011, 01:39 AM
Man. What a disappointing basis for an argument. You my friend are a fail....

airforceones25
01-17-2011, 01:46 AM
i LOL'd... the Clippers continually happen to be one of the most profitable NBA organizations.. nice try

cargobox
01-17-2011, 02:02 AM
Yeah contract every ****ing team out there and just keep the good old Los Angeles Lakers y'know? Cause they're the only team winning championships anyway

Anilyzer
01-17-2011, 05:49 AM
i LOL'd... the Clippers continually happen to be one of the most profitable NBA organizations.. nice try

yayyy clippers

gwrighter
01-17-2011, 10:12 AM
That's like communism dude. If a team is good, has a great tradition and a winning spirit, then players will play there. Not every player wants to be in the big city... some of them are country boys who would rather play in a small city--but they do want to be on a good team, with a great coach, on a team that respects them.

If small market teams want to compete, they just have to learn how to play basketball and how to build a team. No rules restricting free agents, or lowering salaries, or making sure the crappiest teams always get the best draft players won't make any difference ultimately. Sucky teams will always suck, the best teams willl still win, you just won't see as many really talented younng players in high profile matchups.

but your not getting my point, if given the option players would rather play on large market teams. So it is harder for small market teams to get good, have a winning tradition and winning spirit. The way to build a team is to retain players and acquire FA's to supplement the development and growth of the draft picks. But how can a small market team entice FA's (LBJ) when MIA is willing to go over the cap to accomodate them? All that putting stiffer cap rules in means is that now it becomes a game of Chess and not checkers. Makes it impossible for any team to spend over the limit to acquire players. Thus distributing talent more evenly, (not completely even like communism) The amount of time it would take for teams to rebuild would be faster cuz of the easier it would be to sign FA's. Getting rid of teams is not going to get rid of the suck, you would then have even fewer great teams by a #'s standpoint.

Anon
01-17-2011, 10:59 AM
Unless you are willing for your own team to be contracted, STFU.

thekmp211
01-17-2011, 12:50 PM
there are arguments for contraction, and these aren't them.

Rivera
01-17-2011, 01:06 PM
i thought lebron didnt know what contraction was???? so how can he be right?

i dont see this happening anytime soon

i could see teams overseas though

Anilyzer
01-17-2011, 06:04 PM
but your not getting my point, if given the option players would rather play on large market teams. So it is harder for small market teams to get good, have a winning tradition and winning spirit. The way to build a team is to retain players and acquire FA's to supplement the development and growth of the draft picks. But how can a small market team entice FA's (LBJ) when MIA is willing to go over the cap to accomodate them? All that putting stiffer cap rules in means is that now it becomes a game of Chess and not checkers. Makes it impossible for any team to spend over the limit to acquire players. Thus distributing talent more evenly, (not completely even like communism) The amount of time it would take for teams to rebuild would be faster cuz of the easier it would be to sign FA's. Getting rid of teams is not going to get rid of the suck, you would then have even fewer great teams by a #'s standpoint.


maybe. communism still sucks tho

ThunderZubb
01-17-2011, 06:17 PM
NBA should contract. They should dissolve New Orleans, LA Clippers, Toronto Raptors, Cleveland Cavaliers... that should do it.


This would probably alleviate about 15% of the luxury tax burden from the other teams, and improve the overall profitability of the league about 20%.

The Clippers are just some dude's investment, and Blake Griffin and all those awesome players don't generate anywhere near the revenue for the league they could if they were on real teams. And every year, one of the top 2 or 3 players will go there, and NOT go to a high profile team.

Raptors are done... Cavaliers LoL I keep seeing these signs the fans hold up about "not fair"... ok they're done. I forgot them already. New Orleans... the league owns them now, so just dissolve them already.

revenue is in the TV... expense is in the stadiums/owners/luxury tax etc etc

LoL wow seriously I don't even know what to say right now. Raptors are done seriously dude we have one of the richest owners in the world. Did you get beat up all the time and lost all your brain cells because your post is by far the worst post in history of Prosportsdaily. We have been in the top 15 attendance in the league for the past 15 years and our fans are one of the most loyal fans to support out teams. Hey watch your step and dont fell on the ground by hitting your head because you don't have much brain cells left.

Seriously don't post again and do us a favour.

mrblisterdundee
01-17-2011, 06:35 PM
That's like communism dude. If a team is good, has a great tradition and a winning spirit, then players will play there. Not every player wants to be in the big city... some of them are country boys who would rather play in a small city--but they do want to be on a good team, with a great coach, on a team that respects them.

If small market teams want to compete, they just have to learn how to play basketball and how to build a team. No rules restricting free agents, or lowering salaries, or making sure the crappiest teams always get the best draft players won't make any difference ultimately. Sucky teams will always suck, the best teams willl still win, you just won't see as many really talented younng players in high profile matchups.

You're like the Senator McCarthy of Pro Sports Daily, screaming about Communism on every other post. Under Communism, players wouldn't make money. Their lives would simply be subsidized by the government... come to think of it, that's not a bad idea. They're taken care of, but not allowed to make money. The only reason they have to play will be the competition itself. I'd love a world where teachers and general care physicians make more money than moronic professional athletes. Go Communism!

Anilyzer
01-18-2011, 12:00 AM
You're like the Senator McCarthy of Pro Sports Daily, screaming about Communism on every other post. Under Communism, players wouldn't make money. Their lives would simply be subsidized by the government... come to think of it, that's not a bad idea. They're taken care of, but not allowed to make money. The only reason they have to play will be the competition itself. I'd love a world where teachers and general care physicians make more money than moronic professional athletes. Go Communism!


Capitalism means FREE market. Players, or anybody, are free to sell their skills and work for whoever they want, and make whatever the market is willing to pay.

the billionaire owners know this very well... and it is ridiculous to say they need "salary caps" to not go busto. If big market teams have a revenue advantage, that is just par for the course. They still can only sign 12 players though... and the big market teams don't make THAT much more. in the future the revenue is in TV and internet... why you think they market so hard to china and europe?

how many people in china go to Laker games

Jsoul101
01-18-2011, 01:52 AM
are you high?:confused:
I think the original composer was...or have no understanding of the growth of giant corporation..."shrink smaller" we are too big...we do not like to get more money!

WHODAT8o8
01-18-2011, 02:11 AM
NBA should contract. They should dissolve New Orleans, LA Clippers, Toronto Raptors, Cleveland Cavaliers... that should do it.


This would probably alleviate about 15% of the luxury tax burden from the other teams, and improve the overall profitability of the league about 20%.

The Clippers are just some dude's investment, and Blake Griffin and all those awesome players don't generate anywhere near the revenue for the league they could if they were on real teams. And every year, one of the top 2 or 3 players will go there, and NOT go to a high profile team.

Raptors are done... Cavaliers LoL I keep seeing these signs the fans hold up about "not fair"... ok they're done. I forgot them already. New Orleans... the league owns them now, so just dissolve them already.

revenue is in the TV... expense is in the stadiums/owners/luxury tax etc etc

im glad your not part of the NBA's decisions