PDA

View Full Version : Team/City Candidates for Contraction?



hgtiger32
01-26-2011, 12:59 AM
I don't want this to turn into a LeBron said this or that thread. I saw a couple of guys debating this on a local TV show. They mentioned some teams that would possibly be no longer but also added that the possibility of taking away teams is so unlikely because you hardly ever see pro sports leagues take away teams, # of teams in playoffs, etc. If anything they add teams.

But I will say that if there were say 4-6 fewer teams the league would be a while lot more competitive.

Thoughts?

black1605
01-26-2011, 01:01 AM
This thread again?

Sixerlover
01-26-2011, 01:01 AM
Not that I believe in the whole big market small market thing because thats a bunch of BS, but if the league did in fact contract 4 teams I believe

New Orleans
Memphis
Charlotte
Cleveland

would be the 4 choices. 2 teams from 2 conferences.

king4day
01-26-2011, 01:01 AM
Here's what you do.

You don't contract. You put in a hard cap and non guaranteed contracts like football. This forces stars to go to lesser markets if they want money because things like what the Heat did and what the Knicks are trying to do won't fly.

This leads to teams being more balanced and fans wanting to show up because the 76ers and Kings and Clippers will eventually become elite again (or for the first time).

DoMeFavors
01-26-2011, 01:02 AM
a lot of players will be out of work also

black1605
01-26-2011, 01:02 AM
Not that I believe in the whole big market small market thing, but if the league did in fact contract 4 teams I believe

New Orleans
Memphis
Charlotte
Cleveland

would be the 4 choices. 2 teams from 2 conferences.

Charlotte just got a new arena, and the Bobcats have a contract with that arena through 2035. Move the team=legal hell.

hgtiger32
01-26-2011, 01:13 AM
Charlotte just got a new arena, and the Bobcats have a contract with that arena through 2035. Move the team=legal hell.

doesn't mean that the NBA couldn't decide otherwise

black1605
01-26-2011, 01:14 AM
doesn't mean that the NBA couldn't decide otherwise

The NBA can void a contract with people who built a quarter billion dollar building that would serve no purpose without an NBA team?

Good luck with that.

beasted86
01-26-2011, 01:17 AM
The thing is people don't realize nobody cares about parity.

Only fans of teams in small markets care about parity. The NBA cares about money, and having a Finals with New York vs. LA is what puts money in the league's pocket. Having a Finals with Spurs vs. Cavs results in the lowest Finals ratings of all time even though you easily had the best PF & SF in the league playing in the series. Nobody likes seeing a 1 man show leading his team to the Finals. Better teams with multiple talents in big markets is good for the economy and makes for better basketball.

My main reason I think parity is not needed, and in fact probably detrimental to the league is this..... Nobody is going to fly out of state and pay $10,000 to sit front row in Minnesota. Sorry, it just doesn't work like that. Minny is not exactly a tourist draw no matter how good their team gets. People will however make an entire event out of it and go to LA with the whole family on vacation, or Chi, or NY, or SF, or MIA because those are tourist draw cities people want to go to and would in fact pay high prices to go to those games. Having a team in Memphis that constantly is borrowing from the league even when they are good and winning, is not helping make the NBA better.

But anyway this discussion is moot... NBA isn't buying out all those contracts and paying up the lease on arenas. Owners themselves will just have to start smartening up and picking good locations.

DoMeFavors
01-26-2011, 01:19 AM
Only team that should be thought about moving them is Memphis, seems like the the area where nobody would want to go. Not a big market, in a boring city like Memphis. Even if Memphis was number 1 seed I cant see any stars wanting to go to Memphis. I say NBA moves Grizzles to Vegas, Seattle, San Diego ex.

arkanian215
01-26-2011, 01:20 AM
The thing is people don't realize nobody cares about parity.

Only fans of teams in small markets care about parity.

:eyebrow:

DoMeFavors
01-26-2011, 01:22 AM
The thing is people don't realize nobody cares about parity.

Only fans of teams in small markets care about parity. The NBA cares about money, and having a Finals with New York vs. LA is what puts money in the league's pocket. Having a Finals with Spurs vs. Cavs results in the lowest Finals ratings of all time even though you easily had the best PF & SF in the league playing in the series. Nobody likes seeing a 1 man show leading his team to the Finals. Better teams with multiple talents in big markets is good for the economy and makes for better basketball.

My main reason I think parity is not needed, and in fact probably detrimental to the league is this..... Nobody is going to fly out of state and pay $10,000 to sit front row in Minnesota. Sorry, it just doesn't work like that. Minny is not exactly a tourist draw no matter how good their team gets. People will however make an entire event out of it and go to LA with the whole family on vacation, or Chi, or NY, or SF, or MIA because those are tourist draw cities people want to go to and would in fact pay high prices to go to those games. Having a team in Memphis that constantly is borrowing from the league even when they are good and winning, is not helping make the NBA better.

But anyway this discussion is moot... NBA isn't buying out all those contracts and paying up the lease on arenas. Owners themselves will just have to start smartening up and picking good locations.


I dont think the cities in which Spurs and Cavaliers played had anything to do with it, it was just a boring series. Nobody great besides James on the Cavs and Spurs were a boring team to watch. There was no history. Lakers and Celtics had a huge rivalry and many big time players like Kobe, Gasol, Garnett, Allen, Pierce, Rondo playing on the same floor.

abe_froman
01-26-2011, 01:23 AM
there wont be a contraction..so i guess none

knicksfan42
01-26-2011, 01:23 AM
The Pacers are the only team who have been in the bottom 5 in attendance for 5 straight years.

Sixerlover
01-26-2011, 01:26 AM
:eyebrow:

It's true. Parity doesn't exist in NBA basketball. Never has. The game is too specialized and small for 15 teams to have a shot at the title year after year

DoMeFavors
01-26-2011, 01:27 AM
I remember early in the decade all the small market teams were on top
Pacers
Nets
Spurs
Pistons
Bucks
Trailblazers
Charlotte Hornets
Kings

just look at how dominte the small market teams were

Sixerlover
01-26-2011, 01:29 AM
Charlotte just got a new arena, and the Bobcats have a contract with that arena through 2035. Move the team=legal hell.

Not a knock on the Bobcats (I actually have a job offer down there when I graduate lol) I just think the "bang for the buck" factor is lacking in Charlotte and the Carolinas in general when it comes to professional basketball. Could be wayy off though, guess I'll see when I get down there

beasted86
01-26-2011, 01:31 AM
I remember early in the decade all the small market teams were on top
Pacers
Nets
Spurs
Pistons
Bucks
Trailblazers
Charlotte Hornets
Kings

just look at how dominte the small market teams were

And coincidentally that's when the NBA went on it's mini recession.

People were blaming the NBC to ABC switch up, blaming the officiating and that's when they changed a bunch of rules to benefit perimeter players and make the game more fast paced, and finally, claiming the league just needed another Jordan, and that's when they went on the man hunt hyping every next guy: Iverson, VC, KB24, LeBron, Wade, etc..

black1605
01-26-2011, 01:34 AM
Not a knock on the Bobcats (I actually have a job offer down there when I graduate lol) I just think the "bang for the buck" factor is lacking in Charlotte and the Carolinas in general when it comes to professional basketball. Could be wayy off though, guess I'll see when I get down there

The Bobcats haven't had the "bang for the buck", but the city has proven that it will support an NBA team. The Hornets led the league in attendance for their first seven seasons, selling out 358 straight games. The city has proven that it won't support a bad owner. George Shinn was a bad owner, and Bob Johnson was a bad owner. If Jordan provides a winner, the city will back it, and the team will be financially viable if history tells us anything.

DoMeFavors
01-26-2011, 01:38 AM
The Bobcats haven't had the "bang for the buck", but the city has proven that it will support an NBA team. The Hornets led the league in attendance for their first seven seasons, selling out 358 straight games. The city has proven that it won't support a bad owner. George Shinn was a bad owner, and Bob Johnson was a bad owner. If Jordan provides a winner, the city will back it, and the team will be financially viable if history tells us anything.

Also the Bobcats have only been in the league 6 years can you expect a sold out fan base in 6 years. Especially with probably most of the people in Charlotte are already fans of other basketball teams. Also when Bobcats have drafted HORRIBLY Adam Morrison, Brandan Wright.

rhino17
01-26-2011, 01:46 AM
Contraction will never happen

I think a couple teams should move. Memphis needs to leave, go to somewhere like Seattle. The Clippers should also leave LA, maybe to San Diego

MickeyMgl
01-26-2011, 01:53 AM
I don't understand these results. The best team of the group (Grizzlies) is the one people think should be contracted???

The place no player seems to want to play is Toronto, and it's not even offered as a choice. I mean, it's not the worst run organization, but they can't get anybody to want to stay there. I guess the higher taxes puts it at a competitive disadvantage.

[edit] Obviously, the Grizzlies are not doing as well as the Hornets. I missed that. Still, the Grizzlies are doing too well to want to see them go.

John Walls Era
01-26-2011, 01:54 AM
Contraction will never happen

I think a couple teams should move. Memphis needs to leave, go to somewhere like Seattle. The Clippers should also leave LA, maybe to San Diego

How about Vegas. Las Vegas Clippers :shrug:

abe_froman
01-26-2011, 01:55 AM
I don't understand these results. The best team of the group (Grizzlies) is the one people think should be contracted???

The place no player seems to want to play is Toronto, and it's not even offered as a choice. I mean, it's not the worst run organization, but they can't get anybody to want to stay there. I guess the higher taxes puts it at a competitive disadvantage.

fan support.griz have none of it,and outside the city people ...quite frankly forget they exist.

tor is a big market,lots of fan support

John Walls Era
01-26-2011, 01:56 AM
I don't understand these results. The best team of the group (Grizzlies) is the one people think should be contracted???

The place no player seems to want to play is Toronto, and it's not even offered as a choice. I mean, it's not the worst run organization, but they can't get anybody to want to stay there. I guess the higher taxes puts it at a competitive disadvantage.

So over-exaggerated. The only reason is because Toronto had a couple of All-stars who left (neither complained about playing in Toronto btw, just some of the scrubs). You think players actually rather playing in Sacramento or Milwaukee? They don't love playing there, but its not a place "no player seems to want to play in".

Mudvayne91
01-26-2011, 01:57 AM
And coincidentally that's when the NBA went on it's mini recession.

People were blaming the NBC to ABC switch up, blaming the officiating and that's when they changed a bunch of rules to benefit perimeter players and make the game more fast paced, and finally, claiming the league just needed another Jordan, and that's when they went on the man hunt hyping every next guy: Iverson, VC, KB24, LeBron, Wade, etc..

Well, there was an actual recession just emerging too....

icon1914
01-26-2011, 02:21 AM
Only team that should be thought about moving them is Memphis, seems like the the area where nobody would want to go. Not a big market, in a boring city like Memphis. Even if Memphis was number 1 seed I cant see any stars wanting to go to Memphis. I say NBA moves Grizzles to Vegas, Seattle, San Diego ex.

Memphis is not boring... Memphis is just broke as hell... I never thought the Grizzlies would last here, so if they move or get contracted I would not be surprised...

I don't see contraction happening... How could the players union vote for that when it means less jobs for them?

kblo247
01-26-2011, 02:30 AM
Here's what you do.

You don't contract. You put in a hard cap and non guaranteed contracts like football. This forces stars to go to lesser markets if they want money because things like what the Heat did and what the Knicks are trying to do won't fly.

This leads to teams being more balanced and fans wanting to show up because the 76ers and Kings and Clippers will eventually become elite again (or for the first time).

This whole post is pot and kettle.

The Suns have been over the cap in the Nash era to compete, but no hard cap was fine as long as they did it and not NY, Miami, or any other team I guess.

The fact is the Suns and those markets have horrible *** management in recent memory and put their own teams in the positions they did. No one made Phoenix sell every pick they had, let JJ walk, or insult Amare by offering him unguaranteed money and renouncing his bird rights. No one made the Sixers pay Elton Brand like a star or give Iquodala that salary. No one made the Clippers waste talent for years like Miles, Q, Odom, Brand, Miller, and so many more. They ****ed themselves over and deserve to be irrelevant for their own poor decision making by management. The Kings are the ones who chose to waste space by absorbing Dalembert and Landry as well as to overpay yhe hell out of Kevin MArtin years ago.

Also there is no way in hell you can expect a basketball player to accept a non-guaranteed deal. They play 4 games in 5 nights, have no bye weeks, have an 82 game season, are made to play overseas in preseasons, and play best of 7 series in the postseason. The pure wear and tear from the constant running and jumping they do puts their body at a far greater risk of giving out than your average player in football or even baseball because roster sizes are so small.

In short if you want to blame someone for a team being bad and stars looking for greener pastures put it on management by those same organizations.

As for the parity argument, the league has never and will never be built on that. It is built on teams like LA, Boston, Chicago, NY, SA, Houston, Detroit, Miami, Orlando, Dallas, and Houston being relevant. It always has been and always will be what is profitable and in its best interest, not some small market getting a slight bump in ticket sales or viewership.

Those markets and management is why you see the teams I listed consistently winning, playing in the postseason, and having the number of titles they have.

The league has a higher attendance and viewership rate this year as well so they can't be doing too wrong.

Don't play the blame game when you and I know that it should sit squarely on the hands of front offices not knowing how to build a team, spend wisely, or handling their own personnel properly.

kblo247
01-26-2011, 02:37 AM
Only team that should be thought about moving them is Memphis, seems like the the area where nobody would want to go. Not a big market, in a boring city like Memphis. Even if Memphis was number 1 seed I cant see any stars wanting to go to Memphis. I say NBA moves Grizzles to Vegas, Seattle, San Diego ex.

They have kick *** bbq and blues music, but that gets old.

koLohe2133
01-26-2011, 02:56 AM
The fact that Sacramento has a professional anything, not semi pro....is a disgrace.

LA has no football team and Seattle has no basketball team. Ridiculous

gwrighter
01-26-2011, 03:12 AM
This whole post is pot and kettle.

The Suns have been over the cap in the Nash era to compete, but no hard cap was fine as long as they did it and not NY, Miami, or any other team I guess.

The fact is the Suns and those markets have horrible *** management in recent memory and put their own teams in the positions they did. No one made Phoenix sell every pick they had, let JJ walk, or insult Amare by offering him unguaranteed money and renouncing his bird rights. No one made the Sixers pay Elton Brand like a star or give Iquodala that salary. No one made the Clippers waste talent for years like Miles, Q, Odom, Brand, Miller, and so many more. They ****ed themselves over and deserve to be irrelevant for their own poor decision making by management. The Kings are the ones who chose to waste space by absorbing Dalembert and Landry as well as to overpay yhe hell out of Kevin MArtin years ago.

Also there is no way in hell you can expect a basketball player to accept a non-guaranteed deal. They play 4 games in 5 nights, have no bye weeks, have an 82 game season, are made to play overseas in preseasons, and play best of 7 series in the postseason. The pure wear and tear from the constant running and jumping they do puts their body at a far greater risk of giving out than your average player in football or even baseball because roster sizes are so small.

In short if you want to blame someone for a team being bad and stars looking for greener pastures put it on management by those same organizations.

As for the parity argument, the league has never and will never be built on that. It is built on teams like LA, Boston, Chicago, NY, SA, Houston, Detroit, Miami, Orlando, Dallas, and Houston being relevant. It always has been and always will be what is profitable and in its best interest, not some small market getting a slight bump in ticket sales or viewership.

Those markets and management is why you see the teams I listed consistently winning, playing in the postseason, and having the number of titles they have.

The league has a higher attendance and viewership rate this year as well so they can't be doing too wrong.

Don't play the blame game when you and I know that it should sit squarely on the hands of front offices not knowing how to build a team, spend wisely, or handling their own personnel properly.

I understand your main point and what you are trying to get at but you have to understand that the mgmt of these certain teams made the decisions within the paradigm of the existing cap structure. There are alternative answers to all of the aforementioned bad decisions when taking a hard cap into consideration. most of these teams would have acted differently and thus you can't blame the mgmt in the past for making bad decisions because there were not any alternatives acting in this speculative new hard-cap model. of course in hindsight they may look like bad decisions but at the time they were made possible because of the current cap structure and potential reward.

I agree with the your point that no basketball player should accept a non-guaranteed deal. but your reasoning is not sound in the sense that it is more risky to play football than it is to play basketball. this is why they have such extensive rosters and non-guaranteed contracts. These two variables increase the likely-hood of winning for teams in the event of significant injury. Obviously there is more contact and therefore a greater risk of injury in football. the indicator of this is that there are so many injuries even though there are a smaller # of games. the probability of getting injured is higher in football.

having a select # of teams win is not the most profitable way for the league to operate. The more revenue each Franchise generates the more $ the NBA accumulates from its royaltie checks. The object is to attract new viewers. the efficient thing to do is expand the market by treading into new territory by capturing more viewers in the small-market areas in order to turn them into Large market areas. This is not done by turning everybody into a Laker fan. The thing is that it is easier for the league to hype players and turn viewers into player fans then Franchise fans, this is the problem. They are focusing on short-term gains. If they concentrated on building fandom surrounding all organizations then they will build life-long fans and not fans that come and go like the players. the point that i am trying to get at is that they are too lazy to tread into that new era. the NBA elites are getting old and if it aint broke then don't fix it. There is no point revolutionizing the market when you have a lot of the NBA pundits benefitting from the present system. When they begin to retire/die off we might see a change, but until then, all we can do is talk ****.

kblo247
01-26-2011, 03:33 AM
I understand your main point and what you are trying to get at but you have to understand that the mgmt of these certain teams made the decisions within the paradigm of the existing cap structure. There are alternative answers to all of the aforementioned bad decisions when taking a hard cap into consideration. most of these teams would have acted differently and thus you can't blame the mgmt in the past for making bad decisions because there were not any alternatives acting in this speculative new hard-cap model. of course in hindsight they may look like bad decisions but at the time they were made possible because of the current cap structure and potential reward.

I agree with the your point that no basketball player should accept a non-guaranteed deal. but your reasoning is not sound in the sense that it is more risky to play football than it is to play basketball. this is why they have such extensive rosters and non-guaranteed contracts. These two variables increase the likely-hood of winning for teams in the event of significant injury. Obviously there is more contact and therefore a greater risk of injury in football. the indicator of this is that there are so many injuries even though there are a smaller # of games. the probability of getting injured is higher in football.

having a select # of teams win is not the most profitable way for the league to operate. The more revenue each Franchise generates the more $ the NBA accumulates from its royaltie checks. The object is to attract new viewers. the efficient thing to do is expand the market by treading into new territory by capturing more viewers in the small-market areas in order to turn them into Large market areas. This is not done by turning everybody into a Laker fan. The thing is that it is easier for the league to hype players and turn viewers into player fans then Franchise fans, this is the problem. They are focusing on short-term gains. If they concentrated on building fandom surrounding all organizations then they will build life-long fans and not fans that come and go like the players. the point that i am trying to get at is that they are too lazy to tread into that new era. the NBA elites are getting old and if it aint broke then don't fix it. There is no point revolutionizing the market when you have a lot of the NBA pundits benefitting from the present system. When they begin to retire/die off we might see a change, but until then, all we can do is talk ****.

1. You live with your choices. At the end of the day you choose to overpay scrubs or give fringe all stars franchise player money, you live with the ramifications of the salary or try to trade them.

2. The probability is higher but the grind of a season, travel, mandatory NBA Cares hours, and all those things make it not plausible to tell any good player your money isn't guaranteed. At the end of the day unlike the NFL and MLB the NBA sells the faces of its players and puts their fans in close proximity with them during a game. You simply can't get any player in a star driven league, that has been star driven since the days of Mikan to risk their body for nothing.

3. The NBA was never built on fandom. If you want that watch the NCAA, Eoruleague, or old ABA. The NBA is a giant corporation who was built on a model. That model is what keeps everyone in the offices and the players fed and happy. From Mikan to Russell/Wilt/West to Dr.J/Larry/Magic/Isiah to MJ/Hakeem to Shaq/Duncan to Kobe/Wade/LeBron they are the faces of the league and a hand full of franchises have served as its backbone for generations. The NBA became more global than the other American sports because of it, they are profiting because of it, and that will not change. To suggest a time tested and proven formula for a successful business whose revenue and viewership are up is wrong, just don't cut it. While smaller teams being more competitive might be nice or forcing a player to sign in a market may wok in the perfect world it is devoid of every principle of the CBA and even the spirit of capitalism and competition that the country the league exists in was built on.


*
The thing that needs to be fixed is the draft system and some teams out right tanking for ping pong balls. Either do it by record or have a mini NIT like tourney for the spots to make those teams actually compete instead of mailing it in and watering down the competition level.

SANDBURG23
01-26-2011, 03:35 AM
Contract Minnesota and Memphis, move Hornets to Seattle and Western conference.

Have a hard salary cap set starting at 100 million(close to the top payroll the Lakers), a formula to increase it slowely can be put in place. Lower the maximum salary to 12million. Make all contracts that are now over 12 million only count for 12 million towards the cap. Lower the salary cap hits for players will make it easier for teams near the new cap room to make moves. Example the Lakers payroll would be about 95,000,000, about 5 million under the cap. The minimum roster will be raised by one to keep same amount of players employed(keep players happy). This really opens up trades , something the NBA really needs.

Have the amount that you have to start paying the luxury tax go up by 10 million. Just one time to compensate for the new roster spot. Then have it go up by the same rules. Yes you'll can be under the cap and still pay the luxury tax. Mem & Min share of the TV money(for quite a few years to make it back for the league) would probally have to be used to buy the two teams. There are two of the smallest valued teams another reason to pick these two besides the bad attendence.

Lower the max salary 12million w/ slight % increases per year(for both old & new contracts to keep top players being paid the same)(exmp: if you sign 4 year max contract in '12 you'll be paid same as guy that signs max contract in '14, because both recieve the same increase).

Then you can have a contraction draft before the NBA draft. Memphis owes Minnesotta a protected pick(from Jefferson trade w/ Uth), we remove the protection, make it this year and make it something a team can select instead of a player. As well as Uth's 1strd'11 and 2ndrd's in '14 & '16 owed to Mem and Min.

The picks Mem and Min owe this year will be drafted as is per record. Both teams only owe second after this year(except Mem to Min already covered), those picks can be drafted 20th and 21st in the years they are owed just have 2 extra players drafted that year. Team with worse record this year will determine which spot between Min and Mem.

With players under contract after this year and restricted FA's and picks there are 30 players/picks(26 players & 4 picks) combo to choose from. One per team ,the last 2 players not taken can have his contract bought by the NBA and made a FA(if by a weird chance its one of the picks just kill the pick). Of course a team can draft and release a restricted FA w/o any issues, there's 5 of them but sure a few will by wanted. Unlike the NBA draft this draft will have no lottery just done by record.

Of course the worest teams will be deciding between Gay, Gasol, Mayo, Conley, Beasley, Love, Rubio, Flynn, the lottery pick; and the best teams deciding whos the easiest to get ride of or live with, but that's just how it works out. plus most of the middle teams should be able to get somethiong they can use. There is 10 starters, a few young potential players and 4 picks being added to the talent pool, competiton will get better.

Nicely there is really only Milic & Pekovic's contract's that are unbelievable bad on these two teams(but they can be left for the NBA to buy out). If you look at the years, money, potential and talent of the rest the NBA can deal with it ok. Of course players with no trade clauses are screwed if drafted by one. But with new cap they will be easier to trade also. Mayo could end up in NY with Carmelo

Dumping two teams and just using a hard salary cap that is at a level that a team has already managed to spend anyway, is a good way to make the NBA more exciting. Bad teams will get better good teams will stay where they are. Trades will start to happen again based on talent or picks involved, not salary, too a degree. Of course dump the match salary requirment, just all teams involved have to be under the cap after trade.

Imagine if Was got Love and the #1 pick to go with Wall, instaneley fun to watch with great potential. Clippers get Gay to be there SF and they trade Aminu for something they could be a tough team. Someone drafts and trades Gasol to OKC for Aldrich(11thpk'11-C) and picks, if Harden keeps improving they would have a legitment shot at the title. Conley or Mayo in NY w/ Carmelo & Amare. Tor takes the Mem pick and gets two top rookies. Beasley to Mil or Det, both would be happy to have.

jtsunami
01-26-2011, 10:15 AM
I don't think contraction is necessary, but I think some teams should definitely be relocated. Only a couple cities have enough fan support for multiple sports. New Orleans isn't one of them. Honestly, outside the top 8 cities in the U.S., there should be 1 or 2 sports in the city.

Look at OKC. They're great because they only have the Thunder. They support them and they supported them during the first move. Some big cities don't even have one sport in it.

Las Vegas, Columbus (already has a hockey stadium), Fort Worth, Austin, Louisville (not one major sport in the state of KY), Albuquerque, etc.

I think it's terrible that Columbus and Louisville don't have any sports teams when they could easily support them. Vegas would be great too for the fact that tourists would fill up 25% of the stadium on a given night.

Flash3
01-26-2011, 11:34 AM
I don't understand these results. The best team of the group (Grizzlies) is the one people think should be contracted???

The place no player seems to want to play is Toronto, and it's not even offered as a choice. I mean, it's not the worst run organization, but they can't get anybody to want to stay there. I guess the higher taxes puts it at a competitive disadvantage.

[edit] Obviously, the Grizzlies are not doing as well as the Hornets. I missed that. Still, the Grizzlies are doing too well to want to see them go.

the nba is a buisness and basically it seems like this " make money or gtfo " toronto makes a **** load of it while memphis doesn't. memphis isn't a hot destination itself i heard even rookies refuse to workout for them.

AntiG
01-26-2011, 11:49 AM
The Hornets. They can't even find an owner for them.

rhino17
01-26-2011, 11:54 AM
Las Vegas, Columbus (already has a hockey stadium), Fort Worth, Austin, Louisville (not one major sport in the state of KY), Albuquerque, etc.


Moving a team to Ft Worth or Austin would be stupid. Ft worth is 30 minutes from Dallas and Austin is a college sports town, not to mention the Spurs are very close by

masalex1205
01-26-2011, 12:16 PM
doesn't mean that the NBA couldn't decide otherwise

:facepalm: dumbest thing I"ve ever read on PSD

the NBA can't void contracts between a team and a 3rd party

gwrighter
01-26-2011, 12:29 PM
1. You live with your choices. At the end of the day you choose to overpay scrubs or give fringe all stars franchise player money, you live with the ramifications of the salary or try to trade them.

2. The probability is higher but the grind of a season, travel, mandatory NBA Cares hours, and all those things make it not plausible to tell any good player your money isn't guaranteed. At the end of the day unlike the NFL and MLB the NBA sells the faces of its players and puts their fans in close proximity with them during a game. You simply can't get any player in a star driven league, that has been star driven since the days of Mikan to risk their body for nothing.

3. The NBA was never built on fandom. If you want that watch the NCAA, Eoruleague, or old ABA. The NBA is a giant corporation who was built on a model. That model is what keeps everyone in the offices and the players fed and happy. From Mikan to Russell/Wilt/West to Dr.J/Larry/Magic/Isiah to MJ/Hakeem to Shaq/Duncan to Kobe/Wade/LeBron they are the faces of the league and a hand full of franchises have served as its backbone for generations. The NBA became more global than the other American sports because of it, they are profiting because of it, and that will not change. To suggest a time tested and proven formula for a successful business whose revenue and viewership are up is wrong, just don't cut it. While smaller teams being more competitive might be nice or forcing a player to sign in a market may wok in the perfect world it is devoid of every principle of the CBA and even the spirit of capitalism and competition that the country the league exists in was built on.


*
The thing that needs to be fixed is the draft system and some teams out right tanking for ping pong balls. Either do it by record or have a mini NIT like tourney for the spots to make those teams actually compete instead of mailing it in and watering down the competition level.

2. of course you can't expect an NBA player to do all those things with non guaranteed-income. It is not efficient. The elite talent level is too small. the player turnover rate is lower in the NBA than the NFL suggesting that better players come around less often in the NBA. once again i agree with you in the notion that non-guaranteed contracts are useless.

3. The figures suggest that the NBA has been losing close to 200 million a year since 2005 because of the CBA (The actual economic reason to me is unknown). What that is suggesting is that the current model is not working. For a monopoly like the NBA to be earning negative profits is absurd and should not be happening as for the most part each team is the only professional team in each market(there may be some overlap eg. LAL/LAC). The model that the NBA was built on in the past served for exactly that time frame, the past. We are in the present and the fundamental principles that the league was built on are not in congruency with the reality of the markets today. Hence why the NBA is struggling and why the USA as a country is struggling. There will continue to be added friction in the market if things to do not start to become more equal among all teams. they need to instill a hard cap to level the playing field and therefore increase competitiveness among all teams which then increases viewership. You get more fans to watch if they believe the team is on the cusp of a championship. this extrapolates to more merchandising sales, increase in ticket sales/prices. increased viewership= increased advertising revenue = higher profits. this is all while keeping costs relatively stable.

my point is that if you have wade, lebron, bosh on diff teams then you have an increase in competitiveness which = increase in revenue. the creation of super-teams are detrimental to the league in a profit seeking notion. Let's not forget that super-stars will be super-stars. you can always hype players. but when those players disappear then so does the revenue that they brought n thats the problem. Everybody wants to be friends and play on the same team. how is that competitive at all?

note: i disagree with forcing players to sign, what is this facism? lol.

MSU4life
01-26-2011, 12:45 PM
I don't think contraction is necessary, but I think some teams should definitely be relocated. Only a couple cities have enough fan support for multiple sports. New Orleans isn't one of them. Honestly, outside the top 8 cities in the U.S., there should be 1 or 2 sports in the city.Look at OKC. They're great because they only have the Thunder. They support them and they supported them during the first move. Some big cities don't even have one sport in it.

Las Vegas, Columbus (already has a hockey stadium), Fort Worth, Austin, Louisville (not one major sport in the state of KY), Albuquerque, etc.

I think it's terrible that Columbus and Louisville don't have any sports teams when they could easily support them. Vegas would be great too for the fact that tourists would fill up 25% of the stadium on a given night.

up until last season pistons had a 400(+)sold out games streak, not to mention the redwings are always in the top 5 for attendence, when the lions went on the 4 game win streak (lol) at the end of the year ford field started getting packed. look at Cleveland, samething for them, just because they arent very big markets doesnt mean they can only support 1 sports team

KingsPhillies
01-26-2011, 12:50 PM
So over-exaggerated. The only reason is because Toronto had a couple of All-stars who left (neither complained about playing in Toronto btw, just some of the scrubs). You think players actually rather playing in Sacramento or Milwaukee? They don't love playing there, but its not a place "no player seems to want to play in".

It's funny that you mention Sacramento as one of the least favorite destinations for NBA players, when the situation in Sac-Town is exactly how you described Toronto. Sure, we've had All-Stars that have left, but all of them loved playing in Sac. C-Webb, Vlade, Peja, Bibby, G-Wallace, K-Mart, Salmons and even Artest all were quite outspoken about how much they loved the city and the fans. Most of them didn't even want to be traded. Even Carl Landry(who is rumored to either be traded or leave in free agency) recently came out and talked about how much he he enjoyed playing in Sac, how great the fans are, and that he'd be happy to stay there is everything makes sense contractually.

Sure, it's hard for us to get the LeBrons and Melos in free agency, but that's just ignorance of the individual player. For the most part, those who play in Sacramento enjoy it. I think it has to do with the fact that they simply know very little about the city and what it has to offer. I think the same goes for Toronto. Toronto is a big city with lots to offer...especially if you get paid NBA money. Sacramento is the same way. People just don't realize it because they've never actually spent enough time there.

I suppose the same could be said for any small market team. Hell, New Orleans is one of the smallest markets in the NBA, and that city has TONS of stuff to do when not on the court. Yet you still don't see a lot of big name free agents signing there. So I really think it boils down to the ignorance of individual players. They're all like little kids who want a new toy. The city is the toy, and if they don't get the exact toy they want, they throw a fit. When, in reality, a toy is a toy, and a city is a city. These guys just need to be happy they have an opportunity to do something very few people are able to do. And get paid ridiculous amounts of money to do it.

Personally, I don't think there should be any contraction. Small market cities with teams should not have to suffer because David Stern is no good at his job, and those are the teams that would be first to go. He's the one who decided to expand in the first place. Why should we have to pay for his mistake? If they are going to contract, it should be the most recent expansion teams that go. That's just my opinion.

But if my Kings get a new arena built(and things are actually starting to look promising), I don't think I'll have to worry about losing my team any time soon.

/rant

arkanian215
01-26-2011, 04:06 PM
It's true. Parity doesn't exist in NBA basketball. Never has. The game is too specialized and small for 15 teams to have a shot at the title year after year

Nah I was pointing out the contradiction in those two sentences.

Rivera
01-26-2011, 04:14 PM
The thing is people don't realize nobody cares about parity.

Only fans of teams in small markets care about parity.

:eyebrow: really???

this is why the NFL is king and baseball and basketball need to catch up

because of parity...

when the rams go from 1-15 to almost division champs in one year....how is that not great??

abe_froman
01-26-2011, 04:27 PM
:eyebrow: really???

this is why the NFL is king and baseball and basketball need to catch up

because of parity...

when the rams go from 1-15 to almost division champs in one year....how is that not great??

your forgetting that each of those sports differs greatly in how they are played.its easier for football to achieve parity because your best play is only out there for a limited time,can only play on one side of the ball..thus the impact he has on the outcome of events is smaller than basketball were you can have your best player out there all game,playing both sides of the ball,t6aking every shot if you like.

put payton manning or albert pujols on a team of scrubs and they'd be in the basement as they can only do so much.but put howard with scrubs and its a playoff team

jkcronyn
01-26-2011, 04:32 PM
anyone been to charlottes arena? its in a dope city, clean downtown, dope stadium. seriously i'd be pissed if charlotte got contracted.

basketballer122
01-26-2011, 04:35 PM
i would destroy 4 teams or more maybe
cavs
kings
wolves
bobcats

maybe
hornets
grizzlies
bucks
pistons
nets

Flash3
01-26-2011, 04:49 PM
i would destroy 4 teams or more maybe
cavs
kings
wolves
bobcats

maybe
hornets
grizzlies
bucks
pistons
nets

disagree with the bold.

kblo247
01-26-2011, 04:55 PM
2. of course you can't expect an NBA player to do all those things with non guaranteed-income. It is not efficient. The elite talent level is too small. the player turnover rate is lower in the NBA than the NFL suggesting that better players come around less often in the NBA. once again i agree with you in the notion that non-guaranteed contracts are useless.

3. The figures suggest that the NBA has been losing close to 200 million a year since 2005 because of the CBA (The actual economic reason to me is unknown). What that is suggesting is that the current model is not working. For a monopoly like the NBA to be earning negative profits is absurd and should not be happening as for the most part each team is the only professional team in each market(there may be some overlap eg. LAL/LAC). The model that the NBA was built on in the past served for exactly that time frame, the past. We are in the present and the fundamental principles that the league was built on are not in congruency with the reality of the markets today. Hence why the NBA is struggling and why the USA as a country is struggling. There will continue to be added friction in the market if things to do not start to become more equal among all teams. they need to instill a hard cap to level the playing field and therefore increase competitiveness among all teams which then increases viewership. You get more fans to watch if they believe the team is on the cusp of a championship. this extrapolates to more merchandising sales, increase in ticket sales/prices. increased viewership= increased advertising revenue = higher profits. this is all while keeping costs relatively stable.

my point is that if you have wade, lebron, bosh on diff teams then you have an increase in competitiveness which = increase in revenue. the creation of super-teams are detrimental to the league in a profit seeking notion. Let's not forget that super-stars will be super-stars. you can always hype players. but when those players disappear then so does the revenue that they brought n thats the problem. Everybody wants to be friends and play on the same team. how is that competitive at all?

note: i disagree with forcing players to sign, what is this facism? lol.

Only problem I have with 3 is the deputy commissioner talking at the LAkers game about how profits are up all across the board, viewership is up, and attendance is up for the league as whole.

The league tends to send mixed messages on that as both sides seem to read off different figures which suggest they are and aren't profitable.

todu82
01-26-2011, 08:37 PM
Memphis and Sacramento

JPHX
01-27-2011, 02:31 AM
dont need to contract, just need to level the playing field for the small market teams. like King4day said hard cap in and guaranteed contracts out.