PDA

View Full Version : Is Contraction Necessary?



OA SLAY
12-09-2011, 11:55 AM
Is Contraction Necessary?
I believe absolutly YES!
Judging by recent events and players manipulating their way to Big Markets, it is going to be imposible for smaller franchises to maintain any star players and avoid over paying for lack luster talent.
This recent trend is setting a bad example for future NBA players. What is preventing them from holding out when they get drafted cuz they figure Dwight did it, Melo did it why cant I?

I cant say I blame them either, why would you want to waste prime years playing in Memphis or Utah going unnoticed when you could play on the Worlds Stage playing for lets say ...the KnickS (joke).:eyebrow:
Therefor I believe its a must to downsize the league to about 22-25 teams.
Its the only way to spread talent around the League and maintain a competitive balance for smaller markets.
Thoughts?....

The Jokemaker
12-09-2011, 12:22 PM
I'm against contraction. I'm a fan of one of these lowly teams (the Grizzlies) and would hate to see them fold. Just because the media whores out to big markets doesn't mean all sports should too.

Celticsfan2007
12-09-2011, 12:31 PM
I'm against contraction. I'm a fan of one of these lowly teams (the Grizzlies) and would hate to see them fold. Just because the media whores out to big markets doesn't mean all sports should too.

Its not about the media. Its about small market teams being able to compete with the large market teams.

I'm against contraction also, but unless the NBA comes up with a better system to allow small market teams to retain their talent or get proper compensation in return then the NBA will always be a joke with these types of trades including superstars.

I for one live in a large market in Boston, but I root for many small market teams including the Grizzlies, T-Wolves and Bucks. It's a shame that these superstars can hold these teams hostage like they do.

If I was the owners/players I would take last nights CP3 trade a good example as to why this new CBA should NOT be signed. The NBA needs to completely revamp its current structure on player movement.

Wade>You
12-09-2011, 12:33 PM
Everyone knows the NBA got trigger happy with expansion.

jrm2054
12-09-2011, 12:35 PM
Im for it obviously at this rate they can't compete the same teams win he title all the time have 20 teams and superstars on each one

Chronz
12-09-2011, 12:35 PM
Yes, the Hornets are one of them.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-09-2011, 12:36 PM
If we contracted your team, should we still do it?

OA SLAY
12-09-2011, 12:38 PM
I understand, but this would be for the benefit of the league. What's there to keep high profile players in Memphis or to lead you to believe that you will still have a team in future years.

GREATNESS ONE
12-09-2011, 12:39 PM
I was 100% against this before but now in all honesty, Cleveland and NO has got to go.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-09-2011, 12:39 PM
I understand, but this would be for the benefit of the league. What's there to keep high profile players in Memphis or to lead you to believe that you will still have a team in future years.

A hard cap.

LADanks
12-09-2011, 12:39 PM
Unfortunately, YES -- The only way smaller market teams can attract and maintain marquee players is to be competitive which is becoming increasingly difficult in a watered down, overextended NBA. Unless there's a sudden, unexpected inflow of top-level talent from abroad, contraction is the only answer.

Yunqn
12-09-2011, 12:40 PM
utah def shouldnt get contracted... they always try to build a team.. it isnt about where players would want to play.. theres free agency for that..

the only team im for the league contracting is the bobcats.. i still dont see why they exist..no offense to any bobcat fans.. but now with a cheap and uneducated owner that franchise is only going to get worse..

NO OFFENSE but the only teams i would honesty careless about conttracting is the bobcats & cavs because of the market AND the fact they are never in contention or atleast try..

gatkins11
12-09-2011, 12:42 PM
I might be a Mavs fan (11 years), but I also like the Bobcats and would hate to see them be contracted. I love going to Bobcats games when I get the chance.

thekmp211
12-09-2011, 12:43 PM
i would have never expanded so far in the first place, that being said...

no.

take a look at the league this year. which franchises are truly dead-in-a-ditch, going nowhere franchises (besides the hornets at this time)?

cleveland just got two top-5 draft picks, and is still enjoying a boom from having lebron for so many years. phoenix is similarly rebuilding, although they still have nash and probably have the weakest pool of prospects in the league. still, they had a nice 7 year window.

the raptors have young talent and a huge media market, and new ownership. lots of talent in minny, lac, gsw, nj, philly... pretty much every non-playoff team has at least one legit reason for hope.

we can all agree nba franchises have a problem with talent evaluation and long-term planning. i really do reject the notion that the league is too thin, and i think it will get even deeper in the next 5 years if these retards don't mess it all up somehow. lets say im cautiously optimistic.

NYKalltheway
12-09-2011, 12:44 PM
Vertical divisions....

OA SLAY
12-09-2011, 12:57 PM
If we contracted your team, should we still do it?
I'm a fan of the Knicks so obviously that wouldn't happen. But I don't live anywhere near NY and based on the past 10years I would say yes. I'm a basketball fan 1st and this only makes the game better.

PhillyFaninLA
12-09-2011, 12:58 PM
Here are my thoughts on contraction just copied a list of teams and am giving a quick thought about each so I'm only putting initial reaction down.

Boston Celtics - have to keep
New Jersey Nets - moving to Brooklyn and possibly have Deron and Dwight is to marketable
New York Knicks - have to keep team that plays home games in the Mecca of Basketball
Philadelphia 76ers - have to keep, titles, hall of famers, historic rivalries
Toronto Raptors - either way I'd probably move them to the states no offense to anyone in Canada

Chicago Bulls - have to keep
Cleveland Cavaliers - either way, I think Gilbert has to go and if he stays you contract them
Detroit Pistons - they have 2 different title teams so they have a legacy
Indiana Pacers - you could make a case for contracting them but I think they have to stay
Milwaukee Bucks - either way

Atlanta Hawks - either way
Charlotte Bobcats - gone
Miami Heat - have to stay, have a past legacy and a marketable future
Orlando Magic - probably should stay but without Dwight I'm not sure there is history is quite good enough to make them a lock to stay
Washington Wizards - either way

Denver Nuggets - I probably keep them because they have a ton of good teams even if they don't have a title (at least I don't think they do)
Minnesota Timberwolves - gone, I'm reluctant to say that but I don't see a real legacy to hold onto
Oklahoma City Thunder - have to keep, to much of an exciting young team
Portland Trail Blazers - have a good past so you keep
Utah Jazz - when was the last time they didn't win 50 games you keep them

Golden State Warriors - either way
Los Angeles Clippers - keep them because they are young and exciting
Los Angeles Lakers - get rid of....kidding kidding, Celtic, Lakers, Knicks, Sixers, and Bulls you cannot touch and are better for the league
Phoenix Suns - gone
Sacramento Kings - gone

Dallas Mavericks - have to keep, Cuban and a title you have to keep
Houston Rockets - with the success in the 1990's you have to keep them
Memphis Grizzlies - gone, but I say that hesitantly
New Orleans Hornets - take control away from the league today and put it in the hands of an independent group and put them up for sale or disband them today
San Antonio Spurs - have to keep

Arch Stanton
12-09-2011, 01:01 PM
Here are my thoughts on contraction just copied a list of teams and am giving a quick thought about each so I'm only putting initial reaction down.

Boston Celtics - have to keep
New Jersey Nets - moving to Brooklyn and possibly have Deron and Dwight is to marketable
New York Knicks - have to keep team that plays home games in the Mecca of Basketball
Philadelphia 76ers - have to keep, titles, hall of famers, historic rivalries
Toronto Raptors - either way I'd probably move them to the states no offense to anyone in Canada

Chicago Bulls - have to keep
Cleveland Cavaliers - either way, I think Gilbert has to go and if he stays you contract them
Detroit Pistons - they have 2 different title teams so they have a legacy
Indiana Pacers - you could make a case for contracting them but I think they have to stay
Milwaukee Bucks - either way

Atlanta Hawks - either way
Charlotte Bobcats - gone
Miami Heat - have to stay, have a past legacy and a marketable future
Orlando Magic - probably should stay but without Dwight I'm not sure there is history is quite good enough to make them a lock to stay
Washington Wizards - either way

Denver Nuggets - I probably keep them because they have a ton of good teams even if they don't have a title (at least I don't think they do)
Minnesota Timberwolves - gone, I'm reluctant to say that but I don't see a real legacy to hold onto
Oklahoma City Thunder - have to keep, to much of an exciting young team
Portland Trail Blazers - have a good past so you keep
Utah Jazz - when was the last time they didn't win 50 games you keep them

Golden State Warriors - either way
Los Angeles Clippers - keep them because they are young and exciting
Los Angeles Lakers - get rid of....kidding kidding, Celtic, Lakers, Knicks, Sixers, and Bulls you cannot touch and are better for the league
Phoenix Suns - gone
Sacramento Kings - gone

Dallas Mavericks - have to keep, Cuban and a title you have to keep
Houston Rockets - with the success in the 1990's you have to keep them
Memphis Grizzlies - gone, but I say that hesitantly
New Orleans Hornets - take control away from the league today and put it in the hands of an independent group and put them up for sale or disband them today
San Antonio Spurs - have to keep

Philadelphia should get contracted since they're a constant one and done 8th seed in the playoffs.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-09-2011, 01:03 PM
I'm a fan of the Knicks so obviously that wouldn't happen. But I don't live anywhere near NY and based on the past 10years I would say yes. I'm a basketball fan 1st and this only makes the game better.

Exactly what I'm trying to point out. It's only big market team fans that want this.

If you really want 'equality', support a hard cap.

Look at the NHL. You have 7th seeds making the finals because of the parity they have.

NYtilIdie
12-09-2011, 01:06 PM
i would have never expanded so far in the first place, that being said...

no.

take a look at the league this year. which franchises are truly dead-in-a-ditch, going nowhere franchises (besides the hornets at this time)?

cleveland just got two top-5 draft picks, and is still enjoying a boom from having lebron for so many years. phoenix is similarly rebuilding, although they still have nash and probably have the weakest pool of prospects in the league. still, they had a nice 7 year window.

the raptors have young talent and a huge media market, and new ownership. lots of talent in minny, lac, gsw, nj, philly... pretty much every non-playoff team has at least one legit reason for hope.

we can all agree nba franchises have a problem with talent evaluation and long-term planning. i really do reject the notion that the league is too thin, and i think it will get even deeper in the next 5 years if these retards don't mess it all up somehow. lets say im cautiously optimistic.

I agree with this, I feel like this whole "trade me *insert team* here" is just players from the 03-04 draft class, players that were drafted after that have yet to request a trade to a certain team, if at all. You look at teams like Philly, Iggy loves it there, Irving wants to be the one who turns the Cavs around and Curry hasn't complained once about playing in GS and Love is going to sign an extension with the T'Wolves soon.

So, theres really no need to panic and talk about contracting teams, this is just a bad phase in the NBA that will pass.

KNICKS R BACK
12-09-2011, 01:08 PM
absolutely...but its more about the managment and ownership of these teams than the actual location...its definitely not appealing to go to cleveland especially when u have a shmuck like dan gilbert running the show...but i'll argue that places like utah, san antonio, and oklahoma city arent attractive either and they've managed to do pretty well over the years (oklahoma city just recently)...it all comes down to management and spending your money wisely, its a different ball game when it comes to being a small market and these cry baby owners just need to accept that...when you run you're team into the ground year after year (and you play in a city thats not attractive) why would ANYBODY Wanna come play for you?

Wade>You
12-09-2011, 01:09 PM
Exactly what I'm trying to point out. It's only big market team fans that want this.

If you really want 'equality', support a hard cap.

Look at the NHL. You have 7th seeds making the finals because of the parity they have.A hard cap already exists with the punitive tax. No owner is going to be paying past $80mil max in team salary when it kicks in. And teams should be allowed to have time to trim their cap before the punitive tax kicks in.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-09-2011, 01:12 PM
A hard cap already exists with the punitive tax. No owner is going to be paying past $80mil when it kicks in. And teams should be allowed to have time to trim their cap before the punitive tax kicks in.

That's not really a hard cap.

The salary cap is like what? $60 mil?

If that is the salary cap, make sure not $1 is spent over it.

That $80 mil crap is complete BS. Since rich teams will still be spending over the salary cap while other teams won't.

OA SLAY
12-09-2011, 01:14 PM
Contract....

Cavs
Jazz or hornets
Bobcats
Clips, kings or warriors... No need for 4 California teams
Magic
Minny
Grizz or OKC

Arch Stanton
12-09-2011, 01:16 PM
Contract....

Cavs
Jazz or hornets
Bobcats
Clips, kings or warriors... No need for 4 California teams
Magic
Minny
Grizz or OKC

Contract the Knicks since they've stunk for a decade.

OA SLAY
12-09-2011, 01:19 PM
I also like what the NHL has done with the new four Division system, I've been saying this for years. NBA should adopt this

OA SLAY
12-09-2011, 01:21 PM
Contract the Knicks since they've stunk for a decade.

Hahahah.... Whatever Clevland

thekmp211
12-09-2011, 01:22 PM
I agree with this, I feel like this whole "trade me *insert team* here" is just players from the 03-04 draft class, players that were drafted after that have yet to request a trade to a certain team, if at all. You look at teams like Philly, Iggy loves it there, Irving wants to be the one who turns the Cavs around and Curry hasn't complained once about playing in GS and Love is going to sign an extension with the T'Wolves soon.

So, theres really no need to panic and talk about contracting teams, this is just a bad phase in the NBA that will pass.

honestly. markets make a difference, but they have been turned into a massive excuse for mismanagement and overall stupidity in the NBA. players want to win, and money spends just as well in all 50 states.

LanceUpperCut
12-09-2011, 01:22 PM
How about instead of contraction we fix the problem (hard cap). Just imagine a team that get's rewarded for managing there Money and assets. If there was a hard cap everyone would be able to get anyone if the had the cap space and maybe these superstars would get there massive ego's knocked down a peg, and realize you don't get every little thing you in life your way and deal with it. These guys don't give a **** about the future of the NBA or the fans.

Tmath
12-09-2011, 01:23 PM
Here are my thoughts on contraction just copied a list of teams and am giving a quick thought about each so I'm only putting initial reaction down.

Boston Celtics - have to keep
New Jersey Nets - moving to Brooklyn and possibly have Deron and Dwight is to marketable
New York Knicks - have to keep team that plays home games in the Mecca of Basketball
Philadelphia 76ers - have to keep, titles, hall of famers, historic rivalries
Toronto Raptors - either way I'd probably move them to the states no offense to anyone in Canada

Chicago Bulls - have to keep
Cleveland Cavaliers - either way, I think Gilbert has to go and if he stays you contract them
Detroit Pistons - they have 2 different title teams so they have a legacy
Indiana Pacers - you could make a case for contracting them but I think they have to stay
Milwaukee Bucks - either way

Atlanta Hawks - either way
Charlotte Bobcats - gone
Miami Heat - have to stay, have a past legacy and a marketable future
Orlando Magic - probably should stay but without Dwight I'm not sure there is history is quite good enough to make them a lock to stay
Washington Wizards - either way

Denver Nuggets - I probably keep them because they have a ton of good teams even if they don't have a title (at least I don't think they do)
Minnesota Timberwolves - gone, I'm reluctant to say that but I don't see a real legacy to hold onto
Oklahoma City Thunder - have to keep, to much of an exciting young team
Portland Trail Blazers - have a good past so you keep
Utah Jazz - when was the last time they didn't win 50 games you keep them

Golden State Warriors - either way
Los Angeles Clippers - keep them because they are young and exciting
Los Angeles Lakers - get rid of....kidding kidding, Celtic, Lakers, Knicks, Sixers, and Bulls you cannot touch and are better for the league
Phoenix Suns - gone
Sacramento Kings - gone

Dallas Mavericks - have to keep, Cuban and a title you have to keep
Houston Rockets - with the success in the 1990's you have to keep them
Memphis Grizzlies - gone, but I say that hesitantly
New Orleans Hornets - take control away from the league today and put it in the hands of an independent group and put them up for sale or disband them today
San Antonio Spurs - have to keep

USA should be contracted from the Earth. (No offense to any americans)

OA SLAY
12-09-2011, 01:27 PM
A hard cap solves nothing... All it does is create more bad teams

nate2usmc
12-09-2011, 01:30 PM
Yes. Hornets and Bobcats are a waste of time.

It's about management of the franchise. Sorry, not everything is created equally so some have it easier than others. In order to be able to win and have an attractive market, they will have to try harder to keep up with or beat the competition. It's Life.

nate2usmc
12-09-2011, 01:33 PM
Contract the Knicks since they've stunk for a decade.

LOL Look at Forbes list for valuable franchises to the NBA even during the last decade.

LanceUpperCut
12-09-2011, 01:34 PM
The funniest thing is do these guys really think there going to be that much bigger going to a large market. Is Lebron bigger now in Miami? to me the only reason why he would be bigger is cause he's hated 10X more. Bosh same thing went from a top 10 player to what maybe top 20 and is the butt end of ever joke. How many more commercials is LBJ in now then his Cleveland days. I find it funny that these guys think there guaranteed rings to if they join forces, I do believe Miami has a good chance at a title but it's by far from a for sure thing. Even the Lakers getting CP3 I didn.t think that made them much better at all losing there front court and Kobe a year older. I hate the Bulls with a passion but I hope them or Dallas win's it again teams that drafted well, traded well and plugged in key pieces.

nate2usmc
12-09-2011, 01:34 PM
USA should be contracted from the Earth. (No offense to any americans)

LOL thank you Canada for the blackberry and hockey.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-09-2011, 01:40 PM
A hard cap solves nothing... All it does is create more bad teams

:laugh2: Are you an idiot?

NFL and NHL technically have a hard cap. Look at the parity in the league.

Do you know nothing about the NBA? If you look at the teams who have won the last decade, they've spent a great amount over the salary cap.

nate2usmc
12-09-2011, 01:44 PM
The funniest thing is do these guys really think there going to be that much bigger going to a large market. Is Lebron bigger now in Miami? to me the only reason why he would be bigger is cause he's hated 10X more. Bosh same thing went from a top 10 player to what maybe top 20. How many more commercials is LBJ in now then his Cleveland days. I find it funny that these guys think there guaranteed rings to if they join forces, I do believe Miami has a good chance at a title but it's by far from a for sure thing. Even the Lakers getting CP3 I didn.t think that made them much better at all losing there front court and Kobe a year older. I hate the Bulls with a passion but I hope them or Dallas win's it again teams that drafted well, traded well and plugged in key pieces.

LeBron did it to have worldwide appeal, especially in China. More rings = more recognition. People in China held Kobe in higher regard than LeBron while in Cleveland. It sucks but it is what it is.

I have lived and have been sent to different countries for more than a decade, as a whole. Not many people talked about Reggie Miller or even Patrick (other than the Caribbean and basketball enthusiasts). People who had avg interest in basketball cared about MJ, Kobe, Shaq etc. Winners in bigger markets.

Basketball is the only American sport that has more interest worldwide than any other league. Even more than Baseball.

Hey, I wouldn't give a damn where I played if I got millions but if I wanted to be a world renown Star, I would have to get multiple Chips or win in big markets.

cdnsportsfan
12-09-2011, 01:46 PM
Contraction for the sake of contraction is not worth it. The league has expanded this far, shutting franchises when it's not necessary to do so will hurt the NBA product far more than it will help. A number of fans would simply not return that's for sure! There are a couple teams that could go it's true, like the Hornets and Bobcats have definitely been struggling. But teams should only be removed because of financial difficulties or lacking a proper arena or something of that nature. Suggesting a team is contracted because of your own personal preferences is counterproductive.

tbone2171
12-09-2011, 01:48 PM
LOL thank you Canada for the blackberry and hockey.

James Naismith says hello

nate2usmc
12-09-2011, 01:55 PM
James Naismith says hello

Oops! And basketball that was invented in Calgary!

Mudvayne91
12-09-2011, 01:58 PM
Hard cap, yo

nate2usmc
12-09-2011, 01:59 PM
I will say this. I'm a huge fan of the underdog, small market team to win it all since every franchise having atleast a Chip would be ideal but this lockout did a number on my utopian outlook.

Toronto should not be contracted either. Toronto is NOT a small market!

smith&wesson
12-09-2011, 02:00 PM
yes but can we just take one team away from each coference ?

charlotte bobcats
new orleans hornets.

PhillyFaninLA
12-09-2011, 02:00 PM
USA should be contracted from the Earth. (No offense to any americans)


Well this is a bit of an overreaction.

I did not say anything anti-Canada. I just said and believe that Toronto is a team that should be considered for contraction or at least being moved to the US. NBA basketball in Canada has not really worked it has not sustained good teams for long, they don't attract free agents, they lose good players (not just Bosh), and lose money. That is not a formula for success so it should not be there.

I have no problem with Canada having teams if they are viable. The Blue Jays for example have an important history to the MLB, they have iconic moments and memories and in the NBA that has not been the case. Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver are great cities.

I understand being defensive about your nation, I understand 99% of people are going to act like morons and idiots but THINK about the point I was trying to make rather then respond like this. Your response only shows you don't understand people's points and just want to react or lash out like a child rather then understand a point or think logically about what it can mean. You are a waste of space to read so I'm adding you to my ignore list after I click submit and maybe you should learn to understand context and meaning before making assumptions or stupid comments.

nate2usmc
12-09-2011, 02:01 PM
NBA should also put hard caps on endorsements based on cities and worldwide exposure depending on city!

nate2usmc
12-09-2011, 02:02 PM
yes but can we just take one team away from each coference ?

charlotte bobcats
new orleans hornets.

This!

homestarunner93
12-09-2011, 02:19 PM
The NBA needs a hard cap and a compensation system for losing FAs. That will fix more problems than contraction. The NBA gains little in the long term by having a few big market teams bully their way to the top. Obviously all the little Knicks and Lakers fans will whine about what I'm saying, but its true.

pebloemer
12-09-2011, 02:41 PM
Contraction isn't necessary but it is a possible solution. One thing is for sure, the status quo is sickening. You have players who are operating as if its a free market system and owners fighting to make it look more like a hard cap. Too many loopholes in the system and it is exposed in the first day of a new CBA. They either need to tighen the screws on the system, or start with a new system entirely (contraction could be an option here). The opportunity was their to create change either way, but they decided BRI was the more important factor. Hard to sympathize with anyone at this point. Only the fans...

29$JerZ
12-09-2011, 02:45 PM
New Orleans is the only team at this point where this should be considered.
That's it though

Slade123
12-09-2011, 02:45 PM
NBA basketball in Canada has not really worked it has not sustained good teams for long, they don't attract free agents, they lose good players (not just Bosh), and lose money.

What? The Raptors are one of the few teams in the NBA that are making money. Not losing them.

pebloemer
12-09-2011, 02:50 PM
NBA basketball in Canada has not really worked it has not sustained good teams for long, they don't attract free agents, they lose good players (not just Bosh), and lose money. That is not a formula for success so it should not be there.

I have no problem with Canada having teams if they are viable. The Blue Jays for example have an important history to the MLB, they have iconic moments and memories and in the NBA that has not been the case. Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver are great cities.

Do you have any evidence to suggest the Raptor's lose money? Forbes magazine listed the Toronto Raptor's as the 10th most valuable NBA franchise just this year. I'm curious what evidence supports this claim.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/basketball-valuations-11_land.html

Toronto's problem has been poor management. They have in fact been able to get Carter and Bosh to sign long term contract extensions, they just managed the team very poorly during their tenure. There is plenty of hope for that. That can always be changed. Their shouldn't be any concerns with the market, the facilities or the ownership at this point, and those would be the pertinent factors when considering contraction to any team.

He115ing
12-09-2011, 02:58 PM
Why u gotta hate on the Knick? :mad:

The 916 Guy
12-09-2011, 03:02 PM
The Hornets should absolutely be contracted, and maybe a team from the Eastern Conference just to keep it an even number.

gwrighter
12-09-2011, 03:32 PM
The NBA needs a hard cap and a compensation system for losing FAs. That will fix more problems than contraction. The NBA gains little in the long term by having a few big market teams bully their way to the top. Obviously all the little Knicks and Lakers fans will whine about what I'm saying, but its true.

absolutely this. A hard cap is the simple answer. You want increased revenue, not a decrease in revenue from contracting a team, that is a backwards move.

WadeKobe
12-09-2011, 03:46 PM
If we contracted your team, should we still do it?

Yes, I've said yes 100x over. Although, it's not about "your team". I'll find some posts I have elsewhere on the issue. Arguing against contraction is simply pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking at this point.

PhillyFaninLA
12-09-2011, 03:52 PM
What? The Raptors are one of the few teams in the NBA that are making money. Not losing them.


Do you have any evidence to suggest the Raptor's lose money? Forbes magazine listed the Toronto Raptor's as the 10th most valuable NBA franchise just this year. I'm curious what evidence supports this claim.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/basketball-valuations-11_land.html

Toronto's problem has been poor management. They have in fact been able to get Carter and Bosh to sign long term contract extensions, they just managed the team very poorly during their tenure. There is plenty of hope for that. That can always be changed. Their shouldn't be any concerns with the market, the facilities or the ownership at this point, and those would be the pertinent factors when considering contraction to any team.


Ok so I concede that one point, but I stand by my other 2 points.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-09-2011, 03:54 PM
Well this is a bit of an overreaction.

I did not say anything anti-Canada. I just said and believe that Toronto is a team that should be considered for contraction or at least being moved to the US. NBA basketball in Canada has not really worked it has not sustained good teams for long, they don't attract free agents, they lose good players (not just Bosh), and lose money. That is not a formula for success so it should not be there.

I have no problem with Canada having teams if they are viable. The Blue Jays for example have an important history to the MLB, they have iconic moments and memories and in the NBA that has not been the case. Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver are great cities.

I understand being defensive about your nation, I understand 99% of people are going to act like morons and idiots but THINK about the point I was trying to make rather then respond like this. Your response only shows you don't understand people's points and just want to react or lash out like a child rather then understand a point or think logically about what it can mean. You are a waste of space to read so I'm adding you to my ignore list after I click submit and maybe you should learn to understand context and meaning before making assumptions or stupid comments.

Clearly you know nothing about the Raptors.

Raptors do not lose much money, if any, at all. One of the more profitable teams in the league.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-09-2011, 03:59 PM
Yes, I've said yes 100x over. Although, it's not about "your team". I'll find some posts I have elsewhere on the issue. Arguing against contraction is simply pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking at this point.

Only people suggesting contractions are teams with large markets. They have no idea what it would feel like if their team was being contracted.

That's why we have some idiotic fans(especially Knicks, and Lakers fans. Not saying fans of those teams are idiotic. Just saying the idiots suggesting it happen to be mostly Knicks and Lakers fans) throwing out the idea of contraction like it's a clear cut solution. Truth is, IT DOESN'T SOLVE ANYTHING IN THE LONG RUN. The most ironic part is that the same fans say they want parity yet completely deny what would actually make the league more competitive. AND THAT'S A HARD CAP.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-09-2011, 04:04 PM
Ok so I concede that one point, but I stand by my other 2 points.

You know why FAs leave Toronto? Because they're spoiled *******s with big egos who think they deserve the ****ing world so they go to big markets to get all the attention they want. And it's not just Toronto, other teams suffer the same fate because they are egotistical *******s.

A hard cap fixes that. Or at least numbs their ego so they learn some humility.

Bravo95
12-09-2011, 04:56 PM
List of NBA Teams by Market Size

# Market | # of TV Homes | Teams

1 New York 7.515M Knicks Nets
2 Los Angeles 5.667M Lakers Clippers
3 Chicago 3.503M Bulls
4 Philadelphia 3.016 Sixers
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2.595M Mavericks
6 SF/Oak/SJ 2.524M Warriors
7 Boston 2.460M Celtics
8 Atlanta 2.407M Hawks
9 Washington, DC 2.390M Wizards
10 Houston 2.177M Rockets
11 Detroit 1.884M Pistons
12 Phoenix 1.881M Suns
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul 1.754M Timberwolves
16 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale 1.581M Heat
17 Denver 1.573M Nuggets
18 Cleveland-Akron 1.526M Cavaliers
19 Orlando-Daytona 1.453M Magic
20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto 1.409M Kings
22 Portland 1.198M Trail Blazers
23 Charlotte 1.166M Bobcats
27 Indianapolis 1.106M Pacers
32 Salt Lake City 954K Jazz
35 Milwaukee 901K Bucks
37 San Antonio 845K Spurs
45 Oklahoma City 705K Thunder
48 Memphis 694K Grizzlies
52 New Orleans 636K Hornets

The gap between the number of TV homes in #1 market New York and #5 market Dallas-Ft. Worth is 187% virtually equaling the 188% gap between the number of homes in Dallas and #35 market Milwaukee. In other words, the markets are much more concentrated outside of the top five. Certainly, while New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia are massive television markets, once you get past those four, the differences are not nearly as great.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/03/nba-market-size-numbers-game/

James Dolan
12-09-2011, 05:28 PM
It's been discussed.

nate2usmc
12-09-2011, 05:42 PM
Only people suggesting contractions are teams with large markets. They have no idea what it would feel like if their team was being contracted.

That's why we have some idiotic fans(especially Knicks, and Lakers fans. Not saying fans of those teams are idiotic. Just saying the idiots suggesting it happen to be mostly Knicks and Lakers fans) throwing out the idea of contraction like it's a clear cut solution. Truth is, IT DOESN'T SOLVE ANYTHING IN THE LONG RUN. The most ironic part is that the same fans say they want parity yet completely deny what would actually make the league more competitive. AND THAT'S A HARD CAP.

Think those fans are small market fans. Parity in the NBA is wishful thinking. Seriously, the Hornets could not make it in Charlotte, yet the Bobcats got the go ahead. That was dumb. Have you lived in the deep south? Basketball is not as big as football (college and NFL) especially in NO! It was a bad idea to expand into cities where basketball is not as welcomed as in other states.


You know why FAs leave Toronto? Because they're spoiled *******s with big egos who think they deserve the ****ing world so they go to big markets to get all the attention they want. And it's not just Toronto, other teams suffer the same fate because they are egotistical *******s.

A hard cap fixes that. Or at least numbs their ego so they learn some humility.

Yeah, its a disgrace to play out your contract and wanna go to play in other places as a FREE agent.

OA SLAY
12-09-2011, 06:02 PM
A hard Cap still doesn't fix the problem.
Allstarts will still want o move to bigger markets and the talent pool is stiill heavily diluted.

NBA should go like this...
PACIFIC: Lakers/Warriors/Kings/Portland/Nuggets/Jazz
South: Spurs/Suns/Houston/Dallas/Atlanta/Miami/
Central: Bulls/Pacers/Cavs/Pistons/Bucks/T-Wolves
Atlantic: Celtics/Knicks/Raptors/76ers/D.C/Nets

pebloemer
12-10-2011, 12:59 AM
Ok so I concede that one point, but I stand by my other 2 points.

But those points are a result of poor management. You want to discuss facts logically, but you don't use much facts when going through the teams in the league discussing which should be contracted.

Your basis for whether teams should be contracted is on their contribution to the history of the NBA or on the present rosters they've assembled. Neither are logical factors compared to the present business of the NBA. You want to talk logical about it, but you don't mention market size, ownership wealth, potential of facilities in place. Those are the important factors involved in whether a market can sustain an NBA franchise in this market. I think that the tragedy of Seattle showed, legacy matters far less these factors.

Using legacy and current players assembled on the roster is a very simplistic business perspective.

RevisIsland
12-10-2011, 01:04 AM
It makes no sense to me that the Hornets still exist. I have nothing against the Hornets, their fans, their players, anyone, but the ****ing league owns the team. That should be the death penalty. If you can't find a buyer you shouldn't exist as a team.

sunsfan88
12-10-2011, 01:16 AM
What would be the point of the NBA if there was a contraction?

If 10 or 15 teams are just going to keep being good over and over again, that's not exciting for fans of other teams.

Its better when there are surprise teams (like OKC, Memphis etc) that way it keeps it more entertaining. Its fun to see who that next surprise team will be.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-10-2011, 04:44 AM
Think those fans are small market fans. Parity in the NBA is wishful thinking. Seriously, the Hornets could not make it in Charlotte, yet the Bobcats got the go ahead. That was dumb. Have you lived in the deep south? Basketball is not as big as football (college and NFL) especially in NO! It was a bad idea to expand into cities where basketball is not as welcomed as in other states.

Yeah, its a disgrace to play out your contract and wanna go to play in other places as a FREE agent.

It's not just the samll market teams asking for parity. The OP suggested contraction because he thinks 30 teams is too much so he wants less teams so more stars have to be compacted. Small market teams want a hard cap to actually make it fair. Large markets want contraction so there is more stars to go around while they still get to keep their stars.

Hockey is non existent down South yet we had the TB Lightning making money when they were winning. Same can be said if the NBA is fixed.



Where did I bring up FA? I actually have no problem if a FA wants to go somewhere. Which is why I had no problem with Lebron, Bosh, or Amare last year. I have issues with egotistical douches who demand trades. If you're a FA, go where ever you want. But I have issues with players demanding trades to teams. You get a hard cap, that limits trade talks.

ink
12-10-2011, 04:48 AM
Is Contraction Necessary?
I believe absolutly YES!
Judging by recent events and players manipulating their way to Big Markets, it is going to be imposible for smaller franchises to maintain any star players and avoid over paying for lack luster talent.
This recent trend is setting a bad example for future NBA players. What is preventing them from holding out when they get drafted cuz they figure Dwight did it, Melo did it why cant I?

Because GMs aren't stupid and they will educate the newest draft picks as they come into the league. I seriously believe this problem will prove to be limited to a group of *******s who were BFFs on the US Olympic team. That's where the idea of superteams came from for those guys and we all know it.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-10-2011, 04:51 AM
Because GMs aren't stupid and they will educate the newest draft picks as they come into the league. I seriously believe this problem will prove to be limited to a group of *******s who were BFFs on the US Olympic team. That's where the idea of superteams came from for those guys and we all know it.

Only way to prevent it is a hard cap. Teaches some of these dipshits some humility as well.

ink
12-10-2011, 04:57 AM
Only way to prevent it is a hard cap. Teaches some of these dipshits some humility as well.

I have no problem with a hard cap. It's not this evil force that it's made out to be. It's just a budget limit. Big deal.

But we have to wait 6 years for that to have a chance of happening.

Cal827
12-10-2011, 04:59 AM
Of course some random troll has to mention Toronto... I'll just say this... if the NBA allegations are true that 22 other teams lost money, they aren't going to lose a team making money, even if they go 0-82 and lost to the Jamacian Bobsled team in the preseason.


I'm on the wall with this one. The Hornets are losing money... when Paul goes, they'll lose fans. And the NBA basically prevented them from doing anything to improve their situation (Players with tradeable contracts for picks (E.g. Scola/Martin could draw interest from teams like Chicago, New Jersey which could lead to the acquistions of prosects/picks and Houstons first rounder (which would be high most likely since they dissected their team to just get Gasol). I thought the Owners were standing for stability of the 30 teams, but it's clear that they would rather block a good team than save a struggling one.

It's unfortunate, but contraction will likely be discussed next time... also, what in the hell are Gilbert/Cuban complaining about paying for a team. My ***, the big market teams are the ones paying the bill... they are the recepients of revenue sharing from teams like LA, MIA, CHI, TOR, HOU, BOS, NYK. The best opinion of this would be from James Dolan, who apparently joined PSD recently lol

Raps18-19 Champ
12-10-2011, 05:00 AM
I have no problem with a hard cap. It's not this evil force that it's made out to be. It's just a budget limit. Big deal.

But we have to wait 6 years for that to have a chance of happening.

Is the new CBA not 10 years?

But it will never happen. Since the union will never agree to a $60 mil hard cap. If we want to be real, NBA players are not in the same caliber as far as moral and other intangible stuff goes compared to NFL and NHL players. So they would never accept a hard cap. They need that money for the strippers and cars, that's why.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-10-2011, 05:09 AM
The NBA needs a hard cap and a compensation system for losing FAs. That will fix more problems than contraction. The NBA gains little in the long term by having a few big market teams bully their way to the top. Obviously all the little Knicks and Lakers fans will whine about what I'm saying, but its true.

As much as I hate this guy, he's completely ****ing right

MackShock
12-10-2011, 05:18 AM
are there any negatives to a hard cap?

ink
12-10-2011, 05:19 AM
are there any negatives to a hard cap?

Apparently it helps promote slavery of millionaires. :cool:

Raps18-19 Champ
12-10-2011, 05:21 AM
are there any negatives to a hard cap?

It completely destroys the Knicks, Lakers and other major spender's plans.

Cal827
12-10-2011, 05:54 AM
It completely destroys the Knicks, Lakers and other major spender's plans.

Ours too... Bell and Rogers are going to fight each other by allowing signings by the team lol

OA SLAY
12-11-2011, 05:13 PM
Because GMs aren't stupid and they will educate the newest draft picks as they come into the league. I seriously believe this problem will prove to be limited to a group of *******s who were BFFs on the US Olympic team. That's where the idea of superteams came from for those guys and we all know it.

Ahhh..
KG
ALLEN
Pierce.

gwrighter
12-11-2011, 05:49 PM
are there any negatives to a hard cap?

not unless you are a fan of a perpetual luxury team. Prevents over-spending which is the equilibrium to win, if you don't spend into the luxury you just can't win. It takes the amount of money that an owner has out of the championship equation. This can't be a bad thing, Fans of luxury teams won't abandon their team if their owner isn't aloud to spend into the luxury. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a hard cap and really there are no negatives from a competitive and basketball focused point of view.

The only negative isn't money, it's that players will now have less choice as to where they want to play. Instead of getting the $$ and deciding where to play, they will have to choose between the $$ and where they want to play. If those two things happen to be in the right place then your lucky but if not then tough. If they want $$ then go to a team that values you high, if not then go to a team that values you low.

check my blog for a more in depth analysis.