PDA

View Full Version : Expansion Talk



WestCoastSportz
08-07-2018, 01:28 PM
Not that it will happen, but I'm sure Silver has been kicking the idea around of expanding the league. After all, that means more money. Which two cities/states do you think would be good for expansion? For me:

Seattle

I think Seattle deserves a team after Schultz and Clay Bennett pretty much stuck it to the city. Seattle is Microsoft town and there are plenty of people with lots of money that would love to own an NBA team. I would love to see them bring back the Supersonics.


Vancouver

Canada needs another NBA team. The lockout made many in the area lose interest in the NBA but there were other contributing factors. James Naismith was Canadian so it would be fitting to have more than just one team in Canada. Vancouver is a hop skip and a jump away from Seattle so whichever billionaire that couldn't get a team in Seattle, may get a second chance with one in Vancouver.

This would add two Western conference teams. The two that would make sense to move to the East would be the New Orleans Pelicans and Memphis Grizzlies.

Quinnsanity
08-07-2018, 01:46 PM
Seattle and Vegas are the clear favorites. Kansas City, Pittsburgh and Anaheim all have NBA-ready arenas, but have never been great basketball markets. Vancouver is going to be pushed by every media member who wants to go there, but couldn't support the Grizzlies. The wildcard is Mexico City. They have an NBA-ready arena and one of the densest markets in North America. But players don't want to live there, and the crime potential is so high on all fronts. Probably too great a risk, but has to be mentioned.

MygirlhatesCod
08-07-2018, 02:47 PM
Seattle and Vegas are the clear favorites. Kansas City, Pittsburgh and Anaheim all have NBA-ready arenas, but have never been great basketball markets. Vancouver is going to be pushed by every media member who wants to go there, but couldn't support the Grizzlies. The wildcard is Mexico City. They have an NBA-ready arena and one of the densest markets in North America. But players don't want to live there, and the crime potential is so high on all fronts. Probably too great a risk, but has to be mentioned.

it makes no sense that Vegas doesn't have a team in every major sport. perfect for filling up any stadium with all the tourist activity.

WestCoastSportz
08-07-2018, 03:15 PM
Vegas was on my short list as well. With the Raiders there in two more years and the success of the NHL's Golden Knights, it makes sense.

MygirlhatesCod
08-07-2018, 03:38 PM
I would say that expansion would be met with hostility right now because of the domination of one team and the weakness of so many overall. it would actually make sense to take out a team or two.

It would be more interesting to pull a relegated type deal. have a bottom team drop to the d-league and the champs of the d-league get called up. have those d-league teams stationed in any major city without a team. boom problem solved!

GREATNESS ONE
08-07-2018, 03:44 PM
Raiders fan here and we saw what the Golden Knights did, it's hot *** balls in Vegas with tons of money to spend. Easily Vegas/Seattle.

warfelg
08-07-2018, 04:58 PM
Contraction not expansion.

crewfan13
08-07-2018, 05:17 PM
I would say that expansion would be met with hostility right now because of the domination of one team and the weakness of so many overall. it would actually make sense to take out a team or two.

It would be more interesting to pull a relegated type deal. have a bottom team drop to the d-league and the champs of the d-league get called up. have those d-league teams stationed in any major city without a team. boom problem solved!

Except the g league teams are owned by other teams and are developmental in nature. Youíd have to completely overhaul the system to make that workable. G league teams would have to lose their affiliations and have real budgets before that could happen, even if we completely ignore the fact that owners would never go for that.

I hate that golden state dominates the league. I have interest in the bucks as the local team, but the nba season outside of that doesnít excite me. And GS is largely to blame for that. That being said, their dominance is likely somewhat temporary. Sure if they draft well and so on, they can continue to be great. Bit their 4 stars roster and everything thatís gone with it was a perfect storm situation. Making any league decisions because of them strictly is unwise.

Scoots
08-07-2018, 05:37 PM
I'm surprised some of the people who are for contraction of the league have not shown up yet.

I'd love some expansion and the expansion draft would be very interesting.

As long as we're at it let's expand the two-way contracts to 6 per team.

GREATNESS ONE
08-07-2018, 05:46 PM
Contraction not expansion.

I really think they should consider this too, some of these franchises are horrible... Move the Clippers to Seattle, Charlotte moved to Vegas.

MygirlhatesCod
08-07-2018, 06:20 PM
Except the g league teams are owned by other teams and are developmental in nature. Youíd have to completely overhaul the system to make that workable. G league teams would have to lose their affiliations and have real budgets before that could happen, even if we completely ignore the fact that owners would never go for that.

I hate that golden state dominates the league. I have interest in the bucks as the local team, but the nba season outside of that doesnít excite me. And GS is largely to blame for that. That being said, their dominance is likely somewhat temporary. Sure if they draft well and so on, they can continue to be great. Bit their 4 stars roster and everything thatís gone with it was a perfect storm situation. Making any league decisions because of them strictly is unwise.

what if those g league teams drop affiliation and are put on the market with the option for those teams to be the first picks in the draft? those new franchises would be worth a considerable amount immediately.

the purchase of the new teams would be divided by current owners as a bonus for the new relegation acceptance.

teams dropping to the g-league would still have viewership relevance because of legit nba players still on the rosters. giving more incentive to play back to contention.

jaydubb
08-07-2018, 06:34 PM
Ciudad JuŠrez Mexico. Do it.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Scoots
08-07-2018, 07:05 PM
Contraction not expansion.

Be easier to sell the idea of getting better owners.

GREATNESS ONE
08-07-2018, 07:10 PM
Ciudad JuŠrez Mexico. Do it.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Jajajajajajaja calmate wei!

warfelg
08-07-2018, 07:33 PM
I really think they should consider this too, some of these franchises are horrible... Move the Clippers to Seattle, Charlotte moved to Vegas.

I'd be for Clippers to Seattle. But not Charlotte to Vegas. Move Memphis.

GREATNESS ONE
08-07-2018, 09:29 PM
I'd be for Clippers to Seattle. But not Charlotte to Vegas. Move Memphis.

Memphis works too

lakerfan85
08-08-2018, 08:06 AM
There should be no expansion.. I agree with the contraction or moving some teams idea..

MygirlhatesCod
08-08-2018, 08:18 AM
There should be no expansion.. I agree with the contraction or moving some teams idea..

why contraction and not relegation?

warfelg
08-08-2018, 08:26 AM
Be easier to sell the idea of getting better owners.

And if that were possible it would happen. You continually float this out there about ti being about good owners, and while that is part of it to a degree, you can't guarantee that all owners are going to be invested in the same things universally.

Like take Atlanta. They put a winning playoff product on the court for about...6-7 years? They lost money every one of those years despite the claim that you can say that they were 'good owners'. So now the next logical thing to them is lets stay under that number of what we get from the NBA, and make up for the loss in revenue that we had while we were winning.

Owning a team is a business first and foremost, and as long as that's the case making money will always come before building a winning product. And for some teams and some markets, that means being bad at times.

Now you want the 'easy way' to sell this to owners that doesn't tell half the NBA owners to sell their team?

This is all down to money. Less teams means higher in demand product, better teams, better games. When games are better, and there is less of them, there is more stress to show them on TV. When there is a higher demand to have them on TV, networks are willing to pay more for the right to air them. When networks pay more to air them, there is more money to go around to the owners. When there is more money in the owners pockets you are doing better with your business.

And then there's the players side to this argument --- less available roster spots. Well, with 30 less roster spots (contracting 2 teams from a 30 team league, meaning there's still 28 teams); that also means that there is now $200+ million more to spread out among the remaining teams. Yes that might not sound like a lot to say every teams get's ~$8mil more, but instead of a $30mil max (based on the $100mil cap), that max is now $32.4mil. Also follow the same chain as we did above. More money going through the league. Right now the players get 49% of BRI for the league. That means there's roughly $3billion coming into the league this year in BRI. So the league as a whole made a little more than $6billion in BRI. So if the percentage that the players got stays the same as the current CBA has it (49%), and the BRI goes from $6billion to $8billion, due to better teams, less games to show, bigger TV contracts; that means at 49% there's roughly $4billion to go around to 28 teams. So more money, less teams.....that means more money for the players, as each team would have a cap of roughly $144million. That's $40million per team. On a max contract (going with the middle ground 30%), that means they could make $10million more over the current max.

And that's all using the numbers from just this year.

That's how valuable contraction and better teams can be for players and owners.

warfelg
08-08-2018, 08:28 AM
why contraction and not relegation?

Because there's a massive salary difference between G-League and NBA. Plus you would have to figure out how to bring teams back, how do you compensate them with players, what does that mean with FA's and who they can sign with, scheduling.

Like, with relegation, that means in the past 10 years we could have seen both New York teams, one Los Angeles team, Philadelphia, Chicago all relegated. That's 5 teams being relegated from 4 of your 5 largest media markets. NBA isn't going to willingly give up a media market that large.

Vinylman
08-08-2018, 08:46 AM
Be easier to sell the idea of getting better owners.

you always ignore the most relevant factor... ie lack of talent and the concentration of talent due to the CBA

MygirlhatesCod
08-08-2018, 08:49 AM
Because there's a massive salary difference between G-League and NBA. Plus you would have to figure out how to bring teams back, how do you compensate them with players, what does that mean with FA's and who they can sign with, scheduling.

Like, with relegation, that means in the past 10 years we could have seen both New York teams, one Los Angeles team, Philadelphia, Chicago all relegated. That's 5 teams being relegated from 4 of your 5 largest media markets. NBA isn't going to willingly give up a media market that large.

why wouldn't the money be equal between both the g-league and NBA.

the idea would be to let the teams relegated to pick first in the draft. bottom 3 teams go away and top 3 from the g-league come back. why would the FA have to change. any player can go anywhere they want.

and yes we could have seen those teams you mentioned out but who tf wanted to see them during that timespan anyway? it also means other markets without a team suddenly open up like vegas or seattle,.

the point would be that teams on the rise would be able to develop their young talent properly while the rest of the league that can to be competitive have more parity.

warfelg
08-08-2018, 09:03 AM
the idea would be to let the teams relegated to pick first in the draft. bottom 3 teams go away and top 3 from the g-league come back. why would the FA have to change. any player can go anywhere they want.

and yes we could have seen those teams you mentioned out but who tf wanted to see them during that timespan anyway? it also means other markets without a team suddenly open up like vegas or seattle,.

the point would be that teams on the rise would be able to develop their young talent properly while the rest of the league that can to be competitive have more parity.

So do G-League teams end up drafting in the NBA draft? Does the lottery go away? Do a team get relegated then get to draft, or are they drafted after moving up from the G-League? Do you make it so that a team that just moved up can't get re-relegated? Are G-League teams then going to have the same cap number as NBA teams to level the playing field? If you don't what happens to the cap of an NBA team that gets relegated? Can they just play the year with a high cap or do they need to cut it?

Those teams being relegated doesn't mean Vegas and Seattle open up, because there would have to be a teams there in the first place. And are you saying that the NBA would be ok with losing teams to relegation in 4 of the top 5 media markets? Philly, LA, NYC all stayed in the news cycle DESPITE being bad, just because of the market. That's incredibly valuable to the NBA.

How would those lower teams properly develop? NBA players would avoid low teams out of not wanting to be relegated. The same teams would bounce back and forth for a long time, never being able to consistently avoid going down and coming up, losing FA's because they want to compete.

It would never work like Soccer with relegation because major cities in Europe have multiple teams. London alone has 11 teams that can move up or down. It's much smaller markets that each team play within the larger market, therefore there's almost a guarantee that some team will be at the high level and competitive keeping the news cycle in that city alive.

Lastly, how would trades work? Can relegated teams trade with the main NBA teams? Or do they have to trade within their own level. Could that mean that you get a potential superstar stuck in the relegation league (G-League) because teams near the top trade for him, then the next year they fall back and another team near the top can trade for him?

There is waaaaaaaay too much to work out with relegation for it to ever work in the American sports leagues setup.

In fact I'll give you the only league in America that has a form of relegation: Golf.

warfelg
08-08-2018, 09:06 AM
you always ignore the most relevant factor... ie lack of talent and the concentration of talent due to the CBA

Yup. And the defense is always that the Warriors never truly tanked to get Curry (lucky that NYK passed on him), Thompson (again there was some luck with reaches), and Green (which honestly is luck). So because they managed to do it without having a top 2 pick, clearly the answer is to just have a good GM who manages to get lucky enough to have guys slip, then have his best player take a massive under market contract because he was continually injured his rookie contract.

MygirlhatesCod
08-08-2018, 09:11 AM
So do G-League teams end up drafting in the NBA draft? Does the lottery go away? Do a team get relegated then get to draft, or are they drafted after moving up from the G-League? Do you make it so that a team that just moved up can't get re-relegated? Are G-League teams then going to have the same cap number as NBA teams to level the playing field? If you don't what happens to the cap of an NBA team that gets relegated? Can they just play the year with a high cap or do they need to cut it?

Those teams being relegated doesn't mean Vegas and Seattle open up, because there would have to be a teams there in the first place. And are you saying that the NBA would be ok with losing teams to relegation in 4 of the top 5 media markets? Philly, LA, NYC all stayed in the news cycle DESPITE being bad, just because of the market. That's incredibly valuable to the NBA.

How would those lower teams properly develop? NBA players would avoid low teams out of not wanting to be relegated. The same teams would bounce back and forth for a long time, never being able to consistently avoid going down and coming up, losing FA's because they want to compete.

It would never work like Soccer with relegation because major cities in Europe have multiple teams. London alone has 11 teams that can move up or down. It's much smaller markets that each team play within the larger market, therefore there's almost a guarantee that some team will be at the high level and competitive keeping the news cycle in that city alive.

Lastly, how would trades work? Can relegated teams trade with the main NBA teams? Or do they have to trade within their own level. Could that mean that you get a potential superstar stuck in the relegation league (G-League) because teams near the top trade for him, then the next year they fall back and another team near the top can trade for him?

There is waaaaaaaay too much to work out with relegation for it to ever work in the American sports leagues setup.

In fact I'll give you the only league in America that has a form of relegation: Golf.

what is the difference between that and how it already is?

warfelg
08-08-2018, 09:21 AM
what is the difference between that and how it already is?

Answer the other parts tied to that and maybe you'll understand.

Also it's extremely different. You think LeBron would have gone to the Lakers if he thought they were getting relegated or if they had been? You don't think that part of his decision was knowing they would be better? You really aren't putting any thought into debating the virtues of relegation and the massive effect it would have on the CBA and the basic structure of the league itself. Your going to need owners at the G-League level as committed to the process, you'll need G-League teams either playing in bigger arenas or bigger cities, you'll have to fund them better.

Lastly, and why it will never happen: Money. You'll have to find a way to evenly fund so all teams have the same chance at everything.

But who cares when you can have a Sioux City - Des Moines Finals right?

warfelg
08-08-2018, 09:28 AM
Also relegation doesn't really change much. In fact most would argue it would keep bad teams bad, good teams good, and would potentially waste 4-5 years of a draft picks career if his team can't work it's way out of that position.

Scoots
08-08-2018, 10:08 AM
And if that were possible it would happen. You continually float this out there about ti being about good owners, and while that is part of it to a degree, you can't guarantee that all owners are going to be invested in the same things universally.

Like take Atlanta. They put a winning playoff product on the court for about...6-7 years? They lost money every one of those years despite the claim that you can say that they were 'good owners'. So now the next logical thing to them is lets stay under that number of what we get from the NBA, and make up for the loss in revenue that we had while we were winning.

Owning a team is a business first and foremost, and as long as that's the case making money will always come before building a winning product. And for some teams and some markets, that means being bad at times.

Now you want the 'easy way' to sell this to owners that doesn't tell half the NBA owners to sell their team?

This is all down to money. Less teams means higher in demand product, better teams, better games. When games are better, and there is less of them, there is more stress to show them on TV. When there is a higher demand to have them on TV, networks are willing to pay more for the right to air them. When networks pay more to air them, there is more money to go around to the owners. When there is more money in the owners pockets you are doing better with your business.

And then there's the players side to this argument --- less available roster spots. Well, with 30 less roster spots (contracting 2 teams from a 30 team league, meaning there's still 28 teams); that also means that there is now $200+ million more to spread out among the remaining teams. Yes that might not sound like a lot to say every teams get's ~$8mil more, but instead of a $30mil max (based on the $100mil cap), that max is now $32.4mil. Also follow the same chain as we did above. More money going through the league. Right now the players get 49% of BRI for the league. That means there's roughly $3billion coming into the league this year in BRI. So the league as a whole made a little more than $6billion in BRI. So if the percentage that the players got stays the same as the current CBA has it (49%), and the BRI goes from $6billion to $8billion, due to better teams, less games to show, bigger TV contracts; that means at 49% there's roughly $4billion to go around to 28 teams. So more money, less teams.....that means more money for the players, as each team would have a cap of roughly $144million. That's $40million per team. On a max contract (going with the middle ground 30%), that means they could make $10million more over the current max.

And that's all using the numbers from just this year.

That's how valuable contraction and better teams can be for players and owners.

You think it will be easier to sell contraction than to sell some sort of incentive system for owners? The owners are more likely to vote to LOSE THEIR FRANCHISE than to sell it for an ever increasing amount of money?

MygirlhatesCod
08-08-2018, 10:08 AM
Answer the other parts tied to that and maybe you'll understand.Also it's extremely different. You think LeBron would have gone to the Lakers if he thought they were getting relegated or if they had been? You don't think that part of his decision was knowing they would be better? You really aren't putting any thought into debating the virtues of relegation and the massive effect it would have on the CBA and the basic structure of the league itself. Your going to need owners at the G-League level as committed to the process, you'll need G-League teams either playing in bigger arenas or bigger cities, you'll have to fund them better.

Lastly, and why it will never happen: Money. You'll have to find a way to evenly fund so all teams have the same chance at everything.

But who cares when you can have a Sioux City - Des Moines Finals right?

for the most part I did in previous posts.

and of course he wouldn't have joined if they were on the verge of being relegated but a young up and coming team with talent like philly and to a lesser extend the lakers wouldn't be on their way to relegation, it would be the opposite. your analogy would have made sense if Lebron joined the suns.

what effect would it have on the CBA? its trash as is anyway!

have multiple teams in major markets to avoid the chances of new York or LA not having anyone in the league......BTW who has cared? New York hasn't been bringing in any ratings with their teams in awhile. and during that time viewership has gone up.

Major markets don't control ****!!! why is this so difficult to understand? the past when all you had to watch on tv was a local channel is when cities with a larger population ruled the land. but now you can watch whatever you want from anywhere. the only thing I give LA and New York is location. young players want a better party location. which is why most players aren't excited to sign in like Utah. but that's about it.

Scoots
08-08-2018, 10:12 AM
Yup. And the defense is always that the Warriors never truly tanked to get Curry (lucky that NYK passed on him), Thompson (again there was some luck with reaches), and Green (which honestly is luck). So because they managed to do it without having a top 2 pick, clearly the answer is to just have a good GM who manages to get lucky enough to have guys slip, then have his best player take a massive under market contract because he was continually injured his rookie contract.

"the defense is always" ... Not me. The Warriors were lucky, tanking got them Green, were lucky they didn't trade Klay, were lucky to beat KD, were lucky(ish) to lose to LeBron right when an unprecedented spike to the cap came around. I've said dozens of times, let's change the CBA, go to a hard cap with no exceptions. I still believe well run teams will win and poorly run teams will lose.

MygirlhatesCod
08-08-2018, 10:12 AM
Also relegation doesn't really change much. In fact most would argue it would keep bad teams bad, good teams good, and would potentially waste 4-5 years of a draft picks career if his team can't work it's way out of that position.

you mean like the way philly has wasted like 4-5 years of draft picks recently? BTW philly is looking up finally right? its the same concept.

warfelg
08-08-2018, 10:19 AM
No, no it's not, especially since you are ignoring 99% of what I brought up.

MygirlhatesCod
08-08-2018, 10:21 AM
No, no it's not, especially since you are ignoring 99% of what I brought up.

what part is not? and what did I ignore?

warfelg
08-08-2018, 10:25 AM
what part is not? and what did I ignore?


So do G-League teams end up drafting in the NBA draft? Does the lottery go away? Do a team get relegated then get to draft, or are they drafted after moving up from the G-League? Do you make it so that a team that just moved up can't get re-relegated? Are G-League teams then going to have the same cap number as NBA teams to level the playing field? If you don't what happens to the cap of an NBA team that gets relegated? Can they just play the year with a high cap or do they need to cut it?

Those teams being relegated doesn't mean Vegas and Seattle open up, because there would have to be a teams there in the first place. And are you saying that the NBA would be ok with losing teams to relegation in 4 of the top 5 media markets? Philly, LA, NYC all stayed in the news cycle DESPITE being bad, just because of the market. That's incredibly valuable to the NBA.

How would those lower teams properly develop? NBA players would avoid low teams out of not wanting to be relegated. The same teams would bounce back and forth for a long time, never being able to consistently avoid going down and coming up, losing FA's because they want to compete.

It would never work like Soccer with relegation because major cities in Europe have multiple teams. London alone has 11 teams that can move up or down. It's much smaller markets that each team play within the larger market, therefore there's almost a guarantee that some team will be at the high level and competitive keeping the news cycle in that city alive.

Lastly, how would trades work? Can relegated teams trade with the main NBA teams? Or do they have to trade within their own level. Could that mean that you get a potential superstar stuck in the relegation league (G-League) because teams near the top trade for him, then the next year they fall back and another team near the top can trade for him?

There is waaaaaaaay too much to work out with relegation for it to ever work in the American sports leagues setup.

In fact I'll give you the only league in America that has a form of relegation: Golf.

Basically everything but the development of players.

What do you do with cap, what do you do with trading, how do you operate the draft, how do you work out arenas, scheduling? What if 2 of the 3 being relegated are from the east, and 3 of the teams moving up are in the west, how do you balance the schedule? Do you find owners for all the lower level teams or are they owned by the teams affiliated with them?

There is sooooooo much you've ignored to push 'development' and used 1 example to defend it.

MygirlhatesCod
08-08-2018, 10:36 AM
Basically everything but the development of players.

What do you do with cap, what do you do with trading, how do you operate the draft, how do you work out arenas, scheduling? What if 2 of the 3 being relegated are from the east, and 3 of the teams moving up are in the west, how do you balance the schedule? Do you find owners for all the lower level teams or are they owned by the teams affiliated with them?

There is sooooooo much you've ignored to push 'development' and used 1 example to defend it.

its why I said to look at previous posts.

the initial proposal would be to sell current g-League teams off to new owners with the proceeds of each team purchased spread evenly to current NBA team owners as a bonus for accepting relegation. the WIIFM for prospective buyers of new teams would be that those teams would have the first picks in the upcoming draft.

if the relegated teams come from the same conference then just add the new teams to them. its not the 50's where teams are busing it everywhere. travel isn't a concern it once was and scheduling would work much the same it already is.

why would the cap or trading have to be different.

warfelg
08-08-2018, 10:39 AM
That doesn't solve any of it, lol.

Just like I thought. Another person yelling relegation without understanding the true effects of it. And your second part didn't even answer the problem I brought up lol.

MygirlhatesCod
08-08-2018, 10:55 AM
That doesn't solve any of it, lol.

Just like I thought. Another person yelling relegation without understanding the true effects of it. And your second part didn't even answer the problem I brought up lol.

so its better to erase a team or two with contraction? who compensates the owners? how is that better?

how did it not answer the problem you brought up? if you are talking about cap then it would be an easier push to make it a hard one because of the teams being added.

I understand that things would arise but how is it possible for a fan of a team that laid down and died for so long to be opposed to this? this would let teams that want to tank, tank. with the top lotto picks guaranteed to go to those teams it assures a better possibility for parity. at the end of the day poorly ran teams will still lose and vice verse. obviously the best part is more basketball and more incentive for franchises and players to do well.

warfelg
08-08-2018, 11:07 AM
so its better to erase a team or two with contraction? who compensates the owners? how is that better?

It's happened before. When the ABA folded, the NBA paid the owners the value of the teams plus a percent of total BRI over a certain period of time.


how did it not answer the problem you brought up? if you are talking about cap then it would be an easier push to make it a hard one because of the teams being added. [/TWEET]

So you are going to lower NBA teams caps to raise the G-League team caps? What about max contracts? Are player contract values going to have to reduce? Does that mean players are going to have to go to bad teams because there's a hard cap and less money per team to spend?

[QUOTE=MygirlhatesCod;32494859]I understand that things would arise but how is it possible for a fan of a team that laid down and died for so long to be opposed to this? this would let teams that want to tank, tank. with the top lotto picks guaranteed to go to those teams it assures a better possibility for parity. at the end of the day poorly ran teams will still lose and vice verse. obviously the best part is more basketball and more incentive for franchises and players to do well.

No because without a great blueprint there's no guarantee.

Lets look at it this way:
Fist year of the tank the Sixers took MCW and Noel.
If we got relegated would we have still ended up with our #3 pick that year?
If the answer is no then we never get Embiid.
If the answer is yes, what if we didn't play top 3 level in the relegation league the next year? We might not be able to trade MCW for a 1st round pick. We don't have another #3 pick. We aren't in place to draft Dario Saric. We can't take salary dumps for extra 1st round picks. MCW and Noel get offers from non-relegates teams, we aren't close enough to the top of the relegation league to pull in actual NBA players and we can't build up enough talent to get into the NBA draft and get high picks for the likes of Simmons, Fultz, or Embiid.

But yea, relegation would be GREAT!

MygirlhatesCod
08-08-2018, 12:32 PM
It's happened before. When the ABA folded, the NBA paid the owners the value of the teams plus a percent of total BRI over a certain period of time.

[QUOTE=MygirlhatesCod;32494859]how did it not answer the problem you brought up? if you are talking about cap then it would be an easier push to make it a hard one because of the teams being added. [/TWEET]

So you are going to lower NBA teams caps to raise the G-League team caps? What about max contracts? Are player contract values going to have to reduce? Does that mean players are going to have to go to bad teams because there's a hard cap and less money per team to spend?



No because without a great blueprint there's no guarantee.

Lets look at it this way:
Fist year of the tank the Sixers took MCW and Noel.
If we got relegated would we have still ended up with our #3 pick that year?
If the answer is no then we never get Embiid.
If the answer is yes, what if we didn't play top 3 level in the relegation league the next year? We might not be able to trade MCW for a 1st round pick. We don't have another #3 pick. We aren't in place to draft Dario Saric. We can't take salary dumps for extra 1st round picks. MCW and Noel get offers from non-relegates teams, we aren't close enough to the top of the relegation league to pull in actual NBA players and we can't build up enough talent to get into the NBA draft and get high picks for the likes of Simmons, Fultz, or Embiid.

But yea, relegation would be GREAT!

both leagues were killing themselves. that had to happen because if not chances are both could've gone under.

why lower anything? keep the cap universal across the board. make **** teams that are relegated pay back 10% of the cap and revenue for the year, to be divided by teams (players & owners) that are not (obviously more to the higher seated franchise's). does that mean a max player has to take a slight pay cut? yeah...but what kind of team gives max money to a guy that cant get his team out of the bottom of the barrel?

obviously! the blue print should never be to push out a horrible team for like 5 years in the hopes that your inept F.O hits a homerun with one of those picks.
are you trying to say that was philly's only option to get back in contention?

just because you get a high pick when you get relegated doesn't mean instant contention. teams might stay down for like 3 years. that's 3 top picks! if the franchise cant develop 3 high end talents then why should they even be in the league?

warfelg
08-08-2018, 12:43 PM
[QUOTE=warfelg;32494867]It's happened before. When the ABA folded, the NBA paid the owners the value of the teams plus a percent of total BRI over a certain period of time.



both leagues were killing themselves. that had to happen because if not chances are both could've gone under.

why lower anything? keep the cap universal across the board. make **** teams that are relegated pay back 10% of the cap and revenue for the year, to be divided by teams (players & owners) that are not (obviously more to the higher seated franchise's). does that mean a max player has to take a slight pay cut? yeah...but what kind of team gives max money to a guy that cant get his team out of the bottom of the barrel?

obviously! the blue print should never be to push out a horrible team for like 5 years in the hopes that your inept F.O hits a homerun with one of those picks.
are you trying to say that was philly's only option to get back in contention?

just because you get a high pick when you get relegated doesn't mean instant contention. teams might stay down for like 3 years. that's 3 top picks! if the franchise cant develop 3 high end talents then why should they even be in the league?

Keep the cap Universal? Whereís the extra $2.5 billion coming from to help g-league teams?

10% of the cap and revenue? So $30million to go to 28 teams? Lol thatís so little because most teams at the bottom arenít bringing in that much revenue compared to expenditures.

What kind of team gives max money and canít get out to be good? Really? Harrison Barnes, Andre Drummond, Allen Crabbe, Kemba Walker all on a max last year and thatís with barely any thinking.

Obviously Philly took it to an extreme but if you were called what they did inept, youíre off. 3 starters, 2 good role players, still have picks to use from it, and max contract space with two superstars.

Ok so if a relegated team can get three top picks, how does the team thatís been moved up get better? Or do they not have a pick?

Scoots
08-08-2018, 01:04 PM
That doesn't solve any of it, lol.

Just like I thought. Another person yelling relegation without understanding the true effects of it. And your second part didn't even answer the problem I brought up lol.

I don't believe there is enough money for relegation to happen in the NBA. There just isn't a developed enough history of local club basketball teams with enough money to come up to challenge.

There are still, I think, 3 NBA teams unwilling or unable to have/develop a G-league team ... no way is there the money to build multiple levels below the NBA.

That said ... if the NBA was willing to try to merge with all the world wide professional leagues? THEN it could work.

MygirlhatesCod
08-08-2018, 01:28 PM
[QUOTE=MygirlhatesCod;32494978]

Keep the cap Universal? Whereís the extra $2.5 billion coming from to help g-league teams?

10% of the cap and revenue? So $30million to go to 28 teams? Lol thatís so little because most teams at the bottom arenít bringing in that much revenue compared to expenditures.

What kind of team gives max money and canít get out to be good? Really? Harrison Barnes, Andre Drummond, Allen Crabbe, Kemba Walker all on a max last year and thatís with barely any thinking.

Obviously Philly took it to an extreme but if you were called what they did inept, youíre off. 3 starters, 2 good role players, still have picks to use from it, and max contract space with two superstars.

Ok so if a relegated team can get three top picks, how does the team thatís been moved up get better? Or do they not have a pick?

open it up to high school kids. the money will come from what the crooks at the NCAA would have made.

you are making the argument easier by bringing up those names. any teams that hand them max money deserve to go down. the are mid level players and should be paid accordingly.

till they win something ill wait to change my mind.

warfelg
08-08-2018, 01:30 PM
I don't believe there is enough money for relegation to happen in the NBA. There just isn't a developed enough history of local club basketball teams with enough money to come up to challenge.

There are still, I think, 3 NBA teams unwilling or unable to have/develop a G-league team ... no way is there the money to build multiple levels below the NBA.

That said ... if the NBA was willing to try to merge with all the world wide professional leagues? THEN it could work.

Yes. What helps Europe is that development system where you play for the youth league, sign with that team, and move up. And thereís no draft. So it gives relegated teams the real development.

Like Iíve been trying to ask him: how do you manage cap? Is it right to have a team with 15 guys making $25,000 each playing a team with 4 guys on $10mil+ contracts? How does a g-league team bumped up draft? Thereís so many hurdles to this and heís not really answering any of them and just falling on development.

crewfan13
08-08-2018, 01:30 PM
Your relegation model isnít really a relegation model at all. Itís badically expansion with a consolation bracket. If the relegated teams operate with the exact same revenue stream and have access to the same draft and player pool and are not affiliated with teams, why not just expand the league?

Thereís a reason relegated teams start loaning out players and things in the premier league because they donít have to income. No one will go see what basically accounts to division 2 basketball, even if some bigger names play on those teams. No one is tuning in on a Tuesday night to watch Des Moines be led by Kent bazemore, monta Ellis and jhalil okafor play against Fort Wayne led by Jeremy Lin, Wes Matthews and al Jefferson.

Relegation would lead to a substantial drop in franchise valuations and would further the problem of it being a star driven league. That being said, youíre not getting contraction either.

warfelg
08-08-2018, 01:33 PM
[QUOTE=warfelg;32494989]

open it up to high school kids. the money will come from what the crooks at the NCAA would have made.

you are making the argument easier by bringing up those names. any teams that hand them max money deserve to go down. the are mid level players and should be paid accordingly.

till they win something ill wait to change my mind.

Opening up to high school kids just puts more players in the pool. Doesnít make it a better product.

Making the argument easier? What does a team gain by being relegated? Do they draft higher? Get more money? What do they gain other than playing worse teams?

WestCoastSportz
08-08-2018, 01:36 PM
I'd be for Clippers to Seattle. But not Charlotte to Vegas. Move Memphis.

Balmer being a Seattle guy, I can see the Clippers making the move, but Charlotte is a big basketball town. I think they would like to keep a team there.

Scoots
08-08-2018, 02:12 PM
[QUOTE=warfelg;32494989]

open it up to high school kids. the money will come from what the crooks at the NCAA would have made.

you are making the argument easier by bringing up those names. any teams that hand them max money deserve to go down. the are mid level players and should be paid accordingly.

till they win something ill wait to change my mind.

There is far less money in the NCAA than you think.

Scoots
08-08-2018, 02:12 PM
Balmer being a Seattle guy, I can see the Clippers making the move, but Charlotte is a big basketball town. I think they would like to keep a team there.

Balmer, being a business guy, may heavily prefer LA.

MygirlhatesCod
08-08-2018, 02:47 PM
[QUOTE=MygirlhatesCod;32495060]

Opening up to high school kids just puts more players in the pool. Doesnít make it a better product. Making the argument easier? What does a team gain by being relegated? Do they draft higher? Get more money? What do they gain other than playing worse teams?

I get that it isn't a better product but it will still sell as does the **** product that is NCAA ball.

teams gain higher draft picks by being relegated but make less money. I'm not gonna make a pay scale or produce a business plan. its just an idea.

I get that it isn't a total relegation type model with draft pics going to those relegated teams first. It just seems like a decent base for spreading talent evenly instead of keeping the same teams winning all the time. keeping a hard cap in conjunction with that base would force the league to more evenly spread talent. it would easily force players to lose a considerable amount of money by teaming up. ultimately it will hold owners accountable that swung and missed on their front office personnel.

MygirlhatesCod
08-08-2018, 02:51 PM
[QUOTE=MygirlhatesCod;32495060]

There is far less money in the NCAA than you think.

March madness netted over 1 billion in 2017. seems pretty good to me.

Scoots
08-08-2018, 02:59 PM
[QUOTE=Scoots;32495120]

March madness netted over 1 billion in 2017. seems pretty good to me.

You think it NETTED over $1B?

That is SO SO SO far from true.

The NCAA GROSSED $1B for the YEAR. That money is split between NCAA administration, marketing, and over 1200 schools.

The NBA has 30 teams and made 8 times the money.

The NCAA is not rich on anywhere near the scale people think.

WhiteShadow42
08-08-2018, 03:06 PM
Balmer, being a business guy, may heavily prefer LA.

who knows. If the Lakers are back as a contender the next few years, he might want a place of his own. Seattle is a good fit for him and the franchise.

Or he could go to San Francisco and play second fiddle to another great franchise.


Agree with some of the posters saying Vegas. With the success of the Knights, Vegas looks great in so many ways.

valade16
08-08-2018, 03:09 PM
You think it NETTED over $1B?

That is SO SO SO far from true.

The NCAA GROSSED $1B for the YEAR. That money is split between NCAA administration, marketing, and over 1200 schools.

The NBA has 30 teams and made 8 times the money.

The NCAA is not rich on anywhere near the scale people think.

The NCAA as an organization may not be rich anywhere near on the scale people think, but you are not considering those 1,200 schools. When you add up all the revenue they also make, Colleges and the NCAA are making money hand over fist on college athletics.

The top 8 highest earning college sports programs made a combined $1.2 Billion. I think if you added up all the revenue that sports programs were making they'd easily eclipse the NBA's $7 billion in revenue.

Vinylman
08-08-2018, 03:18 PM
The NCAA as an organization may not be rich anywhere near on the scale people think, but you are not considering those 1,200 schools. When you add up all the revenue they also make, Colleges and the NCAA are making money hand over fist on college athletics.

The top 8 highest earning college sports programs made a combined $1.2 Billion. I think if you added up all the revenue that sports programs were making they'd easily eclipse the NBA's $7 billion in revenue.

Are you talking profit or revenue? you do understand how title IX impacts the profitable sports (ie equal amount of scholarships for women's sports that lose money). The NCAA sports machine churns a ton of cash but it doesn't MAKE MONEY... and what it churns doesn't benefit the players other than scholarships which is nothing in the grand scheme of things...

all of the illegal money is paid to players by boosters and other alumni... that wouldn't translate if players didn't go to college because the motive isn't profit driven Ö

crewfan13
08-08-2018, 03:51 PM
[QUOTE=warfelg;32495072]

I get that it isn't a better product but it will still sell as does the **** product that is NCAA ball.

teams gain higher draft picks by being relegated but make less money. I'm not gonna make a pay scale or produce a business plan. its just an idea.

I get that it isn't a total relegation type model with draft pics going to those relegated teams first. It just seems like a decent base for spreading talent evenly instead of keeping the same teams winning all the time. keeping a hard cap in conjunction with that base would force the league to more evenly spread talent. it would easily force players to lose a considerable amount of money by teaming up. ultimately it will hold owners accountable that swung and missed on their front office personnel.

How does relegation spread talent out evenly? The relegation model youíve proposed doesnít really do that and adding significantly more teams would make teams even more reliant on star players.

Iíd be okay with expanding a team or two. But what youíre proposing is expanding the league by 12-16 teams at least. Even if that helps ďevenĒ out the talent, if just basically guarantees one of the best 2 or 3 players in the league win every year. Itís already hard enough to build a team of non superstars to win a ring. Add 12 teams to the mix and the best player wins almost every year. Do you really want teams out there giving Marcus smart a max deal to be their best player. Because thatís what your system promotes.

Scoots
08-08-2018, 04:10 PM
The NCAA as an organization may not be rich anywhere near on the scale people think, but you are not considering those 1,200 schools. When you add up all the revenue they also make, Colleges and the NCAA are making money hand over fist on college athletics.

The top 8 highest earning college sports programs made a combined $1.2 Billion. I think if you added up all the revenue that sports programs were making they'd easily eclipse the NBA's $7 billion in revenue.

Those top 8 programs, what was their profit on sports when taking everything into account?

And when it's split between 1200 organizations rather than the NBA's 30 it's still not a lot of money on the national pro-sports level.

I think it would be great to outlaw college athletics entirely and let it make money independent of the schools (and the infrastructure they build and maintain, the marketing they do, and the draw of alumni) AND pay the players. But then we are talking about minor league baseball money not the huge money people seem to think is out there.

valade16
08-08-2018, 04:33 PM
Those top 8 programs, what was their profit on sports when taking everything into account?

And when it's split between 1200 organizations rather than the NBA's 30 it's still not a lot of money on the national pro-sports level.

I think it would be great to outlaw college athletics entirely and let it make money independent of the schools (and the infrastructure they build and maintain, the marketing they do, and the draw of alumni) AND pay the players. But then we are talking about minor league baseball money not the huge money people seem to think is out there.

Well the most valuable Triple A team is valued at $49 million, which would be 60th in college sports. The average value of the top 20 minor league teams is $37.5 million.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2017/05/08/minor-league-baseball-better-business-not-bigger-business/101451572/

In fact, college sports generated $9.15 billion dollars in revenue in 2015, which is more money than the NBA generated.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ncaa-schools-college-sports-revenue-2016-10

Also, the insistence of judging them by their profit seems misguided because 1). College sports programs are non-profit so they goal isn't even to turn a profit. They just re-invest any profits they do make back into the program immediately (which is why they have absurdly nice facilities) and 2). a lot of the NBA isn't turning a profit either.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20747413/a-confidential-report-shows-nearly-half-nba-lost-money-last-season-now-what

14/30 teams lost money and the Lakers had the highest profit at $115 million. That's a far cry from raking in billions and billions in profit.

Scoots
08-08-2018, 04:51 PM
Well the most valuable Triple A team is valued at $49 million, which would be 60th in college sports. The average value of the top 20 minor league teams is $37.5 million.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2017/05/08/minor-league-baseball-better-business-not-bigger-business/101451572/

In fact, college sports generated $9.15 billion dollars in revenue in 2015, which is more money than the NBA generated.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ncaa-schools-college-sports-revenue-2016-10

Also, the insistence of judging them by their profit seems misguided because 1). College sports programs are non-profit so they goal isn't even to turn a profit. They just re-invest any profits they do make back into the program immediately (which is why they have absurdly nice facilities) and 2). a lot of the NBA isn't turning a profit either.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20747413/a-confidential-report-shows-nearly-half-nba-lost-money-last-season-now-what

14/30 teams lost money and the Lakers had the highest profit at $115 million. That's a far cry from raking in billions and billions in profit.

Profit matters because pro-sports are NOT non-profit. So ... are you saying that there is enough profit in college sports to run an additional 60 minor league pro-basketball teams profitably? Because if there isn't then it's a non-starter.

A small number of obscenely high revenue colleges does not do enough to pay the college athletes pro-sports significant money. I'm for student athletes getting significantly more money, but it's still a pittance compared to the NBA.

And keep in mind, the NCAA numbers are not just basketball numbers which are going to be MUUUUUUUCH smaller.

valade16
08-08-2018, 04:56 PM
Profit matters because pro-sports are NOT non-profit. So ... are you saying that there is enough profit in college sports to run an additional 60 minor league pro-basketball teams profitably? Because if there isn't then it's a non-starter.

A small number of obscenely high revenue colleges does not do enough to pay the college athletes pro-sports significant money. I'm for student athletes getting significantly more money, but it's still a pittance compared to the NBA.

I'm not sure what larger point this is all in context of, I just wanted to point out college athletics is making a lot of money. They are also spending a lot of money, but that's by choice not necessity.

warfelg
08-08-2018, 07:15 PM
I'm not sure what larger point this is all in context of, I just wanted to point out college athletics is making a lot of money. They are also spending a lot of money, but that's by choice not necessity.

The larger context was that having relegation and allowing High School kids into the draft would increase how much money the NBA made because it wouldn't be going to college teams.

crewfan13
08-08-2018, 09:07 PM
The larger context was that having relegation and allowing High School kids into the draft would increase how much money the NBA made because it wouldn't be going to college teams.

I donít know that thatís entirely true though. People do tune in college sports for players to an extent, but itís more about programs. So assuming the same people will tune in to watch Zion Williamson on the Delaware 76ers as they would to watch him on duke is probably wrong.

Jamiecballer
08-08-2018, 09:15 PM
Anyone hear the rumour that the owners are thinking about contracting the Warriors to even up the league?

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Scoots
08-08-2018, 09:20 PM
Anyone hear the rumour that the owners are thinking about contracting the Warriors to even up the league?

Morey said he'd be happy with an expansion draft that only protects 3 players.

warfelg
08-08-2018, 09:24 PM
I donít know that thatís entirely true though. People do tune in college sports for players to an extent, but itís more about programs. So assuming the same people will tune in to watch Zion Williamson on the Delaware 76ers as they would to watch him on duke is probably wrong.

Pretty much. It would have almost 0 impact. Also they aren't the 87ers anymore, they are the Blue Coats.

Jeffy25
08-09-2018, 12:37 AM
I'm on an expansion tirade kick in the baseball forum, so I thought I'd just weigh in my personal opinion.

Expansion is what makes the good/great players into elite stars. The watered down league makes it so easy for top players to put up insane numbers and look incredible.

In 1987, there were 23 teams in the NBA
By 1990, there were 27 teams in the NBA

If 12 players are on a team, the league jumped from 276 guys in the NBA, to 324 (17% increase). Jordan and Magic getting to cross up and dominate guys that would have been in the G-League in 1986, but were now getting minutes in 1990 has a lot to do with the stars of the 90's looking so dominate.

And this stuff filters around the league. It's not that one team is full of 12 G-League guys. It's that every team has at least 1 or 2 of these guys, and some teams have 4 or 5, making their rotations suck and putting less help on the floor to manage a very good player.


So many fans have this romantic view of the NBA in the 90's, but a lot of those stars don't look nearly as good if they don't have so much weakness spread throughout the league (7 teams were added in less than 10 years)

If you expand the league by another 2-4 teams, prepare for guy like Harden, Durant, and LeBron to look even more amazing. Contract a few teams, and prepare for these guys to look much worse.

Jeffy25
08-09-2018, 12:48 AM
Profit matters because pro-sports are NOT non-profit. So ... are you saying that there is enough profit in college sports to run an additional 60 minor league pro-basketball teams profitably? Because if there isn't then it's a non-starter.

A small number of obscenely high revenue colleges does not do enough to pay the college athletes pro-sports significant money. I'm for student athletes getting significantly more money, but it's still a pittance compared to the NBA.

And keep in mind, the NCAA numbers are not just basketball numbers which are going to be MUUUUUUUCH smaller.

I so badly wish the NBA had a development system like the MLB does.

It's so fun watching players develop and improve and become great.

It's also part of the sport though. In baseball, guys can become stars suddenly at 26 and 27 years old, and rosters require 25 men.

In the NBA, it's half that, and guys are washed up by 26/27 if they haven't shown success yet. In baseball, they'll give you to your early/mid 30's to show what you can do.


I'd love if it there were a legit 60 team (A and AA) level minor league basketball that worked as a shuttle and development system for future role players and stars.

Superstars that were drafted in the top 5 wouldn't even necessarily come straight to the NBA (the exceptions would, the stars that could compete would). You could draft a kid at 18, and let him develop for a few years in the minors before you call him up to contribute.

This would also affect team control and other teams. Teams should be encouraged to draft guys in the second round who maybe have a skill or two, and maybe they can develop another by letting them play in the minors against other minor leaguers. Helping them become guys that could eventually compete and help the pro club. And when a guy gets hurt, you could call a guy up. You wouldn't need to waste a good rookie that you won't play much on the bench all year. He could be a starter in the level below, you control him longer, and he gets his reps. Fans would pay to see the young studs as they are coming up.

What's the point in Zach Collins sitting on the Blazers bench all year? He barely played and doesn't develop there.

However, if he spent the year in their AA affiliate in (let's just say Eugene for arguments sake), then Blazers fans could catch him playing 36 minutes per night, building up his game, and hopefully turning him into a long term stud for them. Maybe he can develop his shooting game, or his post footwork, or his perimeter defense, etc.

If there is an injury to a Blazers big man, and he is gonna play 25+ minutes (he only played 25 minutes 7 times all year), then call him up.

The NCAA wants guys like Collins to stay at Gonzaga, but Collins has one chance to get a payday and go to the NBA. He could enter the draft at 18, and get his contract, and work on his game. NCAA basketball wouldn't matter anymore, but these minor league teams certainly would (NCAA baseball still has a following, but mostly in the southeast, and guys are drafted multiple times in the sport and offered signing bonuses).




A level would be the second rounders and undrafted free agents, or AA guys that were overmatched.
AA level would be the first rounders, guys that passed A level for their club, and NBA players doing rehab assignments and former vets trying to get back on a roster.


NBA clubs would carry 12 man rosters, and fill the bench with guys that can fit a role to help the team where they are. AA guys would be called up and sent down based on the teams needs and preferences for a series/injuries, etc.

These guys would be able to be traded back and forth from teams in win-now and sell-off mode.

A win-now club like the Pacers could trade with a club like the Grizzlies to send some A and AA level guys over to Memphis, and the Grizzles could send Evans over and not be forced to only hope for a second rounder. They can take someone that they can witness play on any given night and contribute.


I realize the G league is supposed to be this. But it's not treated this way at all. It's treated like a place where a 16th man can show off. A 16th man that is good enough to not have to go to China.

TakeYourL
08-09-2018, 01:47 AM
Why would any nba fan want more expansion?

There is a lack of talent in this league, you would just be further watering down the NBA.

If you want to make the NBA great, than cut 3-4 teams wand watch how much more competitive the NBA becomes overnight.

SiteWolf
08-09-2018, 08:21 AM
You only perceive there to be a lack of talent because there is so much talent on just a few teams. The league isn't less competitive with more teams, it's less competitive with more 'super' teams.

warfelg
08-09-2018, 08:59 AM
Also more team =\= less super teams. In fact I might argue it creates more, because the overall talent pool would be larger, and with how few superstars there are that means more bad players starting. Which also means more awful players on benches. So the better players would want to team up to avoid playing with bad players.

Just imagine for a second that you took away the 30 worst players in the NBA along with changing some cap rules....doesnít that make it most likely for the players to spread out?

Also as for expansion, an east coast city that would come up is Virginia Beach/Newport News. They were a finalist when Charlotte and Vancouver both came in. They were a potential landing spot for the Hornets/Pelicans and Kings.

MygirlhatesCod
08-09-2018, 09:05 AM
at the end of the day the NBA really only needs a hard cap. the hard cap will pave the way for expansion of the league or their g-league affiliates.

warfelg
08-09-2018, 09:11 AM
at the end of the day the NBA really only needs a hard cap. the hard cap will pave the way for expansion of the league or their g-league affiliates.

It wonít do either of those. It would lead to either stars being more spread out or stars taking massive pay cuts to play together.

MygirlhatesCod
08-09-2018, 10:07 AM
It wonít do either of those. It would lead to either stars being more spread out or stars taking massive pay cuts to play together.

that never happens. maybe a few mil here and there but a hard cap would leave way to much money on the table.

warfelg
08-09-2018, 10:09 AM
that never happens. maybe a few mil here and there but a hard cap would leave way to much money on the table.

Why would they when a soft cap allows them to get paid.

You love ignoring a full statement donít you?

MygirlhatesCod
08-09-2018, 10:15 AM
It wonít do either of those. It would lead to either stars being more spread out or stars taking massive pay cuts to play together.

hard cap would spread talent and bring a better balance. how would you know that it wouldn't pave the way for expansion?

for the record adding new teams sounds like a horrible idea to me. I'm just saying you have to lightly water down the league before you add other teams so everyone could get used to how much more watered down the product will eventually become.

warfelg
08-09-2018, 10:24 AM
hard cap would spread talent and bring a better balance. how would you know that it wouldn't pave the way for expansion?

for the record adding new teams sounds like a horrible idea to me. I'm just saying you have to lightly water down the league before you add other teams so everyone could get used to how much more watered down the product will eventually become.

Because it takes more than just balancing talent to make way for expansion. Like more money coming into the league, cities that will help build arenas, owners wanting BRI to be spread out more. And it doesnít just take more spread talent. It also takes a high enough level of talent to spread out.

MygirlhatesCod
08-09-2018, 10:34 AM
Why would they when a soft cap allows them to get paid.

You love ignoring a full statement donít you?

nope, I responded to you saying a hard cap would lead to stars taking massive pay cuts to team up.

warfelg
08-09-2018, 10:40 AM
nope, I responded to you saying a hard cap would lead to stars taking massive pay cuts to team up.

Which isnít a false statement. I said a hard cap would force them to take massive pay cuts to play together. You responded with no one has done that yet. You picked out the pay cut part to make a comment on, not the fact that if they wanted to team up under a hard cap what would happen.

And you canít say they wonít because we have no proof either way in the current system.

MygirlhatesCod
08-09-2018, 10:44 AM
Because it takes more than just balancing talent to make way for expansion. Like more money coming into the league, cities that will help build arenas, owners wanting BRI to be spread out more. And it doesnít just take more spread talent. It also takes a high enough level of talent to spread out.

no ****! but it would be a start which is what I'm saying. I understand there are variables attached to putting **** together.

if you cant understand that the talent needs to be spread out evenly before you could even discuss expansion then you are confused. the idea of adding teams the way the league is right now with talent just pooled up in a handful of locations would be laughed at. and the reason is because there is no hard cap. which means that's how you start. with a hard cap!

warfelg
08-09-2018, 10:46 AM
A balanced league does not mean you expand. Yet again youíve ignored most of a post for one sentence. Good day Iím done with this convo.

MygirlhatesCod
08-09-2018, 10:46 AM
It wonít do either of those. It would lead to either stars being more spread out or stars taking massive pay cuts to play together.

its possible for them to take massive pay cuts. but nobody is leaving that kind of money.

MygirlhatesCod
08-09-2018, 10:54 AM
A balanced league does not mean you expand. Yet again youíve ignored most of a post for one sentence. Good day Iím done with this convo.

I never said you need to expand if balanced. I said the way you can even sell the idea of expanding is to balance. maybe ignoring most of a post for one sentence is something we have in common.

Scoots
08-09-2018, 11:06 AM
Of the top players in the NBA how many of them came in to the league great? 2? 3? There are NEVER going to be enough people with raw superstar level talent for every team. They key is developing the talent. Kawhi, Curry, Harden, Giannis, etc may not be the players they are if they were drafted by other teams that didn't have the environment or, importantly, the time to invest in player development.

The teams should be encouraged to develop the players which the NBA has taken steps to do with the G-league and the 2 two way contracts. But the fact is that teams that are trying to win seldom develop more stars because they don't have the playing time or the environment to develop the player into a star ... so that will, in general distribute the talent because the teams trying to come up will have a better opportunity to develop stars. I think the fact that 3 teams appear unwilling to pay for g-league teams is sad. The NBA should up it to 6 two-way contracts per team.

Another thought ... maybe give the bottom 10 teams 3rd round picks.

Tg11
08-09-2018, 11:25 AM
I would move the Clippers to Seattle with the Supersonics coming back to the NBA

2nd team would be moving the Grizzlies away from Memphis and moving them to Montreal

So my new teams would be Seattle and Montreal

Montreal having an NBA team; instant rivalry with the Raptors

Seattle in the West; Montreal in the East

MygirlhatesCod
08-09-2018, 12:05 PM
Of the top players in the NBA how many of them came in to the league great? 2? 3? There are NEVER going to be enough people with raw superstar level talent for every team. They key is developing the talent. Kawhi, Curry, Harden, Giannis, etc may not be the players they are if they were drafted by other teams that didn't have the environment or, importantly, the time to invest in player development.

The teams should be encouraged to develop the players which the NBA has taken steps to do with the G-league and the 2 two way contracts. But the fact is that teams that are trying to win seldom develop more stars because they don't have the playing time or the environment to develop the player into a star ... so that will, in general distribute the talent because the teams trying to come up will have a better opportunity to develop stars. I think the fact that 3 teams appear unwilling to pay for g-league teams is sad. The NBA should up it to 6 two-way contracts per team.

Another thought ... maybe give the bottom 10 teams 3rd round picks.

that was tried in the mid or late 80's with very little success if I recall. I don't think it was just for specific teams though.

the fact that not all teams have an affiliate is very disappointing. its odd that each affiliate isn't allowed to own the rights of every player on their own funded g-league teams. I wonder what the purpose is.

Tg11
08-09-2018, 12:07 PM
Or I would move the Clippers to Seattle and the Grizzlies I would move to St. Louis

Seattle then would be in the East and St. Louis in the West

ccugrad1
08-09-2018, 12:08 PM
Not that it will happen, but I'm sure Silver has been kicking the idea around of expanding the league. After all, that means more money. Which two cities/states do you think would be good for expansion? For me:

Seattle

I think Seattle deserves a team after Schultz and Clay Bennett pretty much stuck it to the city. Seattle is Microsoft town and there are plenty of people with lots of money that would love to own an NBA team. I would love to see them bring back the Supersonics.


Vancouver

Canada needs another NBA team. The lockout made many in the area lose interest in the NBA but there were other contributing factors. James Naismith was Canadian so it would be fitting to have more than just one team in Canada. Vancouver is a hop skip and a jump away from Seattle so whichever billionaire that couldn't get a team in Seattle, may get a second chance with one in Vancouver.

This would add two Western conference teams. The two that would make sense to move to the East would be the New Orleans Pelicans and Memphis Grizzlies.

Heaven's no. If you look at the NBA right now, you could get rid of like 4-6 teams

Scoots
08-09-2018, 12:20 PM
that was tried in the mid or late 80's with very little success if I recall. I don't think it was just for specific teams though.

the fact that not all teams have an affiliate is very disappointing. its odd that each affiliate isn't allowed to own the rights of every player on their own funded g-league teams. I wonder what the purpose is.

The draft used to have many more rounds, the players don't want a draft at all, the 2 rounds is a compromise. If the players were given 120 more contracts available they may accept 1/3rd of a round added to the draft.

MygirlhatesCod
08-09-2018, 12:35 PM
The draft used to have many more rounds, the players don't want a draft at all, the 2 rounds is a compromise. If the players were given 120 more contracts available they may accept 1/3rd of a round added to the draft.

I was trying to look that up but fell short. why didn't they want the draft?

Scoots
08-09-2018, 01:09 PM
I was trying to look that up but fell short. why didn't they want the draft?

The same thing happened with the NFL. The players want freedom, they'd rather have no draft at all. The 2 rounds is a compromise.

I think teams actually using a draft pick, even if it's "just" a 3rd round pick, the team would be more cautious and more invested in that players development.

crewfan13
08-09-2018, 01:19 PM
Teams already treat 2nd rounders as throw aways at times already though. And while the undrafted player success rate is low in all sports, itís very low in the nba. Itís pretty unlikely that adding even a partial 3rd round would do much. I think it you start seeing an influx of success of undrafted or even late 2nd round guys, then teams would be more willing, but that really hasnít happened.

Itís still new, so time will tell, but we may not even know if 2 way deals are even worth it. Itís a novel idea and doesnít hurt, but until we see a decent amount of two way guys actually make it and stick in the league, itís impossible to say if it even helps development.

Scoots
08-09-2018, 01:40 PM
Teams already treat 2nd rounders as throw aways at times already though. And while the undrafted player success rate is low in all sports, itís very low in the nba. Itís pretty unlikely that adding even a partial 3rd round would do much. I think it you start seeing an influx of success of undrafted or even late 2nd round guys, then teams would be more willing, but that really hasnít happened.

Itís still new, so time will tell, but we may not even know if 2 way deals are even worth it. Itís a novel idea and doesnít hurt, but until we see a decent amount of two way guys actually make it and stick in the league, itís impossible to say if it even helps development.

Teams used to treat 2nd rounders as throw-a-ways, but that has changed. 2nd round picks are valued now.

I wasn't expecting the 3rd round picks to make a huge difference, just a small one. And I also said I'd like each team to have 4 more two-way contracts which would give teams a place to develop players. If you watch the Summer league there are far more players that flash some raw talent than teams have roster space to spend on them, and teams are reluctant to invest time and money on players that are not under some level of control. Expand the rosters to an effective 21 players and teams WILL spend more time and effort developing those players.

Jeffy25
08-09-2018, 02:28 PM
at the end of the day the NBA really only needs a hard cap. the hard cap will pave the way for expansion of the league or their g-league affiliates.

All a cap does is take money from the players and gives it to the owners.

Players will take less money to play where they want, which they have consistently proven they will do.

Durant, Cousins, etc.

Players want the easy path to winning.

Get rid of the cap, and let players demand whatever they can get until ownership can't pay for anyone else.

MygirlhatesCod
08-09-2018, 02:40 PM
All a cap does is take money from the players and gives it to the owners.

Players will take less money to play where they want, which they have consistently proven they will do.

Durant, Cousins, etc.

Players want the easy path to winning.

Get rid of the cap, and let players demand whatever they can get until ownership can't pay for anyone else.

I get that money will stay with owners but I am ok with that. they do own the team and should make the most from it.

I like the idea of them getting more money than the league being dominated by who is willing to spend more.

yes those players took less but no where near what it would have been if a hard cap was enforced.

valade16
08-09-2018, 04:25 PM
All a cap does is take money from the players and gives it to the owners.

Players will take less money to play where they want, which they have consistently proven they will do.

Durant, Cousins, etc.

Players want the easy path to winning.

Get rid of the cap, and let players demand whatever they can get until ownership can't pay for anyone else.

While I agree that we shouldn't have a hard cap, I disagree with just getting rid of the soft cap. Some teams and owners are wealthier than others, they would simply sign all the best players. Especially in this day and age with everyone willing to team up with each other, it would destroy league parity (more even that it's destroyed now).

Jeffy25
08-09-2018, 05:41 PM
While I agree that we shouldn't have a hard cap, I disagree with just getting rid of the soft cap. Some teams and owners are wealthier than others, they would simply sign all the best players. Especially in this day and age with everyone willing to team up with each other, it would destroy league parity (more even that it's destroyed now).

Let them, and don't put a restriction on how long those contracts can be.

If the Lakers really wanted LeBron, they could have given him a 10/$600M contract, and they'll be stuck paying him in a few years when he starts to decline and can't put talent around him.

It's why large market teams in baseball have to rebuild all the time. While they can buy the best players, it's only short lived because the players want max value and long term deals.

I'd argue that 1 in every 5 $100M contract in baseball works out for the signing team. They are stuck dealing with the guy as he declines and paying him top level money while he ages, and they just wait for the contract to expire.

In exchange for the loss of the cap, the owners would get longer control over the guys they drafted, making the average age of free agency more like 26-27 rather than 23-24.

So if you draft the Greek Freek at age 19 at number 15 and he develops into a star, you can have 6-7 years to build around him before you have to give him a 9 figure contract or let him walk to a large market team.

And you'd have to have compensation for top free agents as they walk. In baseball, if you lose a stud in free agency, you get draft picks from the signing team (you can do it in a lot of ways, plenty of room for creativity).

Let the Knicks and Lakers overpay and get everyone under the sun when they reach free agency. After 3-4 years of attempting to dominate the league, they'll be stuck with these guys another 3-4 years before they can even begin their rebuild.

What ends up happening is teams become smart about who they buy, at what ages, and for how long. And the cream of the crop holds out for the max total dollar.


I just want to get rid of the crap like the Warriors. If Curry and Durant are making $40M each, Thompson and Green another $25M each, that's $130M for a team that only has $300M in revenue. They won't be able to spend more than $170 on total team payroll. And Cousins would easily see a multi-year offer elsewhere.

This also requires the union to have a problem with players taking less money than is offered, which in baseball they don't allow unless it's a special circumstance (like a player re-signing with their hometown team for the remainder of their careers). In baseball, Cousins would have to prove to the union that signing with the Warriors was the best offer he could get, or he'd have to demand the Warriors match or reach 90% of his top offer for him to accept it. The unions job is to get the most total amount of money into the union and away from the owners as possible.

Scoots
08-09-2018, 05:42 PM
How about making the revenue sharing be revenue and market flattening so all markets are evened out. Force all team related revenue to be shared between all teams. Flatten the market using cost of living adjustments, tax adjustments, weather adjustments, market adjustment. That way Cleveland can have a higher cap than LA.

A note on something above ... the cap makes NO difference to how much the players are paid, it just has an effect on negotiations.

Jeffy25
08-09-2018, 05:44 PM
How about making the revenue sharing be revenue and market flattening so all markets are evened out. Force all team related revenue to be shared between all teams. Flatten the market using cost of living adjustments, tax adjustments, weather adjustments, market adjustment. That way Cleveland can have a higher cap than LA.

A note on something above ... the cap makes NO difference to how much the players are paid, it just has an effect on negotiations.

I like that much better, and we have discussed it in baseball circles too.

Every team has equal revenue, changes every thing (minus city association costs of course)

valade16
08-09-2018, 06:07 PM
Let them, and don't put a restriction on how long those contracts can be.

If the Lakers really wanted LeBron, they could have given him a 10/$600M contract, and they'll be stuck paying him in a few years when he starts to decline and can't put talent around him.

It's why large market teams in baseball have to rebuild all the time. While they can buy the best players, it's only short lived because the players want max value and long term deals.

I'd argue that 1 in every 5 $100M contract in baseball works out for the signing team. They are stuck dealing with the guy as he declines and paying him top level money while he ages, and they just wait for the contract to expire.

In exchange for the loss of the cap, the owners would get longer control over the guys they drafted, making the average age of free agency more like 26-27 rather than 23-24.

So if you draft the Greek Freek at age 19 at number 15 and he develops into a star, you can have 6-7 years to build around him before you have to give him a 9 figure contract or let him walk to a large market team.

And you'd have to have compensation for top free agents as they walk. In baseball, if you lose a stud in free agency, you get draft picks from the signing team (you can do it in a lot of ways, plenty of room for creativity).

Let the Knicks and Lakers overpay and get everyone under the sun when they reach free agency. After 3-4 years of attempting to dominate the league, they'll be stuck with these guys another 3-4 years before they can even begin their rebuild.

What ends up happening is teams become smart about who they buy, at what ages, and for how long. And the cream of the crop holds out for the max total dollar.


I just want to get rid of the crap like the Warriors. If Curry and Durant are making $40M each, Thompson and Green another $25M each, that's $130M for a team that only has $300M in revenue. They won't be able to spend more than $170 on total team payroll. And Cousins would easily see a multi-year offer elsewhere.

This also requires the union to have a problem with players taking less money than is offered, which in baseball they don't allow unless it's a special circumstance (like a player re-signing with their hometown team for the remainder of their careers). In baseball, Cousins would have to prove to the union that signing with the Warriors was the best offer he could get, or he'd have to demand the Warriors match or reach 90% of his top offer for him to accept it. The unions job is to get the most total amount of money into the union and away from the owners as possible.

Do they? The Yankees have missed the playoffs 4 times in the last 20 years. The Red Sox have made the playoffs 9 of the past 15 years. As soon as the new big spending ownership group bought the Dodgers they've made the playoffs every year.

If you compared all the teams that consistently spend big money (not teams that once they get good start to spend to keep the team together, but teams like the Yankees who consistently spend a lot) to teams that spend very little, I'm willing to bet that the teams that spend more go to the playoffs more often than those that don't.

There's also this 538 article from 2015:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-be-fooled-by-baseballs-small-budget-success-stories/

aggregating all the decadeís data points shows a pattern: More money generally means more wins.

SiteWolf
08-09-2018, 06:44 PM
wow, if large market team have to rebuild all the time, what is it that small market teams have to do? Look at the Royals, for example....finally have enough prospects develop enough to be a good team in 2013, make the WS in 2014, WIN the WS in 2015....work hard to be a .500 club in 2016 and 2017 when they had to pay some of those guys and not keep building....and now trending towards 110 losses because they've lost a bunch more of their core they couldn't afford

a small market has to hit multiple times with a team young enough before they're getting big contracts.....a large market can continually fill in the holes if they miss in the draft or FA

Jeffy25
08-09-2018, 06:45 PM
Do they? The Yankees have missed the playoffs 4 times in the last 20 years. The Red Sox have made the playoffs 9 of the past 15 years. As soon as the new big spending ownership group bought the Dodgers they've made the playoffs every year.
Both teams are exceptionally well ran and are that great because of their development systems.

Both teams are loaded with home grown talent. Aaron Judge and Mookie Betts are guys those teams drafted, not paid in free agency.

Dodgers too, it's guys like Seager, Kershaw, Bellinger, Jansen, etc.

These three teams are loaded with homegrown superstars. It's their development system that has made them that great. Looks at the Mets, Angels, Mariners, Cubs (until recently), White Sox. These are the other large market clubs in baseball. But they are ran incompetently (not the Cubs anymore, they have Epstein who ran the Red Sox).



If you compared all the teams that consistently spend big money (not teams that once they get good start to spend to keep the team together, but teams like the Yankees who consistently spend a lot) to teams that spend very little, I'm willing to bet that the teams that spend more go to the playoffs more often than those that don't.

The correlation has less to do with teams spending and becoming good, but rather spending after they are good. Teams that are rebuilding don't bother in free agency.

The teams that have tried to buy a team in free agency in baseball have failed miserably when they have tried.
The 2012 Marlins, the 2013 Blue Jays, 2014 Padres. You can't assemble a team in free agency and it work.

The Astros didn't bother spending when they were going to be a 100 loss team in 2013. But they are now in 2016 after they developed amazing players.

valade16
08-09-2018, 07:34 PM
Both teams are exceptionally well ran and are that great because of their development systems.

Both teams are loaded with home grown talent. Aaron Judge and Mookie Betts are guys those teams drafted, not paid in free agency.

Dodgers too, it's guys like Seager, Kershaw, Bellinger, Jansen, etc.

These three teams are loaded with homegrown superstars. It's their development system that has made them that great. Looks at the Mets, Angels, Mariners, Cubs (until recently), White Sox. These are the other large market clubs in baseball. But they are ran incompetently (not the Cubs anymore, they have Epstein who ran the Red Sox).

The correlation has less to do with teams spending and becoming good, but rather spending after they are good. Teams that are rebuilding don't bother in free agency.

The teams that have tried to buy a team in free agency in baseball have failed miserably when they have tried.
The 2012 Marlins, the 2013 Blue Jays, 2014 Padres. You can't assemble a team in free agency and it work.

The Astros didn't bother spending when they were going to be a 100 loss team in 2013. But they are now in 2016 after they developed amazing players.

First Bolded: Yes, both teams have good development systems and have homegrown players. But they circumvent that talent with Free Agents. The Yankees traded for and signed Stanton to a deal few teams could afford. The Red Sox signed JD Martinez and David Price as Free Agents.

Historically, the Yankees and the Red Sox win because they develop talent and get top tier Free Agents. If they could only develop talent internally they wouldn't be as successful.

Second Bolded, I know your point, I've heard you make it before. I'm not talking about teams that don't spend until they get good and then spend (i.e. the Astros). I'm talking about teams that consistently spend a lot on their team. The Yankees, the Red Sox. They win a lot more than teams that consistently don't spend on their team (Athletics, Marlins, etc.).


Teams that in general spend more, win more.

Scoots
08-09-2018, 09:29 PM
Teams that in general spend more, win more.

And if spending was equal, well run teams would win more. But there would still be a huge imbalance.

SiteWolf
08-10-2018, 08:24 AM
Until a couple years ago, you'd never say the Yankees developed their own talent. Some, certainly, but they used small market teams as their farm system for years....so suggesting they're an exceptionally well run team depends on what glasses you're putting on, and when you started. They've rebuilt their farm system lately by being able to make moves like the Aroldis Chapman trade...but that still means they had to get him before they could trade him.

warfelg
08-10-2018, 08:46 AM
And if spending was equal, well run teams would win more. But there would still be a huge imbalance.

The difference there look to the NFL:
Yes the well run teams are near the top every year (Patriots, Steelers); but the equal spending means teams can rebound faster/easier than other sports.

crewfan13
08-10-2018, 08:47 AM
All a cap does is take money from the players and gives it to the owners.

Players will take less money to play where they want, which they have consistently proven they will do.

Durant, Cousins, etc.

Players want the easy path to winning.

Get rid of the cap, and let players demand whatever they can get until ownership can't pay for anyone else.

Not entirely true. Look at baseball this year, the free agent market got pinched and that trend will likely continue. Harper and machado will get huge paydays, but I think the big pay days for 2nd and 3rd tier guys is gone. There werenít many big deals signed in baseball, but of the ones that were, into Cain and arreita look like good deals after year 1. And those deals still have plenty of time to end up looking bad.

Caps provide a floor and a ceiling. Free market provides neither. The assumption is always that the ceiling provides more for ownership than the floor does for players. We donít actually know it thars true. It used to be true in baseball, but as we see this trend of teams not overspending in FA like they used to, that may not be the case.

And the cases of guys taking less money to play where they want are much lower than people say. Durant is the obvious example. Cousins is likely a bad example, since he was only taking a 1 yr deal and Iím not sure any non contender gives him more than that for half a year. Outside of that itís usually bench vets who are close to retirement that take the discount deals. Itís not near the epidemic that people seem to make it out to be.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
08-10-2018, 08:52 AM
Seattle and Vegas should get first look. Then move Grizzlies and Pelicans to the east.

Scoots
08-10-2018, 09:00 AM
The difference there look to the NFL:
Yes the well run teams are near the top every year (Patriots, Steelers); but the equal spending means teams can rebound faster/easier than other sports.

I think the issue with that comparison is that the NBA is more about 1 player and the NFL is more about the team, and the huge NFL roster makes it far more volatile.

crewfan13
08-10-2018, 09:02 AM
The difference there look to the NFL:
Yes the well run teams are near the top every year (Patriots, Steelers); but the equal spending means teams can rebound faster/easier than other sports.

I donít think thatís 100% accurate either though. We also look to compare sports when talking about cap/financial structure. But thatís not really doable. Football also has different ways to rebuild. Basketball is basically figure out how to get a superstar. If you canít, itís almaot impossible to truly build a contender.

The nfl is different. Sure getting a franchise qb is the easiest way to build a contender. But if you donít have that guy, you can stil build a defense and run game. Jacksonville is a great example of that. And to your point, the shared revenue and equal cap helped them rebuild. But they had a path that wasnít just keep throwing darts till you find a qb. That path doesnít really exist in the nba. You either need a top 5 player in the league plus another all star caliber talent or two. Or you legit have to have 4 or 5 all star types if you donít have a top 5 player. Those are both really hard to do, regardless of revenue sharing or model.

Basically, basketball is so one player dependent that regardless of revenue structure, the same few teams will rise to the top and it will be the few teams that actually have the superstars.

warfelg
08-10-2018, 09:30 AM
I donít think thatís 100% accurate either though. We also look to compare sports when talking about cap/financial structure. But thatís not really doable. Football also has different ways to rebuild. Basketball is basically figure out how to get a superstar. If you canít, itís almaot impossible to truly build a contender.

The nfl is different. Sure getting a franchise qb is the easiest way to build a contender. But if you donít have that guy, you can stil build a defense and run game. Jacksonville is a great example of that. And to your point, the shared revenue and equal cap helped them rebuild. But they had a path that wasnít just keep throwing darts till you find a qb. That path doesnít really exist in the nba. You either need a top 5 player in the league plus another all star caliber talent or two. Or you legit have to have 4 or 5 all star types if you donít have a top 5 player. Those are both really hard to do, regardless of revenue sharing or model.

Basically, basketball is so one player dependent that regardless of revenue structure, the same few teams will rise to the top and it will be the few teams that actually have the superstars.

Right, but all I'm trying to point out is saying there will still be good FO's isn't an argument against a cap structure change. A good FO's in a hard cap situation means they can work to find those edge players. But what change in a cap situation does is at least gives teams that are not at the top a route to improve.

I personally also think it would really help with tanking.

Take what Hinkie said: There are 3 ways to get a superstar in the NBA, draft one, trade two, FA three. So what if you made FA an easier route to getting a FA and trade became the hardest one?

JOSKOMANG4
08-10-2018, 10:07 AM
Seattle Sonics & Spirit of St.Louis. *Move BKN to Vancouver*

Realignment idea:

Western Conference:

NorthWest: Warriors, Vancouver, Sonics, Blazers
SouthWest: Lakers, Clippers, Suns, Kings
Midwest: Jazz, Nuggets, Spirit of St.Louis(MO), Thunder
South: Spurs, Mavericks, Rockets, Pelicans

Eastern Conference:

Atlantic: Celtics, Knicks, Sixers, Raptors
Coastal: Hornets, Pacers, Cavaliers, Wizards
Great Lakes: Bucks, Pistons, Wolves, Bulls
SouthEast: Heat, Hawks, Magic, Grizzles

Jeffy25
08-10-2018, 01:58 PM
First Bolded: Yes, both teams have good development systems and have homegrown players. But they circumvent that talent with Free Agents. The Yankees traded for and signed Stanton to a deal few teams could afford. The Red Sox signed JD Martinez and David Price as Free Agents.

Historically, the Yankees and the Red Sox win because they develop talent and get top tier Free Agents. If they could only develop talent internally they wouldn't be as successful.
David Price has been awful and a player they wish they didn't have.

Martinez has rocked this year, but it's pretty rare that a player pans out like that.

if they did this basketball, and let's say a small market team like the Thunder drafted really well and have a great development system. They would keep most of their stars. If Durant left to the Warriors as a free agent (wouldn't be able to until he was 26 or so), then that would wreck the Warriors financially and there is no possible way for them to keep everyone. The Thunder would keep compensation for him leaving, and still be able to add vets around a good home grown talent pool.


Second Bolded, I know your point, I've heard you make it before. I'm not talking about teams that don't spend until they get good and then spend (i.e. the Astros). I'm talking about teams that consistently spend a lot on their team. The Yankees, the Red Sox. They win a lot more than teams that consistently don't spend on their team (Athletics, Marlins, etc.).

Well sure. But every organization has the same root issue.

If you develop well, you'll do well. If you don't, you won't. When the Marlins and A's have spent several years developing talent, they see an era of winning that they can capitalize on.

The Yankees and Red Sox are two of the best development teams out there. You won't find a time in the last 10 years where one of them wasn't in the top 10 in farm systems.

Jeffy25
08-10-2018, 02:12 PM
Until a couple years ago, you'd never say the Yankees developed their own talent. Some, certainly, but they used small market teams as their farm system for years....so suggesting they're an exceptionally well run team depends on what glasses you're putting on, and when you started. They've rebuilt their farm system lately by being able to make moves like the Aroldis Chapman trade...but that still means they had to get him before they could trade him.

They developed 5 Hall of Famers in the 90's

Jeter, Bernie Williams, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, and Andy Pettitte.

This is why they won in the 90's. Not because they signed Roger Clemens at 36 years old (who had a 4.00+ ERA with them)

They developed 5 guys who either are going to the Hall, or at least have an argument for the Hall. No other team in the 90's developed 5 guys this great.

That's why they won. This narrative that they just stole talent from smaller markets like the Royals is patently false.


And yes, they received Torres for Chapman, but they traded for Chapman and gave up talent for him. They received talent for Miller, another guy they traded up for. They drafted Judge, traded for Stanton, signed Sanchez as an ammy kid like all 30 teams could have, signed Aaron Hicks for pennies, traded for Gray etc.

They developed their amazing bullpen. They developed Severino, Sanchez, and Judge, and traded talent for the rest of their roster.

Their high cost free agents are Jacoby Ellsbury, CC Sabathia, and Masahiro Tanaka. 3 guys they wish they didn't have, though CC is pitching adequately this year (who they actually signed as a free agent for cheap this year, and anyone could have had him, but everyone else passed).

Their best players they either developed, or traded developing guys for. Stuff any team in baseball can do.

It's because baseballs economic system forces things to be this way.

No cap. 6 years of control of a player through their prime, then overpay the players after those 6 years while they decline. Any team can do what the Yankees and Red Sox are doing. The Cardinals and Giants are both mid market teams, and have won at incredible rates for 20 years because of how they are ran. Remember the amazing 15 years the Braves had? That's a tiny market in baseball terms (think the Hawks in basketball), and they had a 15 year run of amazing success because the system allows that to happen if you are competently ran). The Royals won a world series recently as they second lowest revenue team in the sport, and it's because they had an insane farm system (though their GM ****ed up after)

valade16
08-10-2018, 02:29 PM
David Price has been awful and a player they wish they didn't have.

Martinez has rocked this year, but it's pretty rare that a player pans out like that.

if they did this basketball, and let's say a small market team like the Thunder drafted really well and have a great development system. They would keep most of their stars. If Durant left to the Warriors as a free agent (wouldn't be able to until he was 26 or so), then that would wreck the Warriors financially and there is no possible way for them to keep everyone. The Thunder would keep compensation for him leaving, and still be able to add vets around a good home grown talent pool.

Well sure. But every organization has the same root issue.

If you develop well, you'll do well. If you don't, you won't. When the Marlins and A's have spent several years developing talent, they see an era of winning that they can capitalize on.

The Yankees and Red Sox are two of the best development teams out there. You won't find a time in the last 10 years where one of them wasn't in the top 10 in farm systems.

First Bolded: Maybe the Warriors (though I'd have to check their financials), but it wouldn't wreck all teams. The Lakers paid like $50 mil to revenue sharing last year and still made $100 million in profit. If they wanted to absorb the cost, they could sign 3-4 superstars outright. Because once they start winning, their revenue will go up.

Second Bolded: Sure, they can capitalize on developed talent, for a very short window. Before they sell everyone off because they can't afford it. The rich teams can keep those same squads together forever (like the 90's Yankees).

You keep harping on the Yankees and Red Sox being great at development, but you completely discount how much their massive wealth helps them. You're very dogmatic on this. If you really think the only difference between the A's and the Yankees is talent development, you're too far gone to really continue.

Jeffy25
08-10-2018, 02:34 PM
Not entirely true. Look at baseball this year, the free agent market got pinched and that trend will likely continue. Harper and machado will get huge paydays, but I think the big pay days for 2nd and 3rd tier guys is gone. There werenít many big deals signed in baseball, but of the ones that were, into Cain and arreita look like good deals after year 1. And those deals still have plenty of time to end up looking bad.

Caps provide a floor and a ceiling. Free market provides neither. The assumption is always that the ceiling provides more for ownership than the floor does for players. We donít actually know it thars true. It used to be true in baseball, but as we see this trend of teams not overspending in FA like they used to, that may not be the case.

And the cases of guys taking less money to play where they want are much lower than people say. Durant is the obvious example. Cousins is likely a bad example, since he was only taking a 1 yr deal and Iím not sure any non contender gives him more than that for half a year. Outside of that itís usually bench vets who are close to retirement that take the discount deals. Itís not near the epidemic that people seem to make it out to be.

That was a really really bad free agent market last year. Probably the worst in 20+ years.

I wouldn't analyze anything from it.

This year, there will be a lot more mid market guys that will see 9 figure deals (Dallas Keuchel, Zach Britton, etc) and a ton of guys behind that (Dozier, Marwin Gonzalez, Daniel Murphy, etc).

Last year was an incredibly weak class.

Baseball's economic system isn't perfect, but it's way better than the NBA's in terms of creating parity.

valade16
08-10-2018, 02:39 PM
They developed 5 Hall of Famers in the 90's

Jeter, Bernie Williams, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, and Andy Pettitte.

This is why they won in the 90's. Not because they signed Roger Clemens at 36 years old (who had a 4.00+ ERA with them)

They developed 5 guys who either are going to the Hall, or at least have an argument for the Hall. No other team in the 90's developed 5 guys this great.

That's why they won. This narrative that they just stole talent from smaller markets like the Royals is patently false.


And yes, they received Torres for Chapman, but they traded for Chapman and gave up talent for him. They received talent for Miller, another guy they traded up for. They drafted Judge, traded for Stanton, signed Sanchez as an ammy kid like all 30 teams could have, signed Aaron Hicks for pennies, traded for Gray etc.

They developed their amazing bullpen. They developed Severino, Sanchez, and Judge, and traded talent for the rest of their roster.

Their high cost free agents are Jacoby Ellsbury, CC Sabathia, and Masahiro Tanaka. 3 guys they wish they didn't have, though CC is pitching adequately this year (who they actually signed as a free agent for cheap this year, and anyone could have had him, but everyone else passed).

Their best players they either developed, or traded developing guys for. Stuff any team in baseball can do.

It's because baseballs economic system forces things to be this way.

No cap. 6 years of control of a player through their prime, then overpay the players after those 6 years while they decline. Any team can do what the Yankees and Red Sox are doing. The Cardinals and Giants are both mid market teams, and have won at incredible rates for 20 years because of how they are ran. Remember the amazing 15 years the Braves had? That's a tiny market in baseball terms (think the Hawks in basketball), and they had a 15 year run of amazing success because the system allows that to happen if you are competently ran). The Royals won a world series recently as they second lowest revenue team in the sport, and it's because they had an insane farm system (though their GM ****ed up after)

Ok, so you brought up the 90's Yankees and the Current Yankees. But what about the 2009 Yankees? Mark Teixeira: Free Agent. Alex Rodriguez: Free Agent. Johnny Damon: Free Agent. Hideki Matsui: Free Agent. CC Sabathia: Free Agent. AJ Burnett: Free Agent. Andy Pettite: Free Agent.

That team doesn't win the World Series without all the Free Agents the Yankees signed. Developing talent is very important, but being able to augment that developed talent with Free Agents is a luxury some teams can afford at all times, not just when the team gets good.

Jeffy25
08-10-2018, 02:52 PM
First Bolded: Maybe the Warriors (though I'd have to check their financials), but it wouldn't wreck all teams. The Lakers paid like $50 mil to revenue sharing last year and still made $100 million in profit. If they wanted to absorb the cost, they could sign 3-4 superstars outright. Because once they start winning, their revenue will go up.But those superstars would cost tremendously more.

LeBron James wouldn't be signing for $35M. He'd be signing for 60-80M at least.
In baseball, where there are 25 man rosters and half the revenue goes to the players, the highest paid players receive about 10% of their teams revenues. In basketball, with rosters half that size, superstars would receive about 20% of the teams revenues and the team as a whole would receive about 50%.

So a team like the Lakers, Forbes says their revenue last year was #371M, would pay James about $75M, and have about $185 for total team payroll.

They could fit another stud in there around $60M, and then have to fill the rest of the roster with the remaining $50M.

You aren't signing LeBron James for $35M if you remove the cap. He will get top dollar, and it will hamstring the organization to do it.


Second Bolded: Sure, they can capitalize on developed talent, for a very short window. Before they sell everyone off because they can't afford it. The rich teams can keep those same squads together forever (like the 90's Yankees).
You do realize that those 90's Yankees won while Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, Mo, and Williams were still under their pre-arb contracts, right?

The Blue Jays had a higher payroll during their championship run.

Yeah, they added guys like David Cone, but they traded talent for him.



You keep harping on the Yankees and Red Sox being great at development, but you completely discount how much their massive wealth helps them. You're very dogmatic on this. If you really think the only difference between the A's and the Yankees is talent development, you're too far gone to really continue.

It is, and I can prove it.

I can list the total WAR values of the guys the A's have developed and the total WAR values of the guys the Yankees have developed, and it's a massive advantage for the Yankees.

valade16
08-10-2018, 03:05 PM
But those superstars would cost tremendously more.

LeBron James wouldn't be signing for $35M. He'd be signing for 60-80M at least.
In baseball, where there are 25 man rosters and half the revenue goes to the players, the highest paid players receive about 10% of their teams revenues. In basketball, with rosters half that size, superstars would receive about 20% of the teams revenues and the team as a whole would receive about 50%.

So a team like the Lakers, Forbes says their revenue last year was #371M, would pay James about $75M, and have about $185 for total team payroll.

They could fit another stud in there around $60M, and then have to fill the rest of the roster with the remaining $50M.

You aren't signing LeBron James for $35M if you remove the cap. He will get top dollar, and it will hamstring the organization to do it.


You do realize that those 90's Yankees won while Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, Mo, and Williams were still under their pre-arb contracts, right?

The Blue Jays had a higher payroll during their championship run.

Yeah, they added guys like David Cone, but they traded talent for him.

It is, and I can prove it.

I can list the total WAR values of the guys the A's have developed and the total WAR values of the guys the Yankees have developed, and it's a massive advantage for the Yankees.

If you did this I'd want you to list the WAR values for the A's developed players and the Yankees on their initial contracts, and then list the total value of the contracts the Yankees were able to sign them for compared to the A's (or let them walk in FA). I'd also want you to calculate the WAR the Yankees and the A's added via FA.

I'm betting the WAR added via Free Agency is a far more massive differential than the talent developed by both, and I'm going to bet the Yankees paid a lot more money to keep the talent they developed. But again, those are both possible through money.

Here's the big question that blows your theory right to pieces, if the A's had developed 5 HoF caliber players, would they have been able to keep them all for as long as the Yankees did? The Yankees spent a combined $655 million dollars to keep Rivera, Posada, Bernie Williams and Derek Jeter as Yankees for their careers. There is no way the A's could afford to do that.

SfgiantsJD3
08-10-2018, 03:08 PM
Seattle Sonics & Spirit of St.Louis. *Move BKN to Vancouver*

Realignment idea:

Western Conference:

NorthWest: Warriors, Vancouver, Sonics, Blazers
SouthWest: Lakers, Clippers, Suns, Kings
snipped
Sacramento is farther north than SF/OAK by a little bit (60+ miles)

Jeffy25
08-10-2018, 03:45 PM
Here's the big question that blows your theory right to pieces, if the A's had developed 5 HoF caliber players, would they have been able to keep them all for as long as the Yankees did? The Yankees spent a combined $655 million dollars to keep Rivera, Posada, Bernie Williams and Derek Jeter as Yankees for their careers. There is no way the A's could afford to do that.

Yes


The Yankees revenue doubled when they won 4 World Series in 5 years. In 1995 their reported revenue was $125M, in 2000 it was $205M. They then built their TV network, which is the largest portion of their huge revenue. Now they have $625M in revenue.

The A's could have done the same thing. Signing and developing and drafting those five guys cost the Yankees minimal money. And they won 4 chips in a 5 year run with a payroll that the A's could have carried.

They then signed these guys to long term deals that the A's could have afforded and their revenue would have capitalized on.

The issue with the A's is that Billy Beane trades guys away way too soon way too often. He trades guys like perennial MVP candidate Josh Donaldson with four years of control for scrubs and it makes no sense.

I'm surprised he hasn't traded Matt Chapman an Khris Davis yet. He tries to capitalize on value for his players, but does it way to soon.

Being Oakland, they wouldn't have $625M in revenue, but it wouldn't be that far behind if they had generated so much success for so long with a great pool of homegrown talent. The Warriors have the third highest revenue in basketball, despite playing across the parking lot of the A's.

It's because of how successful the team is, not because of the cap.

When they started to see success in the early 00's, they ditched the guys way too fast. Something Beane has a bad habit of doing.


But, I wish MLB pooled their revenue and distributed it so we had the most ideal parity. Something the NBA could do. Then remove the cap, it won't matter.

Jeffy25
08-10-2018, 05:19 PM
the NBA has $7.5Billion in revenue per year

If the league pooled all of the national and local tv deals into one pot, and spread those equally, but allowed teams to control concessions and tickets (so that large markets can adjust for the more expensive locales) you wouldn't need a cap or a floor.

Each team would be able to support a payroll around $125M

Scoots
08-10-2018, 07:17 PM
the NBA has $7.5Billion in revenue per year

If the league pooled all of the national and local tv deals into one pot, and spread those equally, but allowed teams to control concessions and tickets (so that large markets can adjust for the more expensive locales) you wouldn't need a cap or a floor.

Each team would be able to support a payroll around $125M

Close to what I suggested, but I'd suggest the adjustment for markets should also be controlled. CA teams can get a penalty for weather while Minny can get a bonus. CA and NY get a bonus for their high COL while TX, FL teams get a penalty for their tax situation, and on and on. If we are going to act like the teams are being equalized lets actually equalize them.

Jeffy25
08-10-2018, 09:51 PM
Close to what I suggested, but I'd suggest the adjustment for markets should also be controlled. CA teams can get a penalty for weather while Minny can get a bonus. CA and NY get a bonus for their high COL while TX, FL teams get a penalty for their tax situation, and on and on. If we are going to act like the teams are being equalized lets actually equalize them.

I agree, the revenue allocations would need to be specifically broken down into percentages.

But I think it should just be tv dollars, not merch, concessions, and tickets. Teams should be allowed to market themselves.

Scoots
08-10-2018, 10:20 PM
I agree, the revenue allocations would need to be specifically broken down into percentages.

But I think it should just be tv dollars, not merch, concessions, and tickets. Teams should be allowed to market themselves.

Then you are giving a big advantage to certain cities.

Jeffy25
08-10-2018, 10:27 PM
Then you are giving a big advantage to certain cities.

It's a smaller portion of the revenue.

If all tv revenue is put into one pot and evenly distributed, that's about 55-60% of each teams revenue right now.

Teams don't really make that much off ticket sales, name rights of stadium, and merch/concessions. It's less than $100M for pretty much everyone.

The Lakers receive $125M from their local tv deal, and another $90M from the national tv deal. That's $215M of their $375M in total revenue. Or, 57%.

But you can't socialize the entire investment by the owners. They have to be able to profit somewhere. It can't just be a flat overall revenue everywhere.

The MLB could outsource all concessions equally, and collect that revenue, as well merch. But still, some teams need to have some control over their NOI.


Under a tv only deal, each team would receive $140M in revenue
Add concessions and merch, and it's another $35M or so (I don't actually know those numbers)

Scoots
08-11-2018, 09:32 AM
It's a smaller portion of the revenue.

If all tv revenue is put into one pot and evenly distributed, that's about 55-60% of each teams revenue right now.

Teams don't really make that much off ticket sales, name rights of stadium, and merch/concessions. It's less than $100M for pretty much everyone.

The Lakers receive $125M from their local tv deal, and another $90M from the national tv deal. That's $215M of their $375M in total revenue. Or, 57%.

But you can't socialize the entire investment by the owners. They have to be able to profit somewhere. It can't just be a flat overall revenue everywhere.

The MLB could outsource all concessions equally, and collect that revenue, as well merch. But still, some teams need to have some control over their NOI.


Under a tv only deal, each team would receive $140M in revenue
Add concessions and merch, and it's another $35M or so (I don't actually know those numbers)

The problem there is that the Lakers, when they were terrible, made 4 times what the mutli-title winning Warriors made on their local TV deals. And when the Lakers are good their worldwide merch is MUCH higher than pretty much any other team. Then add in that they are in LA where there are many other benefits. The Lakers have a lot of advantages over every other team.

Jeffy25
08-11-2018, 10:28 AM
The problem there is that the Lakers, when they were terrible, made 4 times what the mutli-title winning Warriors made on their local TV deals. And when the Lakers are good their worldwide merch is MUCH higher than pretty much any other team. Then add in that they are in LA where there are many other benefits. The Lakers have a lot of advantages over every other team.

We are interested in creating parity, right?

Scoots
08-11-2018, 10:49 AM
We are interested in creating parity, right?

Yes, though I don't think the rules the team operate under are the biggest issue with parity, but rather ownership. There are owners in the NBA that should be replaced. The issue there is that replacing bad owners is incredibly difficult. I could only come up with 1 rule to encourage owners.

Jeffy25
08-11-2018, 10:53 AM
Yes, though I don't think the rules the team operate under are the biggest issue with parity, but rather ownership. There are owners in the NBA that should be replaced. The issue there is that replacing bad owners is incredibly difficult. I could only come up with 1 rule to encourage owners.

Which is?

A financial reward based on winning percentage or something?

mightybosstone
08-11-2018, 11:21 AM
Seattle and Vegas would be the obvious favorites for this, but the problem with that would be somebody would have to move to the East from the West as both of those teams are pretty far west. In terms of geographic location, I'm thinking Memphis would make a ton of sense, but Minnesota might as well given its proximity to Milwaukee, Chicago and Detroit.

And I would actually support it. The NFL also has 32 teams, so adding two more would hardly be unheard of. With the league already considering some changes to the playoff format, this would be a good opportunity to make a few big changes at once. And given how insanely popular the NBA is becoming, getting in on a franchise in Las Vegas now and bringing basketball back to a sports-friendly city in Seattle would be really smart.

All that being said, I just don't know whether it's something Silver and co. are even considering. With as well as things have been going, they may not want to mess with a good thing.

Scoots
08-11-2018, 01:08 PM
Which is?

A financial reward based on winning percentage or something?

Nah, more personal than that. Any team that is in the lottery, the owner can only attend half as many games as the team won the previous year. Win 20 games, the owner can only attend 10 games. Since it's a vanity object for the owners that may make them more willing to sell, or more active in wanting to win.

warfelg
08-11-2018, 01:45 PM
Nah, more personal than that. Any team that is in the lottery, the owner can only attend half as many games as the team won the previous year. Win 20 games, the owner can only attend 10 games. Since it's a vanity object for the owners that may make them more willing to sell, or more active in wanting to win.

Josh Harris attended only 5-10 games a year when the Sixers were going through their tank, so doesn't mean much TBH.

warfelg
08-11-2018, 01:50 PM
The problem there is that the Lakers, when they were terrible, made 4 times what the mutli-title winning Warriors made on their local TV deals. And when the Lakers are good their worldwide merch is MUCH higher than pretty much any other team. Then add in that they are in LA where there are many other benefits. The Lakers have a lot of advantages over every other team.

That, or you got some markets where there is only 1 local sports channel to carry games. NE has a few, BW has 2 which tend to split the Balt/Wash teams, but like Philly has only NBCSports Philly.

Then there's some teams that might pull a Yankees, and create their own network so they can pull in all the income and own the content rather than have someone else own it.

It kinda goes to the arena thing too with all of this:
Teams who own their arena (even if it was financed by local money) stand to make much more than a team that has to rent an arena from someone else. Here you would have teams like the Sixers, Clippers, Pistons effected because they rent their game day rights, they don't own and operate.

Tg11
08-11-2018, 08:33 PM
My East and West after expansion (32 teams)

1- BOS
2- TOR
3- PHI
4- MIL
5- WAS
6- IND
7- MIA
8- NYK
9- CHI
10- DET
11- ORL
12- CLE
13- BRK
14- MIN (Timberwolves move to the East)
15- ATL
16- SEA

1- GSW
2- HOU
3- POR
4- LAL
5- UTA
6- SAS
7- OKC
8- DEN
9- CHA (move to the West)
10- NOP
11- PHX
12- DAL
13- SAC
14- LAC
15- MEM
16- VEGAS

Raps18-19 Champ
08-12-2018, 06:44 PM
We have this question like every other month.

Seattle (West), Vancouver (West), Vegas (West), Montreal (East).

Move Memphis or New Orleans to the East.

Jeffy25
08-12-2018, 11:08 PM
I'd have a wet dream if we could get a St. Louis team.

mightybosstone
08-12-2018, 11:11 PM
My East and West after expansion (32 teams)

1- BOS
2- TOR
3- PHI
4- MIL
5- WAS
6- IND
7- MIA
8- NYK
9- CHI
10- DET
11- ORL
12- CLE
13- BRK
14- MIN (Timberwolves move to the East)
15- ATL
16- SEA

1- GSW
2- HOU
3- POR
4- LAL
5- UTA
6- SAS
7- OKC
8- DEN
9- CHA (move to the West)
10- NOP
11- PHX
12- DAL
13- SAC
14- LAC
15- MEM
16- VEGAS

So, wait a second, you're going to have a team in Seattle in the Eastern Conference when Seattle is geographically about as far west as you can go in the U.S.? That makes no sense. Just move Minnesota or Memphis to the East and put both expansion teams in the West.

Jeffy25
08-12-2018, 11:20 PM
So, wait a second, you're going to have a team in Seattle in the Eastern Conference when Seattle is geographically about as far west as you can go in the U.S.? That makes no sense. Just move Minnesota or Memphis to the East and put both expansion teams in the West.

Yeah, why would Charlotte be going to the West?

If you added Seattle and Vegas

East
1 - ATL
2 - BOS
3 - BKN
4 - CHA
5 - CHI
6 - CLE
7 - DET
8 - IND
9 - MIA
10 - MIL
11 - NYK
12 - ORL
13 - PHI
14 - TOR
15 - WAS
16- Memphis (move to the East - Geographically it's obvious they should be)

West
1- GSW
2- HOU
3- POR
4- LAL
5- UTA
6- SAS
7- OKC
8- DEN
9- SEA (Expansion Team)
10- NOP
11- PHX
12- DAL
13- SAC
14- LAC
15- MIN
16- VEGAS (expansion team)

Make 4 divisions in each league

mightybosstone
08-13-2018, 08:30 PM
Yeah, why would Charlotte be going to the West?

If you added Seattle and Vegas

East
1 - ATL
2 - BOS
3 - BKN
4 - CHA
5 - CHI
6 - CLE
7 - DET
8 - IND
9 - MIA
10 - MIL
11 - NYK
12 - ORL
13 - PHI
14 - TOR
15 - WAS
16- Memphis (move to the East - Geographically it's obvious they should be)

West
1- GSW
2- HOU
3- POR
4- LAL
5- UTA
6- SAS
7- OKC
8- DEN
9- SEA (Expansion Team)
10- NOP
11- PHX
12- DAL
13- SAC
14- LAC
15- MIN
16- VEGAS (expansion team)

Make 4 divisions in each league

Exactly. This makes way more sense. I could also see Minnesota getting moved to the East given how close it is to other Eastern Conference teams like Cleveland, Detroit, Indiana and Chicago. But Seattle or Vegas in the East would be a little nuts.

Saddletramp
08-14-2018, 02:12 AM
Ahhhh yes, the offseason has gotten to the annual expansion thread talk. Been done to death.


And itíd be Seattle and Vegas, move Minnesota or Memphis over to the East.

ewing
08-14-2018, 02:36 AM
Yup. And the defense is always that the Warriors never truly tanked to get Curry (lucky that NYK passed on him), Thompson (again there was some luck with reaches), and Green (which honestly is luck). So because they managed to do it without having a top 2 pick, clearly the answer is to just have a good GM who manages to get lucky enough to have guys slip, then have his best player take a massive under market contract because he was continually injured his rookie contract.

The Knicks did not pass on Curry and were long rumored to want to move up for him or Rubio. Curry went 7 the Knicks picked 8th and went with Jordan Hill


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

warfelg
08-14-2018, 02:14 PM
The Knicks did not pass on Curry and were long rumored to want to move up for him or Rubio. Curry went 7 the Knicks picked 8th and went with Jordan Hill


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My bad. Always felt like it was passed because of the wanting him rumor.

WestCoastSportz
08-20-2018, 07:02 PM
I dig Seattle and Vegas. That seems to be the popular picks for expansion. For me, I'd move Memphis and New Orleans into the East. Both teams would add much needed competition in the East. Right now, its Boston and Philly. The Pelicans could be right there with both of those teams with Memphis not that far behind. Las Vegas and Seattle both slide right into the Western conference.

FlashBolt
08-20-2018, 09:05 PM
Seattle, man. I'd go back in a heartbeat. One of my favorite cities, passionate fans, and the greatest NBA jerseys ever.

Saddletramp
08-20-2018, 09:38 PM
I dig Seattle and Vegas. That seems to be the popular picks for expansion. For me, I'd move Memphis and New Orleans into the East. Both teams would add much needed competition in the East. Right now, its Boston and Philly. The Pelicans could be right there with both of those teams with Memphis not that far behind. Las Vegas and Seattle both slide right into the Western conference.

Youíd only have to move one.

Bruins2012
08-20-2018, 09:48 PM
Clippers are 100% moving to Seattle.

I would love to see Vancouver and Montreal get a team. Also Kansas might be a ďboringĒ pick but they should have a team, as should Louisville.

Most likely will be Vegas. Seattle is getting the Clippers.

Quinnsanity
08-21-2018, 11:45 AM
Clippers are 100% moving to Seattle.

I would love to see Vancouver and Montreal get a team. Also Kansas might be a ďboringĒ pick but they should have a team, as should Louisville.

Most likely will be Vegas. Seattle is getting the Clippers.

They absolutely are not. Even as second-class citizens, the Clippers make too much money by virtue of their market that moving would be colossally dumb, and the NBA would never allow it. They'd be giving up hundreds of millions of dollars on their franchise valuation, potentially billions, along with tens of millions in local TV rights, millions in ticket sales, the list goes on. They 100% are not moving to Seattle. They're moving to Inglewood in their own arena. Seattle is getting an expansion team.

Tg11
08-21-2018, 12:22 PM
If Seattle gets their own expansion team and move to the Western Conference and Vegas gets their team and moves to the West as well

Then which 2 teams in the West would you have move to the East to balance things out?

FlashBolt
08-22-2018, 02:06 AM
Clippers are 100% moving to Seattle.

I would love to see Vancouver and Montreal get a team. Also Kansas might be a ďboringĒ pick but they should have a team, as should Louisville.

Most likely will be Vegas. Seattle is getting the Clippers.

Which would suck for Balmer considering he paid a premium for the Clippers because they were in Los Angeles. I wonder how that would work, honestly. Honestly, I'd love to have Seattle back but I'm no fan of Doc and hope he can be removed by then.

Bruins2012
08-22-2018, 04:36 AM
You are greatly overvaluing the status of being 2nd banana in LA. Look at the Nets. No one cares about them either. This is the exact same drama the OKC owner did in Seattle before he moved the team. Ballmer knows his arena in Inglewood won't be approved he is just running the clock out on the Staples Centre lease the Clippers have which coincidentally will end like a year after the Key Arena renovation in Seattle is complete. And don't be surprised if the naming rights for that new Seattle arena belongs to Microsoft. Key Corp has not been paying anything since 2011 to keep the rights.

#boom

Punk of Funk tells no lies.

:cheers:

warfelg
08-22-2018, 08:19 AM
No one cares about the Nets because they have been bad....

Yet they still make good money because of being in NYC.

Bruins2012
08-22-2018, 09:25 AM
No one cares about the Nets because they have been bad....

Yet they still make good money because of being in NYC.

The Nets should change their name and rebrand if they want any hope of being relevant in NYC.

Tg11
08-22-2018, 01:20 PM
The Nets should change their name and rebrand if they want any hope of being relevant in NYC.

They should leave Brooklyn and go back to New Jersey

WestCoastSportz
08-29-2018, 02:14 PM
Seattle is plug and play for whoever can franchise a team there. Key West Arena is still in operation so they won't have to look for a place to play. The fanbase is already there. Not many Sonics' fans became Thunder fans. Its in an area where billionaires are plenty.