Big Market Team Fallacy

[Joey Zaza]

One of the owners arguments for a hard cap or increased luxury tax has been to allow small market teams to compete with big market teams...allegedly, the former system allowed big market teams to sign more players and keep small market teams non-competitive.

I get that with Baseball and its easily demonstrated...see NYY. But basketball, the "dominant" teams since the 1999 agreement.

LAL (big market)
SA (small market)
Bos (larger mid-market)
Det (larger mid-market)
Dall (larger mid-market)
Cavs (mid-market)
Heat (mid-market)

Seems like a pretty healthy bell curve of 1 big market, 1 small market (both teams being the two most dominant teams over this stretch) and mostly mid-market teams. Plus, since 1999 monster markets NYK/LAC have been bad and largest mid-market Chi has been basically good.

In fact, since 1999 super-small markets Kings, Wolves, Nets, Bucks, have all had 2-3 years of very good -conference finals type - stretches.

I get trying to change things to make these teams more profitable, but I do not get changing things to help small teams be more competitive. They seem perfectly decently competitive (except the Bobs who need to be destroyed)

[KevinNYC]

One of the owners arguments for a hard cap or increased luxury tax has been to allow small market teams to compete with big market teams...allegedly, the former system allowed big market teams to sign more players and keep small market teams non-competitive.

I get that with Baseball and its easily demonstrated...see NYY. But basketball, the "dominant" teams since the 1999 agreement.

LAL (big market)
SA (small market)
Bos (larger mid-market)
Det (larger mid-market)
Dall (larger mid-market)
Cavs (mid-market)
Heat (mid-market)

Seems like a pretty healthy bell curve of 1 big market, 1 small market (both teams being the two most dominant teams over this stretch) and mostly mid-market teams. Plus, since 1999 monster markets NYK/LAC have been bad and largest mid-market Chi has been basically good.

In fact, since 1999 super-small markets Kings, Wolves, Nets, Bucks, have all had 2-3 years of very good -conference finals type - stretches.

I get trying to change things to make these teams more profitable, but I do not get changing things to help small teams be more competitive. They seem perfectly decently competitive (except the Bobs who need to be destroyed)

My guess is Boston games are broadcast throughout New England and the third largest market in the NBA or tied with Chicago.

I think the Miami thing scared them. How are they going to be able to bring good free agents to say Memphis or Utah?

[Knicksfever2010]

One of the owners arguments for a hard cap or increased luxury tax has been to allow small market teams to compete with big market teams...allegedly, the former system allowed big market teams to sign more players and keep small market teams non-competitive.

I get that with Baseball and its easily demonstrated...see NYY. But basketball, the "dominant" teams since the 1999 agreement.

LAL (big market)
SA (small market)
Bos (larger mid-market)
Det (larger mid-market)
Dall (larger mid-market)
Cavs (mid-market)
Heat (mid-market)

Seems like a pretty healthy bell curve of 1 big market, 1 small market (both teams being the two most dominant teams over this stretch) and mostly mid-market teams. Plus, since 1999 monster markets NYK/LAC have been bad and largest mid-market Chi has been basically good.

In fact, since 1999 super-small markets Kings, Wolves, Nets, Bucks, have all had 2-3 years of very good -conference finals type - stretches.

I get trying to change things to make these teams more profitable, but I do not get changing things to help small teams be more competitive. They seem perfectly decently competitive (except the Bobs who need to be destroyed)

Its funny because when lebron was a free agent, everybody KILLED the thought that new york was the leading contender because it was a 'big market'... the critics cited, "in this age of internet etc... lebron didnt need to go to madison ave. to make money".... but when it comes to owners making money, they can only make money in 'big markets'? SOMEBODY IS LYING!

[Kblaze8855]

Boston, Seattle, and Denver have around the same populations. Not sure when peoplestarted pretending Boston was some NY/La/chicago or even Dallas type place. If you are gonna credit them for the entire northeast...ok. But Boston itself isnt some super huge city. Its like 13th 14th biggest among NBA cities and LA and NY have 2 teams now so...15th-16th far as market for teams.

[Sarcastic]

My guess is Boston games are broadcast throughout New England and the third largest market in the NBA or tied with Chicago.

I think the Miami thing scared them. How are they going to be able to bring good free agents to say Memphis or Utah?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Ar eas

Boston as a metro area is 10th. I would rank it as mid, with the top 9 all being 5 million+ as the large markets.

[eliteballer]

You dont look at city size, you look at metropolitan area.

[Joey Zaza]

My guess is Boston games are broadcast throughout New England and the third largest market in the NBA or tied with Chicago.

I think the Miami thing scared them. How are they going to be able to bring good free agents to say Memphis or Utah?

Mem/Utah won't be able to bring in big FA's. They never have.

By my count there are three ways to get players: trade, FA, and draft. Assuming that big market teams are typically good (a fallacy but its also a fallacy that a small market can't afford a big time player) the draft favors small market teams. The draft is particularly helpful because you get a guy cheap for 3 and you can really lock him up for 7. As a result the good big market teams don't get a chance to overpay him until the small market has really had an ample opportunity.

Trades don't benefit either small or big teams, just good management.

FA should benefit big market teams--but Miami just won big in a mid-market, mid-market Atl just signed a big FA.

Moreover, other than Shaq choosing LAL and Amare/Melo choosing NYK (prior ot that since '99 NYK's big FA win was Curry), what FA sweepstakes have been won by big markets. Nash chose Phx (sort a big probably smaller than Dall). Chi's only big FA acquisition has been Boozer. LAL drafted Kobe and used the Bird rights (that all teams have) to keep him, drafted Bynum, and traded for Gasol and Odom. Bos traded for KG, Allen and PP.

Webber was traded to and then signed with Sac, KG signed multiple contracts in Minn, Duncan has stayed with SA.

I see no evidence that big market teams have had any FA signing advantage under the 99 agreement.

[Sarcastic]

You dont look at city size, you look at metropolitan area.

The point of the thread is correct though. Market size means nothing when it comes to winning. The Lakers don't win because they are in LA. The Lakers win because they have great management. If LA meant anything to their success, then one would presume the Clippers would be at least a tad bit successful.

Also if market size mattered when it comes to free agency, one should also presume that the Knicks would have landed some decent free agents in the last 34 years since free agency started. But they haven't. Being in NY hasn't done anything to make the Knicks a better franchise.

[DMAVS41]

there aren't absolutes. its not just about size. its not just about money. its not just about management. its not just about a desirable location. its about everything.

it is absolutely an advantage to be the gm of the Lakers than it is to be the gm of the timberwolves. i can't believe people actually debate this.

if you could clone someone and have the exact same person manage the lakers and wolves, the guy managing the lakers would have more success over time. end of story.

that doesn't mean its impossible to compete as a small market team, it just means its harder. you don't have the spending power or the ability attract free agents. if you sign a bad contract...it hurts a lot more and for a lot longer. same with missing in the draft.

i'm shocked that people here actually think the location, size, and amount of money a team spends play no factor in success. its absurd.

[Joey Zaza]

there aren't absolutes. its not just about size. its not just about money. its not just about management. its not just about a desirable location. its about everything.

it is absolutely an advantage to be the gm of the Lakers than it is to be the gm of the timberwolves. i can't believe people actually debate this.
...
i'm shocked that people here actually think the location, size, and amount of money a team spends play no factor in success. its absurd.

The advantage of the LAL is not so much about size and location, its the fact that they are the LAKERS. Its about Magic, and Kareem, and Wilt, and West and Worthy and now Shaq and Kobe. If you grew up watching basketball, there is an excellent excellent chance that one of your heroes played for the LAL and as such are likely to want to go there-part of the legacy. We all know D.Howard belongs there--because D.Howard follows Wilt-KAJ-Shaq. Same can be said for the Celts.

I simply don't buy the spending power angle...all teams are allowed to spend the same maximum and the same minimum. The gap is like 25% of the total cap. Even teams that go over are just barely over. Outside of IT's NYK, the most over team this year was team's go 10 over the cap.

A team having the resources to go over the cap is not market dependent...Port's owners have destroyed the cap in prior years, as has smaller Dall and current tiny market SAS. Conversely, NY has spent three years working its way under the cap and had its best season in the last 10 with its least expensvie team.

Certain teams are more cap conscience than others, and maybe market has something to do with it, but it usually has more to do with the owners, their willingness to spend and approximation of the team's chances, i.e. Indy is cap concience, but their Smits/Miller/Jax and their Artest/S.Jax/JO'n team were over the cap.

[Sarcastic]

there aren't absolutes. its not just about size. its not just about money. its not just about management. its not just about a desirable location. its about everything.

it is absolutely an advantage to be the gm of the Lakers than it is to be the gm of the timberwolves. i can't believe people actually debate this.

if you could clone someone and have the exact same person manage the lakers and wolves, the guy managing the lakers would have more success over time. end of story.

that doesn't mean its impossible to compete as a small market team, it just means its harder. you don't have the spending power or the ability attract free agents. if you sign a bad contract...it hurts a lot more and for a lot longer. same with missing in the draft.

i'm shocked that people here actually think the location, size, and amount of money a team spends play no factor in success. its absurd.


Since you think there is an advantage in being the Lakers GM, you must also think that the Clippers GM also has the same exact advantage. Is that correct? Basically you are telling me the Lakers advantage is derived from their city, and not their owner's desire to be the best?

[KevinNYC]

Boston, Seattle, and Denver have around the same populations. Not sure when peoplestarted pretending Boston was some NY/La/chicago or even Dallas type place. If you are gonna credit them for the entire northeast...ok. But Boston itself isnt some super huge city. Its like 13th 14th biggest among NBA cities and LA and NY have 2 teams now so...15th-16th far as market for teams.

That's why I mentioned New England, not just Boston. My in-laws live closer to NY than Boston in CT and they get all the Patriots/Red Sox/Celtics game local.

No need to pretend. It's the facts. You're confusing city population with media market population. Denver and Seattle are surrounded by nothing compared to the density surrounding Boston.

If you look at major league baseball's blackout policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MLB_Blackout_Areas.png) for Boston, it's 6 entire states from CT to Maine

According to Wikipedia Boston is the 5th largest sport market behind

NYC
LA
Chicago
Baltimore-Washington

Seattle is 14th and Denver is 19th.

I would bet that ad time on a Celtics game is way more expensive than on a Wizards game.

[kentatm]

According to Wikipedia Boston is the 5th largest sport market behind

link?

I was under the impression that the Dallas/Fort Worth market had moved into 5th just ahead of the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose market. That would leave Boston no greater than 7th.

[SCdac]

part of it is smart drafting and running a business well... not necessarily attracting big name free agents every season to the team because it's such a big sports market... Think of the Spurs. Had they not drafted Tim Duncan , Parker, and Ginobili... does their huge budget and ability to spend freely really make up for it? .... part of being a dominant team is having dominant players, and part of having dominant players is getting lucky in the draft.

[Joey Zaza]

That's why I mentioned New England, not just Boston. My in-laws live closer to NY than Boston in CT and they get all the Patriots/Red Sox/Celtics game local.

No need to pretend. It's the facts. You're confusing city population with media market population. Denver and Seattle are surrounded by nothing compared to the density surrounding Boston.

If you look at major league baseball's blackout policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MLB_Blackout_Areas.png) for Boston, it's 6 entire states from CT to Maine

According to Wikipedia Boston is the 5th largest sport market behind

NYC
LA
Chicago
Baltimore-Washington

Seattle is 14th and Denver is 19th.

I would bet that ad time on a Celtics game is way more expensive than on a Wizards game.

Cast the net of BIG MARKET as broadly as you want...you aren' going to find any FA dominance by any team under the 99 agreement. The two most dominant teams over that span (LAL/SAS) are a big big market team and a small market team. The third dominant team (Dall) falls squarely in the middle. The biggest of the big market teams that spent the most money of everyone was also the biggest flop over that span (NYK). and under the '99 agreement we've had excellent small market teams in Sac, Minn, Mil, NJ, excellent mid-market teams Det, Cle, Phx.

In fact, even with the LAL/SAS dominance, since '99 we've had champs in LA, SA, Det, Bos, Dall, Mia and finalists from Cle, NJ, Orl, Ind, Phi, NYK...that's 12 different teams -nearly half-the-league in the FINALS over 12 years. Phx-Sac-Port also had really terriffic teams that fell on bad luck over the stretch.

There is no parity problem in the NBA.

[longtime lurker]

if you could clone someone and have the exact same person manage the lakers and wolves, the guy managing the lakers would have more success over time. end of story.

that doesn't mean its impossible to compete as a small market team, it just means its harder. you don't have the spending power or the ability attract free agents. if you sign a bad contract...it hurts a lot more and for a lot longer. same with missing in the draft.


It wasn't that long ago that the Phoenix Suns were in a better position than the Lakers, but their idiotic owner sold off their best chance to become a dynasty and now he's crying for a hard cap and complaining that small market teams can't compete. Even after all that horrible management Phoenix was still in the WCF just last season. So no spending power doesn't matter as an owner that's committed to winning.

[ShawnieMac06]

link?

I was under the impression that the Dallas/Fort Worth market had moved into 5th just ahead of the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose market. That would leave Boston no greater than 7th.

That's the Neilsen market rankings, which measures market size by the amount of households in a given metro area. DFW is 5th in households, followed by San Fran-Oakland-San Jose, and then Boston, Atlanta, Washington, D.C. and Houston rounding out the top 10.

[KevinNYC]

link?

I was under the impression that the Dallas/Fort Worth market had moved into 5th just ahead of the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose market. That would leave Boston no greater than 7th.
Go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_and_Canadian_cities_by_number_of_ major_professional_sports_franchises)

then sort by population. i didn't check out recent the data was.

[DMAVS41]

Since you think there is an advantage in being the Lakers GM, you must also think that the Clippers GM also has the same exact advantage. Is that correct? Basically you are telling me the Lakers advantage is derived from their city, and not their owner's desire to be the best?

Again, there are no absolutes. You have to have an owner willing to spend as well.

It all goes hand in hand. More desirable location/market, more revenue for team...means more money to spend. Better the team is....higher ability to attract free agents looking to win or get paid...etc.

Its all connected....and unless the owners do something to change this trend...its only going to get worse. You don't hear Howard talking about going to the Spurs do you? You hear him talking about the Lakers or other big market teams. Wonder why.

Is it the end all be all? Of course not. Does it matter? Absolutely. But you can keep on thinking that the Twolves or Bucks or Raptors...etc....all have as good of a chance to win as the bigger market teams. LOL at the idea that the Lakers would have vince, tmac, and bosh within a decade and lose them all. Simply wouldn't happen.

[Sarcastic]

Again, there are no absolutes. You have to have an owner willing to spend as well.

It all goes hand in hand. More desirable location/market, more revenue for team...means more money to spend. Better the team is....higher ability to attract free agents looking to win or get paid...etc.

Its all connected....and unless the owners do something to change this trend...its only going to get worse. You don't hear Howard talking about going to the Spurs do you? You hear him talking about the Lakers or other big market teams. Wonder why.

Is it the end all be all? Of course not. Does it matter? Absolutely. But you can keep on thinking that the Twolves or Bucks or Raptors...etc....all have as good of a chance to win as the bigger market teams. LOL at the idea that the Lakers would have vince, tmac, and bosh within a decade and lose them all. Simply wouldn't happen.

With your line of thinking, one could say the Spurs could NEVER EVER win a title. Yet somehow they managed to do it.

[NuggetsFan]

Markets matter. Maybe not as much as some let on but to say it doesn't matter at all is kinda silly. Market determines your owner, owner determines what your willing to pay etc. Same time market doesn't = competent drafting, trading, FA moves. Dwight Howard wanting out of Orlando? Isn't coming to Denver. Carmelo? Didn't just want out of Denver. He wanted to go to a big market. If he would have went anywhere probably could have snagged a better deal from the T-Wolves. Kobe? Didn't he turn down Charlotte because he wanted to go to L.A?.

Drafting is just a massive part of success. Basketball can be dominated individually more than any other sports. SA has that much success because they tanked with Robinson and drafted Tim Duncan who ended up staying for his entire career. Any team with competent FO skills is going to have success if they have Tim Duncan for 15 years.

Success is determined by so many aspects I don't think you can say one doesn't matter. Being in New York or L.A helps. How much, I don't really know. NY proved that it can't do it all for you this decade.

[Sarcastic]

Markets matter. Maybe not as much as some let on but to say it doesn't matter at all is kinda silly. Market determines your owner, owner determines what your willing to pay etc. Same time market doesn't = competent drafting, trading, FA moves. Dwight Howard wanting out of Orlando? Isn't coming to Denver. Carmelo? Didn't just want out of Denver. He wanted to go to a big market. If he would have went anywhere probably could have snagged a better deal from the T-Wolves. Kobe? Didn't he turn down Charlotte because he wanted to go to L.A?.

Drafting is just a massive part of success. Basketball can be dominated individually more than any other sports. SA has that much success because they tanked with Robinson and drafted Tim Duncan who ended up staying for his entire career. Any team with competent FO skills is going to have success if they have Tim Duncan for 15 years.

Success is determined by so many aspects I don't think you can say one doesn't matter. Being in New York or L.A helps. How much, I don't really know. NY proved that it can't do it all for you this decade.

Dwight doesn't want out of Orlando because they are a small market. He wants out because they have shitty management and can't get him any good players to play with. He is torn about leaving. You can tell he likes playing in Orlando, but their outlook is bleak.

Melo wanted to go to NY also because Denver's outlook is bleak, as well as he was born in NY and his wife is from NY. It wasn't like he has been talking about going to NY for the last 5 years, and it's been his lifelong dream. The only reason the NY situation opened up was the Knicks had to TANK for 2 years to clear up cap space for Lebron. Melo wasn't their's nor his first choice.

How come players aren't clamoring to play in Philly, Washington, Houston, LA (Clippers), or Nets? They are all in the top 10 markets in the US. Deron Williams hasn't even agreed to resign with the Nets when they move to Brooklyn. How come? I thought playing in big markets matter so much?

LeBron had the option of playing in NY, LA, Chicago, or Miami this past offseason. He ended up picking Miami which is by far the smallest market of those 4. Market size meant NOTHING to him. He wanted the best chance to win. Miami gave him that, so that is what he chose.

[NuggetsFan]

Dwight doesn't want out of Orlando because they are a small market. He wants out because they have shitty management and can't get him any good players to play with. He is torn about leaving. You can tell he likes playing in Orlando, but their outlook is bleak.

Melo wanted to go to NY also because Denver's outlook is bleak, as well as he was born in NY and his wife is from NY. It wasn't like he has been talking about going to NY for the last 5 years, and it's been his lifelong dream. The only reason the NY situation opened up was the Knicks had to TANK for 2 years to clear up cap space for Lebron. Melo wasn't their's nor his first choice.

How come players aren't clamoring to play in Philly, Washington, Houston, LA (Clippers), or Nets? They are all in the top 10 markets in the US. Deron Williams hasn't even agreed to resign with the Nets when they move to Brooklyn. How come? I thought playing in big markets matter so much?

LeBron had the option of playing in NY, LA, Chicago, or Miami this past offseason. He ended up picking Miami which is by far the smallest market of those 4. Market size meant NOTHING to him. He wanted the best chance to win. Miami gave him that, so that is what he chose.

Dwight might not want out of Orlando. Guarantee if he goes anywhere it'll be to a good market tho. Won't accept a trade to Minny. Won't accept a trade to Sacramento.

Melo's the definition of nitpicking markets. He named L.A Clippers, Houston, Nets, Knicks as choice of where to go. Denver's future wasn't too bleak considering they won more games without him than with him.

LeBron? He went to go play with Wade\Bosh.

I'm not one of those people that thinks market makes all the difference because it doesn't. There's a ton of things that matter more. Such as drafting and handing out contracts(where Orlando shot themselves in the foot). Kidding yourself if you think it has NOTHING to do with it. Shaq went to L.A .. because it was L.A. Kobe preferred L.A over Charlotte. FA? Telling me Roger Mason JR plays for 4m for anyteam?. Telling me Toronto being in Canada has no barring what so ever?.

Certain spots are simply more attractive. In the long run it means nothing if you can't pair that with good drafting and a good FO. You give New York and Minnesota the same drafts\same FO\same everything and you don't think one team being in NY would make a difference?.

[Sarcastic]

Dwight might not want out of Orlando. Guarantee if he goes anywhere it'll be to a good market tho. Won't accept a trade to Minny. Won't accept a trade to Sacramento.

Melo's the definition of nitpicking markets. He named L.A Clippers, Houston, Nets, Knicks as choice of where to go. Denver's future wasn't too bleak considering they won more games without him than with him.

LeBron? He went to go play with Wade\Bosh.

I'm not one of those people that thinks market makes all the difference because it doesn't. There's a ton of things that matter more. Such as drafting and handing out contracts(where Orlando shot themselves in the foot). Kidding yourself if you think it has NOTHING to do with it. Shaq went to L.A .. because it was L.A. Kobe preferred L.A over Charlotte. FA? Telling me Roger Mason JR plays for 4m for anyteam?. Telling me Toronto being in Canada has no barring what so ever?.

Certain spots are simply more attractive. In the long run it means nothing if you can't pair that with good drafting and a good FO. You give New York and Minnesota the same drafts\same FO\same everything and you don't think one team being in NY would make a difference?.


Minnesota and Sacramento are some of the worst managed teams in the league. The Wolves picked back to back point guards in the first round, with LOTTERY PICKS. Can you imagine an NFL team taking 2 quarterbacks with back to back picks?:facepalm

With Sacratomato, you have 2 jerk off owners that are going bankrupt and may lose the team. Why the hell would he want to go there?

You also have to consider cap space in where players can go. With the talk of Dwight going to the Lakers, it would have to be in a sign&trade with Bynum and Gasol most likely sent over, and Arenas shipped with Dwight. Not too many teams are going to be willing to take Arenas' contract along with Dwight. The Lakers can't just sign him outright. They HAVE to do a trade. Looking at it from Orlando's perspective, what is the best piece they can get in a trade? Bynum has some pretty good potential. It's not as if the Lakers are offering Walton and Fisher.

The Knicks had one of the worst decades ever. No one wanted to go there until they got Donnie Walsh and decided to forgo winning, and just concentrate on cutting contracts. They literally had to tank for 2 years to get in the position they are in. It's not like they just said, "We are NY and can get whoever we want". A lot of hard work went into getting where they are. Most teams just need to tank for 1 season to get a good player in the draft, ie San Antonio. The Knicks needed 2.

[tpols]

Knicks fans dont want to admit that they have an unfair advantage over many other teams in the league.. thats what it comes down to.

[Sarcastic]

Knicks fans dont want to admit that they have an unfair advantage over many other teams in the league.. thats what it comes down to.

How many championships has that advantage given us?

The Clippers have the second best advantage. What have they won with it?

[tpols]

How many championships has that advantage given us?
Just because you didn't take advantage of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If my parents had hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on me to go to college but I ended up being a screwup and not going because i failed out of school, it doesnt mean I didn't have that advantage over many other kids in the first place.

[tpols]

How many championships has that advantage given us?

The Clippers have the second best advantage. What have they won with it?
The Clippers are a second class citizen in LA. The Lakers captured the city first and are the true team of Los Angeles.

[NuggetsFan]

Minnesota and Sacramento are some of the worst managed teams in the league. The Wolves picked back to back point guards in the first round, with LOTTERY PICKS. Can you imagine an NFL team taking 2 quarterbacks with back to back picks?:facepalm

With Sacratomato, you have 2 jerk off owners that are going bankrupt and may lose the team. Why the hell would he want to go there?

You also have to consider cap space in where players can go. With the talk of Dwight going to the Lakers, it would have to be in a sign&trade with Bynum and Gasol most likely sent over, and Arenas shipped with Dwight. Not too many teams are going to be willing to take Arenas' contract along with Dwight. The Lakers can't just sign him outright. They HAVE to do a trade. Looking at it from Orlando's perspective, what is the best piece they can get in a trade? Bynum has some pretty good potential. It's not as if the Lakers are offering Walton and Fisher.

The Knicks had one of the worst decades ever. No one wanted to go there until they got Donnie Walsh and decided to forgo winning, and just concentrate on cutting contracts. They literally had to tank for 2 years to get in the position they are in. It's not like they just said, "We are NY and can get whoever we want". A lot of hard work went into getting where they are. Most teams just need to tank for 1 season to get a good player in the draft, ie San Antonio. The Knicks needed 2.

I think we kinda agree on the big picture. Draft is the big key to success. Competent FO is what's needed to push you over the limit. I'm just saying Market is gravy. My example would be the Knicks\Melo. Once the Knicks actually got there shit together they signed Amare(like you said wasn't first choice) and than Melo forces a trade. Knicks weren't a groundbreaking team. Denver was more than competent. Didn't matter he listed the teams he wanted to play for witch were all big market teams.

Market is gravy. It means something. It doesn't make or break you but can give you an extra advantage from time to time over the long haul. Raptors you have guy's actually not showing up. L.A? You luck out sometimes with Shaq. Kobe not wanting to go Charlotte etc.

Can you honestly say that Minnesota with the same FO|Owners|Everything would have NO disadvantage against NY? There the exact same just two different area's. It'd have no difference .. what so ever over a 20 year time period?.

You kinda made one of my points with Sac-Town as well. A team like New York, L.A, Chicago would never have an owner that was going bankrupt. They'd never have to deal with there teams moving. Chris Paul? There's no reason why he shouldn't want to go Sacramento. They have young talent, Cousins a potential dominant big man. Yet there turmoil would prevent that. Turmoil that a "big market" franchise would never endure. Proves my entire argument right there for me. Is it a big deal, probably not. At the very least it means something over the long haul and that's all I've suggested. Without drafting\competent FO .. your screwed anyway, anywhere.

[Sarcastic]

Small market teams that made a Finals or Conference Finals in the last decade:
Sacramento, Indiana, Minnesota, Phoenix, Orlando, Cleveland, Denver, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Milwaukee, Utah.

Big market teams that did not make a Finals or Conference Finals in the last decade:
NY, LAC, Washington, Houston. All in the top 7 of US markets.

[Sarcastic]

I think we kinda agree on the big picture. Draft is the big key to success. Competent FO is what's needed to push you over the limit. I'm just saying Market is gravy. My example would be the Knicks\Melo. Once the Knicks actually got there shit together they signed Amare(like you said wasn't first choice) and than Melo forces a trade. Knicks weren't a groundbreaking team. Denver was more than competent. Didn't matter he listed the teams he wanted to play for witch were all big market teams.

Market is gravy. It means something. It doesn't make or break you but can give you an extra advantage from time to time over the long haul. Raptors you have guy's actually not showing up. L.A? You luck out sometimes with Shaq. Kobe not wanting to go Charlotte etc.

Can you honestly say that Minnesota with the same FO|Owners|Everything would have NO disadvantage against NY? There the exact same just two different area's. It'd have no difference .. what so ever over a 20 year time period?.

You kinda made one of my points with Sac-Town as well. A team like New York, L.A, Chicago would never have an owner that was going bankrupt. They'd never have to deal with there teams moving. Chris Paul? There's no reason why he shouldn't want to go Sacramento. They have young talent, Cousins a potential dominant big man. Yet there turmoil would prevent that. Turmoil that a "big market" franchise would never endure. Proves my entire argument right there for me. Is it a big deal, probably not. At the very least it means something over the long haul and that's all I've suggested. Without drafting\competent FO .. your screwed anyway, anywhere.

We live in a capitalist country. We don't believe in everything being equal. Capitalism has winners and losers. Of course the NY team and LA team will have more opportunities to make money, based solely on the size of their markets. However, the NBA system as it was, makes sure that market size does not give an undue advantage to anyone. Free agency started in 1976. The last time the Knicks won was 1973. Despite almost 35 years of being able to attract the TOP PLAYERS due to their large market, the Knicks have NOT been able to win any titles. In the same time, the 25th biggest market in San Antonio has won 4 titles. They have made the playoffs in 20 of the last 21 seasons too. That is unprecedented. Even the Lakers haven't had that much sustained success. NY hasn't either. Chicago neither. I mean think about that. The most successful team in the last 2 decades was San Antonio!!!

[Sarcastic]

Just because you didn't take advantage of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If my parents had hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on me to go to college but I ended up being a screwup and not going because i failed out of school, it doesnt mean I didn't have that advantage over many other kids in the first place.

No big market has been able to take advantage of it, except the Lakers. They are an outlier, not the standard or average.

[Sarcastic]

The Clippers are a second class citizen in LA. The Lakers captured the city first and are the true team of Los Angeles.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? In the 1980s the Mets had control of NY. The Yankees were second class citizens during that decade despite being the most successful team of all time with 22 titles. They had to earn their way back to the top of NY. The Clippers could have easily done the same in LA. If the Mets could do, the Clippers can do it.

[NuggetsFan]

We live in a capitalist country. We don't believe in everything being equal. Capitalism has winners and losers. Of course the NY team and LA team will have more opportunities to make money, based solely on the size of their markets. However, the NBA system as it was, makes sure that market size does not give an undue advantage to anyone. Free agency started in 1976. The last time the Knicks won was 1973. Despite almost 35 years of being able to attract the TOP PLAYERS due to their large market, the Knicks have NOT been able to win any titles. In the same time, the 25th biggest market in San Antonio has won 4 titles. They have made the playoffs in 20 of the last 21 seasons too. That is unprecedented. Even the Lakers haven't had that much sustained success. NY hasn't either. Chicago neither. I mean think about that. The most successful team in the last 2 decades was San Antonio!!!

Ok. SA won because of competent drafting and GMing .. witch every single team needs regardless of market. Witch I agreed with.

Your going in circles. I pretty much agreed. Only thing I said was some markets have an extra advantage from time to time. Teams like New York, Chicago don't have the same issues as Sacramento. You said it yourself. Guess why? Because of the market there in. They don't have to move like Charlotte\Vancouver. They don't play in Canada like Toronto(witch is actually a big market I guess lol).

Does it mean much? Probably not. Still thinks it's stupid to act like it's 100% level playing field 100% of the time. There's occasions when market helps out. Helped out with the Melo sweepstakes. Helped out with Shaq. Helped out with Kobe.

It's all irrelevant in the end because we'll never see 15+ teams in the league that draft competent\have good FO's. Thus the advantages some markets have will be minor and pop up here and there without much notice.

[Kevin_Gamble]

The idea that Knicks have some kind of an advantage in attracting elite talent is truly laughable. NY has always had a bunch of scrubs, even during the Ewing-era, they were rolling with a bunch of guys from the CBA. Elite basketball talent is so rare in NY that NY fans are forced to believe Melo and Amar

[Sarcastic]

[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]The idea that Knicks have some kind of an advantage in attracting elite talent is truly laughable. NY has always had a bunch of scrubs, even during the Ewing-era, they were rolling with a bunch of guys from the CBA. Elite basketball talent is so rare in NY that NY fans are forced to believe Melo and Amar

[ShawnieMac06]

[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]The idea that Knicks have some kind of an advantage in attracting elite talent is truly laughable. NY has always had a bunch of scrubs, even during the Ewing-era, they were rolling with a bunch of guys from the CBA. Elite basketball talent is so rare in NY that NY fans are forced to believe Melo and Amar

[Norcaliblunt]

It all comes down to whether the owner is willing to spend and go over the cap with competence or not. BOTTOM LINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This can happen anywhere, but it just so happens some big markets teams have some crazy rich owners with never ending pockets.

Hard cap is what is needed.

[DMAVS41]

With your line of thinking, one could say the Spurs could NEVER EVER win a title. Yet somehow they managed to do it.

Not at all. LOL...learn to read buddy. I started my post off with saying there are no absolutes. There should never be the word "never" used in these discussions.

What you fail to grasp is that certain franchises/markets have advantages. Just because a there are a few teams that buck the trend doesn't change reality.

The Knicks have an advantage over the Bucks. The Lakers have an advantage over the Wolves. The Heat have an advantage over Toronto (obviously not a small market, but it goes to show you that desirable locations matter)...

I love how you expect us to ignore that Howard is thinking about leaving the Magic. Lebron just left the Cavs. Melo just left the Nuggets. Bosh left the raptors. Amare left the Suns. Paul will likely leave New Orleans. Deron wanted out of Utah...etc.

The Raptors had Carter, T-Mac, and Bosh all within a decade and didn't keep any of them.

But yea, there is no advantage...we are just making everything up.

[rmt]

I think that it's foolish to think that market size has nothing to do with attracting free agents or keeping players (being able to offer them a reasonable size contract). Large markets like LA or owners with deep pockets who are willing to spend (like Cuban) give their teams a huge advantage.

San Antonio has been successful mainly through the draft. Even with 4 championships, no free agent will go there except at the very end of their careers for a ring (see Finley).

No way in the world a team like LA or DAL let talent like Scola or Stephen Jackson walk because of money. SA did because for the most part Holt (compared to the other owners) isn't super rich and they've stayed below the luxury tax. Even with all the championships, they aren't making money - I guess because they can't charge the outrageous amounts for court side seats, box seats, etc. that LA, DAL, NK do.

Even now they're still cutting corners - trading away a good player in George Hill after spending 3 years developing him to get cheaper talent (yes in a position of greater need because of that good-for-nothing RJ) through a draft pick with no idea of whether he'll pan out.

I think they should have a hard cap and severely penalize outrageous spending so that teams can't "buy" themselves a championship. The way the league is going is not sustainable. 30 teams - very few of which have real championship hopes or turn profit. Either have contraction (which isn't going to happen) or make it so that teams like MIA can get their superstars (can't stop it) but can't get/afford role players.

[Joey Zaza]

I think they should have a hard cap and severely penalize outrageous spending so that teams can't "buy" themselves a championship.

I disagree...I say NO hard cap and NO max salaries. Even with no limits, no holds barred, LAL (likely paying Kobe close to $75 mill at this point and Gasol in the $50's), NYK won't pay $150,000,000 in salaries to dominate the sport.

Neither would Miami.

The system would eventually sort itself out.

Things like the mid-level anfd the vet exceptions hae been poison for owners. If an owner over-pays a guy, the salary cap punishes the owner by limiting his ability to sign a new player to correct that mistaje and puishes the unemployed player limiting his ability to sign a contract somewhere.

If we still keep the BRI agreement, the salaries won't get too crazy...we'll just destroy the middle class (Kobe will get his 75 and Gasol will get his 50 but the LAL will have to spend fill the remaining 10 spots very cheaply)but the owenrs won't spnd more than 50% and the players won't make more.

The only limit/guarantees I would keep are the rookie salary scale and the 3 yrs with the ability to match offers in yr. 4 It gives the smaller markets a better chance and guarantees rookies (who have no control over who drafts them) a certain salary even if they get they got "stuck" somewhere.

[MMM]

It all comes down to whether the owner is willing to spend and go over the cap with competence or not. BOTTOM LINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This can happen anywhere, but it just so happens some big markets teams have some crazy rich owners with never ending pockets.

Hard cap is what is needed.

Agreed with a hard cap but we would also need a cap floor. Teams should have a closer gap when it comes to players salary. I wouldn't mind a luxury tax as well but teams shouldn't be allowed to continually be spending 40-50 million more than other teams. A league where Minnesota can spend as much as LA every season would be beneficial to the fans, imo. The owners would no longer have an excuse for not putting a winning product out on the court and we would truly find out who has good/bad management.

[bdreason]

The NBA has always been about the draft. Very few teams have been successful at building a Championship team strictly through Free Agency.

[tpols]

The NBA has always been about the draft. Very few teams have been successful at building a Championship team strictly through Free Agency.
What about the Lakers and Heat winning 4 of the past 10 championships through pure FA[Shaq going and riding Kobe/Wade]?

[DMAVS41]

The NBA has always been about the draft. Very few teams have been successful at building a Championship team strictly through Free Agency.

I don't understand this notion of "strictly"....why does it have to be one or the other.

Teams can do both. And big markets have an advantage to do both. For starters, there is more security with your star player not wanting to leave.

Just look at the NBA landscape over the last decade or so. Shaq leaves a small market team to join the Lakers. Kobe's agent forces his way to LA instead of a small market crappy team like the Nets. KG goes to Boston. Melo/Amare go to NY. Bosh and Lebron go to Miami. The raptors lose vince, tmac, and bosh within a decade...etc. Mavs win the title after pretty much doing all of their building through free agency.

Some of the above are technically trades, but we all know it was players forcing their way to certain teams/markets.

Its not just one or the other. Its everything. Big market...advantage. More money...advantage. Owner willing to spend...advantage. Desirable living location...advantage. Great drafting...advantage. Great management concerning what players to go after and how much to pay them...advantage. Ability to attract elite coaches...advantage.

Some of that stuff isn't related to each other. Some is. You can have great management and drafting anywhere. You can't have a desirable location with a 100 million dollar payroll anywhere. You can't get a great fanbase everywhere...etc.

There are definitely advantages to bigger markets on the whole. Whether those teams capitalize on them and use them properly is another story.

I'll just wait until I see a big time free agent demand to go to the Bucks or Hornets or Kings.....You really think Melo and Amare would have teamed up to go to the Raptors or something if the Raptors had cap room? Hell no they wouldn't have. Being in NY was a huge draw to both of them. You are just simply ignoring reality if you say otherwise.

[SCdac]

I think that it's foolish to think that market size has nothing to do with attracting free agents or keeping players (being able to offer them a reasonable size contract). Large markets like LA or owners with deep pockets who are willing to spend (like Cuban) give their teams a huge advantage.

San Antonio has been successful mainly through the draft. Even with 4 championships, no free agent will go there except at the very end of their careers for a ring (see Finley).

No way in the world a team like LA or DAL let talent like Scola or Stephen Jackson walk because of money. SA did because for the most part Holt (compared to the other owners) isn't super rich and they've stayed below the luxury tax. Even with all the championships, they aren't making money - I guess because they can't charge the outrageous amounts for court side seats, box seats, etc. that LA, DAL, NK do.

Even now they're still cutting corners - trading away a good player in George Hill after spending 3 years developing him to get cheaper talent (yes in a position of greater need because of that good-for-nothing RJ) through a draft pick with no idea of whether he'll pan out.

I think they should have a hard cap and severely penalize outrageous spending so that teams can't "buy" themselves a championship. The way the league is going is not sustainable. 30 teams - very few of which have real championship hopes or turn profit. Either have contraction (which isn't going to happen) or make it so that teams like MIA can get their superstars (can't stop it) but can't get/afford role players.

While I agree the Spurs haven't been able to retain some of the players that "blossomed" so to speak, it's also been a conscious decision (read: business decision) to let them go (Stephen Jackson, Derek Anderson, George Hill, etc). The Scola situation I don't think was entirely about money, I think it also had to do with being the same position as Duncan, and Fabricio Oberto (a center) around 05-06 being much cheaper.

It's worth noting that the Spurs have re-signed/extended a superstar in Tim Duncan about 4 different times, they re-signed Bowen about 3-4 times, and they've done the same with Manu and Parker... these guys put together overshadow the guys that SA hasn't retained, big time. SA had one of the best, maybe THE best, cores of in the last decade, despite being in a small market.

Duncan had a perfect chance to make more money in Orlando, Florida, but he passed it up to stay with the team and city he was comfortable with.

Going back to my first post on page 1, it is about drafting, but it's also about running a business well (knowing when to toss around money and when not to), which the Spurs FO has basically been the model of the past 10-15 seasons. For all we know, re-signing Stephen Jackson was not the best idea - Spurs did win 2 more championships after that - so it's hard to fault them.

Part of the reason SA has kept big player in Spurs Jerseys of course probably has to do with Bird Rights as well, which I hope is something that's also a part of the new CBA.

Another thing is, back when the Spurs were winning championships (remember, this is almost 5 years ago now), they WERE making money. It's going over the luxury tax that has hurt them recently, combined with NOT winning championships.

[EricForman]

One of the owners arguments for a hard cap or increased luxury tax has been to allow small market teams to compete with big market teams...allegedly, the former system allowed big market teams to sign more players and keep small market teams non-competitive.

I get that with Baseball and its easily demonstrated...see NYY. But basketball, the "dominant" teams since the 1999 agreement.

LAL (big market)
SA (small market)
Bos (larger mid-market)
Det (larger mid-market)
Dall (larger mid-market)
Cavs (mid-market)
Heat (mid-market)

Seems like a pretty healthy bell curve of 1 big market, 1 small market (both teams being the two most dominant teams over this stretch) and mostly mid-market teams. Plus, since 1999 monster markets NYK/LAC have been bad and largest mid-market Chi has been basically good.

In fact, since 1999 super-small markets Kings, Wolves, Nets, Bucks, have all had 2-3 years of very good -conference finals type - stretches.

I get trying to change things to make these teams more profitable, but I do not get changing things to help small teams be more competitive. They seem perfectly decently competitive (except the Bobs who need to be destroyed)

Big market/cities have an edge in free agency, it's just fact. Everyone who's in their 20s wants to live in NYC or LA over Milwaukee or Cleveland. Whether or not that's worked out so far is beyond the point. NY was an anomaly because of their horrendous decision making.

The knicks still made moeny even when they were losing, so did Chicago. that's how much more of an edge big cities have.

i say... tough sh*t. life is unfair, and big cities will always hold more appeal. to try to tilt all these rules in favor of freaking Portland just so they can be on equal footing with NYC is dumb. NYC is NYC.

[EricForman]

[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]The idea that Knicks have some kind of an advantage in attracting elite talent is truly laughable. NY has always had a bunch of scrubs, even during the Ewing-era, they were rolling with a bunch of guys from the CBA. Elite basketball talent is so rare in NY that NY fans are forced to believe Melo and Amar

[SALFORD-RED]

Exactly.

Look at the ESPN rankings of the top 50. There are about 15-16 players that you can build a team around. The only way to get one of those players is through the draft. The team that drafts those players gets them for 7-8 years. Those guys almost never hit the open market.

The real problem in the NBA is there is not enough superstar talent to build 30 teams around. If 1 team ends up with more than 2 of those players the way Miami did, it completely throws off the balance for the rest of the league. What they really need to do is cut about 6 teams in order to get competitive balance back into the league.

Great post Sarcastic, your posts really hit the nail on the head.

The fact that the talent pool is spread so thin and some franchises are not financially viable tells you all you need to know. Contracting teams is the anwer. The NBA cannot support 30 teams.

[Sarcastic]

Were you not around this year when Melo basically threw a fit to go to NYC? What about Dwight basically a lock to leave for LA or NY soon? Or Chris Paul joking at Melo's wedding (not really a joke) that he should be in NYC? Or Kobe refusing to go to Charlotte and only wanted to be in LA?

The previous rules such as Bird rights and other factors have done a great job in "keeping things balance", otherwise, if we're on a completely free market, there are very few players who would choose, say, Cleveland or Utah or Charlotte or Portland over NYC or LA.

Melo didn't throw a fit to go to NY. He gave Denver 2 options: trade me to a team that I want so I will sign the extension and that way you can get something in return OR I will become a free agent and you will get nothing in return.

Just because they drafted him 8 years ago doesn't mean they have ever lasting rights to him. That's already been fought at the Supreme Court. Players have a right to become a free agent. 7-8 years is more than enough time for a competent organization to build a championship around a player. If they can't, then the player will leave.

[JaskoX1]

I disagree...I say NO hard cap and NO max salaries. Even with no limits, no holds barred, LAL (likely paying Kobe close to $75 mill at this point and Gasol in the $50's), NYK won't pay $150,000,000 in salaries to dominate the sport.

Neither would Miami.

The system would eventually sort itself out.

Things like the mid-level anfd the vet exceptions hae been poison for owners. If an owner over-pays a guy, the salary cap punishes the owner by limiting his ability to sign a new player to correct that mistaje and puishes the unemployed player limiting his ability to sign a contract somewhere.

If we still keep the BRI agreement, the salaries won't get too crazy...we'll just destroy the middle class (Kobe will get his 75 and Gasol will get his 50 but the LAL will have to spend fill the remaining 10 spots very cheaply)but the owenrs won't spnd more than 50% and the players won't make more.

The only limit/guarantees I would keep are the rookie salary scale and the 3 yrs with the ability to match offers in yr. 4 It gives the smaller markets a better chance and guarantees rookies (who have no control over who drafts them) a certain salary even if they get they got "stuck" somewhere.
http://humorcastle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Edward-Norton-Closing-Laptop.gif

[Kevin_Gamble]

Were you not around this year when Melo basically threw a fit to go to NYC? What about Dwight basically a lock to leave for LA or NY soon? Or Chris Paul joking at Melo's wedding (not really a joke) that he should be in NYC? Or Kobe refusing to go to Charlotte and only wanted to be in LA?

The previous rules such as Bird rights and other factors have done a great job in "keeping things balance", otherwise, if we're on a completely free market, there are very few players who would choose, say, Cleveland or Utah or Charlotte or Portland over NYC or LA.

First of all, there's only 240 minutes to go around, and only so many shots. Dwight Howard isnt going to NY to become Samuel Dalembert 2.0 and caddy for Amar'e and Melo. You won't have superstars randomly joining teams unless they get old and desperate like Barkeley or Payton or Malone did.

Second, let's go off on a small tangent and say that player movement is good for basketball. Nobody wants to see KG waste his career in Minny, and no one wants to see Dwight spend the rest of his career rebounding Arenas's 50 misses per game.

[Joey Zaza]

Big market/cities have an edge in free agency, it's just fact. Everyone who's in their 20s wants to live in NYC or LA over Milwaukee or Cleveland. Whether or not that's worked out so far is beyond the point. NY was an anomaly because of their horrendous decision making.


FACT!?! How is it a fact...lets call Chi, LAL, LAC, and NYK the "big markets" which FA's went to those teams. If we remove guys re-upping with the home teram (for more money--a little tip of the cap for the small market owners) what big-time, hunted, FA's signed in the Big Markets?

Amare. Anyone else?

[Sarcastic]

FACT!?! How is it a fact...lets call Chi, LAL, LAC, and NYK the "big markets" which FA's went to those teams. If we remove guys re-upping with the home teram (for more money--a little tip of the cap for the small market owners) what big-time, hunted, FA's signed in the Big Markets?

Amare. Anyone else?

Carlos Boozer. But he also chose to go to Utah in free agency when he was younger. I don't think market really mattered to him, just the money.

You can call the Nets big market too since they are part of the NY Metro area. They signed Travis Outlaw. :bowdown:

[Joey Zaza]

Carlos Boozer. But he also chose to go to Utah in free agency when he was younger. I don't think market really mattered to him, just the money.

You can call the Nets big market too since they are part of the NY Metro area. They signed Travis Outlaw. :bowdown:

So over a 12 year labor agreement, 2 big markets got 3/4 and 5/6 best players on the FA market...the horror for those poor small market teams. How can a cleveland (how many ECF games they play under this agreement?) possible compete with a NYK (0 playoff win under the current agreement)?

[B]

Large markets have an edge over smaller markets and it is a fact. They have more to offer they have access to more cash and individual endorsement opportunities are greater. Anyone seriously arguing against this is just ignoring the reality of the situation.

Oh wait what about San Antonio they are a small market. Bad example. The Spurs were a rare perfect storm of a front office taking advantage of a bad situation and having it into gold. Robinson goes down the Spurs suck and land Tim Duncan. Luckily for the Spurs Tim Duncan is about as wishy washy white bread as a player can get. He shuns the limelight, he doesn't seem to have any goals other than being the best he can be and is kind of boring. He's not a sponsors dream despite all his talent.

If that had been Shaq drafted onto the Spurs he'd have left the team for big city big lights the first chance he got. Duncan is a really nice guy, he's loyal and his big picture is different than most all star level players, oh yeah he's also an incredible player. The Spurs are lucky Duncan is they type of person he is and on top of being lucky they have an eye for finding talent in out of the way places. The situation in San Antonio is not the norm for small market teams it's an exception so lets stop pretending any small market can easily succeed because the Spurs have. The Spurs stepped on a road apple and came out smelling like a rose

[Joey Zaza]

[QUOTE=B

[B]

Big market/cities have an edge in free agency, it's just fact. Everyone who's in their 20s wants to live in NYC or LA over Milwaukee or Cleveland. Whether or not that's worked out so far is beyond the point. NY was an anomaly because of their horrendous decision making.

The knicks still made moeny even when they were losing, so did Chicago. that's how much more of an edge big cities have.

i say... tough sh*t. life is unfair, and big cities will always hold more appeal. to try to tilt all these rules in favor of freaking Portland just so they can be on equal footing with NYC is dumb. NYC is NYC.

I think that's the key word "appeal".

Larger markets tend to also be more high profile places but even though Miami may be smaller than LA or New York the lifestyle and location make it a very high profile city, and it's an international city. It may be smaller in terms of population but there is nothing small about it's marketability, Miami like New York or LA has very long tentacles. Using Miami as an example of a small market getting high profile free agents is misleading. There's lots of money in Miami

People tend to confuse market size or population for marketability and that's what most upper tier player wants for the most part. To be in a place where he is visible, where he'll get that added "push" he wouldn't receive as easily in a less desirable city.

[PowerGlove]

Go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_and_Canadian_cities_by_number_of_ major_professional_sports_franchises)

then sort by population. i didn't check out recent the data was.

It must be pretty recent considering they have Atlanta over Miami... its always been the other way around.

[tpols]

Most Championships in NBA History:

-Boston Celtics 16
-Los Angeles Lakers 15
-Chicago Bulls 6
-San Antonio Spurs 4
-Philadelphia 76ers 3
-Detroit Pistons 3
...

As you can see, the teams occupying the biggest and most notable cities have produced some of the most winningest organizations.. and this draws players' attention.

Look at the Lakers for Christ's sake.. they have pulled in Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Shaquille Oneal, and Kobe Bryant through the PURE appeal of playing for the Los Angeles Lakers. And you dont think the Lakers got this appeal by occupying first and playing in one of the biggest and most well known markets in the country? Why were most of the teams that sprung up to be dynasties located in some of the biggest and mot revered cities in the U.S.?

The funny thing is the two teams that aren't in big markets, Detroit and San Antonio, are known as the GOAT intangibles/management dynasties.. the bad boy pistons? The Larry Brown pistons? The time duncan spurs? All built through incredible coaching, team work, and defense. Free Agency and attracting 'stars' had very little to do with their success.

[Sarcastic]

Most Championships in NBA History:

-Boston Celtics 16
-Los Angeles Lakers 15
-Chicago Bulls 6
-San Antonio Spurs 4
-Philadelphia 76ers 3
-Detroit Pistons 3
...

As you can see, the teams occupying the biggest and most notable cities have produced some of the most winningest organizations.. and this draws players' attention.

Look at the Lakers for Christ's sake.. they have pulled in Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Shaquille Oneal, and Kobe Bryant through the PURE appeal of playing for the Los Angeles Lakers. And you dont think the Lakers got this appeal by occupying first and playing in one of the biggest and most well known markets in the country? Why were most of the teams that sprung up to be dynasties located in some of the biggest and mot revered cities in the U.S.?

The funny thing is the two teams that aren't in big markets, Detroit and San Antonio, are known as the GOAT intangibles/management dynasties.. the bad boy pistons? The Larry Brown pistons? The time duncan spurs? All built through incredible coaching, team work, and defense. Free Agency and attracting 'stars' had very little to do with their success.


5 of those Laker titles came in Minneapolis. The reason those teams won had more to do with the players they drafted than the city they were in.

It would be better to say that the majority of titles were won by Russell, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe. If your team was lucky enough to get one of those guys, you probably won a title.

[tpols]

It would be better to say that the majority of titles were won by Russell, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe. If your team was lucky enough to get one of those guys, you probably won a title.
If your team was lucky enough to get one of them? The Lakers alone got FOUR of the guys on that list. Do you know the odds of that happening? One team getting 4-5 of the GOAT players? You're acting like this was a lucky draw out of a hat. It wasn't.. Kobe and Magic both wanted to play for LA and not for any small market teams[like Charlotte]. Wilt went to LA for a title.. Kareem went to LA.. Shaq went to LA. You dont think the apeal of playing for the Los Angeles Lakers had anything to do with all of this?

And why did the Lakers move from Minneapolis to Los Angeles? Is it a coincidence that they moved from a small market to a huge one? Come on man.. this shit is all staring you right in the face.

[WoGiTaLiA1]

One of the owners arguments for a hard cap or increased luxury tax has been to allow small market teams to compete with big market teams...allegedly, the former system allowed big market teams to sign more players and keep small market teams non-competitive.

You are completely missing the point on this front, it's not about competing on the basketball court, it's about remaining viable off the court. Basketball is a sport that will always have a few teams with a chance because it is so player centric, you need a star player to have a real chance on the court.

The problem is the small market teams are crippled off the court which is making the entire league weaker.

The big benefit for fans is that the ways that will help those teams compete off the court will also make the product far better. Having a hard cap being chief amongst that but also removing the bad contracts that can handcuff a franchise, the big teams can afford the tax hits to get rid of bad contracts but the little teams just have to eat them. Sure the owners made the bad decisions but this is just about the only business where people aren't paid on performance and are guaranteed no matter what and that system has to go.

The paid to perform and hard capped system in the NFL is a major reason why that league is so much more popular than the NBA. It doesn't hurt that their owners actually have a good system to support all the teams outside of just those arms of the agreement but those are huge reasons.

[Sarcastic]

If your team was lucky enough to get one of them? The Lakers alone got FOUR of the guys on that list. Do you know the odds of that happening? One team getting 4-5 of the GOAT players? You're acting like this was a lucky draw out of a hat. It wasn't.. Kobe and Magic both wanted to play for LA and not for any small market teams[like Charlotte]. Wilt went to LA for a title.. Kareem went to LA.. Shaq went to LA. You dont think the apeal of playing for the Los Angeles Lakers had anything to do with all of this?

And why did the Lakers move from Minneapolis to Los Angeles? Is it a coincidence that they moved from a small market to a huge one? Come on man.. this shit is all staring you right in the face.

Shaq went to LA because he wanted to make movies. Kobe and Magic forcing their way to LA is overblown. Kobe was an 18 year high schooler that 13 other teams passed up. If I am not mistaken he really wanted to play for the Sixers. The Lakers got Magic off a coin flip.

The Lakers are also one of the best run organizations in sports, so of course people want to play for them. How come players aren't dying to play for the Clippers? They play in the same city, in the same building. The NBA has had free agency since 1976. Who are the big free agents that have been running to play for the Knicks? Who are the big free agents that have been running to play for the Bulls?

[Kevin_Gamble]

Big market/cities have an edge in free agency, it's just fact. Everyone who's in their 20s wants to live in NYC or LA over Milwaukee or Cleveland. Whether or not that's worked out so far is beyond the point. NY was an anomaly because of their horrendous decision making.

The knicks still made moeny even when they were losing, so did Chicago. that's how much more of an edge big cities have.

i say... tough sh*t. life is unfair, and big cities will always hold more appeal. to try to tilt all these rules in favor of freaking Portland just so they can be on equal footing with NYC is dumb. NYC is NYC.

So how did LAL or NYK capitalize on this edge? Don't say Amare, because getting to sign Amare for a huge contract is more like a punishment than competitive edge.

[Kevin_Gamble]

Most Championships in NBA History:

-Boston Celtics 16
-Los Angeles Lakers 15
-Chicago Bulls 6
-San Antonio Spurs 4
-Philadelphia 76ers 3
-Detroit Pistons 3
...

As you can see, the teams occupying the biggest and most notable cities have produced some of the most winningest organizations.. and this draws players' attention.


Did you know that NBA had only like 10 teams until mid-70s? It's true, look it up.

[tpols]

Did you know that NBA had only like 10 teams until mid-70s? It's true, look it up.
Yea and those ten teams included a lot of major cities right? LA.. Philly.. New York.. Boston.. Washington, etc. And those teams have been the most winningest franchises even AFTER the mid 70s.

This is how it went..

-The best teams started off in some of the biggest/most well known cities[because teams needed big markets to draw in fans, make revenue, expand the league at the beginning]
--->These teams built some of the best legacies because they were always winners
------->Players nowadays want to play for those storied franchises

It all started with location though. Of course it isn't just the root as location is still a reason today though.. players like teams in nice cities, with nice wheather, good atmospheres, and big cmarkets[more exposure/endorsements]. People will bring up Lebron being huge in Cleveland.. Well I can assure you his hype would have been magnified even more if he had played for NY, or Boston, or LA. It's just the truth.

[tpols]

Shaq went to LA because he wanted to make movies.


Dude.. you're proving my point. He wasn't making movies in Milwaukee. He had to go to LOS ANGELES.. the city of angels.. Hollywood.. cmon.



Kobe and Magic forcing their way to LA is overblown.


Overblown how? They both didnt want to play for small market teams and said they wanted to play in LA.. the bigger market. They are both perfectly viable examples for this thread. You cant even say shit about it.



Kobe was an 18 year high schooler that 13 other teams passed up. If I am not mistaken he really wanted to play for the Sixers. The Lakers got Magic off a coin flip.

No.. Magic said he wanted to play in LA. I'm almost 100% positive. Regardless if he didn't demand it, he definitely expressed a willingness to play in a big market.

And Kobe forcing his way to Philly would have been no different than him forcing his way to LA. They're both top 5 cities in the country and have huge legacies behind their teams.



The Lakers are also one of the best run organizations in sports, so of course people want to play for them. How come players aren't dying to play for the Clippers? They play in the same city, in the same building. The NBA has had free agency since 1976. Who are the big free agents that have been running to play for the Knicks? Who are the big free agents that have been running to play for the Bulls?

You answered your own question.. because the Clippers aren't one of the best run organizations in sports. In fact.. they're one of the worst. thats why players dont want to go there.

You have to factor everything in man. Players want to play for teams that are properly run, can pay, AND have good locations/storied teams. If every factor except good location is shitty, like the Clippers, no one will want to play there. It's that simple.

[Sarcastic]

Yea and those ten teams included a lot of major cities right? LA.. Philly.. New York.. Boston.. Washington, etc. And those teams have been the most winningest franchises even AFTER the mid 70s.

This is how it went..

-The best teams started off in some of the biggest/most well known cities[because teams needed big markets to draw in fans, make revenue, expand the league at the beginning]
--->These teams built some of the best legacies because they were always winners
------->Players nowadays want to play for those storied franchises

It all started with location though. Of course it isn't just the root as location is still a reason today though.. players like teams in nice cities, with nice wheather, good atmospheres, and big cmarkets[more exposure/endorsements]. People will bring up Lebron being huge in Cleveland.. Well I can assure you his hype would have been magnified even more if he had played for NY, or Boston, or LA. It's just the truth.

Yea the NBA started in major cities like Minneapolis (Lakers), Rochester (Royals), Fort Wayne (Pistons), Syracuse (Nationals), Tri City - Moline Illinois (Black Hawks) and Indianapolis (Olympians).

But of course Bill Russell wouldn't play for any of THOSE teams. He forced his way to Boston to play with Cousy.

[tpols]

Yea the NBA started in major cities like Minneapolis (Lakers), Rochester (Royals), Fort Wayne (Pistons), Syracuse (Nationals), Tri City - Moline Illinois (Black Hawks) and Indianapolis (Olympians).

But of course Bill Russell wouldn't play for any of THOSE teams. He forced his way to Boston to play with Cousy.
And all of those teams were abandoned for... bigger markets lol.

And I dont know if you're agreeing with me with that Bill Russel comment or not.

[tpols]

Listen Sarcastic.. Im not saying being in a big city and playing for a storied franchise are the end all be all to aquiring good players. I'm just saying it plays a role. It could be something like..

-20% Location/Franchise
-40% other players/management
-40% personal preference[where the individual grew up]

All I'm saying is it plays a role.. and it may be bigger than 20% imo. You cant deny it isnt there though dude.

[Sarcastic]

Listen Sarcastic.. Im not saying being in a big city and playing for a storied franchise are the end all be all to aquiring good players. I'm just saying it plays a role. It could be something like..

-20% Location/Franchise
-40% other players/management
-40% personal preference[where the individual grew up]

All I'm saying is it plays a role.. and it may be bigger than 20% imo. You cant deny it isnt there though dude.

But the opportunity for a player to even pick his team of choosing is very small in the first place. #1 They only get their free agency after 7-8 years, unless they want to forgo tons of money. #2 They have to make sure the team they want to go actually has salary cap space to begin with. If we implemented the NFL type system with non guaranteed contracts, then #2 actually becomes much easier to achieve. NY wouldn't have to spend 2 years tanking to clear cap space for Lebron (they didn't get him anyway because he didn't care about market size). They could have just cut their bad contracts and had space to sign the Lebron, Wade, and Bosh. Miami worked really hard to clear enough space to sign all 3 of them.

You're a Nets fan. They want to keep Deron Williams when they open the new arena in Brooklyn, but he still hasn't signed the contract. Why not? He gets to play in NYC, in what's going to be new hip team in Brooklyn. He gets to be the premier star for the team. Why won't he resign yet? If market matters, what's the hold up?

[B]

Listen Sarcastic.. Im not saying being in a big city and playing for a storied franchise are the end all be all to aquiring good players. I'm just saying it plays a role. It could be something like..

-20% Location/Franchise
-40% other players/management
-40% personal preference[where the individual grew up]

All I'm saying is it plays a role.. and it may be bigger than 20% imo. You cant deny it isnt there though dude.
Of course it plays a role.. People are just in denial when it comes to this subject..


I ask this for all the folks who say location or franchise or market is bunk

If you gave any player the choice take his salary as is and pick any team in the league how many are going to say LA, Chicago, Boston or NY or Miami or one of the other elite franchises, how many are gonna say Milwaukee here I come!

[B]

And the Magic thing. He was going to come out early if the Lakers won the coin toss or stay in college another year if they lost

[tpols]

You're a Nets fan. They want to keep Deron Williams when they open the new arena in Brooklyn, but he still hasn't signed the contract. Why not? He gets to play in NYC, in what's going to be new hip team in Brooklyn. He gets to be the premier star for the team. Why won't he resign yet? If market matters, what's the hold up?
I just explained this two posts ago.. shitty management. Did you see who the Nets signed during FA? :oldlol: Who wants to play for a loser? Brooklyn is a great market. But you need the other factors to line up as well. If Deron had to choose between playing with Dwight Howard in Milwaukee or Dwight Howard in Brooklyn, I GUARANTEE you he chooses Brooklyn. If all other factors are held constant, the player will always choose the better location.

[Wonder Bread Kid]

LAL (big market)
SA (small market)
Bos (larger mid-market)
Det (larger mid-market)
Dall (larger mid-market)
Cavs (mid-market)
Heat (mid-market)


Wait, how is Cleveland a mid-market and SA a small market?

If Cleveland is a mid-market, so is SA.

Cleveland's MSA population is 2 million while decreasing on a yearly basis. San Antonio's MSA population is 2.2 million and increasing by an average of 50,000 on a yearly basis.

This isn't comparing CSA's as San Antonio doesn't have a CSA, but if it did, it would be larger than Cleveland's CSA.

Small markets should be: SLC, OKC, Memphis, New Orleans. All four under 1.4 million people metro wise.

[Wonder Bread Kid]

San Antonio has been successful mainly through the draft. Even with 4 championships, no free agent will go there except at the very end of their careers for a ring (see Finley).

The Spurs hasn't needed or been in the position to try and attract big names. Big names want money and for the most part the Spurs have had all their money tied up in the big three the past decade.

The last time they tried to get a big name was Kidd in 2003 and we were close but he decided to stay in NJ because they offered more money and because of his wife.

Before that it was Derek Anderson, who we got.

Athletes go to the money. When the Spurs are able to offer the most or near the most they're not going to be scoffed out.


No way in the world a team like LA or DAL let talent like Scola or Stephen Jackson walk because of money. SA did because for the most part Holt (compared to the other owners) isn't super rich and they've stayed below the luxury tax. Even with all the championships, they aren't making money - I guess because they can't charge the outrageous amounts for court side seats, box seats, etc. that LA, DAL, NK do.

The Stephen Jackson thing wasn't as simple as the Spurs not wanting to pay him. Get your facts straight their. As for the Scola thing, now that was a cost cutting move of ultimate suckage. Worst move the franchise ever pulled. Not just trading him because you didn't want to pay him but getting nothing in return.


Even now they're still cutting corners - trading away a good player in George Hill after spending 3 years developing him to get cheaper talent (yes in a position of greater need because of that good-for-nothing RJ) through a draft pick with no idea of whether he'll pan out.

That wasn't cutting corners. They needed to fill a big need on this team and did it by trading mediocre talent. Please don't overrate George Hill. We made out like bandits getting the three players we got for him.

[Kevin_Gamble]

Yea and those ten teams included a lot of major cities right? LA.. Philly.. New York.. Boston.. Washington, etc. And those teams have been the most winningest franchises even AFTER the mid 70s.

This is how it went..

-The best teams started off in some of the biggest/most well known cities[because teams needed big markets to draw in fans, make revenue, expand the league at the beginning]
--->These teams built some of the best legacies because they were always winners
------->Players nowadays want to play for those storied franchises


You mean like Lakers founded in Minneapolis, or Pistons starting in Fort Wayne, Indiana? Or 76ers starting in Syracuse? Did you ever wonder why the Lakers are called Lakers, when there aren't any lakes in Los Angeles?

[Sarcastic]

I just explained this two posts ago.. shitty management. Did you see who the Nets signed during FA? :oldlol: Who wants to play for a loser? Brooklyn is a great market. But you need the other factors to line up as well. If Deron had to choose between playing with Dwight Howard in Milwaukee or Dwight Howard in Brooklyn, I GUARANTEE you he chooses Brooklyn. If all other factors are held constant, the player will always choose the better location.

That's because Milwaukee has even worse management than the Nets.

What if the choices for Deron were: Brooklyn by himself, or San Antonio with Dwight. Which would do you think he would choose?

[Joey Zaza]

Small markets should be: SLC, OKC, Memphis, New Orleans. All four under 1.4 million people metro wise.

If we use those as the small markets..under the current system (since 99) all of the Jazz, Thunder (in 3 short years) Grizz, and Hornets have been better and with more stars than Big Market NYK, Bulls, and LAC.

those teams were good through good drafts/trades (Gasol, Durant, Westbrook, Gay, Paul, West, Deron). The old system compensated small market teams for the purported advantage of big market teams by giving an edge in re-signing their drafted stars for 7ish years.

For all the changes we need in the system (and clearly changes need to be made to help some markets become profitable), we do not need to make changes to help small markets to be more competitive with big markets. They are just fine (on the court) under the 99 system.

[tpols]

You mean like Lakers founded in Minneapolis, or Pistons starting in Fort Wayne, Indiana? Or 76ers starting in Syracuse? Did you ever wonder why the Lakers are called Lakers, when there aren't any lakes in Los Angeles?
And why do you think all of those teams moved from small markets to huge ones? I thought market size had nothing to do with anything in the NBA. Why did all the teams from Rochester, and Syracuse, and Fort Wayne, and Minneapolis move to Chicago, Philly, LA, etc? All you're showing is that teams would rather play in big markets than small ones.. and players are much the same.

[tpols]

That's because Milwaukee has even worse management than the Nets.

What if the choices for Deron were: Brooklyn by himself, or San Antonio with Dwight. Which would do you think he would choose?
Dont you see what you're doing? You're making San Antonio the better team by giving them Dwight Howard and Brooklyn the worse team by giving them no one. The major deciding factor in that scenario would be the strength of the team.. but the thing is a lot of players have to decide between teams that have equally strong supporting casts. This is such an absurd comparison.

I already explained to you that location will matter the most when all other factors are held constant. Your comparison there is so incredibly skewed it's not even funny. Why would SA get Dwight and Brooklyn not? :oldlol: Bottom line, if a player is choosing between two teams with equal management and team strength, he will most likely choose the better location in FA.

[Kevin_Gamble]

Dont you see what you're doing? You're making San Antonio the better team by giving them Dwight Howard and Brooklyn the worse team by giving them no one. The major deciding factor in that scenario would be the strength of the team.. but the thing is a lot of players have to decide between teams that have equally strong supporting casts. This is such an absurd comparison.

I already explained to you that location will matter the most when all other factors are held constant. Your comparison there is so incredibly skewed it's not even funny. Why would SA get Dwight and Brooklyn not? :oldlol: Bottom line, if a player is choosing between two teams with equal management and team strength, he will most likely choose the better location in FA.

Are you... suggesting that Spurs and Nets have equal management and team strength?

[Kevin_Gamble]

And why do you think all of those teams moved from small markets to huge ones? I thought market size had nothing to do with anything in the NBA. Why did all the teams from Rochester, and Syracuse, and Fort Wayne, and Minneapolis move to Chicago, Philly, LA, etc? All you're showing is that teams would rather play in big markets than small ones.. and players are much the same.

Why did the Sonics move from Seattle to Oaklahoma City? Why did Grizzlies move from Vancouver to Memphis? Why did Hornets move from Charlotte, a thriving area where they set attendance records, to New Orleans?

Also, you keep talking about these players that move from small market teams to big market teams. Who exactly are they? There are only 12 roster spots in NY and 24 in LA.

[Sarcastic]

Dont you see what you're doing? You're making San Antonio the better team by giving them Dwight Howard and Brooklyn the worse team by giving them no one. The major deciding factor in that scenario would be the strength of the team.. but the thing is a lot of players have to decide between teams that have equally strong supporting casts. This is such an absurd comparison.

I already explained to you that location will matter the most when all other factors are held constant. Your comparison there is so incredibly skewed it's not even funny. Why would SA get Dwight and Brooklyn not? :oldlol: Bottom line, if a player is choosing between two teams with equal management and team strength, he will most likely choose the better location in FA.

Nothing is ever constant because all teams are different.

Look, players change teams for 2 reasons. Either for more money, or for a chance to win a title. Last years Decision by Lebron James proved that. He had the opportunity to play in NY, LA, or Chicago, and picked Miami because it gave him the best chance to win a title.

[Droid101]

You mean like Lakers founded in Minneapolis, or Pistons starting in Fort Wayne, Indiana? Or 76ers starting in Syracuse? Did you ever wonder why the Lakers are called Lakers, when there aren't any lakes in Los Angeles?
Lakes!

Lakes and reservoirs in LA



Crystal Lake
Echo Park Lake
Silver Lake
Elizabeth Lake
Hughes Lake


Holiday Lake
Jackson Lake
Munz Lakes
Tweedy Lake

[Joey Zaza]

Why did the Sonics move from Seattle to Oaklahoma City? Why did Grizzlies move from Vancouver to Memphis? Why did Hornets move from Charlotte, a thriving area where they set attendance records, to New Orleans?


Teams move to large markets because as the LAL, NYK, Chi, and LAC demonstrate, there are more profits available in big markets, regardless of wins and losses.

But that has nothing to do with competitive balance. Again, small markets need some help to be more profitable, they do not need help in getting or retaining talent or building teams. They do just fine with that on their own.

[Joey Zaza]

I already explained to you that location will matter the most when all other factors are held constant. Your comparison there is so incredibly skewed it's not even funny. Why would SA get Dwight and Brooklyn not? :oldlol: Bottom line, if a player is choosing between two teams with equal management and team strength, he will most likely choose the better location in FA.

Which is why the NBA created the larry bird ruyle and allowed teams to pay more to retain players. All things are not equal -- JJ made more to stay in Atl rather than join NYK despite it being a more "desireable location." There is also a reason to beleive that if Phx would've maxed Amare, he'd have stayed there too. Not the system's fault that the owner wanted to spend money on more mid-level players than one great player.

The 99 system created ways for smaller markets (Atl isn't small, but its smaller than NY) to compete for talent.

The 11 system needs to force NYK, LAL, Chi to share more profits. The 99 luxuxry tax system worked ok, but when good GMs (Walsh) get big markets to avoid the tax, the smaller markets get pissed. The current idea of really hammering teams over the cap pisses players off because they want teams over the cap.

[Sarcastic]

Which is why the NBA created the larry bird ruyle and allowed teams to pay more to retain players. All things are not equal -- JJ made more to stay in Atl rather than join NYK despite it being a more "desireable location." There is also a reason to beleive that if Phx would've maxed Amare, he'd have stayed there too. Not the system's fault that the owner wanted to spend money on more mid-level players than one great player.

The 99 system created ways for smaller markets (Atl isn't small, but its smaller than NY) to compete for talent.

The 11 system needs to force NYK, LAL, Chi to share more profits. The 99 luxuxry tax system worked ok, but when good GMs (Walsh) get big markets to avoid the tax, the smaller markets get pissed. The current idea of really hammering teams over the cap pisses players off because they want teams over the cap.

No one cared that the Knicks floundered in failure for a decade. In fact they were the punchline of many jokes. But now that they got their house in order, "OMG, THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN!!!!!!"

Small market teams like San Antonio, Phoenix, Oklahoma, Utah, Minnesota, Denver, Cleveland, Orlando, Sacramento, and Indiana could never compete with the big market teams.

Wait, every one of those teams made a Finals or Conference Finals since the last CBA, didn't they?

[Joey Zaza]

No one cared that the Knicks floundered in failure for a decade. In fact they were the punchline of many jokes. But now that they got their house in order, "OMG, THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN!!!!!!"

Small market teams like San Antonio, Phoenix, Oklahoma, Utah, Minnesota, Denver, Cleveland, Orlando, Sacramento, and Indiana could never compete with the big market teams.

Wait, every one of those teams made a Finals or Conference Finals since the last CBA, didn't they?

All I'm saying. Once again, system is broken, but not with respect to on-court competitiveness. how many teams were good at some point since '99? Probably about 80-90% of them. Even LAC-Knicks has 2 good years during that stretch. Teams with excellent stretches? Going to say something north of 60%.

[Kevin_Gamble]

All I'm saying. Once again, system is broken, but not with respect to on-court competitiveness. how many teams were good at some point since '99? Probably about 80-90% of them. Even LAC-Knicks has 2 good years during that stretch. Teams with excellent stretches? Going to say something north of 60%.

So what exactly is the problem for the fans? I personally don't watch NBA to see owners make money, although I won't judge you if that's your primary interest in the NBA, not competitive basketball.

[Joey Zaza]

So what exactly is the problem for the fans? I personally don't watch NBA to see owners make money, although I won't judge you if that's your primary interest in the NBA, not competitive basketball.

Problem for the fans is that they're not playing.

If you haven't noticed, this lock-out had 0 to do with the fans...not from the players or owners perspective. I am merely discussing one argument set forth by the (most irritating) owners.

If you really want to place blame for this thing -- its not the superstars and its not the 12th men (they want to work, no matter how little they get paid)and its not the "big market" owners. Its the small(er) market owners and the 5-8th men (Bibby, Posey, Dalembert, Amir) who want to keep their 5 year, $40mill deals despite the fact that they aren't nearly worth it.

[Kevin_Gamble]

Problem for the fans is that they're not playing.

If you haven't noticed, this lock-out had 0 to do with the fans...not from the players or owners perspective. I am merely discussing one argument set forth by the (most irritating) owners.

If you really want to place blame for this thing -- its not the superstars and its not the 12th men (they want to work, no matter how little they get paid)and its not the "big market" owners. Its the small(er) market owners and the 5-8th men (Bibby, Posey, Dalembert, Amir) who want to keep their 5 year, $40mill deals despite the fact that they aren't nearly worth it.

Which is why they should just get rid of the salary cap/ BRI% agreements, and let the market decide how much these players are worth. If teams really are losing money, then they will start paying less, and eventually the salaries will settle at what the market will bear. We already know from baseball that such a system allows small market teams to compete. We already know from baseball also that even the Yankees can't go out and sign anyone willy-nilly.

What irritates me about the debates is that so many fans act like it's their money being taken away from them by Eddy Curry.

[Blue&Orange]

What irritates me about the debates is that so many fans act like it's their money being taken away from them by Eddy Curry.
lol so who's money is it? From where it comes the NBA revenue? Thin air?

[Kevin_Gamble]

lol so who's money is it? From where it comes the NBA revenue? Thin air?

Did you know that once you pay somebody money, that money is no longer yours? That's pretty basic stuff.

[Blue&Orange]

Did you know that once you pay somebody money, that money is no longer yours? That's pretty basic stuff.
You're a colossal idiot.

[B]

Did you know that once you pay somebody money, that money is no longer yours? That's pretty basic stuff.You should be embarrassed

[Sarcastic]

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/215976/Expert_Virtually_No_Correlation_Between_Payroll_An d_Win_Percentage#ixzz1aakZdNpk

[QUOTE]As the NBA league office continues the lockout in an apparent bid to create more parity among teams, a professor of economics at Smith College who has studied the issue says there is almost no relationship between the size of a team's payroll and its success.

[B]

[Joey Zaza]

Which is why they should just get rid of the salary cap/ BRI% agreements, and let the market decide how much these players are worth. If teams really are losing money, then they will start paying less, and eventually the salaries will settle at what the market will bear. We already know from baseball that such a system allows small market teams to compete. We already know from baseball also that even the Yankees can't go out and sign anyone willy-nilly.


Also, stealing from baseball, to promote revenue sharing, have a threshold and a tax. NYK do make more money than Minn and the NYK, LAL need to have the small market franchises around to have a league.

I do like having a rookie salary wage scale. Though it hurts Rose, it provides security for owners to not have to pay too much for mistakes and provides rookies with security that no matter which team drafts them (of which they have no control) they are guaranteed 3 yrs worth of money.

[DMAVS41]

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/215976/Expert_Virtually_No_Correlation_Between_Payroll_An d_Win_Percentage#ixzz1aakZdNpk



Hmmmmm

You still can't grasp that there are no absolutes. And also, this isn't just about the past. Its about the growing trend the NBA is seeing now. Players are more than just players. They are a "brand"...or at least that is how they see themselves. You think Lamar Odom is getting a reality show if he lives in Milwaukee?

Nobody is saying its one or the other. Its just clearly an advantage to have more money and be in a more desirable market/location where players want to come and play. Not to mention that we have to overlook the fact that free agency/forced trades have altered the NBA landscape hugely in the last decade. Shaq to the Lakers. Kobe forcing his way to the Lakers in the trade. Lebron and Bosh leaving their small market teams for less money to play in Miami. Cuban basically paying anything and everything to anybody he thought could help. KG ending up in Boston. Melo and Amare on the Knicks. Now Paul and Howard are next in line. The Jazz trading Williams because they were scared he was leaving.

You can't just look at the data from the past...its also about the future and where this is heading.

Not to mention, if you looked at the past data....only big market teams are winning titles. You can chalk that up to a fluke or whatever, but its also just factual. The anomaly of the Spurs is all that saves you. And maybe the small market owners don't want to just be average to good....maybe they want to compete for titles. And that is something that actually the data does not show. Its been big market after big market winning the nba title year in year out since the early 80's.

[Sarcastic]

You still can't grasp that there are no absolutes. And also, this isn't just about the past. Its about the growing trend the NBA is seeing now. Players are more than just players. They are a "brand"...or at least that is how they see themselves. You think Lamar Odom is getting a reality show if he lives in Milwaukee?

Nobody is saying its one or the other. Its just clearly an advantage to have more money and be in a more desirable market/location where players want to come and play. Not to mention that we have to overlook the fact that free agency/forced trades have altered the NBA landscape hugely in the last decade. Shaq to the Lakers. Kobe forcing his way to the Lakers in the trade. Lebron and Bosh leaving their small market teams for less money to play in Miami. Cuban basically paying anything and everything to anybody he thought could help. KG ending up in Boston. Melo and Amare on the Knicks. Now Paul and Howard are next in line. The Jazz trading Williams because they were scared he was leaving.

You can't just look at the data from the past...its also about the future and where this is heading.

Not to mention, if you looked at the past data....only big market teams are winning titles. You can chalk that up to a fluke or whatever, but its also just factual. The anomaly of the Spurs is all that saves you. And maybe the small market owners don't want to just be average to good....maybe they want to compete for titles. And that is something that actually the data does not show. Its been big market after big market winning the nba title year in year out since the early 80's.

San Antonio Spurs

And you accuse me of speaking in absolutes? :facepalm

[knickscity]

Also, stealing from baseball, to promote revenue sharing, have a threshold and a tax. NYK do make more money than Minn and the NYK, LAL need to have the small market franchises around to have a league.

I do like having a rookie salary wage scale. Though it hurts Rose, it provides security for owners to not have to pay too much for mistakes and provides rookies with security that no matter which team drafts them (of which they have no control) they are guaranteed 3 yrs worth of money.
They have an option on the rookie scale now, that most don't use.

They don't have to go 120% of the scale, yet most do it.

[DMAVS41]

San Antonio Spurs

And you accuse me of speaking in absolutes? :facepalm

I mentioned the Spurs in my post. In the following sentence...LOL. Read please.

[Sarcastic]

I mentioned the Spurs in my post. In the following sentence...LOL. Read please.

I read it. You telling me Oklahoma is not going to be competing for titles?

[Joey Zaza]

only big market teams are winning titles. You can chalk that up to a fluke or whatever, but its also just factual. ... Its been big market after big market winning the nba title year in year out since the early 80's.

Your definition of Big Market is broad. So lets have it:

1.New York City
2.Los Angeles
3.Chicago
4.Philadelphia
5.Dallas/Fort Worth
6.San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
7.Boston
8.Atlanta
9.Washington, D.C.
10.Houston
11.Detroit
12.Phoenix
13.Seattle/Tacoma
14.South Florida
15.Minneapolis
16.Miami
17.Denver
18.Cleveland
19.Orlando
20.Sacramento
21.St. Louis
22.Portland
23.Charlotte
24.Pittsburgh
25.Raleigh/Durham/Fayetteville
26.Baltimore
27.Indianapolis
28.San Diego
29.Nashville
30.Connecticut
31.Kansas City
32.Salt Lake City
33.Cincinnati
34.Columbus
35.Milwaukee
36.Greenville
37.San Antonio

The top 10 Markets have 11 teams, and since '99, 6 titles.
The middle 10 makerts have 8 teams, and since '99 2 titles
The bottom 16 markets have 7 teams and since '99 4 titles

So its certainly not ONLY big market teams. Since '99 half the titles have been won by small/mid market teams. If we take SA out (but not LAL for some reason), we get an extra big market win (NYK), two mid-market wins (Det-Cle) and a small market win (NJN)

[DMAVS41]

I read it. You telling me Oklahoma is not going to be competing for titles?

of course they are. its on the whole. its not about one team or a few teams. its about the 22 teams that operate at a loss and struggle.

i don't even want it to change. it would be bad for the nba. if there was parity the nba would probably be awful and no casual person would watch. the idea of a kings vs bucks finals could set the league back 10 years.

i'm simply saying that i see why the small market owners have an issue. they simply aren't on the same level as some of the other teams. it doesn't mean you can't build great teams in small markets. the spurs, the kings, cavs, suns, thunder...etc.

but its on the whole. its harder to retain your good players. its harder to build around your draft picks etc. and for them its about competing for titles...at least that is what they have said.

but of course nobody is ever claiming things like "can't" and "never" for individual teams. its just harder for them. and the future looks bleak. like i said before, its more about the future than the past....although big markets/desirable locations have dominated the league for 30 or so years now. the future looks much worse. players want more off court endorsements...more attention...more money. they want to live in LA or South Beach...or a big city. The players today clearly care more about that stuff. They want to play with their friends.....etc.

You can't just ignore what has happened the last couple years and what lies ahead.

[DMAVS41]

Your definition of Big Market is broad. So lets have it:

1.New York City
2.Los Angeles
3.Chicago
4.Philadelphia
5.Dallas/Fort Worth
6.San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
7.Boston
8.Atlanta
9.Washington, D.C.
10.Houston
11.Detroit
12.Phoenix
13.Seattle/Tacoma
14.South Florida
15.Minneapolis
16.Miami
17.Denver
18.Cleveland
19.Orlando
20.Sacramento
21.St. Louis
22.Portland
23.Charlotte
24.Pittsburgh
25.Raleigh/Durham/Fayetteville
26.Baltimore
27.Indianapolis
28.San Diego
29.Nashville
30.Connecticut
31.Kansas City
32.Salt Lake City
33.Cincinnati
34.Columbus
35.Milwaukee
36.Greenville
37.San Antonio

The top 10 Markets have 11 teams, and since '99, 6 titles.
The middle 10 makerts have 8 teams, and since '99 2 titles
The bottom 16 markets have 7 teams and since '99 4 titles

So its certainly not ONLY big market teams. Since '99 half the titles have been won by small/mid market teams. If we take SA out (but not LAL for some reason), we get an extra big market win (NYK), two mid-market wins (Det-Cle) and a small market win (NJN)

its not just big market as in size...its about what a location offers. on your list Miami is 16th...but it would probably rank in the top 5...at least top 10 for most desirable place to play.

and that is the point. i'm not saying its the end all be all...as i have had to say now what seems like a thousand times. it is an advantage. if you gave a player the option to play in toronto or miami, they would choose miami 9 out of 10 times...maybe more if all things were equal. that is an advantage. that is all we are saying. is that there are some inherent benefits with market size and location...and those lead to things like more money to spend...more fan interest...more exposure...ability to retain more players...ability to sign better players...ability to attract better coaches..etc.

those are really just facts. just because some teams have done a crappy job utilizing those advantages does not mean those advantages don't exist.

[Sarcastic]

So it's ok to say San Antonio is an anomaly, but it's not ok to say the Lakers are an anomaly as well?

[Sarcastic]

of course they are. its on the whole. its not about one team or a few teams. its about the 22 teams that operate at a loss and struggle.

i don't even want it to change. it would be bad for the nba. if there was parity the nba would probably be awful and no casual person would watch. the idea of a kings vs bucks finals could set the league back 10 years.

i'm simply saying that i see why the small market owners have an issue. they simply aren't on the same level as some of the other teams. it doesn't mean you can't build great teams in small markets. the spurs, the kings, cavs, suns, thunder...etc.

but its on the whole. its harder to retain your good players. its harder to build around your draft picks etc. and for them its about competing for titles...at least that is what they have said.

but of course nobody is ever claiming things like "can't" and "never" for individual teams. its just harder for them. and the future looks bleak. like i said before, its more about the future than the past....although big markets/desirable locations have dominated the league for 30 or so years now. the future looks much worse. players want more off court endorsements...more attention...more money. they want to live in LA or South Beach...or a big city. The players today clearly care more about that stuff. They want to play with their friends.....etc.

You can't just ignore what has happened the last couple years and what lies ahead.

I see the problem as well. The only difference is that I see the solution as coming from revenue sharing from the big market teams, rather than taking money from the players.

If the small market teams are having a problem attracting talent because no one wants to play in those cities, then why not relocate to more desirable locations? Move Milwaukee to Puerto Rico, Sacramento to Cancun, Minnesota to Hawaii, and Charlotte to the Bahamas.

[Joey Zaza]

its not just big market as in size...its about what a location offers. on your list Miami is 16th...but it would probably rank in the top 5...at least top 10 for most desirable place to play.

and that is the point. i'm not saying its the end all be all...as i have had to say now what seems like a thousand times. it is an advantage. if you gave a player the option to play in toronto or miami, they would choose miami 9 out of 10 times...maybe more if all things were equal. that is an advantage. that is all we are saying. is that there are some inherent benefits with market size and location...and those lead to things like more money to spend...more fan interest...more exposure...ability to retain more players...ability to sign better players...ability to attract better coaches..etc.

those are really just facts. just because some teams have done a crappy job utilizing those advantages does not mean those advantages don't exist.

Agreed there is a monetary and fame edge to playing in NY/LAL...but the most recent agreement did an excelent job of leveling the playing field so that competition (on the court) is even. By allowing teams to lock up their draft picks for 7 years, small markets can hang onto stars without ever comepting with big markets (see Cle). By allowing teams to pay their players more, they have an edge (greater than location) (see CWebb in Sac).

Now, smal market may eventually lose a guy, but that's ok, players should at some point be able ot make their own decisions...and guess what, when left with their own decision LBJ/Wade/Bosh DIDN'T EVEN CHOOSE ABIG MARKET.

So, my point is, under the old system, there was no competitive inbalance favoring big markets.

[pmj]

its not just big market as in size...its about what a location offers. on your list Miami is 16th...but it would probably rank in the top 5...at least top 10 for most desirable place to play.

and that is the point. i'm not saying its the end all be all...as i have had to say now what seems like a thousand times. it is an advantage. if you gave a player the option to play in toronto or miami, they would choose miami 9 out of 10 times...maybe more if all things were equal. that is an advantage. that is all we are saying. is that there are some inherent benefits with market size and location...and those lead to things like more money to spend...more fan interest...more exposure...ability to retain more players...ability to sign better players...ability to attract better coaches..etc.

those are really just facts. just because some teams have done a crappy job utilizing those advantages does not mean those advantages don't exist.

What are facts? Your made up 9/10 toronto/miami option? Where is the facts on that? Where is the proof free agents are FLOCKING to the big market cities? Occasionally it happens, but it's grossly overblown.

Because I distinctly remember Mo Williams turning the Heat down, and Michael Redd, to stay in their worse markets, and tons of others.

I live in Miami, but guess what, almost all Miami teams SUCK (dolphins/marlins/panthers). The attractiveness of the city didn't help much in reality. The hard caps of the NHL and NFL didn't help our teams. The sole reason the Heat started becoming non shitty is because of Pat Riley. And Lebron and Bosh came b/c of Wade, Riley, and the fact that Miami was the only team to clear their whole roster.

[B]

I don't think you can say this city is a small market based on population alone. That's misleading. When you say look where Lebron signed on the face it's not a big market that's true only on the surface, it's not reality. Miami although being small in population is huge in profile.

It's a big international city with lots of wealthy people that flock there for the social aspects and is extremely high profile rivaling bigger cities like LA or NY, it's a city where the rich and powerful go to make deals, be seen rubbing elbows with the other rich and powerful movers and shakers. There' a reason Lebron went there and it's not because he was looking for a nice quiet hamlet to escape the hustle and bustle of life in Cleveland.

LA has a massive population as does NY but it's not the population that draws players it's the extra opportunities. The chance to be in a place where things happen, where deals get made, that's what draws players to a certain area if they are fortunate to be on that level

[Sarcastic]

[QUOTE=B

[Joey Zaza]

I don't think there is any doubt that certain locations are more appealing to NBA players. I can see how an NBA player, all things being equal, would choose Miami over Miluakee.

However, the NBA has done a good job of negating those advantages - at least since '99. For the most part, players stay where they were drafted or are traded elsewhere. Very few impact players leave as FA's (Nash sticks in my head, obviously LBJ, Wade, Amare, Boozer)...that's since 99. Yes, big market LAL has dominated, but not to the exclusioon of small market SAS and LAL got their best players through small market moves (retaining own player, trades) and not dominating the FA market.

[PowerGlove]

Joey Zaza, how in the world can south florida and Miami be two seperate markets?:oldlol:

[B]

I don't think there is any doubt that certain locations are more appealing to NBA players. I can see how an NBA player, all things being equal, would choose Miami over Miluakee.

However, the NBA has done a good job of negating those advantages - at least since '99. For the most part, players stay where they were drafted or are traded elsewhere. Very few impact players leave as FA's (Nash sticks in my head, obviously LBJ, Wade, Amare, Boozer)...that's since 99. Yes, big market LAL has dominated, but not to the exclusioon of small market SAS and LAL got their best players through small market moves (retaining own player, trades) and not dominating the FA market.That's all true

I don't like the San Antonio argument for small markets for one reason. If Robinson doesn't go down things change there big time and if Tim Duncan isn't so unassuming or has a personality more like Shaq's things could be very different there. San Antonio has a dynamic front office able to squeeze talent out of seemingly nothing but even with that it's been two key strokes out of the front offices hands that has put that team on the map.

[Joey Zaza]

Joey Zaza, how in the world can south florida and Miami be two seperate markets?:oldlol:

I thought that was weird too....I got it from wikipedia.

[Joey Zaza]

[QUOTE=B

[Kevin_Gamble]

[QUOTE=B

[Sarcastic]

[QUOTE=B

[B]

I thought that was weird too....I got it from wikipedia.The Miami Market is officially Miami Ft Lauderdale, it's number 16 according to sports media watch
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/03/nba-market-size-numbers-game/

Not sure where wiki gets their numbers, might be census numbers which doesn't reflect exactly what marketing people look at when creating media market lists.

[Joey Zaza]

We could also say "if Portland doesn't pick Sam Bowie and picks Michael Jordan instead, then they would be another small market with lots of rings".

...or if Nick Anderson hits his freaking free throws...

[DMAVS41]

We could also say "if Portland doesn't pick Sam Bowie and picks Michael Jordan instead, then they would be another small market with lots of rings".

do you realize how absurd you are being? nobody is saying its impossible or never will happen. we are just saying that some markets/franchises have inherent advantages over others.

its just a simple ****ing fact. i can't believe you aren't willing to concede that yet.

do you really think all of the owners in those markets at a disadvantage are just making everything up? do you really think that would fly in a negotiation like this.

the fact that you think every franchise has the same chance to win year in year out just shows what a stubborn ass you really are. its just downright illogical.

again, nobody is saying its the most important thing or that it can't be overcome, but it is important and it matters. money matters. location matters. exposure matters. fans matter. whether you admit it or not...sorry.

[Joey Zaza]

do you realize how absurd you are being? nobody is saying its impossible or never will happen. we are just saying that some markets/franchises have inherent advantages over others.

its just a simple ****ing fact. i can't believe you aren't willing to concede that yet.



..and those competitive advantages have been curtailed by the '99 agreement.

Not going to argue that smaller markets don't have a harder time turning a profit, but putting a solid team out there...the scales balance towards parity.

[Sarcastic]

do you realize how absurd you are being? nobody is saying its impossible or never will happen. we are just saying that some markets/franchises have inherent advantages over others.

its just a simple ****ing fact. i can't believe you aren't willing to concede that yet.

do you really think all of the owners in those markets at a disadvantage are just making everything up? do you really think that would fly in a negotiation like this.

the fact that you think every franchise has the same chance to win year in year out just shows what a stubborn ass you really are. its just downright illogical.

again, nobody is saying its the most important thing or that it can't be overcome, but it is important and it matters. money matters. location matters. exposure matters. fans matter. whether you admit it or not...sorry.

It's just as absurd as saying "if Robinson doesn't go down, the Spurs don't draft Duncan".


Woulda, coulda, shoulda. If, and, or but.

It's all irrelevant. The facts are what happened. The Spurs drafted Duncan and won multiple rings. Don't attach the other stuff to it.

[ShawnieMac06]

To clairfy Joey Zaza's earlier posts about the area rankings...those are the Nielsen DMA rankings, which measures market size based on the number of households in a metro area. The Tampa Bay area is actually ranked ahead of Miami-Fort Lauderdale, as the 14th largest TV market in the nation. Besides, Seattle-Tacoma, they've been the largest TV market without a NBA team, although Orlando-Daytona Beach is right next door.

Some of you guys are forgetting that TV money (the national contracts from Disney and Turner) is what really drives the NBA...hell, all of professional sports for that matter, because it's guaranteed money as opposed to ticket sales and merchandise.

Here's this year's Nielsen list, and I'm only listing those markets that have teams...

http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TVB_Market_Profiles_Nielsen_Household_DMA_RANKS.pd f

1. New York City (Knicks & Nets)
2. Los Angeles (Lakers & Clippers)
3. Chicago (Bulls)
4. Philadelphia (76ers)
5. Dallas-Fort Worth (Mavericks)
6. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose (Warriors)
7. Boston (Celtics)
8. Washington, D.C. (Wizards)
9. Atlanta (Hawks)
10. Houston (Rockets)
11. Detroit (Pistons)
13. Phoenix (Suns)
15. Minneapolis-Saint Paul (Timberwolves)
16. Miami-Fort Lauderdale (Heat)
17. Denver (Nuggets)
18. Cleveland (Cavaliers)
19. Orlando-Daytona Beach (Magic)
20. Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto (Kings)
22. Portland (Trail Blazers)
25. Charlotte (Bobcats)
26. Indianapolis (Pacers)
33. Salt Lake City (Jazz)
34. Milwaukee (Bucks)
36. San Antonio (Spurs)
44. Oklahoma City (Thunder)
49. Memphis (Grizzlies)
52. New Orleans (Hornets)

[Joey Zaza]

1. New York City (Knicks & Nets)


Go to a KNicks game, go to a Nets game. They are not the same market. They are not close drives from each other (since they've moved to Newark they are closer, but for 8 of the last 11 years, its the meadowlands) and their crowds are different. Nets at their very best drew like the NYK at their worst.

its not the same market.

[DMAVS41]

..and those competitive advantages have been curtailed by the '99 agreement.

Not going to argue that smaller markets don't have a harder time turning a profit, but putting a solid team out there...the scales balance towards parity.

99 helped i think, but the problem isn't so much just the last decade....although a lot of titles and parity has been influenced by markets.

its about the future. the trends are not good. we've all seen it the last few years. i want detail it all again, but what is going on right now scares 20 or so owners...and rightfully so.

[DMAVS41]

It's just as absurd as saying "if Robinson doesn't go down, the Spurs don't draft Duncan".


Woulda, coulda, shoulda. If, and, or but.

It's all irrelevant. The facts are what happened. The Spurs drafted Duncan and won multiple rings. Don't attach the other stuff to it.

i didn't post anything about duncan or spurs. but it is worth mentioning what an anomaly that was. i have no problem with someone using the spurs as proof it can be done...because i'm not arguing that. i totally agree it can be done.

where we disagree is that you think a team like the bucks has just as good of a chance to win as the lakers year in year out over large amounts of time. and that is total bullshit in my opinion.

[Sarcastic]

i didn't post anything about duncan or spurs. but it is worth mentioning what an anomaly that was. i have no problem with someone using the spurs as proof it can be done...because i'm not arguing that. i totally agree it can be done.

where we disagree is that you think a team like the bucks has just as good of a chance to win as the lakers year in year out over large amounts of time. and that is total bullshit in my opinion.

See, you always use the Lakers as the big market team when comparing to small market teams. Why not use the Clippers. The Lakers are an anomaly, just like the Spurs are. What about the Knicks. Why don't you compare anyone to them?

Which team would you rather have? The Knicks, who play in the biggest market, or the Thunder, who play in the smallest market? Which team will be better over the next 5 years?

[DMAVS41]

See, you always use the Lakers as the big market team when comparing to small market teams. Why not use the Clippers. The Lakers are an anomaly, just like the Spurs are. What about the Knicks. Why don't you compare anyone to them?

Which team would you rather have? The Knicks, who play in the biggest market, or the Thunder, who play in the smallest market? Which team will be better over the next 5 years?

You can't use 5 years. Use 30 years. Use 50 years.

Knicks vs Thunder? Definitely debatable going forward because the Knicks could easily get in a ton of talent or a player like paul soon.

Again, you confuse yourself. I'm not saying that the Lakers will for sure be better than the Bucks over the next 30 years. I'm saying the Lakers have an inherent advantage. What they do with that is up to them. You can replace the Lakers with the other 8 or 9 big markets/desirable locations if you want. They still have an inherent advantage....

This is what you are saying:

"There is no advantage to market size or location. All teams operate with the same chance to put a championship team on the floor. Its 100% management and nothing else matters"

Correct me if i'm wrong, but that is what you have stood by. There there is absolutely nothing that teams like the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls, Mavs (currently), Celtics, Heat...etc...have over other teams. Right? You say there is absolutely nothing there.

I disagree. You just confuse that management is more important. That doesn't just negate everything else. We all know that if you cloned a person and had him run the knicks and the bucks....that overtime the knicks would most likely have better teams. with 100 million dollar payrolls and the ability to attract elite free agents. everyone with a brain knows this. you just refuse to acknowledge it for some crazy reason.

[Blue&Orange]

You still can't grasp that there are no absolutes. And also, this isn't just about the past. Its about the growing trend the NBA is seeing now.

Correct. The hardliners, the small market owners, are worried with the present\future, the history of last 10 years is irrelevant. Who cares is few superstars changed team in the last decade, what's important is that last year Lebron, Bosh, Amare, Carmelo, Boozer did. Atlanta had to overpaid to keep Joe Johnson, and Utah had to trade Williams because they didn't wanted to lose him for nothing, so again who cares what happened or what was the trend 10,5 years ago.

[Sarcastic]

You can't use 5 years. Use 30 years. Use 50 years.

Knicks vs Thunder? Definitely debatable going forward because the Knicks could easily get in a ton of talent or a player like paul soon.

Again, you confuse yourself. I'm not saying that the Lakers will for sure be better than the Bucks over the next 30 years. I'm saying the Lakers have an inherent advantage. What they do with that is up to them. You can replace the Lakers with the other 8 or 9 big markets/desirable locations if you want. They still have an inherent advantage....

This is what you are saying:

"There is no advantage to market size or location. All teams operate with the same chance to put a championship team on the floor. Its 100% management and nothing else matters"

Correct me if i'm wrong, but that is what you have stood by. There there is absolutely nothing that teams like the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls, Mavs (currently), Celtics, Heat...etc...have over other teams. Right? You say there is absolutely nothing there.

I disagree. You just confuse that management is more important. That doesn't just negate everything else. We all know that if you cloned a person and had him run the knicks and the bucks....that overtime the knicks would most likely have better teams. with 100 million dollar payrolls and the ability to attract elite free agents. everyone with a brain knows this. you just refuse to acknowledge it for some crazy reason.

Who the hell can predict 30 or 50 years? LA can have a earthquake and fall off the map in that time frame. Be reasonable bro.

Let's say the Lakers don't get Howard next year. Where do you see them going in the next 5 or so years with an older Kobe? They're gonna have another down period like they had in the 1990s when Sedale Threatt and Cedric Ceballos were leading the team.

[DMAVS41]

Correct. The hardliners, the small market owners, are worried with the present\future, the history of last 10 years is irrelevant. Who cares is few superstars changed team in the last decade, what's important is that last year Lebron, Bosh, Amare, Carmelo, Boozer did. Atlanta had to overpaid to keep Joe Johnson, and Utah had to trade Williams because they didn't wanted to lose him for nothing, so again who cares what happened or what was the trend 10,5 years ago.

yep...the last decade wasn't really pretty either. these concerns really started showing in 06 when a group of small market owners wrote a letter to Stern about how they wanted system changes and that they felt they just couldn't consistently compete

now its much worse of course. paul and howard are likely gone. like you said, the nuggets and jazz were forced to trade their franchise players because they were scared to lose them for nothing. the cavs and raptors lost their franchise player. cuban basically bought every player the mavs have other than dirk.

the trend is that players care a lot more now about where they are playing and less about how much they are making. you could pay howard 5 million a year in LA for his salary and he'd still probably end up making more there than he would playing for the hornets at 15 to 20 million a game. and that is just the money. clearly these players want to create "a brand" of themselves. and you do that in the big markets.

anybody saying its not becoming an issue is laying.

now, i personally like it. i think players should have more power over where they play. so much is riding on it. money, legacy, fame...etc. players should have a lot of control. i want the big markets to be great and have the best players. those are the teams people care about...those teams drive ratings. i'd hate to watch the talent diluted even more than it is now. that is my view though...if i was a small market owner, i'd think differently.

[DMAVS41]

Who the hell can predict 30 or 50 years? LA can have a earthquake and fall off the map in that time frame. Be reasonable bro.

Let's say the Lakers don't get Howard next year. Where do you see them going in the next 5 or so years with an older Kobe? They're gonna have another down period like they had in the 1990s when Sedale Threatt and Cedric Ceballos were leading the team.

I'm not saying to predict. I'm just saying you can't use 5 years to prove something.

Predict? Who knows? The Lakers management could screw up their 100 million dollar payroll just like the knicks have. Cuban and Nelson have spent/wasted a lot of money on players that weren't good fits or just weren't good. It was bad management.

Nobody is saying management doesn't matter. It does. Management is pretty clearly the most important thing. However, its a lot harder to manage a team on 50 million than it is on 100 million. You miss in the draft or have a hole in your team? Good luck plugging it quickly.

I'm done debating what is pretty clearly a fact. Certain franchises have advantages over others. How they take advantage of those is what matters, but that doesn't negate the simple fact that the advantages are there to begin with.

[Joey Zaza]

Correct. The hardliners, the small market owners, are worried with the present\future, the history of last 10 years is irrelevant. Who cares is few superstars changed team in the last decade, what's important is that last year Lebron, Bosh, Amare, Carmelo, Boozer did. Atlanta had to overpaid to keep Joe Johnson, and Utah had to trade Williams because they didn't wanted to lose him for nothing, so again who cares what happened or what was the trend 10,5 years ago.

Atl. payment of JJ is the system working. If they couldn't pay more, JJ would've been elsewhere.

so, is the argument now, small markets need to keep players and pay them below market? Something doesn't sound quite right abot that.

LBJ, Bosh were locked into bad markets for 7 years. 7 YEARS! They wanted a change. Good for them- and it was to a mid-sized market.

BOOZ CHOSE a small market to go to Utah...now he chose a big market. Who knows what goes on in his head.

Melo acted out to get to NY, well JJ acted out to get to Atl from Phx.

This dominance of Big Market teams is completely imagined.

[DMAVS41]

Atl. payment of JJ is the system working. If they couldn't pay more, JJ would've been elsewhere.

so, is the argument now, small markets need to keep players and pay them below market? Something doesn't sound quite right abot that.

LBJ, Bosh were locked into bad markets for 7 years. 7 YEARS! They wanted a change. Good for them- and it was to a mid-sized market.

BOOZ CHOSE a small market to go to Utah...now he chose a big market. Who knows what goes on in his head.

Melo acted out to get to NY, well JJ acted out to get to Atl from Phx.

This dominance of Big Market teams is completely imagined.

Don't you get it though....if a team has to max out JJ to keep him...they aren't going to win anything. They can't compete unless they have deep/unlimited pockets.

Boozer chose money in Utah...not the market. Then he left. Totally different example.

Nobody is claiming the big markets dominate the league. We (at least I am) are simply claiming that certain franchises have an advantage. I don't know where you stand....so i've been posting with sarcastic.

He thinks that all teams are equal no matter what and that management is all that matters. I disagree. That is all.

[Joey Zaza]

you could pay howard 5 million a year in LA for his salary and he'd still probably end up making more there than he would playing for the hornets at 15 to 20 million a game. and that is just the money. clearly these players want to create "a brand" of themselves. and you do that in the big markets.

anybody saying its not becoming an issue is laying.



List me all the players that went to LAL for less. All the guys who came to NYK for less (Amare got paid more). Melo wanted NY, but he wanted to get paid more, which is why it had to be a trade. All the guys who gave Chi a discount.

I think maybe you've got Fisher, who chose LAL for personal reasons...but besides that, it HASN'T HAPPENED.

[Joey Zaza]

Don't you get it though....if a team has to max out JJ to keep him...they aren't going to win anything. They can't compete unless they have deep/unlimited pockets.


no one has unlimited pcokets...there is a cap.

I'm not sure how else to defeat this edge. You give markets the ability to lock up their rookies for 7 years, let them pay their own players more (giving a distinct advantage). Now, be able to pay guys less then they are demanding to keep them.

I think the league curtails this edge, as evidenced by the fact the FA's don't go to these big markets.

So YES there is an edge, but NOT under the 99 agreement.

[Sarcastic]

List me all the players that went to LAL for less. All the guys who came to NYK for less (Amare got paid more). Melo wanted NY, but he wanted to get paid more, which is why it had to be a trade. All the guys who gave Chi a discount.

I think maybe you've got Fisher, who chose LAL for personal reasons...but besides that, it HASN'T HAPPENED.

HAHA no one gives NY a discount for going there in any sport. They always ask for more money because of the high taxes. States like Florida and Texas can sometimes get a discount because of the state taxes. In fact, the Yankees ALWAYS have to pay a premium to get players to go there. No one ever gives them a discount.

[DMAVS41]

no one has unlimited pcokets...there is a cap.

I'm not sure how else to defeat this edge. You give markets the ability to lock up their rookies for 7 years, let them pay their own players more (giving a distinct advantage). Now, be able to pay guys less then they are demanding to keep them.

I think the league curtails this edge, as evidenced by the fact the FA's don't go to these big markets.

So YES there is an edge, but NOT under the 99 agreement.

its about the current trend. and they do. shaq went to the lakers...changed the entire landscape of basketball. lebron left cleveland...changed the entire landscape of basketball. amare and melo went to NY...completely changed the western conference. deron williams got traded in fear....

do you really think a team like the bulls or knicks would have lost carter, tmac, and bosh within a decade like the raptors did? ROFL if you don't think the bigger market teams would have had a better chance to hold on to those players. whats that? thats right...another advantage.

now chris paul and howard are most likely leaving. hey, i'll make a bet with you. i bet paul and howard go to big markets if they leave. care to take me up on that?

[DMAVS41]

List me all the players that went to LAL for less. All the guys who came to NYK for less (Amare got paid more). Melo wanted NY, but he wanted to get paid more, which is why it had to be a trade. All the guys who gave Chi a discount.

I think maybe you've got Fisher, who chose LAL for personal reasons...but besides that, it HASN'T HAPPENED.

what?

i don't follow. because the knicks can afford to pay more....they ended up there. its not hard. the knicks simply spend more money than most teams. i don't know why its confusing to people.

its debatable as to how important or how advantageous spending more money is. i totally agree. what is not debatable is that the simple fact of having 30 to 50 million more to spend is an advantage.

[ShawnieMac06]

Go to a KNicks game, go to a Nets game. They are not the same market. They are not close drives from each other (since they've moved to Newark they are closer, but for 8 of the last 11 years, its the meadowlands) and their crowds are different. Nets at their very best drew like the NYK at their worst.

its not the same market.

For all intents and purposes, it is the same media market. Yeah, northern New Jersey has its own daily papers (Newark Star-Ledger and Bergen County Record), but they get their TV and radio from New York City, just like southern New Jersey gets their TV and radio from Philadelphia. I kinda get what you're saying, but I'm not talking the different types of crowds and things like that, because of course it's no contest. That list I posted earlier takes into account no just the individual cities, but their suburban areas as well, in this case, northern New Jersey is a suburban area to New York City.

[Joey Zaza]

what?

i don't follow. because the knicks can afford to pay more....they ended up there. its not hard. the knicks simply spend more money than most teams. i don't know why its confusing to people.

its debatable as to how important or how advantageous spending more money is. i totally agree. what is not debatable is that the simple fact of having 30 to 50 million more to spend is an advantage.

Knicks are below the cap. They can afford to pay $100,000 to anyone, they just aren't allowed to.

Why is this confusing you? Whatever money Sarver saved on Amare, he spent on other players. They all spend the about same.

The big markets being richer does not and has not given them a single advantage that the NBA as not accounted for...plus this "trend" is Carmelo. That's it. Utah losing deron is not about big/small market, it was about Deron wanting to leave. Who else is this trend? Amare taking the most money available to him (under the cap rules) to go to NY. that's a $$ decision.

[Kevin_Gamble]

you could pay howard 5 million a year in LA for his salary and he'd still probably end up making more there than he would playing for the hornets at 15 to 20 million a game.


Do you really think this? You think if it was true that playing for LA could make you $15 mil. more per season, any agent would've allowed guys like Lebron or Chris Paul sign extensions with their small market teams after the rookie deal expired?

Melo's not getting $15 mil. more in endorsements all of a sudden, neither is Amare or Gasol or Steve Blake.

[DMAVS41]

Knicks are below the cap. They can afford to pay $100,000 to anyone, they just aren't allowed to.

Why is this confusing you? Whatever money Sarver saved on Amare, he spent on other players. They all spend the about same.

The big markets being richer does not and has not given them a single advantage that the NBA as not accounted for...plus this "trend" is Carmelo. That's it. Utah losing deron is not about big/small market, it was about Deron wanting to leave. Who else is this trend? Amare taking the most money available to him (under the cap rules) to go to NY. that's a $$ decision.

I'm not confused at all. Certain teams can afford to have higher payrolls. You do realize that we don't have a hard cap in the NBA...right? You do realize that the Mavs spent like 40 million more than some teams...right?

You seem confused....not me.

And if you don't see the trend...you are blind. Simple as that.

And I'll say it again....care to wager on where Paul and Howard end up if they leave? I'll take the big markets....you take the small markets. Deal?

[DMAVS41]

Do you really think this? You think if it was true that playing for LA could make you $15 mil. more per season, any agent would've allowed guys like Lebron or Chris Paul sign extensions with their small market teams after the rookie deal expired?

Melo's not getting $15 mil. more in endorsements all of a sudden, neither is Amare or Gasol or Steve Blake.

I don't know why the dollar amount is, but for star players....being in NY over a small market is a huge advantage...huge. And its lasting....as in for the rest of their lives type stuff.

I have no idea of calculating it, but I bet the exposure leads to a pretty high monetary value...especially if they start winning.

[Joey Zaza]

I'm not confused at all. Certain teams can afford to have higher payrolls. You do realize that we don't have a hard cap in the NBA...right? You do realize that the Mavs spent like 40 million more than some teams...right?

You seem confused....not me.

And if you don't see the trend...you are blind. Simple as that.

Certain teams can afford to have higher payorlls...lets see who those teams are. I'm sure its the big markets, with all their draw and cash....

LA Lakers ~ 95.3 (big) (OBVIOUSLY)
Orlando Magic ~ 89.9 (medium)
Dallas Mavericks ~ 85.8 (big)
Boston Celtics ~ 83.3 (big)
Denver Nuggets ~ 83.0 (medium)
Houston Rockets ~ 72.7 (medium)
Utah Jazz ~ 71.1 (small)
Philadelphia 76ers ~ 69.4 (big)
Atlanta Hawks ~ 69.1 (medium)
New Orleans Hornets ~ 68.9 (small)

wait this can't be right...of the top 10 spenders, not even half are big market teams..is that possible?

Memphis Grizzlies ~ 67.8 (small)
Milwaukee Bucks ~ 67.7 (small)
Portland Blazers ~ 67.5 (small)
San Antonio Spurs ~ 64.9 (small)
Detroit Pistons ~ 64.7 (medium)
Golden State Warriors ~ 64.6 (small)
Indiana Pacers ~ 64.4 (small)
Charlotte Bobcats ~ 61.1 (small)
New Jersey Nets ~ 57.0 (small-but you guys wantto call them big)

Where's NY with all its spending power? BUlls and all the players that the BIG market bulls attracy? Not a single BIG MARKET team in the mid-tier?

Phoenix Suns ~ 55.4 (medium)
Miami Heat ~ 54.4 (medium)
Washington Wizards ~ 52.7 (big)
Cleveland Cavaliers ~ 51.3 (medium)
OKC Thunder ~ 50.3 (small)
Toronto Raptors ~ 49.4 (?)
New York Knicks ~ 47.2 (BIG)
LA Clippers ~ 47.0 (BIG)
Chicago Bulls ~ 46.7 (BIG)
Sacramento Kings ~ 39.0 (small)
Minnesota T-Wolves ~ 37.6 (small)

So - the big markets can all spend more creating a trend of players going there for bigger salaries. Hmmm...not seeing it here. I must be blind.

http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/2010/10/2010-2011-team-payrolls/

[Joey Zaza]

I don't know why the dollar amount is, but for star players....being in NY over a small market is a huge advantage...huge. And its lasting....as in for the rest of their lives type stuff.

I have no idea of calculating it, but I bet the exposure leads to a pretty high monetary value...especially if they start winning.

Every star player I know that comes to NY takes top top top top dollar to come here and not a nickel less.

[DMAVS41]

Certain teams can afford to have higher payorlls...lets see who those teams are. I'm sure its the big markets, with all their draw and cash....

LA Lakers ~ 95.3 (big) (OBVIOUSLY)
Orlando Magic ~ 89.9 (medium)
Dallas Mavericks ~ 85.8 (big)
Boston Celtics ~ 83.3 (big)
Denver Nuggets ~ 83.0 (medium)
Houston Rockets ~ 72.7 (medium)
Utah Jazz ~ 71.1 (small)
Philadelphia 76ers ~ 69.4 (big)
Atlanta Hawks ~ 69.1 (medium)
New Orleans Hornets ~ 68.9 (small)

wait this can't be right...of the top 10 spenders, not even half are big market teams..is that possible?

Memphis Grizzlies ~ 67.8 (small)
Milwaukee Bucks ~ 67.7 (small)
Portland Blazers ~ 67.5 (small)
San Antonio Spurs ~ 64.9 (small)
Detroit Pistons ~ 64.7 (medium)
Golden State Warriors ~ 64.6 (small)
Indiana Pacers ~ 64.4 (small)
Charlotte Bobcats ~ 61.1 (small)
New Jersey Nets ~ 57.0 (small-but you guys wantto call them big)

Where's NY with all its spending power? BUlls and all the players that the BIG market bulls attracy? Not a single BIG MARKET team in the mid-tier?

Phoenix Suns ~ 55.4 (medium)
Miami Heat ~ 54.4 (medium)
Washington Wizards ~ 52.7 (big)
Cleveland Cavaliers ~ 51.3 (medium)
OKC Thunder ~ 50.3 (small)
Toronto Raptors ~ 49.4 (?)
New York Knicks ~ 47.2 (BIG)
LA Clippers ~ 47.0 (BIG)
Chicago Bulls ~ 46.7 (BIG)
Sacramento Kings ~ 39.0 (small)
Minnesota T-Wolves ~ 37.6 (small)

So - the big markets can all spend more creating a trend of players going there for bigger salaries. Hmmm...not seeing it here. I must be blind.

http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/2010/10/2010-2011-team-payrolls/


you have 3 of the 4 top teams as big markets....LOL...and you are taking a snapshot in a year in which some big markets purposefully shed contracts to get the exact players we are talking about.

and its not just money...as i have said literally a million ****ing times. its everything. everything that goes along with the desirable locations/markets. everything matters. you guys operate with these absolutes like somebody is sitting here telling you that no small market team can ever win.

not the case at all. its just a shame that people here honestly think a team like the twolves (lowest on your list) can compete with the a team like the lakers/celtics/mavs year in year out. they can't.

[Kevin_Gamble]

I don't know why the dollar amount is, but for star players....being in NY over a small market is a huge advantage...huge. And its lasting....as in for the rest of their lives type stuff.

I have no idea of calculating it, but I bet the exposure leads to a pretty high monetary value...especially if they start winning.

It doesn't. Jeter makes like $5 mil per year in endorsements, probably gets to eat pastrami sandwiches for free for life. That's not huge...huge... territory. You think John Starks or Doc Rivers are making $15 mil. right now in endorsements? or even Ewing? Not even Amare makes that.

Sports figures who actually make huge...huge... endorsements? Other than transcendental figures like Kobe and Jordan, it's golfers and tennis players, who sign with Tagheuer and Landrover, while Amare and Melo advertise energy strips and prepaid phones.

[Sarcastic]

Deron Williams was livid that he got traded to the Nets, and had to be forced to get on the plane. This is a team that will be playing in Brooklyn, in a brand new arena, will be the new chic team to play for, and is partially owned by Jay-Z. Despite all this, he still won't sign the extension yet.

[DMAVS41]

Deron Williams was livid that he got traded to the Nets, and had to be forced to get on the plane. This is a team that will be playing in Brooklyn, in a brand new arena, will be the new chic team to play for, and is partially owned by Jay-Z. Despite all this, he still won't sign the extension yet.

because the nets suck. stop talking in absolutes. he won't be livid if they land another great player.

why do you think the jazz traded him? they traded him because they knew they probably couldn't sign him. why? because they are the jazz and had already lost boozer and just don't have the ability to retain all their players the way some teams do.

hence....just one of many advantages of other franchises. its fun debating facts.

[Rab]

To be fair, teams at the bottom like Chicago, Washington, LA Clippers at the bottom all have a lot of young players under contract on their rookie deals, including their starts like Rose, Wall, Griffin. When those teams have to re-up the young guys, you'll see that number bump up significantly. And the Clippers are just cheap. They never spend money, and probably never will, so it's hard for me to call them a big market team. NY just got through dumping bad contract after bad contract. They've been a lot higher over the last 5-6 years.

The Jazz were never a luxury tax payer until this past year, so that's a little flukey. The Magic are in a financial mess, and they are forced to be that way because they are trying to get enough in to keep Howard from leaving. It's not something they'll be able to sustain long term. Cleveland was in the same boat with LeBron.

The Suns were a luxury tax payer for years during the Nash era and that eventually cost them Amar'e. They'll be set back for years trying to weed out contracts and start over. Smaller market teams can do it short term if they think there is a slight chance they can win it all, but over the course of 5-6 years, the well starts running dry while larger market teams can sustain the cap hit better.

[Sarcastic]

because the nets suck. stop talking in absolutes. he won't be livid if they land another great player.

why do you think the jazz traded him? they traded him because they knew they probably couldn't sign him. why? because they are the jazz and had already lost boozer and just don't have the ability to retain all their players the way some teams do.

hence....just one of many advantages of other franchises. its fun debating facts.

I'm not the one who talks in absolutes. You are. You always run back to the Lakers, as if the Clippers don't play in the same building. We can go over the top 10 markets if you want.
Knicks - suck
LA - 1 team is great, 1 is awful
Chicago - had a decade of being awful, but got lucky to draft Rose
Dallas - great team due to a great owner
Philly - suck
Houston - suck
Washington - suck
Miami - we know the story
Atlanta - meh, they're ok
Boston - sucked for almost 20 years after Bird, then got a good trade from Minnesota, whose GM JUST SO HAPPENED TO PLAY FOR THE CELTICS!!! OMG WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!!!

BTW, the Jazz actually got Boozer via free agency. They traded Deron because they NJ made an offer they couldn't refuse. The Nets were so desperate to get a star, they were willing to make a one sided trade even without an assurance from Deron that he would sign the extension. The Jazz got the better end of the trade BY FAR!!!

Also, ask any Bulls fan and they will tell you they would love to give Boozer back to Utah.

[pmj]

you have 3 of the 4 top teams as big markets....LOL...and you are taking a snapshot in a year in which some big markets purposefully shed contracts to get the exact players we are talking about.

and its not just money...as i have said literally a million ****ing times. its everything. everything that goes along with the desirable locations/markets. everything matters. you guys operate with these absolutes like somebody is sitting here telling you that no small market team can ever win.

not the case at all. its just a shame that people here honestly think a team like the twolves (lowest on your list) can compete with the a team like the lakers/celtics/mavs year in year out. they can't.

You are the one saying big market teams have an absolute advantage, when the reality is it's not that absolute.

Yes, some players go to a certain market for a reason, like Shaq (who wanted to do movies). But the reality is, it's not that big of problem (as has been shown). The team's that have the worst problem (like Toronto, who you keep mentioning, and New Orleans), probably shouldn't have teams.

The NHL has a hard cap, but the Florida Panthers will always be a crappy hockey team, regardless of the glitz of Miami, b/c theres no hockey fans here, and we have no god damn ice. No hockey star would come here, therefore, we shouldn't have a team.

Some markets may have some advantage (although I think it has more to do with the fact that some places shouldn't have teams), but what is your point? What are you arguing for? Or are you simply being devil's advocate and arguing for the sake of arguing, like I have seen you do a few times now.

[Joey Zaza]

you have 3 of the 4 top teams as big markets....LOL...and you are taking a snapshot in a year in which some big markets purposefully shed contracts to get the exact players we are talking about.

and its not just money...as i have said literally a million ****ing times. its everything. everything that goes along with the desirable locations/markets. everything matters. you guys operate with these absolutes like somebody is sitting here telling you that no small market team can ever win.


...and 3 of the 5 bottom teams as big markets...it indicates that the size of the market does not directly correllate to the amount they spend on players...which is your exact argument.

I agree everything matters. When EVERYTHING balances out, players go to a variety of places for a variety of reasons and there is no evidence that Big Markets have any edge in the area of player recruitment.

...and no one really knows what went on with Deron and Utah..maybe after 7 yrs locked up in Utah, the folks in Utah felt, Deron was going t ogo elsewhere no matter how much $$ they gave him. But no tears for Utah, Atl dropped him in their laps for 7 years.

[gasolina]

To be fair, teams at the bottom like Chicago, Washington, LA Clippers at the bottom all have a lot of young players under contract on their rookie deals, including their starts like Rose, Wall, Griffin. When those teams have to re-up the young guys, you'll see that number bump up significantly. And the Clippers are just cheap. They never spend money, and probably never will, so it's hard for me to call them a big market team. NY just got through dumping bad contract after bad contract. They've been a lot higher over the last 5-6 years.

The Jazz were never a luxury tax payer until this past year, so that's a little flukey. The Magic are in a financial mess, and they are forced to be that way because they are trying to get enough in to keep Howard from leaving. It's not something they'll be able to sustain long term. Cleveland was in the same boat with LeBron.

The Suns were a luxury tax payer for years during the Nash era and that eventually cost them Amar'e. They'll be set back for years trying to weed out contracts and start over. Smaller market teams can do it short term if they think there is a slight chance they can win it all, but over the course of 5-6 years, the well starts running dry while larger market teams can sustain the cap hit better.
:applause:

[tpols]

you have 3 of the 4 top teams as big markets....LOL...and you are taking a snapshot in a year in which some big markets purposefully shed contracts to get the exact players we are talking about.

and its not just money...as i have said literally a million ****ing times. its everything. everything that goes along with the desirable locations/markets. everything matters. you guys operate with these absolutes like somebody is sitting here telling you that no small market team can ever win.

:oldlol:

Dude, it's not going to work. I already tried explaining it to sarcastic about how location matters and he wasn't even able to comprehend the question[or he was purposely deflecting out of denial].

Scenario:
Does Deron Williams go to:

a) the nets w/ Dwight Howard

or

b) the bucks w/ Dwight Howard

He couldn't answer it.. tried flipping it to nets w/o Howard versus bucks w/ Howard.. which of course makes the scenario about the players on the team rather than the location.

If you look at a lot of the mediocre teams in the league in small markets like Denver and Milwaukee and Clippers[not small market but small fanbase/history] and Atlanta, they all have promising talent.. they're just missing that one star. You put Dwight on any of those teams and they are a top contender in the league. But why is it that Dwight doesn't even have them as an option? He'd rather play with an old Kobe in Los Angeles and not much else[assuming they give away Pau and/or Bynum to get him] rather than team up with the cores of the other teams I mentioned which are just as good. Why is that?

Why wouldn't Dwight choose the Clippers over the Lakers? They EASILY have better talent going forward... it's just the apeal of playing for the Lakers[much larger fanbase, more pristine/fame, etc.]

Why does everyone always make a big deal about players having 'big games' in Madison Square? Reggie Miller made a legacy on it alone. I thought location had nothing to do with how players' thinking.

[tpols]

Deron Williams was livid that he got traded to the Nets, and had to be forced to get on the plane. This is a team that will be playing in Brooklyn, in a brand new arena, will be the new chic team to play for, and is partially owned by Jay-Z. Despite all this, he still won't sign the extension yet.
When Deron got traded he wasn't headed on a flight to Brooklyn.. he was headed on a flight to Newark.

I wish this forum had a search function SO bad because I can remember countless threads where Sarcastic bashed the Nets saying Melo would never go to NJ over NYC because Newark is such a shitty city. And what do you know.. look what happened?:oldlol:

[Kevin_Gamble]

Why does everyone always make a big deal about players having 'big games' in Madison Square? Reggie Miller made a legacy on it alone. I thought location had nothing to do with how players' thinking.

Quick, name three non-Knicks players other than Reggie Miller who are known for having had 'big games' in MSG.

...
...
...

Yes, none.

[tpols]

You are the one saying big market teams have an absolute advantage, when the reality is it's not that absolute.


No.. he's saying that they have an advantage but there are still other factors to consider. I can have an advantage in basketball being taller than you but if you're better at me at every other facet of the game, you will be better than me. Given equal skills though, I will have the advantage. Thats all thats being said.

People against the notion that bigger markets have an advantage like to go off on tangents on those other factors and ignore the actual topic.

[Sarcastic]

When Deron got traded he wasn't headed on a flight to Brooklyn.. he was headed on a flight to Newark.

I wish this forum had a search function SO bad because I can remember countless threads where Sarcastic bashed the Nets saying Melo would never go to NJ over NYC because Newark is such a shitty city. And what do you know.. look what happened?:oldlol:

That's why I said "will be".

I never said Melo would "never" sign with the Nets. I know this because I feared he would, and I was one of the people that was willing and happy to give up every piece possible to get him.

I said his first choice was the Knicks, because they are the more established franchise in NY, and will always be so.

[tpols]

Quick, name three non-Knicks players other than Reggie Miller who are known for having had 'big games' in MSG.

...
...
...

Yes, none.
Reggie Miller
Michael Jordan
Kobe Bryant

Before every game, reporters will swarm these guys about breaking scoring records in MSG. But they dont do it anywhere else. Why is that?

You couldn't name me three arenas that three small market teams play in.. dont even bother responding because its too easy to google.

[gasolina]

Quick, name three non-Knicks players other than Reggie Miller who are known for having had 'big games' in MSG.

...
...
...

Yes, none.
Is this serious? Didn't Kobe, Wade, and Lebron all had big games in consecutive nights at MSG a couple of years ago?

[DMAVS41]

Reggie Miller
Michael Jordan
Kobe Bryant

Before every game, reporters will swarm these guys about breaking scoring records in MSG. But they dont do it anywhere else. Why is that?

You couldn't name me three arenas that three small market teams play in.. dont even bother responding because its too easy to google.

I honestly can't believe people truly believe that certain franchises don't have inherent advantages.

Its mind boggling.

[gasolina]

I don't even understand why people are disputing DMAVS claim that big market teams have an advantage.... :confusedshrug:

I went ahead and nerdified Sarcastic's favorite site "Forbes: and compiled the average player costs of six teams for the past 10 years.

1. Knicks - $96M
2. Lakers - $73M
3. Bucks - $65M
4. Spurs - $63M
5. Suns - $61M
6. Hornets - $56

Don't you think someone who can spend $96M every year for 10 years have an advantage against someone who could only spend $56M? To top it off, the Knicks earned money during those 10 years, even while sucking.

Now before people go "Look at the Spurs! Proof that big markets doesn't matter". That's beside the point, the Spurs are good because for the better part of 10 years they've drafted good, spent wisely. Can you imagine how great the Spurs would be if they had a market like N.Y. and be able to spend close to $100M every year? They'd probably have Dwight, Wade, Kobe, Paul and Amare locked up for 7 years at $10M each and win every year.

[Joey Zaza]

I am getting really lost here.

Someone please fill in these blanks for me so I can catch up

The Big Market Team's Inherent Advantage is______

The proof of this advantage is________________

The NBA's efforts to curtail this advantage have failed because ________
\

And here's a fair deal, people who think its unfair to raise the dominance of the Spurs are barred from raising the LAL. Otherwise, both teams can be used as examples fo big/small market success.

[tpols]

The Big Market Team's Inherent Advantage is_ they have larger fanbases, national exposure, popularity which can be very attractive to superstars who want to play in that type of environment.

The proof of this advantage is_ tons of superstars over the past couple of decades going to big market teams either through draft demands or FA making those teams dynasties.. Shaq, Kareem, Magic, Kobe, Wilt all going to LA through a personal preference.. Dwight announcing he might leave Orlando for LA.. talks of a big 3 in NY with CP3, Melo and Amare... it goes on and on and on. Then of course you get the fact that many superstars have left their small market/shitty teams and cities to go play in the limelight[virtually all of my above examples started off in small markets or were going to end up there].

The NBA's efforts to curtail this advantage have failed because _ there's nothing you can do to limit the attractiveness of a city/franchise. Their location, history, and prestige is unchangeable by enforcing any rules.

[Rab]

I am getting really lost here.

Someone please fill in these blanks for me so I can catch up

The Big Market Team's Inherent Advantage is more and more players want to team up with other stars in bigger or better markets than the one's they are in. Smaller market teams are forced to overspend on mediocre talent to keep their stars happy.

The proof of this advantage is Larger market teams are able to spend and still turn a profit regardless of team success, whereas smaller markets can get burried for years.

The NBA's efforts to curtail this advantage have failed because there is nothing in the CBA that helps prevent it. This is part of the reason we are where we are.
\

And here's a fair deal, people who think its unfair to raise the dominance of the Spurs are barred from raising the LAL. Otherwise, both teams can be used as examples fo big/small market success.

It's completely fair to bring up the Spurs, but I would consider them more of the exception to the rule than anything. Not every team lands a top 2 or 3 PF in the history of the game. The Spurs were always able to keep their stars and constantly chew up and spit out role players on the cheap to put around them. It's rare, and it's rare because no other market seems to be able to do it.

[Joey Zaza]

Since '99, which small market superstar left to go to a big team? We can use 'Melo. Anyone else? Can't use Amare/Booz they were offered more money by teams under the cap.

We really can't use Paul/Howard until they actually leave their teams and go to this Big Market.

[Kurosawa0]

It's completely fair to bring up the Spurs, but I would consider them more of the exception to the rule than anything. Not every team lands a top 2 or 3 PF in the history of the game. The Spurs were always able to keep their stars and constantly chew up and spit out role players on the cheap to put around them. It's rare, and it's rare because no other market seems to be able to do it.

Of course it's unreasonable to ask small market teams to luck into a Tim Duncan, but what separates San Antonio with Duncan from say Minnesota with KG is that they made smart moves after the fact. That's the issue. So much of the problem with this debate is that a lot gets solved if Drew Gooden isn't getting $30 million contracts. If teams tried to build through financial prudence and really working the draft then so many of the problems would be lessened. There's always going to be bad teams, but that doesn't mean you tear down the teams that want to spend so that poorly run teams can reset the scoreboard.

[longtime lurker]

I don't even understand why people are disputing DMAVS claim that big market teams have an advantage.... :confusedshrug:

I went ahead and nerdified Sarcastic's favorite site "Forbes: and compiled the average player costs of six teams for the past 10 years.

1. Knicks - $96M
2. Lakers - $73M
3. Bucks - $65M
4. Spurs - $63M
5. Suns - $61M
6. Hornets - $56

Don't you think someone who can spend $96M every year for 10 years have an advantage against someone who could only spend $56M? To top it off, the Knicks earned money during those 10 years, even while sucking.

Now before people go "Look at the Spurs! Proof that big markets doesn't matter". That's beside the point, the Spurs are good because for the better part of 10 years they've drafted good, spent wisely. Can you imagine how great the Spurs would be if they had a market like N.Y. and be able to spend close to $100M every year? They'd probably have Dwight, Wade, Kobe, Paul and Amare locked up for 7 years at $10M each and win every year.

So we have 2 big market teams and 4 small market teams in the top 6 in spending over the last 10 years. LA and San Antonio have 7 championships between them in the last ten years. While the rest of account for 0 combined. It seems to me that having Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant has more to do with success than spending spending or market size. New York is proof that market size and spending don't make such a huge difference or they would have done a hell of a lot more in the past 10 years.

[DMAVS41]

Since '99, which small market superstar left to go to a big team? We can use 'Melo. Anyone else? Can't use Amare/Booz they were offered more money by teams under the cap.

We really can't use Paul/Howard until they actually leave their teams and go to this Big Market.

bosh/lebron

and if you don't think the NY market had anything to do with amare leaving you are just being stubborn. same with boozer.

the raptors have lost carter, tmac, and bosh within the decade....lol

[Rab]

Since '99, which small market superstar left to go to a big team? We can use 'Melo. Anyone else? Can't use Amare/Booz they were offered more money by teams under the cap.

We really can't use Paul/Howard until they actually leave their teams and go to this Big Market.
That wasn't an issue back then. This is the trend that is happening now, and that small market teams are wanting to prevent.

Melo used the leverage. The Jazz traded D-Will before he could use that leverage against them. We saw what the Heat did. Of course, Miami isn't a large market, but there is a market appeal there. Howard has announced there is already a pretty good chance he'll bounce, and you know it won't be to the Bucks or Cavs. We'll see how it plays out with D-Will, Howard, and Paul this year, but in my opinion, they're cut from the same cloth as LeBron, Bosh, Wade, and Melo.

I think you can absolutely use Amar'e in this scenario. The Suns simply didn't want to guarantee that kind of money over that many years to him because of the fear it would cripple the franchise. The appeal of NY and the financial flexibility NY had were certainly an appeal to him.

Booz I agree you can't use because the Jazz didn't want him back anyway

[Kurosawa0]

the raptors have lost carter, tmac, and bosh within the decade....lol

That would certainly have more to do with the state of the Raptors than big markets stealing them. Since the Raptors drafted Chris Bosh in 2003 they had the chance to draft at least a few of Andre Iguodala, Andrew Bynum, LaMarcus Aldridge, Brandon Roy or Rudy Gay. If they make a few more of the right moves, maybe Bosh doesn't leave or at least they could've done more when he was there.

[B]

I am getting really lost here.

Someone please fill in these blanks for me so I can catch up

The Big Market Team's Inherent Advantage is______

The proof of this advantage is________________

The NBA's efforts to curtail this advantage have failed because ________


1.Opportunities beyond basketball. Higher profile market.
2. The movie Shazam
3. They actually made the movie Shazam

[Kevin_Gamble]

Is this serious? Didn't Kobe, Wade, and Lebron all had big games in consecutive nights at MSG a couple of years ago?

I'm pretty sure Kobe, Wade, and Lebron have far more memorable games than beating the Knicks of the last decade.

[Kevin_Gamble]

[QUOTE=B

[DMAVS41]

That would certainly have more to do with the state of the Raptors than big markets stealing them. Since the Raptors drafted Chris Bosh in 2003 they had the chance to draft at least a few of Andre Iguodala, Andrew Bynum, LaMarcus Aldridge, Brandon Roy or Rudy Gay. If they make a few more of the right moves, maybe Bosh doesn't leave or at least they could've done more when he was there.

of course. but that is part of the issue. if teams with more resources and a desirable location miss in the draft, they can buy players. look at what cuban has done. he got dirk in the draft and then basically has bought every player we've gotten since.

if some of those guys were on bigger market teams, more resources would have been spent on getting in quality players with the chances of an elite free agent actually wanting to play there. if bosh had been on the knicks, people would have wanted to go join him in NY.....nobody was thinking about joining bosh in Toronto.

Wonder why....

[Joey Zaza]

That wasn't an issue back then. This is the trend that is happening now, and that small market teams are wanting to prevent.

Melo used the leverage. The Jazz traded D-Will before he could use that leverage against them. We saw what the Heat did. Of course, Miami isn't a large market, but there is a market appeal there. Howard has announced there is already a pretty good chance he'll bounce, and you know it won't be to the Bucks or Cavs. We'll see how it plays out with D-Will, Howard, and Paul this year, but in my opinion, they're cut from the same cloth as LeBron, Bosh, Wade, and Melo.

I think you can absolutely use Amar'e in this scenario. The Suns simply didn't want to guarantee that kind of money over that many years to him because of the fear it would cripple the franchise. The appeal of NY and the financial flexibility NY had were certainly an appeal to him.

Booz I agree you can't use because the Jazz didn't want him back anyway

So the trend is maybe Howard. D.Will and Paul wil lgoto a big market and the Knicks were willing to risk more than the Suns. That's the trend. After 13 years of players basically staying home and Nash choosing Phx over dall, you've got 3 maybe's, 1 guy taking more money, and 2 players wanting warm weather.

Not buying it as a trend.

[Joey Zaza]

if some of those guys were on bigger market teams, more resources would have been spent on getting in quality players with the chances of an elite free agent actually wanting to play there. if bosh had been on the knicks, people would have wanted to go join him in NY.....nobody was thinking about joining bosh in Toronto.

Wonder why....

Cause Cleve didn't spend while LBJ was there.

[Rab]

Cause Cleve didn't spend while LBJ was there.
Huge Larry Hughes contract, $20 mill on Shaq. They consistently had a huge payroll when LeBron was there.

[Kevin_Gamble]

of course. but that is part of the issue. if teams with more resources and a desirable location miss in the draft, they can buy players. look at what cuban has done. he got dirk in the draft and then basically has bought every player we've gotten since.

if some of those guys were on bigger market teams, more resources would have been spent on getting in quality players with the chances of an elite free agent actually wanting to play there. if bosh had been on the knicks, people would have wanted to go join him in NY.....nobody was thinking about joining bosh in Toronto.

Wonder why....

So now it's not, a big market team can buy any player it wants, but a big market team can buy any player it wants AFTER it drafts a superstar? I really really would like to know how anyone can insist on believing in this nonsense.

[Kevin_Gamble]

Huge Larry Hughes contract, $20 mill on Shaq. They consistently had a huge payroll when LeBron was there.

Now how did a small market team do that, in spite of this overwhelming financial disadvantage?

[Kurosawa0]

of course. but that is part of the issue. if teams with more resources and a desirable location miss in the draft, they can buy players. look at what cuban has done. he got dirk in the draft and then basically has bought every player we've gotten since.

if some of those guys were on bigger market teams, more resources would have been spent on getting in quality players with the chances of an elite free agent actually wanting to play there. if bosh had been on the knicks, people would have wanted to go join him in NY.....nobody was thinking about joining bosh in Toronto.

Wonder why....

Now I do agree that there needs to be a cap set on how ridiculous the spending can get. I don't think the Lakers or the Mavs' model should be allowed. At some point, spending has to be stopped. Teams shouldn't just be allowed to add salary upon salary every year. That isn't fair either.

See, the difference is that the owners seem to have wanted or do want a system that completely tears down the old one and replaces it with a very restrictive one. I just think the current one needs to be tinkered with, not completely rebuilt. If owners like Cuban want to spend, they should be able to. There also should be a limit other than a simple luxury tax.

[B]

And now that Rick Fox and Shaq have become huge Hollywood stars every single NBA player wants to move to LA. I guess that's a fact in this fantasy world where Miami is a glamorous international city on par with NY and London, and big market teams are signing every single basketball player under the sun.

Actually Miami is very much a top destination for the rich famous and powerful


Miami is a major center and a leader in finance, commerce, culture, media, entertainment, the arts, and international trade.[13][14] In 2010, Miami ranked seventh in the United States in terms of finance, commerce, culture, entertainment, fashion, education, and other sectors. It ranked thirty-third among global cities.[15] In 2008, Forbes magazine ranked Miami "America's Cleanest City", for its year-round good air quality, vast green spaces, clean drinking water, clean streets and city-wide recycling programs.[16] According to a 2009 UBS study of 73 world cities, Miami was ranked as the richest city in the United States, and the world's fifth-richest city in terms of purchasing power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami


oh look number 3 on the list
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2011/06/24/top-10-glamorous-list-destinations/

Oh yeah Ron Artest and Lamar Odom among others say hi from Hollywood

[Rab]

Now how did a small market team do that, in spite of this overwhelming financial disadvantage?
I've said this before. Small market teams can do it for short periods of time, but as was seen in Cleveland, they paid extreme amounts of money for bad talent for fear of LeBron walking, and it left them in shambles. Same thing will happen in Orlando.

[Kurosawa0]

Some of you may enjoy this. Couldn't resist with the title of the thread -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhUNrpX8Rx4

[DMAVS41]

Cause Cleve didn't spend while LBJ was there.

What? They consistently spent money...they just made poor decisions and could never seem to quite get that other secondary player.

Gilbert spent a lot of money on those teams.

[B]

I've said this before. Small market teams can do it for short periods of time, but as was seen in Cleveland, they paid extreme amounts of money for bad talent for fear of LeBron walking, and it left them in shambles. Same thing will happen in Orlando. Good point. What you're saying is teams with more access to cash from being in a more attractive market place can reload faster.

[DMAVS41]

So now it's not, a big market team can buy any player it wants, but a big market team can buy any player it wants AFTER it drafts a superstar? I really really would like to know how anyone can insist on believing in this nonsense.

i honestly don't know what to tell you. if you have more money and a desirable franchise/location....if you miss in the draft...you can recover more quickly.

just like if you hit in the draft...you can build around them more easily. it doesn't mean every time...but the resources and advantages are there to build a better team.

everyone keeps using the spurs as the small market example. but what if duncan had gone to the celtics instead. and then the celtics find a way to surround duncan with better teams than the spurs did at times. maybe duncan wins 7 titles. who knows....but its possible given their desirable franchise and ability to spend more.

[B]

i honestly don't know what to tell you. if you have more money and a desirable franchise/location....if you miss in the draft...you can recover more quickly.

just like if you hit in the draft...you can build around them more easily. it doesn't mean every time...but the resources and advantages are there to build a better team.

everyone keeps using the spurs as the small market example. but what if duncan had gone to the celtics instead. and then the celtics find a way to surround duncan with better teams than the spurs did at times. maybe duncan wins 7 titles. who knows....but its possible given their desirable franchise and ability to spend more.
Remember you're arguing with a guy who says it's not the fans that pays the players salaries because once you spend the money on tickets or NBA gear it's not yours anymore.
:roll:

[Sarcastic]

http://wagesofwins.net/2011/08/10/nba-owners-do-not-understand-competitive-balance/

[QUOTE]NBA Owners Do Not Understand Competitive Balance
Posted on August 10, 2011 by dberri 27

In the July 25th edition of Sports Illustrated we saw the following statement (from a story about Derek Fisher and the NBA labor dispute):
The league contends that owners and players together will grow financially and thrive in competitive balance as long as the richest teams aren

[Droid101]

Of course crap teams will have lower payroll... once a season starts going bad, they'll start trading their high-priced assets for future picks and cap relief... whil the good teams absorb the money to get a little better before playoff time.

It has nothing to do with market size.

[gasolina]

So we have 2 big market teams and 4 small market teams in the top 6 in spending over the last 10 years. LA and San Antonio have 7 championships between them in the last ten years. While the rest of account for 0 combined. It seems to me that having Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant has more to do with success than spending spending or market size. New York is proof that market size and spending don't make such a huge difference or they would have done a hell of a lot more in the past 10 years.
That's not top 6 bro. I just picked 6 teams

[gasolina]

http://wagesofwins.net/2011/08/10/nba-owners-do-not-understand-competitive-balance/
And where did you get that from? A blog? :roll:

Nobody's saying market size equates to wins. All were saying is that a bigger market size gives a team more spending power and that's an advantage.

Don't understand why you relate market size to "wins" and being successful. Just because not all other big market teams were as stupid as you Knicks, you think you coul lump them all up.

Build a team with current player salaries with only $56 million to live and play in Wisconsin. I"ll build one for $96 million to live and play in Los Angeles. I'm pretty sure I can build a better team.

Don't really understand why you don't get this. Give one kid $5 and another $10 and tell them to spend all their money on a the same candy store, let's see wo gets back with the most candy.

End this MFN thread

[Joey Zaza]

And where did you get that from? A blog? :roll:

Nobody's saying market size equates to wins. All were saying is that a bigger market size gives a team more spending power and that's an advantage.

Don't understand why you relate market size to "wins" and being successful. Just because not all other big market teams were as stupid as you Knicks, you think you coul lump them all up.

Build a team with current player salaries with only $56 million to live and play in Wisconsin. I"ll build one for $96 million to live and play in Los Angeles. I'm pretty sure I can build a better team.

Don't really understand why you don't get this. Give one kid $5 and another $10 and tell them to spend all their money on a the same candy store, let's see wo gets back with the most candy.

End this MFN thread

...amd all I'm saying is that the old agreement curtailed those advantages so that the Big Market teams couldn't use those advantages to dominate..ad evidenced by the fact that small markets did just fine since '99 (and its not just SA - Sac, Indy, NJN, Minn, Mil, Grizz, all had good stretches in the last 13 years).

[gasolina]

...amd all I'm saying is that the old agreement curtailed those advantages so that the Big Market teams couldn't use those advantages to dominate..ad evidenced by the fact that small markets did just fine since '99 (and its not just SA - Sac, Indy, NJN, Minn, Mil, Grizz, all had good stretches in the last 13 years).
I wouldn't call a team "doing fine" if they were losing money almost every year. In fact, Indiana was losing money even during the reggie miller days.

I can't believe the double standard here in this board. You guys point out how no big market team other than the Lakers have won a championship since 99, yet you claim the good "stretches" of small market teams is "fine"?

How many times have the grizzlies been in the playoffs? How about Dallas?

[pmj]

I wouldn't call a team "doing fine" if they were losing money almost every year. In fact, Indiana was losing money even during the reggie miller days.

I can't believe the double standard here in this board. You guys point out how no big market team other than the Lakers have won a championship since 99, yet you claim the good "stretches" of small market teams is "fine"?

How many times have the grizzlies been in the playoffs? How about Dallas?

The point of the thread is that big markets don't really have a COMPETITIVE advantage.

You can't just point out one historically crappy team like the Grizz and compare it to another, that's anecdotal evidence. Look at the stats across the board.

Will smaller markets always find it harder to make money? Yes.

The main way that is solved is by revenue sharing, like in the NFL, NHL, MLB. The NBA has the worst revenue sharing. If a team still can't be profitable after they adjust revenue sharing to be more in line with other leagues (which they're supposed to be), then you have to question whether a franchise in certain places is sustainable.

[Sarcastic]

And where did you get that from? A blog? :roll:

Nobody's saying market size equates to wins. All were saying is that a bigger market size gives a team more spending power and that's an advantage.

Don't understand why you relate market size to "wins" and being successful. Just because not all other big market teams were as stupid as you Knicks, you think you coul lump them all up.

Build a team with current player salaries with only $56 million to live and play in Wisconsin. I"ll build one for $96 million to live and play in Los Angeles. I'm pretty sure I can build a better team.

Don't really understand why you don't get this. Give one kid $5 and another $10 and tell them to spend all their money on a the same candy store, let's see wo gets back with the most candy.

End this MFN thread

Of course. Attack the source. Don't debate the facts. Why should I expect anything less.


http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32841/the-payroll-and-competitive-balance-myth

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/1026/nba_g_payroll_sy_576.jpg


[QUOTE]Here is an updated chart of the best drafting teams and the worst drafting teams over the past decade, along with their winning percentage and dollars spent over that time. Also, it is color-coded to make visualizing the data easier (greater the number, greener the cell).

What do we find? New Orleans, San Antonio and Cleveland have done the most with the draft over the past decade. The Hornets built a perennial playoff team on the cheap by picking Chris Paul at No. 4 and finding an All-Star at No. 18 in David West. They squeezed out 18.5 wins above what we

[Sarcastic]

The point of the thread is that big markets don't really have a COMPETITIVE advantage.

You can't just point out one historically crappy team like the Grizz and compare it to another, that's anecdotal evidence. Look at the stats across the board.

Will smaller markets always find it harder to make money? Yes.

The main way that is solved is by revenue sharing, like in the NFL, NHL, MLB. The NBA has the worst revenue sharing. If a team still can't be profitable after they adjust revenue sharing to be more in line with other leagues (which they're supposed to be), then you have to question whether a franchise in certain places is sustainable.


Basically. Remember every big market team is like the Lakers, but the lowly Spurs were just super duper lucky to catch lightning in a bottle. :violin:

[gasolina]

The point of the thread is that big markets don't really have a COMPETITIVE advantage.
Won't having more money give you a competitive advantage? Given the fact that you have to PAY players? :facepalm

And I agree, market doesn't correlate to wins, but to completely ignore the fact that the Lakers, Knicks, and Mavs has more money to spend than the rest of the league, and not treat that as an an advantage, is just idiotic.

[Sarcastic]

Won't having more money give you a competitive advantage? Given the fact that you have to PAY players? :facepalm

And I agree, market doesn't correlate to wins, but to completely ignore the fact that the Lakers, Knicks, and Mavs has more money to spend than the rest of the league, and not treat that as an an advantage, is just idiotic.

I am an advocate for more revenue sharing. Should be 1 league, not 30 teams.

[gasolina]

I am an advocate for more revenue sharing. Should be 1 league, not 30 teams.
Why are you pro-revenue sharing then?

[DMAVS41]

Its really not hard.

There is an advantage to some franchises....just a fact. Now, whether or not those advantages or taken advantage of or how important they become over time is up for debate.

But this is about winning titles for those smaller market teams. That is what they said in 06 when they signed the petition and that is what they are saying now. Those teams feel like they just don't have the same chance to challenge for titles....and I agree.

And also, the points about management are very good. Management is the most important factor for success...totally agree. However, what you can't discount is that its harder to manage a team with less money and a less desirable market/location....

Can it be done? Of course, but its harder. We can't ignore the real possibility that some of the owners/gm's of these teams with inherent disadvantages are actually very good at what they do, but its the circumstances that impact the decisions they make at times.

You have to look at this more with an open mind. It can't just be good vs bad management. So much goes into facilitating certain management decisions. Which once again brings us back to the simple fact that every team is not on the same playing field....and it impacts everything. Its just too narrow minded to think otherwise.

[Sarcastic]

Why are you pro-revenue sharing then?

Because I think all 30 shareholders of NBA stock should get roughly the same dividend. They are only competitors against each other on the court. As a business they are all one and the same, and shouldn't compete with each for market share. What's good for Memphis, should be good for NY, should be good for San Antonio, etc, etc.

Maybe some of the shareholders in states with higher taxes like NY, and California should get a little more than the shareholders in Texas or Florida since they have a lighter tax burden.

[Joey Zaza]

So when a big market wins a title, its just the one big market properly using its advantage. When a small market wins a title, its a lucky chance that they got the one-good player.

got it.

Here's news for everyone, if we've leanred anything from the title-winning teams of the last 60 years....the way to be a title-caliber team is by getting a great player. Usually the team drafts and keeps that player. The way to win a title is by having a great player and getting a bunch of good bounces.

As far as I can see, the only proof of this big market advantage is the LAL, which is perfectly ocuntered by SA. WELL SA DRAFTED A GREAT PLAYER. So do the LAL. SA WAS WELL BUILT AROUND HIM. So did the LAL. No one choose to go to LA because its LA (since '99).

BUT THEY HAVE MORE MONEY!!!!

Yeah, but there is a cap. All teams can only spend so much.

BUT PLAYERS FLOCK TO THE BIG MARKETS! Proof --- please proof aside from the threat of Deron, Howard, and Paul leaving.

BUT BIG MARKETS HAVE MORE MONEY!!! They can only spend so much.

BIG MARKETS CAN DOMINATE!!! ONE (1) Big market has dominated for the last 12 years and so has one small market. Most of the big markets have been between ok and sh!tty.

ITS UNFAIR BIG MARKET BIG MARKET BIG MARKET....ITS A FACT BIG MARKET.

Its a fallacy. There is no objective evidence of the Big Markets asserting any edge during under the 99 CBA.

[DMAVS41]

So when a big market wins a title, its just the one big market properly using its advantage. When a small market wins a title, its a lucky chance that they got the one-good player.

got it.

Here's news for everyone, if we've leanred anything from the title-winning teams of the last 60 years....the way to be a title-caliber team is by getting a great player. Usually the team drafts and keeps that player. The way to win a title is by having a great player and getting a bunch of good bounces.

As far as I can see, the only proof of this big market advantage is the LAL, which is perfectly ocuntered by SA. WELL SA DRAFTED A GREAT PLAYER. So do the LAL. SA WAS WELL BUILT AROUND HIM. So did the LAL. No one choose to go to LA because its LA (since '99).

BUT THEY HAVE MORE MONEY!!!!

Yeah, but there is a cap. All teams can only spend so much.

BUT PLAYERS FLOCK TO THE BIG MARKETS! Proof --- please proof aside from the threat of Deron, Howard, and Paul leaving.

BUT BIG MARKETS HAVE MORE MONEY!!! They can only spend so much.

BIG MARKETS CAN DOMINATE!!! ONE (1) Big market has dominated for the last 12 years and so has one small market. Most of the big markets have been between ok and sh!tty.

ITS UNFAIR BIG MARKET BIG MARKET BIG MARKET....ITS A FACT BIG MARKET.

Its a fallacy. There is no objective evidence of the Big Markets asserting any edge during under the 99 CBA.

wait....what?

there is no cap effectively.....you can go into the luxury tax and spend whatever you want really.

this era? shaq left for the lakers...changing the landscape of the nba. kobe forced his way to the lakers in the draft...changing the landscape after refusing to play for the nets....or at least his agent said enough to scare coach cal from away.

the raptors have lost three potential franchise players....or at least 3 high quality players. the cavs lost one of the best players ever. melo forced his way out. the jazz traded deron in fear.

kg/allen joined up on the celtics...a big market team.

paul and howard are about to leave.

cuban basically bought his team.....the mavs have actually had poor management on the whole...cuban has just spent his way out of trouble. again, one of the many advantages of having more money.

why do these big name players continue to go to desirable franchises in bigger markets? if its a non factor, why isn't dwight howard talking about going to the hornets? why isn't paul talking about staying and recruiting. same with lebron/bosh? melo?

why do all these guys want to go and play in bigger markets if it means nothing and its not an advantage?

why are all these owners constantly complaining about these advantages if they don't exist?

wake up please.

[Sarcastic]

wait....what?

there is no cap effectively.....you can go into the luxury tax and spend whatever you want really.



You don't really believe this, do you?

[Joey Zaza]

there is no cap effectively.....you can go into the luxury tax and spend whatever you want really..

We all know this isn't true. Under the post-99 rules, there is a limit to the size of the contract you can give out (i.e. the max contract). The home team can always offer more. Also, of course there's a cap. You can keep signing your own guys for more and use the mid-level, but no matter how big NY is, when they were over the cap, they could not sign stars to contracts.


this era? shaq left for the lakers...changing the landscape of the nba.

That was pre-99 agreement.


kobe forced his way to the lakers in the draft...changing the landscape after refusing to play for the nets....or at least his agent said enough to scare coach cal from away.

Much like Francis forced his way to (big market?) Houston.


the raptors have lost three potential franchise players....or at least 3 high quality players.

T-Mac, who left because he wanted minutes. Carter, who was traded and forced his way tooooo a small market. Bosh, who left a medium market for a medium market.


the cavs lost one of the best players ever.

Medium market to medium market


melo forced his way out.

True.


the jazz traded deron in fear.

Not a big market/small market thing...a sick of Utah thing.


kg/allen joined up on the celtics...a big market team.

Yes...they were TRADED to the Celtics. Neither of them asked for the Celts. They may have they asked to leave their current-bad-environments...but they didn't ask for Celts.


paul and howard are about to leave.

Yeah...but we don't know where. And if the big market edge is money, look at what NO and Orl have spent to keep these guys happy. BIG MARKET MONEY.


cuban basically bought his team.....the mavs have actually had poor management on the whole...cuban has just spent his way out of trouble. again, one of the many advantages of having more money.

Traded for Marion (he had worn out his wlecome everywhere else), traded for Kidd, traded for Terry (and kept him) signed a TC that no one else wanted...and scouted Europe. Totally bought that team.


why do these big name players continue to go to desirable franchises in bigger markets? if its a non factor, why isn't dwight howard talking about going to the hornets? why isn't paul talking about staying and recruiting. same with lebron/bosh? melo?

Seems like alot of them were traded. Those that left on purporse chose markets for a number of factors...size appears to be the least of them.


why do all these guys want to go and play in bigger markets if it means nothing and its not an advantage?

Lets count the guys who chose to go to bigger markets...Assuming the Kobe story that we've never found out the truth on is true, I'll give you him. I'll also give you melo. That's 2. 2 in 13 years. OMG ITS A TREND!!!


why are all these owners constantly complaining about these advantages if they don't exist?


Because small market owners seem to be complaining about everything.


wake up please.

Exactly

[Sarcastic]

I take exception to the "Melo forced his way out" comment. The Knicks more than compensated the Nuggets for Carmelo Anthony. Forcing his way out would mean he gave them an ultimatum or "trade me or else" which he never did. He continued to play basketball for them. Had he sat down and said he will never suit up for Denver again, then you can say he forced his way out. He played there for over 7.5 years. He was about to become a free agent, which is HIS RIGHT. Teams don't get the rights to a player forever. Eventually they have to be given a chance at free agency. This has been fought at the Supreme Court level. Just because a team drafts a player 8 years ago, doesn't mean they get to benefit from him forever. The fact that they got any pieces at all for him, let alone draining the Knicks of almost all their assets, shows that he didn't "force" his way out.

[Joey Zaza]

I take exception to the "Melo forced his way out" comment. The Knicks more than compensated the Nuggets for Carmelo Anthony. Forcing his way out would mean he gave them an ultimatum or "trade me or else" which he never did. He continued to play basketball for them. Had he sat down and said he will never suit up for Denver again, then you can say he forced his way out. He played there for over 7.5 years. He was about to become a free agent, which is HIS RIGHT. Teams don't get the rights to a player forever. Eventually they have to be given a chance at free agency. This has been fought at the Supreme Court level. Just because a team drafts a player 8 years ago, doesn't mean they get to benefit from him forever. The fact that they got any pieces at all for him, let alone draining the Knicks of almost all their assets, shows that he didn't "force" his way out.

Right, but the Big Market edge people need someone to support their argument that players are flocking to Big Markets. Melo is the one who recently left for a market size upgrade. They have so few examples, I'm not gonna nitpick the one they've got.

[Sarcastic]

Right, but the Big Market edge people need someone to support their argument that players are flocking to Big Markets. Melo is the one who recently left for a market size upgrade. They have so few examples, I'm not gonna nitpick the one they've got.

Not only that. He was BORN in NY. His wife is FROM NY. I am sure she was whispering in his ear that she wanted to go back to NY rather than stay in Denver. I am sure that played a big factor.

[DMAVS41]

We all know this isn't true. Under the post-99 rules, there is a limit to the size of the contract you can give out (i.e. the max contract). The home team can always offer more. Also, of course there's a cap. You can keep signing your own guys for more and use the mid-level, but no matter how big NY is, when they were over the cap, they could not sign stars to contracts.



That was pre-99 agreement.



Much like Francis forced his way to (big market?) Houston.



T-Mac, who left because he wanted minutes. Carter, who was traded and forced his way tooooo a small market. Bosh, who left a medium market for a medium market.



Medium market to medium market



True.



Not a big market/small market thing...a sick of Utah thing.



Yes...they were TRADED to the Celtics. Neither of them asked for the Celts. They may have they asked to leave their current-bad-environments...but they didn't ask for Celts.



Yeah...but we don't know where. And if the big market edge is money, look at what NO and Orl have spent to keep these guys happy. BIG MARKET MONEY.



Traded for Marion (he had worn out his wlecome everywhere else), traded for Kidd, traded for Terry (and kept him) signed a TC that no one else wanted...and scouted Europe. Totally bought that team.



Seems like alot of them were traded. Those that left on purporse chose markets for a number of factors...size appears to be the least of them.



Lets count the guys who chose to go to bigger markets...Assuming the Kobe story that we've never found out the truth on is true, I'll give you him. I'll also give you melo. That's 2. 2 in 13 years. OMG ITS A TREND!!!




Because small market owners seem to be complaining about everything.



Exactly


i will say it again...its not just the size of the market. when we say big market...we mean desirable as well.

nobody in the ****ing world wants to live in cleveland over miami. wake the **** up dude.

nobody wants to play in milwaukee over NY, Dallas, Miami, Boston, La....

those are ****ing advantages....so is having a 100 million dollar payroll vs a 50 million dollar payroll.

i like that there are advantages to the bigger markets because its better for the game. no casual fans give a crap about any of the small market teams. its why the spurs vs cavs finals set the league back in 07. nobody watched....and you had probably the most exciting player in the league facing off against one of the 8 best players all time. did anyone care enough to watch? nope.

i'm done with this thread.

you can bump it when star players start forcing trades to small market teams and big time free agents start choosing the bucks and hornets over the knicks and lakers.

and you can bump it when small market teams start winning titles consistently.

good luck.

[Joey Zaza]

and you can bump it when small market teams start winning titles consistently.



That is small market teams or medium market teams that are not in desireable locations---other than SA...like Detroit.

[Sarcastic]

No one was forcing their way to NY when Isiah was the GM of the Knicks, just like no one forces their way to the Clippers. When the Knicks got Donnie Walsh, that's when the Knicks started looking like a brighter place to be.

The management and direction of a team are more critical than the actual location of the team. If the Bucks or Bobcats went out and hired Jerry West or Donnie Walsh, I bet they would be more attractive places to play.

[NuggetsFan]

I take exception to the "Melo forced his way out" comment. The Knicks more than compensated the Nuggets for Carmelo Anthony. Forcing his way out would mean he gave them an ultimatum or "trade me or else" which he never did. He continued to play basketball for them. Had he sat down and said he will never suit up for Denver again, then you can say he forced his way out. He played there for over 7.5 years. He was about to become a free agent, which is HIS RIGHT. Teams don't get the rights to a player forever. Eventually they have to be given a chance at free agency. This has been fought at the Supreme Court level. Just because a team drafts a player 8 years ago, doesn't mean they get to benefit from him forever. The fact that they got any pieces at all for him, let alone draining the Knicks of almost all their assets, shows that he didn't "force" his way out.

Melo did force himself out. I have no problem with it because he played for us for a long time. Don't kid yourself tho, Melo wanted out and he wanted to go to NY. Market played a huuuuuge role too, I'd say the only role actually. He wouldn't sign the extension with Denver. Period. He helped Denver like crazy so probably a bad example of a guy forcing his way out.

Do you not realize why NY had to give up so much for him? Not because of Denver but because of Melo. Melo wasn't hitting FA. If he did he could stand to lose alot of money with the lockout coming. If it was any other year he would have been traded for peanuts .. similar to a Vince Carter deal. Probably would have got back Chandler + a future 1st or something. Melo wanted NY but also wanted to get his extension. That's the only reason Denver had leverage.

The teams he listed for trade were NY, Houston, L.A Clippers, NJ. NY being the obvious number 1.

[DJ Leon Smith]

Lets count the guys who chose to go to bigger markets...Assuming the Kobe story that we've never found out the truth on is true, I'll give you him. I'll also give you melo. That's 2. 2 in 13 years. OMG ITS A TREND!!!

Now list the franchise players who left a big market team for a mid/small market team. Go.

[Sarcastic]

Melo did force himself out. I have no problem with it because he played for us for a long time. Don't kid yourself tho, Melo wanted out and he wanted to go to NY. Market played a huuuuuge role too, I'd say the only role actually. He wouldn't sign the extension with Denver. Period. He helped Denver like crazy so probably a bad example of a guy forcing his way out.

Do you not realize why NY had to give up so much for him? Not because of Denver but because of Melo. Melo wasn't hitting FA. If he did he could stand to lose alot of money with the lockout coming. If it was any other year he would have been traded for peanuts .. similar to a Vince Carter deal. Probably would have got back Chandler + a future 1st or something. Melo wanted NY but also wanted to get his extension. That's the only reason Denver had leverage.

The teams he listed for trade were NY, Houston, L.A Clippers, NJ. NY being the obvious number 1.

Forcing your way out is what Albert Haynesworth did. He literally refused to practice or play. Melo didn't do anything like that at all. He was going to be a free agent, and was going to have his choice for next team. All 3 parties wanted something. NY wanted Melo, Denver wanted as much as they could get for a soon to be free agent, and Melo wanted $$$ and to play in NY. They reached an amicable decision, and all parties should be happy of the outcome.

Again, teams don't have rights to players for infinity. The reserve clause has already been fought at the Supreme Court. The Seattle Mariners didn't get compensation for Alex Rodriguez when he signed with Texas. When a player becomes a free agent, they have their say where they want to play.

[Sarcastic]

Now list the franchise players who left a big market team for a mid/small market team. Go.

Shaq to Miami from LA.
Barkley to Phoenix from Philly.
Elton Brand to Philly from LA. - Philly is not a small market, but it's smaller than LA.
Allen Iverson to Denver from Philly.

[NuggetsFan]

Forcing your way out is what Albert Haynesworth did. He literally refused to practice or play. Melo didn't do anything like that at all. He was going to be a free agent, and was going to have his choice for next team. All 3 parties wanted something. NY wanted Melo, Denver wanted as much as they could get for a soon to be free agent, and Melo wanted $$$ and to play in NY. They reached an amicable decision, and all parties should be happy of the outcome.

Again, teams don't have rights to players for infinity. The reserve clause has already been fought at the Supreme Court. The Seattle Mariners didn't get compensation for Alex Rodriguez when he signed with Texas. When a player becomes a free agent, they have their say where they want to play.

Yeah I guess your right. I don't have any bad blood with Melo and neither does Denver I don't think. Just meant he wanted out, market had something to do with it. Forcing himself out was probably a bad choice of words.

[DJ Leon Smith]

Shaq to Miami from LA.
Barkley to Phoenix from Philly.
Elton Brand to Philly from LA. - Philly is not a small market, but it's smaller than LA.
Allen Iverson to Denver from Philly.

The fact you listed Elton Brand as a "franchise player" is hilarious. And saying Barkley going from Philly to Phoenix was a "big market" power play? And Shaq being forced out of LA was his choice? And then saying AI from Denver to Philly without mentioning Detroit! Take a bow my friend, you're in the same class as PleezeBelieve/Kobe stans/MJ stans/pauk/insert random ISH retard here.

[Sarcastic]

The fact you listed Elton Brand as a "franchise player" is hilarious. And saying Barkley going from Philly to Phoenix was a "big market" power play? And Shaq being forced out of LA was his choice? And then saying AI from Denver to Philly without mentioning Detroit! Take a bow my friend, you're in the same class as PleezeBelieve/Kobe stans/MJ stans/pauk/insert random ISH retard here.

Elton Brand was a number 1 pick, and is a pretty good player. Is he on the level of Lebron? Of course not. But he's not some average scrub though. Carlos Boozer's name gets thrown around whenever we talk about players going from small to big markets, so why can't Brand be used?

I am saying Barkley going to Phoenix was him going to another place to try to win, while he was in his prime. He won his MVP in Phoenix. Market size meant nothing. He left a big market to go to a smaller market in order to try to win.

What does Detroit have to do with AI getting traded to Denver from Philly? :confusedshrug:

[pmj]

Melo did force himself out. I have no problem with it because he played for us for a long time. Don't kid yourself tho, Melo wanted out and he wanted to go to NY. Market played a huuuuuge role too, I'd say the only role actually. He wouldn't sign the extension with Denver. Period. He helped Denver like crazy so probably a bad example of a guy forcing his way out. .

Anthony was born in the Red Hook projects in Brooklyn, New York City.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmelo_Anthony

Surely this has NOTHING to do with it.

[longtime lurker]

I remember during the Shaq trade there were a couple of teams that he was willing to be traded too. Some of them were small markets like Orlando and Atlanta. It's funny no one brings up the fact that Shaq forced his way out of the biggest market to a smaller market. Funny