Lockout talk: "Small markets can't compete"

[bagelred]

Spurs vs. Thunder :coleman:

Another Big Lie exposed. What a scam the small market teams pulled on everyone.

Just like any Myth, if you say it often enough, people will believe it. "Small markets can't compete". Sheeple believed it.........

[Derka]

Indiana is also a potential Eastern Conference Finals team. Teams from Memphis, Orlando and Utah also repped in the playoffs.

To top it all off, two of the biggest markets in the League were first round knockouts...oh, and so were the defending champs, also from a big sports area.

But dude, small markets totally don't compete. :rolleyes:

[Punpun]

I blame the media.

[Glide2keva]

So what was the lockout about again?

Imagine if The Pacers and Celtics make the ECF's. That whole small market teams can't compete crap will be blown completely out of the water. In the first playoffs after the lockout no less.

[JohnnySic]

Boston isn't a small market though.

[longtime lurker]

Peopke are idiots and will believe anything. Its even worse when I knowledgeable basketball fans buy into this.

[Punpun]

It's even more hilarious when you consider that in the past 12 years, small markets won it (Pistons, Spurs & Heat) AND the Lakers lucked out by getting Kobe out of the draft.

Heck, the only BIG franchise that won it without lucking out was the Celtics.

If you go back a lil much, you then have the Bulls lucking out.

It's freaking hilarious when you consider that one of the hugest market in the NBA (NY) hasn't won shit in 40 years.

:oldlol:

[Punpun]

In a way, you could say that KOBE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOCKOUT.

[SCdac]

I thought the saying is more so "Small markets can't compete for FA's" ... which there will probably always be a little bit of truth to.

Dallas lost Tyson Chandler to a bigger market, yet they were able to attract Vince Carter and maybe down the road Deron Williams.

Spurs managed to pick up Boris Diaw, and in the past Michael Finley when he was not far removed from being an AS, so it's not like every small market is getting the shaft from FA's.

Success in the league is more about having a well-rounded, well run, and talented team.

If there's anything we've learned since the lockout and/or the "Decision" it's that a superstar team doesn't necessarily win you everything. The Clippers for example weren't steamrolling the competition, nor are the Heat really.

[Sarcastic]

I thought the saying is more so "Small markets can't compete for FA's" ... which there will probably always be a little bit of truth to.

Dallas lost Tyson Chandler to a bigger market, yet they were able to attract Vince Carter and maybe down the road Deron Williams.

Spurs managed to pick up Boris Diaw, and in the past Michael Finley when he was not far removed from being an AS, so it's not like every small market is getting the shaft from FA's.

Success in the league is more about having a well-rounded, well run, and talented team.

If there's anything we've learned since the lockout and/or the "Decision" it's that a superstar team doesn't necessarily win you everything. The Clippers for example weren't steamrolling the competition, nor are the Heat really.

Small markets pick up free agents all the time. The only ones that they can't get are the Lebron James/Shaquille O'neals of the world, but those guys go on the market once a generation. For the most part, superstars stay with their original drafting team until they are past prime. Once their prime years are used up, they move around chasing rings, if they never won one.

[Glide2keva]

Boston isn't a small market though.
Boston IS a msall market with a population less than a million people.

[Blue&Orange]

Spurs vs. Thunder :coleman:

Another Big Lie exposed. What a scam the small market teams pulled on everyone.

Just like any Myth, if you say it often enough, people will believe it. "Small markets can't compete". Sheeple believed it.........
Well...they wanted to compete better and often.

Truth is, the last NBA champion, chose not to resign some players, even a core one, because of the new rules, and the Knicks have now serious constrains resigning his FA's and the Heat won't be able to pile up talent around the big three, etc...

[CLTHornets4eva]

:no: Many teams can't compete financially.

Referees make it hard for them to compete come late in the playoffs.

Spurs only small market team to win a Finals since the 70's. Almost 1/2 the teams are small market. Seems unfair to me.

[wagexslave]

Boston IS a msall market with a population less than a million people.
Boston sports teams' target market usually consists of the majority of New England, not just Boston...

[NumberSix]

Boston isn't a small market though.
Well, Boston is a pretty small city, but they have like 4 whole states swinging on their nuts.

[sunsfan1357]

Boston IS a msall market with a population less than a million people.
I don't think 'markets' take just a singular city into account, it speaks about whole metropolitan areas and such. I think.

[NumberSix]

Small markets are too powerful.

[RaininTwos]

Well, Boston is a pretty small city, but they have like 4 whole states swinging on their nuts.
:biggums: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Boston has always been a big city, you guys need to stop talking out of your ass.


The 366 Metropolitan Statistical Areas of the United States of America


1 New York

[NumberSix]

:biggums: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Boston has always been a big city, you guys need to stop talking out of your ass.


The 366 Metropolitan Statistical Areas of the United States of America


1 New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, NY–NJ–PA MSA19,015,900
2 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana, CA MSA 12,944,801
3 Chicago–Joliet–Naperville, IL–IN–WI MSA 9,504,753
4 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX MSA 6,526,548
5 Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown, TX MSA 6,086,538
6 Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington, PA–NJ–DE–MD MSA 5,992,414
7 Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV MSA 5,703,948
8 Miami–Fort Lauderdale–Pompano Beach, FL MSA 5,670,125
9 Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Marietta, GA MSA 5,359,205
10 Boston–Cambridge–Quincy, MA–NH MSA 4,591,112

How is 4.5 million people a small market?:facepalm
City doesn't equal market.

And no, Boston is not a big city. That 4.5 million includes multiple cities including out of state.

[RaininTwos]

City doesn't equal market.

And no, Boston is not a big city. That 4.5 million includes multiple cities including out of state.
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[NumberSix]

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
What in the world are you possibly face palming?

Have you ever been to Boston? You'd be surprised how small it is.

[RaininTwos]

What in the world are you possibly face palming?

Have you ever been to Boston? You'd be surprised how small it is.

You are a f*cking fool.

[DukeDelonte13]

What in the world are you possibly face palming?

Have you ever been to Boston? You'd be surprised how small it is.


a city's "market" encompasses the surrounding area, not just Boston proper. Cleveland is technically smaller than columbus, but if you count the surrounding neighborhoods the greater cleveland area is way bigger and way more populated than the columbus area.

[Glide2keva]

Boston sports teams' target market usually consists of the majority of New England, not just Boston...
I understand that, but we're talking very small states save for Rhode Island and Maine.

Still a small market compared to NY, LA, Chicago, or even Houston.

[bsyde82]

I would think Boston is not a small barket, if anything, based on its rep and tradition as a franchise in the league.

I don't think this year has shown anything. Small markets can compete as long as they draft stars. OKC hit homers 3 years in a row, which is extremely rare, so people putting up OKC as proof that small markets can compete are ignoring their extraordinary luck in drafting stars that have formed the core of the team.

ON the flip side, if you are extremely unlucky and/or incompetent like my Warriors, you can't hope to land a prized free agent. Not even Tyson Chandler wanted to go there.

The Spurs got lucky with Duncan. OKC got lucky with their big 3. What other small market team is truly a contender? Indiana/Memphis are fun teams, but do we really think they're going to contend?

[mtaclof]

I understand that, but we're talking very small states save for Rhode Island and Maine.

Still a small market compared to NY, LA, Chicago, or even Houston.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/03/nba-market-size-numbers-game/

Boston has the seventh largest market in terms of TV homes within the metropolitan area, and on top of that, those of us in Northern New England are avid Boston sports fans too, and aren't added into those numbers.

Boston teams have fans from Connecticut/Rhode Island to Maine, and the amount of people outside the core Boston market is greater than the amount of people within the Boston metro area.

Boston is not a small market by any means.

[Glide2keva]

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/03/nba-market-size-numbers-game/

Boston has the seventh largest market in terms of TV homes within the metropolitan area, and on top of that, those of us in Northern New England are avid Boston sports fans too, and aren't added into those numbers.

Boston teams have fans from Connecticut/Rhode Island to Maine, and the amount of people outside the core Boston market is greater than the amount of people within the Boston metro area.

Boston is not a small market by any means.
Okay, I stand corrected.

I was going on the population of the town itself and wasn't considering the srrounding New England area.

My bad.

[DirtySanchez]

Say it with my now everyone....STERN IS A GENIUS.

[NumberSix]

You are a f*cking fool.
Boston is just barely over half a million people. It's not a big city. If you disagree, you are stupid. :hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:

[RaininTwos]

Boston is just barely over half a million people. It's not a big city. If you disagree, you are stupid. :hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:
:oldlol:

[LamarOdom]

Boston is just barely over half a million people. It's not a big city. If you disagree, you are stupid. :hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:

But that's just a part of their market the whole market is Greater Boston which have a population of 4-5 millions.

But yeah Boston as a city is pretty small

[NumberSix]

But that's just a part of their market the whole market is Greater Boston which have a population of 4-5 millions.

But yeah Boston as a city is pretty small
That's my initial point. Boston's media market consists of not only multiple cities in Mass. but in New Hampshire as well.

The reason I initially said Boston is small is because another poster said he didn't think Boston was a big city. I told him he's right, it's not, but the market consists of more than just the city of Boston.

[Whoah10115]

I thought the saying is more so "Small markets can't compete for FA's" ... which there will probably always be a little bit of truth to.

Dallas lost Tyson Chandler to a bigger market, yet they were able to attract Vince Carter and maybe down the road Deron Williams.






Dallas is not a small market. And the Mavericks lost Chandler because Cuban was looking forward a year and hoping for Deron and Dwight.

[Kblaze8855]

It was always an absurd idea.

Guy in the offseason was telling me the same big city teams are always good acting like we have to restrict player movement to change that. Lakers/Celtics especially. Ignoring that the Lakers and Celtics had combined for 26 finals trips before free agency even existed in the NBA(after the Oscar robertson lawsuit).

Acting like Boston being Boston is how they traded for Russell from a Hawks team that didnt understand his worth, or was the reason they drafted back to back superstars after Russell retired, or why Red had the foresight to draft Bird a full season before he declared for the draft while other GMs didnt....or was why Red was able to rape the Warriors for Parish and the pick that was Mchale...or trade Cornbread for Walton or get DJ from the Suns. As if being Boston is why the Sonics needed to rebuild and took a top 5 pick for Ray Allen and his huge deal....or as if being Boston is why they had Al Jefferson and other young pieces to give Minny for KG.

Nobody who looks into history and how great teams come together really think its free agency and big city bias. It was...is...and always will be....the draft. With the draft and the rookie salary system that lets guys sign max deals in like year 3...NOBODY passes up the first big deal. So anyone you draft and want....you have for 7 or 8 years.

And if you cant build a team they want to resign with after 7-8 years you just suck at team building and go back to the drawing board.

The only team that just bullshits its way into stars has been the Lakers. Wilt demanded to go. Kareem demanded LA or New York. Shaq signed.

But they are it. The sole exception. You could maybe say Philly way back inthe day...but not in 20 years. Barkley demanded out of Philly and went to Arizona...

Any market can compete with a good GM, good drafting, and the luck of staying healthy.

[fatboy11]

I believe the argument was that the small market teams have a tough time attracting free agents, and I believe that is mostly true.

San Antonio and OKC both built their franchise through the draft and trades. Looking at both rosters, I see no major free agent acquisitions. They are both blessed with exception management, and most small market teams simply do not possess that.

I am not sure the lockout and new CBA actually did anything to address enabling small market teams to better compete for free agents, though. So, basically, if you have a small market team, you better hope to hell you snag a good GM or you're screwed. I believe that to be true. Players will always want to play for the big market teams. It takes a sharp mind to build a contender almost exclusively through the draft and through trade.

[LamarOdom]

It was always an absurd idea.

Guy in the offseason was telling me the same big city teams are always good acting like we have to restrict player movement to change that. Lakers/Celtics especially. Ignoring that the Lakers and Celtics had combined for 26 finals trips before free agency even existed in the NBA(after the Oscar robertson lawsuit).

Acting like Boston being Boston is how they traded for Russell from a Hawks team that didnt understand his worth, or was the reason they drafted back to back superstars after Russell retired, or why Red had the foresight to draft Bird a full season before he declared for the draft while other GMs didnt....or was why Red was able to rape the Warriors for Parish and the pick that was Mchale...or trade Cornbread for Walton or get DJ from the Suns. As if being Boston is why the Sonics needed to rebuild and took a top 5 pick for Ray Allen and his huge deal....or as if being Boston is why they had Al Jefferson and other young pieces to give Minny for KG.

Nobody who looks into history and how great teams come together really think its free agency and big city bias. It was...is...and always will be....the draft. With the draft and the rookie salary system that lets guys sign max deals in like year 3...NOBODY passes up the first big deal. So anyone you draft and want....you have for 7 or 8 years.

And if you cant build a team they want to resign with after 7-8 years you just suck at team building and go back to the drawing board.

The only team that just bullshits its way into stars has been the Lakers. Wilt demanded to go. Kareem demanded LA or New York. Shaq signed.

But they are it. The sole exception. You could maybe say Philly way back inthe day...but not in 20 years. Barkley demanded out of Philly and went to Arizona...

Any market can compete with a good GM, good drafting, and the luck of staying healthy.

Pacers being a good example.

[Owl]

It's even more hilarious when you consider that in the past 12 years, small markets won it (Pistons, Spurs & Heat) AND the Lakers lucked out by getting Kobe out of the draft.

Heck, the only BIG franchise that won it without lucking out was the Celtics.

If you go back a lil much, you then have the Bulls lucking out.

It's freaking hilarious when you consider that one of the hugest market in the NBA (NY) hasn't won shit in 40 years.

:oldlol:
Except LA didn't "luck out" by getting Kobe, Kobe and Arn Tellem forced Kobe onto the Lakers telling teams like New Jersey not to bother taking him because he'd go and play in Italy. Then they also got Shaq who wanted to be in a big media market.


Anyway to the main point. I don't think the lockout was about teams ability to compete on the court. It was about profitability (and "competing" in a business sense). Owners that don't take advantage of opportunites to build contenders will discourage fans and damage their investment. Still, very good teams in small markets don't seem to be all that profitable (though it would be hard to tell without reliable numbers and knowing tax write-offs etc).

I hated the lockout and considered the owners primarily to be responsible (though in a battle between owners whose business' values have consistently skyrocketed and players who are payed millions of dollars a year to play a game, I didn't have huge sympathy either way), but I think what they were saying might be being misrepresented.


It was always an absurd idea.

Guy in the offseason was telling me the same big city teams are always good acting like we have to restrict player movement to change that. Lakers/Celtics especially. Ignoring that the Lakers and Celtics had combined for 26 finals trips before free agency even existed in the NBA(after the Oscar robertson lawsuit).

Acting like Boston being Boston is how they traded for Russell from a Hawks team that didnt understand his worth, or was the reason they drafted back to back superstars after Russell retired, or why Red had the foresight to draft Bird a full season before he declared for the draft while other GMs didnt....or was why Red was able to rape the Warriors for Parish and the pick that was Mchale...or trade Cornbread for Walton or get DJ from the Suns. As if being Boston is why the Sonics needed to rebuild and took a top 5 pick for Ray Allen and his huge deal....or as if being Boston is why they had Al Jefferson and other young pieces to give Minny for KG.

Nobody who looks into history and how great teams come together really think its free agency and big city bias. It was...is...and always will be....the draft. With the draft and the rookie salary system that lets guys sign max deals in like year 3...NOBODY passes up the first big deal. So anyone you draft and want....you have for 7 or 8 years.

And if you cant build a team they want to resign with after 7-8 years you just suck at team building and go back to the drawing board.

The only team that just bullshits its way into stars has been the Lakers. Wilt demanded to go. Kareem demanded LA or New York. Shaq signed.

But they are it. The sole exception. You could maybe say Philly way back inthe day...but not in 20 years. Barkley demanded out of Philly and went to Arizona...

Any market can compete with a good GM, good drafting, and the luck of staying healthy.

Agree with the general gist, restricting player movement is dumb, markets didn't decide titles in the past (though only large markets could support teams in the past), drafting is key, GMs and good fortune are critical. I would add that free agency can be pretty big and there market (and taxes and climate and maybe lifestyle) can have a large influence.

In any case I think its more a profitability thing than a winning thing.

[Kblaze8855]

What are the big free agent decision the last 10 years or so? And ill count situations where a guy gets traded but its only because he agreed to go and his deal was ending so it might as well be free agency...

Vin Baker staying in Seattle

Grant Hill leaving for Orlando which I believe is smaller than Detriot
Tmac going to Orlando though nobody quite knew how good he would be

Webber staying in Sacramento after a year or two of will he wont he

Duncan staying in SA over joining Tmac and Grant in Orlando

Odom leaving La for Miami

Shaq to Miami

Melo to NY

Amare to NY after the suns wouldnt sign him to the same deal the previous 2 years...so its not like they couldnt keep him

Lebron and Bosh leaving after both singing to stay where they were drafted for 7 or 8 years

Jermaine Oneal agreeing to stay on the Pacers for like 110 million. Though he wished he didnt a week later since they lied to him about keeping Isiah Thomas then let him sign and fired him.

Rashard Lewis went to Orlando for WTF money

Boozer leaving the Cavs for Utah is hardly a "Bright lights..." situation.

Joe Johnson signed in Atlanta which has never signed anyone for being Atlanta

Brand leaving LA for Philly

Nash left dallas because they wanted to sign Dampier with the same money instead of waste it on a supposedly aging breaking down point

Kobe, Kidd, and a few other high profile FAs had long periods of rumor end in them staying put.

The Chris Paul cluster****.

Im sure that isnt all but its the ones that come to mind right away.

I think they are less top flight free agents out there to sign than people think.

Lebron, Shaq, Duncan, Drob(his draft rights expired before he signed with the Spurs...he could have signed anywhere and the Lakers were after him), Webber, Kobe, Kidd, and Grant Hill were the biggest free agents of the last 25 years off the top of my head and Shaq is the only one who left for a city known as a big market. 5 stayed put, Hill went to Orlando, and Lebron went to Miami which clearly wasnt an issue of tv market or anything like that.

Most top flight free agents even below that level didnt just run to big cities. Mutombo went from Denver to Atlanta. Vlade went from Charlotte to Sacramento. Its a whole lot of deals like that for the most part.

The Bulls only big free agent signings post Jordan have been Boozer, old Ben Wallace, and like....Eddie Robinson? Knicks didnt sign anyone major between like 1985 and 2011. Houston? Who have they signed? Yao, Tmac, Hakeem, Francis, and so on were all drafted or traded for.

Philly has not signed a big FA since 1982.

I really dont think its as big an issue as its been made out to be. Most stars are just never free agents to begin with and most who are stay where they were or go to some random team. Rarely the Knicks, Bulls, Lakers, or anyone like that.

[ShawnieMac06]

I don't think 'markets' take just a singular city into account, it speaks about whole metropolitan areas and such. I think.

Exactly, Boston itself as a city has a population of 618,000, but its metro population is over 7 million. That's not even counting places like Hartford, Providence, Portland, Maine and other surrounding areas, which have metro areas of their own.

Its TV market size (which differs somewhat from metro population) has almost 2.4 million homes.

[bdreason]

We all knew this going in. The owners had to use some excuse to bring salaries down. Nobody was buying their "revenue losses" excuse, so they had to turn to the "competitive balance" excuse.

[guy]

Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe were all drafted (Kobe was traded on draft day but oh well not much different). Out of all the players that have led their teams to multiple titles in the last 30+ years, only Shaq signed via FA.

[Sarcastic]

We all knew this going in. The owners had to use some excuse to bring salaries down. Nobody was buying their "revenue losses" excuse, so they had to turn to the "competitive balance" excuse.

They didn't bring salaries down. They just got a larger chunk of the pie for themselves.

[tpols]

Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe were all drafted (Kobe was traded on draft day but oh well not much different). Out of all the players that have led their teams to multiple titles in the last 30+ years, only Shaq signed via FA.
To be fair Magic demanded to be drafted by LA, and Kobe requested it. There definitely is a big market bias in sports, but it can be overcome with good drafting and general good GM skills.

[Punpun]

Except LA didn't "luck out" by getting Kobe, Kobe and Arn Tellem forced Kobe onto the Lakers telling teams like New Jersey not to bother taking him because he'd go and play in Italy. Then they also got Shaq who wanted to be in a big media market.

Lucked out as in "This players is more or less responsible for 4 or 5 finals with Shaq and three after 2006". Or Lucked out as in "This kid taken out of hs ended up being one of the best ever".

See what I mean ?

[Sarcastic]

To be fair Magic demanded to be drafted by LA, and Kobe requested it. There definitely is a big market bias in sports, but it can be overcome with good drafting and general good GM skills.

The other team that had a chance at drafting Magic Johnson was the Chicago Bulls, which isn't exactly a small city/market team. Kobe's first team choice was the Sixers, which is his hometown team. I don't think he ever made a demand to be traded to the Lakers. The reason Charlotte traded him was to get Vlade Divac, who the Lakers had to move to get Shaq.

[Punpun]

The "Kobe wanted to be drafted by LA" is stupid anyways. He was drafted 13. 13. Not even in the top 5. 12 teams had the chance to get him. 12. None did.

[Owl]

Lucked out as in "This players is more or less responsible for 4 or 5 finals with Shaq and three after 2006". Or Lucked out as in "This kid taken out of hs ended up being one of the best ever".

See what I mean ?
No I have no idea what you mean because my point was a suggestion that rather than luck (as you suggested), LA and specifically Arn Tellem told teams not to draft Kobe otherwise he would go to play in Italy (thus allowing him to either re-enter the draft or force the drafting team to trade his rights). Your point seems to be that Kobe is a good player which has very little to do with what I am saying.


The other team that had a chance at drafting Magic Johnson was the Chicago Bulls, which isn't exactly a small city/market team. Kobe's first team choice was the Sixers, which is his hometown team. I don't think he ever made a demand to be traded to the Lakers. The reason Charlotte traded him was to get Vlade Divac, who the Lakers had to move to get Shaq.

You seem to be confusing Charlotte thinking Vlade Divac being a good get at 13th pick with Charlotte ever believing they had a chance at Bryant.

This Kobe, Tellem Jersey issue is a matter of public record. Jerry West has talked about it. Here I'll google it for you http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=arn+tellem+calipari+kobe&oq=arn+tellem+calipari+kobe&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...1099.6680.0.7167.24.23.0.0.0.1.903.912 9.0j3j4j4j3j7j1.22.0...0.0.f-XZ2feoPJI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=11259e1e762a6894&biw=1200&bih=618


The "Kobe wanted to be drafted by LA" is stupid anyways. He was drafted 13. 13. Not even in the top 5. 12 teams had the chance to get him. 12. None did.
There is no "Kobe wanted to be drafted by LA" because LA were never in a position to draft him. There is however as a matter of public record the fact that teams above Charlotte were interested in Kobe and were dettered from picking him.

[Punpun]

Dude, you are using ****ing hindsight here. When they drafted Kobe, NOBODY thought he would have the career he had. NOBODY. It's because of Kobe being that good that in 2003, another child prodigy in hs got hyped SO MUCH.

But you are using hindisght son. Lakers lucked out by drafting Kobe as nobody could imagine he'd end up being that great.

Or are you stupid ? :oldlol:

[cavsfanatic]

It was because Lebron left the Cavs. most small market teams can't compete tho. you want a cookie because you named 6 small market teams who can compete?

[Owl]

Dude, you are using ****ing hindsight here. When they drafted Kobe, NOBODY thought he would have the career he had. NOBODY. It's because of Kobe being that good that in 2003, another child prodigy in hs got hyped SO MUCH.

But you are using hindisght son. Lakers lucked out by drafting Kobe as nobody could imagine he'd end up being that great.

Or are you stupid ? :oldlol:
What when did I say that I predicted that Kobe would be great. Find that quote. It never happened. What did happen is that you said LA was lucky to get Kobe out of the draft.

I corrected this because
1) Its odd to say a team is fortunate to acquire a player they specifically traded for
and
2) Because Arn Tellem and LA warned teams off taking Kobe with a higher pick unless they had a trade in place because he wouldn't sign for them.

I don't know who on earth you are arguing against because my points haven't been about how highly rated Kobe was in summer 1996 (though given the context of the time and concerns about high school players, it seems safe to say he would have gone higher once teams became aware that very elite talent could make the jump straight from high school).

The way in which LA was fortunate at that time was that as a result of lockout negotions Shaq (and many other free agents in 1996) became unrestricted.

But feel free to find the post in which I used my "hindisight" to retrospectively predict Kobe's greatness.

[Sarcastic]

It was because Lebron left the Cavs. most small market teams can't compete tho. you want a cookie because you named 6 small market teams who can compete?

Lebron didn't leave the Cavs because they are a small market. He left because he wanted to play with his friends.

In his free agency, he had a chance to play for NY, LA, Chicago, Dallas, and Miami, with Miami being the smallest of all those markets. He chose Miami, because of 1 reason. They were the only team with the cap space to sign him, and his 2 buddies.

[Punpun]

No, I said Lakers were lucked out when they drafted Kobe as he turned out ot be one of the greatest ever. Ergo, you are full of shit son.

[Owl]

No, I said Lakers were lucked out when they drafted Kobe as he turned out ot be one of the greatest ever. Ergo, you are full of shit son.

FFS
1) They didn't draft Kobe.
2) No you said

Lakers lucked out by getting Kobe out of the draftThat suggests they were lucky to get him not that they were lucky he transpired to be as good as he was, which in any case makes no sense as you could just say every team is lucky that their players are lucky that their players are as good as they are.

Still keep calling people "son", it makes you sound super intelligent.

[Warners0]

LOL @ Miami being a small market

[Punpun]

OWL, you just seems frustrated cause you tried to be intelligent and got called on it. A monkey shouldn't try to be more than a monkey. Rember that and know your place.

[gasolina]

http://www.forbes.com/teams/memphis-grizzlies/

The grizzlies, after their 2nd best season (2010-11) lost $24.8M.

The knicks - who arguably had a much less than stellar season in comparison - was in black for 74.9M just for 2010-11. That about covers the grizzliers salaries for 2010-11.

Ceteris Paribus, which of the two teams you think could actually sustain spending the way they are now?

Don't you think that's an advantage? Really? :coleman:

[Sarcastic]

LOL @ Miami being a small market

I said Miami was smallest when compared to NY, LA, and Chicago, which it is.

[Kblaze8855]

The Knicks are owned by cablevision who makes 7 billion dollars a year. The knicks can be afforded as long as they want to do it. But they dont always. After that 120 million dollar year for like 30 wins they demanded cuts.

The Nets were what? 9 miles from MSG? They were the NY nets in the ABA and moved down the road. They lost money. We really calling it a different market? They are literally in New york now and they still wont be the Knicks far as support. The Knicks are a brand owned by tycoons who also run Madison Square Garden.

The knicks arent...normal.

Besides several teams owners gain and lose billions in worth over a period of years. Most loss taken by their NBA teams is a drop in the bucket.

When you have 6 billion dollars you gain or lose 12 million in stock tickings before breakfast.

The Grizzlies owner has like 1.8 billion dollars personally and hes just one of an ownership group which combined has billions.

They can lose 24 million dollars as a collective and not blink. Not wanting to is a matter of principle not...not being able to deal with it.

[TheBigVeto]

Spurs vs. Thunder :coleman:

Another Big Lie exposed. What a scam the small market teams pulled on everyone.

Just like any Myth, if you say it often enough, people will believe it. "Small markets can't compete". Sheeple believed it.........

In general they can't because of David Stern.
Spurs vs Thunders = sign that David Stern is losing control.
This is good news.

[gasolina]

The Knicks are owned by cablevision who makes 7 billion dollars a year. The knicks can be afforded as long as they want to do it. But they dont always. After that 120 million dollar year for like 30 wins they demanded cuts.

The Nets were what? 9 miles from MSG? They were the NY nets in the ABA and moved down the road. They lost money. We really calling it a different market? They are literally in New york now and they still wont be the Knicks far as support. The Knicks are a brand owned by tycoons who also run Madison Square Garden.

The knicks arent...normal.

Besides several teams owners gain and lose billions in worth over a period of years. Most loss taken by their NBA teams is a drop in the bucket.

When you have 6 billion dollars you gain or lose 12 million in stock tickings before breakfast.

The Grizzlies owner has like 1.8 billion dollars personally and hes just one of an ownership group which combined has billions.

They can lose 24 million dollars as a collective and not blink. Not wanting to is a matter of principle not...not being able to deal with it.
So you're saying the small market owners should just literally take one for the team? While even richer knicks, lakers owners get richer off their own teams?

Unfortunately, not all owners share your sentiment, thats why the phoenix suns were busy selling their draft picks during the nash and amare era. If phoenix was a mega metropolis, the suns could've afforded to keep joe johnson.

I'm not saying that big markets always win, but even if they suck, they could easily become good enough just by spending more. Look at the knicks buying out everyones contract and then eventually getting amare, carmelo and tyson chandler with all that capspace?

How about the lakers using their MLE year after year without fear of losing money. I cant even remember our last mle player before tony allen

[Eat Like A Bosh]

BS. Of course they can. It's not about big market franchises, it's about how well a franchise is run. OKC, SA are examples of organizations ran really well. And then you Look at New York.

I bet you can give New York Anthony Davis, and they still don't get advance past the second round.

[Real Men Wear Green]

So what was the lockout about again?
1-2% of BRI.

[Dwyane Rose]

New York isn't a small market though.

[wagexslave]

Unfortunately, not all owners share your sentiment, thats why the phoenix suns were busy selling their draft picks during the nash and amare era. If phoenix was a mega metropolis, the suns could've afforded to keep joe johnson.
Although I didn't agree with paying Joe Johnson the kind of money he's making to hold onto him to begin with, Phoenix's problem isn't that it's a small market, their biggest problem is that their owner is a tightwad cheap dumbass that's in the business purely to make money, not win championships.

Phoenix is the 6th largest city in the US by population and has the 13th largest metropolitan area surrounding it. The second largest city in AZ, Tucson, has around the same population as Portland, Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, and even right behind Denver.

Hell, even the third biggest city in AZ, Mesa, which is basically just one big suburb of Phoenix, has a larger population than Miami, Cleveland, Minneapolis, and Oakland...

So there's really no excuse. There's plenty of people here in AZ. We just have a sh*tty penny-pinching owner who doesn't understand the concept of spending more to make more. If Sarver really cares about the success of the team, he'll have to prove it this offseason by spending some damn money on some BIG NAME free agents. No more signing a bunch of role players and expecting them to play like superstars.

I really miss Jerry Colangelo. He was an awesome owner who really seemed to try his hardest to win and spent the money to get good players. Ever since Sarver bought the team, he's been deconstructing what Colangelo built.

[IamRAMBO24]

Wow you guys are f*ckin stupid. I pretty much predicted this the start of the season when all the FTA anamolies started popping up.

When 3 small market teams are shooting more FTs than 10 other big market teams COMBINED, you know who are calling the shots.


Anyways, even I will admit that's a conspiracy, but it's hard to ignore the fact the whole lockout centered around small market teams, and then all of a sudden they are coming out of the woodwork and pretty much destroying the big market guys when a year ago they were just a bunch of noobs struggling to tie their shoelaces.

Not jumping to conclusions. It is a conspiracy afterall, but nonetheless, kinda fishy in my opinion.

[dunksby]

No, I said Lakers were lucked out when they drafted Kobe as he turned out ot be one of the greatest ever. Ergo, you are full of shit son.
Why are you so stupid?

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/9837/capturedpf.png

[Kblaze8855]

So you're saying the small market owners should just literally take one for the team? While even richer knicks, lakers owners get richer off their own teams?

Unfortunately, not all owners share your sentiment, thats why the phoenix suns were busy selling their draft picks during the nash and amare era. If phoenix was a mega metropolis, the suns could've afforded to keep joe johnson.

I'm not saying that big markets always win, but even if they suck, they could easily become good enough just by spending more. Look at the knicks buying out everyones contract and then eventually getting amare, carmelo and tyson chandler with all that capspace?

How about the lakers using their MLE year after year without fear of losing money. I cant even remember our last mle player before tony allen

Im saying there is a big difference between cant and wont. small market teams are nothing but willing owners away from spending with anyone. Paul Allen and many others have proven that(not that Portland is unknown...but it isnt NY either). Dallas isnt a small market but they went from a joke to a 10 year contender just off Cuban deciding he didnt care about anything but Ws.

Far as the Knicks....they took 10 years to rebuild spent like a billion dollars in that stretch and all it got them is back to back first round exits.

The Nuggets lost melo and would probably take the Knicks in 6.

Its all about basketball. Players who get along, good coaching, and good drafting/scouting. Teams with it win. Teams without it...dont. No matter what they spend.

But an owner willing to spend does give you a head start. And the only difference between most owners who spend and those who dont...is deciding to do it. An ownership group with a combined 5-6 billion dollars could make just about any team able to spend.

If they dont do it...its on them.

[DMAVS41]

Im saying there is a big difference between cant and wont. small market teams are nothing but willing owners away from spending with anyone. Paul Allen and many others have proven that(not that Portland is unknown...but it isnt NY either). Dallas isnt a small market but they went from a joke to a 10 year contender just off Cuban deciding he didnt care about anything but Ws.

Far as the Knicks....they took 10 years to rebuild spent like a billion dollars in that stretch and all it got them is back to back first round exits.

The Nuggets lost melo and would probably take the Knicks in 6.

Its all about basketball. Players who get along, good coaching, and good drafting/scouting. Teams with it win. Teams without it...dont. No matter what they spend.

But an owner willing to spend does give you a head start. And the only difference between most owners who spend and those who dont...is deciding to do it. An ownership group with a combined 5-6 billion dollars could make just about any team able to spend.

If they dont do it...its on them.

Spending can make a world of difference. Although without getting Dirk in the draft, all that spending would have yielded nothing of note really. I don't quite think it is fair to ask a small market owner to spend wildly when they don't have the revenue to do so. For example, Cuban often breaks even or loses money each year with the Mavs. Now...the franchise value has gone way up, but year to year he makes very little, if any, profit.

I don't think anyone with a brain would say you "can't" win as a small market....I just think it's much harder. You need an owner willing to spend money the franchise really isn't bringing in....and you need luck in the draft....often multiple times. Then you have to hope that the player you lucked into drafting wants to stay long term.

And I see a growing trend of players wanting to leave these small market teams. Paul, Melo, Lebron, Bosh, Williams, and Howard.....these are all top 5, top 2, top 10, top 20 players.

The new CBA will help all of this greatly actually. It has put a pseudo hard cap on teams....although big market teams can choose to spend more...it will just cost them a hell of a lot more. It will curb the overspending on players that don't deserve it....at least I hope it will. It will be interesting to see what a guy like Gordon gets paid in the future. Hopefully he's not maxed out like Joe Johnson. If a guy like Gordon demands such a high number, contracts like that ruin the league. And we can sit here and blame owners, but the market value is what the market value is. All it takes is one team willing to pay him like that and that is what he is worth.

I'm really excited about the future of the league with this CBA. I would love to see 4 teams contracted, but I know that isn't going to happen.

But again...the idea that the Bucks have as good of a chance as the Lakers or other big market teams to win is just utterly false. Therefore there has been, and will continue to be, a real advantage to certain locations. I wouldn't say "big markets"...I don't like that definition. I like the term "desirable market"....

[Punpun]

Why are you so stupid?


>Not understanding I purposeffuly am shportening the process that brought Kobe to the Lakers

:oldlol:

[dunksby]

>Not understanding I purposeffuly am shportening the process that brought Kobe to the Lakers

:oldlol:
The rest of your posts show even less sense which means you are just trying to cover your failure. I don't care though, whatever helps you get on with your life.

[Punpun]

Are you serious, young bud ? For all purposes Kobe was drafted by the Lakers. You don't expect people to write "On the order of the Lakers, the Bobcats drafted Kobe who was then traded, according to what htey had decided with the Lakers, to LA in exchange of some pieces on emonth after the draft".

Be honest young boy. :oldlol:

[Kblaze8855]

And I see a growing trend of players wanting to leave these small market teams. Paul, Melo, Lebron, Bosh, Williams, and Howard.....these are all top 5, top 2, top 10, top 20 players.



Thing about that....

Melo is from NY/Baltimore depending on who you ask. And he signed in Denver I think....twice? OR did he just sign a longer deal than Wade/Lebron/Bosh? Whatever....he gave it quite a shot and the team ended up as good or better. Lebron went from Cleveland with the Clippers current 6th man(previous 8th man) to Miami with Wade and Bosh. dont know that id call that a big market issue. Bosh left one of the biggest cities in the world for Miami. Not a market size issue. A...being happy where you are/who you play with issue. Deron is expected to leave Brooklyn to play in like...Dallas? Not a market issue. And its not like he just chose NJ either. Dwight supposedly didnt want to go to LA from Orlando. Perhaps he just hates Stan? Amare wanted 100 million from the Suns and didnt get it. It was gonna be either Chicago, Miami, or NY. Any of them would have been called a big market decision but it was more just...who set themselves up to have space while not being a joke of a team.

Lot of issues arent just big/small to me.

The biggest market just got its first 2 major free agents since...what...um...1983?

LA gets bullshit ass free agents but thats about it.

[DMAVS41]

Thing about that....

Melo is from NY/Baltimore depending on who you ask. And he signed in Denver I think....twice? OR did he just sign a longer deal than Wade/Lebron/Bosh? Whatever....he gave it quite a shot and the team ended up as good or better. Lebron went from Cleveland with the Clippers current 6th man(previous 8th man) to Miami with Wade and Bosh. dont know that id call that a big market issue. Bosh left one of the biggest cities in the world for Miami. Not a market size issue. A...being happy where you are/who you play with issue. Deron is expected to leave Brooklyn to play in like...Dallas? Not a market issue. And its not like he just chose NJ either. Dwight supposedly didnt want to go to LA from Orlando. Perhaps he just hates Stan? Amare wanted 100 million from the Suns and didnt get it. It was gonna be either Chicago, Miami, or NY. Any of them would have been called a big market decision but it was more just...who set themselves up to have space while not being a joke of a team.

Lot of issues arent just big/small to me.

The biggest market just got its first 2 major free agents since...what...um...1983?

LA gets bullshit ass free agents but thats about it.

Well, its not always one or the other. There are any number of circumstances that can lead to these trends and changes.

But I think you are ignoring the fact that these less desirable markets often don't have quality teams for the exact reasons we are saying. It is not as if I'm saying players only care about what team they play for.

But if a player cares about winning...then it doesn't surprise me at all that Deron would want to leave the Nets that is showing no signs, as of right now, that winning is possible.

But if he were to go to the Lakers, he has a rich history of winning knowing that the market and franchise are far more likely to win than the Nets. Just common sense and logic.

Again. I would never claim there is only one or two factors....there are many. Melo very may well have gone to NY in large part because he wanted to go home. Would he have gone home if he was from Toronto though? I question that of course. Why? Because of course there is too much money and fame involved at this point to ignore what market you play in when you have a choice.

It is not that it can't be done, it is that it has been factually harder for less desirable markets to win in the modern era. The new CBA will help that a lot, but the problem will always exist. Not a big deal, but again, acting like the Bucks have as good of a chance in the modern era to win titles as the Lakers year in year out is just patently false. Therefore there is simply an inherent benefit to the location of some franchises...which is all I have ever said.


Edit: I also see you are still just using "market size"...I previously posted that I don't like to make this just about market size as that really doesn't address the point. It should be less desirable vs more desirable. Bosh clearly left a less desirable market for a more desirable market....some for the market ....and some for what it would become. There is no doubt Bosh knew his "fame and fortune" would grow more by playing in Miami on a better and more relevant team than Toronto. I think that distinction needs to be made again I guess.....as I have made it time and time again.

[Kblaze8855]

If Miami had the Bobcats roster and cap space....Bosh wouldnt have gone there. Of course its partly being somewhere you want to be....but its always mostly been basketball. Chris Paul leaves behind a team that has....what? Ariza...Jack? Emeka? No West even. He goes to play with Blake, Billups, Mo, Kmart, and Butler...and we make it big market vs small?

Im sure that again....a desirable location is a factor. But knowing that why are all these topic about small markets?

Bosh left a city bigger than Chicago with a shitty team for Miami and a talented team.

And we talk market size?

Its not market size putting these players where they end up. Its....wanting to be happy.

If Bosh and Wade were in Orlando and not Miami Lebron would have still gone(I assume). But he would be in an even smaller market....

Who just goes to a big market to be in a situation that sucks? Maybe...maaaaaaaybe Amare? After the Suns refused to pay up?

I just dont see this as a market size issue. Its just people wanting good teammates and to not be where they are unhappy. If a guy from Texas doesnt want to live in Canada and play for a shitty team...so be it.

Not sure how you can say we need to change rules to prevent human desires. But people say it all the time. It just isnt happening.

[DMAVS41]

If Miami had the Bobcats roster and cap space....Bosh wouldnt have gone there. Of course its partly being somewhere you want to be....but its always mostly been basketball. Chris Paul leaves behind a team that has....what? Ariza...Jack? Emeka? No West even. He goes to play with Blake, Billups, Mo, Kmart, and Butler...and we make it big market vs small?

Im sure that again....a desirable location is a factor. But knowing that why are all these topic about small markets?

Bosh left a city bigger than Chicago with a shitty team for Miami and a talented team.

And we talk market size?

Its not market size putting these players where they end up. Its....wanting to be happy.

If Bosh and Wade were in Orlando and not Miami Lebron would have still gone(I assume). But he would be in an even smaller market....

Who just goes to a big market to be in a situation that sucks? Maybe...maaaaaaaybe Amare? After the Suns refused to pay up?

I just dont see this as a market size issue. Its just people wanting good teammates and to not be where they are unhappy. If a guy from Texas doesnt want to live in Canada and play for a shitty team...so be it.

Not sure how you can say we need to change rules to prevent human desires. But people say it all the time. It just isnt happening.


I'm not sure if this is a response to me or not.

Let me be clear. As I have said now repeatedly. The term "big market" does not encompass the actual issue. It is desirable market. Now, some of what makes a market desirable is its size, exposure, relevance...etc. Its one of many many many factors.

Bosh went to Miami to play with Wade / Lebron because it was best for him both as a player and in terms of his fame /fortune. Of course if Miami was the Bobcats it would be different.

But I think you continue to ignore some of the reasons why certain teams aren't consistently good. Yes, having an owner willing to spend is huge....but history has shown that there are clearly not these owners growing on trees. Cuban is not normal....he's abnormal. He bought a floundering franchise and was willing to spend more money than he was making off the team to turn it around. Oh, and he lucked into Dirk becoming one of the greatest and most consistent players ever. And even then, the Mavs won 1 title in his time here so far...and never landed a big name player to go along Dirk. Something that we have tried to do for literally 9 years now.

Less desirable markets simply don't attract the best players, best coaches, and best management nearly as often as desirable markets do.

And I'm not in favor of any rule that tries to change human nature. I'm saying that in terms of competitive balance, anything that can be done to curb these advantages are good for the game overall.

[Kblaze8855]

But I think you continue to ignore some of the reasons why certain teams aren't consistently good.


With almost no exceptions...teams that are always bad always draft poorly or guys get injured. Nobody drafts Lebron James, Hakeem, or Tim Duncan and just sucks forever anyway.

The way it works now every rookie who is wanted stays on his team 6 to 8 years. Failing to build good teams in that time isnt a desired market thing. Look around the league. Great teams are built of guys off the scrap heap and hard working vets and good coaches all the time.

Few teams if any get great off just being a good place to live.




Yes, having an owner willing to spend is huge....but history has shown that there are clearly not these owners growing on trees. Cuban is not normal....he's abnormal. He bought a floundering franchise and was willing to spend more money than he was making off the team to turn it around.



You are 100% right. He is abnormal. Which is the problem.

There are owners with 3-10 times the money he came in with(literally) pleading poverty about spending.

And it isnt and never has been about them having the money. Its being willing to spend it. If you arent willing to do what it takes I dont wanna hear you complain. Guy with 4 billion dollars....whos Walmart family wife has another couple billion...who also owns the St Louis rams and an NHL team....telling us he cant afford to compete with someone?

Im just not hearing it. Fans shouldnt either.

[DMAVS41]

With almost no exceptions...teams that are always bad always draft poorly or guys get injured. Nobody drafts Lebron James, Hakeem, or Tim Duncan and just sucks forever anyway.

The way it works now every rookie who is wanted stays on his team 6 to 8 years. Failing to build good teams in that time isnt a desired market thing. Look around the league. Great teams are built of guys off the scrap heap and hard working vets and good coaches all the time.

Few teams if any get great off just being a good place to live.





You are 100% right. He is abnormal. Which is the problem.

There are owners with 3-10 times the money he came in with(literally) pleading poverty about spending.

And it isnt and never has been about them having the money. Its being willing to spend it. If you arent willing to do what it takes I dont wanna hear you complain. Guy with 4 billion dollars....whos Walmart family wife has another couple billion...who also owns the St Louis rams and an NHL team....telling us he cant afford to compete with someone?

Im just not hearing it. Fans shouldnt either.

I want to make this clear. I have not intimated the bold. Of course no team can get by just off location or market size..etc. I have repeatedly said there are a number of factors.

However, certain franchises have inherent benefits....and I have seen those benefits become increasingly more important over the years. And owners did as well....so that is why they tried to somewhat even the playing field. It can not and will never be completely even, but this was a great first step.

[Sarcastic]

The NBA took a team away from the 15th largest metro area, and put the team in the 43rd largest metro area. And the team is doing infinitely better now.

Market means nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

[Real Men Wear Green]

The NBA took a team away from the 15th largest metro area, and put the team in the 43rd largest metro area. And the team is doing infinitely better now.

Market means nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch.
That goes too far. Spurs and OKC show you can win in a smaller market but phenomenons like "Linsanity" show that a team's market can be a major edge in making money. An Asian player playing at a high level for a few weeks would be noteworthy if it happened in Milwaukee but it wouldn't be an international phenomenon like what it became.

[Sarcastic]

That goes too far. Spurs and OKC show you can win in a smaller market but phenomenons like "Linsanity" show that a team's market can be a major edge in making money. An Asian player playing at a high level for a few weeks would be noteworthy if it happened in Milwaukee but it wouldn't be an international phenomenon like what it became.

Jeremy Lin didn't capture the world's attention because he was in NY. He captured the world's attention because he was "Rudy" type of story. He is an undrafted Chinese player from Harvard that was less than 24 hours from being cut from his team. Had he been cut, he probably never would have been picked up again. Stories like that happen maybe once a generation.

[DMAVS41]

The NBA took a team away from the 15th largest metro area, and put the team in the 43rd largest metro area. And the team is doing infinitely better now.

Market means nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

Let me know when a trio like Bosh, Lebron, and Wade form up in Milwaukee.

I don't understand why everyone has to be so extreme. Why does it either have to be everything or nothing?

It matters, its just not the end all be all.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Jeremy Lin didn't capture the world's attention because he was in NY. He captured the world's attention because he was "Rudy" type of story. He is an undrafted Chinese player from Harvard that was less than 24 hours from being cut from his team. Had he been cut, he probably never would have been picked up again. Stories like that happen maybe once a generation.
It wasn't only about being in NY but it's silly to act like the attention his story received wasn't increased by being in the world's #1 media market. Everything in NY gets more attention. Knicks have been amongst the most visible teams in the EC for years without fielding a team that made the second round in over a decade. There is no doubt that the NY market raised the level of attention paid to Lin. It's called the media capital of the world for a reason.

[Sarcastic]

Let me know when a trio like Bosh, Lebron, and Wade form up in Milwaukee.

I don't understand why everyone has to be so extreme. Why does it either have to be everything or nothing?

It matters, its just not the end all be all.

The Miami Heat situation is unique, so you can't really use it as an example of big market dominance.

However, of all the teams that were in the running to get Lebron (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, New Jersey/Brooklyn, and Miami), he chose the smallest market team. Very odd, if you are presupposing that the large markets have an advantage.

[DirtySanchez]

The Spurs and Thunder are great situations in the NBA that go to show money and manipulating free agency doesn't add up to titles. I hope the Miami situation falls flat on its face because of this.

Any how.... U need the right role players coaches system and a bit of luck to win titles in the NBA.

[DMAVS41]

The Miami Heat situation is unique, so you can't really use it as an example of big market dominance.

However, of all the teams that were in the running to get Lebron (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, New Jersey/Brooklyn, and Miami), he chose the smallest market team. Very odd, if you are presupposing that the large markets have an advantage.

But I'm not. This whole "big market" thing is getting out of hand. Its about desirable markets that give you an advantage. A factor in that desirable market might be how big it is, but I don't think that matters nearly as much as others.

And I can use any example I want because you can't give me a similar example for a less desirable market.

It is a factor. How desirable a franchise is plays a role. The notion that you think it means nothing is just flat out wrong.

People keep trying to separate it all. The most desirable franchises get the best owners, coaches, and gm's....they have more to offer.

Again. Let me know when the Bucks land free agents like Lebron, Wade, and Bosh. Bu bu bu bu but....South Beach isn't more desirable than Milwaukee....ROFL

[Sarcastic]

But I'm not. This whole "big market" thing is getting out of hand. Its about desirable markets that give you an advantage. A factor in that desirable market might be how big it is, but I don't think that matters nearly as much as others.

And I can use any example I want because you can't give me a similar example for a less desirable market.

It is a factor. How desirable a franchise is plays a role. The notion that you think it means nothing is just flat out wrong.

People keep trying to separate it all. The most desirable franchises get the best owners, coaches, and gm's....they have more to offer.

Again. Let me know when the Bucks land free agents like Lebron, Wade, and Bosh. Bu bu bu bu but....South Beach isn't more desirable than Milwaukee....ROFL

You always bring up Milwaukee as an example. They have a bad owner, coach, and GM.

[DMAVS41]

You always bring up Milwaukee as an example. They have a bad owner, coach, and GM.

And? Part of that is because they are in a less desirable market.

Who do you think is being more objective?

Person A:

While market size and market desirability aren't the end all be all, they certainly do factor in to long term success and provide certain franchises with inherent benefits.

Person B:

Market size and market desirability mean nothing and have no impact at all on success. Therefore the Raptors and Bucks have just as good of a chance at winning titles as the Lakers and Celtics.

Please answer.

[Sarcastic]

And? Part of that is because they are in a less desirable market.

Who do you think is being more objective?

Person A:

While market size and market desirability aren't the end all be all, they certainly do factor in to long term success and provide certain franchises with inherent benefits.

Person B:

Market size and market desirability mean nothing and have no impact at all on success. Therefore the Raptors and Bucks have just as good of a chance at winning titles as the Lakers and Celtics.

Please answer.


Obviously the better market will be more desirable, but what you don't get is that the rules of the CBA don't allow for big markets to assert themselves over the smaller markets. If there were no cap, then the Knicks would without a doubt be able to use NY as a tool to attract players. But because of the salary cap, NY has no distinct advantage over the Bucks, the same way the NY Giants don't have advantages over the Green Bay Packers. The salary cap evens everything out.


Over the past decade, the Knicks have had a bad owner, a bad GM, and bad coaches.

[DMAVS41]

Obviously the better market will be more desirable, but what you don't get is that the rules of the CBA don't allow for big markets to assert themselves over the smaller markets. If there were no cap, then the Knicks would without a doubt be able to use NY as a tool to attract players. But because of the salary cap, NY has no distinct advantage over the Bucks, the same way the NY Giants don't have advantages over the Green Bay Packers. The salary cap evens everything out.


Over the past decade, the Knicks have had a bad owner, a bad GM, and bad coaches.

No. This will be true going forward now. Before this new CBA, teams could spend and spend and spend.

Cuban spent his way out of a number of mistakes. The Lakers had a huge payroll...etc.

And even with the new CBA....a team like the Lakers will always have an advantage over the Bucks.

For example, lets say the Bucks have the 1st pick and Lakers have the 2nd pick. Lets say the Bucks take a player like Lebron with the 1st pick and the Lakers take a player like Howard with the 2nd pick.

Which franchise do you think is more likely to hold onto their pick all things equal in terms of teams strength...etc.? Its obviously the Lakers.

Hence there is an advantage. Its far less important going forward with the new CBA because the amount of money these teams can realistically spend is going to be much closer.

I'll ask again to let you out of your idiotic statement.

Do you feel like the Lakers and Bucks have a similar chance to win year in and year out in the NBA? If you answer yes....you are a moron.

If you answer no...you have contradicted your earlier statement that markets have no impact whatsoever at all.

I'll leave it up to you which one you want to choose.

[NuggetsFan]

Market doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. If your in NY and you have a retard for a GM than your team will suck regardless of big the market is. If your like SA and you have a brilliant FO than doesn't really matter what your market is like because you will be successful.

Market does have some pull. How can anybody think it doesn't is crazy. If your in Milwaukee and your not selling tickets and your franchise isn't making money than your owner isn't going to be willing to spend as much. If your in a big market your teams bringing in money no matter what. L.A\NY\Boston\Chicago are never going to be bottom 5 in attendance and thus never have an owner who won't pay the big bucks.

Nowadays it might turn out to be more of a factor in some area's. Carmelo wasn't asking to be traded to Milwaukee or Minny. He asked for NY. Dwight Howard? He's not going to accept getting traded to those area's either. He'll want L.A's\Brooklyn(NY area).

Denver coulda offered Orlando the best package for Dwight and it wouldn't have happened. Dwight woulda never signed off on it.

In the end it really doesn't matter, whatever happens is going to happen and things like FO\scouting make up 99% of it but to act like market doesn't play that 1-3% factor in some area's is naive IMO.

[Sarcastic]

Market doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. If your in NY and you have a retard for a GM than your team will suck regardless of big the market is. If your like SA and you have a brilliant FO than doesn't really matter what your market is like because you will be successful.

Market does have some pull. How can anybody think it doesn't is crazy. If your in Milwaukee and your not selling tickets and your franchise isn't making money than your owner isn't going to be willing to spend as much. If your in a big market your teams bringing in money no matter what. L.A\NY\Boston\Chicago are never going to be bottom 5 in attendance and thus never have an owner who won't pay the big bucks.

Nowadays it might turn out to be more of a factor in some area's. Carmelo wasn't asking to be traded to Milwaukee or Minny. He asked for NY. Dwight Howard? He's not going to accept getting traded to those area's either. He'll want L.A's\Brooklyn(NY area).

Denver coulda offered Orlando the best package for Dwight and it wouldn't have happened. Dwight woulda never signed off on it.

In the end it really doesn't matter, whatever happens is going to happen and things like FO\scouting make up 99% of it but to act like market doesn't play that 1-3% factor in some area's is naive IMO.


Melo's wife being from NY was a major factor in him wanting to go to NY, as well as himself being born there. If his wife were from Milwaukee, he may have asked to go to Milwaukee.

[tpols]

The NBA took a team away from the 15th largest metro area, and put the team in the 43rd largest metro area. And the team is doing infinitely better now.

Market means nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch.
How come the Knicks, a much more popular and historic franchise than the Nets came away with Amare AND Melo while the Nets came away with NOTHING in free agency? Why did those guys choose the Knicks, who were a terrible team for a decade over the Nets, who actually had good management and teams for a good while and tons of cap space just like NY? You dont think there's a certain prestige associated with playing for certain teams like Boston, NY, LA etc.? Why do people always make a big deal about how many points are scored at MSG but not at the prudential center?

Deron Williams was pissed when he found out he was traded to Newark..

It's a joke to act like players dont take into consideration a city's/franchises's lore when deciding.. It doesnt have to be a huge factor in your opinion, but to say it isnt a factor at all makes it look like you just cant comprehend the situation.

[DMAVS41]

How come the Knicks, a much more popular and historic franchise than the Nets came away with Amare AND Melo while the Nets came away with NOTHING in free agency? Why did those guys choose the Knicks, who were a terrible team for a decade over the Nets, who actually had good management and teams for a good while and tons of cap space just like NY? You dont think there's a certain prestige associated with playing for certain teams like Boston, NY, LA etc.? Why do people always make a big deal about how many points are scored at MSG but not at the prudential center?

Deron Williams was pissed when he found out he was traded to Newark..

It's a joke to act like players dont take into consideration a city's/franchises's lore when deciding.. It doesnt have to be a huge factor in your opinion, but to say it isnt a factor at all makes it look like you just cant comprehend the situation.

This.

We've had this debate before. Its definitely a factor. If every team had Cuban for an owner? It would be less, but that isn't realistic. Certain markets attract certain types of owners, gm's, coaches, and players....to ignore that is ignorant.

[DMAVS41]

Melo's wife being from NY was a major factor in him wanting to go to NY, as well as himself being born there. If his wife were from Milwaukee, he may have asked to go to Milwaukee.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[bagelred]

Melo's wife being from NY was a major factor in him wanting to go to NY, as well as himself being born there. If his wife were from Milwaukee, he may have asked to go to Milwaukee.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Sarcastic]

This.

We've had this debate before. Its definitely a factor. If every team had Cuban for an owner? It would be less, but that isn't realistic. Certain markets attract certain types of owners, gm's, coaches, and players....to ignore that is ignorant.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Dallas was a joke of a franchise despite being in a large market. If you told me back then, that they would be able to attract top free agents in the 2000s, I would have laughed at you, as would most people.



@tpols: did the Nets offer Amar'e a max deal? I was under the impression that only the Knicks did. Melo would have signed with the Nets if the Knicks didn't make the trade for him.

[NuggetsFan]

Melo's wife being from NY was a major factor in him wanting to go to NY, as well as himself being born there. If his wife were from Milwaukee, he may have asked to go to Milwaukee.

:oldlol: :cheers:

I truly never know if your account is serious or not with your username. I feel as tho your always being sarcastic or something :oldlol:

[Rab]

Over time, bigger markets will always have a competive advantage. Sure, you will prob always have the SA's and OKC's of the world making appearances in the playoffs and fielding strong teams, but over time, they will not be able to sustain it. The exception so far being the Spurs.

OKC is going to have some choices to make here soon on Harden and Ibaka. Gonna be tough to keep both and be able to surround KD and Westbrook with good role players, whereas teams in larger markets are willing and able to pay luxury tax penalties to keep teams together. I'm not blaming those markets or teams for being in the position they're in, but there is a competitive advantage there because of it. Now, there are owners who are cheap asses or don't spend money wisely, and certainly part of the blame is on them, but they don't have the luxury of being able to recover as quickly, or attempt to get out from under their bad contracts like NY has over the past decade.

Look at Minny in the Garnett days. First round fodder almost every year he was there. They could never bring in enough to surround KG to make a big time run. There's a small market team that had one of the best players in the game that just could never bring in enough talent to be a serious threat. LeBron never attracted anyone of note to come to Cleveland. Melo was a one trick pony in Denver for years. Look what happened to Paul's Hornets back when they gave SA a run for their money. Bosh's teams in Toronto were mediocre or bad. The jury is out on where D-Will will end up. Howard hasn't ever had a true superstar next to him.

You can tell me all you want that it's about how well you draft and how well you spend your money in free agency, but that's only half of the equation. It was mentioned earlier how superstars tend to give their teams 6-8 years when drafted to field a championship caliber team. The evidence backs that up thusfar, however, since these GM's and owners are under such pressure to keep their young stars happy, they are forced into making questionable trades and signings which put them in cap hell for years, or face the consequences of losing their stars.

Look where these players are going or are rumored to want to go. They aren't asking to go Milwaukee, Minny, Toronto, Utah, Sacramento, etc. They want NY, LA, Chicago, Miami. You can debate whether or not Miami is a small market, but it's certainly a desirable market. Why? Because they are going where they can benefit the most, and going to teams where money doesn't handicap a franchise. That's fine, I don't have a problem with them fulfilling contracts and choosing their destiny from there, but I wish there was more in place for their teams to at least be more of an option.

[Kblaze8855]

I want to make this clear. I have not intimated the bold. Of course no team can get by just off location or market size..etc. I have repeatedly said there are a number of factors.

However, certain franchises have inherent benefits....and I have seen those benefits become increasingly more important over the years.

Name these franchises please.

I dont believe you could give me a single one that isnt the Lakers.

The great majority of this issue is just people knowing nothing of history and barely even paying attention now. You have people yelling about the same teams always being good as if the reasons arent clearly traceable to the draft or just smart basketball decisions and coaching selections.

The 15 best team records in NBA history(not counting teams like the Stags that were around 3-4 years) are...

Lakers
Celtics
Blazers
Spurs
76ers
Pistons
bucks
Bulls
Suns
Sonics/Thunder
Jazz
Rockets
Pacers
Magic
Knicks


Lakers as I said are the BS free agent team. Others?

Celtics - Traded all nba scorer for Russell because the Hawks were idiots. Drafted Bird a year early to make sure they got him when nobody else was smart enough. Ripped off the warriors for Parish and Mchale.

90% of their success cant in any way by attributed to them being Boston.

Blazers

Drafted Walton, got Lucas out of the ABA, drafted clyde, and porter and so on and had Paul Allen outspending everyone for years. Not just being Portland.

Spurs

Got Gervin in the ABA, drafted Drob knowing he wouldnt play for 2 years at least, taked t oget Duncan, got Manu at like pick 57 and Parker late first round. No way can you call their success being a desired locaiton thing.

76ers

Built their old good teams before free agency existed
Got Doc from the Nets for 3 million dollars. Had a 3 time finals team before Moses who is the only major signing in their 60 year history. He was a trade technically but it was a trade after they blocked him signing there as a free agent with an old rule

Pistons

Drafted or traded for everyone of note from Lanier, and Bing, to Isiah, Rodman, Laimbeer, Dumars, Grant, Ben, Rip and so on.


Bucks. Actually the victims of one of the only legit "Im leaving for a big market...period" situations in history when they lost Kareem.


Bulls

Built solid teams of role players in the 70s and drafted MJ trying to tank for Hakeem and got Rose by winning the lottery too. didnt do shit with players not drafted or traded for on drat day.

Suns

Gang of role players and smart decisions in the draft in the 70s, smart deals to get KJ and Chambers off their teams and traded for Charles who left ab igger market. Traded for Kidd in a huge deal, traded him for Marbury, drafted Amare and Marion, traded for JJ when he was a role player then lost him....signed Nash who the Mavs didnt want anymore. And lost amare to a big market. Cant put any of that desired location shit on them. Their biggest asset they ever traded for didnt even know he was going there till it was done(Barkley)

Sonics/Thunder - Drafted or traded for everyone from DJ, Gus williams and sikma, to Payton/Kemp, to KD, Russell, and Harden.


Jazz

Got Pistol Pete because the Hawks had nobody else who wanted him and he went to LSU and they wanted to sell tickets with him. didnt do anything of note with him. Didnt do anything ever really outside of times with Malone/Stockton and later Deron. Never signed a free agent who matters.

Rockets

Drafted Hayes, drafted hakeem, drafted Sampson, drafted Francis and Yao. You could argue Drexler was a coming home situation. Tmac...trade.

Pacers - Clearly not a FA hotspot. Never signed a major FA...ever.

Magic
Knicks - Biggest free agents ever got them back to back first round exits so its not like it did anything to get them the status they have. they didnt sign Reed, Ewing, Frazier, Bradley, Monroe, or any of them.



So tell me...what exactly...has being a big market done for these teams? Let them sign the like...5 total players out of 20 thousand that made an impact for big market reasons?

Get major league coaches perhaps?

Jeut let me know. Really. Tell me how this has made an impact in reality. Not in theory.

The Heat, the 69 Lakers, and a a couple 8th seed Knicks teams? The clippers? We really talking up the Clippers as a "Its not fair they get so many..." situation?

[Punpun]

Dude, we all know it was all about the BRI. And Kobe skewing the population view (7 or 8 finals in 12 or so years) making them think it was all the Lakers thus big markets dominating.

[tpols]

In the 1980s and 1990s, Dallas was a joke of a franchise despite being in a large market. If you told me back then, that they would be able to attract top free agents in the 2000s, I would have laughed at you, as would most people.



@tpols: did the Nets offer Amar'e a max deal? I was under the impression that only the Knicks did. Melo would have signed with the Nets if the Knicks didn't make the trade for him.
The Nets were having talks with every big FA at the time.. no one wanted to go there. We had to settle for Travis fvcking Outlaw while having a very good GM in Rod Thorn. Get a clue dude.

Jason Kidd forced himself out of NJ and there were reports all the time of him being unhhappy playing on the side of the turnpike at the Continental Airlines Arena, where there was swamp land on your right and smoke stacked factories lining the roadway to the left. It's just.. unattractive. If you think people dont think about WHERE and WHO they're playing for you're stupid.

[tpols]

Name these franchises please.

I dont believe you could give me a single one that isnt the Lakers.

The great majority of this issue is just people knowing nothing of history and barely even paying attention now. You have people yelling about the same teams always being good as if the reasons arent clearly traceable to the draft or just smart basketball decisions and coaching selections.

The 15 best team records in NBA history(not counting teams like the Stags that were around 3-4 years) are...

Lakers
Celtics
Blazers
Spurs
76ers
Pistons
bucks
Bulls
Suns
Sonics/Thunder
Jazz
Rockets
Pacers
Magic
Knicks


Lakers as I said are the BS free agent team. Others?

Celtics - Traded all nba scorer for Russell because the Hawks were idiots. Drafted Bird a year early to make sure they got him when nobody else was smart enough. Ripped off the warriors for Parish and Mchale.

90% of their success cant in any way by attributed to them being Boston.

Blazers

Drafted Walton, got Lucas out of the ABA, drafted clyde, and porter and so on and had Paul Allen outspending everyone for years. Not just being Portland.

Spurs

Got Gervin in the ABA, drafted Drob knowing he wouldnt play for 2 years at least, taked t oget Duncan, got Manu at like pick 57 and Parker late first round. No way can you call their success being a desired locaiton thing.

76ers

Built their old good teams before free agency existed
Got Doc from the Nets for 3 million dollars. Had a 3 time finals team before Moses who is the only major signing in their 60 year history. He was a trade technically but it was a trade after they blocked him signing there as a free agent with an old rule

Pistons

Drafted or traded for everyone of note from Lanier, and Bing, to Isiah, Rodman, Laimbeer, Dumars, Grant, Ben, Rip and so on.


Bucks. Actually the victims of one of the only legit "Im leaving for a big market...period" situations in history when they lost Kareem.


Bulls

Built solid teams of role players in the 70s and drafted MJ trying to tank for Hakeem and got Rose by winning the lottery too. didnt do shit with players not drafted or traded for on drat day.

Suns

Gang of role players and smart decisions in the draft in the 70s, smart deals to get KJ and Chambers off their teams and traded for Charles who left ab igger market. Traded for Kidd in a huge deal, traded him for Marbury, drafted Amare and Marion, traded for JJ when he was a role player then lost him....signed Nash who the Mavs didnt want anymore. And lost amare to a big market. Cant put any of that desired location shit on them. Their biggest asset they ever traded for didnt even know he was going there till it was done(Barkley)

Sonics/Thunder - Drafted or traded for everyone from DJ, Gus williams and sikma, to Payton/Kemp, to KD, Russell, and Harden.


Jazz

Got Pistol Pete because the Hawks had nobody else who wanted him and he went to LSU and they wanted to sell tickets with him. didnt do anything of note with him. Didnt do anything ever really outside of times with Malone/Stockton and later Deron. Never signed a free agent who matters.

Rockets

Drafted Hayes, drafted hakeem, drafted Sampson, drafted Francis and Yao. You could argue Drexler was a coming home situation. Tmac...trade.

Pacers - Clearly not a FA hotspot. Never signed a major FA...ever.

Magic
Knicks - Biggest free agents ever got them back to back first round exits so its not like it did anything to get them the status they have. they didnt sign Reed, Ewing, Frazier, Bradley, Monroe, or any of them.



So tell me...what exactly...has being a big market done for these teams? Let them sign the like...5 total players out of 20 thousand that made an impact for big market reasons?

Get major league coaches perhaps?

Jeut let me know. Really. Tell me how this has made an impact in reality. Not in theory.

The Heat, the 69 Lakers, and a a couple 8th seed Knicks teams? The clippers? We really talking up the Clippers as a "Its not fair they get so many..." situation?
Hasnt it been said a million times that it's just one of many factors? No one's claiming having a desireable team/city is the only way to win multiple championships.. just that it is an influence on decisions.

Again.. why did Melo and Amare choose NY over Newark?

Why was Deron pissed when he found out he was being shipped to Newark?

Both teams had the cap space and ability to do the same things.. the nets actually had better management. Why NY over Newark? I think it's pretty obvious. It's like a hockey player having to choose between the rangers and the islanders.

[gasolina]

Melo's wife being from NY was a major factor in him wanting to go to NY, as well as himself being born there. If his wife were from Milwaukee, he may have asked to go to Milwaukee.
Of course, the chances of having a carmelo anthony born in new york is higher than him being born in Milwaukee, because.... there's more people in New York.

:D

[Kblaze8855]

Why NY over newark?

Like 8-10 big contract guys signed places in the last 3 years all of that time the nets had space and you ask me why one random one didnt go to NJ? Nobody went to jersey. They went to a gang of non big markets though.

Might as well ask why nobody has signed with the Bobcats.

Why would anyone is a better question.

The Knicks already had Amare signed longterm. What...was Melo supposed to go to the Nets and play with the nobody likely to be there now?

I wouldnt have signed with the nets. And I dont even much like new york.


And all the "its only one small part" claims are justi n stark contrast to the claims made all off season. this big market small market shit just needs to go.

You know what decides if your team is good?

The draft and being healthy.

Everything else combined might make up 10 percent. Who you get...on their way in...decides who is great. Market comes after the draft, health, coaching, and chemistry. Its such a minor issue...but its discussed so much.

Its just small market fans and people mad at 2-3 contenders acting like something keeps their teams from being great.

Im a Bulls fan. My team was bad...till we drafted Jordan and grant and got Pippen on draft night. We fell off. Ad sucked till we drafted the players who make us win now and signed a good coach.

But...big market big market big market.

The Lakers are the only team to just snap up players who made an impact on this league because of who they are. And thats exactly 3 players of note in 70 years.

99.9% of the time...you draft wellyou win. you could be the spurs, Celtics, Blazers, Thunder , or whoever.

You draft well....you win.

Your teams zipcode is so far down the list it barely justifies discussion. But I have a very one track mind....

[DMAVS41]

Name these franchises please.

I dont believe you could give me a single one that isnt the Lakers.

The great majority of this issue is just people knowing nothing of history and barely even paying attention now. You have people yelling about the same teams always being good as if the reasons arent clearly traceable to the draft or just smart basketball decisions and coaching selections.

The 15 best team records in NBA history(not counting teams like the Stags that were around 3-4 years) are...

Lakers
Celtics
Blazers
Spurs
76ers
Pistons
bucks
Bulls
Suns
Sonics/Thunder
Jazz
Rockets
Pacers
Magic
Knicks


Lakers as I said are the BS free agent team. Others?

Celtics - Traded all nba scorer for Russell because the Hawks were idiots. Drafted Bird a year early to make sure they got him when nobody else was smart enough. Ripped off the warriors for Parish and Mchale.

90% of their success cant in any way by attributed to them being Boston.

Blazers

Drafted Walton, got Lucas out of the ABA, drafted clyde, and porter and so on and had Paul Allen outspending everyone for years. Not just being Portland.

Spurs

Got Gervin in the ABA, drafted Drob knowing he wouldnt play for 2 years at least, taked t oget Duncan, got Manu at like pick 57 and Parker late first round. No way can you call their success being a desired locaiton thing.

76ers

Built their old good teams before free agency existed
Got Doc from the Nets for 3 million dollars. Had a 3 time finals team before Moses who is the only major signing in their 60 year history. He was a trade technically but it was a trade after they blocked him signing there as a free agent with an old rule

Pistons

Drafted or traded for everyone of note from Lanier, and Bing, to Isiah, Rodman, Laimbeer, Dumars, Grant, Ben, Rip and so on.


Bucks. Actually the victims of one of the only legit "Im leaving for a big market...period" situations in history when they lost Kareem.


Bulls

Built solid teams of role players in the 70s and drafted MJ trying to tank for Hakeem and got Rose by winning the lottery too. didnt do shit with players not drafted or traded for on drat day.

Suns

Gang of role players and smart decisions in the draft in the 70s, smart deals to get KJ and Chambers off their teams and traded for Charles who left ab igger market. Traded for Kidd in a huge deal, traded him for Marbury, drafted Amare and Marion, traded for JJ when he was a role player then lost him....signed Nash who the Mavs didnt want anymore. And lost amare to a big market. Cant put any of that desired location shit on them. Their biggest asset they ever traded for didnt even know he was going there till it was done(Barkley)

Sonics/Thunder - Drafted or traded for everyone from DJ, Gus williams and sikma, to Payton/Kemp, to KD, Russell, and Harden.


Jazz

Got Pistol Pete because the Hawks had nobody else who wanted him and he went to LSU and they wanted to sell tickets with him. didnt do anything of note with him. Didnt do anything ever really outside of times with Malone/Stockton and later Deron. Never signed a free agent who matters.

Rockets

Drafted Hayes, drafted hakeem, drafted Sampson, drafted Francis and Yao. You could argue Drexler was a coming home situation. Tmac...trade.

Pacers - Clearly not a FA hotspot. Never signed a major FA...ever.

Magic
Knicks - Biggest free agents ever got them back to back first round exits so its not like it did anything to get them the status they have. they didnt sign Reed, Ewing, Frazier, Bradley, Monroe, or any of them.



So tell me...what exactly...has being a big market done for these teams? Let them sign the like...5 total players out of 20 thousand that made an impact for big market reasons?

Get major league coaches perhaps?

Jeut let me know. Really. Tell me how this has made an impact in reality. Not in theory.

The Heat, the 69 Lakers, and a a couple 8th seed Knicks teams? The clippers? We really talking up the Clippers as a "Its not fair they get so many..." situation?

You are arguing with a ghost...and I have repeatedly said it was a growing concern leading up to the new CBA. There are many factors. Its never going to be one or the other.

And I gave you more examples earlier...but everyone wants to ignore them for some reason or another. I can show you all the teams that have won since 1980...but you will tell me it had nothing to do with market.

I can show you that Lebron, Bosh, Amare, Melo, Chandler, Williams, Howard, and Paul just in the last couple years have clearly have either had an issue with their market chose one of the most desirable markets to play.

You can look at it a different way. Cavs couldn't keep Lebron, Hornets couldn't keep Paul, Jazz couldn't keep Williams, Magic looking unlikely to keep Howard, Suns couldn't keep Amare, Raptors couldn't keep Carter/T-Mac/Bosh.

Wolves didn't do anything of note with KG.

When are these big name players going to start going to all the teams you claim aren't at a disadvantage? You'll say when they get an owner willing to spend and a great gm / coach...etc. Well guess what....the more desirable markets are more likely to have those things....and they have the inherent benefits of increased fame/fortune/exposure for most of these guys.

The notion that Melo was as relevant to the sports world when he played in Denver than he is now in NY is comical.

Lets just make this simple.

Do certain markets have advantages or not? Please answer.

[gasolina]

The Knicks already had Amare signed longterm. What...was Melo supposed to go to the Nets and play with the nobody likely to be ...
the better question would be - why did amare choose new york over new jersey. Both of them had nothing and only capspace

[NuggetsFan]

And all the "its only one small part" claims are justi n stark contrast to the claims made all off season. this big market small market shit just needs to go.


Not really, you just need to actually open your eyes. Everybody always wants to pick a side and just kick their toys until everybody agree's with what they are trying to get across. It's not black and white. So many things go into what makes a team successful and what doesn't . So many different situations, players etc. Guy's make more money in bigger markets. Nate Robinson had one of the best selling jerseys in NY. That doesn't happen in Milwaukee.

Denver had put talent around Melo and heck they've won more playoff games than NY since he left. Why does Melo want NY? Pretty sure Baltimore is his hometown and what he reps. His wife lived there but doubt that was his main reason. So why does he force himself out of Denver to go to NY? .. because it's New f*cking York. Plain and simple .. that right their alone tells you that large markets have benefited ATLEAST once.

More exposure, better chance at making money etc. are all things you can't argue, large markets have in their favor. You just can't. It's always going to be debatable how much impact those things will carry and how much if at all they help teams .. but at the end of the day you know when a guy's a FA or thinking about his next destination those things will always be talked about within their camp.

Market size doesn't mean much. Won't be the deciding factor if you have a good FO, scouting and all the other things that truly matter.

To say that they "just need go" is pretty naive and simple minded. It plays a very small role.

[NuggetsFan]

the better question would be - why did amare choose new york over new jersey. Both of them had nothing and only capspace

Yeah not sure what KBlaze is bringing that up for. Wasn't Amare on record saying that he wanted to bring the NY Knicks back? Remember hearing NY fans talking about that when others were saying just trade him.

Wasn't PHX unwilling to pony up the money to keep him either? Honestly have no idea just remember hearing that. Would their attendance\location have anything to do with them being so cheap? Pretty sure they just sold the draft picks that winded up being Deng\Rondo, no?

[Kblaze8855]

You are arguing with a ghost...and I have repeatedly said it was a growing concern leading up to the new CBA. There are many factors. Its never going to be one or the other.

Its almost all one...and virtually none of the other.


And I gave you more examples earlier...but everyone wants to ignore them for some reason or another. I can show you all the teams that have won since 1980...but you will tell me it had nothing to do with market.

When you show me teams that drafted or got on draft night Magic, Jordan, Worthy, Pippen, Pierce, Duncan, Parker, Manu, Hakeem, Bird, Parish, Mchale, Dirk and really...the extreme vast majority of the players who make things happen? Yes. I will tell you it isnt market.


I can show you that Lebron, Bosh, Amare, Melo, Chandler, Williams, Howard, and Paul just in the last couple years have clearly have either had an issue with their market chose one of the most desirable markets to play.

Point out the non desirable markets in play for these players and explain basketball reasons they should have gone there. And no less than 6 of those players...there is no reason to assume they disliked their city. And some didnt even chose where they went. You just naming players. Like the city of Orlando made Dwight and Stans rivalry...or like chandler wouldnt take a max deal from Dallas...or Amare didnt ask for 100 million from the suns for 2 years.


You can look at it a different way. Cavs couldn't keep Lebron, Hornets couldn't keep Paul, Jazz couldn't keep Williams, Magic looking unlikely to keep Howard, Suns couldn't keep Amare, Raptors couldn't keep Carter/T-Mac/Bosh.

At least 4 or 5 of those examples are didnts not couldnts.


Wolves didn't do anything of note with KG.

They did not...and he didnt demand be traded either. Just...more names.



When are these big name players going to start going to all the teams you claim aren't at a disadvantage?

Name those who should have been able to sign them to begin with....




You'll say when they get an owner willing to spend and a great gm / coach...etc. Well guess what....the more desirable markets are more likely to have those things....and they have the inherent benefits of increased fame/fortune/exposure for most of these guys.

We already went into owners so...

A desired market is more likely to find a coach? Or GM?

The lakers have had 2 note worthy coaches in 70 years, the Knicks have not had a top flight coach for more than 4 years since the early 70s, the Bulls gave Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, and Thibs their first shots so its not like they lured them in with bright lights, Miamis coach is a nobody, Larry Brown has coached everywhere...

Pop? Nelson?

Where are all the market flocking great coaches?

And where are these great desired market GMs?

Jerry West. Red 60 years ago.

Who is even known as a great Gm currently?

Presti? The Spurs people? Bird? We calling Pat riley a great GM? whoever is in Memphis maybe?

Spotting coaching talent isnt a market thing. Its a basketbal lthing. As just about all of it is.

Who just...signs some high profile proven GM?

Memphis signing Jerry West?

That the only example ever?

Maybe the Raptors getting dude from the suns?

Front office people and coaches arent just flocking to "desired" markets.

Its basketball people mostly happy to get a shot.

Jerry Sloan is trying to get hired to the gotdamn Bobcats tomorrow....

One of the 10 or so best coaches ever is asking the worst team of all time in a city that doest care, that isnt big to begin with, and is run by one of the worst front office people of all time....for a job. And it would be their second hall of fame coach in their last 3.



The notion that Melo was as relevant to the sports world when he played in Denver than he is now in NY is comical.

We talking basketball or....espn coverage?



Lets just make this simple.

Do certain markets have advantages or not? Please answer.

The results dont show one worth a mention outside the Lakers. And as I said...thats 3 people of note in 70 years.

Its mostly just assumption about shit that has not had an impact.

If you are asking if I believe a lot of people would rather live in LA than Toronto or Minnesota? Of course.

But it didnt make the Clippers matter for 30 years. It doesnt really...make anyone great. Who isnt the Lakers.

Every single great team...but them....obvious basketball reasons that have little if anything to do with just being who they are.

[tpols]

Why NY over newark?

Like 8-10 big contract guys signed places in the last 3 years all of that time the nets had space and you ask me why one random one didnt go to NJ? Nobody went to jersey. They went to a gang of non big markets though.


They went to Miami, Atlanta, Chicago, and New York. Thats where the big FAs(JJ, Amare, Lebron, Bosh, Boozer went). How are those destinations not desireable locations? The trio mentioned a million times how much they were going to enjoy 'south beach.' There's no south beach in Charlotte. Miami is a huge international hot spot. And then you have freaking New York, Atlanta, and Chicago.. yup totally small and irrelevant cities/teams.


Might as well ask why nobody has signed with the Bobcats.

I dont get it.. are you supporting my point here? The bobcats, much like Newark arent ever going to attract anyone in FA.


Why would anyone is a better question.

Again whose side are you on?


The Knicks already had Amare signed longterm. What...was Melo supposed to go to the Nets and play with the nobody likely to be there now?

I'm talking about how they got Amare initially. The Nets were in the EXACT same position as the Nets for FA that summer and they were shipping around Jay Z and Rod Thorn everywhere trying to convince people to come to NJ. Amare was pumped to be the new franchise player at MSG.. he didnt want to play for the Newark Nets.


I wouldnt have signed with the nets. And I dont even much like new york.

You sound like a lot of guys in FA then.:oldlol:



And all the "its only one small part" claims are justi n stark contrast to the claims made all off season. this big market small market shit just needs to go.

You know what decides if your team is good?

It still totally effects the balance of the league. If Dwight and Deron end up in LA next year youll be singing a whole different tune.


Everything else combined might make up 10 percent. Who you get...on their way in...decides who is great. Market comes after the draft, health, coaching, and chemistry. Its such a minor issue...but its discussed so much.

So you're saying FA is only 10% of what teams have to make their team's good? Miami, LAL, New York, and the current Celtics would disagree. FA has landed all of these teams in title contending situations for the past several years(Knicks not so much but they have a shot).


Its just small market fans and people mad at 2-3 contenders acting like something keeps their teams from being great.

Im a Bulls fan. My team was bad...till we drafted Jordan and grant and got Pippen on draft night. We fell off. Ad sucked till we drafted the players who make us win now and signed a good coach.

No one's saying you need to be great in FA to be good.. a lot of times teams do win through the draft. And a lot of times they end up losing the star players that they drafted because they cant attract anyone to their team(see Lebron and Garnett for recent examples).



But...big market big market big market.

The Lakers are the only team to just snap up players who made an impact on this league because of who they are. And thats exactly 3 players of note in 70 years.

And their big market bias has resulted in 7 Finals appearances and 5 championships over the past decade.. that didnt affect the rest of the league?:lol


99.9% of the time...you draft wellyou win. you could be the spurs, Celtics, Blazers, Thunder , or whoever.

The Spurs are a shining example of your point.. great drafting and player development, but the Celtics?:oldlol: They got Ray Allen and Garnett to come over in Free Agency. Why didnt all three of them go to Milwaukee or Minnesota? Why did it have to be Boston? Why Miami over Cleveland and Toronto? Is this just a coincidence every time that the big market teams can save up cap space and attract FAs much easier?


You draft well....you win.

You can draft well and win.. sure. But teams like the Lakers, Celtics, and knicks can draft well OR pick guys up in FA. They have TWO options that greatly expand their chances at winning.


Your teams zipcode is so far down the list it barely justifies discussion. But I have a very one track mind....
I'm sure a lot of FAs and players in general would agree. No one wants to play in Newark.. or Milwaukee.. or Minnesota.. or Toronto.. or Charlotte.. the list goes on and on. There's a huge chunk of teams that will never come close to winning a championship.

[CelticBaller]

Boston IS a msall market with a population less than a million people.
the whole new england area supports boston

[Kblaze8855]

the better question would be - why did amare choose new york over new jersey. Both of them had nothing and only capspace

Is there any evidence the Nets offered him 100 million dollars?


Yeah not sure what KBlaze is bringing that up for. Wasn't Amare on record saying that he wanted to bring the NY Knicks back? Remember hearing NY fans talking about that when others were saying just trade him.

Who has ever gone to a new team that is struggling and not said they wanted to bring them back up?

Or are you saying he said it in Phoenix?


Wasn't PHX unwilling to pony up the money to keep him either? Honestly have no idea just remember hearing that. Would their attendance\location have anything to do with them being so cheap? Pretty sure they just sold the draft picks that winded up being Deng\Rondo, no?

The Suns have paid max or near max money out at least 3 times since Sarver bought them. couldnt tell you why they refused to do it again. Saw nashs end coming and didnt wanna pay Amare for 3-4 years of rebuilding? didnt trust his health? Cant say. Forbes says they had the biggest profit margin in the NBA some years with him. clearly some money was being generated.


forbes says they made a 40 million dollar profit in 05 alone. top 5 in the last 5 seasons combined. had a 153 game sellout streak. Seems they were fine business wise.

Guess he wanted to keep it.

Cant say.

[gasolina]

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nba/news/story?id=5350202

Couldn't find anything specific on nets on to amare but found this. At the bottom bosh commented on his "meeting" with the nets went well.

:facepalm again at the big three for keeping that farce of a free agency

[lilgodfather1]

The small markets are screwed for free agency. The only teams that get good free agents like LeBron are desirable, fair weather cities. NY is a shithole, and even they got two stud free agents despite being a terrible media made team.

[knicksman]

if it isnt obvious that free agents wanted new york, lakers, in their list. Then I dont know what to say about your IQ. You cant find me any superstar listing memphis, indiana, milwaukee as their desired destination.

[Kblaze8855]

They went to Miami, Atlanta, Chicago, and New York. Thats where the big FAs(JJ, Amare, Lebron, Bosh, Boozer went). How are those destinations not desireable locations?

Chicago struck out on everyone of note and got Boozer as a last resort with even David Lee gone....Atlanta isnt now and never was some FA attracting city...its just the name of a city. Miami got itself down to 2 players on the roster and signed 3 guys at once. What were their other landing spots? chicago? San Francisco/Oakland? Two NY area teams now both in New york? The clippers? Isnt that all that got in on that circus?

What team could they have chosen to not be going to a desired location?

Isnt it pretty much...stay where you dont wanna be or sign in any of the several desired locations offering money?



The trio mentioned a million times how much they were going to enjoy 'south beach.' There's no south beach in Charlotte. Miami is a huge international hot spot.

....that was totally out of the blue and had people shocked it was even being mentioned 3 days earlier. Lets not act like Miami was seen as any kind of likely landing spot for these guys. People were laughed at for the suggestion before it happened. It wasnt a huge story because it was expected. It came out of nowhere.



And then you have freaking New York, Atlanta, and Chicago.. yup totally small and irrelevant cities/teams.

Once again I ask...

Give me the other places they could go.




I dont get it.. are you supporting my point here? The bobcats, much like Newark arent ever going to attract anyone in FA.

Who did the Clippers attract for the last 30 years?

What....LA isnt LA if it doesnt say Lakers after it?

Bad situations dont attract free agents unless they are just chasing money.

The Bobcats just had a playoff team and blew it up and made the worst team of all time. And you act like them not signing people is a charlotte issue?




I'm talking about how they got Amare initially. The Nets were in the EXACT same position as the Nets for FA that summer and they were shipping around Jay Z and Rod Thorn everywhere trying to convince people to come to NJ. Amare was pumped to be the new franchise player at MSG.. he didnt want to play for the Newark Nets.


You sound like a lot of guys in FA then.


It still totally effects the balance of the league. If Dwight and Deron end up in LA next year youll be singing a whole different tune.

For one...no I wont. Ive said the Lakers get "WTf?" free agents and have always excluded them. And people have been talking about Howard to the Nets for 2 years. We will have to see how it plays out.

Nets draft a superstar in a couple months(I believe their pick going to Portland is top 3 or 5 protected) they could be the next thunder like young team with people talking about how they are great as a big market as if they didnt do it with the draft like 99% of other teams.



So you're saying FA is only 10% of what teams have to make their team's good? Miami, LAL, New York, and the current Celtics would disagree. FA has landed all of these teams in title contending situations for the past several years(Knicks not so much but they have a shot).

Even if they did disagree(and the Knicks arent contenders, the Lakers have not signed a star on their team now, and the Celtics traded an all star bigman for KG, a top 5 pick to a rebuilding team cutting costs for Ray, and had Pierce and rondo already so...no clue what you mean there)...

Even if they did..

The 58 champions who were led to it by players they had from day one would speak louder.



No one's saying you need to be great in FA to be good.. a lot of times teams do win through the draft. And a lot of times they end up losing the star players that they drafted because they cant attract anyone to their team(see Lebron and Garnett for recent examples).

Its not...a lot of teams. its a massive...massive..majority. And a lot of them lose the players? You mean after 7 or 12 years as in your examples?

And the funny thing is...

free agency started in 1978.

The same teams people complain about now were already good.

What was making the Celtics, Lakers, and Knicks have all those good players in the 60s and 70s?

You know...before Oscar sued the NBA and removed the lifetime ownership the draft gave teams over players to that point.

What was it then?





And their big market bias has resulted in 7 Finals appearances and 5 championships over the past decade.. that didnt affect the rest of the league?

Nobody has seen me say the Lakers didnt get free agents.

But its not enough to disregard the obvious source of great teams greatness.




The Spurs are a shining example of your point.. great drafting and player development, but the Celtics? They got Ray Allen and Garnett to come over in Free Agency. Why didnt all three of them go to Milwaukee or Minnesota? Why did it have to be Boston? Why Miami over Cleveland and Toronto? Is this just a coincidence every time that the big market teams can save up cap space and attract FAs much easier?

Already did Boston.

And you asking me why they didnt go places they couldnt just isnt going anywhere. Why not ask me why they didnt go to the LA sparks?



You can draft well and win.. sure. But teams like the Lakers, Celtics, and knicks can draft well OR pick guys up in FA. They have TWO options that greatly expand their chances at winning.

The Knicks and Celtics combine for like 130 years of history. 70ish in the free agent era.

Name the best players in their history that were free agent signings.

They have rich histories. you shouldnt have to google these people. Who we talking about?


Im guessing...combined...its Melo and Amare. Who have done what exactly? be names and lose?




I'm sure a lot of FAs and players in general would agree. No one wants to play in Newark.. or Milwaukee.. or Minnesota.. or Toronto.. or Charlotte.. the list goes on and on. There's a huge chunk of teams that will never come close to winning a championship.

The Bucks have like the 9th best winning percentage in history and already won a ring. And they won it with Oscar robertson agreeing to play there(I believe he had a no trade clause on the Kings). They later got walked out on but just winning the one is proof enough of what it takes.

The only bigtime Nets free agents ever stayed there...and when else have they had cap space while not making an obvious effort to clean ouse?

The only major player Minny ever lost due to just wanting to leave is Marbury who had team issues. But you have a guy die, terrell Brandons career end with injury, and lose 5 years of first round draft picks in an under the table deal for Joe smith...losing out on a chance to draft any number of good players..tony Parker for one...you might suck.

The Hornets were perfectly good when they drafted well. Not only that they had the top attendance in the NBA for like 10 years. But run them like shit you get shitty results. You draft Adam Morrison, Emeka, sean May, Wright and so on...you trade Gerald wallace, Chandler, Stephen Jackson and fire Larry Brown while deciding to play rookies to save money...you just might suck.

You trade Damon when he was turning to a franchise player, draft Marcus Camby #2 over 10 all stars(one of which was from Canada) and trade him for a late 30s charles Oakley, and draft Vince Carters now and then aggressive ass over 2 finals MVPs, take Bosh over Wade, Araujo over 5 all stars, take charlie V over bynum, a 7 foot 2 guard over Lamarcus, Rondo, and Gay, trade hibbert for an already fallen off 14/6 43% shooting 120 million dollar contract having Jermaine Oneal and only have one coach of note in 15 years when guys like Thibs and even Dantoni have been waiting in the wings at points just asking for a shot from someone....

You might suck.

Generally speaking?

Dont...be bad at running your team? your team wont end up bad.

[DMAVS41]

Its almost all one...and virtually none of the other.


And I gave you more examples earlier...but everyone wants to ignore them for some reason or another. I can show you all the teams that have won since 1980...but you will tell me it had nothing to do with market.

When you show me teams that drafted or got on draft night Magic, Jordan, Worthy, Pippen, Pierce, Duncan, Parker, Manu, Hakeem, Bird, Parish, Mchale, Dirk and really...the extreme vast majority of the players who make things happen? Yes. I will tell you it isnt market.



Point out the non desirable markets in play for these players and explain basketball reasons they should have gone there. And no less than 6 of those players...there is no reason to assume they disliked their city. And some didnt even chose where they went. You just naming players. Like the city of Orlando made Dwight and Stans rivalry...or like chandler wouldnt take a max deal from Dallas...or Amare didnt ask for 100 million from the suns for 2 years.



At least 4 or 5 of those examples are didnts not couldnts.



They did not...and he didnt demand be traded either. Just...more names.




Name those who should have been able to sign them to begin with....





We already went into owners so...

A desired market is more likely to find a coach? Or GM?

The lakers have had 2 note worthy coaches in 70 years, the Knicks have not had a top flight coach for more than 4 years since the early 70s, the Bulls gave Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, and Thibs their first shots so its not like they lured them in with bright lights, Miamis coach is a nobody, Larry Brown has coached everywhere...

Pop? Nelson?

Where are all the market flocking great coaches?

And where are these great desired market GMs?

Jerry West. Red 60 years ago.

Who is even known as a great Gm currently?

Presti? The Spurs people? Bird? We calling Pat riley a great GM? whoever is in Memphis maybe?

Spotting coaching talent isnt a market thing. Its a basketbal lthing. As just about all of it is.

Who just...signs some high profile proven GM?

Memphis signing Jerry West?

That the only example ever?

Maybe the Raptors getting dude from the suns?

Front office people and coaches arent just flocking to "desired" markets.

Its basketball people mostly happy to get a shot.

Jerry Sloan is trying to get hired to the gotdamn Bobcats tomorrow....

One of the 10 or so best coaches ever is asking the worst team of all time in a city that doest care, that isnt big to begin with, and is run by one of the worst front office people of all time....for a job. And it would be their second hall of fame coach in their last 3.




We talking basketball or....espn coverage?




The results dont show one worth a mention outside the Lakers. And as I said...thats 3 people of note in 70 years.

Its mostly just assumption about shit that has not had an impact.

If you are asking if I believe a lot of people would rather live in LA than Toronto or Minnesota? Of course.

But it didnt make the Clippers matter for 30 years. It doesnt really...make anyone great. Who isnt the Lakers.

Every single great team...but them....obvious basketball reasons that have little if anything to do with just being who they are.


We will just have to agree to disagree. I agree with a lot of what you say, but you are ignoring things right in front of you. Either by choice or ignorance....really no other explanation.

KG, Allen, and Pierce just happened to end up in Boston.
Lebron, Wade, and Bosh just happened to end up in Miami.

Shaq left Orlando for the Lakers.
Magic would have not entered the draft in not for going to the Lakers.
Kobe's agent forced his way to the Lakers.

Melo wanted out of Denver for NY badly.
Amare ended up in NY?

Paul, Williams, and Howard all wanted out. Hell, the Magic made the finals in 09...LOL.

The Mavs, even with Cuban, failed to land one true big name free agent since he's taken over. Never got a legit 2nd option for Dirk after nearly a decade of trying.

Raptors had T-Mac, Carter, and Bosh....lost them all....LOL

Its funny because you talk about management and ownership...which I agree with. But think about it the other way. If teams like NY and the Bulls and the Clippers all had better management and ownership....those teams would have been better. You can't separate the two. In fact, even after a decade of horrid management, the Knicks somehow landed Melo, Amare, and Chandler. Why weren't other teams even mentioned with some of those guys?

How big of a factor all this is...is up for debate. It is certainly not nothing or 1% as you claim...but its certainly not more important than an owner willing to spend and a quality GM.

I'm just shocked that people can't see the reasons why some of these less desirable and less relevant franchises have the issues they do in terms of ownership and management. Guess what? If you gave someone the choice of owning the Knicks or the Raptors.....they would take the Knicks almost every time. Why do you think? It's like we have to explain something that is just so obvious and simple.

I don't get it.

Lets try this another way.

Two exact same teams. Exact same coach, exact same GM, exact same player...etc. Everything exactly the same and a player knows this going in.

One team is in NY and one team is in one team is in Sacramento. Which team is that player more likely to choose if you put multiple players in that exact same position year in year out? We all know the answer is NY. So its a ****ing advantage.

Also, we have made this about stars so far....it matters with role players as well. Its not just about the big name free agents.

Markets don't matter, but the Cavs vs Spurs finals is the worst rated finals of all time. Had Duncan and Lebron...etc. LOL...they matter. You put those exact same players on the Knicks and Lakers and you get one of the highest rated finals ever. People are aware of this...they know it. It impacts decisions coaches, gm's, agents, owners, and players make.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Agree with KBlaze. It's not all about big/small markets, it's about how well the franchise is operated. Bad teams aren't bad because they aren't LA, NY or CHI, but because they are poorly run.

I guess having a desirable location could be one of the factors, but that's definitely not everything.

[DMAVS41]

Agree with KBlaze. It's not all about big/small markets, it's about how well the franchise is operated. Bad teams aren't bad because they aren't LA, NY or CHI, but because they are poorly run.

I guess having a desirable location could be one of the factors, but that's definitely not everything.


I have not heard anyone in this thread disagree with this statement though.

That is all I have said. Its one of many factors....certainly not the most important one. But a legit factor nonetheless....

[tpols]

Yea KBlaze your point pretty much comes down to.. anyone can be good with smart management. You're telling everyone that they have nothing to complain about because the tools to succeed are right in front of them.

But just because everyone has the basic toolbox to succeed doesnt negate the fact that there are franchises with a lot more tools in their box at their disposal. Sure.. everyone has a shot. But it is by no means equal.

Look at this map:
http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Map11.png

LA
Boston
Chicago
San Antonio
Philly
Detroit
New York

Is this a coincidence? 4 out of the top 6 are huge USA capital cities, 1 is a pretty big/well know one(Detroit), and one is relatively smaller. And then of course all of the smaller cities are lucky to have 1 championship in their entire histories.. with about half having ZERO.

Is it just a huge coincidence that the big market teams have great management? Do you think it's possible that the management hired in these more storied franchises is more dedicated and responsible?

[DMAVS41]

Yea KBlaze your point pretty much comes down to.. anyone can be good with smart management. You're telling everyone that they have nothing to complain about because the tools to succeed are right in front of them.

But just because everyone has the basic toolbox to succeed doesnt negate the fact that there are franchises with a lot more tools in their box at their disposal. Sure.. everyone has a shot. But it is by no means equal.

Look at this map:
http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Map11.png

LA
Boston
Chicago
San Antonio
Philly
Detroit
New York

Is this a coincidence? 4 out of the top 6 are huge USA capital cities, 1 is a pretty big/well know one(Detroit), and one is relatively smaller. And then of course all of the smaller cities are lucky to have 1 championship in their entire histories.. with about half having ZERO.

Is it just a huge coincidence that the big market teams have great management? Do you think it's possible that the management hired in these more storied franchises is more dedicated and responsible?


Yep. This is the connection I see everyone failing to make.

[Sarcastic]

Yea KBlaze your point pretty much comes down to.. anyone can be good with smart management. You're telling everyone that they have nothing to complain about because the tools to succeed are right in front of them.

But just because everyone has the basic toolbox to succeed doesnt negate the fact that there are franchises with a lot more tools in their box at their disposal. Sure.. everyone has a shot. But it is by no means equal.

Look at this map:
http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Map11.png

LA
Boston
Chicago
San Antonio
Philly
Detroit
New York

Is this a coincidence? 4 out of the top 6 are huge USA capital cities, 1 is a pretty big/well know one(Detroit), and one is relatively smaller. And then of course all of the smaller cities are lucky to have 1 championship in their entire histories.. with about half having ZERO.

Is it just a huge coincidence that the big market teams have great management? Do you think it's possible that the management hired in these more storied franchises is more dedicated and responsible?


Correlation does not equal causation.

[tpols]

Correlation does not equal causation.
So whats the cause then? Pure coincidence?

[Sarcastic]

So whats the cause then? Pure coincidence?

Getting lucky in the draft has more to do with winning titles, than the city a team plays in. Example: San Antonio.

[Sarcastic]

If the Blazers pick Jordan instead of Bowie, then Portland would have 7 titles and Chicago would have 0.

[DMAVS41]

If the Blazers pick Jordan instead of Bowie, then Portland would have 7 titles and Chicago would have 0.

Maybe. Or maybe Jordan leaves after his first 6 years because the Blazers don't build around him well or he doesn't want to be there.

Like we keep saying...there are a lot of factors. Some matter more....depending on the player.

The simple fact that we know players would rather make more money and be more relevant/famous on the whole shows that there is an inherent advantage to some franchises.

Whether or not a franchise capitalizes on these inherent advantages does not change the fact that there are advantages to begin with.

Lets try a more recent example. Lets say the Celtics somehow drafted Lebron and won 4 titles. You'd be saying the same thing. Well, if the Cavs drafted Lebron they would be the one with all those titles. Not always that easy mate.

[Sarcastic]

Maybe. Or maybe Jordan leaves after his first 6 years because the Blazers don't build around him well or he doesn't want to be there.

Like we keep saying...there are a lot of factors. Some matter more....depending on the player.

The simple fact that we know players would rather make more money and be more relevant/famous on the whole shows that there is an inherent advantage to some franchises.

Whether or not a franchise capitalizes on these inherent advantages does not change the fact that there are advantages to begin with.

Lets try a more recent example. Lets say the Celtics somehow drafted Lebron and won 4 titles. You'd be saying the same thing. Well, if the Cavs drafted Lebron they would be the one with all those titles. Not always that easy mate.

Cleveland screwed up with Lebron. Part of it is his fault, and part of it is their fault.

His fault is that he made the team too good, and they were never able to get another top draft pick, so he would have a decent teammate.

The Cavs fault was that with the picks that they did have, they struck out on. In 2005 they picked Luke Jackson with the 10th pick of the draft, passing on players like Kris Humphries, Al Jefferson, Josh Smith, and JR Smith.



In Chicago's case, they actually made a concerted effort to get Jordan a decent teammate, by trading for Scottie Pippen. If they never got Pippen there, who knows if Jordan stays?

[DMAVS41]

Cleveland screwed up with Lebron. Part of it is his fault, and part of it is their fault.

His fault is that he made the team too good, and they were never able to get another top draft pick, so he would have a decent teammate.

The Cavs fault was that with the picks that they did have, they struck out on. In 2005 they picked Luke Jackson with the 10th pick of the draft, passing on players like Kris Humphries, Al Jefferson, Josh Smith, and JR Smith.



In Chicago's case, they actually made a concerted effort to get Jordan a decent teammate, by trading for Scottie Pippen. If they never got Pippen there, who knows if Jordan stays?

Of course. Lebron wouldn't have left it the team had built around him better.

However, its harder to build a team in Cleveland than it is in some of the other more desirable markets...

It's a perfect example. And this was with a player that wanted to be in Cleveland as he was from there. LOL at the idea that Kobe or someone like him would have stayed in Cleveland past his initial contract...which doesn't even give the team a chance to build properly.

[Sarcastic]

Of course. Lebron wouldn't have left it the team had built around him better.

However, its harder to build a team in Cleveland than it is in some of the other more desirable markets...

It's a perfect example. And this was with a player that wanted to be in Cleveland as he was from there. LOL at the idea that Kobe or someone like him would have stayed in Cleveland past his initial contract...which doesn't even give the team a chance to build properly.

Actually Lebron said he never liked Cleveland from his Akron days, as those 2 cities are bitter rivals.

However if the Cavs drafted Josh Smith, maybe they win a title and Lebron stays. I don't think he left Cleveland because he hated the city. I think he left because he wanted to play with his friends, and have a better chance to win a title.

[DMAVS41]

Actually Lebron said he never liked Cleveland from his Akron days, as those 2 cities are bitter rivals.

However if the Cavs drafted Josh Smith, maybe they win a title and Lebron stays. I don't think he left Cleveland because he hated the city. I think he left because he wanted to play with his friends, and have a better chance to win a title.

Of course that is why he left, but other players might not be ok with playing on the Cavs.

For example, a guy like Shaq or Kobe would definitely not be good with it.

You guys are basically expecting perfection from these less desirable markets to keep players and contend. You can't be perfect. Even the Spurs make mistakes at times....see Richard Jefferson...and that took them time to recover from that other certain franchises in the past would have just spent their way out of that problem.

[Sarcastic]

Of course that is why he left, but other players might not be ok with playing on the Cavs.

For example, a guy like Shaq or Kobe would definitely not be good with it.

You guys are basically expecting perfection from these less desirable markets to keep players and contend. You can't be perfect. Even the Spurs make mistakes at times....see Richard Jefferson...and that took them time to recover from that other certain franchises in the past would have just spent their way out of that problem.

Shaq played with the Cavs.

[DMAVS41]

Shaq played with the Cavs.

I'm talking about something completely different and you know it. Come on now...

I have made my points. Others have made theirs....

I think this problem will continue to go away as the new CBA kicks in, but I also believe that it has been a factor in the modern era.

All that said. Agree to disagree. I feel like I'm typing the same thing over and over. Maybe tpols can take over again. He and I seem to see this the same way.

[tpols]

If the Blazers pick Jordan instead of Bowie, then Portland would have 7 titles and Chicago would have 0.
You're transplanting a scenario that happened in one situation into another totally different situation and expecting the same exact results.:facepalm

[Rab]

Listen, we can sit here and analyze player movement from the last 20-25 years all we want, but for the most part, it's not really relevant.

Today's player is just different. They are about a brand. They are about marketing themselves, and creating lucrative ventures off the court as well. They not basketball players anymore. They're businessmen, they're a brand, they're aspiring to be icons. They want to team up and play with each other instead of against each other.

The orginal and best example of where this started is Shaq. He left Orlando for greener pastures both because of the prestige and history of playing for the Lakers, but also because of the opportunities the city provided off the court....movies, music, etc.

It's only now that we are seeing the seed that Shaq planted start to grow. The LeBron, Wade, Melo, Paul, Williams, Bosh, Howard's, are attempting to take that to the next level.

Can people really not see why teams like the Wolves, Kings, Raptors, Bobcats can't consistently field a good team? I agree drafting is the key part to building any team, but they're going to be lucky to ever add significant pieces around that player, let alone keep the good ones they draft.

Do we really think Monta Ellis won't be on the first train out of Milwaukee when he has the chance? Why did Kevin Love not commit to a max deal with the Wolves, and add an opt out after year 3?

We had Amar'e here in Phoenix for years. Sure because of the Suns success, he got his fair share of attention, but when he left for NY, he became bigger than a basketball player. He got way more exposure in just the few months where he was the Knicks pre-Melo, than he ever did here in Phoenix. Same with Melo, same with Bosh, same will go for Howard, most likely D-Will. Paul is in LA....I mean, c'mon. It's obvious. KG had to finally break down and ask for a trade to a team that could add pieces around him. The Lakers stole Pau from a Grizzlies team looking to unload it's star for cap relief. The Miami crew have received way more pub than when they played apart from each other...yes even LeBron. You don't think that's lucrative for them, or helps them build their brand?

These players aren't asking to go to the smaller market teams, and they never will. They will always attract the second tier stars. The Randolph's, Rudy Gay's, Granger's, and will have to overpay to just get or keep them.

The stars of today is what is scaring the league, and the owners alike. The players aren't doing anything wrong, but these super teams, the collusion to play with one another, isn't going to be good for the league as a whole. I don't enjoy reading everyday that another player is rumored to be headed to the LA, NY, or whatever the case may be.

The bigger franchises will always have an upper hand in this league. That doesn't always mean championships, but it does mean consistenly putting together good teams, paying tax dollars others can't or won't, and constantly being able to chew up and spit out one player, and bring in another.

[Kblaze8855]

We will just have to agree to disagree. I agree with a lot of what you say, but you are ignoring things right in front of you. Either by choice or ignorance....really no other explanation.

No. I suspect I look into these things much much much more than most people spouting off about big markets.



KG, Allen, and Pierce just happened to end up in Boston.

That is...pretty much exactly the case. What...its Bostons fault they had developing star bigman to trade for the aging KG to a team that wanted to rebuild? Boston being Boston gave them a top 4 or 5 pick to trade to the Sonics who were rebuilding? Was Paul Pierce not already there because of the draft? And Rondo?



Lebron, Wade, and Bosh just happened to end up in Miami.

If they didnt two of them would have been in an actual big market. One of the 2 New york teams most likely. complaints one way or the other. Only place they could have gone without staying would have been like...the warriors? ad couldnt go all together. Together...it was Miami or New York or Brooklyn wasnt it?


Shaq left Orlando for the Lakers.


Nothing new to say about the Lakers.


Magic would have not entered the draft in not for going to the Lakers.

Funny thing is...the top 3 picks were LA, chicago and New york anyway.,,,and the #1 pick the next season? The Celtics. They traded it to the warriors for the #3 and Parish. Took Mchale third. Magic was going to the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, or Knicks no matter what. And you would be here talking about it being a big market break anyway. It was gonna be the draft no matter what....

But the celtics just magically got that pick despite being a contender already just like the Lakers did. Wasnt...good decisions getting a good team in position to get better. It was the zipcode.


Kobe's agent forced his way to the Lakers.

Lakers.


Melo wanted out of Denver for NY badly.
Amare ended up in NY?

Free agency since 78. Finally signing a star 35 years later doesnt mean the Knicks easily get free agents for being in New york.


Paul, Williams, and Howard all wanted out. Hell, the Magic made the finals in 09...LOL.

Paul wanted off a shitty team and landed in one of the best situations possible. Basketball decision...easy pick to make.

Deron is expected to leave NY which doesnt seem to help your point.

Lets not act like Dwights issue is with the city of Orlando.He admitted hes been asking for Stan to be fired for years(he said he didnt this year though). And there are reports he blocked trades to both New York and LA so...incomplete story.


The Mavs, even with Cuban, failed to land one true big name free agent since he's taken over. Never got a legit 2nd option for Dirk after nearly a decade of trying.

How would they land a big name free agent being over the cap for 10 years?

The one year they wont be...next year...they are expected to possibly get Deron who is from dallas I believe....



Raptors had T-Mac, Carter, and Bosh....lost them all....LOL

Tmac wasnt Tmac in Toronto and was not valued as if he was, Carter was traded with time left on his deal because hes a bitch and they wanted to build around Bosh, and Bosh wasi n Toronto for 7 years. On an almost always bad team. That failed to get a half dozen stars there for the taking. Whatsh is motivation to stay again? Basketball wise?


Its funny because you talk about management and ownership...which I agree with. But think about it the other way. If teams like NY and the Bulls and the Clippers all had better management and ownership....those teams would have been better. You can't separate the two.

Feels like you left something out there. Like you were finishing a thought I didnt see you start.


In fact, even after a decade of horrid management, the Knicks somehow landed Melo, Amare, and Chandler. Why weren't other teams even mentioned with some of those guys?

Other than the teams that let 2 of those 3 walk you mean?



How big of a factor all this is...is up for debate. It is certainly not nothing or 1% as you claim...but its certainly not more important than an owner willing to spend and a quality GM.

I'm just shocked that people can't see the reasons why some of these less desirable and less relevant franchises have the issues they do in terms of ownership and management. Guess what? If you gave someone the choice of owning the Knicks or the Raptors.....they would take the Knicks almost every time. Why do you think? It's like we have to explain something that is just so obvious and simple.

I don't get it.


Lets try this another way.

Two exact same teams. Exact same coach, exact same GM, exact same player...etc. Everything exactly the same and a player knows this going in.

One team is in NY and one team is in one team is in Sacramento. Which team is that player more likely to choose if you put multiple players in that exact same position year in year out? We all know the answer is NY. So its a ****ing advantage.

That manifests itself in the real world as...what?

In 35 years.

What?

Who?

Alan Houston perhaps? Eddy Curry after the Bulls couldnt deal with his heart condition?

Amare whos former team didnt want to pay what the Knicks would?

Who just...lost someone they made effort to keep to the Knicks because its the Knicks?

Is Melo the sole example in 35 years? And if so...

Does your assumption have any real world evidence?

People are just gonna flock to the Knicks...but they have never accomplished anything that wasnt led by draft picks.


Also, we have made this about stars so far....it matters with role players as well. Its not just about the big name free agents.

For role players it matters even less. They dont have nearly the same room to be picky.


Markets don't matter, but the Cavs vs Spurs finals is the worst rated finals of all time. Had Duncan and Lebron...etc. LOL...they matter. You put those exact same players on the Knicks and Lakers and you get one of the highest rated finals ever. People are aware of this...they know it. It impacts decisions coaches, gm's, agents, owners, and players make.

So you talk about small market disadvantage with an example of two teams who made themselves matter in places nobody cares about just off the draft? Because it didnt do good tv numbers?

Im talking basketball here....

[Rab]

The Cavs fault was that with the picks that they did have, they struck out on. In 2005 they picked Luke Jackson with the 10th pick of the draft, passing on players like Kris Humphries, Al Jefferson, Josh Smith, and JR Smith.

Which forced them to do what? They struck out on JJ, and signed Larry Hughes to a contract that set them back for years. Forced them to make panic moves like trade for Jamison, and an over the hill Shaq. All to try and appease their star. Small market teams can't make panic moves to try and keep their stars happy. They'll lose every time.

[Sarcastic]

You're transplanting a scenario that happened in one situation into another totally different situation and expecting the same exact results.:facepalm

Portland actually had a much better team than the Bulls in the 1980s. I think they would actually win more than 6 with Jordan, and maybe flipping Drexler for other pieces.

[DMAVS41]

No. I suspect I look into these things much much much more than most people spouting off about big markets.




That is...pretty much exactly the case. What...its Bostons fault they had developing star bigman to trade for the aging KG to a team that wanted to rebuild? Boston being Boston gave them a top 4 or 5 pick to trade to the Sonics who were rebuilding? Was Paul Pierce not already there because of the draft? And Rondo?




If they didnt two of them would have been in an actual big market. One of the 2 New york teams most likely. complaints one way or the other. Only place they could have gone without staying would have been like...the warriors? ad couldnt go all together. Together...it was Miami or New York or Brooklyn wasnt it?




Nothing new to say about the Lakers.



Funny thing is...the top 3 picks were LA, chicago and New york anyway.,,,and the #1 pick the next season? The Celtics. They traded it to the warriors for the #3 and Parish. Took Mchale third. Magic was going to the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, or Knicks no matter what. And you would be here talking about it being a big market break anyway. It was gonna be the draft no matter what....

But the celtics just magically got that pick despite being a contender already just like the Lakers did. Wasnt...good decisions getting a good team in position to get better. It was the zipcode.



Lakers.



Free agency since 78. Finally signing a star 35 years later doesnt mean the Knicks easily get free agents for being in New york.



Paul wanted off a shitty team and landed in one of the best situations possible. Basketball decision...easy pick to make.

Deron is expected to leave NY which doesnt seem to help your point.

Lets not act like Dwights issue is with the city of Orlando.He admitted hes been asking for Stan to be fired for years(he said he didnt this year though). And there are reports he blocked trades to both New York and LA so...incomplete story.



How would they land a big name free agent being over the cap for 10 years?

The one year they wont be...next year...they are expected to possibly get Deron who is from dallas I believe....




Tmac wasnt Tmac in Toronto and was not valued as if he was, Carter was traded with time left on his deal because hes a bitch and they wanted to build around Bosh, and Bosh wasi n Toronto for 7 years. On an almost always bad team. That failed to get a half dozen stars there for the taking. Whatsh is motivation to stay again? Basketball wise?



Feels like you left something out there. Like you were finishing a thought I didnt see you start.



Other than the teams that let 2 of those 3 walk you mean?




That manifests itself in the real world as...what?

In 35 years.

What?

Who?

Alan Houston perhaps? Eddy Curry after the Bulls couldnt deal with his heart condition?

Amare whos former team didnt want to pay what the Knicks would?

Who just...lost someone they made effort to keep to the Knicks because its the Knicks?

Is Melo the sole example in 35 years? And if so...

Does your assumption have any real world evidence?

People are just gonna flock to the Knicks...but they have never accomplished anything that wasnt led by draft picks.



For role players it matters even less. They dont have nearly the same room to be picky.



So you talk about small market disadvantage with an example of two teams who made themselves matter in places nobody cares about just off the draft? Because it didnt do good tv numbers?

Im talking basketball here....


I guess that is your problem. Players today care about more than just basketball...as do fans You really don't think a good number of NBA players care about their fame or how they are viewed by the public? Come on now mate....

You continue to chalk everything up to randomness and coincidence....if so much luck and randomness is involved, why aren't more lesser market teams competing at higher levels?

So we can either choose to look at what has happened and say its all random and that the trios of KG, Allen and Pierce or Wade, Lebron, and Bosh were just as likely to wind up in Toronto or Milwaukee as they are Miami or Boston...or we can come back to reality and realize that certain markets have inherent advantages.

Lets put this a different way. Lets say Toronto and Miami had the exact same scenarios for these guys. Which franchise do you think the three of them more likely go to.

Keep in mind that if you answer Miami....it blows your whole notion out of the water as that decision, no pun intended, has already had historical ramifications for both the Heat and the NBA.

So please answer. Where do you think Lebron, Wade, and Bosh are more likely to go with the all details equal. The exact same situation....Toronto or Miami?

[Kblaze8855]

As for that gigantic map...

At a glance its no less than 49 champs there who were led by people the teams there had all along. And thats with me not counting Kobe and a few others im not 100% on and im nto gonna google.

What is that even telling me?

You could probably spread 14 rings around if the Hawks had just been smart enough to keep Bill russell and the Warriors, knicks, pacers, kings, or blazers been smart enough to draft Larry Bird knowing hed go back to school for a year like Red.

But no...

Indiana has a pick that could take Larry Bird. Doesnt have the foresight to use it on him...

Hes from Indiana.

Went to Indiana.

ended up coaching and running the Pacers.

But they did not draft him. They took Rick Robey. Red takes Bird.
And Red being smarter than the Hawks and Pacers and so on gets chalked up to some bullshit about Boston being Boston.

the Lakers were a 50 win team who traded an aging vet for the pick that would be magic...a pick that had he gone back to school for...would have just sent him #1 to the celtics the next year making red look even smarter..

shortly the Lakers add #1 pick James worthy. despite being elite already. How? Oh yea....Cleveland giving them the pick for...

*insert drumroll*

Chad Kinch!

Lakers turn a shitty pick and an aging vet into Magic and worthy and its rings on rings on rings...

Turns into maps with a gang of rings one or two places as if they just popped up without brilliance going into the earning of them.


Things like this are the reason I cant take this idea serious.

Whatever you think also helps...its clear what the vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaast majority of this is.....

Some teams being smarter than others.

You may think some of them have too much success for that to be it but really...

No less than 28 of these big market titles are just a few really smart people making brilliant decisions anyone could have made. But didnt.

Just because most people dont know the stories or the details doesnt mean its just big city/nice destination bullshit.

[DMAVS41]

I will pose my question to everyone.

If Toronto and Miami had the exact same franchises and Wade, Lebron, and Bosh each knew that whichever team they chose had no bearing on wins and losses and that they were going to perform exactly the same....so in other words, all things equal.

Which team do you think that trio is most likely to choose? Miami or Toronto?

I of course think the answer is obvious. But please answer everyone.

[Kblaze8855]

Key problem here...

Your all things equal assumption gives Toronto a competence that it has never shown.

A world in which toronto had people to set up such a situation probably wouldnt have Bosh looking to get out to begin with.

And thats the problem I think we cant get past.

you seem to be asking if people would in general rather exist in Miami than canada. Id have to assume so.

But if the people in Toronto were team builders along the lines of a Riley...who has already built 4 seperate groups of contending teams post Lakers even....

Its a whole new world.

You have to dream up totally unrealistic situation...while all I need do is look at the world as it is and has been.

In a world where everyone is equally intelligent and makes the same quality of basketball decision the talent would be more nicely spread out.

But it isnt.

In this world....most of these teams people are crying over just **** up time and time again.

To create a world where they have equal competence with great team builders to make guesses about what happens sets aside what we all agree is the most important factor.

That everyone does NOT have equal competence. In the world we have...

The only teams im aware of that even made effort to possibly sign all these guys....all of them would result in complaints about small or less desired markets. *edit..checked..Miami cleared enough space for 4 max players...bulls had room for 2..seems only Miami had enough to sign all 3 to the deals they got*.

If these guys end up in Chicago, new york, brooklyn, LA, or the bay...

Same argument.

Whos fault is it that not everyone saw the benefit of building a team on which EVERYONE could expire or be released within a week the first time this situation has ever been possible(need the modern rookie contract guidelines)?

I just dont think that being a talented team builder has ever been given the credit it should in these situations.

You dont just...exist in Miami and get 2 top 5 players and a top 4 without giving up anything.

Its doing a good job as a front office. And ive seen no evidence that doing that in any market doesnt result in a great team.

[RaininTwos]

I will pose my question to everyone.

If Toronto and Miami had the exact same franchises and Wade, Lebron, and Bosh each knew that whichever team they chose had no bearing on wins and losses and that they were going to perform exactly the same....so in other words, all things equal.

Which team do you think that trio is most likely to choose? Miami or Toronto?

I of course think the answer is obvious. But please answer everyone.

Toronto>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Miami.

If Toronto had upper management and ownership like the Heat, then FA's would flock here by the boatload. As far as cities and markets go, Toronto is miles ahead of Miami. The difference is how the organizations are run. One has a clear plan and championship aspirations, the other is trying to put together an All-UN team for whatever reason. Maybe so that the diverse fanbase can identify with some of the players? I have no god damn idea because it makes no basketball sense.

[DMAVS41]

Key problem here...

Your all things equal assumption gives Toronto a competence that it has never shown.

A world in which toronto had people to set up such a situation probably wouldnt have Bosh looking to get out to begin with.

And thats the problem I think we cant get past.

you seem to be asking if people would in general rather exist in Miami than canada. Id have to assume so.

But if the people in Toronto were team builders along the lines of a Riley...who has already built 4 seperate groups of contending teams post Lakers even....

Its a whole new world.

You have to dream up totally unrealistic situation...while all I need do is look at the world as it is and has been.

In a world where everyone is equally intelligent and makes the same quality of basketball decision the talent would be more nicely spread out.

But it isnt.

In this world....most of these teams people are crying over just **** up time and time again.

To create a world where they have equal competence with great team builders to make guesses about what happens sets aside what we all agree is the most important factor.

That everyone does NOT have equal competence. In the world we have...

The only teams im aware of that even made effort to possibly sign all these guys....all of them would result in complaints about small or less desired markets. *edit..checked..Miami cleared enough space for 4 max players...bulls had room for 2..seems only Miami had enough to sign all 3 to the deals they got*.

If these guys end up in Chicago, new york, brooklyn, LA, or the bay...

Same argument.

Whos fault is it that not everyone saw the benefit of building a team on which EVERYONE could expire or be released within a week the first time this situation has ever been possible(need the modern rookie contract guidelines)?

I just dont think that being a talented team builder has ever been given the credit it should in these situations.

You dont just...exist in Miami and get 2 top 5 players and a top 4 without giving up anything.

Its doing a good job as a front office. And ive seen no evidence that doing that in any market doesnt result in a great team.

Well, I just can't disagree more. I'm not talking about people in general either. Toronto is an amazing place and I'd imagine more people in the world would rather live in Toronto over Miami actually....at least I know I would.

I'm asking about NBA players. Current NBA players. And you answered the question ultimately with Miami. Which we all know is the correct answer.

It is not unrealistic. All it takes is one thing really. One thing like what happened when Bosh, Wade, and Lebron came together in a desirable market and it changed the NBA for at least now...maybe forever.

And because you answered Miami...you then, through your answer, admit that certain markets have inherent benefits. Therefore a market is a factor...and it matters enough for us all to admit that all things equal....one of the most talented "big threes" of all time came together in a desirable market and not another market.

Your response will be something about how Miami was the only choice. In part that is true....but better question is:

Why did Miami think they had a chance to do what they did? Because, in part, because of the kind of market they are in. The Raptors could have tried to do that. The Cavs could have tried to do that. Hell, there are plenty of reports saying that Lebron asked Bosh to join him in Cleveland and he said no....he wanted to play in Miami.

It is an advantage. And like somebody else said....Toronto is a great place to live and has a passionate fan base...etc. I chose it because its by no mean the least desirable market to play in. Yet we all know, all things equal, players will choose a market like Miami over Toronto.

[Soundwave]

Small markets can compete BUT they need the following

1.) Strong/wealthy ownership + devoted fanbase.

2.) Once they get their star player (say a Durant) they must understand they are IMMEDIATELY on the clock to find that player an appropriate no.2 option, who should ideally be around the same age as star player (see: Westbrook). And ideally you should actually have a *third* big time complimentary piece as well (see: Harden).

This is where Cleveland failed and OKC succeeded. Cleveland wasn't able to get LeBron that "Westbrook/Pippen/etc." level player who was someone LeBron could grow with.

The Clevelands, Orlandos, Indianas, etc. need to understand this -- once you get a star to build around, you better find a way to draft of acquire someone who is a good young no.2 (and better yet a no.3 as well) option(s).

This is not just a problem for small markets though. It could very well become a problem in Chicago for example.

[Soundwave]

Toronto>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Miami.

If Toronto had upper management and ownership like the Heat, then FA's would flock here by the boatload. As far as cities and markets go, Toronto is miles ahead of Miami. The difference is how the organizations are run. One has a clear plan and championship aspirations, the other is trying to put together an All-UN team for whatever reason. Maybe so that the diverse fanbase can identify with some of the players? I have no god damn idea because it makes no basketball sense.

No offence, and I love Toronto as a city, but no way is Toronto a nicer city to live in than Miami, provided you have the $$$$$.

Weather, nightlife, South Beach, etc.

[RaininTwos]

No offence, and I love Toronto as a city, but no way is Toronto a nicer city to live in than Miami, provided you have the $$$$$.

Weather, nightlife, South Beach, etc.

:sleeping :sleeping :sleeping

People live in places for more reasons than just weather and nightlife.

[Soundwave]

:sleeping :sleeping :sleeping

People live in places for more reasons than just weather and nightlife.

That may be true, but honestly Miami, *if* you have the money shits on most any city in North America.

I've lived in LA and been to Toronto many times and Chicago a couple of times as well.

To live in -- I'd take Miami if I was a pro athlete. Hands down. There's no place in North America that feels quite like Miami.

[RaininTwos]

That may be true, but honestly Miami, *if* you have the money shits on most any city in North America.

I've lived in LA and been to Toronto many times and Chicago a couple of times as well.

To live in -- I'd take Miami if I was a pro athlete. Hands down. There's no place in North America that feels quite like Miami.

Most of Miami is poor people living in bungalo's, wtf is so special about miami?

Out of all the NBA cities, I wouldn't even rank Miami in the top 10.

[Sarcastic]

Toronto>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Miami.

If Toronto had upper management and ownership like the Heat, then FA's would flock here by the boatload. As far as cities and markets go, Toronto is miles ahead of Miami. The difference is how the organizations are run. One has a clear plan and championship aspirations, the other is trying to put together an All-UN team for whatever reason. Maybe so that the diverse fanbase can identify with some of the players? I have no god damn idea because it makes no basketball sense.

The ownership group that owns the Raptors doesn't give a shit about them. They only care about the Maple Leafs.

[gasolina]

I love how kblaze keeps making references to what teams did 20 or 30 years ago. None of them matter now. Players behaviors HAVE changed and how people view players HAVE changed.

I think its a pretty good assumption that players from the 70's and 80's led a pretty low key lifestyle then. Especially since they weren't being paid gigantic salaries and didn't have nationwide endorsement deals. It didn't matter if you played in milwaukee or l.a., there was no advantage then since everyone just played for a paycheck.

Now you got big $$ endorsment deals in big cities that you won't get on less desireable markets. Also, there's this thing called lifestyle choice. Would a 20 something year old rich single superstar want to spend their time WINNING in wisconsin or WINNING in south beach?

See I capped WINNING. You act like winning is something inherent on the lakers, celtics and such and that teams like charlotte can never have. Let's start from scratch, how does a team win? Getting good players. Well how does a team get good players, get a good front office.

If I was pat riley and was the most awesome basketball exec of all time. Would I take $10m to build a winner in sunny L.A., or take $10m to build a winner in memphis? Ever ask the question why pat riley spent a lot of time in cities where its so awesome to live especially if you have cash to burn?

[WeGetRing2012]

Small markets can compete BUT they need the following

1.) Strong/wealthy ownership + devoted fanbase.

2.) Once they get their star player (say a Durant) they must understand they are IMMEDIATELY on the clock to find that player an appropriate no.2 option, who should ideally be around the same age as star player (see: Westbrook). And ideally you should actually have a *third* big time complimentary piece as well (see: Harden).

This is where Cleveland failed and OKC succeeded. Cleveland wasn't able to get LeBron that "Westbrook/Pippen/etc." level player who was someone LeBron could grow with.

The Clevelands, Orlandos, Indianas, etc. need to understand this -- once you get a star to build around, you better find a way to draft of acquire someone who is a good young no.2 (and better yet a no.3 as well) option(s).

This is not just a problem for small markets though. It could very well become a problem in Chicago for example.

I think Cleveland learned though. You see they tank this year so they could find some more good young players.

[Kblaze8855]

And because you answered Miami...you then, through your answer, admit that certain markets have inherent benefits. Therefore a market is a factor...and it matters enough for us all to admit that all things equal

They never are. which is exactly why its an irrelevant question.

A question which only comes into play in a world that cant exist means nothing beyond time consuming conversation. which I enjoy at times.

But you just cant look at this league and especially at the history of it as people have tried to do(including in this topic) and conclude its made the things happen that its being credited with. Not even in part in any significant way.

You have people comparing 18 year old franchises with 60 year old ones talking about who won the most rings, and acting like teams that never attracted a bigtime free agent have rings because of location when as many as 7 of 8 key players were drafted, and people just looking the other way as of literally 20 rings arent tied up in nothing but the Celtics and Lakers making trades that looked forward that got them #1 picks they used to win rings we now call issues of location.

That its even being called...partly..is a joke t ome. It just cant be justified in most cases to even include it as a footnote. Ive done too much looking into these things and great teams in my life. when I hear shit like what has been said about blah blah champs as opposed to small town whoever...instantly trades of picks from 1977, little coaching decisions, injuries, and so on jump into my head and where someone who isnt as obsessed as I am sees...big cities winning?

I see the Lakers robbing the Jazz for Magic, Cavs for worthy, and so on, Red outsmarting the league for no less than 14 rings just off the Hawks letting him have Russell and nobody taking bird early, the story on how the 76ers got Dr.J when the Hawks and Bucks had him first in the NBA(bucks draft...hawks in a preseason). The story behind the Knicks 70s title teams with the teams that passed on Reed, and how the Rockets tanked back to back to get Hakeem, and on and on and on....

Ive spent too much time with my nose buried in books, and reading old papers, and listening to interviews, and flat out watching games to let such comments go by as if I dont know better.

The location myth behind the champs just must die. But I dont think it will. Because nobody cares to look into the why. Just the end result.

Celtics have 17 titles...14 off outwitting people and 2 more off drafting back to back HOF players to add to Hondo in the 70s but...just...throw all that away. The brilliance of Jerry West. Throw it out.

Igore that the Pacers passed on Bird, blazers passed on Jordan, Nets flat out sold Doctor J, spurs tanked for Duncan and Drob and got Manu and Parker late in drafts...ignore 70 years...ad look at a map and point out teams that have not won...as if you cant just look into why....and see its not location.

Its...smart people beating dumb people. And people ignoring decades of big markets not winning(LA had 1 ring between 56 and 80, Knicks 2 in 70 years and mostly being average, Philly 30 years since the last one and so on).

Its so obvious to me at times I cant believe people overlook these things.

But...I guess not everyone cares to spend afternoons reading old player autobios and so on.....

[Kblaze8855]

I love how kblaze keeps making references to what teams did 20 or 30 years ago. None of them matter now.

And yet...every single one of these topics without exception has people talking about how such and such big markets have won ___ titles and ___ in the small places have not. there isa huge picture on the subject stretching my page as we speak.

Its the single most used point in these topics and as long as it is how all that happened is relevant.


Ever ask the question why pat riley spent a lot of time in cities where its so awesome to live especially if you have cash to burn?


No more often than I ask why all the people who built the other several dozen all time great teams didnt.

Hell the best team builders ever may be Red and Jerry West. Red went from like the Tri city blackhawks to the Celtics and Jerry actually went to the Grizzlies.

I dont think thats an more relevant than Pat Riley. Pat went to NY and miami. Larry brown went from Denver to college, to the Spurs, to the clippers, to the Pacers, to the 76ers, to the Pistons, to the Knicks and Bobcats. Pop followed Larry brown around and settled in SA. Don Nelson ran teams everywhere.

Riley doesnt prove anything Pop doesnt.

How many Gms do you even know of ever working in 3 cities? some guys do the Riley thing and coach/gm. But straight GMs?

If you cant think of many to cite who arent riley without googling it im not sure he even makes a valid point. Hed be more of an exception.

Its the kinda thing I generally try to keep up with and im pretty stumped.

But it is 2am.......

[RaininTwos]

The ownership group that owns the Raptors doesn't give a shit about them. They only care about the Maple Leafs.
Exactly and players can tell by looking at how they treat their star players like shit instead of building around them properly.

[DMAVS41]

They never are. which is exactly why its an irrelevant question.

A question which only comes into play in a world that cant exist means nothing beyond time consuming conversation. which I enjoy at times.

But you just cant look at this league and especially at the history of it as people have tried to do(including in this topic) and conclude its made the things happen that its being credited with. Not even in part in any significant way.

You have people comparing 18 year old franchises with 60 year old ones talking about who won the most rings, and acting like teams that never attracted a bigtime free agent have rings because of location when as many as 7 of 8 key players were drafted, and people just looking the other way as of literally 20 rings arent tied up in nothing but the Celtics and Lakers making trades that looked forward that got them #1 picks they used to win rings we now call issues of location.

That its even being called...partly..is a joke t ome. It just cant be justified in most cases to even include it as a footnote. Ive done too much looking into these things and great teams in my life. when I hear shit like what has been said about blah blah champs as opposed to small town whoever...instantly trades of picks from 1977, little coaching decisions, injuries, and so on jump into my head and where someone who isnt as obsessed as I am sees...big cities winning?

I see the Lakers robbing the Jazz for Magic, Cavs for worthy, and so on, Red outsmarting the league for no less than 14 rings just off the Hawks letting him have Russell and nobody taking bird early, the story on how the 76ers got Dr.J when the Hawks and Bucks had him first in the NBA(bucks draft...hawks in a preseason). The story behind the Knicks 70s title teams with the teams that passed on Reed, and how the Rockets tanked back to back to get Hakeem, and on and on and on....

Ive spent too much time with my nose buried in books, and reading old papers, and listening to interviews, and flat out watching games to let such comments go by as if I dont know better.

The location myth behind the champs just must die. But I dont think it will. Because nobody cares to look into the why. Just the end result.

Celtics have 17 titles...14 off outwitting people and 2 more off drafting back to back HOF players to add to Hondo in the 70s but...just...throw all that away. The brilliance of Jerry West. Throw it out.

Igore that the Pacers passed on Bird, blazers passed on Jordan, Nets flat out sold Doctor J, spurs tanked for Duncan and Drob and got Manu and Parker late in drafts...ignore 70 years...ad look at a map and point out teams that have not won...as if you cant just look into why....and see its not location.

Its...smart people beating dumb people. And people ignoring decades of big markets not winning(LA had 1 ring between 56 and 80, Knicks 2 in 70 years and mostly being average, Philly 30 years since the last one and so on).

Its so obvious to me at times I cant believe people overlook these things.

But...I guess not everyone cares to spend afternoons reading old player autobios and so on.....

Its a hypothetical to prove a point buddy.

Two equal franchises....the desirability of the market might be the turning point for a player. LOL...but it doesn't matter. How on earth can you say that?

And stop referencing things 50 years ago...we are talking more about the growing trend of current players. In case you haven't noticed...things like "brand", "fame", and "fortune"....all matter more now.

How this is even a debate saddens me.

Certain teams have inherent advantages...you just admitted it above. End of story.

[tpols]

The ownership group that owns the Raptors doesn't give a shit about them. They only care about the Maple Leafs.
And thats part of the problem with unstoried basketball franchises in non ideal locations.. do you think LA management is ever going to just.. not care about the Lakers? Is Boston going to hire people that dont carry on its tradition of excellence and winning? Some of these guys own teams just as another business venture.. for their own personal entertainment and maybe just to say that they own a sports team. If you're management at the big teams though, thats really impossible.

And it's a circle.. players see organizations that are accustomed to winning, and the ring being the main goal of nearly every star player, thats where they want to go. That might explain why there's such a huge gap in championships between teams at the top and those at the bottom.

Has anyone ever heard of the bell curve? For true random probability, everyone will fall around the mean, with outliers only spread at the tails. The NBA's curve would look like a heart moniter reading with just one big spike oin the middle and a flat line over 90% of the rest of the curve. It's not equal probability. It's flat out absurd to act like every team has had an equal shot at greatness when there are two teams in huge markets that have won more than half of the NBA's titles by themselves.

[tpols]

And KBlaze pretty much admitted that City/team matters before with his inability to explain how the Lakers have attracted 5 out of the top 10 players of all time on their team.. with 4 of them coming through FA or forcing their way in through the draft. How can you just toss that aside and say, Well the Lakers are the only one with big market bias. ..

As if that doesnt affect the rest of the league's chances at titles by them not only not getting a chance at landing some of the greatest players of all time, but also having to play AGAINST those players en route to winning.

If Shaq doesnt go to LA and wins a few titles in Orlando guess what? That smooths out the distribution of titles across the league. If Kobe goes to Charlotte and wins a ring over his career, thats 1 to a small market team, and a few away from the Lakers. More smoothing out. Just one or two teams having that huge advantage is enough to skew everything for the rest of the league.

[DMAVS41]

The ownership group that owns the Raptors doesn't give a shit about them. They only care about the Maple Leafs.

And do you think the ownership group of a team like the Lakers, Knicks, Celtics, and Bulls are more or less likely to not give a shit about their teams like you say the Raptors do?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[NuggetsFan]

lol funny how this topic is being discussed it comes up that Odom wants to be in NY. Probably for the cheap too. Can say it's because he's from there(that even ties into market tho, more NBA players are going to be from bigger markets than say a place like Charlotte).

NY won 1 playoff game. If he wants to win why doesn't he sign with Indiana for the cheap? Give them another big off the bench. Their pushing the Heat pretty hard right now. He wants to go somewhere comfortable, completely throw the towel in with Dallas because he was traded from L.A. Now he wants NY? It's not even big markets vs small markets. NBA players want to play for certain teams more than others .. period. Goes beyond FO. Maybe even in some cases guy's actually prefer smaller markets. Maybe the extra money doesn't matter. Maybe the extra media attention is actually a negative for them. Who's that college player? Royce White I think who has some kind of anxiety disorder or something .. probably prefer something quieter rather than a larger market maybe :confusedshrug:

Like I've said IMO market plays an EXTREMELY small role. So many other factors far more important. To pretend like all 32 teams are equals and market has ZERO affect in the NBA is beyond f*cking stupid.

[nycelt84]

It seems to me that some of you are proposing that players be forced to not go play in NY or LA due to some kind of weird anger that most people would rather live/work in a big city than in some small one.

[gasolina]

It seems to me that some of you are proposing that players be forced to not go play in NY or LA due to some kind of weird anger that most people would rather live/work in a big city than in some small one.
That weird angle is called "giving all teams an equal chance"

For the most part it isn't worth debating now. Dallas was first to feel it by not signing Tyson Chandler. Time will only tell if the new cba has done its job

[dunksby]

Kblaze is a very good poster, but I could not disagree more with his position on the issue, it is universal in all sports, the attraction of playing where you get the most publicity and chance to win is too great to ignore. This is just too obvious that it does not even warrant a discussion if you ask me.

[Kblaze8855]

Its a hypothetical to prove a point buddy.

Two equal franchises....the desirability of the market might be the turning point for a player. LOL...but it doesn't matter. How on earth can you say that?


Because you cant point out to me any significant(or barely even existing) number of players to join such teams through free agency.

So of what importance is a theory that they might?



And stop referencing things 50 years ago...we are talking more about the growing trend of current players. In case you haven't noticed...things like "brand", "fame", and "fortune"....all matter more now.

I'll stop referencing the past when people stop pointing out who has won as if it proves a point when they have no clue how the players got where they are.




And KBlaze pretty much admitted that City/team matters before with his inability to explain how the Lakers have attracted 5 out of the top 10 players of all time on their team.. with 4 of them coming through FA or forcing their way in through the draft. How can you just toss that aside and say, Well the Lakers are the only one with big market bias. ..

As if that doesnt affect the rest of the league's chances at titles by them not only not getting a chance at landing some of the greatest players of all time, but also having to play AGAINST those players en route to winning.

If Shaq doesnt go to LA and wins a few titles in Orlando guess what? That smooths out the distribution of titles across the league. If Kobe goes to Charlotte and wins a ring over his career, thats 1 to a small market team, and a few away from the Lakers. More smoothing out. Just one or two teams having that huge advantage is enough to skew everything for the rest of the league.

Actually...I did not say city matters. As ive said over and over...doesnt seem the Clippers got that La magic automatically giving them a gang of stars.

And no...the Lakers signing 3 people in 70 years is not really that major. Not in the big picture. Wilt asked out of philly before free agency existed because his coach was gone and he told them he would only play for that coach or himself as player coach.

Kareem didnt ask to go to LA. He asked to go to NY or LA and once there didnt actually win until Magic arrived. Magic...who if not a laker would have to be a Bull, Knick, or Celtic anyway and have you same people acting like the Big market drew him in when it was just...both the Lakers and celtics getting their hands on high picks with smart decisions and the Knicks having a bad record.

Things like that are so common but people just arent aware of them.

The basketball reasons that get these poeple where they are.

The only 4 teams Magic could have landed on were all huge markets and Wilt was already on one and went to another without the option of free agency. The only 2 real just...bolt to LA superstars are Shaq and Kareem.

For 70 years...its really not a lot. But its enough for me to make them the exception to the rule that it doesnt happen.

And when you list me all the stars to bolt to NY...or Boston...or Philly...or wherever...through free agency?

I'll say I was incorrect. But I dont know of these players and if I dont...with my obsession with knowing such things...I dont think for a second that you do.

And with you being one of the "Well look what cities have all the rings" people id at least think you could look into how it happened. Really...

Can just one of you people tell me that im wrong about Red merely outsmarting several small markets to get 14 to 16 rings to Boston? Im not sure ive ever heard it accepted. People just act like it and other things never happened and their "Well____ has titles" point cant be explained away with simple and obvious basketball related brilliance.

Without like...3 people being smarter than the idiots they fleeced out of top 5 all time players like 24 rings would be spread out....

[LMFAO]

Spurs vs. Thunder :coleman:

Another Big Lie exposed. What a scam the small market teams pulled on everyone.

Just like any Myth, if you say it often enough, people will believe it. "Small markets can't compete". Sheeple believed it.........
so you got a vote in all of this? What NBA team do you own? :wtf:

[tpols]

Actually...I did not say city matters. As ive said over and over...doesnt seem the Clippers got that La magic automatically giving them a gang of stars.
If you noticed I wrote TEAM as well. The Lakers moved from Minneapolis, where they were a basketball dynasty to a BIGGER market.. hmm I wonder why. Thyey were the first team to start winning in basketball and they decide to move to the second biggest city in the country. I wonder why.:oldlol: If small markets really can prevail why didnt they stay in Minneapolis? Why move to LA once they started having success?

The Clippers have a reputation as being a shitty organization. They're the islanders of the NBA. It doesnt matter that they're in LA because they're very clearly the Lakers little brother. TEAM and CITY matter. You have to look at the franchise's history because thats what player's do.



Can just one of you people tell me that im wrong about Red merely outsmarting several small markets to get 14 to 16 rings to Boston? Im not sure ive ever heard it accepted. People just act like it and other things never happened and their "Well____ has titles" point cant be explained away with simple and obvious basketball related brilliance.
.
Right after you can accept that the Lakers in THIS generation have used their big market bias in part to take 5 titles from the rest of the league over a span of 10 years. And this is a trend that is only growing. You referencing the 60s over and over doesnt have anything to do with the here and now.

[nycelt84]

That weird angle is called "giving all teams an equal chance"

For the most part it isn't worth debating now. Dallas was first to feel it by not signing Tyson Chandler. Time will only tell if the new cba has done its job

If a guy is a free agent and wants to play for LA or NY or wherever I have no problem with it because things are not equal in real life. Most people would rather live and work in LA as opposed to Milwaukee and I see no reason why basketball players would be any different especially when basketball is a sport that's 80% Black.

[tpols]

If a guy is a free agent and wants to play for LA or NY or wherever I have no problem with it because things are not equal in real life. Most people would rather live and work in LA as opposed to Milwaukee and I see no reason why basketball players would be any different especially when basketball is a sport that's 80% Black.
Thank you.

No one is saying that there is anything to be done about it. There are people in this thread though that are claiming that what you just said doesnt even EXIST.

[Sarcastic]

If you noticed I wrote TEAM as well. The Lakers moved from Minneapolis, where they were a basketball dynasty to a BIGGER market.. hmm I wonder why. Thyey were the first team to start winning in basketball and they decide to move to the second biggest city in the country. I wonder why.:oldlol: If small markets really can prevail why didnt they stay in Minneapolis? Why move to LA once they started having success?

The Clippers have a reputation as being a shitty organization. They're the islanders of the NBA. It doesnt matter that they're in LA because they're very clearly the Lakers little brother. TEAM and CITY matter. You have to look at the franchise's history because thats what player's do.



Right after you can accept that the Lakers in THIS generation have used their big market bias in part to take 5 titles from the rest of the league over a span of 10 years. And this is a trend that is only growing. You referencing the 60s over and over doesnt have anything to do with the here and now.


Yet you like to bring up the fact that Boston won so many titles, despite most of them coming in the 1960s.

[gasolina]

KBlaze - nobody's responding to your "red" arguments because it's not the issue. Don't you think you're holding on to NBA history too much that your opinion is so clouded by it?

Let's go back to where this started. Do you think the small markets wanted the lockout because they were sick of the 30+ championships in between the Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls?

NEWSFLASH! The reason why the lockout happened was because A) half the teams were losing money, B) the rise of superteams. Nothing in there was because the Celtics and Lakers were winning too much.

You're the only one who keeps bringing all these ancient history back to support your points. The fact is that none of your points matter.

Stick to the matter at hand. Nobody's complaining that Magic, Bird, Russell won all those chips.

[tpols]

Yet you like to bring up the fact that Boston won so many titles, despite most of them coming in the 1960s.
Ive been focusing my argument on the past decade, as that is what is affecting right now. Thats the trend.

Now we have tons of reports of Dwight and/or Deron possibly coming to LA. The Lakers always have a better shot at landing these top guys than smaller, lesser known franchises. And if they end up there like they have over the recent past, then that will definitely affect the balance of the league.

[Sarcastic]

Ive been focusing my argument on the past decade, as that is what is affecting right now. Thats the trend.

Now we have tons of reports of Dwight and/or Deron possibly coming to LA. The Lakers always have a better shot at landing these top guys than smaller, lesser known franchises. And if they end up there like they have over the recent past, then that will definitely affect the balance of the league.


You're the one that posted the damn map.

And if Deron goes to LA, he will be going to a smaller market. :lol

[Kblaze8855]

If you noticed I wrote TEAM as well. The Lakers moved from Minneapolis, where they were a basketball dynasty to a BIGGER market.. hmm I wonder why. Thyey were the first team to start winning in basketball and they decide to move to the second biggest city in the country. I wonder why.:oldlol: If small markets really can prevail why didnt they stay in Minneapolis? Why move to LA once they started having success?




They didnt. They moved to La when they stopped having success. It was after Mikan was gone. Baylor was young. I wanna saythey made a finals with Baylor in Minny but its quite innacurate to say they moved when they had success.



The Clippers have a reputation as being a shitty organization. They're the islanders of the NBA. It doesnt matter that they're in LA because they're very clearly the Lakers little brother. TEAM and CITY matter. You have to look at the franchise's history because thats what player's do.



Of course. Which...has little to do with location. Which is the whole point.




Right after you can accept that the Lakers in THIS generation have used their big market bias in part to take 5 titles from the rest of the league over a span of 10 years. And this is a trend that is only growing. You referencing the 60s over and over doesnt have anything to do with the here and now.


Right after I accept it?

I could probably show you 4 years of me saying just that. The Lakers always get out of the blue WTF players added.

But to act like its a multi team thing is just ignoring the facts.

And really....big market bias to take 5 titles?

Things like this are one of my biggest problems with all this.

They didnt take shit. Nobody was robbed of anyone. Over a 70 year period the lakers have managed to get Kareem to come almost 40 years ago and Shaq and in a lesser way Kobe 16 years ago.

They won at about the same rate as the Spurs(who may win again) who did the exact opposite thing.

But instead of the Spurs and 5-6 other great teams being called the model as they should we have people acting like the Lakers come along and gobble up all the rings by cheating when teams who didnt do it the way they did have won more and always have.

And as usual its not half as simple as people who cant stand to look beyond the obvious try to make it.

Read any of the articles about Shaq in Orlando towards the end. The Orlando paper polls saying the fans would rather have Brian Hill stay than Shaq. People saying Penny was the best player. Claims the magic didnt wanna give him the Lakers money till it came out he was about to leave for them. After he left....Magic fans saying he wasnt worth what he wanted. Many examples of this in a topic we had a while back on the old newsgroup forum type posts from the 80s and 90s.

But 16 years later Orlando was robbed of its star who they did everything for and loved so dear.

Shaq wasnt stolen. And the Lakers didnt win 5 rings by taking anyone. As is always the case they were not even winning whe nthey made poor basketball decisions. Manage to swap Kwame for Gasol...bam. Back in the game.

But lakers taking taking taking...

Memphis doesnt take Kwame for Gasol and the lakers huge bias helps them to 3 rings in 25 years and no more of an impact on the league than at least 3 teams who just drafted everyone. But...whatever.

If people were gonna consider basketball decisions in who wins what they would have started by now....

[tpols]

You're the one that posted the damn map.

And if Deron goes to LA, he will be going to a smaller market. :lol
Why do you always argue bullshit semantics?:oldlol:

[Kblaze8855]

KBlaze - nobody's responding to your "red" arguments because it's not the issue. Don't you think you're holding on to NBA history too much that your opinion is so clouded by it?

I think I know too much about NBa history to disregard some of the absurd claims when people do things like post a map showing who won titles as if anyone who looked into it couldnt explain it away with basketball.


Let's go back to where this started. Do you think the small markets wanted the lockout because they were sick of the 30+ championships in between the Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls?

NEWSFLASH! The reason why the lockout happened was because A) half the teams were losing money, B) the rise of superteams. Nothing in there was because the Celtics and Lakers were winning too much.

I think the lockout happened because the CBA expired. And why do I think that? Because as usual....ive looked into it and there has been a lockout or near one EVERY time the CBA expired since like 1970. There was a lockout now, in 98, a brief one in like 94, and narrowly avoided one in the 80s and on and on. I think there was a lockout for the same reason the players almost walked out when Bob Cousy couldnt get the owners to agree on 7 dollars a day per player for meals(look into that...amusing story if you have the time).

It happened because because greedy people play hardball to get more of what they want.

There was a lockout when the cap was set at like 4 million dollars and the NBA was doing the best business it ever had.

And next time there will be a lockout too.

Its how the greedy settle these disputes over money.


You're the only one who keeps bringing all these ancient history back to support your points. The fact is that none of your points matter.

Stick to the matter at hand. Nobody's complaining that Magic, Bird, Russell won all those chips.

If by nobody you mean a word...other than nobody. you are right. I really need to post the replies in this topic alone that show that?

When people stop talking titles in the past ill stop explaining to them why they dont have a clue what they are talking about.

[Kblaze8855]

Why do you always argue bullshit semantics?:oldlol:

Really though....lets be honest about this one...

How do you use Deron Williams leaving New york for anywhere to support your idea that players flock to places like New York?

Wouldnt his leaving NY just means...players go where they are happy?

Im thinking he ends up in Dallas. Hometown(kinda). Gona need a point. Good fit. Fans want him bad.

Lakers would be a stretch. And they would have to give up pretty good value in a sign and trade anyway so nobody would get ripped off. Not like the Nets have his rights anyway.

[sfballa13]

Boston is a small market?

hahahahaha

Red Sox
Patriots
Celtics

One of the largest and most diehard basketball fanbases are Celtics fans.

Have you gone to one of the games? they have security permanently stationed in the upper deck. Their fans are nuts.

Indiana, small market? OKC, even, yes. Boston, nope. Not even Philly can be considered a small market for the NBA.

You cant use city size to compare teams. For example the hockey market is relatively small out west in cities like LA, yet despite LA being huge they are not known as a huge hockey market.

Spurs have always proved the small markets cant compete adage wrong.