Big Market Team Fallacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas[/url]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=eliteballer]You dont look at city size, you look at metropolitan area.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]there aren't absolutes. its not just about size. its not just about money. its not just about management. its not just about a desirable location. its about everything.

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]there aren't absolutes. its not just about size. its not just about money. its not just about management. its not just about a desirable location. its about everything.

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

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

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

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


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

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Boston, Seattle, and Denver have around the same populations. Not sure when peoplestarted pretending Boston was some NY/La/chicago or even Dallas type place. If you are gonna credit them for the entire northeast...ok. But Boston itself isnt some super huge city. Its like 13th 14th biggest among NBA cities and LA and NY have 2 teams now so...15th-16th far as market for teams.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

NYC
LA
Chicago
Baltimore-Washington

Seattle is 14th and Denver is 19th.

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

[QUOTE]According to Wikipedia Boston is the 5th largest sport market behind[/QUOTE]

link?

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYC
LA
Chicago
Baltimore-Washington

Seattle is 14th and Denver is 19th.

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

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

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

There is no parity problem in the NBA.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
if you could clone someone and have the exact same person manage the lakers and wolves, the guy managing the lakers would have more success over time. end of story.

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

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

[QUOTE=kentatm]link?

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

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

[QUOTE=kentatm]link?

I was under the impression that the Dallas/Fort Worth market had moved into 5th just ahead of the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose market. That would leave Boston no greater than 7th.[/QUOTE]
Go [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_and_Canadian_cities_by_number_of_major_professional_sports_franchises"]here[/URL]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Again, there are no absolutes. You have to have an owner willing to spend as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

How many championships has that advantage given us?

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

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]How many championships has that advantage given us?[/QUOTE]
Just because you didn't take advantage of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

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

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]How many championships has that advantage given us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=tpols]Just because you didn't take advantage of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

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

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

[QUOTE=tpols]The Clippers are a second class citizen in LA. The Lakers captured the city first and are the true team of Los Angeles.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hard cap is what is needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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