Big Market Team Fallacy

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

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

Neither would Miami.

The system would eventually sort itself out.

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

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

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

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

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

Hard cap is what is needed.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

[QUOTE=bdreason]The NBA has always been about the draft. Very few teams have been successful at building a Championship team strictly through Free Agency.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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]

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

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

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

[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=Sarcastic]Exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither would Miami.

The system would eventually sort itself out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amare. Anyone else?

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

Amare. Anyone else?[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=B

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]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]

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

Most Championships in NBA History:

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=tpols]Most Championships in NBA History:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=tpols]Most Championships in NBA History:

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

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

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

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

This is how it went..

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

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

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Shaq went to LA because he wanted to make movies.
[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]
Kobe and Magic forcing their way to LA is overblown.
[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is how it went..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]

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

[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]

LAL (big market)
SA (small market)
Bos (larger mid-market)
Det (larger mid-market)
Dall (larger mid-market)
Cavs (mid-market)
Heat (mid-market)
[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=rmt]
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).[/QUOTE]

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

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

Before that it was Derek Anderson, who we got.

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

[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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

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

This is how it went..

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Wonder Bread Kid]Small markets should be: SLC, OKC, Memphis, New Orleans. All four under 1.4 million people metro wise.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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