LeBron James supports contraction of some NBA teams

It wouldn't happen, the NBA wouldn't be making as much profit and their sales would eventually fail or a major drop. If teams go like that imagine the thousands of fans and millions of dollars being drained. I do want it to happen it'll make the NBA more competitive. I disagree with the person who said every team entering the playoffs is bad. I think it's alright because in the end not every teams going to win a ring or be in the finals atleast but two. The chances of the players turning into sixth men if this does happen will not really effect the team it'll effec them because their tempo players who control nothing but that. We see what happens when there's two superstars needing the ball it's either off the ball offense or quality plays one or the other.

i think getting rid of the following teams would be perfect for the NBA:

LA clippers
Sacramento Kings
New Orleans Hornets
Memphis Grizzlies

seriously these teams always have horrible FO decisions, almost never make the playoffs and always overpay players.

why does joe johnson have such a fat contract? i'll tell you why, coz the league is watered down and if there were less teams he'd be in the position he should be in. a role player on a good team.

I agree with Lebron.............. :cheers:

[QUOTE=DeronMillsap]No, you're not showing me anything. You're just failing to see my point.
.
Two teams? What the f**k???

I already explained it here:[/QUOTE]
Man come on, I don't really mean there should only be 2 teams. Im just trying to prove a point. Why don't you go back to the 70s and look at all the teams and tell me who had a guy that was capable of being a starter as a twelfth man.

Like I said, theres plenty of talent. Now if you want to contract teams due to the league not making money, fine and miami would be at the top of the list. But fans aren't not going to games cuz the players are bad, they're not going cuz they're not interested in basketball. Ot in some cases the teams are bad. But there were bad teams when there were 24-26 teams in the league and the league was struggling too

[QUOTE=evilmonkey]I agree with Lebron.............. :cheers:[/QUOTE]
Ofcourse you do.

[QUOTE=CMsam]I'm glad Lebron said this, as I've been saying this since the season started.

The league really IS too watered down. Look at the schedule most nights and over half the games are completely unwatchable. So many of these teams are made up of 19 and 20 year old "prospects" and journeymen never-was'es, and they're all just out there fumbling the ball around. I've seen so many mind-numblingly sloppy games this season. On a given night you could have Sacramento playing Minnesota, Charlotte playing Detroit, New Jersey playing Toronto, Cleveland playing Washington, and Philadelphia playing the Clippers. That's absolutely horrific.

If you removed Sacramento and Charlotte, you could add Gerald Wallace, Stephen Jackson, Tyreke Evans, Carl Landry, Jason Thompson, Tyrus Thomas, DeMoron Cousins, Muhammed, Diaw, Augustin, Udrih etc. to the other bottom feeders and at least make them a little better, and also eliminate some of the awful games that pop up on the schedule each night.

I think the fans should try to push this to the league and make it known that this is something fans want to happen. I know it will suck for fans of a few teams, but let's face it, if you're in the bottom 2 in attendance there's not many fans to upset.[/QUOTE]

:applause: :applause:

[QUOTE=CMsam]I'm glad Lebron said this, as I've been saying this since the season started.

The league really IS too watered down. Look at the schedule most nights and over half the games are completely unwatchable. So many of these teams are made up of 19 and 20 year old "prospects" and journeymen never-was'es, and they're all just out there fumbling the ball around. I've seen so many mind-numblingly sloppy games this season. On a given night you could have Sacramento playing Minnesota, Charlotte playing Detroit, New Jersey playing Toronto, Cleveland playing Washington, and Philadelphia playing the Clippers. That's absolutely horrific.

If you removed Sacramento and Charlotte, you could add Gerald Wallace, Stephen Jackson, Tyreke Evans, Carl Landry, Jason Thompson, Tyrus Thomas, DeMoron Cousins, Muhammed, Diaw, Augustin, Udrih etc. to the other bottom feeders and at least make them a little better, and also eliminate some of the awful games that pop up on the schedule each night.

I think the fans should try to push this to the league and make it known that this is something fans want to happen. I know it will suck for fans of a few teams, but let's face it, if you're in the bottom 2 in attendance there's not many fans to upset.[/QUOTE]

:applause: :applause:

He's right, regardless of what any of you haters say.

It looks like LeBron is scared of more competition. :rolleyes:

Minnesota "Timber/Cats"
Augustin-Wallace-Beasley-Love-Darko
Diaw, Thomas, Johnson, etc off the bench

^^^Bottom-feeding teams would turn into that. :bowdown:

NBA would definitely be competitive just like the NFL and MLB.

[QUOTE=DeronMillsap]Why would having 24 teams instead of 30 increase the chances of injuries?

The 82 games schedule is fine for a 24 team league. Most of the rosters will have above average players so even if your star player is out that team will have a couple of quality players stepping up. That's why I suggested a slight roster expansion for that.

There won't be that many meaningless games because teams like the Wolves and Bucks would have more talented players on their squad. Guys like Gerard Wallace, Tyrus Thomas, David West, ect would be on the Wolves or Bucks if we get rid of the Bobcats and Hornets.

Do you see it now???? How having less teams would be that much better. But still have enough teams for enough games and help make(save) money for the league. Not 2-15 teams like 97bulls suggested. That is too extreme!!![/QUOTE]

I didn't say less teams = higher chances of injuries, I said if you're interested in quality have less games. Clearly, more games = more chances of injury. As well, some of the interest may not just be with the quality of the ball, people do say the season is too long and drawn out, even probably for some players to remain interested.

Fair enough but I don't think that will all of a sudden equal parity among the teams, there will still be good and bad teams, just less sh*t teams. But in any case I'm not sure that would drastically make the league better.

And ya sure 2 teams is extreme but the whole idea is who/what's to say what the parameters for cutting excess fat should be? I mean, you could cut it down to 8 teams in each conference if you want to improve the quality. Even more worse teams and players are weeded out.

I'm just trying to argue the other side of the coin really.

[QUOTE=Mamba]i think getting rid of the following teams would be perfect for the NBA:

LA clippers
Sacramento Kings
New Orleans Hornets
Memphis Grizzlies

seriously these teams always have horrible FO decisions, almost never make the playoffs and always overpay players.

why does joe johnson have such a fat contract? i'll tell you why, coz the league is watered down and if there were less teams he'd be in the position he should be in. a role player on a good team.[/QUOTE]
Joe johnson is a very good starter. But he is over paid. I just hate to see guys that are very capable 20 ppg scorers not get a shot to be the best they can be.

[QUOTE=Game5WasDaBess]It looks like LeBron is scared of more competition. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

no... his statement means only the opposite u riiiiiiiithaurd...

It's true.

Think about it, If Phoenix Suns were to have Carter, and Hill back in the day with Nash. They'd have been the original big 3.

[QUOTE=yeaaaman]I didn't say less teams = higher chances of injuries, I said if you're interested in quality have less games. Clearly, more games = more chances of injury. As well, some of the interest may not just be with the quality of the ball, people do say the season is too long and drawn out, even probably for some players to remain interested.

Fair enough but I don't think that will all of a sudden equal parity among the teams, there will still be good and bad teams, just less sh*t teams. But in any case I'm not sure that would drastically make the league better.

And ya sure 2 teams is extreme but the whole idea is who/what's to say what the parameters for cutting excess fat should be? I mean, you could cut it down to 8 teams in each conference if you want to improve the quality. Even more worse teams and players are weeded out.

I'm just trying to argue the other side of the coin really.[/QUOTE]
Exactly and repped.

[QUOTE=Game5WasDaBess]It looks like LeBron is scared of more competition. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

[img]http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/15/21669000/ngbbs4c71a70368815.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=evilmonkey]no... this statement means only the opposite u fgt...[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Man come on, I don't really mean there should only be 2 teams. Im just trying to prove a point. Why don't you go back to the 70s and look at all the teams and tell me who had a guy that was capable of being a starter as a twelfth man.

Like I said, theres plenty of talent. Now if you want to contract teams due to the league not making money, fine and miami would be at the top of the list. But fans aren't not going to games cuz the players are bad, they're not going cuz they're not interested in basketball. Ot in some cases the teams are bad. But there were bad teams when there were 24-26 teams in the league and the league was struggling too[/QUOTE]
NBA was still in its infancy back then in terms of popularity but it was still competitive. Bucks, Sonics, Blazers, Bullets/Wizards...all these teams have their one and only title from the 70's.

Yeah, there are enough talents in the league but there are also too many crappy players too. Some of these scrubs need to be working 9-5 jobs, not the in the NBA.

Don't you agree that guys like Gerard Wallace, Chris Paul, Kevin Love, etc...are all wasting their talents on teams nobody care about? But if you combined their talents on a Wolves/Bobcats team or a Hornets/Wolves team, more people would start caring about their games.

Its not like those shitty teams dont have the same opportunities though, they have the same cap to spend etc..

I mean, look at some of the rosters of the kings, bobcats, clippers, wizards etc, all there promising talent is on rookie salaries and the rest is just flushed down the toilet on overpaid guys that in most cases dont really even play:facepalm

I dont get how those gm's even have a job anymore...

If i had $54 million to spend im sure i could put together a better squad than say the bobcats, damn, a handfull of d-leaguers and streetballers would be better than that mess..:facepalm :facepalm

Im not sure about getting rid of teams, obviously some are really painful to watch ( as above ), but maybe if in the new agreement included paying out a % of the contract and waiving unproductive useless players.. ie rashard lewis:lol .. Theyre not exactly living up to there part of the deal imo...

So what happens if teams contracted? Does the NBA just go to 6 owners, here's $300-$400 million, now go away? And what if the owners don't want to lose their team? And if they had to pay out/buy 5-6 teams, it's going to cost them a billion or more dollars. Do they have the money to do something like that?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Joe johnson is a very good starter. But he is over paid. I just hate to see guys that are very capable 20 ppg scorers not get a shot to be the best they can be.[/QUOTE]
list me a few that could be 20 ppg scorers and actually turn there team into a winner.

nick young is the only candidate i can think of.

[QUOTE=evilmonkey]no... his statement means only the opposite u riiiiiiiithaurd...[/QUOTE]


I really hated these failed gimmick accounts. They lack originally, lack common sense, and they are very annoying.

The Mike Beas troll is a funny gimmick account.

[QUOTE=yeaaaman]I didn't say less teams = higher chances of injuries, I said if you're interested in quality have less games. Clearly, more games = more chances of injury. As well, some of the interest may not just be with the quality of the ball, people do say the season is too long and drawn out, even probably for some players to remain interested.

Fair enough but I don't think that will all of a sudden equal parity among the teams, there will still be good and bad teams, just less sh*t teams. But in any case I'm not sure that would drastically make the league better.

And ya sure 2 teams is extreme but the whole idea is who/what's to say what the parameters for cutting excess fat should be? I mean, you could cut it down to 8 teams in each conference if you want to improve the quality. Even more worse teams and players are weeded out.

I'm just trying to argue the other side of the coin really.[/QUOTE]
We're not looking to add more than 82 games here. Injuries will happen whether it's 82 games or 66 games or 50 games. So I don't see why you bringing it up. Plus, with better quality roster, injuries won't be that devastating in terms of staying competitive for some teams if they have good reserve players on their squad.

82 is too much in terms of quality basketball when you have teams like the Bobcats, Nets, Wolves, Hornets, etc...but 82 would be fine if a few of those teams are eliminated and their talents are on one roster.

8 teams, less games = less money. NBA still needs to make money. It's not just wanting better quality basketball, it's also making profit or saving money. 24 is actually leaning in favor of your POV but like 97bulls, you're trying to go extreme with 8 team just to try to shut down my view even though mine isn't extreme at all. It's actually reasonable for fans who still want the games and talents to be displayed.

[QUOTE=Lebron23]I really hated these failed gimmick accounts. They lack originally, lack common sense, and they are very annoying.

The Mike Beas troll is a funny gimmick account.[/QUOTE]
Your account is the worst on ish and 30k of posts doesn't make it better or make you a better poster, ******.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Joe johnson is a very good starter. But he is over paid. I just hate to see guys that are very capable 20 ppg scorers not get a shot to be the best they can be.[/QUOTE]

The good players would still get a shot. There would still be more than enough teams to support the good players. The scrubs at the end of the bench are the only ones who would be gone.

[QUOTE=El Kabong]So what happens if teams contracted? Does the NBA just go to 6 owners, here's $300-$400 million, now go away? And what if the owners don't want to lose their team? And if they had to pay out/buy 5-6 teams, it's going to cost them a billion or more dollars. Do they have the money to do something like that?[/QUOTE]

I am also curious as to how a contraction would work, what would happen to the ownerships of these teams?

[QUOTE=DeronMillsap]NBA was still in its infancy back then in terms of popularity but it was still competitive. Bucks, Sonics, Blazers, Bullets/Wizards...all these teams have their one and only title from the 70's.

Yeah, there are enough talents in the league but there are also too many crappy players too. Some of these scrubs need to be working 9-5 jobs, not the in the NBA.

Don't you agree that guys like Gerard Wallace, Chris Paul, Kevin Love, etc...are all wasting their talents on teams nobody care about? But if you combined their talents on a Wolves/Bobcats team or a Hornets/Wolves team, more people would start caring about their games.[/QUOTE]
Miami can't even fill their stadium and they have three allstars and are 22 and 8 I believe. The bulls were shitty for over 10 years and they still had a packed house every night. Its not the players, its the owners. The hornets were one player away from being a contender a few years ago and their FO wouldn't do what it took to put their team over the top. I mean not everyone can win. Go back and look at all the greats that never won. And there were great players that were on crappy teams. For their career even more. And this was in a mid 20 team league.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]The good players would still get a shot. There would still be more than enough teams to support the good players. [B]The scrubs at the end of the bench are the only ones who would be gone[/B].[/QUOTE]
and so they should, they get paid millions of dollars to clap every game, im sorry but i agree with lebron, if it wasn't for the watered down teams gm's wouldn't have to overpay crap players.

larry hughes would of never recieved that fat of a contract.

[QUOTE=DeronMillsap]We're not looking to add more than 82 games here so injuries will happen whether it's 82 games or 66 games or 50 games.

82 is too much in terms of quality basketball when you have teams like the Bobcats, Nets, Wolves, Hornets, etc...but 82 would be fine if a few of those teams are eliminated and their talents are on one roster.

8 teams, less games = less money. 24 is actually leaning in favor of your POV but like 97bulls, you're trying to go extreme with 8 team just to try to shut down my view even though mine isn't extreme at all. It's actually reasonable for fans who still want the games and talents to be displayed.[/QUOTE]

If you reread I didn't say 8 teams total I said 8 per conference, that shouldn't necessarily be extreme 16 teams, or maybe 10 per conference for 20 teams. Because if you want to contract to 24 I'd say there are lot more than 6 sh*t teams if we're going down that route.

[QUOTE=Draz][B]I disagree with the person who said every team entering the playoffs is bad.[/B] I think it's alright because in the end not every teams going to win a ring or be in the finals atleast but two. The chances of the players turning into sixth men if this does happen will not really effect the team it'll effec them because their tempo players who control nothing but that. We see what happens when there's two superstars needing the ball it's either off the ball offense or quality plays one or the other.[/QUOTE]


There does have to be adequate incentive to win regular season games. You can't have everyone make the playoffs. Otherwise why would they play a regular season? And there has to be enough teams competing for playoff spots to keep teams from being able to coast basically from the start of the allstar break.

That's why I think 28 teams is a good number. 16 teams will make the playoffs, 12 will miss them. But competition will be tighter so race for the spots will be closer. Would you rather have 6 teams who are all out of it by February, or 4 teams who are in it till the end? Quality over quantity, I say.


Altho it's definitely true the league would have to make a short-term financial sacrifice for long-term good. But the NBA is not the only basketball league out there, and it does not have a monopoly on global talent. Foreign leagues are eating into the NBA's pool of talent, and the NBA needs to understand that and adjust its size accordingly.

[QUOTE=Mamba]and so they should, they get paid millions of dollars to clap every game, im sorry but i agree with lebron,[B] if it wasn't for the watered down teams gm's wouldn't have to overpay crap players.[/B]

larry hughes would of never recieved that fat of a contract.[/QUOTE]

This is pretty much why the Knicks had an awful decade. They tried to just be good enough to make the playoffs, and continuously paid semi decent stars tons of money, and it destroyed them. They were never bad enough to get an early pick in the draft, and they were saddled with huge contracts.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Miami can't even fill their stadium and they have three allstars and are 22 and 8 I believe. The bulls were shitty for over 10 years and they still had a packed house every night. Its not the players, its the owners. The hornets were one player away from being a contender a few years ago and their FO wouldn't do what it took to put their team over the top. I mean not everyone can win. Go back and look at all the greats that never won. And there were great players that were on crappy teams. For their career even more. And this was in a mid 20 team league.[/QUOTE]
If we get rid of the scrubs then the owners wouldn't have to make so many bad deals and signings. They see a "star" player putting up all-star stats so they'll assume he's a great player but in reality he, at best, is an average player on a championship contending team.

I'm not what the Heat and Bulls attendance have to do with my previous statement. Fans will come out more when their teams are competitive. Chicago is one of those major markets that will sell-out no matter how their teams are doing. It's the Charlotte's, New Orlean's and Memphis' that suffers.
Heat fans aren't showing up but their season tickets were all sold-out so I am assuming a lot of the ticket buyers were scalpers.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]The good players would still get a shot. There would still be more than enough teams to support the good players. The scrubs at the end of the bench are the only ones who would be gone.[/QUOTE]
Ok but who cares about scrubs on the bench. The 12th man rarely plays anyway. Even when there were mid 20 team leagues. I just saying, even if you move the teams down to 24, your always gonna have bad teams

[QUOTE=yeaaaman]If you reread I didn't say 8 teams total I said 8 per conference, that shouldn't necessarily be extreme 16 teams, or maybe 10 per conference for 20 teams. Because if you want to contract to 24 I'd say there are lot more than 6 sh*t teams if we're going down that route.[/QUOTE]
Yes, there are a lot more than 6 scrub teams right now but some of those teams have stars on their squad. Get them drafted(like an expansion draft) to the other scrub teams then half of those crappy teams would be reduced.

[QUOTE=DeronMillsap]If we get rid of the scrubs then the owners wouldn't have to make so many bad deals and signings. They see a "star" player putting up all-star stats so they'll assume he's a great player but in reality he, at best, is an average player on a championship contending team.

I'm not what the Heat and Bulls attendance have to do with my previous statement. Fans will come out more when their teams are competitive. Chicago is one of those major markets that will sell-out no matter how their teams are doing. It's the Charlotte's, New Orlean's and Memphis' that suffers.
Heat fans aren't showing up but their season tickets were all sold-out so I am assuming a lot of the ticket buyers were scalpers.[/QUOTE]
Owners have been making bad deals for as long as I can remember. It ain't gonna change even if you disband a few teams. I mean its not like the league is gonna have a 50 win team in every city. It just can't happen.

teams i would remove: bobcats, clippers, hornets, grizzlies, warriors, kings (move them to las vegas) maybe move another team to seattle

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Ok but who cares about scrubs on the bench. The 12th man rarely plays anyway. Even when there were mid 20 team leagues. I just saying, even if you move the teams down to 24, your always gonna have bad teams[/QUOTE]
But the bad teams weren't that bad compared to today.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976%E2%80%9377_NBA_season[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977%E2%80%9378_NBA_season[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978%E2%80%9379_NBA_season[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975%E2%80%9376_NBA_season[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974%E2%80%9375_NBA_season[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%9374_NBA_season[/url]

See how many 30+win bad teams there were in the 70's? Even the worse teams hover around 27 wins but it's only 1 or 2 teams, not 5-6 terrible teams like it is nowadays.

Now we get about five or six 10-20 win teams freakin' every season.

Let's take the suns for instance. Jared dudley who is a quality bench player would be relegated to possibly a 10th man. I just don't see how that makes the league better. Dudley would never get any burn as a 10th guy. You wanna make the league better, cut the season down to 60 games. So like yeaman said each game is more important. [CODE][CODE][/CODE][/CODE]

You're going to have disparity regardless. Say you contract 6 teams and are left with 12 All-Stars to disperse (more like 8-10). So 12 of the 24 remaining teams gets an extra All-Star caliber player, and the other 12 teams stay the same (get worse).


Plus, whose to say the best players remain in the NBA? With the talent scouts on some of these teams, the NBA would probably just lose a bunch of quality players, and keep a bunch of athletic scrubs with "potential".

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Let's take the suns for instance. Jared dudley who is a quality bench player would be relegated to possibly a 10th man. I just don't see how that makes the league better. Dudley would never get any burn as a 10th guy. You wanna make the league better, cut the season down to 60 games. So like yeaman said each game is more important. [CODE][CODE][/CODE][/CODE][/QUOTE]
if jared dudley works his arse off in practice and in the 20 minutes a game he would get u better believe he'd deserve playing time.

not any of this lets give t-mac another shot because hey he played great once, got paid started playing like shit, but he spent all his money that he earnt so lets give him another shot by paying him 5 mil a year and see if things can work out with him.

point is the nba is a business and if contracting will cost money and reduced profits then why shud they do it, but the idea of a better league is enticing