Big Market Team Fallacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing is ever constant because all teams are different.

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

[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]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]
Lakes!

Lakes and reservoirs in LA



Crystal Lake
Echo Park Lake
Silver Lake
Elizabeth Lake
Hughes Lake


Holiday Lake
Jackson Lake
Munz Lakes
Tweedy Lake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]Problem for the fans is that they're not playing.

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Blue&Orange]lol so who's money is it? From where it comes the NBA revenue? Thin air?[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

[url]http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/215976/Expert_Virtually_No_Correlation_Between_Payroll_And_Win_Percentage#ixzz1aakZdNpk[/url]

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

[B]

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Sarcastic][url]http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/215976/Expert_Virtually_No_Correlation_Between_Payroll_And_Win_Percentage#ixzz1aakZdNpk[/url]



Hmmmmm[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]You still can't grasp that there are no absolutes. And also, this isn't just about the past. Its about the growing trend the NBA is seeing now. Players are more than just players. They are a "brand"...or at least that is how they see themselves. You think Lamar Odom is getting a reality show if he lives in Milwaukee?

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

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

Not to mention, if you looked at the past data....[B][SIZE="3"]only big market teams are winning titles.[/SIZE][/B] You can chalk that up to a fluke or whatever, but its also just factual. The anomaly of the Spurs is all that saves you. And maybe the small market owners don't want to just be average to good....maybe they want to compete for titles. And that is something that actually the data does not show. Its been big market after big market winning the nba title year in year out since the early 80's.[/QUOTE]

[SIZE="7"][B][FONT="Impact"]San Antonio Spurs[/FONT][/B][/SIZE]

And you accuse me of speaking in absolutes? :facepalm

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Sarcastic][SIZE="7"][B][FONT="Impact"]San Antonio Spurs[/FONT][/B][/SIZE]

And you accuse me of speaking in absolutes? :facepalm[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I mentioned the Spurs in my post. In the following sentence...LOL. Read please.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]only big market teams are winning titles. You can chalk that up to a fluke or whatever, but its also just factual. ... Its been big market after big market winning the nba title year in year out since the early 80's.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]I read it. You telling me Oklahoma is not going to be competing for titles?[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]Your definition of Big Market is broad. So lets have it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]of course they are. its on the whole. its not about one team or a few teams. its about the 22 teams that operate at a loss and struggle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]its not just big market as in size...its about what a location offers. on your list Miami is 16th...but it would probably rank in the top 5...at least top 10 for most desirable place to play.

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]its not just big market as in size...its about what a location offers. on your list Miami is 16th...but it would probably rank in the top 5...at least top 10 for most desirable place to play.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=B

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=PowerGlove]Joey Zaza, how in the world can south florida and Miami be two seperate markets?:oldlol:[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=B

[QUOTE=B

[QUOTE=B