Big Market Team Fallacy

[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.