Printable View
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]I thought that was weird too....I got it from wikipedia.[/QUOTE]The Miami Market is officially Miami Ft Lauderdale, it's number 16 according to sports media watch
[url]http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/03/nba-market-size-numbers-game/[/url]
Not sure where wiki gets their numbers, might be census numbers which doesn't reflect exactly what marketing people look at when creating media market lists.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]We could also say "if Portland doesn't pick Sam Bowie and picks Michael Jordan instead, then they would be another small market with lots of rings".[/QUOTE]
...or if Nick Anderson hits his freaking free throws...
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]We could also say "if Portland doesn't pick Sam Bowie and picks Michael Jordan instead, then they would be another small market with lots of rings".[/QUOTE]
do you realize how absurd you are being? nobody is saying its impossible or never will happen. we are just saying that some markets/franchises have inherent advantages over others.
its just a simple ****ing fact. i can't believe you aren't willing to concede that yet.
do you really think all of the owners in those markets at a disadvantage are just making everything up? do you really think that would fly in a negotiation like this.
the fact that you think every franchise has the same chance to win year in year out just shows what a stubborn ass you really are. its just downright illogical.
again, nobody is saying its the most important thing or that it can't be overcome, but it is important and it matters. money matters. location matters. exposure matters. fans matter. whether you admit it or not...sorry.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]do you realize how absurd you are being? nobody is saying its impossible or never will happen. we are just saying that some markets/franchises have inherent advantages over others.
its just a simple ****ing fact. i can't believe you aren't willing to concede that yet.
[/QUOTE]
..and those competitive advantages have been curtailed by the '99 agreement.
Not going to argue that smaller markets don't have a harder time turning a profit, but putting a solid team out there...the scales balance towards parity.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]do you realize how absurd you are being? nobody is saying its impossible or never will happen. we are just saying that some markets/franchises have inherent advantages over others.
its just a simple ****ing fact. i can't believe you aren't willing to concede that yet.
do you really think all of the owners in those markets at a disadvantage are just making everything up? do you really think that would fly in a negotiation like this.
the fact that you think every franchise has the same chance to win year in year out just shows what a stubborn ass you really are. its just downright illogical.
again, nobody is saying its the most important thing or that it can't be overcome, but it is important and it matters. money matters. location matters. exposure matters. fans matter. whether you admit it or not...sorry.[/QUOTE]
It's just as absurd as saying "if Robinson doesn't go down, the Spurs don't draft Duncan".
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. If, and, or but.
It's all irrelevant. The facts are what happened. The Spurs drafted Duncan and won multiple rings. Don't attach the other stuff to it.
To clairfy Joey Zaza's earlier posts about the area rankings...those are the Nielsen DMA rankings, which measures market size based on the number of households in a metro area. The Tampa Bay area is actually ranked ahead of Miami-Fort Lauderdale, as the 14th largest TV market in the nation. Besides, Seattle-Tacoma, they've been the largest TV market without a NBA team, although Orlando-Daytona Beach is right next door.
Some of you guys are forgetting that TV money (the national contracts from Disney and Turner) is what really drives the NBA...hell, all of professional sports for that matter, because it's guaranteed money as opposed to ticket sales and merchandise.
Here's this year's Nielsen list, and I'm only listing those markets that have teams...
[url]http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TVB_Market_Profiles_Nielsen_Household_DMA_RANKS.pdf[/url]
1. New York City (Knicks & Nets)
2. Los Angeles (Lakers & Clippers)
3. Chicago (Bulls)
4. Philadelphia (76ers)
5. Dallas-Fort Worth (Mavericks)
6. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose (Warriors)
7. Boston (Celtics)
8. Washington, D.C. (Wizards)
9. Atlanta (Hawks)
10. Houston (Rockets)
11. Detroit (Pistons)
13. Phoenix (Suns)
15. Minneapolis-Saint Paul (Timberwolves)
16. Miami-Fort Lauderdale (Heat)
17. Denver (Nuggets)
18. Cleveland (Cavaliers)
19. Orlando-Daytona Beach (Magic)
20. Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto (Kings)
22. Portland (Trail Blazers)
25. Charlotte (Bobcats)
26. Indianapolis (Pacers)
33. Salt Lake City (Jazz)
34. Milwaukee (Bucks)
36. San Antonio (Spurs)
44. Oklahoma City (Thunder)
49. Memphis (Grizzlies)
52. New Orleans (Hornets)
[QUOTE=ShawnieMac06]1. New York City (Knicks & Nets)
[/QUOTE]
Go to a KNicks game, go to a Nets game. They are not the same market. They are not close drives from each other (since they've moved to Newark they are closer, but for 8 of the last 11 years, its the meadowlands) and their crowds are different. Nets at their very best drew like the NYK at their worst.
its not the same market.
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]..and those competitive advantages have been curtailed by the '99 agreement.
Not going to argue that smaller markets don't have a harder time turning a profit, but putting a solid team out there...the scales balance towards parity.[/QUOTE]
99 helped i think, but the problem isn't so much just the last decade....although a lot of titles and parity has been influenced by markets.
its about the future. the trends are not good. we've all seen it the last few years. i want detail it all again, but what is going on right now scares 20 or so owners...and rightfully so.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]It's just as absurd as saying "if Robinson doesn't go down, the Spurs don't draft Duncan".
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. If, and, or but.
It's all irrelevant. The facts are what happened. The Spurs drafted Duncan and won multiple rings. Don't attach the other stuff to it.[/QUOTE]
i didn't post anything about duncan or spurs. but it is worth mentioning what an anomaly that was. i have no problem with someone using the spurs as proof it can be done...because i'm not arguing that. i totally agree it can be done.
where we disagree is that you think a team like the bucks has just as good of a chance to win as the lakers year in year out over large amounts of time. and that is total bullshit in my opinion.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]i didn't post anything about duncan or spurs. but it is worth mentioning what an anomaly that was. i have no problem with someone using the spurs as proof it can be done...because i'm not arguing that. i totally agree it can be done.
where we disagree is that you think a team like the bucks has just as good of a chance to win as the lakers year in year out over large amounts of time. and that is total bullshit in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
See, you always use the Lakers as the big market team when comparing to small market teams. Why not use the Clippers. The Lakers are an anomaly, just like the Spurs are. What about the Knicks. Why don't you compare anyone to them?
Which team would you rather have? The Knicks, who play in the biggest market, or the Thunder, who play in the smallest market? Which team will be better over the next 5 years?
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]See, you always use the Lakers as the big market team when comparing to small market teams. Why not use the Clippers. The Lakers are an anomaly, just like the Spurs are. What about the Knicks. Why don't you compare anyone to them?
Which team would you rather have? The Knicks, who play in the biggest market, or the Thunder, who play in the smallest market? Which team will be better over the next 5 years?[/QUOTE]
You can't use 5 years. Use 30 years. Use 50 years.
Knicks vs Thunder? Definitely debatable going forward because the Knicks could easily get in a ton of talent or a player like paul soon.
Again, you confuse yourself. I'm not saying that the Lakers will for sure be better than the Bucks over the next 30 years. I'm saying the Lakers have an inherent advantage. What they do with that is up to them. You can replace the Lakers with the other 8 or 9 big markets/desirable locations if you want. They still have an inherent advantage....
This is what you are saying:
"There is no advantage to market size or location. All teams operate with the same chance to put a championship team on the floor. Its 100% management and nothing else matters"
Correct me if i'm wrong, but that is what you have stood by. There there is absolutely nothing that teams like the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls, Mavs (currently), Celtics, Heat...etc...have over other teams. Right? You say there is absolutely nothing there.
I disagree. You just confuse that management is more important. That doesn't just negate everything else. We all know that if you cloned a person and had him run the knicks and the bucks....that overtime the knicks would most likely have better teams. with 100 million dollar payrolls and the ability to attract elite free agents. everyone with a brain knows this. you just refuse to acknowledge it for some crazy reason.
[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.
[/QUOTE]
Correct. The hardliners, the small market owners, are worried with the present\future, the history of last 10 years is irrelevant. Who cares is few superstars changed team in the last decade, what's important is that last year Lebron, Bosh, Amare, Carmelo, Boozer did. Atlanta had to overpaid to keep Joe Johnson, and Utah had to trade Williams because they didn't wanted to lose him for nothing, so again who cares what happened or what was the trend 10,5 years ago.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]You can't use 5 years. Use 30 years. Use 50 years.
Knicks vs Thunder? Definitely debatable going forward because the Knicks could easily get in a ton of talent or a player like paul soon.
Again, you confuse yourself. I'm not saying that the Lakers will for sure be better than the Bucks over the next 30 years. I'm saying the Lakers have an inherent advantage. What they do with that is up to them. You can replace the Lakers with the other 8 or 9 big markets/desirable locations if you want. They still have an inherent advantage....
This is what you are saying:
"There is no advantage to market size or location. All teams operate with the same chance to put a championship team on the floor. Its 100% management and nothing else matters"
Correct me if i'm wrong, but that is what you have stood by. There there is absolutely nothing that teams like the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls, Mavs (currently), Celtics, Heat...etc...have over other teams. Right? You say there is absolutely nothing there.
I disagree. You just confuse that management is more important. That doesn't just negate everything else. We all know that if you cloned a person and had him run the knicks and the bucks....that overtime the knicks would most likely have better teams. with 100 million dollar payrolls and the ability to attract elite free agents. everyone with a brain knows this. you just refuse to acknowledge it for some crazy reason.[/QUOTE]
Who the hell can predict 30 or 50 years? LA can have a earthquake and fall off the map in that time frame. Be reasonable bro.
Let's say the Lakers don't get Howard next year. Where do you see them going in the next 5 or so years with an older Kobe? They're gonna have another down period like they had in the 1990s when Sedale Threatt and Cedric Ceballos were leading the team.
[QUOTE=Blue&Orange]Correct. The hardliners, the small market owners, are worried with the present\future, the history of last 10 years is irrelevant. Who cares is few superstars changed team in the last decade, what's important is that last year Lebron, Bosh, Amare, Carmelo, Boozer did. Atlanta had to overpaid to keep Joe Johnson, and Utah had to trade Williams because they didn't wanted to lose him for nothing, so again who cares what happened or what was the trend 10,5 years ago.[/QUOTE]
yep...the last decade wasn't really pretty either. these concerns really started showing in 06 when a group of small market owners wrote a letter to Stern about how they wanted system changes and that they felt they just couldn't consistently compete
now its much worse of course. paul and howard are likely gone. like you said, the nuggets and jazz were forced to trade their franchise players because they were scared to lose them for nothing. the cavs and raptors lost their franchise player. cuban basically bought every player the mavs have other than dirk.
the trend is that players care a lot more now about where they are playing and less about how much they are making. you could pay howard 5 million a year in LA for his salary and he'd still probably end up making more there than he would playing for the hornets at 15 to 20 million a game. and that is just the money. clearly these players want to create "a brand" of themselves. and you do that in the big markets.
anybody saying its not becoming an issue is laying.
now, i personally like it. i think players should have more power over where they play. so much is riding on it. money, legacy, fame...etc. players should have a lot of control. i want the big markets to be great and have the best players. those are the teams people care about...those teams drive ratings. i'd hate to watch the talent diluted even more than it is now. that is my view though...if i was a small market owner, i'd think differently.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Who the hell can predict 30 or 50 years? LA can have a earthquake and fall off the map in that time frame. Be reasonable bro.
Let's say the Lakers don't get Howard next year. Where do you see them going in the next 5 or so years with an older Kobe? They're gonna have another down period like they had in the 1990s when Sedale Threatt and Cedric Ceballos were leading the team.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying to predict. I'm just saying you can't use 5 years to prove something.
Predict? Who knows? The Lakers management could screw up their 100 million dollar payroll just like the knicks have. Cuban and Nelson have spent/wasted a lot of money on players that weren't good fits or just weren't good. It was bad management.
Nobody is saying management doesn't matter. It does. Management is pretty clearly the most important thing. However, its a lot harder to manage a team on 50 million than it is on 100 million. You miss in the draft or have a hole in your team? Good luck plugging it quickly.
I'm done debating what is pretty clearly a fact. Certain franchises have advantages over others. How they take advantage of those is what matters, but that doesn't negate the simple fact that the advantages are there to begin with.
[QUOTE=Blue&Orange]Correct. The hardliners, the small market owners, are worried with the present\future, the history of last 10 years is irrelevant. Who cares is few superstars changed team in the last decade, what's important is that last year Lebron, Bosh, Amare, Carmelo, Boozer did. Atlanta had to overpaid to keep Joe Johnson, and Utah had to trade Williams because they didn't wanted to lose him for nothing, so again who cares what happened or what was the trend 10,5 years ago.[/QUOTE]
Atl. payment of JJ is the system working. If they couldn't pay more, JJ would've been elsewhere.
so, is the argument now, small markets need to keep players and pay them below market? Something doesn't sound quite right abot that.
LBJ, Bosh were locked into bad markets for 7 years. 7 YEARS! They wanted a change. Good for them- and it was to a mid-sized market.
BOOZ CHOSE a small market to go to Utah...now he chose a big market. Who knows what goes on in his head.
Melo acted out to get to NY, well JJ acted out to get to Atl from Phx.
This dominance of Big Market teams is completely imagined.
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]Atl. payment of JJ is the system working. If they couldn't pay more, JJ would've been elsewhere.
so, is the argument now, small markets need to keep players and pay them below market? Something doesn't sound quite right abot that.
LBJ, Bosh were locked into bad markets for 7 years. 7 YEARS! They wanted a change. Good for them- and it was to a mid-sized market.
BOOZ CHOSE a small market to go to Utah...now he chose a big market. Who knows what goes on in his head.
Melo acted out to get to NY, well JJ acted out to get to Atl from Phx.
This dominance of Big Market teams is completely imagined.[/QUOTE]
Don't you get it though....if a team has to max out JJ to keep him...they aren't going to win anything. They can't compete unless they have deep/unlimited pockets.
Boozer chose money in Utah...not the market. Then he left. Totally different example.
Nobody is claiming the big markets dominate the league. We (at least I am) are simply claiming that certain franchises have an advantage. I don't know where you stand....so i've been posting with sarcastic.
He thinks that all teams are equal no matter what and that management is all that matters. I disagree. That is all.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41] you could pay howard 5 million a year in LA for his salary and he'd still probably end up making more there than he would playing for the hornets at 15 to 20 million a game. and that is just the money. clearly these players want to create "a brand" of themselves. and you do that in the big markets.
anybody saying its not becoming an issue is laying.
[/QUOTE]
List me all the players that went to LAL for less. All the guys who came to NYK for less (Amare got paid more). Melo wanted NY, but he wanted to get paid more, which is why it had to be a trade. All the guys who gave Chi a discount.
I think maybe you've got Fisher, who chose LAL for personal reasons...but besides that, it HASN'T HAPPENED.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Don't you get it though....if a team has to max out JJ to keep him...they aren't going to win anything. They can't compete unless they have deep/unlimited pockets.
[/QUOTE]
no one has unlimited pcokets...there is a cap.
I'm not sure how else to defeat this edge. You give markets the ability to lock up their rookies for 7 years, let them pay their own players more (giving a distinct advantage). Now, be able to pay guys less then they are demanding to keep them.
I think the league curtails this edge, as evidenced by the fact the FA's don't go to these big markets.
So YES there is an edge, but NOT under the 99 agreement.
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]List me all the players that went to LAL for less. All the guys who came to NYK for less (Amare got paid more). Melo wanted NY, but he wanted to get paid more, which is why it had to be a trade. All the guys who gave Chi a discount.
I think maybe you've got Fisher, who chose LAL for personal reasons...but besides that, it HASN'T HAPPENED.[/QUOTE]
HAHA no one gives NY a discount for going there in any sport. They always ask for more money because of the high taxes. States like Florida and Texas can sometimes get a discount because of the state taxes. In fact, the Yankees ALWAYS have to pay a premium to get players to go there. No one ever gives them a discount.
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]no one has unlimited pcokets...there is a cap.
I'm not sure how else to defeat this edge. You give markets the ability to lock up their rookies for 7 years, let them pay their own players more (giving a distinct advantage). Now, be able to pay guys less then they are demanding to keep them.
I think the league curtails this edge, as evidenced by the fact the FA's don't go to these big markets.
So YES there is an edge, but NOT under the 99 agreement.[/QUOTE]
its about the current trend. and they do. shaq went to the lakers...changed the entire landscape of basketball. lebron left cleveland...changed the entire landscape of basketball. amare and melo went to NY...completely changed the western conference. deron williams got traded in fear....
do you really think a team like the bulls or knicks would have lost carter, tmac, and bosh within a decade like the raptors did? ROFL if you don't think the bigger market teams would have had a better chance to hold on to those players. whats that? thats right...another advantage.
now chris paul and howard are most likely leaving. hey, i'll make a bet with you. i bet paul and howard go to big markets if they leave. care to take me up on that?
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]List me all the players that went to LAL for less. All the guys who came to NYK for less (Amare got paid more). Melo wanted NY, but he wanted to get paid more, which is why it had to be a trade. All the guys who gave Chi a discount.
I think maybe you've got Fisher, who chose LAL for personal reasons...but besides that, it HASN'T HAPPENED.[/QUOTE]
what?
i don't follow. because the knicks can afford to pay more....they ended up there. its not hard. the knicks simply spend more money than most teams. i don't know why its confusing to people.
its debatable as to how important or how advantageous spending more money is. i totally agree. what is not debatable is that the simple fact of having 30 to 50 million more to spend is an advantage.
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]Go to a KNicks game, go to a Nets game. They are not the same market. They are not close drives from each other (since they've moved to Newark they are closer, but for 8 of the last 11 years, its the meadowlands) and their crowds are different. Nets at their very best drew like the NYK at their worst.
its not the same market.[/QUOTE]
For all intents and purposes, it is the same media market. Yeah, northern New Jersey has its own daily papers (Newark Star-Ledger and Bergen County Record), but they get their TV and radio from New York City, just like southern New Jersey gets their TV and radio from Philadelphia. I kinda get what you're saying, but I'm not talking the different types of crowds and things like that, because of course it's no contest. That list I posted earlier takes into account no just the individual cities, but their suburban areas as well, in this case, northern New Jersey is a suburban area to New York City.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]what?
i don't follow. because the knicks can afford to pay more....they ended up there. its not hard. the knicks simply spend more money than most teams. i don't know why its confusing to people.
its debatable as to how important or how advantageous spending more money is. i totally agree. what is not debatable is that the simple fact of having 30 to 50 million more to spend is an advantage.[/QUOTE]
Knicks are below the cap. They can afford to pay $100,000 to anyone, they just aren't allowed to.
Why is this confusing you? Whatever money Sarver saved on Amare, he spent on other players. They all spend the about same.
The big markets being richer does not and has not given them a single advantage that the NBA as not accounted for...plus this "trend" is Carmelo. That's it. Utah losing deron is not about big/small market, it was about Deron wanting to leave. Who else is this trend? Amare taking the most money available to him (under the cap rules) to go to NY. that's a $$ decision.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
you could pay howard 5 million a year in LA for his salary and he'd still probably end up making more there than he would playing for the hornets at 15 to 20 million a game.
[/QUOTE]
Do you really think this? You think if it was true that playing for LA could make you $15 mil. more per season, any agent would've allowed guys like Lebron or Chris Paul sign extensions with their small market teams after the rookie deal expired?
Melo's not getting $15 mil. more in endorsements all of a sudden, neither is Amare or Gasol or Steve Blake.
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]Knicks are below the cap. They can afford to pay $100,000 to anyone, they just aren't allowed to.
Why is this confusing you? Whatever money Sarver saved on Amare, he spent on other players. They all spend the about same.
The big markets being richer does not and has not given them a single advantage that the NBA as not accounted for...plus this "trend" is Carmelo. That's it. Utah losing deron is not about big/small market, it was about Deron wanting to leave. Who else is this trend? Amare taking the most money available to him (under the cap rules) to go to NY. that's a $$ decision.[/QUOTE]
I'm not confused at all. Certain teams can afford to have higher payrolls. You do realize that we don't have a hard cap in the NBA...right? You do realize that the Mavs spent like 40 million more than some teams...right?
You seem confused....not me.
And if you don't see the trend...you are blind. Simple as that.
And I'll say it again....care to wager on where Paul and Howard end up if they leave? I'll take the big markets....you take the small markets. Deal?
[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]Do you really think this? You think if it was true that playing for LA could make you $15 mil. more per season, any agent would've allowed guys like Lebron or Chris Paul sign extensions with their small market teams after the rookie deal expired?
Melo's not getting $15 mil. more in endorsements all of a sudden, neither is Amare or Gasol or Steve Blake.[/QUOTE]
I don't know why the dollar amount is, but for star players....being in NY over a small market is a huge advantage...huge. And its lasting....as in for the rest of their lives type stuff.
I have no idea of calculating it, but I bet the exposure leads to a pretty high monetary value...especially if they start winning.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I'm not confused at all. Certain teams can afford to have higher payrolls. You do realize that we don't have a hard cap in the NBA...right? You do realize that the Mavs spent like 40 million more than some teams...right?
You seem confused....not me.
And if you don't see the trend...you are blind. Simple as that.[/QUOTE]
Certain teams can afford to have higher payorlls...lets see who those teams are. I'm sure its the big markets, with all their draw and cash....
LA Lakers ~ 95.3 (big) (OBVIOUSLY)
Orlando Magic ~ 89.9 (medium)
Dallas Mavericks ~ 85.8 (big)
Boston Celtics ~ 83.3 (big)
Denver Nuggets ~ 83.0 (medium)
Houston Rockets ~ 72.7 (medium)
Utah Jazz ~ 71.1 (small)
Philadelphia 76ers ~ 69.4 (big)
Atlanta Hawks ~ 69.1 (medium)
New Orleans Hornets ~ 68.9 (small)
[B]wait this can't be right...of the top 10 spenders, not even half are big market teams..is that possible?[/B]
Memphis Grizzlies ~ 67.8 (small)
Milwaukee Bucks ~ 67.7 (small)
Portland Blazers ~ 67.5 (small)
San Antonio Spurs ~ 64.9 (small)
Detroit Pistons ~ 64.7 (medium)
Golden State Warriors ~ 64.6 (small)
Indiana Pacers ~ 64.4 (small)
Charlotte Bobcats ~ 61.1 (small)
New Jersey Nets ~ 57.0 (small-but you guys wantto call them big)
[B]Where's NY with all its spending power? BUlls and all the players that the BIG market bulls attracy? Not a single BIG MARKET team in the mid-tier?[/B]
Phoenix Suns ~ 55.4 (medium)
Miami Heat ~ 54.4 (medium)
Washington Wizards ~ 52.7 (big)
Cleveland Cavaliers ~ 51.3 (medium)
OKC Thunder ~ 50.3 (small)
Toronto Raptors ~ 49.4 (?)
New York Knicks ~ 47.2 (BIG)
LA Clippers ~ 47.0 (BIG)
Chicago Bulls ~ 46.7 (BIG)
Sacramento Kings ~ 39.0 (small)
Minnesota T-Wolves ~ 37.6 (small)
So - the big markets can all spend more creating a trend of players going there for bigger salaries. Hmmm...not seeing it here. I must be blind.
[url]http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/2010/10/2010-2011-team-payrolls/[/url]
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I don't know why the dollar amount is, but for star players....being in NY over a small market is a huge advantage...huge. And its lasting....as in for the rest of their lives type stuff.
I have no idea of calculating it, but I bet the exposure leads to a pretty high monetary value...especially if they start winning.[/QUOTE]
Every star player I know that comes to NY takes top top top top dollar to come here and not a nickel less.
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]Certain teams can afford to have higher payorlls...lets see who those teams are. I'm sure its the big markets, with all their draw and cash....
LA Lakers ~ 95.3 (big) (OBVIOUSLY)
Orlando Magic ~ 89.9 (medium)
Dallas Mavericks ~ 85.8 (big)
Boston Celtics ~ 83.3 (big)
Denver Nuggets ~ 83.0 (medium)
Houston Rockets ~ 72.7 (medium)
Utah Jazz ~ 71.1 (small)
Philadelphia 76ers ~ 69.4 (big)
Atlanta Hawks ~ 69.1 (medium)
New Orleans Hornets ~ 68.9 (small)
[B]wait this can't be right...of the top 10 spenders, not even half are big market teams..is that possible?[/B]
Memphis Grizzlies ~ 67.8 (small)
Milwaukee Bucks ~ 67.7 (small)
Portland Blazers ~ 67.5 (small)
San Antonio Spurs ~ 64.9 (small)
Detroit Pistons ~ 64.7 (medium)
Golden State Warriors ~ 64.6 (small)
Indiana Pacers ~ 64.4 (small)
Charlotte Bobcats ~ 61.1 (small)
New Jersey Nets ~ 57.0 (small-but you guys wantto call them big)
[B]Where's NY with all its spending power? BUlls and all the players that the BIG market bulls attracy? Not a single BIG MARKET team in the mid-tier?[/B]
Phoenix Suns ~ 55.4 (medium)
Miami Heat ~ 54.4 (medium)
Washington Wizards ~ 52.7 (big)
Cleveland Cavaliers ~ 51.3 (medium)
OKC Thunder ~ 50.3 (small)
Toronto Raptors ~ 49.4 (?)
New York Knicks ~ 47.2 (BIG)
LA Clippers ~ 47.0 (BIG)
Chicago Bulls ~ 46.7 (BIG)
Sacramento Kings ~ 39.0 (small)
Minnesota T-Wolves ~ 37.6 (small)
So - the big markets can all spend more creating a trend of players going there for bigger salaries. Hmmm...not seeing it here. I must be blind.
[url]http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/2010/10/2010-2011-team-payrolls/[/url][/QUOTE]
you have 3 of the 4 top teams as big markets....LOL...and you are taking a snapshot in a year in which some big markets purposefully shed contracts to get the exact players we are talking about.
and its not just money...as i have said literally a million ****ing times. its everything. everything that goes along with the desirable locations/markets. everything matters. you guys operate with these absolutes like somebody is sitting here telling you that no small market team can ever win.
not the case at all. its just a shame that people here honestly think a team like the twolves (lowest on your list) can compete with the a team like the lakers/celtics/mavs year in year out. they can't.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I don't know why the dollar amount is, but for star players....being in NY over a small market is a huge advantage...huge. And its lasting....as in for the rest of their lives type stuff.
I have no idea of calculating it, but I bet the exposure leads to a pretty high monetary value...especially if they start winning.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't. Jeter makes like $5 mil per year in endorsements, probably gets to eat pastrami sandwiches for free for life. That's not huge...huge... territory. You think John Starks or Doc Rivers are making $15 mil. right now in endorsements? or even Ewing? Not even Amare makes that.
Sports figures who actually make huge...huge... endorsements? Other than transcendental figures like Kobe and Jordan, it's golfers and tennis players, who sign with Tagheuer and Landrover, while Amare and Melo advertise energy strips and prepaid phones.
Deron Williams was livid that he got traded to the Nets, and had to be forced to get on the plane. This is a team that will be playing in Brooklyn, in a brand new arena, will be the new chic team to play for, and is partially owned by Jay-Z. Despite all this, he still won't sign the extension yet.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Deron Williams was livid that he got traded to the Nets, and had to be forced to get on the plane. This is a team that will be playing in Brooklyn, in a brand new arena, will be the new chic team to play for, and is partially owned by Jay-Z. Despite all this, he still won't sign the extension yet.[/QUOTE]
because the nets suck. stop talking in absolutes. he won't be livid if they land another great player.
why do you think the jazz traded him? they traded him because they knew they probably couldn't sign him. why? because they are the jazz and had already lost boozer and just don't have the ability to retain all their players the way some teams do.
hence....just one of many advantages of other franchises. its fun debating facts.
To be fair, teams at the bottom like Chicago, Washington, LA Clippers at the bottom all have a lot of young players under contract on their rookie deals, including their starts like Rose, Wall, Griffin. When those teams have to re-up the young guys, you'll see that number bump up significantly. And the Clippers are just cheap. They never spend money, and probably never will, so it's hard for me to call them a big market team. NY just got through dumping bad contract after bad contract. They've been a lot higher over the last 5-6 years.
The Jazz were never a luxury tax payer until this past year, so that's a little flukey. The Magic are in a financial mess, and they are forced to be that way because they are trying to get enough in to keep Howard from leaving. It's not something they'll be able to sustain long term. Cleveland was in the same boat with LeBron.
The Suns were a luxury tax payer for years during the Nash era and that eventually cost them Amar'e. They'll be set back for years trying to weed out contracts and start over. Smaller market teams can do it short term if they think there is a slight chance they can win it all, but over the course of 5-6 years, the well starts running dry while larger market teams can sustain the cap hit better.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]because the nets suck. stop talking in absolutes. he won't be livid if they land another great player.
why do you think the jazz traded him? they traded him because they knew they probably couldn't sign him. why? because they are the jazz and had already lost boozer and just don't have the ability to retain all their players the way some teams do.
hence....just one of many advantages of other franchises. its fun debating facts.[/QUOTE]
I'm not the one who talks in absolutes. You are. You always run back to the Lakers, as if the Clippers don't play in the same building. We can go over the top 10 markets if you want.
Knicks - suck
LA - 1 team is great, 1 is awful
Chicago - had a decade of being awful, but got lucky to draft Rose
Dallas - great team due to a great owner
Philly - suck
Houston - suck
Washington - suck
Miami - we know the story
Atlanta - meh, they're ok
Boston - sucked for almost 20 years after Bird, then got a good trade from Minnesota, whose GM JUST SO HAPPENED TO PLAY FOR THE CELTICS!!! OMG WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!!!
BTW, the Jazz actually got Boozer via free agency. They traded Deron because they NJ made an offer they couldn't refuse. The Nets were so desperate to get a star, they were willing to make a one sided trade even without an assurance from Deron that he would sign the extension. The Jazz got the better end of the trade BY FAR!!!
Also, ask any Bulls fan and they will tell you they would love to give Boozer back to Utah.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]you have 3 of the 4 top teams as big markets....LOL...and you are taking a snapshot in a year in which some big markets purposefully shed contracts to get the exact players we are talking about.
and its not just money...as i have said literally a million ****ing times. its everything. everything that goes along with the desirable locations/markets. everything matters. [B]you guys operate with these absolutes[/B] like somebody is sitting here telling you that no small market team can ever win.
not the case at all. its just a shame that people here honestly think a team like the twolves (lowest on your list) can compete with the a team like the lakers/celtics/mavs year in year out. they can't.[/QUOTE]
You are the one saying big market teams have an absolute advantage, when the reality is it's not that absolute.
Yes, some players go to a certain market for a reason, like Shaq (who wanted to do movies). But the reality is, it's not that big of problem (as has been shown). The team's that have the worst problem (like Toronto, who you keep mentioning, and New Orleans), probably shouldn't have teams.
The NHL has a hard cap, but the Florida Panthers will always be a crappy hockey team, regardless of the glitz of Miami, b/c theres no hockey fans here, and we have no god damn ice. No hockey star would come here, therefore, we shouldn't have a team.
Some markets may have some advantage (although I think it has more to do with the fact that some places shouldn't have teams), but what is your point? What are you arguing for? Or are you simply being devil's advocate and arguing for the sake of arguing, like I have seen you do a few times now.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]you have 3 of the 4 top teams as big markets....LOL...and you are taking a snapshot in a year in which some big markets purposefully shed contracts to get the exact players we are talking about.
and its not just money...as i have said literally a million ****ing times. its everything. everything that goes along with the desirable locations/markets. everything matters. you guys operate with these absolutes like somebody is sitting here telling you that no small market team can ever win.
[/QUOTE]
...and 3 of the 5 bottom teams as big markets...it indicates that the size of the market does not directly correllate to the amount they spend on players...which is your exact argument.
I agree everything matters. When EVERYTHING balances out, players go to a variety of places for a variety of reasons and there is no evidence that Big Markets have any edge in the area of player recruitment.
...and no one really knows what went on with Deron and Utah..maybe after 7 yrs locked up in Utah, the folks in Utah felt, Deron was going t ogo elsewhere no matter how much $$ they gave him. But no tears for Utah, Atl dropped him in their laps for 7 years.
[QUOTE=Rab]To be fair, teams at the bottom like Chicago, Washington, LA Clippers at the bottom all have a lot of young players under contract on their rookie deals, including their starts like Rose, Wall, Griffin. When those teams have to re-up the young guys, you'll see that number bump up significantly. And the Clippers are just cheap. They never spend money, and probably never will, so it's hard for me to call them a big market team. NY just got through dumping bad contract after bad contract. They've been a lot higher over the last 5-6 years.
The Jazz were never a luxury tax payer until this past year, so that's a little flukey. The Magic are in a financial mess, and they are forced to be that way because they are trying to get enough in to keep Howard from leaving. It's not something they'll be able to sustain long term. Cleveland was in the same boat with LeBron.
The Suns were a luxury tax payer for years during the Nash era and that eventually cost them Amar'e. They'll be set back for years trying to weed out contracts and start over. Smaller market teams can do it short term if they think there is a slight chance they can win it all, but over the course of 5-6 years, the well starts running dry while larger market teams can sustain the cap hit better.[/QUOTE]
:applause:
[QUOTE=DMAVS41][B]you have 3 of the 4 top teams as big markets..[/B]..LOL...and you are taking a snapshot in a year in which some big markets purposefully shed contracts to get the exact players we are talking about.
and its not just money...as i have said literally a million ****ing times. its everything. everything that goes along with the desirable locations/markets. everything matters. you guys operate with these absolutes like somebody is sitting here telling you that no small market team can ever win.
[/QUOTE]
:oldlol:
Dude, it's not going to work. I already tried explaining it to sarcastic about how location matters and he wasn't even able to comprehend the question[or he was purposely deflecting out of denial].
Scenario:
Does Deron Williams go to:
a) the nets w/ Dwight Howard
or
b) the bucks w/ Dwight Howard
He couldn't answer it.. tried flipping it to nets w/o Howard versus bucks w/ Howard.. which of course makes the scenario about the players on the team rather than the location.
If you look at a lot of the mediocre teams in the league in small markets like Denver and Milwaukee and Clippers[not small market but small fanbase/history] and Atlanta, they all have promising talent.. they're just missing that one star. You put Dwight on any of those teams and they are a top contender in the league. But why is it that Dwight doesn't even have them as an option? He'd rather play with an old Kobe in Los Angeles and not much else[assuming they give away Pau and/or Bynum to get him] rather than team up with the cores of the other teams I mentioned which are just as good. Why is that?
Why wouldn't Dwight choose the Clippers over the Lakers? They EASILY have better talent going forward... it's just the apeal of playing for the Lakers[much larger fanbase, more pristine/fame, etc.]
Why does everyone always make a big deal about players having 'big games' in Madison Square? Reggie Miller made a legacy on it alone. I thought location had nothing to do with how players' thinking.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Deron Williams was livid that he got traded to the Nets, and had to be forced to get on the plane. This is a team that will be playing in Brooklyn, in a brand new arena, will be the new chic team to play for, and is partially owned by Jay-Z. Despite all this, he still won't sign the extension yet.[/QUOTE]
When Deron got traded he wasn't headed on a flight to Brooklyn.. he was headed on a flight to Newark.
I wish this forum had a search function SO bad because I can remember countless threads where Sarcastic bashed the Nets saying Melo would never go to NJ over NYC because Newark is such a shitty city. And what do you know.. look what happened?:oldlol: