Printable View
[QUOTE=tpols]
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]
Quick, name three non-Knicks players other than Reggie Miller who are known for having had 'big games' in MSG.
...
...
...
Yes, none.
[QUOTE=pmj]You are the one saying big market teams have an absolute advantage, when the reality is it's not that absolute.
[/QUOTE]
No.. he's saying that they have an advantage but there are still other factors to consider. I can have an advantage in basketball being taller than you but if you're better at me at every other facet of the game, you will be better than me. Given equal skills though, I will have the advantage. Thats all thats being said.
People against the notion that bigger markets have an advantage like to go off on tangents on those other factors and ignore the actual topic.
[QUOTE=tpols]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:[/QUOTE]
That's why I said "will be".
I never said Melo would "never" sign with the Nets. I know this because I feared he would, and I was one of the people that was willing and happy to give up every piece possible to get him.
I said his first choice was the Knicks, because they are the more established franchise in NY, and will always be so.
[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]Quick, name three non-Knicks players other than Reggie Miller who are known for having had 'big games' in MSG.
...
...
...
Yes, none.[/QUOTE]
Reggie Miller
Michael Jordan
Kobe Bryant
Before every game, reporters will swarm these guys about breaking scoring records in MSG. But they dont do it anywhere else. Why is that?
You couldn't name me three arenas that three small market teams play in.. dont even bother responding because its too easy to google.
[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]Quick, name three non-Knicks players other than Reggie Miller who are known for having had 'big games' in MSG.
...
...
...
Yes, none.[/QUOTE]
Is this serious? Didn't Kobe, Wade, and Lebron all had big games in consecutive nights at MSG a couple of years ago?
[QUOTE=tpols]Reggie Miller
Michael Jordan
Kobe Bryant
Before every game, reporters will swarm these guys about breaking scoring records in MSG. But they dont do it anywhere else. Why is that?
You couldn't name me three arenas that three small market teams play in.. dont even bother responding because its too easy to google.[/QUOTE]
I honestly can't believe people truly believe that certain franchises don't have inherent advantages.
Its mind boggling.
I don't even understand why people are disputing DMAVS claim that big market teams have an advantage.... :confusedshrug:
I went ahead and nerdified Sarcastic's favorite site "Forbes: and compiled the average player costs of six teams for the past 10 years.
1. Knicks - $96M
2. Lakers - $73M
3. Bucks - $65M
4. Spurs - $63M
5. Suns - $61M
6. Hornets - $56
Don't you think someone who can spend $96M every year for 10 years have an advantage against someone who could only spend $56M? To top it off, the Knicks earned money during those 10 years, even while sucking.
Now before people go "Look at the Spurs! Proof that big markets doesn't matter". That's beside the point, the Spurs are good because for the better part of 10 years they've drafted good, spent wisely. Can you imagine how great the Spurs would be if they had a market like N.Y. and be able to spend close to $100M every year? They'd probably have Dwight, Wade, Kobe, Paul and Amare locked up for 7 years at $10M each and win every year.
I am getting really lost here.
Someone please fill in these blanks for me so I can catch up
The Big Market Team's Inherent Advantage is______
The proof of this advantage is________________
The NBA's efforts to curtail this advantage have failed because ________
\
And here's a fair deal, people who think its unfair to raise the dominance of the Spurs are barred from raising the LAL. Otherwise, both teams can be used as examples fo big/small market success.
The Big Market Team's Inherent Advantage is_ they have larger fanbases, national exposure, popularity which can be very attractive to superstars who want to play in that type of environment.
The proof of this advantage is_ tons of superstars over the past couple of decades going to big market teams either through draft demands or FA making those teams dynasties.. Shaq, Kareem, Magic, Kobe, Wilt all going to LA through a personal preference.. Dwight announcing he might leave Orlando for LA.. talks of a big 3 in NY with CP3, Melo and Amare... it goes on and on and on. Then of course you get the fact that many superstars have left their small market/shitty teams and cities to go play in the limelight[virtually all of my above examples started off in small markets or were going to end up there].
The NBA's efforts to curtail this advantage have failed because _ there's nothing you can do to limit the attractiveness of a city/franchise. Their location, history, and prestige is unchangeable by enforcing any rules.
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]I am getting really lost here.
Someone please fill in these blanks for me so I can catch up
The Big Market Team's Inherent Advantage is [U][B]more and more players want to team up with other stars in bigger or better markets than the one's they are in. Smaller market teams are forced to overspend on mediocre talent to keep their stars happy.[/B][/U]
The proof of this advantage is [B][U]Larger market teams are able to spend and still turn a profit regardless of team success, whereas smaller markets can get burried for years.[/U][/B]
The NBA's efforts to curtail this advantage have failed because [B][U]there is nothing in the CBA that helps prevent it. This is part of the reason we are where we are.[/U][/B]
\
And here's a fair deal, people who think its unfair to raise the dominance of the Spurs are barred from raising the LAL. Otherwise, both teams can be used as examples fo big/small market success.[/QUOTE]
It's completely fair to bring up the Spurs, but I would consider them more of the exception to the rule than anything. Not every team lands a top 2 or 3 PF in the history of the game. The Spurs were always able to keep their stars and constantly chew up and spit out role players on the cheap to put around them. It's rare, and it's rare because no other market seems to be able to do it.
Since '99, which small market superstar left to go to a big team? We can use 'Melo. Anyone else? Can't use Amare/Booz they were offered more money by teams under the cap.
We really can't use Paul/Howard until they actually leave their teams and go to this Big Market.
[QUOTE=Rab]It's completely fair to bring up the Spurs, but I would consider them more of the exception to the rule than anything. Not every team lands a top 2 or 3 PF in the history of the game. The Spurs were always able to keep their stars and constantly chew up and spit out role players on the cheap to put around them. It's rare, and it's rare because no other market seems to be able to do it.[/QUOTE]
Of course it's unreasonable to ask small market teams to luck into a Tim Duncan, but what separates San Antonio with Duncan from say Minnesota with KG is that they made smart moves after the fact. That's the issue. So much of the problem with this debate is that a lot gets solved if Drew Gooden isn't getting $30 million contracts. If teams tried to build through financial prudence and really working the draft then so many of the problems would be lessened. There's always going to be bad teams, but that doesn't mean you tear down the teams that want to spend so that poorly run teams can reset the scoreboard.
[QUOTE=gasolina]I don't even understand why people are disputing DMAVS claim that big market teams have an advantage.... :confusedshrug:
I went ahead and nerdified Sarcastic's favorite site "Forbes: and compiled the average player costs of six teams for the past 10 years.
1. Knicks - $96M
2. Lakers - $73M
3. Bucks - $65M
4. Spurs - $63M
5. Suns - $61M
6. Hornets - $56
Don't you think someone who can spend $96M every year for 10 years have an advantage against someone who could only spend $56M? To top it off, the Knicks earned money during those 10 years, even while sucking.
Now before people go "Look at the Spurs! Proof that big markets doesn't matter". That's beside the point, the Spurs are good because for the better part of 10 years they've drafted good, spent wisely. Can you imagine how great the Spurs would be if they had a market like N.Y. and be able to spend close to $100M every year? They'd probably have Dwight, Wade, Kobe, Paul and Amare locked up for 7 years at $10M each and win every year.[/QUOTE]
So we have 2 big market teams and 4 small market teams in the top 6 in spending over the last 10 years. LA and San Antonio have 7 championships between them in the last ten years. While the rest of account for 0 combined. It seems to me that having Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant has more to do with success than spending spending or market size. New York is proof that market size and spending don't make such a huge difference or they would have done a hell of a lot more in the past 10 years.
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]Since '99, which small market superstar left to go to a big team? We can use 'Melo. Anyone else? Can't use Amare/Booz they were offered more money by teams under the cap.
We really can't use Paul/Howard until they actually leave their teams and go to this Big Market.[/QUOTE]
bosh/lebron
and if you don't think the NY market had anything to do with amare leaving you are just being stubborn. same with boozer.
the raptors have lost carter, tmac, and bosh within the decade....lol
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]Since '99, which small market superstar left to go to a big team? We can use 'Melo. Anyone else? Can't use Amare/Booz they were offered more money by teams under the cap.
We really can't use Paul/Howard until they actually leave their teams and go to this Big Market.[/QUOTE]
That wasn't an issue back then. This is the trend that is happening now, and that small market teams are wanting to prevent.
Melo used the leverage. The Jazz traded D-Will before he could use that leverage against them. We saw what the Heat did. Of course, Miami isn't a large market, but there is a market appeal there. Howard has announced there is already a pretty good chance he'll bounce, and you know it won't be to the Bucks or Cavs. We'll see how it plays out with D-Will, Howard, and Paul this year, but in my opinion, they're cut from the same cloth as LeBron, Bosh, Wade, and Melo.
I think you can absolutely use Amar'e in this scenario. The Suns simply didn't want to guarantee that kind of money over that many years to him because of the fear it would cripple the franchise. The appeal of NY and the financial flexibility NY had were certainly an appeal to him.
Booz I agree you can't use because the Jazz didn't want him back anyway
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]the raptors have lost carter, tmac, and bosh within the decade....lol[/QUOTE]
That would certainly have more to do with the state of the Raptors than big markets stealing them. Since the Raptors drafted Chris Bosh in 2003 they had the chance to draft at least a few of Andre Iguodala, Andrew Bynum, LaMarcus Aldridge, Brandon Roy or Rudy Gay. If they make a few more of the right moves, maybe Bosh doesn't leave or at least they could've done more when he was there.
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]I am getting really lost here.
Someone please fill in these blanks for me so I can catch up
The Big Market Team's Inherent Advantage is______
The proof of this advantage is________________
The NBA's efforts to curtail this advantage have failed because ________
[/QUOTE]
1.Opportunities beyond basketball. Higher profile market.
2. The movie Shazam
3. They actually made the movie Shazam
[QUOTE=gasolina]Is this serious? Didn't Kobe, Wade, and Lebron all had big games in consecutive nights at MSG a couple of years ago?[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure Kobe, Wade, and Lebron have far more memorable games than beating the Knicks of the last decade.
[QUOTE=B
[QUOTE=Kurosawa0]That would certainly have more to do with the state of the Raptors than big markets stealing them. Since the Raptors drafted Chris Bosh in 2003 they had the chance to draft at least a few of Andre Iguodala, Andrew Bynum, LaMarcus Aldridge, Brandon Roy or Rudy Gay. If they make a few more of the right moves, maybe Bosh doesn't leave or at least they could've done more when he was there.[/QUOTE]
of course. but that is part of the issue. if teams with more resources and a desirable location miss in the draft, they can buy players. look at what cuban has done. he got dirk in the draft and then basically has bought every player we've gotten since.
if some of those guys were on bigger market teams, more resources would have been spent on getting in quality players with the chances of an elite free agent actually wanting to play there. if bosh had been on the knicks, people would have wanted to go join him in NY.....nobody was thinking about joining bosh in Toronto.
Wonder why....
[QUOTE=Rab]That wasn't an issue back then. This is the trend that is happening now, and that small market teams are wanting to prevent.
Melo used the leverage. The Jazz traded D-Will before he could use that leverage against them. We saw what the Heat did. Of course, Miami isn't a large market, but there is a market appeal there. Howard has announced there is already a pretty good chance he'll bounce, and you know it won't be to the Bucks or Cavs. We'll see how it plays out with D-Will, Howard, and Paul this year, but in my opinion, they're cut from the same cloth as LeBron, Bosh, Wade, and Melo.
I think you can absolutely use Amar'e in this scenario. The Suns simply didn't want to guarantee that kind of money over that many years to him because of the fear it would cripple the franchise. The appeal of NY and the financial flexibility NY had were certainly an appeal to him.
Booz I agree you can't use because the Jazz didn't want him back anyway[/QUOTE]
So the trend is maybe Howard. D.Will and Paul wil lgoto a big market and the Knicks were willing to risk more than the Suns. That's the trend. After 13 years of players basically staying home and Nash choosing Phx over dall, you've got 3 maybe's, 1 guy taking more money, and 2 players wanting warm weather.
Not buying it as a trend.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
if some of those guys were on bigger market teams, more resources would have been spent on getting in quality players with the chances of an elite free agent actually wanting to play there. if bosh had been on the knicks, people would have wanted to go join him in NY.....nobody was thinking about joining bosh in Toronto.
Wonder why....[/QUOTE]
Cause Cleve didn't spend while LBJ was there.
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]Cause Cleve didn't spend while LBJ was there.[/QUOTE]
Huge Larry Hughes contract, $20 mill on Shaq. They consistently had a huge payroll when LeBron was there.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]of course. but that is part of the issue. if teams with more resources and a desirable location miss in the draft, they can buy players. look at what cuban has done. he got dirk in the draft and then basically has bought every player we've gotten since.
if some of those guys were on bigger market teams, more resources would have been spent on getting in quality players with the chances of an elite free agent actually wanting to play there. if bosh had been on the knicks, people would have wanted to go join him in NY.....nobody was thinking about joining bosh in Toronto.
Wonder why....[/QUOTE]
So now it's not, a big market team can buy any player it wants, but a big market team can buy any player it wants AFTER it drafts a superstar? I really really would like to know how anyone can insist on believing in this nonsense.
[QUOTE=Rab]Huge Larry Hughes contract, $20 mill on Shaq. They consistently had a huge payroll when LeBron was there.[/QUOTE]
Now how did a small market team do that, in spite of this overwhelming financial disadvantage?
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]of course. but that is part of the issue. if teams with more resources and a desirable location miss in the draft, they can buy players. look at what cuban has done. he got dirk in the draft and then basically has bought every player we've gotten since.
if some of those guys were on bigger market teams, more resources would have been spent on getting in quality players with the chances of an elite free agent actually wanting to play there. if bosh had been on the knicks, people would have wanted to go join him in NY.....nobody was thinking about joining bosh in Toronto.
Wonder why....[/QUOTE]
Now I do agree that there needs to be a cap set on how ridiculous the spending can get. I don't think the Lakers or the Mavs' model should be allowed. At some point, spending has to be stopped. Teams shouldn't just be allowed to add salary upon salary every year. That isn't fair either.
See, the difference is that the owners seem to have wanted or do want a system that completely tears down the old one and replaces it with a very restrictive one. I just think the current one needs to be tinkered with, not completely rebuilt. If owners like Cuban want to spend, they should be able to. There also should be a limit other than a simple luxury tax.
[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]And now that Rick Fox and Shaq have become huge Hollywood stars every single NBA player wants to move to LA. I guess that's a fact in this fantasy world where Miami is a glamorous international city on par with NY and London, and big market teams are signing every single basketball player under the sun.[/QUOTE]
Actually Miami is very much a top destination for the rich famous and powerful
[QUOTE]Miami is a major center and a leader in finance, commerce, culture, media, entertainment, the arts, and international trade.[13][14] In 2010, Miami ranked seventh in the United States in terms of finance, commerce, culture, entertainment, fashion, education, and other sectors. It ranked thirty-third among global cities.[15] In 2008, Forbes magazine ranked Miami "America's Cleanest City", for its year-round good air quality, vast green spaces, clean drinking water, clean streets and city-wide recycling programs.[16] According to a 2009 UBS study of 73 world cities, Miami was ranked as the richest city in the United States, and the world's fifth-richest city in terms of purchasing power.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami[/url]
oh look number 3 on the list
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2011/06/24/top-10-glamorous-list-destinations/[/url]
Oh yeah Ron Artest and Lamar Odom among others say hi from Hollywood
[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]Now how did a small market team do that, in spite of this overwhelming financial disadvantage?[/QUOTE]
I've said this before. Small market teams can do it for short periods of time, but as was seen in Cleveland, they paid extreme amounts of money for bad talent for fear of LeBron walking, and it left them in shambles. Same thing will happen in Orlando.
Some of you may enjoy this. Couldn't resist with the title of the thread -
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhUNrpX8Rx4[/url]
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]Cause Cleve didn't spend while LBJ was there.[/QUOTE]
What? They consistently spent money...they just made poor decisions and could never seem to quite get that other secondary player.
Gilbert spent a lot of money on those teams.
[QUOTE=Rab]I've said this before. Small market teams can do it for short periods of time, but as was seen in Cleveland, they paid extreme amounts of money for bad talent for fear of LeBron walking, and it left them in shambles. Same thing will happen in Orlando.[/QUOTE] Good point. What you're saying is teams with more access to cash from being in a more attractive market place can reload faster.
[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]So now it's not, a big market team can buy any player it wants, but a big market team can buy any player it wants AFTER it drafts a superstar? I really really would like to know how anyone can insist on believing in this nonsense.[/QUOTE]
i honestly don't know what to tell you. if you have more money and a desirable franchise/location....if you miss in the draft...you can recover more quickly.
just like if you hit in the draft...you can build around them more easily. it doesn't mean every time...but the resources and advantages are there to build a better team.
everyone keeps using the spurs as the small market example. but what if duncan had gone to the celtics instead. and then the celtics find a way to surround duncan with better teams than the spurs did at times. maybe duncan wins 7 titles. who knows....but its possible given their desirable franchise and ability to spend more.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]i honestly don't know what to tell you. if you have more money and a desirable franchise/location....if you miss in the draft...you can recover more quickly.
just like if you hit in the draft...you can build around them more easily. it doesn't mean every time...but the resources and advantages are there to build a better team.
everyone keeps using the spurs as the small market example. but what if duncan had gone to the celtics instead. and then the celtics find a way to surround duncan with better teams than the spurs did at times. maybe duncan wins 7 titles. who knows....but its possible given their desirable franchise and ability to spend more.[/QUOTE]
Remember you're arguing with a guy who says it's not the fans that pays the players salaries because once you spend the money on tickets or NBA gear it's not yours anymore.
:roll:
[url]http://wagesofwins.net/2011/08/10/nba-owners-do-not-understand-competitive-balance/[/url]
[QUOTE]NBA Owners Do Not Understand Competitive Balance
Posted on August 10, 2011 by dberri 27
In the July 25th edition of Sports Illustrated we saw the following statement (from a story about Derek Fisher and the NBA labor dispute):
The league contends that owners and players together will grow financially and thrive in competitive balance as long as the richest teams aren
Of course crap teams will have lower payroll... once a season starts going bad, they'll start trading their high-priced assets for future picks and cap relief... whil the good teams absorb the money to get a little better before playoff time.
It has nothing to do with market size.
[QUOTE=longtime lurker]So we have 2 big market teams and 4 small market teams in the top 6 in spending over the last 10 years. LA and San Antonio have 7 championships between them in the last ten years. While the rest of account for 0 combined. It seems to me that having Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant has more to do with success than spending spending or market size. New York is proof that market size and spending don't make such a huge difference or they would have done a hell of a lot more in the past 10 years.[/QUOTE]
That's not top 6 bro. I just picked 6 teams
[QUOTE=Sarcastic][url]http://wagesofwins.net/2011/08/10/nba-owners-do-not-understand-competitive-balance/[/url][/QUOTE]
And where did you get that from? A blog? :roll:
Nobody's saying market size equates to wins. All were saying is that a bigger market size gives a team more spending power and that's an advantage.
Don't understand why you relate market size to "wins" and being successful. Just because not all other big market teams were as stupid as you Knicks, you think you coul lump them all up.
Build a team with current player salaries with only $56 million to live and play in Wisconsin. I"ll build one for $96 million to live and play in Los Angeles. I'm pretty sure I can build a better team.
Don't really understand why you don't get this. Give one kid $5 and another $10 and tell them to spend all their money on a the same candy store, let's see wo gets back with the most candy.
End this MFN thread
[QUOTE=gasolina]And where did you get that from? A blog? :roll:
Nobody's saying market size equates to wins. All were saying is that a bigger market size gives a team more spending power and that's an advantage.
Don't understand why you relate market size to "wins" and being successful. Just because not all other big market teams were as stupid as you Knicks, you think you coul lump them all up.
Build a team with current player salaries with only $56 million to live and play in Wisconsin. I"ll build one for $96 million to live and play in Los Angeles. I'm pretty sure I can build a better team.
Don't really understand why you don't get this. Give one kid $5 and another $10 and tell them to spend all their money on a the same candy store, let's see wo gets back with the most candy.
End this MFN thread[/QUOTE]
...amd all I'm saying is that the old agreement curtailed those advantages so that the Big Market teams couldn't use those advantages to dominate..ad evidenced by the fact that small markets did just fine since '99 (and its not just SA - Sac, Indy, NJN, Minn, Mil, Grizz, all had good stretches in the last 13 years).
[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]...amd all I'm saying is that the old agreement curtailed those advantages so that the Big Market teams couldn't use those advantages to dominate..ad evidenced by the fact that small markets did just fine since '99 (and its not just SA - Sac, Indy, NJN, Minn, Mil, Grizz, all had good stretches in the last 13 years).[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't call a team "doing fine" if they were losing money almost every year. In fact, Indiana was losing money even during the reggie miller days.
I can't believe the double standard here in this board. You guys point out how no big market team other than the Lakers have won a championship since 99, yet you claim the good "stretches" of small market teams is "fine"?
How many times have the grizzlies been in the playoffs? How about Dallas?
[QUOTE=gasolina]I wouldn't call a team "doing fine" if they were losing money almost every year. In fact, Indiana was losing money even during the reggie miller days.
I can't believe the double standard here in this board. You guys point out how no big market team other than the Lakers have won a championship since 99, yet you claim the good "stretches" of small market teams is "fine"?
How many times have the grizzlies been in the playoffs? How about Dallas?[/QUOTE]
The point of the thread is that big markets don't really have a COMPETITIVE advantage.
You can't just point out one historically crappy team like the Grizz and compare it to another, that's anecdotal evidence. Look at the stats across the board.
Will smaller markets always find it harder to make money? Yes.
The main way that is solved is by revenue sharing, like in the NFL, NHL, MLB. The NBA has the worst revenue sharing. If a team still can't be profitable after they adjust revenue sharing to be more in line with other leagues (which they're supposed to be), then you have to question whether a franchise in certain places is sustainable.