Big Market Team Fallacy

[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]

LAL (big market)
SA (small market)
Bos (larger mid-market)
Det (larger mid-market)
Dall (larger mid-market)
Cavs (mid-market)
Heat (mid-market)
[/QUOTE]

Wait, how is Cleveland a mid-market and SA a small market?

If Cleveland is a mid-market, so is SA.

Cleveland's MSA population is 2 million while decreasing on a yearly basis. San Antonio's MSA population is 2.2 million and increasing by an average of 50,000 on a yearly basis.

This isn't comparing CSA's as San Antonio doesn't have a CSA, but if it did, it would be larger than Cleveland's CSA.

Small markets should be: SLC, OKC, Memphis, New Orleans. All four under 1.4 million people metro wise.

[QUOTE=rmt]
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).[/QUOTE]

The Spurs hasn't needed or been in the position to try and attract big names. Big names want money and for the most part the Spurs have had all their money tied up in the big three the past decade.

The last time they tried to get a big name was Kidd in 2003 and we were close but he decided to stay in NJ because they offered more money and because of his wife.

Before that it was Derek Anderson, who we got.

Athletes go to the money. When the Spurs are able to offer the most or near the most they're not going to be scoffed out.

[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]

The Stephen Jackson thing wasn't as simple as the Spurs not wanting to pay him. Get your facts straight their. As for the Scola thing, now that was a cost cutting move of ultimate suckage. Worst move the franchise ever pulled. Not just trading him because you didn't want to pay him but getting nothing in return.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

That wasn't cutting corners. They needed to fill a big need on this team and did it by trading mediocre talent. Please don't overrate George Hill. We made out like bandits getting the three players we got for him.

[QUOTE=tpols]Yea and those ten teams included a lot of major cities right? LA.. Philly.. New York.. Boston.. Washington, etc. And those teams have been the most winningest franchises even AFTER the mid 70s.

This is how it went..

-The best teams started off in some of the biggest/most well known cities[because teams needed big markets to draw in fans, make revenue, expand the league at the beginning]
--->These teams built some of the best legacies because they were always winners
------->Players nowadays want to play for those storied franchises
[/QUOTE]

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=tpols]I just explained this two posts ago.. shitty management. Did you see who the Nets signed during FA? :oldlol: Who wants to play for a loser? Brooklyn is a great market. But you need the other factors to line up as well. If Deron had to choose between playing with Dwight Howard in Milwaukee or Dwight Howard in Brooklyn, I GUARANTEE you he chooses Brooklyn. If all other factors are held constant, the player will always choose the better location.[/QUOTE]

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=Wonder Bread Kid]Small markets should be: SLC, OKC, Memphis, New Orleans. All four under 1.4 million people metro wise.[/QUOTE]

If we use those as the small markets..under the current system (since 99) all of the Jazz, Thunder (in 3 short years) Grizz, and Hornets have been better and with more stars than Big Market NYK, Bulls, and LAC.

those teams were good through good drafts/trades (Gasol, Durant, Westbrook, Gay, Paul, West, Deron). The old system compensated small market teams for the purported advantage of big market teams by giving an edge in re-signing their drafted stars for 7ish years.

For all the changes we need in the system (and clearly changes need to be made to help some markets become profitable), we do not need to make changes to help small markets to be more competitive with big markets. They are just fine (on the court) under the 99 system.

[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%.