LeBron James supports contraction of some NBA teams

[yeaaaman]

Why would having 24 teams instead of 30 increase the chances of injuries?

The 82 games schedule is fine for a 24 team league. Most of the rosters will have above average players so even if your star player is out that team will have a couple of quality players stepping up. That's why I suggested a slight roster expansion for that.

There won't be that many meaningless games because teams like the Wolves and Bucks would have more talented players on their squad. Guys like Gerard Wallace, Tyrus Thomas, David West, ect would be on the Wolves or Bucks if we get rid of the Bobcats and Hornets.

Do you see it now???? How having less teams would be that much better. But still have enough teams for enough games and help make(save) money for the league. Not 2-15 teams like 97bulls suggested. That is too extreme!!!

I didn't say less teams = higher chances of injuries, I said if you're interested in quality have less games. Clearly, more games = more chances of injury. As well, some of the interest may not just be with the quality of the ball, people do say the season is too long and drawn out, even probably for some players to remain interested.

Fair enough but I don't think that will all of a sudden equal parity among the teams, there will still be good and bad teams, just less sh*t teams. But in any case I'm not sure that would drastically make the league better.

And ya sure 2 teams is extreme but the whole idea is who/what's to say what the parameters for cutting excess fat should be? I mean, you could cut it down to 8 teams in each conference if you want to improve the quality. Even more worse teams and players are weeded out.

I'm just trying to argue the other side of the coin really.

[97 bulls]

i think getting rid of the following teams would be perfect for the NBA:

LA clippers
Sacramento Kings
New Orleans Hornets
Memphis Grizzlies

seriously these teams always have horrible FO decisions, almost never make the playoffs and always overpay players.

why does joe johnson have such a fat contract? i'll tell you why, coz the league is watered down and if there were less teams he'd be in the position he should be in. a role player on a good team.

Joe johnson is a very good starter. But he is over paid. I just hate to see guys that are very capable 20 ppg scorers not get a shot to be the best they can be.

[evilmonkey]

It looks like LeBron is scared of more competition.

no... his statement means only the opposite u riiiiiiiithaurd...

[HEAT111]

It's true.

Think about it, If Phoenix Suns were to have Carter, and Hill back in the day with Nash. They'd have been the original big 3.

[97 bulls]

I didn't say less teams = higher chances of injuries, I said if you're interested in quality have less games. Clearly, more games = more chances of injury. As well, some of the interest may not just be with the quality of the ball, people do say the season is too long and drawn out, even probably for some players to remain interested.

Fair enough but I don't think that will all of a sudden equal parity among the teams, there will still be good and bad teams, just less sh*t teams. But in any case I'm not sure that would drastically make the league better.

And ya sure 2 teams is extreme but the whole idea is who/what's to say what the parameters for cutting excess fat should be? I mean, you could cut it down to 8 teams in each conference if you want to improve the quality. Even more worse teams and players are weeded out.

I'm just trying to argue the other side of the coin really.

Exactly and repped.

[Lebron23]

It looks like LeBron is scared of more competition.

no... this statement means only the opposite u fgt...

[DeronMillsap]

Man come on, I don't really mean there should only be 2 teams. Im just trying to prove a point. Why don't you go back to the 70s and look at all the teams and tell me who had a guy that was capable of being a starter as a twelfth man.

Like I said, theres plenty of talent. Now if you want to contract teams due to the league not making money, fine and miami would be at the top of the list. But fans aren't not going to games cuz the players are bad, they're not going cuz they're not interested in basketball. Ot in some cases the teams are bad. But there were bad teams when there were 24-26 teams in the league and the league was struggling too

NBA was still in its infancy back then in terms of popularity but it was still competitive. Bucks, Sonics, Blazers, Bullets/Wizards...all these teams have their one and only title from the 70's.

Yeah, there are enough talents in the league but there are also too many crappy players too. Some of these scrubs need to be working 9-5 jobs, not the in the NBA.

Don't you agree that guys like Gerard Wallace, Chris Paul, Kevin Love, etc...are all wasting their talents on teams nobody care about? But if you combined their talents on a Wolves/Bobcats team or a Hornets/Wolves team, more people would start caring about their games.

[coin24]

Its not like those shitty teams dont have the same opportunities though, they have the same cap to spend etc..

I mean, look at some of the rosters of the kings, bobcats, clippers, wizards etc, all there promising talent is on rookie salaries and the rest is just flushed down the toilet on overpaid guys that in most cases dont really even play

I dont get how those gm's even have a job anymore...

If i had $54 million to spend im sure i could put together a better squad than say the bobcats, damn, a handfull of d-leaguers and streetballers would be better than that mess..

Im not sure about getting rid of teams, obviously some are really painful to watch ( as above ), but maybe if in the new agreement included paying out a % of the contract and waiving unproductive useless players.. ie rashard lewis .. Theyre not exactly living up to there part of the deal imo...

[El Kabong]

So what happens if teams contracted? Does the NBA just go to 6 owners, here's $300-$400 million, now go away? And what if the owners don't want to lose their team? And if they had to pay out/buy 5-6 teams, it's going to cost them a billion or more dollars. Do they have the money to do something like that?

[Mamba]

Joe johnson is a very good starter. But he is over paid. I just hate to see guys that are very capable 20 ppg scorers not get a shot to be the best they can be.

list me a few that could be 20 ppg scorers and actually turn there team into a winner.

nick young is the only candidate i can think of.

[Lebron23]

no... his statement means only the opposite u riiiiiiiithaurd...

I really hated these failed gimmick accounts. They lack originally, lack common sense, and they are very annoying.

The Mike Beas troll is a funny gimmick account.

[DeronMillsap]

I didn't say less teams = higher chances of injuries, I said if you're interested in quality have less games. Clearly, more games = more chances of injury. As well, some of the interest may not just be with the quality of the ball, people do say the season is too long and drawn out, even probably for some players to remain interested.

Fair enough but I don't think that will all of a sudden equal parity among the teams, there will still be good and bad teams, just less sh*t teams. But in any case I'm not sure that would drastically make the league better.

And ya sure 2 teams is extreme but the whole idea is who/what's to say what the parameters for cutting excess fat should be? I mean, you could cut it down to 8 teams in each conference if you want to improve the quality. Even more worse teams and players are weeded out.

I'm just trying to argue the other side of the coin really.

We're not looking to add more than 82 games here. Injuries will happen whether it's 82 games or 66 games or 50 games. So I don't see why you bringing it up. Plus, with better quality roster, injuries won't be that devastating in terms of staying competitive for some teams if they have good reserve players on their squad.

82 is too much in terms of quality basketball when you have teams like the Bobcats, Nets, Wolves, Hornets, etc...but 82 would be fine if a few of those teams are eliminated and their talents are on one roster.

8 teams, less games = less money. NBA still needs to make money. It's not just wanting better quality basketball, it's also making profit or saving money. 24 is actually leaning in favor of your POV but like 97bulls, you're trying to go extreme with 8 team just to try to shut down my view even though mine isn't extreme at all. It's actually reasonable for fans who still want the games and talents to be displayed.

[Game5WasDaBess]

I really hated these failed gimmick accounts. They lack originally, lack common sense, and they are very annoying.

The Mike Beas troll is a funny gimmick account.

Your account is the worst on ish and 30k of posts doesn't make it better or make you a better poster, ******.

[Sarcastic]

Joe johnson is a very good starter. But he is over paid. I just hate to see guys that are very capable 20 ppg scorers not get a shot to be the best they can be.

The good players would still get a shot. There would still be more than enough teams to support the good players. The scrubs at the end of the bench are the only ones who would be gone.

[Snoop_Cat]

So what happens if teams contracted? Does the NBA just go to 6 owners, here's $300-$400 million, now go away? And what if the owners don't want to lose their team? And if they had to pay out/buy 5-6 teams, it's going to cost them a billion or more dollars. Do they have the money to do something like that?

I am also curious as to how a contraction would work, what would happen to the ownerships of these teams?