Contraction possibility: what team?

PHTown · Post #1 » by **PHTown** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:51 am

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archi ... _pay_cuts/

I'm assuming that this is just a bargaining position, but I must admit it does give me a twinge of worry. It made me curious: what team do you think would get the axe first? What team would you like to see cut out? I'll go first:

Likely: Raptors. Never bet on a Canadian franchise.

Like to see go: I despise the Lakers and knicks to the point where if I meet someone who is a fan of either team without having a geographic excuse I lose a little respect. However, it makes it fun to hate certain teams. So, I'm going to say the Clippers. What is the point. They don't try or even have a home stadium, really. Donald Sterling is a jag off. nuff said

Krapinsky · Post #2 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:58 am

Hornets and Kings would be the teams.

Post #3 » by **Klomp** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:00 am

IMO you'd have to contract two teams if it ever happened. Hear is the order I'd do it.

1. Raptors
2. Grizzlies
3. Bobcats
4. Hornets
5. Clippers

cpfsf · Post #4 » by **cpfsf** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:09 am

I don't buy it at all.

Just for fun though, I'd say Memphis would be the first to go. A lot of it has to do with the fact that I don't believe they can drastically improve since their owner is an idiot. Minnesota would probably be listed as a possibility.

If this did happen, what happens to all the players under contract?

Post #5 » by **Klomp** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:10 am

cpfsf wrote:If this did happen, what happens to all the players under contract?

I believe there'd be a draft of some sort.

cpfsf · Post #6 » by **cpfsf** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:13 am

It doesn't tell the whole story, but here's a pretty good tool

http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2010

Krapinsky · Post #7 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:17 am

The Clippers make tons of money and play in one of the best arenas. Not a chance. If you put them into the discussion you don't know what you're talking about.

The Kings have the worst arena, play in a small market in a cash strapped state and were 29th in fan attendance last year. They are #1 in any discussion. Hornets a close #2. That team probably won't be in N.O. in 3 years contraction or not.

younggunsmn · Post #8 » by **younggunsmn** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:58 am

Memphis and Sacramento because of market size/owners. Heisley is el cheapo and the Maloofs got hit really hard in the real estate meltdown. 4 teams is too many for one state, even cali.
New Orleans 3rd, and if MJ weren't part owner I would say bobcats, but no chance of them being contracted when MJ is part owner.

We're pretty lucky we have a local, passionate owner with really, really deep pockets (as much as we like to rip on Taylor) or we'd be on the list too. Or have you forgotten harv & marv trying to ship our team to new orleans?

funkatron101 · Post #9 » by **funkatron101** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:08 am

Krapinsky wrote:The Clippers make tons of money and play in one of the best arenas. Not a chance. If you put them into the discussion you don't know what you're talking about.

The Kings have the worst arena, play in a small market in a cash strapped state and were 29th in fan attendance last year. They are #1 in any discussion. Hornets a close #2. That team probably won't be in N.O. in 3 years contraction or not.

I agree 100%.

The Hornets, even with playoff appearances we still ranking near the bottom in attendance. Unacceptable.

Wolves fan base is purely driven by success. You put together a winning product, and the seats will fill.

Atlanta is another team to strongly consider.

Post #10 » by **Wolfay** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:38 am

Krapinsky wrote:The Clippers make tons of money and play in one of the best arenas. Not a chance. If you put them into the discussion you don't know what you're talking about.

The Kings have the worst arena, play in a small market in a cash strapped state and were 29th in fan attendance last year. They are #1 in any discussion. Hornets a close #2. That team probably won't be in N.O. in 3 years contraction or not.

I know most of you don't like the Kings, but if you put the Kings into the discussion, you don't know what you're talking about. Relocation maybe, but contraction...no way. The Maloofs expect to break even this season and they've made money in the past, and the Maloofs also actually wanted the team because they genuinely like basketball, unlike some other owners. We also have a solid core going forth and the Kings have a long history in the league.

If any teams are contracted (and I doubt any will), it'll be Memphis and/or Milwaukee.

shangrila · Post #11 » by **shangrila** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:05 am

No, I think Sacramento would be high on that list. They're not making money anywhere and even if the Maloofs stay committed, they're losing money from everywhere as well.

Post #12 » by **Wolfay** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:22 am

shangrila wrote:No, I think Sacramento would be high on that list. They're not making money anywhere and even if the Maloofs stay committed, they're losing money from everywhere as well.

Revenue and profit aren't a problem, it's attendance, which will improve as the team gets better the next couple of years and the Kings will once again be making money.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #13 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:51 am

I'll believe it when I see it. I bet they're trying to play hardball by throwing out extreme options like contraction and reducing contracts by a third across the board, then if they can get a counter for 10% across the board salary reduction, they can pretend to reluctantly accept

shrink · Post #14 » by **shrink** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:41 pm

NOH, SAC, MEM, are who they look at first. Tiny markets, questionable fanbases, and usually poorer owners. IND, CHA, and DET may have owners that want out. Contraction may be necessary because I think the pool of deep-pocketed buyers is running pretty thin.

I would be very shocked if MIN is one. They have the market (13th in the nation) - they just don't have the product. They also have Glen Taylor. He's got a net worth over $2 billion, he's tied to the area, and I don't think you take the job as head of the NBA's Board of Governors because you're thinking of contracting.

Another point -- contraction would mean restructuring conferences. MIN would benefit both on the scoreboard and at the box office if they had teams like MIL and CHI in their division.

Lastly, don't discount that Stern is just saying this to have leverage against the players union. If they contract 4 teams, that's 60 players that get kicked out of the NBA and stop getting NBA paychecks.

jballer_13 · Post #15 » by **jballer_13** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 1:25 pm

If there would be any way to get us out or our current division I would be all for it, not just for the competitive benefit but for the geographical benefit too. There really isn't any reason why we shouldn't be playing Chi, Mil, and Det 4 times a year.

Krapinsky · Post #16 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 1:49 pm

If you look at history, teams that need new arenas get relocated or enter the contraction discussion. Since there are few new markets, if any, that could support a team right now, teams that are without new arenas would most likely face contraction. I know if I was a Sac fan I would be in denial too. That said, contraction isn't a real possibility, just a threat to the players that 1/15th of them could be out of a job.

funkatron101 · Post #17 » by **funkatron101** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:50 pm

Looking at success vs attendance, If the Nets don't relocate, and contraction is seriously considered, they HAVE to be one of the teams.

2004, Nets get the #2 seed, 24th in attendance.
8th seed the following year, 26th in attendance.
2006, people start to catch on, only slightly. 3rd seed, 19th in attendance.

TyKixx · Post #18 » by **TyKixx** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:59 pm

At this point, I am not convinced this has any serious legs. Withthat said, I agree with many of the usual suspects being Sacramento and New Orleans followed by Memphis, Toronto, and Charlotte. Wouldn't we be next on that list?

Krapinsky · Post #19 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:02 pm

funkatron101 wrote:Looking at success vs attendance, If the Nets don't relocate, and contraction is seriously considered, they HAVE to be one of the teams.

2004, Nets get the #2 seed, 24th in attendance.
8th seed the following year, 26th in attendance.
2006, people start to catch on, only slightly. 3rd seed, 19th in attendance.

There's no if. That's a done deal. 2012. Also, the franchise was just sold last year to a mulit-billionaire.

funkatron101 · Post #20 » by **funkatron101** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:12 pm

Krapinsky wrote:
funkatron101 wrote:Looking at success vs attendance, If the Nets don't relocate, and contraction is seriously considered, they HAVE to be one of the teams.

2004, Nets get the #2 seed, 24th in attendance.
8th seed the following year, 26th in attendance.
2006, people start to catch on, only slightly. 3rd seed, 19th in attendance.

There's no if. That's a done deal. 2012. Also, the franchise was just sold last year to a mulit-billionaire.

I haven't kept up at all on the situation. Last I had read they were still dealing with legal issues. It's a weird franchise. I mean, almost considering changing their name to the "Swamp Dragons?" Thankfully that didn't happen. Stupid 90s.