RealGM

The owners' ongoing talks about competitive balance, profitability and revenue sharing have included the notion of whether teams are operating in "the best available markets," the person said, and whether reducing the number of teams from the current 30 would help improve the product and the bottom line.

I'm all for that. Saying goodbye to the Grizzlies, Timberwolves, Bucks and Bobcats would save the league a few hundred million in needless salaries and improve the product dramatically. When the NBA had 23 teams in 1980-81, having multiple Hall of Famers on the same team was the norm. Back then, the Heat would've been nothing special. Today, they're a national spectacle covered 24 hours a day.

Billy Hunter, executive director of the National Basketball Players Association, was traveling Thursday and unavailable for comment. But typically, sports unions have resisted efforts to jettison teams because of the resulting job losses. For example, eliminating the two most revenue-challenged NBA teams would mean the loss of 30 player jobs, not to mention coaching and front-office positions. Based on gate-receipts data, the teams that have struggled the most in the past two years of the current CBA are Memphis, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Indiana, Atlanta and Charlotte. The Sacramento Kings are a clear candidate for relocation, given that their stalled efforts to build a new arena resulted in what Stern termed a "disappointing" update on that franchise's future at Arco Arena.

Wolfay wrote:Milwaukee and Memphis are the most likely candidates for contraction, but like I already said, contraction ain't happening.

“My optimism on there being a new building (in Sacramento) has faded completely,” Stern said. “We really tried hard, the Maloofs spent a good deal of money…. And frankly it wasn’t meant to be. I don’t have any more good ideas. Where we flow on that, right now we have a season to worry about.”

sunsbum wrote:I would absolutely listen to what stern is saying. From a guy that lived in seattle for the whole sonics debacle I can tell you, the tones are starting to sound the same.

ICMTM wrote:KT was traded for...he's not to blame. If they would have just let CWebb expire or bought him out they would have been better off. I'm almost positive insurance payed for SAR's contract.

mitchweber wrote:Yeah, they won't be selling the team. Doesn't mean they won't be moving them, but the Maloofs won't be selling them.

antoekneeo wrote:You should definitely put stock in to what the "evil one" aka Stern says. Seattle which has a much more storied history and a title to boot, in comparison to Sacramento lost their team, because they could not get a stadium deal done. The one saving grace SAC has is that your ownership group is awesome and wants to keep the team in the area, but if things do not improve then a move is definitely possible. The question is where would the Kings relocate? Vegas is NOT happening, but a place like St Louis could be possible. I hope the Kings remain in Sacramento, as when the Kings had consistent success ARCO was the toughest place to play and had the best crowd in all the NBA.