RealGM

So I was reading a pretty decent article from realgm and Jonathan Tjarks makes a very simple but very well put point.

More Fans, More Money, More Resources (Even Under New CBA)
http://basketball.realgm.com/blog/222107/More_Fans_More_Money_More_Resources_(Even_Under_New_CBA)

Long story short this is why OKC is going to have problems retaining key players. Hence even though they are young they will have a hard time competing with big markets. Because quite simply big markets have way more cash flow.

The Los Angeles Lakers, meanwhile, recently agreed to a new cable deal that will pay them an average of $200 million annually.

The Lakers, who have nearly $80 million in salaries on their books for 2012-13, signed Steve Nash to a three-year $27 million deal.

Last time I looked 200mil is a boatload more than 89mil.

As of the 2010 census, there were 19 million in the New York metropolitan area and 13 million in Los Angeles. In comparison, there were 1.5 million people in Oklahoma City.

OKC simply doesn't have the revenue streams big markets have. That's why I wasn't against the idea of trading Harden for a young kid.

So enjoy the ride while it last because eventually OKC is going to have to pay Harden AND Ibaka. And quite frankly I just don't see them keeping all 4 of them together. Big markets don't even feel the luxury tax. Their TV deal simply absorbs it. OKC has their big 4 for one more year then they are going to take a big step back. I guess it's possible that KD will eventually play PF and maybe Perry Jones can play SF but that's kind of tough to hang your hat on that.

wiff wrote:So I was reading a pretty decent article from realgm and Jonathan Tjarks makes a very simple but very well put point.

More Fans, More Money, More Resources (Even Under New CBA)
http://basketball.realgm.com/blog/222107/More_Fans_More_Money_More_Resources_(Even_Under_New_CBA)

Long story short this is why OKC is going to have problems retaining key players. Hence even though they are young they will have a hard time competing with big markets. Because quite simply big markets have way more cash flow.

The Los Angeles Lakers, meanwhile, recently agreed to a new cable deal that will pay them an average of $200 million annually.

The Lakers, who have nearly $80 million in salaries on their books for 2012-13, signed Steve Nash to a three-year $27 million deal.

Last time I looked 200mil is a boatload more than 89mil.

As of the 2010 census, there were 19 million in the New York metropolitan area and 13 million in Los Angeles. In comparison, there were 1.5 million people in Oklahoma City.

OKC simply doesn't have the revenue streams big markets have. That's why I wasn't against the idea of trading Harden for a young kid.

So enjoy the ride while it last because eventually OKC is going to have to pay Harden AND Ibaka. And quite frankly I just don't see them keeping all 4 of them together. Big markets don't even feel the luxury tax. Their TV deal simply absorbs it. OKC has their big 4 for one more year then they are going to take a big step back. I guess it's possible that KD will eventually play PF and maybe Perry Jones can play SF but that's kind of tough to hang your hat on that.

Thanks for stating the obvious

Your posts are annoying, Chicken Little.

With sustained success I don't see why we wouldn't be able to expand broadcasting rights out to surrounding states.



Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk 2

Good point about expanding to more markets. Kansas City maybe Omaha, Wichita, Des Moines

BirdmanPresents wrote:Thanks for stating the obvious

I didn't realize everyone knew the Lakers made 200mil with a TV deal. Next time I won't bother making a thread that way this forum is COMPLETELY dead.

To the rest of you, even if they expand to different markets making up for 11.5 is a bit of a reach.

It's always going to be an uphill battle. 200mil TV deal is ridiculous. That's before gates and jersey sales. I wonder how much the Lakers make in a year with everything? Then I'd like to see that compared to the Thunder.

Oh I know I show just ask BirdpoopPresents because I'm sure it's so obvious he'd know.

wiff wrote:

BirdmanPresents wrote:Thanks for stating the obvious

I didn't realize everyone knew the Lakers made 200mil with a TV deal. Next time I won't bother making a thread that way this forum is COMPLETELY dead.

To the rest of you, even if they expand to different markets making up for 11.5 is a bit of a reach.

It's always going to be an uphill battle. 200mil TV deal is ridiculous. That's before gates and jersey sales. I wonder how much the Lakers make in a year with everything? Then I'd like to see that compared to the Thunder.

Oh I know I show just ask BirdpoopPresents because I'm sure it's so obvious he'd know.

Not at all, but you brought up this whole argument of Tv deals to prove your point that Harden and Ibaka will need to get paid if OKC wants to retain them. Even though this forum is dead, everyone has been talking about that payday, options for resigning (such as amnestying Perkins) and even trades around those players so OKC can find ways around paying them. Everyone understands they will need new contracts and OKC will have to push the cap to extend them. All you stated was that OKC doesn't make as much in TV deals and may not be willing to go into the tax.

Darn, wish there were revenue sharing

I know OKC went to the finals but I don't understand why they are cool with staying put. I think they have the chips to land Dwight Howard. You trade James Harden, Perkins and PJ3 for Dwight I think that is something you do.

Dwight is running out of options. If the Nets sign Lopez to a max contract he can't go to brooklyn. The Lakers aren't in options and the only team that has some money that is a top tier team would be Dallas but I don't think Dwight would go to Dallas to play with Dirk and spear parts. So if you trade for him he will stay.

I think OKC needs to use their young assets to their advantage.

If by "staying put" you mean not moving any core players, there is good reasoning to that. Why risk ruining a great thing for a chance to get better? The older the OKC core gets together, the better they get. They have lost every year in the playoffs to the champions and have improved alot every year. That being said if down the road they can't get over the hump and win a 'chip, that's when to decide to move a key peice.

In Dwight's case specificaly:

1) He may not (and from what has been said, he's probably leaning more towards not) sign an extension with the Thunder.

2) Adding Howard changes the whole dynamic as a team. They may get better but they could also get worse. Something that may happen is Dwight could take up so much spacing inside the mid range/paint it takes away from Westbrooks penetration game and midrange game. It could also force Durant into more of a catch and shoot player on the perimeter instead of attacking the rim.

3) He's had a falling out with one team already, we don't want him to come to OKC and ruin the lockeroom chemistry/go at it with the coaching staff. Not saying he is a bad guy or not hard to get along with, he just seems a bit immature and has called out his coaches numerous times.


Keep the core together and they will improve together. Time is only benefiting them for the next few years. If by then it's not working then they can move a still young asset in a deal to shake things up. OKC is on the right track right now.

OlDirtMcBert wrote:Darn, wish there were revenue sharing

There is revenue sharing, but even that won't help OKC...even if the Lakers have to deposit funds to the pot.

Also we just pushed the Knicks to 2nd as far as who's the most valued.To the OP who wondered what the Lakers make a year this link will help you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenha ... ble-teams/

As long as you have Durant, you are a contender.

DEEP3CL wrote:

OlDirtMcBert wrote:Darn, wish there were revenue sharing

There is revenue sharing, but even that won't help OKC...even if the Lakers have to deposit funds to the pot.

Also we just pushed the Knicks to 2nd as far as who's the most valued.To the OP who wondered what the Lakers make a year this link will help you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenha ... ble-teams/

Thanks but the link didn't work.

tocooks wrote:As long as you have Durant, you are a contender.

Really? Were the T-Wolves a contender with KG? How good has Orlando been with Dwight these last two years?

It takes a TEAM. And OKC doesn't have the revenue to overpay. With the Lakers TV deal, Kobe's stupid contract of 58.2mil over the next two years is small speed bump. That would crush a small market team. That's why guys like Dwight want to go play for a big market. They can afford to make you happy.

There is no conversation of "if you took less we could afford to keep Serge around too".

So you're comparing the failures of Otis Smith and Kevin McHale to what Sam Presti has done since becoming general manager of the Thunder?

Presti seems aware of the team concept, sustainability and that he is operating within a budget. You've made your opinions known, all that's left is to wait and see what Presti does.

possibly just a one year window left

then who knows whats gonna happen, but its pretty obvious to me that with KD and Westbrook on the team OKC will always be in the hunt to win a title, but just those two alone won't be able to win a championship

Trip wrote:With sustained success I don't see why we wouldn't be able to expand broadcasting rights out to surrounding states.

Success doesn't always lead to popularity. Spurs are a tremendous team that has had quite a bit of success over the last dozen years or so. That hasn't made them that much more popular. Lakers are a unique franchise that will have a big fan base regardless. Kind of like the Dallas Cowboys and New York Yankees.

OKC will never have the following of a team such as the Lakers or Knicks but they don't need too. The lakers market is a goldmine which few teams can match. Teams like the Spurs have shown that you don't need all the attention and money to win it all just careful management. OKC will be fine

DEEP3CL wrote:

OlDirtMcBert wrote:Darn, wish there were revenue sharing

There is revenue sharing, but even that won't help OKC...even if the Lakers have to deposit funds to the pot.

Also we just pushed the Knicks to 2nd as far as who's the most valued.To the OP who wondered what the Lakers make a year this link will help you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenha ... ble-teams/

Actually, there is no "revenue sharing." Everyone refers to the luxury tax as revenue sharing, but it has nothing to do with revenue. For example, the Knicks get a huge amount of TV revenues. Yet a few years ago, they were receiving money, while San Antonio was paying money in the leagues revenue sharing. The current model, with luxury tax rather than revenue sharing, favors large market teams, by making the tax prohibitive to any small market teams, but not to large market teams.