Contraction?

[Piston Pete]

If the league decides to contract 2-4 teams, who do you think will get contracted?

List of candidates:

Bucks
T-Wolves
Clippers
Kings
Pacers
Grizzlies
Bobcats
other??

[wiLQ]

If the league decides to contract 2-4 teams, who do you think will get contracted?
List of candidates:
Bucks
T-Wolves [...]
Kings [...]
Bobcats
other??

I would add Hornets... especially when NBA owns this team so it would be the easiest move. Also, IMHO there's no way Clippers would be contracted: it's a top market and they just need a new owner.

[shrink]

Hornets are number one, with no owner at all.

Kings are probably number two, with no arena. It may depend on the help they get from the city and whether they can move.

You also have to figure in the owners that want to get out. There have been several who have been rumored to be trying to sell their team (MIL, for example), and more may want to if a CBA that does not create more economic and competitive parity can be reached.

I think looking at the hard-liners, from 2006 and in this year's negotiations, and measuring the depth of their pockets will help find those names as well.

A couple of days before the start of training camp in 2006, David Stern received an uncomfortable letter at the NBA’s New York offices.

Eight owners signed a petition that demanded Stern address the small market/big market financial disparity they felt was a serious and growing problem. Obviously, they didn’t need to write him a letter like he was their local representative in Congress; he works for them. They did so to make a symbolic point and then released the letter to some media outlets to make sure the issue became public.

It read: “We are asking you to embrace this issue because the hard truth is that our current economic system works only for larger-market teams and a few teams that have extraordinary success on the court and for the latter group of teams, only when they experience extraordinary success. The rest of us are looking at significant and unacceptable annual financial losses."

The authors of the letter were Paul Allen of Portland, Herb Simon on Indiana, Bob Johnson of Charlotte, George Shinn of New Orleans, Larry Miller of Utah, Michael Heisley of Memphis, Glen Taylor of Minnesota and Herb Kohl of Milwaukee.

Johnson and Shinn have since sold their teams and Miller has passed away, giving way to his son, Greg. But the situations in those markets haven’t changed.

In essence, that letter is the root of the current lockout. And, it is turning out, perhaps a core reason the owners can’t make a deal with the players after more than two years of negotiations.

Robert Sarver of Phoenix and Dan Gilbert of Cleveland didn’t sign the letter in ’06, but they are now two of the biggest advocates for change in both revenue sharing and reducing player compensation. The Maloof family that owns the Kings was coming off six consecutive winning seasons and was used to selling every seat when the letter was authored. Now, they are in dire financial straits and are certainly looking for reform. In addition to the Bobcats and Hornets changing hands, the Wizards, Warriors, 76ers, Pistons and Hawks have also been sold in the past two years to groups who are expecting a new CBA to be more favorable to owners than the previous one. The Nets were also sold last season, but new owner Mikhail Prokhorov is not believed to be among those clamoring for change.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... ok-control

[old skool]

I think that the NBA benefits from having a home team presence in most US markets. If the NBA contracts a few teams, the league starts to become a parochial sport. A contracted NBA commands fewer national advertisers, less money, and less attention.

There are also competitive disadvantages to a contracted NBA, as some rivalries or potential rivalries will be eliminated. The legitimacy of a 16 team playoff system is called into question if the league shrinks to 26 teams or so.

The 30 team league allows the NBA to blanket the country. It allows for enough teams to stage a number of TV double headers (decent East Coast & West Coast match ups) multiple nights per week (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, plus all day Sunday. It allows for six division "champions". It allows for a legitimate regular season, with a good number of teams fighting for a playoff spot. It allows for a good number of playoff games.

The league will always have teams that are clunkers - low performers that are not appealing to national viewers. The 30 team format provides the chance to keep games with cellar dwellers off national TV.

For these reasons, I don't expect the NBA to contract.

[gte332]

old skool is right. No teams in the NBA need to be contracted. If contraction occurs anywhere, it needs to happen with some of the owners who are terrible at running their franchises (e.g. Donald Sterling).

[Angry Jimmy]

old skool is right. No teams in the NBA need to be contracted. If contraction occurs anywhere, it needs to happen with some of the owners who are terrible at running their franchises (e.g. Donald Sterling).

How can anyone bash Donald Sterling? He's one of the only guys who seems to be doing it the right way. His club makes a profit every year.

Spurs should be considered for contraction way be fore LA. San Antonio built a contending club and still can't make a profit. If that doesn't scream contraction I don't know what does.

[wiLQ]

old skool is right. No teams in the NBA need to be contracted. If contraction occurs anywhere, it needs to happen with some of the owners who are terrible at running their franchises (e.g. Donald Sterling).

Even with NBA had truly terrible owner... wouldn't it be easier to change him than contract a team?

[I_Like_Dirt]

Yeah, the owners need Donald Sterling to sell his team. Contracting the Clippers would be foolish. If the Clippers actually were contracted, then the NBA would be foolish not to move another franchise like the Hornets right back into the market vacated by the Clippers.

[Norm2953]

I'm on record as thinking the league could contract six teams easily for in all reality,
nobody outside of the local market would miss the Bucks, Kings, Wolves, Pacers and
the Bobcats and the league already owns the Hornets.

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

old skool is right. No teams in the NBA need to be contracted. If contraction occurs anywhere, it needs to happen with some of the owners who are terrible at running their franchises (e.g. Donald Sterling).

How can anyone bash Donald Sterling? He's one of the only guys who seems to be doing it the right way. His club makes a profit every year.

Spurs should be considered for contraction way be fore LA. San Antonio built a contending club and still can't make a profit. If that doesn't scream contraction I don't know what does.

That is crazy!

In fact, the Spurs are probaly the BEST RUN TEAM IN THE ENTIRE NBA...in the last 10-12 years bar none.

They do excellent every year because they never miss on draft picks after lucky out and getting Duncan when David Robinson got hurt and they tanked that year...

No way in hell do you contract the Spurs. Only one team in the entire league does as well as the Spurs and that is the Jazz. Those two teams. Miami has to stack and steal to be great. They stole Stole and they stole LeBron and Bosh. The Knicks just got good.

Spurs are and excellent run franchise.

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

I'm on record as thinking the league could contract six teams easily for in all reality,
nobody outside of the local market would miss the Bucks, Kings, Wolves, Pacers and
the Bobcats and the league already owns the Hornets.

Don't speak for me...You large market fans can shove that one down the hill. Don't tell me who I would and would not miss. Contract some players!

Contract them...or contract my season ticket prices! How about that!? That is what you can "contact."

[Norm2953]

I'm on record as thinking the league could contract six teams easily for in all reality,
nobody outside of the local market would miss the Bucks, Kings, Wolves, Pacers and
the Bobcats and the league already owns the Hornets.

Don't speak for me...You large market fans can shove that one down the hill. Don't tell me who I would and would not miss. Contract some players!

Contract them...or contract my season ticket prices! How about that!? That is what you can "contact."

Actually I live in Oregon and would bet Paul Allen if he felt he could not compete for or keep
his players, would opt to be contracted. An owner could choose to spend little money and
turn a small profit like some MLB teams do or opt to get bought out and not have to lose money
for the foreseeable future. It would be ironic if the players union lawsuits led to 6-10 teams
going away with 90-150 player jobs gone.

[d-train]

Contraction doesn't serve the interests of anyone. It isn't going to happen.

[Norm2953]

We've had this argument on the Blazer's board but in all reality, contraction
as a threat by the owners makes as much sense as the players threatening
to decertify. It's all a means to an end for both sides instead of really
working together for a deal are trying to force the other side to accept
their deal which is really stupid when we have close to 20% unemployment
in all likelihood in the USA.

[d-train]

Decertification was never just a threat. It has always been a great option for players. It gives the players a chance to increase their BRI from 57% to greater than 61%. It removes restrictions on contract length, geographic restrictions created by CBA imposed bargaining limitations, and many other issues effecting lifestyle. Without the rookie scale salary limits, young players with superstar talent have the option of enjoying 3 or 4 years of college life banging COED’s without the financial pressure of turning pro early and playing through the restrictive rookie scale years before they hit their prime earning years. And, rookies that prove themselves will not be hamstrung by restricted free agency. Anyone that didn't think decertification was a viable option for players was in either denial or just stupid.

Contraction, on the other hand, offers no benefits to anyone. It doesn't benefit the NBA, individual teams, or players. Talk of contraction is just nonsense.

[Norm2953]

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/stor ... ting-teams

[Jazzy13]

How can anyone bash Donald Sterling? He's one of the only guys who seems to be doing it the right way. His club makes a profit every year.

Spurs should be considered for contraction way be fore LA. San Antonio built a contending club and still can't make a profit. If that doesn't scream contraction I don't know what does.

Oh wow, you sir have no clue.