Wade: Not every team needs to be competitive

[Lakers05]

You can have complete parity by allowing each team to have no more than two 70+ million players. If both of those 70+ million players are signed for more than 80 million, then you are not allowed to sign a 40+ million player(basically, don't allow any team to form a "strong" Big Three.)

You don't even need a hard cap in this situation, making this solution almost flawless.

It's easy to build a team to beat Lebron and Bosh or Wade and Bosh, but to beat all three? You pretty much have to form your own superteam(not counting the Mavs, which I won't go into the reason why they really won.)

[JoseRizal]

D-Whistle needs to slow down in making comments. He's already close to being a runner-up to LeCrab's almighty intellect...

[Blame Rasho]

Per Wiretap:

Wade disagrees with Stern on why small market teams struggle to be competitive.

"To me, it's not about who has the most chips," Wade added. "I think it's about who manages their chips the right way. That's why I think we have a management problem. Small markets have won championships. San Antonio is a very small market and they have four championships in the last 10 years or whatever the case may be."

Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/21 ... z1ayuiT400


Now, the only question that i have with Wade's comments is that San Antonio has a population of 1.3 million, making it the 7th largest city in the US & the second largest in Texas.

I certainly would not consider the 7th largest city as a "small market".

Now this is just getting stupid with the remarks that people are saying about San Antonio...

San Antonio isn't anywhere near the 7th biggest market, because San Antonio is one of the few cities that doesn't have expansive suburbs and thus the majority of the population is actually in the city limits.

Do you actually think that Boston and Dallas are smaller than San Antonio, because they are 22 and 9th respectively in city population...

We are one of the smallest markets in the US... it is beyond silly to say otherwise. You would think if we had the 7th biggest metro area we would have more than just one professional team right?

I posted this comment a while back as a response to that comment by Wade but it seems too hard to conceptualize...

He bring up San Antonio as an example but we have been losing money for years. We have managed our assets to the best of our ability and there is a good chance in the foreeable future that we will not be a viable NBA team within a few years despite doing everything right both on the court and on the ledger. So what about teams that haven't been as fortunate as the Spurs... tell them **** you and you have no voice or vote on the long term CBA. If a team like San Antonio with all their success is scraping by, there is a problem with the system.

[Apathy]

It's easy to build a team to beat Lebron and Bosh or Wade and Bosh, but to beat all three? You pretty much have to form your own superteam(not counting the Mavs, which I won't go into the reason why they really won.)

Shows how ridiculous this position is when it's proven wrong the very first year the so-called "superteam" is put together.

[reincarnatingDABULLS]

You can have complete parity by allowing each team to have no more than two 70+ million players. If both of those 70+ million players are signed for more than 80 million, then you are not allowed to sign a 40+ million player(basically, don't allow any team to form a "strong" Big Three.)

You don't even need a hard cap in this situation, making this solution almost flawless.

It's easy to build a team to beat Lebron and Bosh or Wade and Bosh, but to beat all three? You pretty much have to form your own superteam(not counting the Mavs, which I won't go into the reason why they really won.)

If cleveland and toronto managed their roster better... the players woudn't have assumed the GM role (for another team)

[Ditchweed]

You can have complete parity by allowing each team to have no more than two 70+ million players. If both of those 70+ million players are signed for more than 80 million, then you are not allowed to sign a 40+ million player(basically, don't allow any team to form a "strong" Big Three.)

You don't even need a hard cap in this situation, making this solution almost flawless.

It's easy to build a team to beat Lebron and Bosh or Wade and Bosh, but to beat all three? You pretty much have to form your own superteam(not counting the Mavs, which I won't go into the reason why they really won.)

If cleveland and toronto managed their roster better... the players woudn't have assumed the GM role (for another team)

Baloney. Those three had the idea to play together when they were on the Olympic team.

[daschysta]

These are the 10 smallest markets in the league and the talent they have to build around inorder to be/remain competitive.

kings - reke, cuzins, fredette
bucks - jennings, bogut
pacers - collison, granger, george, hansboro, hibbert
hornets - paul, okafor
twolves - rubio, williams, beasley, love
grizzlies - gasol, mayo, young, conley, randolph
thunder - westbrook, harden, durant, ibaka, aldrige
charlotte - walker
wizards - wall, mcgee
cavs - irving, tristan

pacers, hornets, grizz and thunder, all made the playoffs last year and played competitively against their big market counterparts.

Its on the management of the kings, bucks, twolves, wiz, cavs, and cats to make sure their budding stars are surrounded w/ complimentary talent. Grizz, Pacers, and Thunder all did that. Thats why their superstars and budding allstars are happy, and content to stay put. New Orleans did the opposite, and now their superstar wants out allegedly. Kyrie Irving, John Wall, Kevin Love, Andrew Bogut, and Tyreke Evans all appear to be franchise talent who you can build a contender around. Big markets aren't a threat to that. Perceived mismanagement of a franchise is the primary reason a lot of these superstars are wanting to defect. (poor drafting and free agent signings, trades and nontrades)

The Pacers indeed have a nice young team and lots of cap space due to shrewd management lately, but they still face hurdles in revenue and spending that aren't an object for larger market teams.

The Grizzlies lost their franchise player to a larger market and had floundered around in the draft and took a chance on a bad character guy that wasn't wanted around the league to get to where they are, but noone is denying that you can build a team through the draft, the top talent STARTS in the lower teams, but it's where it ends up that people are looking at as a product of the system, who knows if some of the grizz youth will bolt for greener pastures...

The Thunder are a special case, for every Durant that is loyal, and willing to stick around there is a Lebron James, who leaves, despite his team spending the money to build a team to his strengths, and earning the best record in the NBA. Or a Chris Bosh, or a Carmelo Anthony, or a shaquille oneal, or an amare stoudemire, etc.... But the biggest issue isn't just the stars, the brightest ones will naturally gravitate towards the most lucrative markets. Where you run in to a problem is when those big markets can break the bank to spend millions and millions more htan other teams can afford surrounding them with an elite supporting cast. A big part of the solution is getting rid of exceptions for teams a certain amount of money over the cap. Miami shouldn't be able to get a bargain signing a 7-8 million dollar player wanting to ring chase every year, no matter how far they already are over the cap. The MLE needs to be significantly reduced (it seems like it will be under the new proposal)

A hard cap is just part of the problem, with only a hard cap stars and "pseudo stars" will often STILL be getting payed the same max contract, thus big markets are paying the same amount for greater value, while small markets are stuck paying joe johnson the same as kobe bryant or derrick rose. The solution is to in addition to a hard cap doing away with maximum contracts. Thus the largest most marketable stars will be payed closer to their worth in terms of % of the cap, but there will be a consequence to signing more than one of these players, since they will cost a significant portion of the cap. This will both drastically reduce the payoff of superstar "teamups", leading to a more even distribution of talent, but also ensure that teams that DO stack their team with superstar earners aren't able to also overpay to put a great team around them. The stars will set the market price, and other players will be able to be evaluated in relation to their production, and marketing value as opposed to now, where a wide range of talent commands near identical "max contracts despite wildly varying levels of production. No longer would anyone pay Kobe and Joe Johnson similar contracts, and at the same time it would be more feasible to build a team around Danny Granger and great supporting cast, as well as Kobe Bryant and friends. A well balanced team in a small market will thus have a chance of competing with superstar one man shows in big markets.

In fact eliminating the max contract may soften up some of the more intransigent opponents of the owners proposals.

Institute Hard Cap- Eliminate or reduce exceptions- Eliminate Max Contracts= best chance of competitive balance.

[7-Day Dray]

These are the 10 smallest markets in the league and the talent they have to build around inorder to be/remain competitive.

kings - reke, cuzins, fredette
bucks - jennings, bogut
pacers - collison, granger, george, hansboro, hibbert
hornets - paul, okafor
twolves - rubio, williams, beasley, love
grizzlies - gasol, mayo, young, conley, randolph
thunder - westbrook, harden, durant, ibaka, aldrige
charlotte - walker
wizards - wall, mcgee
cavs - irving, tristan

The Wizards are NOT in a small market. Washington DC is the 8th ranked TV market in the country, and when combined with Baltimore, move all the way up to 4th.

[palamino]

While I agree with Wade, I think it's the owners' insistence that each franchise immediately become profitable by bleeding the players is absolutely absurd. These are all business men and they should know better, all of them, than to expect to immediately insure profitability. Ask the players to give back some of what they have, sure, but to try and do it all in one fell swoop just makes them look like exactly what they are — greedy.

I mean, add to that owners like Sterling (who doesn't have a small market and is worth more than the Buss family) and somehow Jerry Buss is supposed to subsidize that man's efforts to run the Clippers in to the ground? Please. Or Robert Sarver: you've got Nash and Amar'e and you compliment them with uh...who? Or refuse to pay Amar'e and then overpay Warrick and Childress and that's somehow the players' fault for accepting what's offered?

The fact is, the owners primarily want protection from their own stupidity and, honestly, what other industry provides that? Sure, attracting talent to some markets is harder, but Micky Arison shouldn't have to cut a check to Glen Taylor because Taylor hired David Kahn to mismanage things.

They're all sports franchises, so they aren't traditional businesses in some respects, but the players shouldn't be made to give back much more than they already have because you happen to be completely clueless as to how to run a franchise.

[hourockman]

.

Good 1st post.

[Conclusion]

Can someone explain to me how Wade's comment is dumb, stupid, unintelligent?