What should an expansion team's draft strategy be?

[Fencer reregistered]

There won't be much left unprotected worth having. See if you can sell your selections for picks

Seriously? You don't think any NBA team's 9th best player on their roster would be worth having?

I couldn't disagree more. You could get quite a few promising young players through an expansion draft and then probably take a couple of quality veterans as well to trade off to contending teams at the deadline for protected FRPs.

Let's consider my Celtics, and contrafactually assume the expansion draft were happening right now. Suppose they protected:

2 Jays
2 Williamses
Smart, Brogdon, White, Pritchard

Would an expansion team actually benefit from taking Horford? Probably they'd just take a flyer on Sam Hauser. Hauser has some upside, but he's not a major asset.

The best outcome would probably be for the expansion team to send some 2nd round picks or whatever to the Cs in return for leaving Pritchard unprotected, and leave the other Celtics alone.

[rtiff68]

I would invest heavily in my Front Office. Really take my time and pay a relative premium to stack a combination of young talent, experience, and volume. I’d want to build one of (if not the) most robust scouting departments in the league.

I strongly agree with the notion that there is considerably more talent available on the end of NBA benches and not in the NBA at all (G-League, overseas, etc.) then there has ever been, and I’d want to take the aforementioned steps in advance in order to put my franchise in the best position to take advantage of it.

[dhsilv2]

There won't be much left unprotected worth having. See if you can sell your selections for picks

Seriously? You don't think any NBA team's 9th best player on their roster would be worth having?

I couldn't disagree more. You could get quite a few promising young players through an expansion draft and then probably take a couple of quality veterans as well to trade off to contending teams at the deadline for protected FRPs.

Ok, go look at the last time we had expansion and come tell me the best assets that were landed.

That was one of the lowest times in NBA history for talent depth in the league!

[dhsilv2]

(I personally think this is silly and it wouldn't be that difficult for a Seattle and a Vegas based team to be at least in the middle of the pack in terms of revenue-sharing eligible money generated within just a couple of seasons, but whatever...)

I definitely don't want to re-hash this too much, but I think the question to be answered is how much money is generating locally versus the national TV money and thus are those additional teams paying more into the pie than taking out. If say national TV money is 60% then its a losing money deal basically regardless. And as many teams are still losing money(supposedly), its hard to imagine new teams growing that pie.

It doesn't mean there aren't reasons to expand, but I think Cuban's probably got right on the finances for the existing teams.

Short-term, sure I agree with Cuban. But it's difficult to imagine how it wouldn't be a good thing for the league to grow into new and large media markets in the long term.

Also the owners get a huge expansion check to tide them over for any losses on revenue sharing they may incur in the short term as well.

Their revenue is HEAVILY driven by national TV deals. Not sure how adding US markets would really add much value.

[Tempe]

If NBA 2k is any guide, you should draft all centers/bigmen and you can win a title in year 1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jazzfan1971]

There won't be much left unprotected worth having. See if you can sell your selections for picks

Seriously? You don't think any NBA team's 9th best player on their roster would be worth having?

I couldn't disagree more. You could get quite a few promising young players through an expansion draft and then probably take a couple of quality veterans as well to trade off to contending teams at the deadline for protected FRPs.

Let's consider my Celtics, and contrafactually assume the expansion draft were happening right now. Suppose they protected:

2 Jays
2 Williamses
Smart, Brogdon, White, Pritchard

Would an expansion team actually benefit from taking Horford? Probably they'd just take a flyer on Sam Hauser. Hauser has some upside, but he's not a major asset.

The best outcome would probably be for the expansion team to send some 2nd round picks or whatever to the Cs in return for leaving Pritchard unprotected, and leave the other Celtics alone.

Good example.

[toooskies]

Seriously? You don't think any NBA team's 9th best player on their roster would be worth having?

I couldn't disagree more. You could get quite a few promising young players through an expansion draft and then probably take a couple of quality veterans as well to trade off to contending teams at the deadline for protected FRPs.

Let's consider my Celtics, and contrafactually assume the expansion draft were happening right now. Suppose they protected:

2 Jays
2 Williamses
Smart, Brogdon, White, Pritchard

Would an expansion team actually benefit from taking Horford? Probably they'd just take a flyer on Sam Hauser. Hauser has some upside, but he's not a major asset.

The best outcome would probably be for the expansion team to send some 2nd round picks or whatever to the Cs in return for leaving Pritchard unprotected, and leave the other Celtics alone.

Good example.

I could see an expansion team taking Horford the same way that OKC took Horford in trade a few years back. Get him to win a few games early for the expansion team, then trade him to a contender and probably get an asset back.

[jazzfan1971]

Maybe. I'm not sure what the market would be for a 37 year old Al Horford. If he doesn't get an extension then he wouldn't be available as I understand it (we are talking next summer aren't we?) If he does get an extension, then a lot would depend on how much for how long. He's currently making 26mil. I don't think he'd have much value at that figure. But, if he took a deal like Steven Adams he could have some value. Maybe late first to the right spot.

I'd guess maybe more in the couple of 2nds area though. Still, that's positive value. But, not terribly exciting. You might rather take a young guy like Hauser instead. But, he's going to be 25ish, so again, not too exciting.

[Blame Rasho]

Get good/great player contracts and avoid bad players and contracts… lol

[Harry Garris]

There won't be much left unprotected worth having. See if you can sell your selections for picks

Seriously? You don't think any NBA team's 9th best player on their roster would be worth having?

I couldn't disagree more. You could get quite a few promising young players through an expansion draft and then probably take a couple of quality veterans as well to trade off to contending teams at the deadline for protected FRPs.

Let's consider my Celtics, and contrafactually assume the expansion draft were happening right now. Suppose they protected:

2 Jays
2 Williamses
Smart, Brogdon, White, Pritchard

Would an expansion team actually benefit from taking Horford? Probably they'd just take a flyer on Sam Hauser. Hauser has some upside, but he's not a major asset.

The best outcome would probably be for the expansion team to send some 2nd round picks or whatever to the Cs in return for leaving Pritchard unprotected, and leave the other Celtics alone.

The Celtics wouldn't protect Pritchard over Horford, they're trying to win now.

[Harry Garris]

I definitely don't want to re-hash this too much, but I think the question to be answered is how much money is generating locally versus the national TV money and thus are those additional teams paying more into the pie than taking out. If say national TV money is 60% then its a losing money deal basically regardless. And as many teams are still losing money(supposedly), its hard to imagine new teams growing that pie.

It doesn't mean there aren't reasons to expand, but I think Cuban's probably got right on the finances for the existing teams.

Short-term, sure I agree with Cuban. But it's difficult to imagine how it wouldn't be a good thing for the league to grow into new and large media markets in the long term.

Also the owners get a huge expansion check to tide them over for any losses on revenue sharing they may incur in the short term as well.

Their revenue is HEAVILY driven by national TV deals. Not sure how adding US markets would really add much value.

No it's not. The NBA's national TV deal with ESPN and Turner pays them $2.6 billion annually. The NBA made $8.76 billion in revenue last year. Only 30% of the league's revenue is from their national TV partners.

That may change in the future CBA but at the same time new expansion markets do not have to have a massive positive impact on revenue to be worth expanding into. They just need to not be a net negative on profit sharing. Which they won't be, in the long term.

Let me put it this way. If it's still "worth it" to the NBA to have a team in markets like Sacramento, New Orleans, and Memphis, there just is no argument that it's not going to be worth it to have a team in Seattle and Vegas. Those are just bigger, better, and more profitable TV markets right now than many of the NBA's smallest markets right now. Also they're two of the fastest growing markets in the nation. There is no good financial argument against expansion anymore.

[Fencer reregistered]

Let's consider my Celtics, and contrafactually assume the expansion draft were happening right now. Suppose they protected:

2 Jays
2 Williamses
Smart, Brogdon, White, Pritchard

Would an expansion team actually benefit from taking Horford? Probably they'd just take a flyer on Sam Hauser. Hauser has some upside, but he's not a major asset.

The best outcome would probably be for the expansion team to send some 2nd round picks or whatever to the Cs in return for leaving Pritchard unprotected, and leave the other Celtics alone.

Good example.

I could see an expansion team taking Horford the same way that OKC took Horford in trade a few years back. Get him to win a few games early for the expansion team, then trade him to a contender and probably get an asset back.

Horford is a good player, perhaps even very good. But he seems overpaid even so.

And it's not clear what asset if any the Thunder got for him. I think the difference between his and Kemba's guaranteed salaries was substantial enough to justify the value (one good pick that they probably incorrectly traded for two lesser ones).

[Fencer reregistered]

Seriously? You don't think any NBA team's 9th best player on their roster would be worth having?

I couldn't disagree more. You could get quite a few promising young players through an expansion draft and then probably take a couple of quality veterans as well to trade off to contending teams at the deadline for protected FRPs.

Let's consider my Celtics, and contrafactually assume the expansion draft were happening right now. Suppose they protected:

2 Jays
2 Williamses
Smart, Brogdon, White, Pritchard

Would an expansion team actually benefit from taking Horford? Probably they'd just take a flyer on Sam Hauser. Hauser has some upside, but he's not a major asset.

The best outcome would probably be for the expansion team to send some 2nd round picks or whatever to the Cs in return for leaving Pritchard unprotected, and leave the other Celtics alone.

The Celtics wouldn't protect Pritchard over Horford, they're trying to win now.

Leaving Horford unprotected would be a gamble. That's why I'm suggesting negotiations for a quasi-trade.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

Players you can flip for picks and low salary obviously...


It would probably be "smart" in one sense to start off tanking asap but I also think it would set a bad precedent for a franchise and for fans for them to immediately come out sucking hard.

So considering that side of things, I think the best first move an expansion team could do is sign a big name free agent. Even OK to overpay someone looking to establish themselves as a franchise player ala Jerami Grant. The goal isn't to win a championship off the bat, the goal is to make a playoff series in year 2 or 3 and then rebuild once you have established that your franchise can "make it".

So the #1 priority IMO is that you cannot clog up your books at the draft.

[dhsilv2]

Short-term, sure I agree with Cuban. But it's difficult to imagine how it wouldn't be a good thing for the league to grow into new and large media markets in the long term.

Also the owners get a huge expansion check to tide them over for any losses on revenue sharing they may incur in the short term as well.

Their revenue is HEAVILY driven by national TV deals. Not sure how adding US markets would really add much value.

No it's not. The NBA's national TV deal with ESPN and Turner pays them $2.6 billion annually. The NBA made $8.76 billion in revenue last year. Only 30% of the league's revenue is from their national TV partners.

That may change in the future CBA but at the same time new expansion markets do not have to have a massive positive impact on revenue to be worth expanding into. They just need to not be a net negative on profit sharing. Which they won't be, in the long term.

Let me put it this way. If it's still "worth it" to the NBA to have a team in markets like Sacramento, New Orleans, and Memphis, there just is no argument that it's not going to be worth it to have a team in Seattle and Vegas. Those are just bigger, better, and more profitable TV markets right now than many of the NBA's smallest markets right now. Also they're two of the fastest growing markets in the nation. There is no good financial argument against expansion anymore.

Well you're leaving off deals such as the NBA's digital rights in China which is something along the lines of another 1.5 billion. I'm sure there are similar deals in europe along with NBA.com's streaming services as well. Merchandise while there will be some additional sales, it's driven by stars who will be in the league regardless. Local TV deals, best case that's going to add 100-150 million a year to start with (that's on the higher end). And as you noted the national TV deal is expected to account for roughly half once it is upped.

I don't see how this has much of a growth value. Unless the nba is looking at in arena gambling becoming huge.

[Klomp]

This is a bit market-specific to a hoops hotbed like Seattle, but target some players who are from the area. For that area specifically, some likely available targets might be Matisse Thybulle, Corey Kispert or Jalen McDaniels.

[Blame Rasho]

This is a bit market-specific to a hoops hotbed like Seattle, but target some players who are from the area. For that area specifically, some likely available targets might be Matisse Thybulle, Corey Kispert or Jalen McDaniels.

Dejonte Murray will be a free agent maybe at the time they will be getting a team.

[Couch Potato]

Don't help huge markets by eating garbage contracts unless it's more then best of your interests. Even then hesitate. Farm picks til the right one hatches. Don't rush to get to playoffs like the Magic by trading for Ibaka. Don't sell off the tank and rush for 8th seed as IBAKA/Magic. Keep farming. Farm some nice starting young kids and save little for one big free agent.