Do you think there should be contraction?

[The Truth]

pretend you're David Stern. the Hornets are in your control. let's say you also just bought the Kings from the Maloof brothers. so now, you have two NBA franchises in your hands. if it was your choice, would you eliminate those teams from the league or would you keep them in existence? would the NBA be better off with 28 teams or keeping it at 30?

[moeroadkill]

can you remove 2 teams from the west? i dont know much about this topic but wouldnt that unbalance a whole lot of other stuff

[ChosenOne]

I am sure that is not possible.

 

But if it was...he should combine the Kings and Hornets into one team, and then to even it out combine the Bobcats and Cavs.

[Lkr]

I'm sure if he tried hard enough, he could sell the teams.

[Guest N/A]

Combining of teams is essential at this point. If a team is floundering in it's area, or has a severe lack of talent, contract them.

 

For example, put the Kings and Hornets together and move them to KC to build a decent team for a great fan base.

 

The only thing they have to do when they contract is...choose the 15 players they want while keeping from being 30+ million over the salary cap.

 

Those players they don't use are automatically subject to free agency and given 50% of their previous contract by the Kings/Hornets without any of the salary cap hurt.

 

Next, they should combine two East teams. The Bucks/Pistons would be the next combo to make. The Pistons have floundering attendance + talent, and their ownership is questionable. The Bucks have decent attendance and also a lack of talent. Contracting these teams and keeping them in Milwaukee makes perfect sense. Detroit cannot support an NBA team thanks to their current city wide economic situation where unemployment is as high as 20%.

 

The league would have 28 teams now, and the quality of these teams would be higher than before. Yes, the Cavs and Timberwolves are still terrible, but they both have stable ownership groups and in the Cavs case have great attendance.

 

Also, because the Timberwolves and Cavs have had previous success they have proven they can survive alone.

[The Truth]

Combining of teams is essential at this point. If a team is floundering in it's area, or has a severe lack of talent, contract them.

 

For example, put the Kings and Hornets together and move them to KC to build a decent team for a great fan base.

 

The only thing they have to do when they contract is...choose the 15 players they want while keeping from being 30+ million over the salary cap.

 

Those players they don't use are automatically subject to free agency and given 50% of their previous contract by the Kings/Hornets without any of the salary cap hurt.

 

Next, they should combine two East teams. The Bucks/Pistons would be the next combo to make. The Pistons have floundering attendance + talent, and their ownership is questionable. The Bucks have decent attendance and also a lack of talent. Contracting these teams and keeping them in Milwaukee makes perfect sense. Detroit cannot support an NBA team thanks to their current city wide economic situation where unemployment is as high as 20%.

 

The league would have 28 teams now, and the quality of these teams would be higher than before. Yes, the Cavs and Timberwolves are still terrible, but they both have stable ownership groups and in the Cavs case have great attendance.

 

Also, because the Timberwolves and Cavs have had previous success they have proven they can survive alone.

honestly, Indiana probably deserves to be contracted more than Milwaukee. the Pacers have worse attendance and I believe their arena lease runs out pretty soon.

 

you don't necessarily have to merge teams. you could just take a couple out of existence and let the players on those rosters become free agents for the other teams to sign.

 

the point of this thread was to see if people think contraction should occur in the NBA. ultimately, I just wanted to see if they thought it'd be better off with 30 teams or if they should decrease that number.

 

I know this topic was debated not too long ago, and at the time, I was in favor of not contracting. however, now, I think I'm on the other side of the fence. decreasing the number of teams in the league would aggregate talents and make the league as a whole more entertaining. fewer teams means more good players on each team, and everyone wants that.

 

I'm not saying they should narrow it down to 24 teams. I think 26 or 28 would do the trick, and it would probably make things a lot more exciting. the only problem is that a couple cities would lose their teams and those fans would be screwed, but hey, you can't please everyone.

 

do I think there's ever going to be less than 30 teams in the NBA? no. they'd lose money with lesser teams and that's not something that interests the league, I'm sure. although, in a perfect world, it'd probably best if the NBA consisted of only 26-28 teams total.

[Real Deal]

Nope. Getting rid of teams means less players drafted, less coaching jobs available (around 3-4 per team, counting assistants and trainers), up to 14 less players in the league per team.

 

Dropping the Cavaliers and the Kings wouldn't make the Pistons, Bucks, Bobcats, Wolves or Wizards better teams. Contraction doesn't turn LA and New York into smaller markets.

 

Some would've said we should contract and get rid of the Clippers a few years back. Had we done that, we wouldn't have the current Clippers team beating some of the best teams in the NBA, wins over teams like the Spurs, Lakers and Heat. Competition doesn't change.

 

If there were 2-4 less teams, does it change the Miami Heat today? Nah. LeBron, Wade and Bosh would've still decided to go to the Heat together. Melo never considered the Kings or Cavaliers, so I'm sure he'd still want to be a Knick, and team with Amare.

 

It does nothing but give rookies less of a chance to start an NBA career, and makes it more difficult for vets to make rosters as well. No point in it.

[The Truth]

Nope. Getting rid of teams means less players drafted, less coaching jobs available (around 3-4 per team, counting assistants and trainers), up to 14 less players in the league per team.

but it also makes certain teams more competitive and the league in general more exciting.

 

Dropping the Cavaliers and the Kings wouldn't make the Pistons, Bucks, Bobcats, Wolves or Wizards better teams.

not necessarily true. if you dropped the Kings and Cavs, their best players would have to sign with new teams. that means guys like Evans, Cousins, and Hickson would have to join other squads. the best teams wouldn't have the cap to sign them, so they'd still go to pretty bad teams.

 

Some would've said we should contract and get rid of the Clippers a few years back. Had we done that, we wouldn't have the current Clippers team beating some of the best teams in the NBA, wins over teams like the Spurs, Lakers and Heat. Competition doesn't change.

lol the Clips still aren't even a playoff team. that'll change eventually, but that's the way it is with all teams.

 

If there were 2-4 less teams, does it change the Miami Heat today? Nah. LeBron, Wade and Bosh would've still decided to go to the Heat together. Melo never considered the Kings or Cavaliers, so I'm sure he'd still want to be a Knick, and team with Amare.

yeah, but those teams would have to face stiffer competition. the fewer the clubs, the harder it is for the same teams to win every year.

 

It does nothing but give rookies less of a chance to start an NBA career, and makes it more difficult for vets to make rosters as well. No point in it.

that's just one of the negatives. one of the positives is that with fewer of those mediocre players, the league becomes more exciting because there's more talented players on each team.

[Real Deal]

Waiving two teams isn't going to accomplish any of that you posted. Evans and Cousins are the only two valuable players on the Kings and Cavaliers. Send Evans over to the Wolves, Cousins to the Wizards...no difference. Both still miss the playoffs.

 

It's easier to win every year with less teams? Tell that to Bill Russell and his Celtics.

 

You'd have to cut the league down to 20 teams if you want to feel the effects of a contraction. Ten teams gone, and their players being distributed among the lower-level playoff teams. THEN, it becomes a highly-competitive race to the championship.

 

Otherwise, 2-4 team contraction really doesn't give you any positives.

 

Add two more teams if you want more competition. Stick one in Vegas, and one in Kansas City (bright lights, or massive fan support). Give the two teams the top two picks in the 2012 draft, which could be pretty strong. Hold an expansion draft and require that every NBA team makes one of their players eligible, with a requirement that the one player has averaged 15+ MPG the last season (ex. the Lakers would have to throw in Blake, Barnes or Brown), and the two teams choose 14 each (28) among the 30 entered + the entire D-League roster and any undrafted players.

 

Not really difficult to make it more competitive. Losing a few teams doesn't change the fact that the Celtics, Spurs, Lakers, Heat, Mavs and Bulls are the NBA's elite. The only other team close to them would be the Thunder. Everyone else (the other 23 teams...or 19, if you waive four) would need all-stars from the four waived teams, and I doubt you find it working the way you'd dream it to.

[The Truth]

you want to add teams? that would water down the talent level even more. we'd be seeing retired veterans like Allen Iverson and Antwan Walker back in the league. how would that add competition? that would just create less parity.

[Real Deal]

you want to add teams? that would water down the talent level even more. we'd be seeing retired veterans like Allen Iverson and Antwan Walker back in the league. how would that add competition? that would just create less parity.

Not if you're going to put them in legit cities. It gives free agents two more teams to go to, decreases the chance that three all-stars will come together in one city.

 

There's absolutely nothing good about taking 2-4 teams out of the league. The only way it works is if you take 10 teams out, and I'll stop watching the NBA if they were to ever do that, because it's a ridiculous idea.

 

The league needs to stay the way it is. Keep the 30 teams, move a couple to cities that will bring out the fans and attract FA's, and people need to stop bitching about the top teams in the NBA. It doesn't matter how many teams are in the league...people want to go to LA because of the team's rich history and because of the city itself, and a team like the Cavaliers had seven years to win a title...they just failed, and it had nothing to do with the amount of teams in the NBA.

[Guest N/A]

It gives free agents two more teams to go to, increases the chance that three all-stars will come together in one city.

 

 

 

No free agent wants to go to KC or Vancouver so idk if adding teams RIGHT now will work....

Edited February 27, 2011 by N/A

[Real Deal]

No free agent wants to go to KC or Vancouver so idk if adding teams RIGHT now will work....

Which free agents did you talk to?

[Guest N/A]

Which free agents did you talk to?

 

Don't have to talk to them, KC and Canada aren't BIG MARKETS.

[Real Deal]

Don't have to talk to them, KC and Canada aren't BIG MARKETS.

RIGHT. I have no idea why Rudy Gay decided to stay in Memphis, and why Trevor Ariza decided to go to Houston.

 

I'll try not to use caps to get my point across: champions are built out of the draft + trades. Spurs and Duncan/Gino/Parker, Lakers and Kobe, Celtics and Pierce. Boston traded for Garnett and Allen, Lakers for Shaq and Gasol. Heat and Wade, traded for Shaq.

 

It doesn't matter where you are. If you draft well, and you take pieces to make smart trades, you contend.

[Guest N/A]

RIGHT. I have no idea why Rudy Gay decided to stay in Memphis, and why Trevor Ariza decided to go to Houston.

 

 

 

 

 

Rudy Gay and Ariza both followed the money.

 

Gay was also a restricted FA so the Grizzlies could've matched any offer(even though he ended up getting Max), and the Rockets signed Ariza because Artest signed with the Lakers.

Edited February 27, 2011 by N/A

[Guest N/A]

 

 

I'll try not to use caps to get my point across: champions are built out of the draft + trades. Spurs and Duncan/Gino/Parker, Lakers and Kobe, Celtics and Pierce. Boston traded for Garnett and Allen, Lakers for Shaq and Gasol. Heat and Wade, traded for Shaq.

 

It doesn't matter where you are. If you draft well, and you take pieces to make smart trades, you contend.

 

Wow, I thought we were talking about free agency....http://www.otrbasketball.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/sleep.gif

[Real Deal]

Rudy Gay and Ariza both followed the money.

 

Gay was also a restricted FA so the Grizzlies could've matched any offer(even though he ended up getting Max), and the Rockets signed Ariza because Artest signed with the Lakers.

Cool...doesn't matter. Champs aren't built through free agency, and any team can get it done as long as they draft smart and make the necessary trades.

 

The Clippers are a .500 team if everyone stays healthy. They have been one of the worst teams in the league, every year, despite being in a big market. Now that they actually drafted well and chose Griffin (and, hey, even Eric Gordon), they are on their way to a playoff run next season. Big market matters? It hasn't for years.

 

No need for contraction. Owners need to wise up and make the right moves (or hire better scouts and general managers). Big markets are ruining free agency, because all of these teams (meaning, half of the teams in the league) are dead set on shedding salary to bring in someone like LeBron, when all they need to do is play it smart and build a team, not purchase one.

 

You remove those lower-market teams, and it solves nothing. Using that kind of logic, you should remove the bigger markets, to disperse the free agents...but then, that would be stupid as well, due to the loss of fans and money.

 

Keep it the way it is, move teams, and send a memo to owners telling them that they need to do better, or sell their team.

[Real Deal]

Wow, I thought we were talking about free agency....http://www.otrbasketball.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/sleep.gif

You obviously aren't following, so there's no point in me elaborating anymore.

[Guest N/A]

No free agent wants to go to KC or Vancouver so idk if adding teams RIGHT now will work....

 

This was my original post and you responded with how to build a team and other things.

 

I have been following.

[Real Deal]

This was my original post and you responded with how to build a team and other things.

 

I have been following.

KC and Vegas (never said Vancouver) wouldn't have to build using free agents. If you had read my proposal about the expansion draft, and a top draft pick, you would've skipped the part about needing to be a big market team to contend.

 

Not sure why that's hard to understand.

[Guest N/A]

KC and Vegas (never said Vancouver) wouldn't have to build using free agents. If you had read my proposal about the expansion draft, and a top draft pick, you would've skipped the part about needing to be a big market team to contend.

 

Not sure why that's hard to understand.

 

I only responded to your part about free agency, I was too lazy to cut down your quote to only the part about free agency.

[Real Deal]

I only responded to your part about free agency, I was too lazy to cut down your quote to only the part about free agency.

-___-

 

Is OKC a big market? Do you know that Bosh considered the Thunder?

 

Once a team builds through the draft and through trades, free agents will hop on board. Ron Artest? The Lakers were in need of someone, and he was a HUGE reason why we won our second title, locking down Pierce and Melo. His words: he didn't come to the Lakers because of the market, he came because Kobe needed help. He walked in on Kobe after the Celtics series, in the shower, and told him he was going to win him a title when the time came...and that was in 2008.

 

Boston isn't LA, New York or Miami...but Shaq felt like he could win a title there, mainly because Boston needed one more big to get it done, and they were already a near-complete team.

 

The point is, it doesn't matter the market. A team in Kansas City would be able to contend if they had brains in the front office. Draft the right way, make trades, and then look for the one free agent that turns you into a champion.

 

Lakers, Celtics, Magic, Spurs, Cavaliers, Mavericks, Heat...the last seven Finals teams, all built with the draft and trades. Bryant, Pierce, Garnett, Allen, Rondo, D. Howard, Nelson, Duncan, Parker, Manu, LeBron, Dirk, Terry, J. Howard, Wade, Shaq...how many of them were signed through free agency? None.

[Guest N/A]

-___-

 

Is OKC a big market? Do you know that Bosh considered the Thunder?

 

 

Stop talking about draft and trades I wasn't even talking about that. I didn't respond to it, and I don't honestly care about it.

 

You proved my point with the Bosh part, they will consider all they want but they'll never sign.

 

If people wanted to play in middle-market teams free agents would've left their teams and signed with mid-market ones.

 

For example, LeBron would've signed with the Kings instead of Miami.

 

(Kings had 2nd highest cap space last year in free agency)

[Real Deal]

Stop talking about draft and trades I wasn't even talking about that. I didn't respond to it, and I don't honestly care about it.

You won't talk about it because it's the perfect reason why small-market teams can build. This is you trying to prove that the league needs a contraction, so step up to the plate and talk, don't avoid it. Tell me why teams have to rely on free agency, and thus relying on their "big market," to become important in this league.

 

Or, you can just not talk about it, and we'll move on.