then the league will have no choice but to consider contraction. There will be a few really good teams that will contend each year and the rest of the teams will be diluted. Hopefully it's true that Stern sees this and will address it for the new CBA.
You might be right. Now let me ask you something else. Are the Blazers immune to contraction? Despite all of the sellouts and fan support they still operate in the red.
I think he's counting on it. If you think Stern is displeased by the current course of the NBA, you are smoking crack. Chris Paul to New York and Dwight Howard to the Lakers, and Stern's master plan is complete.
I am convinced that the owners will insist on an NFL-style "franchise" tag. It's not just talent that walks out the door, but revenue. Losing LeBron cost the Cavs nine figures in the value of the franchise. There are more franchises in small and medium markets than there are in the "glamour" markets. This AAU approach to team building threatens the entire league and has to be stopped.
I'm not sure it threatens the league as much as you think. Viewing numbers are up, revenue is supposedly up and if I had to guess I'd wager that David Stern is quite happy with the big market teams hoarding the talent. Fifteen Washington Generals is a small price to pay when you get playoff matchups with the likes of the Lakers, Celtics, Heat, Knicks and Bulls.
TV ratings are up as much as 30% this year for national NBA games. That figure should continue to move upward as people tune in to see the new Knicks who wouldn't have otherwise. Stern is getting exactly what he wanted, and I expect the NBA playoffs to be the most-watched since the Jordan days.
If this is the case, then there will have to be some sort of revenue sharing component in order for small market teams to survive. Otherwise, there won't be any Washington Generals.
That doesn't necessarily mean much. What would the numbers be if all teams had a chance? Because to be honest here, it's not like all teams have a chance like in the NFL. The NFL has pretty high marks across the board in all those categories, and they have a good system for player movement. So yea sure they are better than what they were. But maybe what they were, stunk.
And maybe, at the end of the day, that's what they want. Teams in the top 10 markets with the talent pool of 30 teams.
I would say yes, easily. I don't think the leagues just going to arbitrarily select two and say you're gone. I see it being owners who would take a payout to lose their team. Selling it for nothing. N.O. is an obvious choice. And then you look for an owner who might like to sell. Memphis? Unless something happens to PA.
We'll be one of the super teams. Paul/Roy/Crash/Aldridge/Camby is a star studded lineup. Doesn't matter what Stern thinks. Aldridge is a superstar.
The NFL became the most powerful and popular league in the country because Rozelle pursued a policy of parity. MLB declined on a relative level when it became a league of have and have nots.
The problem is that if the league is allowed to build 3 or 4 super teams then it will have a very poor effect on the rest of the teams. Sort of like, "why bother". Every aging free agent without a ring will want to play for those teams only and attendance will probably dip. I mean, I do understand that often there are a few teams that are really stacked each season, but this is more like collusion among players. Why would an owner want to pay for an expensive free agent when he knows it won't help win a title? Then the unions will scream collusion against the owners (like baseball did) and then all hell breaks loose. I just think this will cause more problems and have a negative effect overall.
The only trouble is that it took the owner of the Giants agreeing to it ... in this case you've got to talk James Dolan into it and he doesn't exactly strike me as a charitable (or even smart) type.
I agree... another reason for the franchise tag will be if the new CBA lowers the maximum salary... and I think it will. Most of the NBA players won't lose any sleep over a superstar making $10m a year, rather than $16m or whatever, if the salaries of everyone else stays the same. If you lower the maximum salary, though, superstars will gather (since paying three players $4m each will be far inferior to a $10m player and two $1m, and since players will have non-salary reasons to go to certain cities)... and franchise player tags will help ensure that each team gets at least one guy that they can hang their hat on. Ed O.
I think this is the only glimmer of hope in changing it. There are the Lakers, Heat, Knicks, maybe Nets owners who would be pro-stars moving where they want and then the rest would probably prefer that there be ways for teams to keep their stars. Parity works for the NFL but that is very much a different sport. A single player has less of an impact on a game as does a basketball player. In the NBA you get your Duncan's, Kobe's, Shaq's, LeBron's every so often and whoever has those guys is winning it. Pistons are the only exception recently. Big time difference makers can be found anywhere in the draft in the NFL. Coaches and their schemes play a much bigger role compared to the NBA. There are different ways to win- look at the Packers, Saints, Giants, Pats, Steelers, Bucs, recent Super Bowl winners. In the NBA you basically have no chance unless you got one of the top 5 players in the league accompanied by another top player or a few all-star types. Even in the MLB the non-major market teams have a chance because the nature of the game is that young pitching can come up and be just as good as a veteran Cy Young winner. Hitters are less extreme but its a bit of the same. Teams need young talent mixed with veterans to win. In the NBA if 4 or 5 of your 8/9 man rotation are rookies you've got no shot. Its just the nature of the game. Rookies don't come in and lead NBA teams to rings off the bat or win MVP like they used to like Unseld or Wilt. The arbitration system helps teams keep talent but its still sad to see small market teams acknowledging that their best player of the last 8 years is as good as gone once he hits free agency and there isn't much they can do. At least they get compensation and can plan ahead a bit. The franchise tag and arbitration systems do seem to be a common thread there though. Wonder how that would go in negotiations. The hard cap idea may be somewhat of a method to make the talent more evenly spread. But at the same time I wouldn't be so sure that its a good thing for punishing owners who are willing to go the extra mile to win and letting the shitty owners get talent for no reason.
