Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 62 of 62

Thread: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

  1. #51

    Default Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They [small markets] have none of the advantages and can't come up with anything to offset them.
    Small markets can definitely offset the advantages. There's no trick or super heroic brilliance, just good management. The Pacers have never been great wheeler dealers but they're one of two teams (the other being the Lakers) who haven't won less 30 games in any season in the last twenty years.

    The small market [team] can't afford to make any mistakes in order to maintain the same standards a large market can maintain while having some screwups here and there.
    Small market teams can make mistakes. The Pacers have definitely made some. Small market teams don't have the leeway that some larger markets have but it's not insurmountable by any measure.

    The whole point is that market size is an advantage, one that could be perceived as unfair in a league trying to work across all market sizes, and that if some creative way can be made to help level that part of the playing field without rewarding poor management, the league would be stronger and better.
    The league already does this though. Players have to stay on the team that drafted them for 7 years. I've yet to hear a rational argument for why this isn't long enough.

    My main point through this whole thread has been this: The advantages of being in a large market exists in every part of life not just the NBA. Large markets have advantages in attracting talent in ALL fields.

    Basketball is a career for these guys and they want to maximize their earning power. At a certain point you have to let them go where they want to go and not punish them for having some self-interest.

    This paragraph (from a great American Scholar essay worth reading) says everything I'm not eloquent enough to say.

    “For once in the history of the world,” wrote essayist Charles D. Stuart, “the interests of the financier and the people are one”—whereas the interests of the ballplayer, belonging to neither of these groups, are ultimately at odds with those of his sport. The player is loved by the fans, not as a person with economic rights and needs, but as a soldier “drafted” onto their city’s team. His individuality mustn’t ever transcend the importance of the uniform he wears that bears his city’s name. As comedian Jerry Seinfeld put it more recently, “You’re actually rooting for the clothes, when you get right down to it.”

  2. #52

    Default Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    You are insane if you honestly think big markets don't have a HUGE advantage over small markets. The top teams are spending what, 50% more than the bottom? They get to make many mistakes and get to sign a bunch of vets through all the exceptions.

    They have a gigantic competitive advantage.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to oxxo For This Useful Post:


  4. #53

    Default Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by oxxo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You are insane if you honestly think big markets don't have a HUGE advantage over small markets. The top teams are spending what, 50% more than the bottom? They get to make many mistakes and get to sign a bunch of vets through all the exceptions.

    They have a gigantic competitive advantage.
    50% more than who?

    http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

    Utah, Memphis, Portland and Milwaukee all spend in the top ten.

    Chicago, Washington, LA Clippers and the MIAMI HEAT all spend in the bottom ten.

    Big market teams aren't outspending small market teams and buying all the good players like in baseball.

  5. #54
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,603

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Small markets can definitely offset the advantages. There's no trick or super heroic brilliance, just good management. The Pacers have never been great wheeler dealers but they're one of two teams (the other being the Lakers) who haven't won less 30 games in any season in the last twenty years.
    You edited out the first part of the quoted sentence and didn't editor bracket the right replacement. "They" didn't just refer to "small market teams", it referred to POORLY RUN small market teams. That paragraph was meant to show the two extremes, not to be the example.

    Quote Originally Posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Small market teams can make mistakes. The Pacers have definitely made some. Small market teams don't have the leeway that some larger markets have but it's not insurmountable by any measure.
    And the mistakes the Pacers have made recently came within a whisker of killing the franchise. A large market team making the same mistakes doesn't get punished by the fans nearly as much because there are enough die-hards in the market to keep it floating. The mistakes have to be much more drastic to be as devastating.

    Quote Originally Posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The league already does this though. Players have to stay on the team that drafted them for 7 years. I've yet to hear a rational argument for why this isn't long enough.
    Because unless that one player is the person who will hit the NBA and immediately and single-handedly take the franchise to the championship, it can take that long to develop completely. It took 7 years after the Bulls drafted Jordan for them to win the championship - with His Airness, for crying out loud. If it's a slightly lesser player and a market with fewer benefits, the 7 years isn't enough.

    The point here is that even a franchise of average to above average competence has to have time, luck, and lots of things fall into place to get to a championship level. If every time that happens they get a kick to the curb, it keeps them from being able to remain competitive.

    Quote Originally Posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    My main point through this whole thread has been this: The advantages of being in a large market exists in every part of life not just the NBA. Large markets have advantages in attracting talent in ALL fields.

    Basketball is a career for these guys and they want to maximize their earning power. At a certain point you have to let them go where they want to go and not punish them for having some self-interest.

    This paragraph (from a great American Scholar essay worth reading) says everything I'm not eloquent enough to say.
    And my point is that it IS in the interests of the players to have a lot of strong franchises that aren't limited in geography. If the strength of the sum of franchises is greater, then it isn't only the largest and most successful who can afford to pay not just top salaries but high salaries to the middle of the roster players.

    If winning draws people, help give all the teams a chance to win. If the large markets have an inherent advantage because players want to go there, give the small markets something they can use as an incentive that the big markets can't match. That doesn't hurt the players, it doesn't hurt the fans, it makes the game more competitive. The only teams it hurts are the ones in the large markets or the ones who hit the lottery.

    In other words, make success for a franchise no matter the size of the market something that can actually be planned and managed for rather than dependent not ONLY on management but on factors beyond the control of management.

    Otherwise, just stop the pretense, move any franchise not in an SMSA that is either a top-10 market or in the Sun Belt, and make it completely a players' league, where the fans are merely a source of income and don't really matter in any other way. It'll still make money, but I'd venture to say not as much and there will be little to no growth except by annexing leagues around the world.
    Last edited by BillS; 04-15-2011 at 06:31 PM.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  6. #55

    Default Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You edited out the first part of the quoted sentence and didn't editor bracket the right replacement. "They" didn't just refer to "small market teams", it referred to POORLY RUN small market teams. That paragraph was meant to show the two extremes, not to be the example.
    If a small market team can't be bad without the threat of moving then that's a far deeper issue than what we're talking about here. Basketball is a zero sum game when it comes to wins. There has to be a loser. If a team can't stay solvent with a couple of bad years then that team probably shouldn't be in that city or there needs to be changes to the way money is shared in the league.

    I'm solely talking about player movement within the league from small market to big market being a total disaster and why it's a big myth. What you're talking about is a completely different, and more fundamental, issue.

    And the mistakes the Pacers have made recently came within a whisker of killing the franchise. A large market team making the same mistakes doesn't get punished by the fans nearly as much because there are enough die-hards in the market to keep it floating. The mistakes have to be much more drastic to be as devastating.
    This again is a different issue. A team that never bottomed out and always stayed at least somewhat competitive for two decades should not come close to death. This is about revenue sharing, generating and what percent the players should get.

    The point here is that even a franchise of average to above average competence has to have time, luck, and lots of things fall into place to get to a championship level. If every time that happens they get a kick to the curb, it keeps them from being able to remain competitive.
    But this has happened twice in the last twenty years. It is not a problem. You're setting up a dire scenario but it happens once every decade.

    Small market players leave for big market teams in EVERY SPORT and EVERY PROFESSION. If this is crushing the league then there is a fundamental problem in league financing, not player movement.

    And my point is that it IS in the interests of the players to have a lot of strong franchises that aren't limited in geography.
    It's in the interest of players to have strong franchises in a lot of different areas. It's not fair if you're making them go to small cities with limited funds, poor management and asking them not to leave.

    If the strength of the sum of franchises is greater, then it isn't only the largest and most successful who can afford to pay not just top salaries but high salaries to the middle of the roster players.
    Middle of the roster players are more likely to stay with their teams because of the salary increases. For LeBron making taking a pay cut from $18 mil to $15 mil isn't that bad. For a role player making $5 mil compared to $7 mil is a big deal. When's the last time the Pacers lost a middle of the roster player they wanted to keep?

    In fact, a lot of the examples I can think of are teams from BIG markets not being able to afford their role players: Celtics with Kendrick Perkins, James Posey. Lakers with Trevor Ariza. All the stuff the Suns had to do to try and keep their core together.

    If winning draws people, help give all the teams a chance to win. If the large markets have an inherent advantage because players want to go there, give the small markets something they can use as an incentive that the big markets can't match. That doesn't hurt the players, it doesn't hurt the fans, it makes the game more competitive. The only teams it hurts are the ones in the large markets or the ones who hit the lottery.
    What's your plan for hurting the big market teams and helping the small market teams? I've yet to see one, in this thread or elsewhere, that makes sense.

    In other words, make success for a franchise no matter the size of the market something that can actually be planned and managed for rather than dependent not ONLY on management but on factors beyond the control of management.
    I'd love to hear that plan but it sounds like utopia. You're an NBA Marxist.

    Otherwise, just stop the pretense, move any franchise not in an SMSA that is either a top-10 market or in the Sun Belt, and make it completely a players' league, where the fans are merely a source of income and don't really matter in any other way. It'll still make money, but I'd venture to say not as much and there will be little to no growth except by annexing leagues around the world.
    I don't think some cities right now are NBA level markets moving forward (Memphis, Charlotte, Sacramento, New Orleans) and it's probably better that they not have teams or they move to more hospitable cities.

    Truthfully, the NBA shouldn't be made up of mega metropolises (metropoli?) and relatively tiny cities. It's not fair to either. Heavyweight boxers don't fight lightweights.
    Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 04-15-2011 at 07:06 PM.

  7. #56

    Default Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    To be clear, I'm not saying there aren't problems with small market teams making money. I'm just saying that the outrage over player movement is overblown an easy target when in reality it's not as big a crisis as it's being made out to be.

    This Chris Sheridan article deals with the business side of things that I agree needs revamping.

    But before the players agree to absorb some of the expenses, they want to see some of the larger market owners share more of their local TV revenue with the smaller market owners who receive only a fraction of that money from their local TV deals.

    When this thing gets settled, look for that BRI recalculation and enhanced local TV revenue sharing to be major parts of the new labor deal. Other factors such as age limits, rookie scales, lengths of contracts, etcetera, are secondary.

    It's about the pool of money, redefining how to calculate the pool of money and then splitting it up.
    Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 04-15-2011 at 07:21 PM.

  8. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,944

    Default Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    To be clear, I'm not saying there aren't problems with small market teams making money. I'm just saying that the outrage over player movement is overblown an easy target when in reality it's not as big a crisis as it's being made out to be.

    This Chris Sheridan article deals with the business side of things that I agree needs revamping.


    The issues brought up in the opening article aren't about small market teams losing money, that's a given. The issues brought up are about small market teams being at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to being competitive. I think the outrage over player movement to a few select preferred teams is a serious issue. The real issue is more one of preferred destinations versus unpreferred destinations but the preferred destinations also happen to be in big markets. It's always been a problem, but it's became a much bigger problem recently. You've said nothing to convince me that the ability of NY, Miami, and Chicago to draw all star free agents is not an advantage. It is and it's an unfair advantage, but it can be addressed in the cba if it's a priority to the owners. I realize that the financial side of the cba will always be priority #1 but everything I've read from Stern and Silver concerning parity at least shows that it is a real issue that they want to address in the cba. I hope something goes through to level the playing field more then it is now.

  9. #58

    Default Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The issues brought up in the opening article aren't about small market teams losing money, that's a given. The issues brought up are about small market teams being at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to being competitive.
    I know, and I've said from the beginning that it's much ado about nothing. There are problems with being a small market team, access to talent is not one of them.

    I think the outrage over player movement to a few select preferred teams is a serious issue.
    It's an easy position to take because it makes sense when you first look at it ("All the good players want to go to New York and LA and Miami! They have all the money") but if you actually go through all the evidence it's no more prominent than it's ever been. It seems that way because it just happened but like I keep saying, it's happened TWICE in the last twenty years that a top ten player has left his team in free agency.

    You've said nothing to convince me that the ability of NY, Miami, and Chicago to draw all star free agents is not an advantage.
    I never tried to convince you otherwise. I just don't think it's as big a deal as the media makes it out to be. It's an easy narrative to push (and it's definitely being pushed by the league and owners). It doesn't happen any more in the NBA than it does in any other are of life.

    It is and it's an unfair advantage, but it can be addressed in the cba if it's a priority to the owners. I realize that the financial side of the cba will always be priority #1 but everything I've read from Stern and Silver concerning parity at least shows that it is a real issue that they want to address in the cba. I hope something goes through to level the playing field more then it is now.
    And I ask again, what's the plan?

  10. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,944

    Default Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    And I ask again, what's the plan?
    I gave you my idea for a plan but I think there are many ways to go about achieving better parity. I think limiting each team to 1 max contract player and setting a lower max for the second and third highest paid players would stop player collusion for all star players to join forces on 1 team, they'd have to play each other if they want to get paid and win a title. A sliding scale exception could be made based on # of years played for the team you sign with, that would help teams to keep their own free agents.
    I have no idea what the NBA's plan is but here's an interview with Silver speaking about the parity in the upcoming cba negotiations.
    http://portlandtribune.com/sports/st...59444827019000

  11. #60

    Default Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I gave you my idea for a plan but I think there are many ways to go about achieving better parity. I think limiting each team to 1 max contract player and setting a lower max for the second and third highest paid players would stop player collusion for all star players to join forces on 1 team, they'd have to play each other if they want to get paid and win a title.
    NBA teams, big market and small, wouldn't do this. Teams like the flexibility to spend their money how they want. I can't see the players association or the owners pushing for this.

    LeBron and Bosh didn't sign for the max. So you'd have no problem with them in your scenario?

    A sliding scale exception could be made based on # of years played for the team you sign with, that would help teams to keep their own free agents.
    I have no idea what the NBA's plan is but here's an interview with Silver speaking about the parity in the upcoming cba negotiations.
    http://portlandtribune.com/sports/st...59444827019000
    The key quote from the Silver article is this:

    We’re spending too much on (player) salaries, though, and under our current CBA, we pay roughly 57 percent of gross (income) to our players. At our meeting during All-Star weekend, we told them prospects are wonderful, but the model is broken, and no business is sustainable over time that pays out more than it takes in. By definition, if we pay out 57 percent of the gross, it has to cost us less than 43 cents to generate every dollar, and that’s not the case.

    The biggest problem for competition is that small market teams aren't solvent enough to sign veterans and make that extra push for a championship. It's not superstars bolting for big markets.
    Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 04-15-2011 at 10:02 PM.

  12. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,944

    Default Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    NBA teams, big market and small, wouldn't do this. Teams like the flexibility to spend their money how they want. I can't see the players association or the owners pushing for this.

    LeBron and Bosh didn't sign for the max. So you'd have no problem with them in your scenario?

    You're right except for the amount. Wade would get the max, Lebron would get 10 mil, and Bosh 7.5. I think they'd decide not to join forces to chase a title in that scenario. Maybe Lebron would stay with the Cavs or perhaps he'd join the Nets where they didn't already have a max player and he could get paid. The players are going to agree to some form of salary reduction when this is settled. You have no idea how they'll agree to it but at least they would keep the same max salary in this scenario and a team wouldn't spend 90% of their salary cap on 2-3 players so the guys under them could actually get paid. A true hard cap set at the current soft cap would with no limit to a max salary could have the same effect though. Let someone pay Melo 40 mil, and see what's left of their cap to bring in another top player.


    The key quote from the Silver article is this:

    We’re spending too much on (player) salaries, though, and under our current CBA, we pay roughly 57 percent of gross (income) to our players. At our meeting during All-Star weekend, we told them prospects are wonderful, but the model is broken, and no business is sustainable over time that pays out more than it takes in. By definition, if we pay out 57 percent of the gross, it has to cost us less than 43 cents to generate every dollar, and that’s not the case.

    The biggest problem for competition is that small market teams aren't solvent enough to sign veterans and make that extra push for a championship. It's not superstars bolting for big markets.


    That's one of the things he brings up in the article but it's not the key quote or the focus of the article. I said that I realize the financial issues will always be priority #1.

    Here's another quote.

    "Also, when it comes to distribution of revenue, more now than in any of the CBAs I’ve been involved in, there has been more discussion about competition." " In addition to our desire to create a model where all teams at least have the opportunity to be profitable, we also are focused on a model where all 30 teams have the opportunity to compete for a championship. There’s a recognition out there now that’s not the current model"

    Parity is an issue on the table at least with the Owners and if they really want it in the cba they'll get it. All the players really care about is the % of BRI they receive. When you read the full article it sounds like a hard cap is the NBA's way of achieving parity, and I'm fine with that. At least it's better system then what we have now.

  13. #62
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Bloomington, In
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    I'm sorry I fail to see why a player shouldn't be able to go whereever he wants to go. If a team is losing, or failing to win a championship, the star player has every right to go where ever he wants to go and if another star player in a simliar situation wants to play with the other guy in order to win a championship.....then let them. If the player doesn't want to stay, that isn't his fault it is the team's fault.

Similar Threads

  1. NBA Draft Prospects by Region - Chad Ford
    By pujhutt50 in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 03-21-2011, 05:53 PM
  2. The PD NBA Draft - #10 Milwaukee
    By Jose Slaughter in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-16-2009, 09:36 AM
  3. The PD NBA Best Pick Left in the Draft 4
    By Hicks in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 08:33 PM
  4. The PD NBA Draft
    By Jose Slaughter in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-21-2008, 04:55 PM
  5. Draft Express - NBA Player Scouting Reports
    By OakMoses in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-30-2008, 06:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •