Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #1

    Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...Markets-110407
    ESPN.com
    JA Adande

    There's a short, nice video if you follow the link.

    Maybe the NBA should be thought of as the Starship Enterprise, with the storylines always revolving around the same few people despite a crew of hundreds on board. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, LeBron, Kobe, Carmelo, Dwight. Of the more than 400 NBA transactions since July 1, seven changed the way we think about the league: the signings of LeBron James and Chris Bosh and retention of Dwyane Wade in Miami, the acquisitions of Amare Stoudemire and Carmelo Anthony in New York and the departures of Carlos Boozer and Deron Williams from Utah.

    The common theme was that the stars, the guys you see on the bridge of the Enterprise, went from smaller markets to larger markets. In a sport that can be dominated by a select few players -- 10 of the past 12 champions have featured Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan or Shaquille O'Neal -- any hope for competitive balance resides in the ability of all teams' being able to land and retain those stars.

    "Many of us are dealing with the same issues, in that now it looks like free agents are saying, 'I want to play in a few markets,'" Milwaukee Bucks general manager John Hammond said. "If I were saying, 'There's 30 NBA teams, and we're the only team facing that obstacle'? Then woe is us. We have no chance to survive. I think we're the majority; we're not the minority."

    In this case, though, there might not be strength in numbers. The NBA is in danger of becoming a caste system -- or a "Star Trek" cast system -- where the bulk of teams can sell their fans tickets but not hope. It will shape the upcoming collective bargaining negotiations, in which teams in smaller cities will attempt to get on even financial footing with their larger counterparts. Some, including NBA commissioner David Stern, note that seven of the past eight teams standing in the 2010 playoffs were those that spent above the luxury-tax threshold.

    But do you know who won't be paying a luxury tax this season? The San Antonio Spurs, who have the best record in the league. Same with the Chicago Bulls and Miami Heat, two of the top three teams in the Eastern Conference. It's not just about money. Lifestyle plays a role as well. Keep in mind, James and Bosh did not get the maximum amount of money by going to Miami. Nothing in the upcoming CBA can move a landlocked Midwestern city to a warmer climate by the ocean. That doesn't exactly create equal opportunities around the league.

    "Fair chance?" said Marcus Barrett, a Charlotte Bobcats fan. "Nah, I wouldn't say a fair chance. Because all the superstars don't want to come here."

    I spent time talking with players, executives and fans from small markets and visiting New Orleans, Charlotte and Milwaukee, trying to see whether there was any belief the teams there could be competitive and discovering how they could make it happen.

    The answers didn't get any more brutally honest than Corey Maggette's.

    "I don't think so," said Maggette, who has played in Orlando, Los Angeles, Oakland and currently Milwaukee. "They can't compete with these [large] markets, you know?

    "It's just like saying, 'Milwaukee or Los Angeles? Where do you want to go? Where do you want to live?' It's tough, man."

    Sacramento is likely to see its entire team travel down Interstate 5 to Anaheim in the coming months. The Hornets needed the NBA to take over the team to keep it solvent. And the next Hall of Fame-bound free agent who jumps to Indiana or Cleveland will be the first.

    Less than a week before he was traded by the Jazz to the Nets, Deron Williams lamented that in Utah, "It's hard to get free agents. It is. You look at [the Jazz] the last couple years, besides Booz [Carlos Boozer], we haven't had any really big free agents. Most people either got traded or drafted. We had some great second-round picks that have blossomed for us, Paul Millsap, Jeremy Evans, some of those. It's hard. I mean, I've tried. I recruit the heck out of people."

    So did Jazz general manager Kevin O'Connor.

    "Do you make a call to those people?" O'Connor said. "Sure. If they say no, you move on. Those are excuses. You can win. If your ownership's committed, you can win."

    O'Connor traded Williams because he wasn't sure that Williams would stay in Utah once he had the option to become a free agent in 2012. Coming on the heels of Jerry Sloan's resignation, it felt like an especially crushing blow to the hopes of small markets. Many look up to Utah's ability to field playoff teams year after year. They were the model of stability, with Sloan occupying the head coach's seat since 1988 and Larry Miller repeatedly writing big checks since becoming the full-fledged owner since 1986. Miller died in 2009. Even longtime play-by-play announcer Hot Rod Hundley has retired.

    The Spurs are considered the model small-market franchise, winning four championships between 1999 and 2007, the result of stability plus ingenuity. (They were among the first and most successful at finding and incorporating foreign-born players.) Yet some will tell you they modeled themselves after the Jazz. And if the Jazz model can't be sustained, then what?

    The hope turns to the Oklahoma City Thunder, with their San Antonio-trained general manager, Sam Presti, currently among the four best teams in the Western Conference.

    The Thunder have some of the same revenue limitations. They decided they could afford to be patient. That meant no drastic moves even when the team got off to a 3-29 start two seasons ago.

    "Every team handles their business differently," Presti said. "For us, we've chosen to focus on trying to build a team that is sustainable and, in doing that, certainly have had to make some decisions that were very tough decisions. Understanding that at the time they were difficult for people to understand and to accept but also recognizing that for us to continue trying to build in a proactive fashion, they were necessary.

    "One of the hardest principles to assimilate into your process is that of restraint. And understanding that any time you're team-building and your goal is to build something sustainable that has a foundation and a strong base, there is a level of patience and an approach you have to take where sometimes you have to wait for things to develop as opposed to looking for quick fixes or things that might make you feel better."


    That's actually where small markets have an advantage. With everything going on in Los Angeles and with the championship-or-bust expectations placed on the Lakers and Celtics franchises, those teams have to do everything they can, spend whatever it takes to win now, or they'll be irrelevant. When you're the only major pro team in the entire state, in the Thunder's case, where else will the fans turn while they're waiting?

    And it's not about getting the fans to buy in so much as it is instilling belief in the best players. Oklahoma City has done that with Kevin Durant, who took a step in the opposite direction of the spotlight-seeking stars this past summer and committed to a five-year extension with the Thunder.

    When asked recently about the challenge of attracting other stars to join him in Oklahoma City, Durant said, "That's come to my mind. I guess that's the way we did it with the draft. They have to come if they're drafted. But if we continue to just play hard and be a team that comes out and is known for playing hard and playing together. Hopefully, guys that love to play basketball will love to be a part of it.

    "Big market, small market, that's something I try not to get into. Everybody else outside the game is going to ask me about it. But I'm here, I like it here, I love my teammates and coaches and the city. I don't have to worry about anything else."

    How many other players take that approach?

    It almost seems that small markets don't just need to hit the winning lotto numbers, they need to have the bonus number as well. They need to stumble upon a player with Durant's talent and his mindset.

    As Maggette said, "The players have got to be really sold on coming to a small market. The only way that's going to happen is if you turn out to be a LeBron James or a Blake Griffin and you're from Milwaukee and you really want to stay in Milwaukee."

    And we've already seen how that went with James in his native northeast Ohio.

    Eventually, free will and independent thought triumph. The quest is to look for rules and regulations that at least give the smaller markets a fighting chance.

    The fans don't understand the minutiae of collective bargaining agreements. The people I talked to were knowledgeable, up-to-date on what's going on in the league, well-versed in the history of their teams and the sport -- and they don't know how the league actually functions. They just know how they want it to be.

    "Even out the salaries," said Doug Dorrow, a fan in Milwaukee. "I know there's a salary cap [now], but a lot of people manipulate it ... however that works is way beyond me."

    From city to city, variations on the same theme kept popping up, similar to what Hornets fan David Boyd said:

    "I like the way the NFL is set up where every team has a chance to win the Super Bowl."

    Stern has hinted at the same belief, rhetorically asking reporters in December, "What do you think makes [the NFL] so competitive?"

    The answer is revenue sharing and a hard salary cap. The NBA can never be like the NFL, though, because the entire NFL television package is handled on a national network level, while the bulk of NBA games are televised by local stations. That's where the disparity kicks in. The annual local TV rights for some small-market teams don't even match the contract of the highest-paid player on their team. The Lakers, meanwhile, are about to create their own channel that will bring in a reported $150 million a year or more -- as much as $200, according to an SI.com report.

    Then there's the inability to attract major corporate sponsors who crave the prestige and visibility that come from partnerships. The Knicks' parent company, Madison Square Garden, signed a 10-year deal with JPMorgan Chase worth a reported $30 million a year. No chance the Memphis Grizzlies are getting a deal like that.

    Small-market teams can't afford to take a chance. Well, they can take chances; they just can't afford to be wrong. They can't compensate for an error by simply signing another player at that position. They also can't spend big dollars for small parts. The Lakers have Steve Blake at $4 million per year. He's not an essential part of their plan to repeat as champions, but they thought he could help. Because they're over the dollar-for-dollar luxury-tax threshold, his real cost to them is $8 million.

    The solution fairness is not as simple as adjusting for the income disparity by restricting the amount teams can spend via a hard salary cap. I asked a general manager who has worked in both large and small markets about the different strategies that come with each place.

    "If you have free-agent money, players will go where they have the best salary available to them," the general manager said. "If it's even, then the location comes into play also. Most players want to go to a winning environment.

    "In a smaller market, you may have to overpay to get someone to come."

    So if small markets want to get top-tier free agents, the next salary-cap structure needs to allow them a way to spend more on a player than their competitors do. How would they have the means to do this? That will have to come from better revenue sharing. But don't just write every one of the have-nots an equal check. Make them spend more to get more. In other words, the higher a team's payroll, the larger the cut of the revenue-sharing pie it receives. The union would be more likely to sign on to this arrangement because it would be a means to drive up salaries. And you might avoid some of the internal sniping in baseball, in which the big boys such as the Yankees and Red Sox accuse some teams of doing nothing but pocketing their checks and never spending to improve their teams.

    The next step is retention and or/compensation. One possibility is a version of the NFL's franchise-player designation, in which a team retains rights to a free agent for a year as long as it pays him an average of the highest-paid players at his position or 120 percent of the previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Since positions aren't as strictly defined in the NBA, the NBA would have to go with the maximum raise. In fairness to the player, it should be a larger raise than he could receive on the open market.

    Next, automatic compensation for losing a free agent, such as the Major League Baseball system that forces teams to send their best available draft pick to their free agent signee's former team.

    There are no changes to the league's setup that will turn bad decision-makers into good ones. And nothing will guarantee good results. Even under the current system, since 2003, the two teams playing in the league's smallest TV markets, the Memphis Grizzlies and New Orleans Hornets, have made more combined playoff appearances (six) than the two teams playing in the largest, the New York metropolitan area's Knicks and Nets (four).

    "It's not necessarily the market or the amount of revenue that a team has that proves to translate into championships," Hornets president Hugh Weber said. "You have to build a championship style and organization, with the culture and the mission and resources to back it up."

    You can have resources or you can be resourceful ... and still be at the mercy of where a man chooses to live.
    I like the 120% raise/franchise tag idea (not new, though I hadn't realized the 120% part before). I also like the MLB idea of sending your best draft pick to the team whose player you've signed away, but I'd like to know more about it.

    That can't possibly apply to just any player who changes teams, so what determines if the player is good enough to warrant this kind of compensation? A committee?
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    I kind of liked the "pay to participate" revenue sharing, meaning you not only want to stay under a cap but you want to stay as close to it as you can to get the revenue sharing. I think that will definitely help a harder cap fly with the players' union.
    BillS

    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

      Next, automatic compensation for losing a free agent, such as the Major League Baseball system that forces teams to send their best available draft pick to their free agent signee's former team.
      He oversimplified this obviously( I can't keep up with all the compensation rules in baseball), but I like the idea. You wanna sign a type A free agent? You lose your 1st rd pick. Give some teams incentive to keep a player throughout his contract. Rather than forcing that team to make a trade before the player may or may not leave out of fear of ending up with nothing. Now they can evaluate whether or not its a better move to trade their player away or taking a pick. Not to mention that the player might actually choose to re-sign.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

        The solution fairness is not as simple as adjusting for the income disparity by restricting the amount teams can spend via a hard salary cap. I asked a general manager who has worked in both large and small markets about the different strategies that come with each place.

        "If you have free-agent money, players will go where they have the best salary available to them," the general manager said. "If it's even, then the location comes into play also. Most players want to go to a winning environment.

        "In a smaller market, you may have to overpay to get someone to come."

        So if small markets want to get top-tier free agents, the next salary-cap structure needs to allow them a way to spend more on a player than their competitors do. How would they have the means to do this? That will have to come from better revenue sharing. But don't just write every one of the have-nots an equal check. Make them spend more to get more. In other words, the higher a team's payroll, the larger the cut of the revenue-sharing pie it receives. The union would be more likely to sign on to this arrangement because it would be a means to drive up salaries. And you might avoid some of the internal sniping in baseball, in which the big boys such as the Yankees and Red Sox accuse some teams of doing nothing but pocketing their checks and never spending to improve their teams.
        I 100% agree that small markets need to overpay to attract free agents. I've never understood the argument that reducing maximum salary will level the playing field for small markets. It doesn't, because if the money is equally small, the player will simply choose the better location. No, the key, as the article says, is better revenue sharing.

        I'm not sure I agree with the proposal that spending more automatically gets you a larger share of revenue back. This might just encourage bad teams to go on spending sprees knowing they'll get their money back through shared revenue. And I can't imagine the richer teams being happy about subsidizing their competitors' upgrades. Maybe just requiring a minimum level of spend to qualify for shared revenue payments? Just to discourage the Sterlings of the world.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          I kind of liked the "pay to participate" revenue sharing, meaning you not only want to stay under a cap but you want to stay as close to it as you can to get the revenue sharing. I think that will definitely help a harder cap fly with the players' union.
          Yeah, I forgot to say that myself.

          Though I don't think it would be paired with a hard cap. I think it would work better with a cap more like what is already in place. It is, after all, rewarding spending. Hard to spend too much if there's a hard cap.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

            I'd almost bet money that was Donnie Walsh being quoted, by the way (GM who has been in small and big market). Fits, and I can easily imagine those words coming out of his mouth. It also fits in that it would be Bird's mentor saying it, and it's something Bird seems to strongly believe as well.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              Yeah, I forgot to say that myself.

              Though I don't think it would be paired with a hard cap. I think it would work better with a cap more like what is already in place. It is, after all, rewarding spending. Hard to spend too much if there's a hard cap.
              I don't think the idea is simply to reward spending, I think the idea is to "punish" just pocketing the revenue sharing as profits. After all, if there's no cap and you share revenue with the teams that spend the most with no ceiling, the rich teams might as well just keep the money they'd put into the sharing pool.

              You're essentially encouraging teams to spend everything they are allowed to spend, not to encourage overspending (which would be counterproductive, really).
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                I was thinking about this small market/big market issue earlier this season. The question is, can a team like the Pacers use an NFL team in a small market (Colts) as an example when comparing the ability to make additional off the court money for themselves? I mean, if I'm Larry Bird, the first thing I'm pointing out to potential FA targets is how much money and endorsements Peyton Manning has been able to make being in a small market. Are the NFL and NBA so different that the comparison can't even be made? My opinion is that even with the differences in the two leagues it is a fair comparison. Am I way off base here?

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                  Originally posted by ChadR11 View Post
                  My opinion is that even with the differences in the two leagues it is a fair comparison. Am I way off base here?
                  I don't think you're way off base, but Peyton Manning is also a once in a lifetime athlete/celebrity. His marketable qualities are so unique that I can't see it happening again, be it in a small or big market.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                    This Big Market vs Small Market controversy is a complete media construction. This is not a problem in the NBA. It's not within the top ten problems in the NBA. It is what the league wants people to focus on because it will force more concessions from the players union.

                    NBA Players want to play for the Lakers and Heat because they're well run, championship winning franchises. If you put a well-run title contending team in Bozeman, Montana you'll get quality free agents.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                      T If you put a well-run title contending team in Bozeman, Montana you'll get quality free agents.
                      You've got to be kidding me.

                      When it comes to big markets, you don't have to be incredibly well-run, you just have to have the will and desire to spend a lot of money. That's the difference between the Lakers and the Clippers. The Clippers could be nearly as good as the Lakers, but they refuse to spend the money. Their owner would rather have them be incredibly profitable on their balance sheet, which they are, as opposed being successful on the court, which they aren't and likely never will be, regardless of what certain Clippers fans say on this board.

                      If you're a small market team, you have about a 15% chance of being successful in the NBA. How do I get that number? Because there are around three to four successful small market teams every year. And of those teams, one, San Antonio, is really the only contender. Utah (maybe not anymore) and Oklahoma City are good, but I would be shocked to see them even in the Western Conference Finals, much less the NBA Finals.

                      You can follow the Utah model and be so-called "contender", although there was never a year where I thought Utah would win the championship, but it is really rare because there are only so many NBA coaches of the Pop or Sloan variety in the league and so many good GMs. To be a big market contender all you have to do is be able to spend spend spend.

                      The point I'm trying to get at is there is no way I can conceive that Miami is a "better run" franchise than Milwaukee. Miami attracts free agents by virtue of its location. Pat Riley is there because it is Miami, Florida and not Miami, Ohio. They have a crappy coach and a crappy bench and their team is constructed in an ad-hoc way. They play in an ugly, unremarkable building.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                        I don't think you're way off base, but Peyton Manning is also a once in a lifetime athlete/celebrity. His marketable qualities are so unique that I can't see it happening again, be it in a small or big market.
                        Don't hold your breath. Athletes are becoming more and more charismatic. Sports media in high school and college sports is larger than ever. It seems every superstar is expected to preform on the field and in front of a camera. Needless to say, "there will be another." Whether he is in a football uniform or a basketball uniform - another perennial MVP and mega-marketable personality will arrive to a small market, perhaps ours, within the decade.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                          Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                          This Big Market vs Small Market controversy is a complete media construction. This is not a problem in the NBA. It's not within the top ten problems in the NBA. It is what the league wants people to focus on because it will force more concessions from the players union.

                          NBA Players want to play for the Lakers and Heat because they're well run, championship winning franchises. If you put a well-run title contending team in Bozeman, Montana you'll get quality free agents.
                          And how did Bozeman get to be a contending team without any free agents? Did they suck and then get lucky that their lottery pick was high when a top talent came along? Did they then get lucky that said talent decided he didn't want to bail to after his rookie contract because he was playing in Bozeman?

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            And how did Bozeman get to be a contending team without any free agents? Did they suck and then get lucky that their lottery pick was high when a top talent came along? Did they then get lucky that said talent decided he didn't want to bail to after his rookie contract because he was playing in Bozeman?
                            The same way as Oklahoma City, which is closer to Bozeman than LA. Top talents don't leave after their rookie contracts. The current CBA guarantees that players will be on their teams through at least one extension, about 7 years. That's long enough to build a championship contender.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                              The same way as Oklahoma City, which is closer to Bozeman than LA. Top talents don't leave after their rookie contracts. The current CBA guarantees that players will be on their teams through at least one extension, about 7 years. That's long enough to build a championship contender.
                              That would be...

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Did they suck and then get lucky that their lottery pick was high when a top talent came along? Did they then get lucky that said talent decided he didn't want to bail to after his rookie contract?
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                              Working...
                              X