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
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    Originally posted by itzryan07 View Post
    i dont like all of this small market talk. I only has really been a problem because thats what everyone thinks that is why lebron left cleveland. which isnt even close to the reason. if you have a good team, players are gonna want to go there, for example OKC they could get a big FA.

    That's not even close to being the whole story. It's not just small market vs big market, it's preferred teams vs unpreferred teams and the fact that most preferred teams are in big markets is no coincidence. Players prefer the lime light of the bigger markets, endorsement deals and in some cases better climates. You can't blame them but it gives an unfair advantage to some teams due to issues that are out of control for other teams like the Pacers. I do think that's why Lebron picked Miami and if it wasn't Miami it was going to be NY or Chicago for the same reasons. I think that's why Bosh went to Miami as well. That's why Amare went to NY and Melo forced a trade to NY. It's why Shaq went to L.A. and the list could go on. You see exceptions where top 5 players stay with their team but I can't recall a top 5, or even a top 10 player choosing to move to a small Market team as a free agent.
    The NBA needs parity or at least a move in that direction. I'd love as a fan for the Pacers to stand as much of a chance at drawing a big name free agent as NY.
    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

      I don't like this whole big market, little market.

      Teams all across the league still have a player they can call a star.

      I don't think teams are being skinned of stars and being attracted to a bigger city.

      We're a pretty blue collar team and we've been a blue collar team. That's Indiana basketball for you.

      I'd be happy having a team of blue collared players that aren't so called "superstars". At least not the ones that are snotty and also the ones that will attract bandwagon fans all over the world.

      I'll be happy with an Eric Gordon type of blue collared player. A Hoosier who knows what the expectations are here and would love to come back.

      There are probably a bunch of players in this league who will sign not with a big market team, but either where they feel like they can fit in or for the money.

      This city is proud their team is back on track.
      Last edited by Scot Pollard; 04-12-2011, 10:56 PM.
      In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

        Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
        I'd love as a fan for the Pacers to stand as much of a chance at drawing a big name free agent as NY.
        That won't happen, no matter what salary restrictions the NBA puts in place. Indiana isn't New York.

        New York and LA attracts more quality doctors, lawyers, artists and academics than anywhere else in America. Yet we still have the Mayo Clinic, Kurt Vonnegut and Ohio State University emerging from the midwest. Maybe the most talented athletes don't want to work in Indiana but Indiana usually doesn't attract the most talented people in most fields. This can be overcome through smart management and investment.
        Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 04-12-2011, 11:15 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

          [QUOTE=King Tuts Tomb;1212276]That won't happen, no matter what salary restrictions the NBA puts in place. Indiana isn't New York.
          QUOTE]


          I disagree, It can happen if the financial loss of teaming up with a second or third all star is great enough. I guarantee that Melo would pick the Nets, Bucks or Pacers over NY if he could get 20 mil there verses 10 mil at NY. Lebron would've stayed in Cleveland rather then go to Miami if he had to take a 10 mil per year pay cut to team up with Wade. All that's needed is some parity clauses in the cba.
          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

            I disagree, It can happen if the financial loss of teaming up with a second or third all star is great enough. I guarantee that Melo would pick the Nets, Bucks or Pacers over NY if he could get 20 mil there verses 10 mil at NY. Lebron would've stayed in Cleveland rather then go to Miami if he had to take a 10 mil per year pay cut to team up with Wade. All that's needed is some parity clauses in the cba.
            The NBA union would never agree to a CBA that only allowed free agents to make 50% of the max salary because (a) it's not fair and (b) it's it makes no sense.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
              That won't happen, no matter what salary restrictions the NBA puts in place. Indiana isn't New York.

              New York and LA attracts more quality doctors, lawyers, artists and academics than anywhere else in America. Yet we still have the Mayo Clinic, Kurt Vonnegut and Ohio State University emerging from the midwest. Maybe the most talented athletes don't want to work in Indiana but Indiana usually doesn't attract the most talented people in most fields. This can be overcome through smart management and investment.
              You keep saying this. Now explain how this can occur.

              How can smart management & investment overcome a gathering of supergroups that can be brought together by either going to the mega markets or the worlds sun & fun beach?

              Please be specific and list instances when this has occured in the past.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                Please be specific and list instances when this has occured in the past.
                San Antonio Spurs
                Detroit Pistons
                Oklahoma City Thunder/Seattle Supersonics
                Portland Trailblazers
                Indiana Pacers

                None of these teams is a top ten media or money market in the NBA. In the last 25 years, by my count they have 7 NBA titles and 12 finals appearances combined. Two are championship contenders this year and four are in the playoffs. There are numerous examples of ways these teams have succeeded (economical use of the draft, overseas scouting, swapping stars for assets) despite being in small markets, but I can give specific examples if you need.

                I'm also interested in what teams you think have been hurt by being in small markets. Almost every example I can find of underachieving small market teams begins and ends with "bad management."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                  Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                  I'm also interested in what teams you think have been hurt by being in small markets.
                  Vancouver Grizzlies. lol
                  Follow me at @Bluejbgold

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                    The NBA union would never agree to a CBA that only allowed free agents to make 50% of the max salary because (a) it's not fair and (b) it's it makes no sense.
                    This makes complete sense. A free agent could make the max only if he stays with his own team or moves to a team that doesn't already have a max player. If he wants to join forces with another all star making the max salary or close to it, then he has to take a huge pay cut. Nothing stops the player from making the max salary but each team can be limited to 1 max salary player. The idea is to impose a heavy financial penalty on players like Melo, Lebron, and Bosh who want to join forces on any team. No top player in his prime is going to play for that much less just to join forces with another all star and chase a title. Top players would have to play against each other if they want to get paid.
                    It is fair to the teams because it would apply to every team, and it is fair to the players. They still have free agency and no one is keeping them from signing for the max with a team that has no max player. If they want to take the easy way out and team up on a big market team for almost no salary that would be their choice.
                    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                      San Antonio Spurs
                      Detroit Pistons
                      Oklahoma City Thunder/Seattle Supersonics
                      Portland Trailblazers
                      Indiana Pacers

                      None of these teams is a top ten media or money market in the NBA. In the last 25 years, by my count they have 7 NBA titles and 12 finals appearances combined. Two are championship contenders this year and four are in the playoffs. There are numerous examples of ways these teams have succeeded (economical use of the draft, overseas scouting, swapping stars for assets) despite being in small markets, but I can give specific examples if you need.

                      I'm also interested in what teams you think have been hurt by being in small markets. Almost every example I can find of underachieving small market teams begins and ends with "bad management."
                      Detroit is not a small market.

                      One small market team won a title and that's because they did everything right and had a player with the integrity to stay and win it without another superstar. You can still do everything right and have a player that just wants the bright lights of a big marker and the easy way out by joining forces with other super stars.
                      That's 1 exception and how many are the rule.
                      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                        Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                        This makes complete sense. A free agent could make the max only if he stays with his own team or moves to a team that doesn't already have a max player. If he wants to join forces with another all star making the max salary or close to it, then he has to take a huge pay cut. Nothing stops the player from making the max salary but each team can be limited to 1 max salary player. The idea is to impose a heavy financial penalty on players like Melo, Lebron, and Bosh who want to join forces on any team. No top player in his prime is going to play for that much less just to join forces with another all star and chase a title. Top players would have to play against each other if they want to get paid.
                        It is fair to the teams because it would apply to every team, and it is fair to the players. They still have free agency and no one is keeping them from signing for the max with a team that has no max player. If they want to take the easy way out and team up on a big market team for almost no salary that would be their choice.
                        If there priority is truly encouraging more parity, I think they have to think more along the lines of what you're suggesting. I do agree it's as much or more about elite players dictating where they will play than it is about small vs. large markets.
                        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                        -Emiliano Zapata

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                          Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                          San Antonio Spurs
                          Detroit Pistons
                          Oklahoma City Thunder/Seattle Supersonics
                          Portland Trailblazers
                          Indiana Pacers

                          None of these teams is a top ten media or money market in the NBA. In the last 25 years, by my count they have 7 NBA titles and 12 finals appearances combined. Two are championship contenders this year and four are in the playoffs. There are numerous examples of ways these teams have succeeded (economical use of the draft, overseas scouting, swapping stars for assets) despite being in small markets, but I can give specific examples if you need.

                          I'm also interested in what teams you think have been hurt by being in small markets. Almost every example I can find of underachieving small market teams begins and ends with "bad management."

                          Three of the five teams that you have listed have had success in no small part to luck of the draft.

                          How many times does a team get the chance to draft one of the top big man in the NBA, let alone do it twice. San Antonio

                          How would this team look if instead of taking the best big man available the Trailblazers decided that his injury history made him less appealing than the player many said would be a great scorer in the NBA. OKC

                          What if Grant Hill didn't force a trade via free agency & the unknown (at the time) Ben Wallace didn't become the future rock of a championship team?

                          None of the above were good managment skills, with the exception of the Chucky Atkins & Ben Wallace trade (& we all know they never would have made that trade had Hill not forced it) it was just the luck of being in the right place at the right time.

                          The Pacers had one of the top 10 highest payrolls in the NBA for over a decade & several years were in the top 5. Now that may be good management, I won't disagree however management could never do anything to put them over the top. Why? Even they would tell you they could never attract a marque free agent here because of the market & the fact that they had to over pay the players that were here.

                          Portland I'll give you. They have fielded a competative team year after year while not landing top draft picks that often and when they do it doesn't pan out for them. However again they have never been able to do anything to get over the hump (since the 70's anyway) and they have not attracted free agents to their team either it's mostly been done by drafts & trades.

                          We can skip all of the formalities of going team by team and playe by player I'll just give you one scenario that occured and you now explain to me how the smaller market was not screwed by not being the big glamorous market.

                          In 1996 Shaquille O'Neal left as a free agent from the Orlando Magic to join the Los Angeles Lakers. In the 1994-95 season the Magic played the Houston Rockets in the NBA finals. They lost to the defending champs who were more experianced. The following year they made the E.C. finals only to run into the return of Michael Jordan, which no one was going to stop. Orlando's management did everything that I can think of to put a top contender around Shaq. They brought in veterans (Grant & Shaw) to go along with a decent solid cast of Anderson, Royal & Scott on top of having another young dynamic player in Hardaway.

                          Orlando offered max money to get Shaq to return.

                          He chose to go to the Los Angeles Lakers so he could be a part of the movie & music scene. Remember at the time the Lakers were not the leagues power house at the time of him going there. L.A. did not pay one dime more than Orlando could have & in fact because he was their player the Magic could have paid him more. But by his own words he made it clear that he chose L.A. for the offerings of the market, not the team.

                          Please explain how anything that Orlando did or did not do in this case was bad management on their part & that the bigger market did not have an advantage that could have been over come.

                          I believe every team in the NBA would have opened up their wallets & dumped any player (not named Jordan) to get Shaq to play for them but he only wanted the lights of Hollywood. Thus the case of one market having the supreme advantage over every other team in the NBA due to location.


                          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                            Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                            Detroit is not a small market.
                            It's 13th in the league in population, lower in media markets, and the only city in the top 20 to have lost population in the last decade. Within the next decade it will be in the lower half of NBA cities by metro area. Money-wise it's probably in the bottom ten already.

                            Detroit is a medium market, on it's way to a small market.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              Three of the five teams that you have listed have had success in no small part to luck of the draft.
                              Every team builds through the draft to some extent. Small market teams have to do it more but that's probably for the better anyway.

                              How many times does a team get the chance to draft one of the top big man in the NBA, let alone do it twice. San Antonio
                              San Antonio was lucky to draft Duncan but Duncan was also fortunate to be drafted by San Antonio. They surrounded him with high level role players from the draft and low cost, high reward free agents.

                              What they DIDN'T do was sign over-priced free agents and trade away valuable draft picks like many owners, then blame their predicament on being in a small market. It's not the market, it's the fact that YOU TRADED AWAY YOUR LONG TERM ASSETS FOR SHORT TERM GAINS (Example: Minnesota, Cleveland and Charlotte). The Clippers, Wizards and Warriors do this too but they don't have the easy excuse of the small market.

                              How would this team look if instead of taking the best big man available the Trailblazers decided that his injury history made him less appealing than the player many said would be a great scorer in the NBA. OKC
                              Then Portland, another well run small market team, would have Durant and 50 wins.

                              What if Grant Hill didn't force a trade via free agency & the unknown (at the time) Ben Wallace didn't become the future rock of a championship team?
                              We can play "what if" all day. I care about what happened.

                              None of the above were good managment skills, with the exception of the Chucky Atkins & Ben Wallace trade (& we all know they never would have made that trade had Hill not forced it) it was just the luck of being in the right place at the right time.
                              Maybe so. But what about signing Chauncey for $5 million a year, drafting Tayshaun Prince, trading Stack for Rip and fleecing Danny Ainge to get Sheed? All those are luck too?

                              The Pacers had one of the top 10 highest payrolls in the NBA for over a decade & several years were in the top 5. Now that may be good management, I won't disagree however management could never do anything to put them over the top. Why? Even they would tell you they could never attract a marque free agent here because of the market & the fact that they had to over pay the players that were here.
                              First, the Pacers did what small market teams have to do: Put more money into good teams and hope the extra playoff money and revenue covers the cost. When the team is worse, save money by scaling back and building assets. This is how the Tampa Bay Rays have become so good in baseball and it's how the Pacers have prepared for the next era.

                              Second, I don't understand why anyone would want a marquee free agent. Other than Shaq and LeBron almost every max free agent contract has been a waste of money. Let the big market teams have Rashard Lewis, Elton Brand and Eddy Curry.

                              We can skip all of the formalities of going team by team and playe by player I'll just give you one scenario that occured and you now explain to me how the smaller market was not screwed by not being the big glamorous market.

                              In 1996 Shaquille O'Neal left as a free agent from the Orlando Magic to join the Los Angeles Lakers. In the 1994-95 season the Magic played the Houston Rockets in the NBA finals. They lost to the defending champs who were more experianced. The following year they made the E.C. finals only to run into the return of Michael Jordan, which no one was going to stop. Orlando's management did everything that I can think of to put a top contender around Shaq. They brought in veterans (Grant & Shaw) to go along with a decent solid cast of Anderson, Royal & Scott on top of having another young dynamic player in Hardaway.

                              Orlando offered max money to get Shaq to return.

                              He chose to go to the Los Angeles Lakers so he could be a part of the movie & music scene. Remember at the time the Lakers were not the leagues power house at the time of him going there. L.A. did not pay one dime more than Orlando could have & in fact because he was their player the Magic could have paid him more. But by his own words he made it clear that he chose L.A. for the offerings of the market, not the team.

                              Please explain how anything that Orlando did or did not do in this case was bad management on their part & that the bigger market did not have an advantage that could have been over come.

                              I believe every team in the NBA would have opened up their wallets & dumped any player (not named Jordan) to get Shaq to play for them but he only wanted the lights of Hollywood. Thus the case of one market having the supreme advantage over every other team in the NBA due to location.
                              I never said great players don't leave smaller markets. What I said is that it's not unique to the NBA. Some people want to live in big cities. Teams should expect this. Indianapolis wouldn't expect Tom Cruise to move there, why expect Shaq?

                              But it's not a "supreme advantage." It's an advantage. It's what you need to take into account when you buy a team in a small market. If you open a restaurant in Indianapolis do you complain that you can't get Emeril Lagasse? No, you find chefs who are cheaper and effective in different ways.

                              More importantly, you chose an example BEFORE this current CBA. The way the current CBA is structured superstar players can't leave their current teams (without sacrificing massive amounts of money) for SEVEN years. That's more than enough time served for one franchise. If they want to change teams after nearly a decade I don't see how any rational person can hold it against them.

                              LA won 53 games the year before Shaq got there. True they weren't a powerhouse team at the time but they were still a powerhouse franchise and Shaq knew that. I also would have chosen Jerry West and Jerry Buss to build a team for me over the guy who started Amway.
                              Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 04-13-2011, 08:47 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                                The way the current CBA is structured superstar players can't leave their current teams (without sacrificing massive amounts of money) for SEVEN years. That's more than enough time served for one franchise. If they want to change teams after nearly a decade I don't see how any rational person can hold it against them.
                                There's an external here that gets missed, which is how much of the NBA's marketing depends on promoting a single player. Individual clubs are handicapped doing long-term marketing campaigns for the team as a whole because of the sheer amount of nationwide noise that emphasizes certain players as the reason to watch NBA basketball.

                                That means that a lot of local marketing has to be on convincing local people that one of your guys is at least a good reason to watch, especially if you are not lucky enough for it to be the reason.

                                Obviously, then, when that guy chooses to leave, for whatever reason (bright lights, big city, more endorsement money, to play with his buddies) that means the marketing campaign has to start from scratch.

                                Why does this hurt the small market more than the big one? Because there will always be a certain %age of fans who are fans of the team, and I think that doesn't change much based on size (it changes based on history and success, but I think that becomes circular until you get back to the starting point where the franchise was positioned to become successful, and it can backfire if a major roadblock - like the #1 guy in the league leaving or a run of very bad PR - occurs). By definition, then, in a large market that %age translates into more people who will attend the games when the "name droppers" stop attending - many of whom may be happy to finally get tickets for face value instead of at stupid markups.

                                This is why I think a change in the CBA is not as important as a change in the way the league views its marketing strategy. The league doesn't have to stop marketing stars, that would be stupid since it is how they get recognition from non-fans. In parallel, however, a full league-wide campaign based on "love your local team", with hooks for local marketing interconnect (and removal of that stupid 75-mile limit), would make a huge difference.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X