There are 99 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Jerry West in favor of contraction in the NBA?

This is a very interesting perspective. I think it has some validity. NBA talent is chosen from a huge, worldwide pool now but a lot of the NBA still seems some what diluted. I have NBA league pass and a lot of the games on are hard to watch (this coming from a hardcore NBA fan). Contraction would be wise IMO. This is Jerry West's quote:

"Today you have so many players who are part of teams that probably could not have made a bunch of teams (then). I've always felt that contraction would be good for the NBA. I know Commissioner Stern probably doesn't like it, but some of these small market teams just can't compete financially."

What do you guys think? It's extremely difficult for small market teams to win a ring anyway. I wouldn't mind the league dropping a couple of teams (but not the Kings haha).
I don't agree. Yeah he can say some of these teams are unwatchable at times and fans shouldn't have to watch it, but then you take the team away and they don't even have the OPPORTUNITY to watch. I can't really think of the small market teams he's talking about anyway. Who would you contract?
NO
Originally posted by WillistheWall:
I don't agree. Yeah he can say some of these teams are unwatchable at times and fans shouldn't have to watch it, but then you take the team away and they don't even have the OPPORTUNITY to watch. I can't really think of the small market teams he's talking about anyway. Who would you contract?

The hard part is deciding what teams to contract. I guess it would have to be the teams that make the less money, or lose the most. Being a Kings fan, that might mean my team. I understand what you are saying about fans losing the opportunity to watch their team, I just wish the level of play was better overall.
I disagree with His Holiness on this one. As you mentioned, the talent pool is much broader than it used to be, and I think that marginal players from previous eras would have a hard time making today's teams, not the other way around.

And San Antonio has proven that a well-run franchise can thrive, even if they're in the 37th largest market in the country. And the Knicks have proven that being in a big market doesn't mean squat in the NBA. It all comes down to the quality of your upper management. Oklahoma City is building quite an impressive young squad as well, because they're making intelligent decisions. That's all that matters, IMO.
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I disagree with His Holiness on this one. As you mentioned, the talent pool is much broader than it used to be, and I think that marginal players from previous eras would have a hard time making today's teams, not the other way around.

And San Antonio has proven that a well-run franchise can thrive, even if they're in the 37th largest market in the country. And the Knicks have proven that being in a big market doesn't mean squat in the NBA. It all comes down to the quality of your upper management. Oklahoma City is building quite an impressive young squad as well, because they're making intelligent decisions. That's all that matters, IMO.

this
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I disagree with His Holiness on this one. As you mentioned, the talent pool is much broader than it used to be, and I think that marginal players from previous eras would have a hard time making today's teams, not the other way around.

And San Antonio has proven that a well-run franchise can thrive, even if they're in the 37th largest market in the country. And the Knicks have proven that being in a big market doesn't mean squat in the NBA. It all comes down to the quality of your upper management. Oklahoma City is building quite an impressive young squad as well, because they're making intelligent decisions. That's all that matters, IMO.

Good points. If a small market team can keep a superstar (Duncan in SA or Durant now and in the future in OKC) they can have a chance. But if you look at teams who win the championship it's almost always big market teams. Free agents don't want to play in small markets.
Originally posted by sacniner:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I disagree with His Holiness on this one. As you mentioned, the talent pool is much broader than it used to be, and I think that marginal players from previous eras would have a hard time making today's teams, not the other way around.

And San Antonio has proven that a well-run franchise can thrive, even if they're in the 37th largest market in the country. And the Knicks have proven that being in a big market doesn't mean squat in the NBA. It all comes down to the quality of your upper management. Oklahoma City is building quite an impressive young squad as well, because they're making intelligent decisions. That's all that matters, IMO.

Good points. If a small market team can keep a superstar (Duncan in SA or Durant now and in the future in OKC) they can have a chance. But if you look at teams who win the championship it's almost always big market teams. Free agents don't want to play in small markets.

I think that building a championship squad is almost entirely based upon the draft in the NBA. LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Duncan, D12, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Carmelo Anthony, and virtually every star player of significance is still with the team that drafted them. Almost every NBA team has been over the salary cap, and in the cases of large markets and small markets alike, the teams that have been bad have greatly overpaid for players and paid the price.

I can't think of too many players that a team wanted to keep, but didn't for financial reasons.

For example, last year the biggest free agents were either re-signed by their team, or went to Toronto (Hedo), Portland (Miller), and Detroit (Gordon, Villanueva).

[ Edited by LA9erFan on Jan 20, 2010 at 15:16:31 ]
I agree with West on this - get rid of the Lakers, Celtics and Spurs.
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by sacniner:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I disagree with His Holiness on this one. As you mentioned, the talent pool is much broader than it used to be, and I think that marginal players from previous eras would have a hard time making today's teams, not the other way around.

And San Antonio has proven that a well-run franchise can thrive, even if they're in the 37th largest market in the country. And the Knicks have proven that being in a big market doesn't mean squat in the NBA. It all comes down to the quality of your upper management. Oklahoma City is building quite an impressive young squad as well, because they're making intelligent decisions. That's all that matters, IMO.

Good points. If a small market team can keep a superstar (Duncan in SA or Durant now and in the future in OKC) they can have a chance. But if you look at teams who win the championship it's almost always big market teams. Free agents don't want to play in small markets.

I think that building a championship squad is almost entirely based upon the draft in the NBA. LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Duncan, D12, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Carmelo Anthony, and virtually every star player of significance is still with the team that drafted them. Almost every NBA team has been over the salary cap, and in the cases of large markets and small markets alike, the teams that have been bad have greatly overpaid for players and paid the price.

I can't think of too many players that a team wanted to keep, but didn't for financial reasons.

For example, last year the biggest free agents were either re-signed by their team, or went to Toronto (Hedo), Portland (Miller), and Detroit (Gordon, Villanueva).

No, drafting is part of the equation for a championship but trading/free agency is just as important. Look at the Celtics after getting KG and Ray Allen. Or back when the Lakers got Shaq and recently when they magically got Pau Gasol. Big market teams almost always win the ring. Small market teams can be competitive, but when it comes to winning it all it isn't a coincidence that big market teams usually do.
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by sacniner:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I disagree with His Holiness on this one. As you mentioned, the talent pool is much broader than it used to be, and I think that marginal players from previous eras would have a hard time making today's teams, not the other way around.

And San Antonio has proven that a well-run franchise can thrive, even if they're in the 37th largest market in the country. And the Knicks have proven that being in a big market doesn't mean squat in the NBA. It all comes down to the quality of your upper management. Oklahoma City is building quite an impressive young squad as well, because they're making intelligent decisions. That's all that matters, IMO.

Good points. If a small market team can keep a superstar (Duncan in SA or Durant now and in the future in OKC) they can have a chance. But if you look at teams who win the championship it's almost always big market teams. Free agents don't want to play in small markets.

I think that building a championship squad is almost entirely based upon the draft in the NBA. LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Duncan, D12, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Carmelo Anthony, and virtually every star player of significance is still with the team that drafted them. Almost every NBA team has been over the salary cap, and in the cases of large markets and small markets alike, the teams that have been bad have greatly overpaid for players and paid the price.

I can't think of too many players that a team wanted to keep, but didn't for financial reasons.

For example, last year the biggest free agents were either re-signed by their team, or went to Toronto (Hedo), Portland (Miller), and Detroit (Gordon, Villanueva).

Kobe is not with the team that drafted him.
Originally posted by sacniner:
No, drafting is part of the equation for a championship but trading/free agency is just as important. Look at the Celtics after getting KG and Ray Allen. Or back when the Lakers got Shaq and recently when they magically got Pau Gasol. Big market teams almost always win the ring. Small market teams can be competitive, but when it comes to winning it all it isn't a coincidence that big market teams usually do.

Shaq signed with the Lakers almost 14 years ago. Has there been a superstar that's changed teams via free agency since then? That speaks to how rare it actually is.

The Celtics got KG & Allen via trade. Gasol was the same story. Shaq & Mo Williams were acquired via trade, and it's not like Cleveland's the most desirable place to go. Anyone can make trades, regardless of market size. And everyone does.

6 of the last 11 championships have been won by teams that are in the below the median market size in the NBA. (Spurs 4, Detroit 1, Miami 1)

I use that time frame not for convenience, but due to the fact that the Collective Bargaining Agreement was passed in 1999, and it largely remains the same today.

[ Edited by LA9erFan on Jan 20, 2010 at 15:53:45 ]
I have felt this for years not only about the NBA, but MLB, NFL and the NHL. Talent is just too spread out.

But, clearly it has more to do with dollars than fans. If the fans refused to pay to watch inferior sports, then the dollars wouldn't be there for the owners. It's pure
greed on the part of the owners and players that has brought this on.

In the NFL, why do you have teams in some of the markets? I mean, Jacksonville
really. Some cities are baseball cities like St. Louis. Why do they need a team that for years couldn't beat there way out of a paper sack in football (Now the Cardinals). Oh yea, the Rams moved from the 2nd largest market and won a SB
in St. Louis.

Conversely, why does Pittsburgh have a baseball team. It's been years since they were relavant.

This isn't a grind on small market teams, because some of them have been very successful. Take Green Bay in football. Oakland in baseball. However, do you think that Milwaukee is really relevant in baseball?

There just isn't enough talent to go around. As a baseball fan, I don't have to pay
to see a pro team like the SF Giants who are rarely relevant, but I can pay to see up and coming players in Sacramento or Reno play baseball.

I always felt that 30 was the maximum number of teams that the NFL could support, and even that was stretching it.

The NHL IMO became irrelavant when they expanded past 16 teams.

In baseball, there just aren't enough good pitchers to support the present team
structure, so you have the billionaire teams (NYY, BOS, LAA, LAD etc) and the
beggars (Washington, Tampa Bay, etc) that are nothing but high end pimps to the
billionaire teams.
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by sacniner:
No, drafting is part of the equation for a championship but trading/free agency is just as important. Look at the Celtics after getting KG and Ray Allen. Or back when the Lakers got Shaq and recently when they magically got Pau Gasol. Big market teams almost always win the ring. Small market teams can be competitive, but when it comes to winning it all it isn't a coincidence that big market teams usually do.

Shaq signed with the Lakers almost 14 years ago. Has there been a superstar that's changed teams via free agency since then? That speaks to how rare it actually is.

The Celtics got KG & Allen via trade. Gasol was the same story. Shaq & Mo Williams were acquired via trade, and it's not like Cleveland's the most desirable place to go. Anyone can make trades, regardless of market size. And everyone does.

6 of the last 11 championships have been won by teams that are in the below the median market size in the NBA. (Spurs 4, Detroit 1, Miami 1)

I use that time frame not for convenience, but due to the fact that the Collective Bargaining Agreement was passed in 1999, and it largely remains the same today.

After trading for a high calibur player the big market teams can keep them there. San Antonio is an anomoly because of Duncan. He is a rare superstar who flies under the radar. And the Pistons are also an exception, but they did get Rasheed before they won. Players who get traded to big market teams aren't disgruntled so it works out. I don't consider Miami a small market, but even if they are it is still one of the most desired places to play because, well it's Miami. Your numbers are skewed because of one guy, Duncan, who won four of those rings. And like I said, his personality as an NBA star is very, very rare.
Originally posted by sacniner:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by sacniner:
No, drafting is part of the equation for a championship but trading/free agency is just as important. Look at the Celtics after getting KG and Ray Allen. Or back when the Lakers got Shaq and recently when they magically got Pau Gasol. Big market teams almost always win the ring. Small market teams can be competitive, but when it comes to winning it all it isn't a coincidence that big market teams usually do.

Shaq signed with the Lakers almost 14 years ago. Has there been a superstar that's changed teams via free agency since then? That speaks to how rare it actually is.

The Celtics got KG & Allen via trade. Gasol was the same story. Shaq & Mo Williams were acquired via trade, and it's not like Cleveland's the most desirable place to go. Anyone can make trades, regardless of market size. And everyone does.

6 of the last 11 championships have been won by teams that are in the below the median market size in the NBA. (Spurs 4, Detroit 1, Miami 1)

I use that time frame not for convenience, but due to the fact that the Collective Bargaining Agreement was passed in 1999, and it largely remains the same today.

After trading for a high calibur player the big market teams can keep them there. San Antonio is an anomoly because of Duncan. He is a rare superstar who flies under the radar. And the Pistons are also an exception, but they did get Rasheed before they won. Players who get traded to big market teams aren't disgruntled so it works out. I don't consider Miami a small market, but even if they are it is still one of the most desired places to play because, well it's Miami. Your numbers are skewed because of one guy, Duncan, who won four of those rings. And like I said, his personality as an NBA star is very, very rare.

But my question is...what players of significance HAVE left small markets? Chris Paul signed an extension in New Orleans. Garnett was in Minnesota for ages. Deron Williams re-upped in Utah. Brandon Roy in Portland. Carmelo Anthony in Denver. Carlos Boozer left Cleveland for Utah. Who are you referring to?