Jerry West in favor of contraction in the NBA?

Im not sure where I stand on contraction. I think it would be cool to see more star packed teams and a high level of talent all the time. However some small market teams are building squads that I really like to watch. Portland, OKC, even Memphis is looking better. So overall I guess I agree with LA that its about the decisions you make, it would just be kinda fun to see a higher level of basketball everywhere.

It then sort of becomes a management vs talent debate. Do you contract the NBA to make it more about talent/fundamentals or do you leave it expanded to emphasize more FO decisions and franchise management.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

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?

I see your point. But these are a few guys who have left: Garnett, Allen, Gasol (even though it was a "trade" they were able to retain him), Sheed in Portland, T Mac from Orlando (even though it didn't work out), Malone and GP went to LA when most thought they had everything sowed up. Honestly, I can't think of many so you do have a good point. But this is getting away from the original post.

My original point was that the NBA is diluted. A lot of games are hard to watch. So contraction is interesting to discuss. And if the league did contract, of course small market teams would be the ones left off. Also, big market teams have a significant advantage over small market teams even though you don't think so.

Originally posted by sacniner:
I see your point. But these are a few guys who have left: Garnett, Allen, Gasol (even though it was a "trade" they were able to retain him), Sheed in Portland, T Mac from Orlando (even though it didn't work out), Malone and GP went to LA when most thought they had everything sowed up. Honestly, I can't think of many so you do have a good point. But this is getting away from the original post.

My original point was that the NBA is diluted. A lot of games are hard to watch. So contraction is interesting to discuss. And if the league did contract, of course small market teams would be the ones left off. Also, big market teams have a significant advantage over small market teams even though you don't think so.

I disagree with the Garnett, Allen, Gasol, & Sheed examples. KG spent over a decade in Minnesota, and that team was going nowhere and looking to rebuild, and they needed cap space in order to do so. They traded for cheap, talented players, with the main piece being Al Jefferson. That's true of any team, big market or small. The same is true of each player that you cited. Memphis traded Gasol for cap space, and then tried to get Josh Smith (Atlanta matched the offer sheet they signed him to), and then spent a crap load of money on Zach Randolph. OKC rid themselves of Allen & Rashard Lewis for the purpose of building the team that they have now. That's a basketball move, and a smart one.

Anyway, regarding the dilution of talent...how is it diluted? It's expanded by one team in the last 13 years, and in that time the rest of the world has started to play basketball at a very high level. There are 75 international players in the NBA right now, IIRC. So if it's diluted...compared to when? The talent pool was much, much smaller in the 50's through 90's. This doesn't even account for the growth in the American population and the unprecedented interest in the sport that Magic/Bird/Jordan were able to achieve. Those who were kids watching them are playing basketball now.

I apologize if I'm being contrarian, I just disagree with your POV.

[ Edited by LA9erFan on Jan 20, 2010 at 16:46:54 ]

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by sacniner:
I see your point. But these are a few guys who have left: Garnett, Allen, Gasol (even though it was a "trade" they were able to retain him), Sheed in Portland, T Mac from Orlando (even though it didn't work out), Malone and GP went to LA when most thought they had everything sowed up. Honestly, I can't think of many so you do have a good point. But this is getting away from the original post.

My original point was that the NBA is diluted. A lot of games are hard to watch. So contraction is interesting to discuss. And if the league did contract, of course small market teams would be the ones left off. Also, big market teams have a significant advantage over small market teams even though you don't think so.

I disagree with the Garnett, Allen, Gasol, & Sheed examples. KG spent over a decade in Minnesota, and that team was going nowhere and looking to rebuild, and they needed cap space in order to do so. They traded for cheap, talented players, with the main piece being Al Jefferson. That's true of any team, big market or small. The same is true of each player that you cited. Memphis traded Gasol for cap space, and then tried to get Josh Smith (Atlanta matched the offer sheet they signed him to), and then spent a crap load of money on Zach Randolph. OKC rid themselves of Allen & Rashard Lewis for the purpose of building the team that they have now. That's a basketball move, and a smart one.

Anyway, regarding the dilution of talent...how is it diluted? It's expanded by one team in the last 13 years, and in that time the rest of the world has started to play basketball at a very high level. There are 75 international players in the NBA right now, IIRC. So if it's diluted...compared to when? The talent pool was much, much smaller in the 50's through 90's. This doesn't even account for the growth in the American population and the unprecedented interest in the sport that Magic/Bird/Jordan were able to achieve. Those who were kids watching them are playing basketball now.

I apologize if I'm being contrarian, I just disagree with your POV.

Geez man, just agree with me

Originally posted by sacniner:
Geez man, just agree with me

It's not in my nature! It's a tormented existence.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by sacniner:
I see your point. But these are a few guys who have left: Garnett, Allen, Gasol (even though it was a "trade" they were able to retain him), Sheed in Portland, T Mac from Orlando (even though it didn't work out), Malone and GP went to LA when most thought they had everything sowed up. Honestly, I can't think of many so you do have a good point. But this is getting away from the original post.

My original point was that the NBA is diluted. A lot of games are hard to watch. So contraction is interesting to discuss. And if the league did contract, of course small market teams would be the ones left off. Also, big market teams have a significant advantage over small market teams even though you don't think so.

I disagree with the Garnett, Allen, Gasol, & Sheed examples. KG spent over a decade in Minnesota, and that team was going nowhere and looking to rebuild, and they needed cap space in order to do so. They traded for cheap, talented players, with the main piece being Al Jefferson. That's true of any team, big market or small. The same is true of each player that you cited. Memphis traded Gasol for cap space, and then tried to get Josh Smith (Atlanta matched the offer sheet they signed him to), and then spent a crap load of money on Zach Randolph. OKC rid themselves of Allen & Rashard Lewis for the purpose of building the team that they have now. That's a basketball move, and a smart one.

Anyway, regarding the dilution of talent...how is it diluted? It's expanded by one team in the last 13 years, and in that time the rest of the world has started to play basketball at a very high level. There are 75 international players in the NBA right now, IIRC. So if it's diluted...compared to when? The talent pool was much, much smaller in the 50's through 90's. This doesn't even account for the growth in the American population and the unprecedented interest in the sport that Magic/Bird/Jordan were able to achieve. Those who were kids watching them are playing basketball now.

I apologize if I'm being contrarian, I just disagree with your POV.

I'd say 3 teams in the last 15 years is a better stat.

Originally posted by 9erReign:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by sacniner:
I see your point. But these are a few guys who have left: Garnett, Allen, Gasol (even though it was a "trade" they were able to retain him), Sheed in Portland, T Mac from Orlando (even though it didn't work out), Malone and GP went to LA when most thought they had everything sowed up. Honestly, I can't think of many so you do have a good point. But this is getting away from the original post.

My original point was that the NBA is diluted. A lot of games are hard to watch. So contraction is interesting to discuss. And if the league did contract, of course small market teams would be the ones left off. Also, big market teams have a significant advantage over small market teams even though you don't think so.

I disagree with the Garnett, Allen, Gasol, & Sheed examples. KG spent over a decade in Minnesota, and that team was going nowhere and looking to rebuild, and they needed cap space in order to do so. They traded for cheap, talented players, with the main piece being Al Jefferson. That's true of any team, big market or small. The same is true of each player that you cited. Memphis traded Gasol for cap space, and then tried to get Josh Smith (Atlanta matched the offer sheet they signed him to), and then spent a crap load of money on Zach Randolph. OKC rid themselves of Allen & Rashard Lewis for the purpose of building the team that they have now. That's a basketball move, and a smart one.

Anyway, regarding the dilution of talent...how is it diluted? It's expanded by one team in the last 13 years, and in that time the rest of the world has started to play basketball at a very high level. There are 75 international players in the NBA right now, IIRC. So if it's diluted...compared to when? The talent pool was much, much smaller in the 50's through 90's. This doesn't even account for the growth in the American population and the unprecedented interest in the sport that Magic/Bird/Jordan were able to achieve. Those who were kids watching them are playing basketball now.

I apologize if I'm being contrarian, I just disagree with your POV.

I'd say 3 teams in the last 15 years is a better stat.

Then say it.......

Originally posted by 9erReign:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by sacniner:
I see your point. But these are a few guys who have left: Garnett, Allen, Gasol (even though it was a "trade" they were able to retain him), Sheed in Portland, T Mac from Orlando (even though it didn't work out), Malone and GP went to LA when most thought they had everything sowed up. Honestly, I can't think of many so you do have a good point. But this is getting away from the original post.

My original point was that the NBA is diluted. A lot of games are hard to watch. So contraction is interesting to discuss. And if the league did contract, of course small market teams would be the ones left off. Also, big market teams have a significant advantage over small market teams even though you don't think so.

I disagree with the Garnett, Allen, Gasol, & Sheed examples. KG spent over a decade in Minnesota, and that team was going nowhere and looking to rebuild, and they needed cap space in order to do so. They traded for cheap, talented players, with the main piece being Al Jefferson. That's true of any team, big market or small. The same is true of each player that you cited. Memphis traded Gasol for cap space, and then tried to get Josh Smith (Atlanta matched the offer sheet they signed him to), and then spent a crap load of money on Zach Randolph. OKC rid themselves of Allen & Rashard Lewis for the purpose of building the team that they have now. That's a basketball move, and a smart one.

Anyway, regarding the dilution of talent...how is it diluted? It's expanded by one team in the last 13 years, and in that time the rest of the world has started to play basketball at a very high level. There are 75 international players in the NBA right now, IIRC. So if it's diluted...compared to when? The talent pool was much, much smaller in the 50's through 90's. This doesn't even account for the growth in the American population and the unprecedented interest in the sport that Magic/Bird/Jordan were able to achieve. Those who were kids watching them are playing basketball now.

I apologize if I'm being contrarian, I just disagree with your POV.

I'd say 3 teams in the last 15 years is a better stat.

And that's still one of the slowest 15 year periods in NBA history. And there were 6 or 7 seasons before that without expansion as well.

I agree with Jerry West, the NBA is hard to watch. Many players are just garbage, many cant even make half of there free throws.

Im a die hard Laker fan but the NBA is a very boring game to watch. Most of the teams dont even play hard. Many of the arenas are half empty. There is no energy in many of the games now.

Originally posted by susweel:
I agree with Jerry West, the NBA is hard to watch. Many players are just garbage, many cant even make half of there free throws.

Im a die hard Laker fan but the NBA is a very boring game to watch. Most of the teams dont even play hard. Many of the arenas are half empty. There is no energy in many of the games now.

The league's FT% last year was the highest in NBA history. I think most people are remembering a time that never existed.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by susweel:
I agree with Jerry West, the NBA is hard to watch. Many players are just garbage, many cant even make half of there free throws.

Im a die hard Laker fan but the NBA is a very boring game to watch. Most of the teams dont even play hard. Many of the arenas are half empty. There is no energy in many of the games now.

The league's FT% last year was the highest in NBA history. I think most people are remembering a time that never existed.

I agree 100%. THey remember Bird, MJ, Magic, Kareem, etc. and assume everything was perfect. Nope. There were still crappy players in the 80s, 70s, 60s. Guys still missed some free throws. If anything there's more talent because there's more people playing the game. Not to mention plenty of the teams that are horrible are big market teams. Look at the Knicks and Nets. They're not very good, and they play in that area that has millions and millions of people. According to the theory the small market teams have a hard time, the Knicks should be better than Utah or OKC. NJ(soon to be NY) should have more than 3 wins.

Originally posted by WillistheWall:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by susweel:
I agree with Jerry West, the NBA is hard to watch. Many players are just garbage, many cant even make half of there free throws.

Im a die hard Laker fan but the NBA is a very boring game to watch. Most of the teams dont even play hard. Many of the arenas are half empty. There is no energy in many of the games now.

The league's FT% last year was the highest in NBA history. I think most people are remembering a time that never existed.

I agree 100%. THey remember Bird, MJ, Magic, Kareem, etc. and assume everything was perfect. Nope. There were still crappy players in the 80s, 70s, 60s. Guys still missed some free throws. If anything there's more talent because there's more people playing the game. Not to mention plenty of the teams that are horrible are big market teams. Look at the Knicks and Nets. They're not very good, and they play in that area that has millions and millions of people. According to the theory the small market teams have a hard time, the Knicks should be better than Utah or OKC. NJ(soon to be NY) should have more than 3 wins.

Guys could actually shoot the basketball back then. Players actually could make a mid range jumper. Also there wasn't all these wonna be gangsters and thugs with 50 million tattoos all over there body. NBA should look like a professional league not a game played in a ghetto some where.

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by WillistheWall:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by susweel:
I agree with Jerry West, the NBA is hard to watch. Many players are just garbage, many cant even make half of there free throws.

Im a die hard Laker fan but the NBA is a very boring game to watch. Most of the teams dont even play hard. Many of the arenas are half empty. There is no energy in many of the games now.

The league's FT% last year was the highest in NBA history. I think most people are remembering a time that never existed.

I agree 100%. THey remember Bird, MJ, Magic, Kareem, etc. and assume everything was perfect. Nope. There were still crappy players in the 80s, 70s, 60s. Guys still missed some free throws. If anything there's more talent because there's more people playing the game. Not to mention plenty of the teams that are horrible are big market teams. Look at the Knicks and Nets. They're not very good, and they play in that area that has millions and millions of people. According to the theory the small market teams have a hard time, the Knicks should be better than Utah or OKC. NJ(soon to be NY) should have more than 3 wins.

Guys could actually shoot the basketball back then. Players actually could make a mid range jumper. Also there wasn't all these wonna be gangsters and thugs with 50 million tattoos all over there body. NBA should look like a professional league not a game played in a ghetto some where.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/thread.php?num=136916

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by WillistheWall:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by susweel:
I agree with Jerry West, the NBA is hard to watch. Many players are just garbage, many cant even make half of there free throws.

Im a die hard Laker fan but the NBA is a very boring game to watch. Most of the teams dont even play hard. Many of the arenas are half empty. There is no energy in many of the games now.

The league's FT% last year was the highest in NBA history. I think most people are remembering a time that never existed.

I agree 100%. THey remember Bird, MJ, Magic, Kareem, etc. and assume everything was perfect. Nope. There were still crappy players in the 80s, 70s, 60s. Guys still missed some free throws. If anything there's more talent because there's more people playing the game. Not to mention plenty of the teams that are horrible are big market teams. Look at the Knicks and Nets. They're not very good, and they play in that area that has millions and millions of people. According to the theory the small market teams have a hard time, the Knicks should be better than Utah or OKC. NJ(soon to be NY) should have more than 3 wins.

Guys could actually shoot the basketball back then. Players actually could make a mid range jumper. Also there wasn't all these wonna be gangsters and thugs with 50 million tattoos all over there body. NBA should look like a professional league not a game played in a ghetto some where.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/thread.php?num=136916

Thats taking a bit too far. But I do think that Stern should look into a professional look policy. I know he did the thing with making them wear suits and ties to the games. He might also want figure out a way so he can limit the number of tattoos on a player.

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by WillistheWall:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by susweel:
I agree with Jerry West, the NBA is hard to watch. Many players are just garbage, many cant even make half of there free throws.

Im a die hard Laker fan but the NBA is a very boring game to watch. Most of the teams dont even play hard. Many of the arenas are half empty. There is no energy in many of the games now.

The league's FT% last year was the highest in NBA history. I think most people are remembering a time that never existed.

I agree 100%. THey remember Bird, MJ, Magic, Kareem, etc. and assume everything was perfect. Nope. There were still crappy players in the 80s, 70s, 60s. Guys still missed some free throws. If anything there's more talent because there's more people playing the game. Not to mention plenty of the teams that are horrible are big market teams. Look at the Knicks and Nets. They're not very good, and they play in that area that has millions and millions of people. According to the theory the small market teams have a hard time, the Knicks should be better than Utah or OKC. NJ(soon to be NY) should have more than 3 wins.

Guys could actually shoot the basketball back then. Players actually could make a mid range jumper. Also there wasn't all these wonna be gangsters and thugs with 50 million tattoos all over there body. NBA should look like a professional league not a game played in a ghetto some where.

And they shoot that mid range jumper more effectively now than ever, but they don't take it nearly as much because it's a low percentage shot that still only counts for 2 points.

As someone pointed out in the all-time draft thread, Darrell Griffith was second in the league with a 28.8% from three point land during the 82-83 season. Today, the entire league AVERAGES 35.1% from 3. But I'm supposed to believe that all of a sudden, NBA players from the 80's were much better shooters than today's player when they're 1-2 steps closer? Even though the free throw shooters are better today too?