*NBA THREAD* Abe will be missed (5 Viewers)

[Sinn Fein]

How are those "small-market" teams faring under the current system?

Judging by the list of NBA champs going back to Seattle in 1979 - you are looking at two (2) smaller-market teams in the last 35 years - Seattle and San Antonio. And, I would argue that San Antonio is winning because they are a well-run organization who are good at identifying and coaching the right players.

So, stop with the whole "who-will-think-of-the-small-markets" crap - its not working for them now.

 

[thecatch]

You guys wanting to get rid of the draft may as well fold the Midwest and super small market teams while you're there. You'll basically have a European soccer league where the same teams are successful every year.

Would Wiggins take $3m to play for a nearly capped out team in a big market, or $10m to play in Orlando?

There would always be one big sized team that cleared money for a guy like that. Literally no free agent would go to Milwaukee, Indiana or Minnesota. May as well shut it down.

So the one big market team that clears cap room is going to sign all the major free agents, despite most of those players having substantially more lucrative offers from other teams across the league ?The only scenario in which big market teams would have a decisive advantage is when they are offering the same salaries as the small market teams. If this sounds familiar, it should.

 

[pollardsvision]

Just to respond to a couple of points - I would not mind if all leagues got rid of the draft. It really promotes mediocrity - which is the antithesis of the American way - reward those that deserve to be rewarded. Well run organizations will be more successful, and reap the rewards, than teams that are more poorly run. That will encourage the poorly run teams to improve - this is a classic win-win scenario that elevates the entire product.

Second, tanking does not occur because the #1 pick will necessarily elevate a team - it occurs because the perception is there that the #1 pick will elevate the team.

Given the current structure - NBA teams believe that losing on the court is good for the long-term success of the business. That is an odd way to look at any competitive sport - teams should not be "rewarded" for losing.

You are looking at the wrong end. It's not the reward for a super high draft pick. It's the lack of reward for an 8-seed.

Most teams are still shooting for that 8-seed anyway (even if their fans might not even want them to).

There's not a problem here.

BTW, when you say "promoting mediocrity", I think you mean "promoting terrible". Nobody promotes mediocrity like the NFL. The NBA's perceived problem by people like you is not promoting enough of it themselves.

 

[Slapdash]

No draft.

No salary max for an individual player

Hard salary cap

Problem solved.

Is the problem trying to figure out how to make the Lakers win everything again?

If the early 2000s Lakers had to pay Kobe and Shaq their true value to the team (we're talking maybe $50+ million), there's no way they can keep those two guys with a hard cap and they don't come close to winning 3 in a row.

Maybe so. The problem I see is that rookies are always going to choose to go to more desirable/successful teams. The equivalent of the number one pick is not going to choose to go to teams like the Bucks or Jazz without getting overpaid in a way that hampers the rest of the squad.

 

[the moops]

You guys wanting to get rid of the draft may as well fold the Midwest and super small market teams while you're there. You'll basically have a European soccer league where the same teams are successful every year.

Would Wiggins take $3m to play for a nearly capped out team in a big market, or $10m to play in Orlando?

There would always be one big sized team that cleared money for a guy like that. Literally no free agent would go to Milwaukee, Indiana or Minnesota. May as well shut it down.

If those teams offered more money then of course free agents would go there.This whole notion of star players wanting to go to just warm climate big cities is completely overblown, IMO.

 

[Village Idiot]

No draft.

No salary max for an individual player

Hard salary cap

Problem solved.

So Kobe would be making 62 million this year?

 

[Abraham]

No draft.

No salary max for an individual player

Hard salary cap

Problem solved.

Is the problem trying to figure out how to make the Lakers win everything again?

If the early 2000s Lakers had to pay Kobe and Shaq their true value to the team (we're talking maybe $50+ million), there's no way they can keep those two guys with a hard cap and they don't come close to winning 3 in a row.

Maybe so. The problem I see is that rookies are always going to choose to go to more desirable/successful teams. The equivalent of the number one pick is not going to choose to go to teams like the Bucks or Jazz without getting overpaid in a way that hampers the rest of the squad.

Superstars are already overpaid in a way that hampers the rest of the squad. So are non-superstars. What's the difference between Eric Gordon and Emeka Okafor making 14 million a year and the Raptors giving Wiggins 14 million (and punting on Lowry) to come home to Canada?

 

[thecatch]

No draft.

No salary max for an individual player

Hard salary cap

Problem solved.

Is the problem trying to figure out how to make the Lakers win everything again?

If the early 2000s Lakers had to pay Kobe and Shaq their true value to the team (we're talking maybe $50+ million), there's no way they can keep those two guys with a hard cap and they don't come close to winning 3 in a row.

Maybe so. The problem I see is that rookies are always going to choose to go to more desirable/successful teams. The equivalent of the number one pick is not going to choose to go to teams like the Bucks or Jazz without getting overpaid in a way that hampers the rest of the squad.

So teams need to be smart about the top rookies they throw money at. I agree that if some team went all in on an Anthony Bennett type, they'd be in a big hole. But at least the success or failure of that plan is entirely on them, not on how a bunch of ping pong balls fell.

 

[Sinn Fein]

No draft.

No salary max for an individual player

Hard salary cap

Problem solved.

So Kobe would be making 62 million this year?

Depends on what the hard salary cap is, but if some team is willing to pay Kobe $62M, why is that a problem for any team other than the team that has sunk most of its cap space into a single player.

 

[Gatorman]

No draft.

No salary max for an individual player

Hard salary cap

Problem solved.

So Kobe would be making 62 million this year?

No salary max and a hard cap would solve this pretty quickly.

AS to the drafting of players and the age of players drafted, it is hard to have one without the other. It is one thing to have 18 - 20 year old kids being draft picks where they get a 3 -4 year deal to learn how to play the pro game vs college kids who get that experience at the college level. If you are going to let kids in, you do not want teams overbidding on an 18 year old (or you will need to go the Baseball route with a minor league etc), so you need some cost control system to deal with that. I'd say a round draft but with a 2 year deal with a team option in year 3. I'd also have a 2 round supplemental draft for teams for players who are invited to summer league and are d league designates for their NBA team.

 

[Abraham]

No draft.

No salary max for an individual player

Hard salary cap

Problem solved.

So Kobe would be making 62 million this year?

Well, this is how it would have to go....

Rookie min: 500k (essentially what it is now).

Year 2-4 min: $1MM

Year 5+ min: 1.2MM

Must have 13 players on roster.

So the max a single player could earn in a cap of $63M would be $57 million...and he'd be playing with 12 rookies.

The thing is, anywhere Lebron or Durant or the real stars go will likely bring the kind of success that makes paying them that much reasonable. A team like the Spurs has guys take pay cuts to be a great "team?" Neat. Wizards give Durant 50 million a year and stick him with 12 guys earning a million? No problem.

 

[Village Idiot]

Someone posted this;

Cavs aquire James Jones in a three team deal that will send GM Mitch Kupchak, Commentator James Worthy and the entire Laker training staff to the Knicks.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Just to play out the whole "draft-is-good-for-bad-teams" concept - how many 1st picks in the draft have gone on to win a championship with the team that drafted them.

Or, lets expand it a bit further how many 1st picks have won a championship, anywhere, where they played a meaningful role?

Lets start with 1979 - Magic Johnson.

Go.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Someone posted this;

Cavs aquire James Jones in a three team deal that will send GM Mitch Kupchak, Commentator James Worthy and the entire Laker training staff to the Knicks.

Gary Vitti is untouchable.

 

[pollardsvision]

Just to play out the whole "draft-is-good-for-bad-teams" concept - how many 1st picks in the draft have gone on to win a championship with the team that drafted them.

Or, lets expand it a bit further how many 1st picks have won a championship, anywhere, where they played a meaningful role?

Lets start with 1979 - Magic Johnson.

Go.

We already played this game.

As we're seeing, that data can be used to try to illustrate a number of different points.

 

[Village Idiot]

Just to play out the whole "draft-is-good-for-bad-teams" concept - how many 1st picks in the draft have gone on to win a championship with the team that drafted them.

Or, lets expand it a bit further how many 1st picks have won a championship, anywhere, where they played a meaningful role?

Lets start with 1979 - Magic Johnson.

Go.

1979 - Magic Johnson YES

1980 - Joe barry Carroll NO

1981 - Mark Aguirre NO

1982 - James Worthy YES

1983 - Ralph Sampson NO

1984 - Hakeem Olajuwon YES

1985 - Patrick Ewing NO

1986 - Brad Daugherty NO

1987 - David Robinson YES

1988 - Danny Manning NO

1989 - Pervis Ellison - NO

1990 - Derrick Coleman NO

1991 - Larry Johnson - NO

1992 - Shaq - YES

1993 - Chris Webber NO

1994 - Glenn Robinson NO

1995 - Joe Smith NO

1996 - Allen Iverson NO

1997 - Tim Duncan YES

1998 - Michael Olowokandi NO

1999 - Elton Brand NO

2000 - Kenyon Martin NO

2001 - Kwame Brown NO

2002 - Yao Ming NO

2003 - LeBron James YES

2004 - Dwight Howard NO

2005 - Andrew Bogut NO

2006 - Andrea Bargnani NO

2007 - Greg Oden NO

2008 - Derrick Rose NO

2009 - Blake Griffin NO

2010 - John Wall NO

2011 - Kyrie Irving NO

2012 - Anthony Davis NO

2013 - Anthonly Bennett NO

2014 - Andrew Wiggins NO

7 of 36 unless I screwed up on the YES NO.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

7 of 36 unless I screwed up on the YES NO.

Gotta count total titles. Duncan and LeBron account for 7 alone.

ETA: And just counting #1 picks is pretty silly.

 

[Freelove]

7 of 36 unless I screwed up on the YES NO.

Gotta count total titles. Duncan and LeBron account for 7 alone.

ETA: And just counting #1 picks is pretty silly.

As is the idea that an absence of titles means Yao Ming, Allen Iverson, Patrick Ewiing, Anthony Davis, etc., weren't "good for bad teams."

(And Aguirre was a very meaningful player on two title teams.)

 

[MAC_32]

I think the Wolves will ultimately choose a package that features picks more than players.

At this point with Boston having somewhere in the neighborhood of 9 first round picks in the next three years, I agree. I think we see a three team deal, and it could be Boston, Golden State, Minny, with lots of Love and draft picks. Cavs are missing a chance to win now, but I respect their feelings about Wiggins, just hope the kid is as good as advertised, we know how good Love is right now

This is the situation that scares me as a Cavs fan.

We hold tight to the no Wiggins included stance, Love goes somewhere else and Wiggins turns out to be meh or even just an average player and the cavs never win a title.

Its making me lean more towards saying go for it and do a package that includes Wiggins now.

Then I'll be sick worrying about how the Cavs can't get enough good pieces to support Irving, Love, LeBron.

You make a good point, the Cavs by signing LeBron are in the mix to win a championship, with Love their the leader to win a championship, LeBron is on board for only two years as we speak, will Wiggins be as good as love over the next two years, I don't think so. LeBron is 30 now in his prime, seems like the time to go for it all, rather then spend time developing young players. Wiggin's for Love seems like a win win for both teams. happens

Right or wrong, Cavs don't seem to be operating under a two year window.

 

[ShaqAttaq]

although it was previously noted, Mark Aguirre was great on the Pistons 89 & 90 title teams.

 

[Niles Standish]

Just to play out the whole "draft-is-good-for-bad-teams" concept - how many 1st picks in the draft have gone on to win a championship with the team that drafted them.

Or, lets expand it a bit further how many 1st picks have won a championship, anywhere, where they played a meaningful role?

Lets start with 1979 - Magic Johnson.

Go.

Look at the good small market teams next year.

Oklahoma City did it with high picks.

San Antonio did it with Duncan a high can't miss and hitting on later picks.

Cleveland lot of #1 picks plus former #1 pick in LeBron.

Indianapolis did it with the draft, but not extremely high picks.

Memphis these guys did it mainly through trades and I'd argue some luck.

Am I missing anyone? They've mostly done it in the draft lottery.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Just to play out the whole "draft-is-good-for-bad-teams" concept - how many 1st picks in the draft have gone on to win a championship with the team that drafted them.

Or, lets expand it a bit further how many 1st picks have won a championship, anywhere, where they played a meaningful role?

Lets start with 1979 - Magic Johnson.

Go.

Look at the good small market teams next year.

Oklahoma City did it with high picks.

San Antonio did it with Duncan a high can't miss and hitting on later picks.

Cleveland lot of #1 picks plus former #1 pick in LeBron.

Indianapolis did it with the draft, but not extremely high picks.

Memphis these guys did it mainly through trades and I'd argue some luck.

Am I missing anyone? They've mostly done it in the draft lottery.

In the last 35 years, two "small-market" teams have won - Seattle in 1979, and San Antonio several times.

Clearly the draft system is not helping small market teams win championships. And that is ultimately how we are measuring success, right? We are not awarding certificates of achievement here, are we?

This whole notion that small-market teams won't be able to compete without a draft is a bunch of malarky.

Do away with the draft, and reward teams for their play on the court. Well run organizations will compete in any market, poorly run teams will suffer in any market.

 

[Niles Standish]

Just to play out the whole "draft-is-good-for-bad-teams" concept - how many 1st picks in the draft have gone on to win a championship with the team that drafted them.

Or, lets expand it a bit further how many 1st picks have won a championship, anywhere, where they played a meaningful role?

Lets start with 1979 - Magic Johnson.

Go.

Look at the good small market teams next year.

Oklahoma City did it with high picks.

San Antonio did it with Duncan a high can't miss and hitting on later picks.

Cleveland lot of #1 picks plus former #1 pick in LeBron.

Indianapolis did it with the draft, but not extremely high picks.

Memphis these guys did it mainly through trades and I'd argue some luck.

Am I missing anyone? They've mostly done it in the draft lottery.

In the last 35 years, two "small-market" teams have won - Seattle in 1979, and San Antonio several times.

Clearly the draft system is not helping small market teams win championships. And that is ultimately how we are measuring success, right? We are not awarding certificates of achievement here, are we?

This whole notion that small-market teams won't be able to compete without a draft is a bunch of malarky.

Do away with the draft, and reward teams for their play on the court. Well run organizations will compete in any market, poorly run teams will suffer in any market.

How small are we talking? Miami is listed as smaller than Cleveland/Phoenix/Minny.

http://nbahoopsonline.com/generalinfo/Smallestmarkets.html

If Miami/SA are small that's 8 championships in that time. About 25% of the total championships since Seattle.

LA

Boston

Detroit

Philly

Chicago

Houston

San Antonio

Miami

Dallas

There have only been 9 teams to win since Seattle.

edit: bad math

 

[Abraham]

In the last 35 years, two "small-market" teams have won - Seattle in 1979, and San Antonio several times.

I reject the premise that "winning the title" is the only barometer of success. Of course that's the main goal. but there is only one Champion each year so implicitly saying that 29 teams "fail" each season is silly. Furthermore, pointing out that only two small market teams have won a title overlooks the fact that (1) San Antonio accounts for 14% of all titles won since 1979 and (2) a number of small market teams have made the Finals (Orlando x 2, OKC, Seattle, Utah, etc.)

 

[Sinn Fein]

From that site: The 15 smallest NBA cities - Listed by metropolitan statistical area, out of 362 total areas (2004 MSA population):

1. Salt Lake City, Utah (1,018,826)
2. Memphis, Tennessee (1,250,293)
3. New Orleans, Louisiana (1,319,589)
4. Charlotte, North Carolina (1,474,734)
5. Milwaukee, Wisconsin (1,515,738)
6. Indianapolis, Indiana (1,621,613)
7. San Antonio, Texas (1,854,050)
8. Orlando, Florida (1,861,707)
9. Sacramento, California (2,016,702)
10. Portland, Oregon (2,064,336)
11. Cleveland, Ohio (2,137,073)
12. Denver, Colorado (2,330,146)
13. Minneapolis, Minnesota (3,116,206)
14. Seattle, Washington (3,166,828)
15. Phoenix, Arizona (3,715,360)

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

You guys wanting to get rid of the draft may as well fold the Midwest and super small market teams while you're there. You'll basically have a European soccer league where the same teams are successful every year.

You say this like its a bad thing. How is the current system working out for the small-market teams? I would say that a team like the Spurs would still be successful based on their ability to find the right players for their system and coach them well.

But they would have won zero titles without David Robinson or Tim Duncan. So I guess it depends of which definition of success is convenient at the moment.

 

[Kev4029]

No draft.

No salary max for an individual player

Hard salary cap

Problem solved.

This is different than just saying no draft. Makes more sense.

Still not sure the smaller market/non destination teams would go for it. You can run your team well and still get leftovers in this scenario.

It doesn't matter if the owners/teams would go for it because the players would never go for it. They would be sacrificing earnings to players who aren't in the league yet and therefor have no representation in the players union.

 

[Sinn Fein]

In the last 35 years, two "small-market" teams have won - Seattle in 1979, and San Antonio several times.

I reject the premise that "winning the title" is the only barometer of success. Of course that's the main goal. but there is only one Champion each year so implicitly saying that 29 teams "fail" each season is silly. Furthermore, pointing out that only two small market teams have won a title overlooks the fact that (1) San Antonio accounts for 14% of all titles won since 1979 and (2) a number of small market teams have made the Finals (Orlando x 2, OKC, Seattle, Utah, etc.)

Ok - using the list of the 15 smallest markets - since 1979 when Seattle won, there have been 72 teams that have played in the finals. 17 came from that list of 15-smallest markets, 55 came from the 15 largest markets.

If the draft was the great equalizer that people think that it is, you would expect a much more even distribution among small and big market teams.

The reality is the draft does not make it easier for small market teams to win a championship. So, what is the value of having the draft?

 

[Kev4029]

The elimination of max salaries will never fly either, 95% of the the players would lose money with that. Same goes for a hard cap, although the effect on players salaries would be less than either eliminating max salaries or the draft.

 

[Kev4029]

In the last 35 years, two "small-market" teams have won - Seattle in 1979, and San Antonio several times.

I reject the premise that "winning the title" is the only barometer of success. Of course that's the main goal. but there is only one Champion each year so implicitly saying that 29 teams "fail" each season is silly. Furthermore, pointing out that only two small market teams have won a title overlooks the fact that (1) San Antonio accounts for 14% of all titles won since 1979 and (2) a number of small market teams have made the Finals (Orlando x 2, OKC, Seattle, Utah, etc.)

Ok - using the list of the 15 smallest markets - since 1979 when Seattle won, there have been 72 teams that have played in the finals. 17 came from that list of 15-smallest markets, 55 came from the 15 largest markets.

If the draft was the great equalizer that people think that it is, you would expect a much more even distribution among small and big market teams.

The reality is the draft does not make it easier for small market teams to win a championship. So, what is the value of having the draft?

The draft doesn't bring parity, but it brings the league closer to parity.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

From that site: The 15 smallest NBA cities - Listed by metropolitan statistical area, out of 362 total areas (2004 MSA population):

1. Salt Lake City, Utah (1,018,826)

2. Memphis, Tennessee (1,250,293)

3. New Orleans, Louisiana (1,319,589)

4. Charlotte, North Carolina (1,474,734)

5. Milwaukee, Wisconsin (1,515,738)

6. Indianapolis, Indiana (1,621,613)

7. San Antonio, Texas (1,854,050)

8. Orlando, Florida (1,861,707)

9. Sacramento, California (2,016,702)

10. Portland, Oregon (2,064,336)

11. Cleveland, Ohio (2,137,073)

12. Denver, Colorado (2,330,146)

13. Minneapolis, Minnesota (3,116,206)

14. Seattle, Washington (3,166,828)

15. Phoenix, Arizona (3,715,360)

Utah got the Finals twice in the 1990s.

Indiana got to the Finals in 2000, had has fielded several championship threats over the last 20 years.

San Antonio has won 5 championships since 1999 thanks to two very fortunate #1 draft picks.

Orlando got to the Finals in 1995 and 2009, pretty much because of two #1 picks that hit.

Sacramento fielded some very entertaining and successful teams in the early 2000s, and probably should have gone to the Finals in 2002.

Portland got to the Finals twice in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and was three minutes from a Finals appearance in 2000.

Cleveland got to the Finals in 2007 thanks to a VERY fortunate #1 draft pick.

Which NBA team plays in Seattle?

Phoenix got to the Finals in 1993 thanks to trading for another team's disgruntled superstar, but also has put a lot of entertaining product on the floor and has made a bunch of deep playoff runs.

The only three cities on that list that haven't been to at least a conference finals post-Jordan Bulls are cities that didn't have teams for significant stretches during that time period. Most of them were successful because of #1 draft picks that hit or by taking big risks that worked out.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

In the last 35 years, two "small-market" teams have won - Seattle in 1979, and San Antonio several times.

I reject the premise that "winning the title" is the only barometer of success. Of course that's the main goal. but there is only one Champion each year so implicitly saying that 29 teams "fail" each season is silly. Furthermore, pointing out that only two small market teams have won a title overlooks the fact that (1) San Antonio accounts for 14% of all titles won since 1979 and (2) a number of small market teams have made the Finals (Orlando x 2, OKC, Seattle, Utah, etc.)

Ok - using the list of the 15 smallest markets - since 1979 when Seattle won, there have been 72 teams that have played in the finals. 17 came from that list of 15-smallest markets, 55 came from the 15 largest markets.

If the draft was the great equalizer that people think that it is, you would expect a much more even distribution among small and big market teams.

The reality is the draft does not make it easier for small market teams to win a championship. So, what is the value of having the draft?

Why is 1979 a useful cutoff date? 1979 is before salary caps, meaningful revenue sharing, an explosion of interest in the league and the sport, and years before several of the cities you listed even had teams. It was super difficult for cities like Minneapolis, Charlotte, Orlando, New Orleans, Sacramento, and Memphis to be competitive in the 1980s when they didn't even have teams.

 

[dickey moe]

So how long before we start seeing Lin Lakers jerseys flying from Geo Prizm antennas along the I-10?

 

[Sinn Fein]

In the last 35 years, two "small-market" teams have won - Seattle in 1979, and San Antonio several times.

I reject the premise that "winning the title" is the only barometer of success. Of course that's the main goal. but there is only one Champion each year so implicitly saying that 29 teams "fail" each season is silly. Furthermore, pointing out that only two small market teams have won a title overlooks the fact that (1) San Antonio accounts for 14% of all titles won since 1979 and (2) a number of small market teams have made the Finals (Orlando x 2, OKC, Seattle, Utah, etc.)

Ok - using the list of the 15 smallest markets - since 1979 when Seattle won, there have been 72 teams that have played in the finals. 17 came from that list of 15-smallest markets, 55 came from the 15 largest markets.

If the draft was the great equalizer that people think that it is, you would expect a much more even distribution among small and big market teams.

The reality is the draft does not make it easier for small market teams to win a championship. So, what is the value of having the draft?

The draft doesn't bring parity, but it brings the league closer to parity.

55 v. 17 is not really close....and 10 teams winning a title over the last 35 years does not really scream parity either.

At least in the NFL you have 16 different champs in that period, and MLB has had 19 different teams win since 1979

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

I like the idea of having the bottom 10 in the lottery with a more even distribution percentage. That's probably just because I'm bitter that the Wolves have never won the lottery despite being terrible. They've only ever moved backwards. #laettner

 

[Sinn Fein]

In the last 35 years, two "small-market" teams have won - Seattle in 1979, and San Antonio several times.

I reject the premise that "winning the title" is the only barometer of success. Of course that's the main goal. but there is only one Champion each year so implicitly saying that 29 teams "fail" each season is silly. Furthermore, pointing out that only two small market teams have won a title overlooks the fact that (1) San Antonio accounts for 14% of all titles won since 1979 and (2) a number of small market teams have made the Finals (Orlando x 2, OKC, Seattle, Utah, etc.)

Ok - using the list of the 15 smallest markets - since 1979 when Seattle won, there have been 72 teams that have played in the finals. 17 came from that list of 15-smallest markets, 55 came from the 15 largest markets.

If the draft was the great equalizer that people think that it is, you would expect a much more even distribution among small and big market teams.

The reality is the draft does not make it easier for small market teams to win a championship. So, what is the value of having the draft?

Why is 1979 a useful cutoff date? 1979 is before salary caps, meaningful revenue sharing, an explosion of interest in the league and the sport, and years before several of the cities you listed even had teams. It was super difficult for cities like Minneapolis, Charlotte, Orlando, New Orleans, Sacramento, and Memphis to be competitive in the 1980s when they didn't even have teams.

I just chose 1979 semi-randomly - to coincide with what many believe is the modern-era starting with Magic's rookie season. It happens to be 35 years ago - enough data to be relevant.

As for the cites without teams - not terribly relevant to the conversation, because the small-market teams were not represented - that era was dominated by big-market teams.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

In the last 35 years, two "small-market" teams have won - Seattle in 1979, and San Antonio several times.

I reject the premise that "winning the title" is the only barometer of success. Of course that's the main goal. but there is only one Champion each year so implicitly saying that 29 teams "fail" each season is silly. Furthermore, pointing out that only two small market teams have won a title overlooks the fact that (1) San Antonio accounts for 14% of all titles won since 1979 and (2) a number of small market teams have made the Finals (Orlando x 2, OKC, Seattle, Utah, etc.)

Ok - using the list of the 15 smallest markets - since 1979 when Seattle won, there have been 72 teams that have played in the finals. 17 came from that list of 15-smallest markets, 55 came from the 15 largest markets.

If the draft was the great equalizer that people think that it is, you would expect a much more even distribution among small and big market teams.

The reality is the draft does not make it easier for small market teams to win a championship. So, what is the value of having the draft?

Why is 1979 a useful cutoff date? 1979 is before salary caps, meaningful revenue sharing, an explosion of interest in the league and the sport, and years before several of the cities you listed even had teams. It was super difficult for cities like Minneapolis, Charlotte, Orlando, New Orleans, Sacramento, and Memphis to be competitive in the 1980s when they didn't even have teams.

I just chose 1979 semi-randomly - to coincide with what many believe is the modern-era starting with Magic's rookie season. It happens to be 35 years ago - enough data to be relevant. As for the cites without teams - not terribly relevant to the conversation, because the small-market teams were not represented - that era was dominated by big-market teams.

Let me guess, the other guys in the World Cup thread put you up to this: to go into a thread discussing another sport and criticizing it without really knowing what you're talking about, to show everyone else how it feels when someone comes into the soccer thread and ####s on the sport.Because that explanation makes more sense than anything you're saying here.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

From that site: The 15 smallest NBA cities - Listed by metropolitan statistical area, out of 362 total areas (2004 MSA population):

1. Salt Lake City, Utah (1,018,826)

2. Memphis, Tennessee (1,250,293)

3. New Orleans, Louisiana (1,319,589)

4. Charlotte, North Carolina (1,474,734)

5. Milwaukee, Wisconsin (1,515,738)

6. Indianapolis, Indiana (1,621,613)

7. San Antonio, Texas (1,854,050)

8. Orlando, Florida (1,861,707)

9. Sacramento, California (2,016,702)

10. Portland, Oregon (2,064,336)

11. Cleveland, Ohio (2,137,073)

12. Denver, Colorado (2,330,146)

13. Minneapolis, Minnesota (3,116,206)

14. Seattle, Washington (3,166,828)

15. Phoenix, Arizona (3,715,360)

I don't think this list is as important as TV market sizes:

http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets

 

[Abraham]

As for the cites without teams - not terribly relevant to the conversation, because the small-market teams were not represented - that era was dominated by big-market teams.

You realize the above phrase makes zero sense?

 

[Sinn Fein]

As for the cites without teams - not terribly relevant to the conversation, because the small-market teams were not represented - that era was dominated by big-market teams.

You realize the above phrase makes zero sense?

Sort of - not really - there were other small market teams in the NBA (as defined as the smallest 50% like above), but none of them were relevant.

 

[BassNBrew]

You guys wanting to get rid of the draft may as well fold the Midwest and super small market teams while you're there. You'll basically have a European soccer league where the same teams are successful every year.

You say this like its a bad thing. How is the current system working out for the small-market teams? I would say that a team like the Spurs would still be successful based on their ability to find the right players for their system and coach them well.

The NBA would love for there to be 5-6 super teams that will draw ratings every game they are on. Parity is really bad for leagues overall - even the NFL which touts parity as a good thing likes that it has teams like the Patriots, Cowboys, Steelers, etc. who are loved/hated no matter the record.

Fans like dynasties.

But even so, with a fixed roster of 13 spaces (?), five starters, and a salary cap - teams like Milwaukee will still be able to attract good players, and if they do a good job scouting and coaching, they could be a contender. If they are a contender, they can attract better players to turn them into championship potential teams.

I'm not sure about that. I watched much more of the parity ridden WC playoffs than the dynasty EC playoffs.

 

[Abraham]

That might not sound as sexy as a 26-and-12 guy joining LeBron, until you realize that a Cavs defense with Wiggins and LeBron will get infinity steals, those steals will trigger fast breaks, and those fast breaks will end with one of those guys putting his nuts above the rim.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

As for the cites without teams - not terribly relevant to the conversation, because the small-market teams were not represented - that era was dominated by big-market teams.

You realize the above phrase makes zero sense?

Sort of - not really - there were other small market teams in the NBA (as defined as the smallest 50% like above), but none of them were relevant.

Kicking off right where you started your "study", the Lakers had the #1 overall pick twice in four years. They went to the Finals nine times in 12 years. From 1983-1991 when they had #1 picks they drafted Magic Johnson and James Worthy on the roster, they only missed the Finals twice, and one of those early exits was at the hands of another team with two #1 overall picks they drafted in their starting five. Looks to me like having the top draft pick is a big help for going deep.

 

[B-Deep]

Over the last 30-35 years, the number of times a team took a guy #1 overall and had him lead them to a Championship:

NBA: Let's call it 3. Duncan, Hakeem, Magic (there's also Admiral and 15 other Lakers, but it's unlikely those guys do it without Duncan/Magic)

NFL: At least 2 (Peyton, Aikman). 4 if you want to count the goofy Elway/Eli situations. Then there's Orlando Pace and Russell Maryland being major contributors to SB campaigns for the teams that drafted them. You can go to 6, but it's probably safe to call it 4 however you want to slice it.

That is an interesting way to avoid LeBron. 11 of the last 16 champions have featured a #1 overall pick.

See, I avoided LeBron because we're talking about the draft.

But you do bring up a good point. In the NBA, when you strike gold with a top pick, there's a reasonable chance he could go spend his prime somewhere else. How often does that happen in the NFL? You get an all-time great QB in the NFL, good chance he's yours for 15+ years. That does affect the relative value of top picks when talking NFL/NBA.

But let's stop kidding ourselves. Top picks are better. #1 overall's in the right year are invaluable. In both leagues.

There's no reason to think one system makes sense for one league, but not another.

YEThow many teams were thought to be tanking this year in the NBA?

PHI and Utah were the only teams blatantly doing it. They got the #3 and #5 picks in the draft. Again, if we really think there's a problem here, I'd say that's a pretty big solution, only giving the #3 and $5 pick to the only two teams that might've wanted to be bad.

See, just like the NFL, the NBA has a lot of bad teams. Some are bad year after year after year. Just like the NFL, it's very rare that they are trying to be bad. Well, I assume JAX isn't doing this on purpose, but who knows?

that's two more teams THIS SEASON than have ever blatantly done it in the nfl ever

 

[Sinn Fein]

As for the cites without teams - not terribly relevant to the conversation, because the small-market teams were not represented - that era was dominated by big-market teams.

You realize the above phrase makes zero sense?

Sort of - not really - there were other small market teams in the NBA (as defined as the smallest 50% like above), but none of them were relevant.

Kicking off right where you started your "study", the Lakers had the #1 overall pick twice in four years. They went to the Finals nine times in 12 years. From 1983-1991 when they had #1 picks they drafted Magic Johnson and James Worthy on the roster, they only missed the Finals twice, and one of those early exits was at the hands of another team with two #1 overall picks they drafted in their starting five. Looks to me like having the top draft pick is a big help for going deep.

But the draft is supposed to help small-market teams be relevant...how is that working out for them?

My proposal is to get rid of the draft, let teams sign whoever they can sign - and the argument is that small-market teams will have to fold up their tents and go home, unless the draft is around to help them get players...

 

[Long Ball Larry]

In the last 35 years, two "small-market" teams have won - Seattle in 1979, and San Antonio several times.

I reject the premise that "winning the title" is the only barometer of success. Of course that's the main goal. but there is only one Champion each year so implicitly saying that 29 teams "fail" each season is silly. Furthermore, pointing out that only two small market teams have won a title overlooks the fact that (1) San Antonio accounts for 14% of all titles won since 1979 and (2) a number of small market teams have made the Finals (Orlando x 2, OKC, Seattle, Utah, etc.)

Ok - using the list of the 15 smallest markets - since 1979 when Seattle won, there have been 72 teams that have played in the finals. 17 came from that list of 15-smallest markets, 55 came from the 15 largest markets.

If the draft was the great equalizer that people think that it is, you would expect a much more even distribution among small and big market teams.

The reality is the draft does not make it easier for small market teams to win a championship. So, what is the value of having the draft?

Why is 1979 a useful cutoff date? 1979 is before salary caps, meaningful revenue sharing, an explosion of interest in the league and the sport, and years before several of the cities you listed even had teams. It was super difficult for cities like Minneapolis, Charlotte, Orlando, New Orleans, Sacramento, and Memphis to be competitive in the 1980s when they didn't even have teams.

I just chose 1979 semi-randomly - to coincide with what many believe is the modern-era starting with Magic's rookie season. It happens to be 35 years ago - enough data to be relevant. As for the cites without teams - not terribly relevant to the conversation, because the small-market teams were not represented - that era was dominated by big-market teams.

Let me guess, the other guys in the World Cup thread put you up to this: to go into a thread discussing another sport and criticizing it without really knowing what you're talking about, to show everyone else how it feels when someone comes into the soccer thread and ####s on the sport.Because that explanation makes more sense than anything you're saying here.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Just did a little "research" and my study shows that in every single year from 1957-1966, the NBA championship was won by the 1st pick in the draft or the 2nd pick in the draft.

Draft stays.

 

[RUSF18]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-would-you-trade-wiggins-for-love-shootaround/

Think Simmons makes the case real easy in the Wiggins-for-Love debate: wait a bit to see what you have in Wiggins, and then make the deal for Love around the deadline if you absolutely feel like you have to and that Wiggins is years away. They'll always have the trump card with being able to put Wiggins into a deal.

So, if he looks like a bust, trade him to Minnesota? Kahn still there?

 

[Abraham]

Can someone explain why Detroit and Cramento would need a third team to move smith?