Major misconceptions regarding the labor dispute between Owners and NBA's Players

[2LeTTeRS]

So that's the problem then - there isn't enough talent for all 30 teams to create a quality league of parity. Is it possible for EVERY owner to do a good job of surrounding their stars with talent when there isn't enough talent to go around? There will always be some owners who win and some who lose.

Now, if we leave it up to the players to choose where they want to play and the only factors they have to weigh are: money, the talent around them and the location, then small markets are inevitably screwed if there is no hard cap. Larger markets (and wealthy owners) can simply pay whatever they want to get whoever they want, thereby sucking the talent pool dry. And even if smaller markets are able to pay the same amount (or slightly more in the Larry Bird rule), they still lose out to the larger markets because of their "undesirable location" and inability to attract talented free agents.

I totally see where you're coming from, though - your idea would certainly create a more entertaining product. It's essentially capitalism at work and letting the chips fall where they should. But if this league hopes to sustain smaller markets, then there needs to be a more strict plan in place that benefits everyone at the behest of the large market owners.

Yes there is a way for smaller markets to win in the current system. If your team isn't in position to win this year you must build for the future. You can't take on overpriced guys who aren't difference-makers, instead you succeed by drafting well and by finding young inexpensive free agents just off their rookie deals who haven't quite showed all they can do in the league. Then you must have quality coaches and trainers to develop those young players.

Look at the Thunder for example. They realized things weren't working before the draft in 08, so they let all of their big salaried guys (Shard Lewis and Ray Allen) go, and they took on vets on short-term contracts to surround around their young players. They also landed 2 solid starters in the draft (KD and Jeff Green). In the first year things didn't go well, but instead of spending in free agency they decided to draft Russell Westbrook and keep their team young core. Because all those players meshed well together to form a good unit that team is looked at as the future of the league, despite playing in one of the least desirable markets in the league.

Trust me, this is not a big market vs small market problem. Its a well run team vs. poorly run team issue.

[JordanL]

What if the NBA shared the royalties from national games in the playoffs with the teams that remained? Decent financial incentive for owners to try and do well instead of fill seats or have warm bodies.

[LJJ]

Let me bump this thread for you KD.

[3zazer1]

1st of all, that was a great post!

I personally think that Stern and the owners will eventually cave to the players demands because he has no leverage. By looking at the Owners demands, its clear that they want to strip the players of their freedom going into the future. Stern loves Ethering the NFL, but this time he'll lose out. Like you said, the NBA is a player driven leauge. Without the players, the leauge would have nothing.

Hell, there already planning to create a little leauge where the Stars play each other in Exibition games! David Stern needs to do something quick

[2LeTTeRS]

2 great developments for the Players' today. First off the Owners are no longer insisting on non-guaranteed contracts and now a good sign from the NFL if this article is true >>>> ESPN Reports NFL Owners' Splintering Within Their Ranks.

As I've been saying all year I predict that there will be more unity between Players than Owners, and the fact that Owners of NFL teams can't stay united against a much weaker union is a good sign for the NBA's Players. Why? The Owners have been trying to worsen conditions all the Players (an optimal setting for unity), whereas the issues that Owners have pushed for that help the small market teams hurt the big market teams, and vice versa.

[Rose]

2 great developments for the Players' today. First off the Owners are no longer insisting on non-guaranteed contracts and now a good sign from the NFL if this article is true >>>> ESPN Reports NFL Owners' Splintering Within Their Ranks.

As I've been saying all year I predict that there will be more unity between Players than Owners, and the fact that Owners of NFL teams can't stay united against a much weaker union is a good sign for the NBA's Players. Why? The Owners have been trying to worsen conditions all the Players (an optimal setting for unity), whereas the issues that Owners have pushed for that help the small market teams hurt the big market teams, and vice versa.

Good job on being accurate so far.
Quite impressive.

[2LeTTeRS]

Good job on being accurate so far.
Quite impressive.

Appreciate it man....I first wrote this in March and I've been adding to it ever since. [shameless plug]I post little ideas like this all over my Twitter account (@EsquireSports), if your up there follow me[/shameless plug].

[Rose]

Appreciate it man....I first wrote this in March and I've been adding to it ever since. [shameless plug]I post little ideas like this all over my Twitter account (@EsquireSports), if your up there follow me[/shameless plug].

Haha I will.

I'm surprised you don't have a blog most people who are going/trying to get involved in sports do.

[dallaslonghorn]

Good post.

I don't understand the obsession with parity: weren't the 80's the Golden Era of the NBA? The Lakers and the Celtics had Hall of Fame teams and pretty much dominated the league; was that a bad thing?

Besides, it's not like small markets can't succeed -- look at San Antonio and OKC.

[stephanieg]

Good post.

I don't understand the obsession with parity: weren't the 80's the Golden Era of the NBA?

Because the NBA went from irrelevant to relevant.

People think with parity the NBA could become more popular and maybe pull ahead of baseball. I don't know if that's true, but you can make an argument. I think the transition would be rough because the NBA has spent the last 30 years marketing stars and individuals instead of teams.

[2LeTTeRS]

Haha I will.

I'm surprised you don't have a blog most people who are going/trying to get involved in sports do.

I'm thinking I'll start one up as soon as the summer ends and I get a little more time on my hands. I've thought of starting one up, but between school and prepping for the bar I wouldn't have been able to commit myself to it.

[dallaslonghorn]

Because the NBA went from irrelevant to relevant.

People think with parity the NBA could become more popular and maybe pull ahead of baseball. I don't know if that's true, but you can make an argument. I think the transition would be rough because the NBA has spent the last 30 years marketing stars and individuals instead of teams.

People like to credit parity for the NFL's dominance, but in reality, Americans just love football. College football is bigger in a lot of the country than the pro's, and there is ZERO parity in that sport.

The other sports depend on glamour teams like the Heat, the Lakers and the Yankees to bring casual fans in. As a sports fan, the only reason I would really watch the NHL is for Ovechkin vs. Crosby in the playoffs. I imagine a lot of people who aren't big basketball fans feel the same way about Lakers/Celtics, Knicks/Bulls, Kobe vs. LeBron etc. Don't think it's in the best interest of the sport to make those types of match-ups less likely to happen.

[2LeTTeRS]

Guys stay tuned.....the meetings that conclude today will determine if there will be a lockout or if the Owner's are going to keep up there ridiculous demands.

Oh and I did start up a blog, check it out >>>> http://esquiresports.blogspot.com

[Sarcastic]

If the NBA contracted its shitty teams, most of the problems would go away.

[gasolina]

If the NBA contracted its shitty teams, most of the problems would go away.

And would create a PR disaster that would probably kill the league