Big Market Team Fallacy

[Sarcastic]

I think we kinda agree on the big picture. Draft is the big key to success. Competent FO is what's needed to push you over the limit. I'm just saying Market is gravy. My example would be the Knicks\Melo. Once the Knicks actually got there shit together they signed Amare(like you said wasn't first choice) and than Melo forces a trade. Knicks weren't a groundbreaking team. Denver was more than competent. Didn't matter he listed the teams he wanted to play for witch were all big market teams.

Market is gravy. It means something. It doesn't make or break you but can give you an extra advantage from time to time over the long haul. Raptors you have guy's actually not showing up. L.A? You luck out sometimes with Shaq. Kobe not wanting to go Charlotte etc.

Can you honestly say that Minnesota with the same FO|Owners|Everything would have NO disadvantage against NY? There the exact same just two different area's. It'd have no difference .. what so ever over a 20 year time period?.

You kinda made one of my points with Sac-Town as well. A team like New York, L.A, Chicago would never have an owner that was going bankrupt. They'd never have to deal with there teams moving. Chris Paul? There's no reason why he shouldn't want to go Sacramento. They have young talent, Cousins a potential dominant big man. Yet there turmoil would prevent that. Turmoil that a "big market" franchise would never endure. Proves my entire argument right there for me. Is it a big deal, probably not. At the very least it means something over the long haul and that's all I've suggested. Without drafting\competent FO .. your screwed anyway, anywhere.

We live in a capitalist country. We don't believe in everything being equal. Capitalism has winners and losers. Of course the NY team and LA team will have more opportunities to make money, based solely on the size of their markets. However, the NBA system as it was, makes sure that market size does not give an undue advantage to anyone. Free agency started in 1976. The last time the Knicks won was 1973. Despite almost 35 years of being able to attract the TOP PLAYERS due to their large market, the Knicks have NOT been able to win any titles. In the same time, the 25th biggest market in San Antonio has won 4 titles. They have made the playoffs in 20 of the last 21 seasons too. That is unprecedented. Even the Lakers haven't had that much sustained success. NY hasn't either. Chicago neither. I mean think about that. The most successful team in the last 2 decades was San Antonio!!!

[Sarcastic]

Just because you didn't take advantage of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If my parents had hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on me to go to college but I ended up being a screwup and not going because i failed out of school, it doesnt mean I didn't have that advantage over many other kids in the first place.

No big market has been able to take advantage of it, except the Lakers. They are an outlier, not the standard or average.

[Sarcastic]

The Clippers are a second class citizen in LA. The Lakers captured the city first and are the true team of Los Angeles.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? In the 1980s the Mets had control of NY. The Yankees were second class citizens during that decade despite being the most successful team of all time with 22 titles. They had to earn their way back to the top of NY. The Clippers could have easily done the same in LA. If the Mets could do, the Clippers can do it.

[NuggetsFan]

We live in a capitalist country. We don't believe in everything being equal. Capitalism has winners and losers. Of course the NY team and LA team will have more opportunities to make money, based solely on the size of their markets. However, the NBA system as it was, makes sure that market size does not give an undue advantage to anyone. Free agency started in 1976. The last time the Knicks won was 1973. Despite almost 35 years of being able to attract the TOP PLAYERS due to their large market, the Knicks have NOT been able to win any titles. In the same time, the 25th biggest market in San Antonio has won 4 titles. They have made the playoffs in 20 of the last 21 seasons too. That is unprecedented. Even the Lakers haven't had that much sustained success. NY hasn't either. Chicago neither. I mean think about that. The most successful team in the last 2 decades was San Antonio!!!

Ok. SA won because of competent drafting and GMing .. witch every single team needs regardless of market. Witch I agreed with.

Your going in circles. I pretty much agreed. Only thing I said was some markets have an extra advantage from time to time. Teams like New York, Chicago don't have the same issues as Sacramento. You said it yourself. Guess why? Because of the market there in. They don't have to move like Charlotte\Vancouver. They don't play in Canada like Toronto(witch is actually a big market I guess lol).

Does it mean much? Probably not. Still thinks it's stupid to act like it's 100% level playing field 100% of the time. There's occasions when market helps out. Helped out with the Melo sweepstakes. Helped out with Shaq. Helped out with Kobe.

It's all irrelevant in the end because we'll never see 15+ teams in the league that draft competent\have good FO's. Thus the advantages some markets have will be minor and pop up here and there without much notice.

[Kevin_Gamble]

The idea that Knicks have some kind of an advantage in attracting elite talent is truly laughable. NY has always had a bunch of scrubs, even during the Ewing-era, they were rolling with a bunch of guys from the CBA. Elite basketball talent is so rare in NY that NY fans are forced to believe Melo and Amar

[Sarcastic]

[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]The idea that Knicks have some kind of an advantage in attracting elite talent is truly laughable. NY has always had a bunch of scrubs, even during the Ewing-era, they were rolling with a bunch of guys from the CBA. Elite basketball talent is so rare in NY that NY fans are forced to believe Melo and Amar

[ShawnieMac06]

[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]The idea that Knicks have some kind of an advantage in attracting elite talent is truly laughable. NY has always had a bunch of scrubs, even during the Ewing-era, they were rolling with a bunch of guys from the CBA. Elite basketball talent is so rare in NY that NY fans are forced to believe Melo and Amar

[Norcaliblunt]

It all comes down to whether the owner is willing to spend and go over the cap with competence or not. BOTTOM LINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This can happen anywhere, but it just so happens some big markets teams have some crazy rich owners with never ending pockets.

Hard cap is what is needed.

[DMAVS41]

With your line of thinking, one could say the Spurs could NEVER EVER win a title. Yet somehow they managed to do it.

Not at all. LOL...learn to read buddy. I started my post off with saying there are no absolutes. There should never be the word "never" used in these discussions.

What you fail to grasp is that certain franchises/markets have advantages. Just because a there are a few teams that buck the trend doesn't change reality.

The Knicks have an advantage over the Bucks. The Lakers have an advantage over the Wolves. The Heat have an advantage over Toronto (obviously not a small market, but it goes to show you that desirable locations matter)...

I love how you expect us to ignore that Howard is thinking about leaving the Magic. Lebron just left the Cavs. Melo just left the Nuggets. Bosh left the raptors. Amare left the Suns. Paul will likely leave New Orleans. Deron wanted out of Utah...etc.

The Raptors had Carter, T-Mac, and Bosh all within a decade and didn't keep any of them.

But yea, there is no advantage...we are just making everything up.

[rmt]

I think that it's foolish to think that market size has nothing to do with attracting free agents or keeping players (being able to offer them a reasonable size contract). Large markets like LA or owners with deep pockets who are willing to spend (like Cuban) give their teams a huge advantage.

San Antonio has been successful mainly through the draft. Even with 4 championships, no free agent will go there except at the very end of their careers for a ring (see Finley).

No way in the world a team like LA or DAL let talent like Scola or Stephen Jackson walk because of money. SA did because for the most part Holt (compared to the other owners) isn't super rich and they've stayed below the luxury tax. Even with all the championships, they aren't making money - I guess because they can't charge the outrageous amounts for court side seats, box seats, etc. that LA, DAL, NK do.

Even now they're still cutting corners - trading away a good player in George Hill after spending 3 years developing him to get cheaper talent (yes in a position of greater need because of that good-for-nothing RJ) through a draft pick with no idea of whether he'll pan out.

I think they should have a hard cap and severely penalize outrageous spending so that teams can't "buy" themselves a championship. The way the league is going is not sustainable. 30 teams - very few of which have real championship hopes or turn profit. Either have contraction (which isn't going to happen) or make it so that teams like MIA can get their superstars (can't stop it) but can't get/afford role players.

[Joey Zaza]

I think they should have a hard cap and severely penalize outrageous spending so that teams can't "buy" themselves a championship.

I disagree...I say NO hard cap and NO max salaries. Even with no limits, no holds barred, LAL (likely paying Kobe close to $75 mill at this point and Gasol in the $50's), NYK won't pay $150,000,000 in salaries to dominate the sport.

Neither would Miami.

The system would eventually sort itself out.

Things like the mid-level anfd the vet exceptions hae been poison for owners. If an owner over-pays a guy, the salary cap punishes the owner by limiting his ability to sign a new player to correct that mistaje and puishes the unemployed player limiting his ability to sign a contract somewhere.

If we still keep the BRI agreement, the salaries won't get too crazy...we'll just destroy the middle class (Kobe will get his 75 and Gasol will get his 50 but the LAL will have to spend fill the remaining 10 spots very cheaply)but the owenrs won't spnd more than 50% and the players won't make more.

The only limit/guarantees I would keep are the rookie salary scale and the 3 yrs with the ability to match offers in yr. 4 It gives the smaller markets a better chance and guarantees rookies (who have no control over who drafts them) a certain salary even if they get they got "stuck" somewhere.

[MMM]

It all comes down to whether the owner is willing to spend and go over the cap with competence or not. BOTTOM LINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This can happen anywhere, but it just so happens some big markets teams have some crazy rich owners with never ending pockets.

Hard cap is what is needed.

Agreed with a hard cap but we would also need a cap floor. Teams should have a closer gap when it comes to players salary. I wouldn't mind a luxury tax as well but teams shouldn't be allowed to continually be spending 40-50 million more than other teams. A league where Minnesota can spend as much as LA every season would be beneficial to the fans, imo. The owners would no longer have an excuse for not putting a winning product out on the court and we would truly find out who has good/bad management.

[bdreason]

The NBA has always been about the draft. Very few teams have been successful at building a Championship team strictly through Free Agency.

[tpols]

The NBA has always been about the draft. Very few teams have been successful at building a Championship team strictly through Free Agency.

What about the Lakers and Heat winning 4 of the past 10 championships through pure FA[Shaq going and riding Kobe/Wade]?

[DMAVS41]

The NBA has always been about the draft. Very few teams have been successful at building a Championship team strictly through Free Agency.

I don't understand this notion of "strictly"....why does it have to be one or the other.

Teams can do both. And big markets have an advantage to do both. For starters, there is more security with your star player not wanting to leave.

Just look at the NBA landscape over the last decade or so. Shaq leaves a small market team to join the Lakers. Kobe's agent forces his way to LA instead of a small market crappy team like the Nets. KG goes to Boston. Melo/Amare go to NY. Bosh and Lebron go to Miami. The raptors lose vince, tmac, and bosh within a decade...etc. Mavs win the title after pretty much doing all of their building through free agency.

Some of the above are technically trades, but we all know it was players forcing their way to certain teams/markets.

Its not just one or the other. Its everything. Big market...advantage. More money...advantage. Owner willing to spend...advantage. Desirable living location...advantage. Great drafting...advantage. Great management concerning what players to go after and how much to pay them...advantage. Ability to attract elite coaches...advantage.

Some of that stuff isn't related to each other. Some is. You can have great management and drafting anywhere. You can't have a desirable location with a 100 million dollar payroll anywhere. You can't get a great fanbase everywhere...etc.

There are definitely advantages to bigger markets on the whole. Whether those teams capitalize on them and use them properly is another story.

I'll just wait until I see a big time free agent demand to go to the Bucks or Hornets or Kings.....You really think Melo and Amare would have teamed up to go to the Raptors or something if the Raptors had cap room? Hell no they wouldn't have. Being in NY was a huge draw to both of them. You are just simply ignoring reality if you say otherwise.