OT: Lebron James Advocates NBA Contraction

BigFatCat999

First Fubu and now Pred303. !@#$! you cancer
Apr 23, 2007
18,812
3,001
Campbell, NY
I think this brings up a big issue within the unions. Rich vs. poor players. To a talented player this is a win situation because the move will be to reduce the number of positions with in a league while the salary cap stays as is, thus giving more money to all the players who can MAKE the top tier league. The talented players can say this all they want because they KNOW they will have a job and can make more money. The lower talented players want expansion because they would be more secured in the league.


Thus, as a league you can put in the CBA negotiations, "HEY! Play ball and we will expand the league 2 teams within this timeframe." Do you not think this would break the union?
 

njdevsfn95

Help JJJ, Sprite.
Jul 30, 2006
31,348
55
Contraction is possible if

1) The owner gets paid for relinquishing his team a value which he finds acceptable.

2) The players under contract are paid until the completion of their contract.

Under these two scenarios, everyone is entitled to the money they a) are owed from a property point of view or b) owed from a contractual point of view.

The problem is...who will pay?

Of course, there is a lot on the surface that just sounds incredibly negative with the word "contraction" that it seems very unlikely in both sports.
 

BigFatCat999

First Fubu and now Pred303. !@#$! you cancer
Apr 23, 2007
18,812
3,001
Campbell, NY
The problem is...who will pay?

1) The league as a whole, cost split amongst the other existing owners.

2) The lower level players who lose their jobs simply because they have been played out.

When you see the word contraction, the real word should be layoff.
 

Fugu

Guest
1) The league as a whole, cost split amongst the other existing owners.

2) The lower level players who lose their jobs simply because they have been played out.

When you see the word contraction, the real word should be layoff.


Using Lebron as the example then, if his team were to be contracted, do you think he'd be out of work?

Obviously he wouldn't be for very long. Any contraction would mean the players at the bottom, the "fillers" would get cut. The question then is are those guys NHL-caliber at all, or if there is overexpansion in the NBA and/or NHL, would the quality of the leagues be better with 20 teams (for example)?
 

Roomtemperature

Registered User
Apr 8, 2008
5,846
683
New Jersey
1) The league as a whole, cost split amongst the other existing owners.

2) The lower level players who lose their jobs simply because they have been played out.

When you see the word contraction, the real word should be layoff.
The first point is the biggest reason I can't see contraction happening. What the hell does the rest of the league get out of spending all this money to contract 2-4 teams? How does that make revenues go up. Other then contracting maybe the NJ market because it shares TV market with NYC how does losing 2-4 TV markets help the NBA national ratings? How will it get more people to buy tickets for the new worst team in the league? The worst team in the league is still the worst team in the league and most markets no matter how much they tend to like their teams struggle to sell tickets if the team is bad.
 

Fugu

Guest
The first point is the biggest reason I can't see contraction happening. What the hell does the rest of the league get out of spending all this money to contract 2-4 teams? How does that make revenues go up. Other then contracting maybe the NJ market because it shares TV market with NYC how does losing 2-4 TV markets help the NBA national ratings? How will it get more people to buy tickets for the new worst team in the league? The worst team in the league is still the worst team in the league and most markets no matter how much they tend to like their teams struggle to sell tickets if the team is bad.


I think the real problem many of these leagues have is that there are more bandwagoners than purists.

We've done the crunching here before, but everyone can do the simply probabilities of X winning a championship out of 30 or 32 team league. If winning is the only way to pack the arenas in a large number of markets--- then you're going to have empty arenas in many markets and possibly for a very long time. There's only so many Crosby's, James's and Jordan's to build around to give a team that boost from a generational talent.

There may be a theoretical number of markets (probably the biggest cities of all, and say only 16-20) where you can find enough people who are interested in a sport regardless of winning. Maybe?

The NFL claims to give everyone a shot, the "on any given Sunday" mantra--- but is that really true even in the NFL? Seems you need a superb quarterback, a great running back or wide receivers, and good offensive lines..... everyone is just filler too. So the team that wins the jackpot and lands an elite quarterback will win all the championships.

I know it's hard to go back, but if you started from scratch and had to build from the bottom up, would your premise be that you can have 30 markets all vying for championship each and every year, because that's the promise currently. When teams fail to deliver on that promise, we have what we call our "troubled markets."
 

BigFatCat999

First Fubu and now Pred303. !@#$! you cancer
Apr 23, 2007
18,812
3,001
Campbell, NY
But how do you determine if a market is viable? You can't use short term thinking and by short term I'm talking a single year. If you loo at the Hornets of the NBA, they moved from Carolina to NO and is now looking at contracting.

Can you use history to judge the viability of a market? Would comparing the census date of a country to number of teams a viable way to judge the market?

We have these questions because we have a crappy economy right right now but what if it up turns? Do you damage a market in contraction which appears to be a short term move or do you stay the course and fight it out?
 

The Bob Cole

Ohhhh Baby.
Apr 18, 2004
7,700
11
Centre Ice
Parity is just another word for watered-down. Without elite teams - and there are currently NO elite teams in the NHL - we simply don't have the high quality of play we used to have - but we're still stuck with lots of teams that just plain suck.

While it may indeed be unlikely to happen soon, both the NBA and NHL would produce a higher quality and more entertaining product if they reverted back to 24-ish teams.

That quote you took was talking about the NBA 'parity' or lack there of. The shape of the NBA is worse off than the NHL.
 

BigFatCat999

First Fubu and now Pred303. !@#$! you cancer
Apr 23, 2007
18,812
3,001
Campbell, NY
Right now the NBA attendance is pretty high and they have a TV contract but they are losing big time money.


The NHL's attendance is on par with the NBA but they don't have the TV contract. BUT they are making money.

The NBA is in deep because the major money makers for the league are already maxed out. The NHL might get a big TV contract and make more money.

The NBA has too many expenditures and the biggest cost is players (Employees).
 

Finlandia WOAT

js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
May 23, 2010
24,134
23,681
Right now the NBA attendance is pretty high and they have a TV contract but they are losing big time money.


The NHL's attendance is on par with the NBA but they don't have the TV contract. BUT they are making money.

The NBA is in deep because the major money makers for the league are already maxed out. The NHL might get a big TV contract and make more money.

The NBA has too many expenditures and the biggest cost is players (Employees).

How can the NHL make money while the NBA is losing it, esp. since the NBA has a huge league contract?
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,284
12,583
South Mountain
"Hopefully the league can figure out one way where it can go back to the '80s where you had three or four All-Stars, three or four superstars, three or four Hall of Famers on the same team," James said. "The league was great. It wasn't as watered down as it is [now]."

Other than the Celtics and Lakers, how many other teams in the 80's met that criteria?
 

Roomtemperature

Registered User
Apr 8, 2008
5,846
683
New Jersey
But how do you determine if a market is viable? You can't use short term thinking and by short term I'm talking a single year. If you loo at the Hornets of the NBA, they moved from Carolina to NO and is now looking at contracting.

Can you use history to judge the viability of a market? Would comparing the census date of a country to number of teams a viable way to judge the market?

We have these questions because we have a crappy economy right right now but what if it up turns? Do you damage a market in contraction which appears to be a short term move or do you stay the course and fight it out?

Parity to me means that you bring the bottom up. The top is as good as other teams in the past when you look at the way athletes are better now then 20 years ago. Its just the bottom or at least the bottom of the playoff teams (and some that don't make the playoffs) are good now compared to if we had thirty teams in the 80s and the 8th seeds in both leagues would look like crap
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,545
2,006
The NBA could put a second team in Chicago.

As for the thread, this all depends on Donald Fehr.
 

Dado

Guest
The top is as good as other teams in the past when you look at the way athletes are better now then 20 years ago.

May as well expand to 50 teams, then, as the top teams would still be as good as the top teams of 50 years ago.

The quality of game would be quite a bit better with 24 teams than it is currently. That alone is, as far as I am concerned, reason enough to support contraction.
 

Fugu

Guest
Right now the NBA attendance is pretty high and they have a TV contract but they are losing big time money.


The NHL's attendance is on par with the NBA but they don't have the TV contract. BUT they are making money.

The NBA is in deep because the major money makers for the league are already maxed out. The NHL might get a big TV contract and make more money.

The NBA has too many expenditures and the biggest cost is players (Employees).

Who is making money and losing money in each league?

For the same number of teams, the NBA has about 1 billion more dollars to lose.....
 

Tommy Hawk

Registered User
May 27, 2006
4,223
104
Parity is just another word for watered-down. Without elite teams - and there are currently NO elite teams in the NHL - we simply don't have the high quality of play we used to have - but we're still stuck with lots of teams that just plain suck.

While it may indeed be unlikely to happen soon, both the NBA and NHL would produce a higher quality and more entertaining product if they reverted back to 24-ish teams.

I am not sure how you figure that less teams would mean more elite teams.

The total talent pool for the NHL and all major sports with a real salary cap is the same. Dividing that pool evenly by 30 or 20 or 10 still gets you parity. You just have better player on a single team. There would be no elite teams in that scenario either. The only thing you get is less league revenues and lower players salaries.

And before you start tossing out way back in Mr Wizard's time machine, players were not free to move from one team to another so once on a team, they were on that team until the team decided they were no longer needed. And in the 50's when the Wings and the Hawks were owned by the same people, the Wings used the Hawks as their farm team to build up their team.

And way back then we did not have any swedish or russion or other european players.



I think this brings up a big issue within the unions. Rich vs. poor players. To a talented player this is a win situation because the move will be to reduce the number of positions with in a league while the salary cap stays as is, thus giving more money to all the players who can MAKE the top tier league. The talented players can say this all they want because they KNOW they will have a job and can make more money. The lower talented players want expansion because they would be more secured in the league.

Thus, as a league you can put in the CBA negotiations, "HEY! Play ball and we will expand the league 2 teams within this timeframe." Do you not think this would break the union?


The the talented players won't want contraction because it would be more competition for less salary dollars.



May as well expand to 50 teams, then, as the top teams would still be as good as the top teams of 50 years ago.

The quality of game would be quite a bit better with 24 teams than it is currently. That alone is, as far as I am concerned, reason enough to support contraction.

How do you figure that? With the lower amount of money available to pay players, how many do you think would rather take less money and play at home in Russia or Sweden or Finland? You take those players out and the total talent level goes down.


As for LeBron, he should really brush up on his knowledge of NBA history. There has really only been one team of which he speaks, the Celtics of the 60's. And I am sure that everyone outside of Boston was ecstatic to be able to watch such an elite team win year after year. Again, same thin in BBall, players were not allowed to go to the teams they wanted and there were no foreign players at all in the league. So perhaps LeBron would like his salary fixed at about 25k per year so he would have to actually work at a regular job during the offseason in order to make a living.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,545
2,006
I am not sure how you figure that less teams would mean more elite teams.

The total talent pool for the NHL and all major sports with a real salary cap is the same. Dividing that pool evenly by 30 or 20 or 10 still gets you parity. You just have better player on a single team. There would be no elite teams in that scenario either. The only thing you get is less league revenues and lower players salaries.

And before you start tossing out way back in Mr Wizard's time machine, players were not free to move from one team to another so once on a team, they were on that team until the team decided they were no longer needed. And in the 50's when the Wings and the Hawks were owned by the same people, the Wings used the Hawks as their farm team to build up their team.

And way back then we did not have any swedish or russion or other european players.

Just a question. If this is the case, Why is the NFL resising expansion?
 

kingpest19

Registered User
Sep 21, 2004
12,298
693
I wonder if LeBron feels the Cavs should fold? How sad would that be if he does?

Anyways, LeBron, you are paid to play basketball and not give opinions. Focus more on trying to win your 1st NBA title, or are you afraid you won'twin one if contraction doesn't happen?
Considering the Heat are right around or right under .500 against teams with a winning record I dont see why he would want to contract the team he can beat so easily. Giving the league stronger teams would definitely hurts his chances more than help them.
 

Fugu

Guest
Considering the Heat are right around or right under .500 against teams with a winning record I dont see why he would want to contract the team he can beat so easily. Giving the league stronger teams would definitely hurts his chances more than help them.


A 1 out 16 chance is better than 1 out of 30. ;)

What some people choose to ignore as well is that you can have parity with 16 teams, just like you can with 30. The bar may be lower with 30, but parity alone isn't dependent on league size-- just how good or bad teams "can" be.
 

King Woodballs

Captain Awesome
Sep 25, 2007
39,362
7,374
Your Mind
in the NHL world would be be someone like crosby telling bettman the league is too watered down and they need to dispose of some teams...
I would agree that both leagues need to do it....
both leagues have watered down talent
both leagues have franchises in markets that are failing
both leagues OWN a team
 

BigFatCat999

First Fubu and now Pred303. !@#$! you cancer
Apr 23, 2007
18,812
3,001
Campbell, NY

BigFatCat999

First Fubu and now Pred303. !@#$! you cancer
Apr 23, 2007
18,812
3,001
Campbell, NY
Just a question. If this is the case, Why is the NFL resising expansion?

The NFL is having difficulties with two franchises: Buffalo and Jacksonville. Both are very small markets and the swirl of relocation is around them. In addition with Minnesota.

Most of the noise was to move the Bills to Toronto till the Canadian's passed that law prohibiting NFL teams to play in the country.

Jacksonville is a very small market which is having great difficulty in filling their stadium. They along with Minny have been targets #1a and #1b to relocate to LA.

Now, back to the contraction talk. Fugu got the jist of my post. Lebron can talk contraction all he wants, his job is safe. It's the bottom rung guys who are in trouble. And the guys in the developmental leagues. So, to translate to the NHL. Sidney Crosby is safe but the guys who are border line are in trouble. And the guys who are AAAA players who bounce between the AHl and the NHL

Try telling 46-60 guys in the union, yeah, we are going to reduce the number of jobs out there....

You would have a massive voting block along with sympathetic upper level players. You could have 100 players within 700-800 who would not be too happy with a contraction plan.

If you look at the NBA, let's say they are talking about contracting two teams. that's 30 players on those rosters and 10-15 development guys who's job just got harder. That's 45 guys out of 450-500 players in the union or 10%.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->