Stars align in NBA’s new galaxy

[ace3g]

http://l.yimg.com/a/p/sp/tools/med/2011/02/ipt/1298861212.jpg

The NBA's best players are flocking to play in its biggest markets. What does that say for the league's future?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AhRxKE7R8rHEtqGlvmSeWNe8vLYF?slug=mc-starmarkets022811

By Marc J. Spears



“I always thought it was special to be in one place and you could put together a team, especially in a small market like San Antonio’s,” said Hall of Fame center David Robinson, who won two championships and spent his entire 14-season career with the San Antonio Spurs. “But it’s real tough because the small-market teams don’t have the money to do what a New York can do and the Lakers can do. It’s going to be hard for a lot of small-market teams.”


A look at the NBA standings today shows that just one team among the league’s top six record-wise is a small-market franchise: the San Antonio Spurs, who are a league-best 49-10.

The Spurs have ranked as one of their league’s most successful franchises over the past dozen years, winning four championships and reaching the West finals on two other occasions since the start of the lockout-shortened season in 1999. They’re now on pace to finish with a franchise-record 68 victories, a staggering total that would rank as the second-most ever by a Western Conference team. And yet, the Spurs have largely been overlooked – even ignored – this season because of the attention given to the star-driven rosters in Miami, L.A., New York and Boston.

“The big teams getting the best players might be what [people] want to see. It might be the biggest draw,” conceded Spurs forward Tim Duncan(notes). “But obviously, if the league wants to stay competitive all-around, that makes room for much better games on a nightly basis.”

Even now, however, the Spurs’ success is seen as an anomaly as much as a blueprint for other small-market franchises. Duncan praised Spurs coach Gregg Popovich and the team’s front-office staff for continuing to draft and find not only stars like Manu Ginobili(notes) and Tony Parker(notes), but also top-quality young role players in George Hill(notes), DeJuan Blair(notes) and Gary Neal(notes). “We continue to replenish our team every time we break down,” Duncan said.

But “pure luck,” Duncan admitted has also had a lot to do with the Spurs’ ability to sustain their success. In twice winning the NBA’s draft lottery, the Spurs landed two franchise-defining big men in Robinson and Duncan who were content to play out their careers in a small market.

If a new labor agreement doesn’t put the San Antonios and Utahs of the league on more equal footing with the L.A.’s and New Yorks, then the Spurs will soon face many of the same problems as their small-market peers. With Duncan owning just one more year on his contract, the Hornets’ Paul and Magic’s Howard possibly eyeing moves to bigger stages and the Portland Trail Blazers trying to overcome career-threatening injuries to two of their young cornerstones – Brandon Roy(notes) and Greg Oden(notes) – the Oklahoma City Thunder appear to be the only small-market franchise poised to contend for titles in the future.

[Obstructed_View]

Individual team salary caps are probably going to be suggested at some point, but the best idea is probably some modification of Bird rights for teams that draft well so they can keep their own players, even if they have more than one max player on the roster.

[Cry Havoc]

Individual team salary caps are probably going to be suggested at some point, but the best idea is probably some modification of Bird rights for teams that draft well so they can keep their own players, even if they have more than one max player on the roster.

That only matters if small market teams can afford to keep paying their stars. With the exorbitant salaries commanded by fielding a competitive team, most teams can't afford to do that. Unless player salaries are drastically reduced, small market teams are going to struggle to compete unless they manage to get lucky enough to land a once in a lifetime star like Durant or Duncan who doesn't want to go play in NYC, LA, or Chicago.

[Obstructed_View]

That only matters if small market teams can afford to keep paying their stars. With the exorbitant salaries commanded by fielding a competitive team, most teams can't afford to do that. Unless player salaries are drastically reduced, small market teams are going to struggle to compete unless they manage to get lucky enough to land a once in a lifetime star like Durant or Duncan who doesn't want to go play in NYC, LA, or Chicago.

Two words: Revenue sharing.

[ambchang]

And even when the salaries are matched between franchises, stars are still naturally attracted to larger markets due to endorsements and other career options (acting). Besides, larger markets are most likely better party towns as well, and any player would rather spend their careers in LA or NY vs. SLC or SA.

[Obstructed_View]

And even when the salaries are matched between franchises, stars are still naturally attracted to larger markets due to endorsements and other career options (acting). Besides, larger markets are most likely better party towns as well, and any player would rather spend their careers in LA or NY vs. SLC or SA.

http://sportige.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Duncan-Robinson.jpg


BTW, I'm not talking about free agents. Bird rights refer to keeping your own players. If Blair, Neal and Splitter all became max players, the Spurs should be able to pay all of them to keep them here.

Most players would rather be in LA or New York, all else being equal. The point is that if the money isn't equal, you don't have everyone running to those markets as soon as their contracts are up.

[ajh18]

I have wondered if it would be possible to keep a soft cap the way it is now, but have some kind of subsidy to the cap itself for teams that spend under a certain threshold.

A simple example: Each year a team stays under the luxury tax threshold, not only do they receive a share of the overage charges for those teams over the tax threshold, but its salary cap for the following year increases as well. The amount of increase could be some percentage of the total revenue generated by the taxpaying franchises.

So you'd have something along the lines of a system where the "big spenders" can still go way over the salary cap and tax threshold, but the teams that manage their spending intelligently actually get more flexibility to sign additional players.

Something like this would need a lot of tweaking, but its just an attempt at a more creative approach to maintain some parity for small markets and reward the "smart" front offices.

[braeden0613]

I think once Miami gets knocked out of the playoffs a few times and everyone realizes NY isn't that great of a team, things will get back to normal. The NBA has been a large-market favored league forever, with a few outliers such as the Spurs.

[Man In Black]

2 more words...Franchise Tag.

[dbestpro]

2 more words...Franchise Tag.

I actually think that this is a big enough issue that the entire season next year may be canceled. This is not a battle of big market verses small market but rather superstar verses star or average player. The loss of income affects the later much more. The later also benefits from parody in the league as more revenue is generated over all. The problem may be ego as the later also thinks he should stand along side the superstar even to their own detriment.

[scottspurs]

2 more words...Franchise Tag.

The Owners have to push for this. At least the small market team owners do. As a fan of the NBA I believe it would be worth it to lockout for an entire season if it resulted in a franchise tag. You have to stop all this conspiring. Every team should be able to keep its best player. The owners will win this new CBA and I for one am hoping they get that tag.

[buttsR4rebounding]

Right now NBA teams lose an aggregate of $300 million a year. In order for them to make an aggregate of $300 million which is what it would take to make all but the worse run franchises profitable players salaries would have to be reduced by 25%. It is actually not the $15-$20 million a year paid to the LeBrons, Kobes and Duncans of the league that is killing the league; these guys bring people into the seats and actually more than pay for themselves. The Franchise Tag seems logical to keep these players on a team without restricting their NBA income. The problem comes from 2 areas: 1. Overpaying 2nd tier and mediocre talent in an attempt to win a championship; (Rashard Lewis, AK47, etc) and 2. Long term contracts that lock a team in even when performance declines significantly due to age, injury or lack of motivation (Michael Redd, Yao Ming, Gilbert Arenas). Shorter term contracts and a hard cap would solve this problem. In short, a system that has worked to bring parity to the NFL seems to be the goal for the owners.

[DJ Mbenga]

they'll probably do a soft cap at say something like 70 milllion. 80 million is the max but anything above 70 million enters the luxury tax. probably 1.5 for every dollar you are above.

[mathbzh]

I have wondered if it would be possible to keep a soft cap the way it is now, but have some kind of subsidy to the cap itself for teams that spend under a certain threshold.

A simple example: Each year a team stays under the luxury tax threshold, not only do they receive a share of the overage charges for those teams over the tax threshold, but its salary cap for the following year increases as well. The amount of increase could be some percentage of the total revenue generated by the taxpaying franchises.

So you'd have something along the lines of a system where the "big spenders" can still go way over the salary cap and tax threshold, but the teams that manage their spending intelligently actually get more flexibility to sign additional players.

Something like this would need a lot of tweaking, but its just an attempt at a more creative approach to maintain some parity for small markets and reward the "smart" front offices.

I don't like this.
I believe one of the problem with the NBA is all the complexity added to improve the competitive balance.
The effect on competitive balance is not flagrant (Celtics+Lakers=half of the championships) but there are a lot of perverse effects.

The draft reward losers. Half teams are always in rebuild mode, tanking for the next Lebron or cutting the few decent player they have to make room for an hypothetical big name FA.

I think it would be better if the small market knew there is no messiah coming. Then they would have to be smart and build with the pieces they have. I think you can build a solid team with limited talent but complementary player... but you can't do that if you drop half your team for draft pick every year.

IMO It would also help if the bad team had something to lose (like being sent to a lower league) but this is a different story.

[Maddog]

I actually think that this is a big enough issue that the entire season next year may be canceled. This is not a battle of big market verses small market but rather superstar verses star or average player. The loss of income affects the later much more. The later also benefits from parody in the league as more revenue is generated over all. The problem may be ego as the later also thinks he should stand along side the superstar even to their own detriment.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2011/02/26/buck-harvey-hardball-%e2%80%94-what-spurs-will-welcome/

[Mixability]

It's nice that the Spurs make their stars and not just buy them.

[Seventyniner]

I keep wondering how much revenue for the owners comes from tickets/merchandise, and how much comes from TV revenue. If the TV part isn't a big percentage, then a hard cap and parity would be the goal for the majority of owners.