Ranking the top NBA markets

[CitySushi]

 

[Scapegoat]

 

[trojanfan12]

what i am saying is that a large large portion of that Time Warner revenue is likely being diverted to pay the enormous estate tax bill- but it at least allows the Buss family to retain the franchise.

As I said- a lot of times families have to sell an asset like that to pay the estate tax. Even a multi-billionaire like a Gilbert or Arison or Allen is not likely to have 600M in cash lying around to write a check to the IRS for.

Instead they stretch it out over a 10 year period. Or they could have taken out a loan against the revenue generated by the team to pay down the estate tax and are paying that loan off over a course of years. Thats probably what did happen if you ask me- all though the NBA may have rules against a team using their ownership interest as collateral for a loan.


So- in the shortest number of worlds possible: A ton of the Time Warner money is probably going to pay estate tax which allowed the Buss family to keep the team instead of forcing them to sell.

And none of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread which is about the size of the market. Not the wealth of any of the owners.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

-2018: LeBron to LA
-2017: Paul to Houston- yes it was technically a trade, but he opted in specifically so LAC could deal him to Houston
-2016: KD to the Warriors
-2014: LeBron goes back home
-2010: LeBron to Miami
-2010: Bosh to Miami
-2000: Grant HIll to Magic- sign and trade
-1996: Shaq to Lakers

And how many times did you need to mention LeBron in your list??? That's the absolute definition of "one man's opinion" if there ever was one.

The one pre-2010 superstar player to sign with the Lakers was in fact Shaq...However, the thing that often gets dismissed by a lot of folks was that the Lakers had a damn good team the year before he arrived (53 wins in 1995-96). It was not a market-based decision. He was signed to take a "good" team to the next level, which in time he did.

Shaq was not one to latch on to a 35-win team simply because they operated in a big market like LeBron just did. There were even rumblings at the time that Shaq could have teamed up with Grant Hill with the Pistons. However, the Lakers had the more recent bout of small success than Detroit, and that played no small role in them landing their big man to replace Vlade Divac, who of course was traded away on draft night that year.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

Nobody is going to read all of that shit. Stop trying to copy and paste your crap to make you look more intelligent.

...

I do not have to "post crap" to make myself look intelligent. I am intelligent. I am not surprised some one with your lack of brain power cannot comprehend a concept such as the one I outlined in the above post. It is WAAAAAAAAY above your poor little head.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

...

Well done todd. You working to be hooplas official parrot?

 

[HurricaneDij39]

3. Danny Boy will never live down that letter, dumb mistake.

OMG Get the fuck over it.

 

[tlance]

And how many times did you need to mention LeBron in your list??? That's the absolute definition of "one man's opinion" if there ever was one.

The one pre-2010 superstar player to sign with the Lakers was in fact Shaq...However, the thing that often gets dismissed by a lot of folks was that the Lakers had a damn good team the year before he arrived (53 wins in 1995-96). It was not a market-based decision. He was signed to take a "good" team to the next level, which in time he did.

Shaq was not one to latch on to a 35-win team simply because they operated in a big market like LeBron just did. There were even rumblings at the time that Shaq could have teamed up with Grant Hill with the Pistons. However, the Lakers had the more recent bout of small success than Detroit, and that played no small role in them landing their big man to replace Vlade Divac, who of course was traded away on draft night that year.

You are trying way too hard.

No superstar is ever going to latch on to a random 35 win team unless they have other things going for them like young talent and cap space.

There is a reason nobody has signed with the Knicks (although I probably should add Amare Stoudemire to that list). The Knicks have been horribly mismanaged.

I am not saying that stars will sign in a big market while ignoring things like organizational incompetence. What I am saying is when the big market shows signs of building a winning culture, stars are attracted there. Odds are that will never happen in Indiana, because they aren't an attractive market.

And history is on my side. Just because LeBron has changed teams 3 times doesn't mean this list is based solely in him. That is a really stupid thing to say.

Lastly, if Shaq wanted the clearer path to winning, he would have teamed with Grant Hill in Detroit. But guess what? LA is the more attractive market and they also have him a chance. Lost in your analysis is that a large part of the Laker success from that season before Shaq was due to Vlade Divac, who was one of their 3 best players, and Magic Johnson's return.

Because Vlade and Magic weren't ever going to be on the 97 Lakers with Shaq. And Kobe was a high school kid, so teaming with him wasn't part of the decision.

 

[WiggyRuss]

And none of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread which is about the size of the market. Not the wealth of any of the owners.

I was responding to this post of yours:

"Also, the Lakers have a deal with Time Warner that pretty well pays all of the bills including any luxury tax. The Buss family could be worth no more than you or I and it doesn't matter because of the Time Warner deal."

And just making the point- that one of the "bills" that Time Warner pays is likely the freaking massive estate tax bill Dr. Buss' estate had when he passed. Think of how great that investment was? I read he bought the Lakers for 20M and they were worth AT LEAST 1.5B when he died. How is that for ROI? lol

Also, I am sure a large portion of the Time Warner deals also pays into the Revenue Sharing that the league has collectively bargained.

I would not be surprised if 80M a year went to the estate tax payments and revenue sharing payments.

 

[WiggyRuss]

You are trying way too hard.

No superstar is ever going to latch on to a random 35 win team unless they have other things going for them like young talent and cap space.

There is a reason nobody has signed with the Knicks (although I probably should add Amare Stoudemire to that list). The Knicks have been horribly mismanaged.

I am not saying that stars will sign in a big market while ignoring things like organizational incompetence. What I am saying is when the big market shows signs of building a winning culture, stars are attracted there. Odds are that will never happen in Indiana, because they aren't an attractive market.

And history is on my side. Just because LeBron has changed teams 3 times doesn't mean this list is based solely in him. That is a really stupid thing to say.

Lastly, if Shaq wanted the clearer path to winning, he would have teamed with Grant Hill in Detroit. But guess what? LA is the more attractive market and they also have him a chance. Lost in your analysis is that a large part of the Laker success from that season before Shaq was due to Vlade Divac, who was one of their 3 best players, and Magic Johnson's return.

Because Vlade and Magic weren't ever going to be on the 97 Lakers with Shaq. And Kobe was a high school kid, so teaming with him wasn't part of the decision.

I think what he was saying is that those type of considerations are way down on the list. First and foremost, ability to win and ability to pay are by far the most important factors for the vast majority of athletes. After that some of the ancillary pieces come down to preference- whether a guy wants to maximize his dollars by paying as little tax as possible, whether he wants good weather, or a stable ownership group and GM, or an ownership group that has proven they will spend money, or marketing opportunities, or loyalty to a team that drafted them etc.

1. Money?
2. What level can I win with this team?

20-30 years ago being in a big market meant a lot more. If you were not on the Lakers or Sixers or Celtics or Knicks- chances are you were not going to be on national tv much, if it all, and chances are no one could watch you play. Now a kid in the hills of Mongolia can watch Russell Westbrook play everyone of his games much easier than a kid in NYC could have done so 20 years ago.

 

[tlance]

I think what he was saying is that those type of considerations are way down on the list. First and foremost, ability to win and ability to pay are by far the most important factors for the vast majority of athletes. After that some of the ancillary pieces come down to preference- whether a guy wants to maximize his dollars by paying as little tax as possible, whether he wants good weather, or a stable ownership group and GM, or an ownership group that has proven they will spend money, or marketing opportunities, or loyalty to a team that drafted them etc.

1. Money?
2. What level can I win with this team?

20-30 years ago being in a big market meant a lot more. If you were not on the Lakers or Sixers or Celtics or Knicks- chances are you were not going to be on national tv much, if it all, and chances are no one could watch you play. Now a kid in the hills of Mongolia can watch Russell Westbrook play everyone of his games much easier than a kid in NYC could have done so 20 years ago.

Organizational culture is #1 far and away. You must have a winning culture. It is even more important than money to many.

But acting like the market doesn't matter is naive at best. Because no superstar free agent has EVER signed in one of those bottom tier markets in cold weather cities. It just doesn't happen. It isn't as much about the market or the TV games, it is more about guys not wanting to live in a city like Milwaukee or Salt Lake City.

If one of those teams created a unique winning opportunity like what GS built, then they might have a shot, but even then a bigger market with a warmer climate might just trump it. Because there are a not of NBA cities that have appeal for young men in their 20s. LA and NY probably top the list, but because NY hasn't had the winning culture, they haven't been a factor lately.

Very few kids grow up dreaming about wearing a Minnesota TWolve or Indiana Pacers jersey.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Organizational culture is #1 far and away. You must have a winning culture. It is even more important than money to many.

But acting like the market doesn't matter is naive at best. Because no superstar free agent has EVER signed in one of those bottom tier markets in cold weather cities. It just doesn't happen. It isn't as much about the market or the TV games, it is more about guys not wanting to live in a city like Milwaukee or Salt Lake City.

If one of those teams created a unique winning opportunity like what GS built, then they might have a shot, but even then a bigger market with a warmer climate might just trump it. Because there are a not of NBA cities that have appeal for young men in their 20s. LA and NY probably top the list, but because NY hasn't had the winning culture, they haven't been a factor lately.

Very few kids grow up dreaming about wearing a Minnesota TWolve or Indiana Pacers jersey.

I am not saying it does not matter. I am saying it has never mattered less.

And I do not agree with "organizational culture" being #1 at all. I think money has, is, and always will be consideration #1 for the VAST VAST VAST majority of players, as it should be.

 

[tlance]

I am not saying it does not matter. I am saying it has never mattered less.

And I do not agree with "organizational culture" being #1 at all. I think money has, is, and always will be consideration #1 for the VAST VAST VAST majority of players, as it should be.

When you are talking about superstars, the $ is set in stone. Every suitor is on equal footing aside from
The team with the players' Bird rights.

In that case, the money isn't close. The only reason for a player to leave is if the culture isn't what they want. Players can and will continue to make that decision, because happiness is more important to many, a superstar it should be.

Because you show me somebody who can't live comfortably for the rest of their life off $140 million over 4 years, and I will show you somebody who is too dumb to deserve that paycheck.

 

[trojanfan12]

I was responding to this post of yours:

"Also, the Lakers have a deal with Time Warner that pretty well pays all of the bills including any luxury tax. The Buss family could be worth no more than you or I and it doesn't matter because of the Time Warner deal."

And just making the point- that one of the "bills" that Time Warner pays is likely the freaking massive estate tax bill Dr. Buss' estate had when he passed. Think of how great that investment was? I read he bought the Lakers for 20M and they were worth AT LEAST 1.5B when he died. How is that for ROI? lol

Also, I am sure a large portion of the Time Warner deals also pays into the Revenue Sharing that the league has collectively bargained.

I would not be surprised if 80M a year went to the estate tax payments and revenue sharing payments.

No you weren't. You were trying to further your nonsense about the wealth of the owners which was never part of the conversation or the thread and which is pretty meaningless when it comes to market size.

The wealth of the owners doesn't matter because, if they're doing things right, they aren't dipping into their personal wealth anyway.

As for what you may or may not be surprised by re: the Buss' money. That's also meaningless since you have no idea how they have things set up.

 

[WiggyRuss]

No you weren't. You were trying to further your nonsense about the wealth of the owners which was never part of the conversation or the thread and which is pretty meaningless when it comes to market size.

The wealth of the owners doesn't matter because, if they're doing things right, they aren't dipping into their personal wealth anyway.

As for what you may or may not be surprised by re: the Buss' money. That's also meaningless since you have no idea how they have things set up.

I got ya....lol....you know more about what I was responding to than I do....you will have to teach me that trick sometime.

After watching "Stranger Things"- maybe ESP and the such IS a possibility? lol

 

[WiggyRuss]

Because you show me somebody who can't live comfortably for the rest of their life off $140 million over 4 years, and I will show you somebody who is too dumb to deserve that paycheck.

EASY- how about dozens and dozens and dozens of NBA players that have shown they cant handle millions upon millions of dollars. lol....

 

[trojanfan12]

When you are talking about superstars, the $ is set in stone. Every suitor is on equal footing aside from
The team with the players' Bird rights.

In that case, the money isn't close. The only reason for a player to leave is if the culture isn't what they want. Players can and will continue to make that decision, because happiness is more important to many, a superstar it should be.

Because you show me somebody who can't live comfortably for the rest of their life off $140 million over 4 years, and I will show you somebody who is too dumb to deserve that paycheck.

Exactly. Money is obviously very important. However, I expect there's a point where a player has all of the money he needs and if he's smart with it, has or will have his family set for generations.

I'd expect that, at that point, happiness and winning become a lot more important than money. Seems like every season we are seeing players make that choice.

Used to be that players made all of the money they could and then started to take less to chase rings. Now, more players seem to be taking less earlier to chase rings earlier in their careers.

 

[WiggyRuss]

When you are talking about superstars, the $ is set in stone. Every suitor is on equal footing aside from


. The only reason for a player to leave is if the culture isn't what they want.

also, this is a statement that is complete horseshit. There could be any innumerable reasons for a player to want to leave a situation that have absolutely nothing to do with "culture". I mean, it could be as for obscure a reason as wanting to be closer to medical facilities like Derek Fisher, or the baseball play Piscotty.

To say the "only reason for a player to leave is if the culture isn't what they want" is INCREDIBLY myopic and is a ridiculously broad/asinine assertion to make.

 

[trojanfan12]

I got ya....lol....you know more about what I was responding to than I do...

Considering I wrote it, yeah I'd say I do.

You do the same thing every time there's a discussion about market size. You start talking about the wealth of the owners, which is meaningless with regard to market size.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Considering I wrote it, yeah I'd say I do.

You do the same thing every time there's a discussion about market size. You start talking about the wealth of the owners, which is meaningless with regard to market size.

As I can read the top of the page...it says "Top Markets"---- certainly "Top Markets" is not synomous with "biggest markets". For you to try and conflate the two is, well, stupid. lol

Please direct me to the thread that says "Biggest Markets"....lol

Its what my very first question was. What makes a market a "best market"? It is certainly not just the size of the market. and CERTAINLY one of the qualifications is the ability of the owner of that market to spend.

Its why, even though the Magic may not have the revenue of say the Knicks or Lakers, DeVos could buy and sell Dolan/Buss multiple times over. If I was a player I would certainly look at the owner's capacity to spend- we KNOW LeBron did.