Is there even a point in small market teams in the NBA?

[WiggyRuss]

before - a team could not actually afford PAY a player--- literally Orlando could not afford to pay Shaq what the Lakers could have. That is no longer even close to a consideration in the current NBA. That would never happen in the current NBA.

A long time ago if you wanted to have any national TV games, or get a big marketing deal- you had to be in a major market.

Way back as far as 2007 the two biggest marketers in the league- LeBron and Howard (at the time) were located in Orlando and Cleveland. That has only become even more the case.

Last year the Milwaukee Bucks had 18 national TV games and the LA Lakers had 12.


This is not the NBA of the 70's- mid 90's.

marketing opportunities
rich owners
revenue sharing
national tv games- ability for the whole world to watch
a MUCH bigger player pool to draw from

the advantages a team like say the Lakers or Knicks used to enjoy has been hugely mitigated in the last 15+ years of the NBA.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

You practically took the words out of my mouth - I was about to say San Antonio is a small market as is Dallas, and the Spurs have been in the top five most of the time in the last 18 years - Very well managed. The Oklahoma Thunder would have easily won two or three championships if they hadn't broke up the team over money

List of metropolitan statistical areas - Wikipedia

Dallas is a small market? Are you serious? #4 metro area in US according to this & according to other sources no lower than # 6 or 7. Sounds like some folks need to do a little research.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

before - a team could not actually afford PAY a player--- literally Orlando could not afford to pay Shaq what the Lakers could have. That is no longer even close to a consideration in the current NBA. That would never happen in the current NBA.

A long time ago if you wanted to have any national TV games, or get a big marketing deal- you had to be in a major market.

Way back as far as 2007 the two biggest marketers in the league- LeBron and Howard (at the time) were located in Orlando and Cleveland. That has only become even more the case.

Last year the Milwaukee Bucks had 18 national TV games and the LA Lakers had 12.


This is not the NBA of the 70's- mid 90's.

marketing opportunities
rich owners
revenue sharing
national tv games- ability for the whole world to watch
a MUCH bigger player pool to draw from

the advantages a team like say the Lakers or Knicks used to enjoy has been hugely mitigated in the last 15+ years of the NBA.

Good pts & I would say that already having a star player is at least as much of a factor in attracting FAs then the team or location. OK City has done it & no reason to believe that a team like the Bucks can't attract other players in the future since they already have the Greek Freak on their team & he shows no signs of wanting to play elsewhere at this time.

Bottom line - Big name players add up to successful teams & ultimately ratings & $$.

 

[tlance]

I think this is correct, but I would add one more thing.

Fan base is not limited to geographical regions. The Lakers and Celtics for example, are teams that always tend to have national followings. Other franchises can gain national following when they have extended periods of high success (GS, SA and Cleveland). That is hard to accomplish though.

And, like in the case of Cleveland, that following goes away when the superstar player leaves town.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

You could ask what is the point of having basketball in some major markets just as easily. When was the last time New York won a championship? Atlanta, Houston, Philly, Washington?

Great pt & I believe that just points out the major factor there is not the size of the market or anything remotely close to that. It is all about management & organization. The Wizards are the perfect example. They have a so-so team but could have been a major contender if their GM for the past 15 years wasn't a buffoon. As stated previously they had every chance to get players like Curry, Thompson & Leonard. They not only didn't get them but in most cases the players they took instead were terrible & are long gone.

Compare this to the Warriors. Save for KD their star players didn't just drop into their laps. They took chances on players like Curry who by no means were considered sure things coming out of college. The LA argument is laughable as witnessed by the dramatic difference in the history of the Lakers vs the Clippers. For the most part when the Lakers were successful they had some of the best management in sports.

In the end IMO it all comes down to how the organization is run in most cases & a champ in the future could come from a large or a smaller city.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

List of metropolitan statistical areas - Wikipedia

Dallas is a small market? Are you serious? #4 metro area in US according to this & according to other sources no lower than # 6 or 7. Sounds like some folks need to do a little research.

In comparison to Los Angeles and New York - Yes Dallas is a small market.

 

[msgkings322]

In comparison to Los Angeles and New York - Yes Dallas is a small market.

LOL ok so it's settled. There are 2 large markets and 28 small ones.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

In comparison to Los Angeles and New York - Yes Dallas is a small market.

LOL. So using that logic I guess that the NBA should reorganize & only have teams in LA, NY & Chicago. BTW - none of those cities had a team in the NBA playoffs last season.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

BTW - using you logic LA is a small market in comparison to NY - just twisted logic.

 

[logic]

In comparison to Los Angeles and New York - Yes Dallas is a small market.

Wow, you've outdone yourself with this one TLF!

 

[True Lakers Fan]

LOL. So using that logic I guess that the NBA should reorganize & only have teams in LA, NY & Chicago. BTW - none of those cities had a team in the NBA playoffs last season.

No, that's what the salary cap is for - The salary cap levels the playing field for the teams at a disadvantage. Granted that some cities are bigger then others, but Los Angeles, New York and I believe the New York or now New Jersey Nets would have been considered a big market as well as the Chicago Bulls. San Antonio has proven that smaller market teams can succeed if managed properly and size does not always matter.

 

[logic]

No, that's what the salary cap is for - The salary cap levels the playing field for the teams at a disadvantage. Granted that some cities are bigger then others, but Los Angeles, New York and I believe the New York or now New Jersey Nets would have been considered a big market as well as the Chicago Bulls. San Antonio has proven that smaller market teams can succeed if managed properly and size does not always matter.

The salary cap has to do with owners' money (discussed earlier), not really market size. Cleveland is not a big market but Gilbert is a big spender.

 

[RobToxin]

And, like in the case of Cleveland, that following goes away when the superstar player leaves town.

The Bulls when Jordan left is a great example of that too.

 

[Myles]

The advantage the larger markets have isn't confined to $$. The ability to attract big free agents is much tougher in small markets many cases. The Pacers are a good example. They are run pretty well. Have put a competitive team on the floor for decades. They haven't had a pick better than #10 for 29 years. Almost 3 decades! Their last top 5 pick was Rik Smits in 1988. If a top free agent can go to the Lakers or the Pacers, they choose the Lakers even if it is not the best place to win.

 

[logic]

The advantage the larger markets have isn't confined to $$. The ability to attract big free agents is much tougher in small markets many cases. The Pacers are a good example. They are run pretty well. Have put a competitive team on the floor for decades. They haven't had a pick better than #10 for 29 years. Almost 3 decades! Their last top 5 pick was Rik Smits in 1988. If a top free agent can go to the Lakers or the Pacers, they choose the Lakers even if it is not the best place to win.

Again, not sure if that is the market speaking. The Lakers also have a history of winning and historically good management. Clippers are in the exact same market, but how many free agents are choosing them over the Pacers?

How many top free agents are signing in the biggest market of New York?

 

[Myles]

Again, not sure if that is the market speaking. The Lakers also have a history of winning and historically good management. Clippers are in the exact same market, but how many free agents are choosing them over the Pacers?

How many top free agents are signing in the biggest market of New York?

The Knicks suffer from poor management for years and years.
The Clippers are the second fiddle to the Lakers.
Perhaps the small markets are more of the detriment than the large markets are attractive.

 

[tlance]

The Bulls when Jordan left is a great example of that too.

Exactly.

They went from being the most popular team in the league to one that few outside of the Chicago area choose to follow.

 

[LogicMan]

Threads like this speak to the need for preseason to start

 

[SoCalWizFan]

The advantage the larger markets have isn't confined to $$. The ability to attract big free agents is much tougher in small markets many cases. The Pacers are a good example. They are run pretty well. Have put a competitive team on the floor for decades. They haven't had a pick better than #10 for 29 years. Almost 3 decades! Their last top 5 pick was Rik Smits in 1988. If a top free agent can go to the Lakers or the Pacers, they choose the Lakers even if it is not the best place to win.

First of all what does draft position have to do w/ any of this? That is simply a matter of finishing w/ a poor record. The key there in in the NBA is to focus on the extreme - either go for the title if you realistically have a shot or plan for the future (stay away from older FAs, worry more @ future years than present, etc). That has nothing to do w/ the team location.

And again - having a star player is probably more important than location in attracting quality FAs. Wherever a KD or LeBron go players will follow regardless of the location. On the flip side cities like LA, NY & CHI recently have not attracted anyone until LeBron recently signed w/ LA & that signing will likely lead the way to brining in more quality FAs to that team. Location may be somewhat important, but I believe that it is being way overstated in this thread. In 2018 players can play anywhere & still live wherever else they like & their location will have minimal impact on their endorsement & earnings potential.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

BTW - the Pacers were in prime position to win an NBA title not that long ago. They came up short & apparently didn't really plan that well moving forward & perhaps overvalued some of their personnel. Their best player - Paul George - was traded & signed long term not w/ LA, NY or CHI but rather in the supposed small mkt of OKC. So much for the theory of big name players only wanting to go to one of 3-4 cities.