http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5715816 Something to threaten the union with, doubt it's gonna happen. Franchises like the Warriors and Pistons (not exactly in the largest markets with the most booming economy) just recently got sold for big money so I honestly doubt that the league would make a couple of teams disappear for nothing. But if the Hornets get contracted, I want first dibs on Chris Paul.
The biggest candidate for contraction would be the Bucks or Cavaliers. Milwaukee Bucks have been losing money for years. Cavaliers have no market after LeBron left. Free agents aren't attracted to small markets with lots of snow. Cavaliers and Bucks will always lose out on the big free agents that sell tickets. Their fan base is too small.
Every dramatic statement Stern and Hunter make at this point is a negotiating ploy. Real negotiating won't start until next summer. Don't take any of this seriously. There won't be contraction and there won't be a 1/3 reduction in player salary costs. I predict something gets worked out at the last minute, but they might have to shorten the season a few games. A long lockout would cost both sides too much money. Right now, I don't feel it would be worth it to the owners to get what they want via a long lockout. They could probably crush the union and win decisively but that would be painful and bitter.
How about contracting the Bobcats, who should have never been expanded to in the first place? Charlotte is a terrible sports town.
Montreal should have a NBA team. I was at the Knicks game against the Raptors yesterday in Montreal and it was sold-out. The crowd was very active. Plus, Montreal is way bigger than Memphis, Cleveland or Milwaukee with 3.2 million people and it is 6 hours from New York, closer than Toronto.
The NBA needs to be smaller, that way there'd be a higher concentration of talent and as such, more competition. Right noe, you have the Lakers with a whole lot of talent, Miami with a lot of talent, and Boston. The rest of the league is filled with teams that have moderate to little talented players. If we remove some teams that have little amounts of talent, those players can join the moderate teams and we'd have more a lot more talent laden contenders. There'd be alot more competition and less scrubs. Unfortunately, this is never going to happen.
I'd think that the teams that should be on the watch list are Sacramento, New Orleans, and Memphis. My reasons-- Sacramento--from the ESPN article, Stern basically says that he has given up on a new arena in Sacto. That may be the death knell for that team. New Orleans--a team with the least respected owner in the "Club," plus the basic welfare deal with the State of Louisiana. Memphis--team that seems to always be in perpetual "buy me" mode with Heisley seeming to always want to unload the team. Why it's not likely the Bobcats, Cavs, or Bucks-- Charlotte--two words: Michael Jordan. After all the maneuvering to get him a team, and for him to get a team in his home state, no less--that keeps them around for a long time. Maybe even permanently. Cavs--Gilbert is one of the deeper pocket owners and though his post-Lebron rant was disliked but some publicly, I'd be surprised if his sentiment wasn't shared privately by a lot of owners. The Cavs are the only team in Ohio and is the only team in a large area (including Western PA). No arena issues either. Bucks--Owned by a sitting U.S. Senator. The Bucks fanbase runs deep in Wisconsin, and even though they play in the oldest arena in the league you don't hear of Kohl threatening to move the team nor pushing to get a new building built. For that matter you don't hear of Stern talking about that either. It would be political suicide for Kohl to lose that team.
New Orleans and Detroit still had higher gate receipts than the bottom half for attendance, last year. Memphis Grizzlies have sold more season tickets this season, than prior seasons. http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2010 http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2010/09/27/daily5.html
Anyone that takes that clown seriously on this matter is an idiot. Like some owners are just going to contract and let their asset go away. PUHLEASE ! DD
Liabilities lose money. Assets make money. If an owner is has the biggest money loser in the league year after eyar,he will come out ahead if the league buys him out. Normally, when a business is losing money for several years, they get nothing after the doors are closed. They just fold.
Lots of assets lose money. They won't contract, Stern wants to expand this is all 100% pure bull**** for the ignorant masses. DD
Classic tactic in labor-management negotiations is to threaten to downsize. Not only is there no incentive for any owner to lose their assets, there's no incentive for the other owners to buy-out those owners for their losses. If the opening position by the ownership bloc is to reduce the overall payroll by $750 million, the actual amount they would accept is probably more in the range of $300-400M since their losses are projected at $350M this year. That's about the amount it would take to buy-out a franchise to contract the league. It makes no financial sense and it's just Stern's way of sowing fear in the minds of easily manipulated NBA players, especially the players on the end of the bench and in smaller markets. Divide-and-conquer. They'll be working hard to ratchet up the pressure on the bench players since their bargaining power vis-a-vis the stars is much less. Who would they replace the stars with? Any threat that is actually carried out by either side is actually self-defeating for both sides. Once a lock-out happens, it's just a matter of seeing who has greater tolerance for not getting any earnings. I'd suspect, given the budgeting habits of the average NBA player (see Antoine Walker or Kelvin Cato) that the owners can last longer since they're billionaires. The owners know this so they'll wait it out and do their saber-rattling to get the players to become emotional. Stern will want to get to a deal a little quicker than the owners since he wants to protect the NBA brand. The players need to exact some cost on the owners so they don't get squeezed for the next CBA negotiations and can credibly say that they are willing to do a lock out. But eventually, mortgages and child support payment rack up and the players will cave. I don't anticipate the lock-out lasting longer than half of the 2011-12 season. Say what you will about Stern, but he knows what he's doing when it comes to the negotiations. Notice how he completely dismissed Billy Hunter's threats by saying he doesn't believe he wrote the statement threatening a lock-out. Billy Hunter is going to need to impose a lot of discipline on the players so they don't get picked apart in the summer.
I figured those new rules against arguing ref calls and making coaches wear collars is LESS to do about "integrity of the game", and its really about the league power posturing against the players with the upcoming CBA in mind. Literally showing them who's in charge. . That might be one of the better negotiation tactics.The league insisting that all the players do is WASTE all the money ANYWAY, so why give so much to them in the FIRST place
Actually, that's a good point. The techs issue could be simply creating another issue that the NBAPA has to negotiate over, which is essentially costless for the owners. When negotiations get locked up, the owners can just say, "here, we'll take away the techs issue as a gesture of our good faith"
