Guys, I read/saw something where David Stern mentioned the word contraction as a method to get the NBA business model back to sustainability.

Although he did mention that small market teams shouldn't worry - my question is what team do you think is most at risk of contraction?

I don't get it....if you have fewer markets wouldn't that mean that the players will demand more money making it more difficult to sustain? I'm probably missing something.

In general it has nothing to do with player salaries, it has to do with the distribution of the television revenues, fewer teams mean larger slices of the pie for the remaining teams which is pretty much what happened in the Big 12 this past summer going from 12 to 10 teams. The collective bargaining agreement doesn't change the percentage that goes to individual player percentage of revenues wouldn't change without a change to the CBA. What would change are the number of available jobs as players, fewer players means more revenue per team to split from the national contracts through the NBA. My understanding is that a portion of the local television contracts get put into a pool and distributed evenly throughout the league unlike the MLB local contracts which go to the teams themselves and no revenue sharing of those.

Stern may have mentioned it but contraction is a very hard sell to the players union and the various local and state authorities. Remember baseball tried to contract Montreal and Minnesota in 2001-2002 which ultimately failed. It did allow some change of ownership among teams though as the MLB "bought" the Expos from Jeffrey Loria (former 89'rs owner), in turn he bought the Florida Marlins from John Henry who in turn bought the Boston Red Sox. After that MLB owned the Expos and they and the Minnesota Twins were slated for contraction until the Minnesota congressional delegation and legislature got involved. There is always a little under current of contraction talk going in regards to bad owners, the current candidates would be the Royals which is usually due to bad ownership, David Glass seems to run the Royals like he ran Wal-Mart, as cheaply as possible.

If they contract for financial reason I would hope they would look at the teams that are hemorraging money and delete them first instead of last hired first fired. It seems to the media that pro basketball and football may not have seasons in 2011 and 2012 depending upon the labor strife. A recent article I read said that Stern wants to cut hundreds of millions from the leagues cost structure and reduce overall costs by up to one third.

It makes me wonder if professional sports has reached the tipping point/pint of diminishing returns. Fans are being lost because costs are too high and if you raise the price even more then you loose fans in torrents.

Maybe the athletes and owners need to realize that they have reached the pinnacle of their financial success???

It makes me wonder if professional sports has reached the tipping point/pint of diminishing returns. Fans are being lost because costs are too high and if you raise the price even more then you loose fans in torrents.

Maybe the athletes and owners need to realize that they have reached the pinnacle of their financial success???
I think that point has been coming, the ticket prices has continuously gone up. We considered getting Dallas Cowboys season tickets, they were affordable at Texas Stadium but the price increase at JerryWorld was ridiculous. Since we are 3 hours away we decided to just go to one or two games a season and buy them off StubHub, sure we will pay more per game but it is still cheaper having good seats than having nosebleed seats for the entire season. If they were still around the same price as the Texas Stadium season tickets we would probably have them. If I was still in OKC I would probably have a Chiefs half-season ticket package, they are downright cheap in comparison. I think JerryWorld is nice but it feels like a large arena, not a stadium, I prefer Mile High and Arrowhead. The things that are nice to me is more legroom, the old Texas Stadium seats were narrow and the aisles were tight.

A more glaring example may be the Yankees, did anyone else notice how empty the lower seats were at Yankee Stadium? I watch the Red Sox all season so I see plenty of games at Yankee Stadium and even during the season for Sox games there are empty seats down low. Reading some articles about the new stadium before last season some of those seats down low from first to third were up to $2,500 a game. There were stories about long time season ticket holders whose current seat locations could as much as quadruple in the new stadium.

I think the biggest issue is the owners reliance on corporate largess, these stadiums are built for the corporate ticket buyers and not for fans and the ticket prices are reflective of that. For the first time in many years the NFL has been dealing with local television blackouts in many cities other than Jacksonville where they have dealt with them for quite a few seasons. These owners who built new stadiums also incurred a large amount of debt, for JerryWorld the City of Arlington only put in $350 million towards the $1.15 billion cost, the NFL provided a $100 million loan, so Jerry had to finance $700 million and is responsible for the NFL contribution as well, that is a big nut to carry and as Tom Hicks found out it can cost you everything.

I think a large part of it is player salaries. I read somewhere that just getting rid of two teams would save something like $800 million. First, you have the direct savings of not paying 30 players but those 30 players would be willing to take a pay cut to get on another roster, which would drive down salaries across the league. If Lebron James only earned half his current salary do you think he would quit basketball? Nope. If not for the NBA Lebron James would be working at The Home Depot making $35,000 per year.

If not for the NBA...

More than one player would be in prison.

LeBron actually took a small cut to play in Miami; he's making about $1.2 million less than he did last year. Not a big drop, but nothing unusual.

And as you get older and less valuable, unless you have superstar status, you earn less. Etan Thomas earned almost $8 million in his year with Oklahoma City, the last year of a contract he'd signed with the Wizards, who traded him to the Timberwolves, who in turn dealt him to the Thunder. The best deal he could get after that, apparently, was with Atlanta, which offered him $1.2 million for one year. Tracy McGrady, who earned around $20 million a year at Houston and New York, makes $1.35 million in Detroit. So there's a balancing effect at the top of the scale - eventually.

No team currently pays more than $100 million in salaries, so losing two of them is not likely to free up $800 million in revenue.

http://www.okcthunderfans.com/vforum/showthread.php?t=5500

Scroll down to the bottom of the page for a good general discussion of contraction by Trueblood.

No team currently pays more than $100 million in salaries, so losing two of them is not likely to free up $800 million in revenue.

I misread Stern's quote. He said he wants to cut expenses by $800 million. Contraction is just one part of the puzzle.



"What we told our players initially is that we'd like to get profitable and we'd like to have a return on our investment," Stern said. "And there's a swing of somewhere in the neighborhood of between $750 [million] and $800 million that we would like to change. That's our story and we're sticking with it."



Read more: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bulls-confidential/2010/10/nba-cba---contraction-750-million-salary-cuts-non-guaranteed-deals-oh-my.html#ixzz13NGohy32

new orleans - fans just don't care about the hornets, especially since cp3 has verbally said he wants out. and it's hard to compete against the saints.
charlotte - biggest knee jerk move by putting a team back there. fans are still sour and team has no stars of the future
sacramento - actually don't have that bad of a team but have serious arena issues with no resolution in sight
detroit - attendance way down and team is shell of former selves and no bright light at the end of the tunnel

Who voted for the Thunder?

Who voted for the Thunder?

Probably Paul from Yukon. The Thunder are not on anyone's contraction list.

The Thunder are the talk of the NBA right now. Their youthful energy and fresh style of play is a saving grace for the league.

yep, no way the Thunder goes anywhere. They are OKC's team and probably always will be. I actually think the NBA is gunning to use OKC as the 'model' if you will for all of it's franchises - particularly those in smaller media markets.

I personally voted for New Orleans Hornets - but I didn't want to say anything for a while so I wouldn't sway the votes. ... It looks like I am not alone in my thinking, but I also agree with Charlotte and Sacramento.

I voted for the Clippers. They add nothing to the NBA. Take the Lakers fans out of LA and the Clippers are probably the smallest NBA market team.

Im surprised the Clippers aren't playing in Anaheim if they MUST be in the LA metro. I don't understand why the NBA would have two teams play in the same arena. I agree with Kerry, they have a following but minimal at that - probably due to their being 2nd fiddle to the Lakers. If they had their OWN arena, then there could at least be some 'advantage' or 'home base' that is exclusive to them.

I honestly think the NBA could survive it it spreads out teams to markets that want it (ie. like what happened with OKC). Anaheim wants, and would still be 'local' but open up the Orange County and (arguably) E Los Angeles County markets, while the Lakers would still be the LA/Hollywood team.

I actually can't understand why they aren't in San Diego.

I actually can't understand why they aren't in San Diego.

They were, from 1978 to 1984.

Instead of contracting teams, the NBA needs to look at putting teams in the right places. For example, Kansas City has been dying for an NBA or NHL franchise. Even though KC is primarily a football town, the region has a passion for basketball, which is why I think an NBA team would thrive there. If I remember right, the Sonics were looking at moving to KC in addition to Oklahoma City.

I agree with worthy cook that the NBA made a mistake by putting another team in Charlotte right after the Hornets left. They needed to wait a while longer.

The Grizzlies need to be moved to Louisville, Lexington, or Cincinnati.

The Hawks should be moved somewhere else or eliminated altogether. Atlanta could care less about the NBA.

Either the Clippers or Kings should be moved to Las Vegas. Eliminate one of the two.

Eliminate the Hornets or move them to KC. New Orleans is a football city.

Don't worry about the Thunder. The city worked hard to get them and is proving that they can support an NBA team, so they'll be around for a long, long time.

the Sonics weren't looking to move to KC, that was only fluff to appease those who thought PBC wanted to move to OKC all along - which they actually did. I also think Sprint Center wasn't finished yet when the move started to shake down, but I can't recall exactly. The Sonics/Thunder was destined for OKC all along, not Vegas or KC or Louisville - all of which were used as pawns to make PBC look like it was 'evaluating' it's options to move.

I do agree with your suggestions that teams should be in the correct markets and agree with your teams that should move - I don't agree with the cities you list though. ... (Lexington???, even Louisville? - those are huge college BBall towns, not sure the pro dollars are there).

Even KC is suspect, because there are already 2 pro teams there (MLB and NFL) - nobody in their right mind would think KC could support 3 of the big 4 leagues with less than 2 million people (OKC metro has only 680K-ish less people, and it would be a stretch if people thought OKC could support two teams with 2 mil). ... Now, if an existing owner there would buy a team, it COULD work.

I'd say, move the Clippers back to San Diego - tapping that market and giving them more 'big league' identity (as well as the Clippers a true HOME). Move the Grizzlies back to Vancouver with the same owner as the NHL Canucks. The team could tap into Seattle and in reality it should have never left Vancouver to begin with if it were better managed. You'd also further tap Canada as a market (East-Toronto, West-Vancouver). I disagree with moving the Hawks, even if people dont care - ATL is a 5 million metro, you can't leave it.

The Hornets. .... Yes, the Hornets should move - they never should have left OKC in reality. That would have been the 'best' decision for the league as a whole, with the Sonics remaining in Seattle AND a new arena deal. But with things happened the way they did and MSY being such a football (only) town - I'd agree that the Hornets probably should move. The question is - where? I don't think KC gets first dabs at the team just because they have an empty arena - as it could prove more than a failure than even New Orleans given the market would be severely stretched. I'd say Saint Louis should get a shot or Cincy. Maybe Baltimore? Vegas?

you really start to run out of available big cities that the NBA would be welcome quite fast. It really starts to look like contraction might be a good idea - maybe 2 teams OR Seattle build a darn arena. ....

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-5-nba-teams-most-likely-to-be-contracted-2010-10

and now, the press weighs in. Interesting who WE and THEY vote #1 most likely to go.

Is this really going to happen?

Amazing if it does and, in my opinion, great for the NBA product too.

I have thought for 10 years or more that the NBA has to many teams, most pro sports do.

many many people are starting to say it would be good for the league. some teams really are dead weight or bottom feeders.

I dont understand, why in our poll - there are 3 votes for OKC but only 1!!!! vote for Minnesota???????

They dont even WANT their team, they could care less - yet some on here think OKC should contract? ???

Im not saying there shouldn't be votes for OKC - people have a right to speak their mind, but a city that doesn't even WANT a team has less than a city DYING for a team????

I dont understand, why in our poll - there are 3 votes for OKC but only 1!!!! vote for Minnesota???????

They dont even WANT their team, they could care less - yet some on here think OKC should contract? ???

Im not saying there shouldn't be votes for OKC - people have a right to speak their mind, but a city that doesn't even WANT a team has less than a city DYING for a team????

Hot Rod, the votes for OKC could be from Seattle trolls who still visit here. LOL

that's true, and that is what I was thinking. ....

It is getting down to contract negotiations.

It's an old negotiations' plot: what the owner's call 'Fat Ducking' the employees.

The owners will throw the player's union a bone and a finger at the same time.

When you want to distract the union from the table, bring up contraction (fewer teams translates into fewer players).

The owners will come out ahead and the union will leave the table feeling as though they compromised by fighting off contraction and giving in to lower salaries.

In the end, the fans lose!