Expansion/Re-Alignment

[SHAQATTACK]

I?m for smaller nba , less teams , less games ,  teams keeping better players more stars on each team.  NBA is headed toward nascar ,  to many tracks , too much fiddling with this and that . Less Bronny , more quality talent on each team , less teams . 

[Redz]

I?m for smaller nba , less teams , less games ,  teams keeping better players more stars on each team.  NBA is headed toward nascar ,  to many tracks , too much fiddling with this and that . Less Bronny , more quality talent on each team , less teams .

The only way that ever happens is if they start losing money.

[Moranis]

We barely got enough talent in these teams, and we want to expand...

Most pundits have been raving for years about how deep and talented the league is. If they are going to water it down a little, nows the time I guess.

and most pundits are idiots so that would explain that

I agree withe pundits part, but I honestly believe the level of talent is at an all time high. You can't even compete in the modern NBA without a minimum of 2 superstars and a great supporting cast. That wasn't the case 15 years ago.

15 years ago you needed more than just 2 superstars to win it all (our second big 3 era) but 30 years ago you only needed 2 (the MJ/Pippen run and even just one could get you a title with the Hakeem titles).

All time high for talent was the 80's.  As talented as the Sixers were in the 80's, they only won 1 title and team as loaded as the Bucks couldn't even get to the finals.

The teams in the 80's also just weren't as good - strictly in the sense that the game wasn't nearly as 'solved' as it is now, so the strategies hadn't caught up.

Talent parity will always exist, but most teams are much closer in terms of 'the best way' to play basketball than they were 40+ years ago, for better or worse.

the 80's also had a lot of objectively bad teams. I mean 2 franchises in the West made the NBA Finals in the 80's, the Lakers with 8 and the Rockets the other 2.  In the East, only 3 franchises made the Finals, the Sixers 3 of the first 4 (with Boston's 1), then the Celtics ran off the next 4, before the Pistons got the last 2.  So for an entire 10 year period only 5 franchises made the NBA Finals.  How talented could the league have been if it was dominated by just 5 teams? I mean look at the 84 Knicks that won 47 games.  Yes, they had Bernard King in his prime, but the rest of that roster is hot garbage.  Bill Cartwright was probably their 2nd best player and if not him last legs Truck Robinson.  Louis Orr started 20 games.  I had legitimately never heard of him before doing this exercise.  That was a 47 win team that made the 2nd round and actually pushed the Celtics because the C's couldn't guard Bernard King, but that team just wasn't good.   

this has got to be the lamest argument ever.  take a look at the teams getting to the finals and you have your answer as to why no one else was getting there.  Lakers were absolutely loaded.  it's a fluke that Houston got there twice.   Celtics and Sixer teams were loaded as well.  Milwaukee, another loaded team, couldn't get past them. 

was every team great, no.  same thing can be said for every year.  There was a lot less watering down of the talent and the 3-point gimmick that's overtaken the game and made it a farce today was hardly a factor in the game in those days and was a much better product to watch.

Calling Milwaukee loaded is the problem with your analysis.  Milwaukee was a fine team led by Moncrief who eventually made the HOF, but that was like 30 years after he retired.  Johnson, Bridgeman, and old past his prime Lanier were solid.  Pressey joined a bit later and for half a season they had 22 mpg Archibald.  That team is pretty similar to the Clippers this year before the trades except Kawhi and Harden are both better than Moncrief though the Bucks had more depth.  Maybe Phoenix is a better comparison as Booker is a similar level of player to Moncrief (different strengths but similar comparative skill level).

The 80's had 2 of the greatest teams ever assembled (83 Sixers, 86 Celtics) and the Lakers dynasty, but the league had no depth and lacked balance.  There were a lot of just bad teams and because there weren't many teams so many of the bad teams made the playoffs.  The late 80's the talent picked up some, but then the league expanded a lot in the 90's and watered down the league a lot.  The talent has increased significantly since the expansion in the 90's ended.  Far more talent today than any prior generation.  Not even close.

[Donoghus]

In the history of the NBA, nine teams have had 7 or more consecutive seasons of 50 or more wins.  7 of those teams won titles in their respective stretches.  The two that did not were the 1988-89 to '94-95 Suns and the '80-81 to '86-87 Bucks.

80s Bucks were a [dang] good team.  They just came around at an unfortunate time.

[slamtheking]

We barely got enough talent in these teams, and we want to expand...

Most pundits have been raving for years about how deep and talented the league is. If they are going to water it down a little, nows the time I guess.

and most pundits are idiots so that would explain that

I agree withe pundits part, but I honestly believe the level of talent is at an all time high. You can't even compete in the modern NBA without a minimum of 2 superstars and a great supporting cast. That wasn't the case 15 years ago.

15 years ago you needed more than just 2 superstars to win it all (our second big 3 era) but 30 years ago you only needed 2 (the MJ/Pippen run and even just one could get you a title with the Hakeem titles).

All time high for talent was the 80's.  As talented as the Sixers were in the 80's, they only won 1 title and team as loaded as the Bucks couldn't even get to the finals.

The teams in the 80's also just weren't as good - strictly in the sense that the game wasn't nearly as 'solved' as it is now, so the strategies hadn't caught up.

Talent parity will always exist, but most teams are much closer in terms of 'the best way' to play basketball than they were 40+ years ago, for better or worse.

the 80's also had a lot of objectively bad teams. I mean 2 franchises in the West made the NBA Finals in the 80's, the Lakers with 8 and the Rockets the other 2.  In the East, only 3 franchises made the Finals, the Sixers 3 of the first 4 (with Boston's 1), then the Celtics ran off the next 4, before the Pistons got the last 2.  So for an entire 10 year period only 5 franchises made the NBA Finals.  How talented could the league have been if it was dominated by just 5 teams? I mean look at the 84 Knicks that won 47 games.  Yes, they had Bernard King in his prime, but the rest of that roster is hot garbage.  Bill Cartwright was probably their 2nd best player and if not him last legs Truck Robinson.  Louis Orr started 20 games.  I had legitimately never heard of him before doing this exercise.  That was a 47 win team that made the 2nd round and actually pushed the Celtics because the C's couldn't guard Bernard King, but that team just wasn't good.   

this has got to be the lamest argument ever.  take a look at the teams getting to the finals and you have your answer as to why no one else was getting there.  Lakers were absolutely loaded.  it's a fluke that Houston got there twice.   Celtics and Sixer teams were loaded as well.  Milwaukee, another loaded team, couldn't get past them. 

was every team great, no.  same thing can be said for every year.  There was a lot less watering down of the talent and the 3-point gimmick that's overtaken the game and made it a farce today was hardly a factor in the game in those days and was a much better product to watch.

Calling Milwaukee loaded is the problem with your analysis.  Milwaukee was a fine team led by Moncrief who eventually made the HOF, but that was like 30 years after he retired.  Johnson, Bridgeman, and old past his prime Lanier were solid.  Pressey joined a bit later and for half a season they had 22 mpg Archibald.  That team is pretty similar to the Clippers this year before the trades except Kawhi and Harden are both better than Moncrief though the Bucks had more depth.  Maybe Phoenix is a better comparison as Booker is a similar level of player to Moncrief (different strengths but similar comparative skill level).

The 80's had 2 of the greatest teams ever assembled (83 Sixers, 86 Celtics) and the Lakers dynasty, but the league had no depth and lacked balance.  There were a lot of just bad teams and because there weren't many teams so many of the bad teams made the playoffs.  The late 80's the talent picked up some, but then the league expanded a lot in the 90's and watered down the league a lot.  The talent has increased significantly since the expansion in the 90's ended.  Far more talent today than any prior generation.  Not even close.

leave it to you to forget Terry Cummings on those Bucks teams.  Knock the bucks all you want (which is obviously what you want) but Cummings puts them on a level of a top team.  Worthy and Wilkens get the hype from that draft but Cummings was every bit as good

[Moranis]

We barely got enough talent in these teams, and we want to expand...

Most pundits have been raving for years about how deep and talented the league is. If they are going to water it down a little, nows the time I guess.

and most pundits are idiots so that would explain that

I agree withe pundits part, but I honestly believe the level of talent is at an all time high. You can't even compete in the modern NBA without a minimum of 2 superstars and a great supporting cast. That wasn't the case 15 years ago.

15 years ago you needed more than just 2 superstars to win it all (our second big 3 era) but 30 years ago you only needed 2 (the MJ/Pippen run and even just one could get you a title with the Hakeem titles).

All time high for talent was the 80's.  As talented as the Sixers were in the 80's, they only won 1 title and team as loaded as the Bucks couldn't even get to the finals.

The teams in the 80's also just weren't as good - strictly in the sense that the game wasn't nearly as 'solved' as it is now, so the strategies hadn't caught up.

Talent parity will always exist, but most teams are much closer in terms of 'the best way' to play basketball than they were 40+ years ago, for better or worse.

the 80's also had a lot of objectively bad teams. I mean 2 franchises in the West made the NBA Finals in the 80's, the Lakers with 8 and the Rockets the other 2.  In the East, only 3 franchises made the Finals, the Sixers 3 of the first 4 (with Boston's 1), then the Celtics ran off the next 4, before the Pistons got the last 2.  So for an entire 10 year period only 5 franchises made the NBA Finals.  How talented could the league have been if it was dominated by just 5 teams? I mean look at the 84 Knicks that won 47 games.  Yes, they had Bernard King in his prime, but the rest of that roster is hot garbage.  Bill Cartwright was probably their 2nd best player and if not him last legs Truck Robinson.  Louis Orr started 20 games.  I had legitimately never heard of him before doing this exercise.  That was a 47 win team that made the 2nd round and actually pushed the Celtics because the C's couldn't guard Bernard King, but that team just wasn't good.   

this has got to be the lamest argument ever.  take a look at the teams getting to the finals and you have your answer as to why no one else was getting there.  Lakers were absolutely loaded.  it's a fluke that Houston got there twice.   Celtics and Sixer teams were loaded as well.  Milwaukee, another loaded team, couldn't get past them. 

was every team great, no.  same thing can be said for every year.  There was a lot less watering down of the talent and the 3-point gimmick that's overtaken the game and made it a farce today was hardly a factor in the game in those days and was a much better product to watch.

Calling Milwaukee loaded is the problem with your analysis.  Milwaukee was a fine team led by Moncrief who eventually made the HOF, but that was like 30 years after he retired.  Johnson, Bridgeman, and old past his prime Lanier were solid.  Pressey joined a bit later and for half a season they had 22 mpg Archibald.  That team is pretty similar to the Clippers this year before the trades except Kawhi and Harden are both better than Moncrief though the Bucks had more depth.  Maybe Phoenix is a better comparison as Booker is a similar level of player to Moncrief (different strengths but similar comparative skill level).

The 80's had 2 of the greatest teams ever assembled (83 Sixers, 86 Celtics) and the Lakers dynasty, but the league had no depth and lacked balance.  There were a lot of just bad teams and because there weren't many teams so many of the bad teams made the playoffs.  The late 80's the talent picked up some, but then the league expanded a lot in the 90's and watered down the league a lot.  The talent has increased significantly since the expansion in the 90's ended.  Far more talent today than any prior generation.  Not even close.

leave it to you to forget Terry Cummings on those Bucks teams.  Knock the bucks all you want (which is obviously what you want) but Cummings puts them on a level of a top team.  Worthy and Wilkens get the hype from that draft but Cummings was every bit as good

Cummings wasn't on the Bucks team with Lanier, Bridgeman, or Johnson.  He was in fact acquired by the Bucks in a 6 player trade with Hodges and Pierce for Johnson, Bridgeman, and Catchings (Lanier and Timy were retired by then).  The 86 Bucks team that made the ECF was a weaker team than the 83 or 84 team.  The 84 team, I felt was the best one so that is the one I used.  Cummings was not as good as Worthy or Wilkens. He was an all star just 2 times in his career with a 2nd and 3rd team all nba.  Not a HOFer and didn't get hurt until his 11th season, so that wasn't the reason.

[keevsnick]

I think there's more than enough talent both at the top and depth wise to support two more NBA teams.

I'd add Seattle for sure. I'm less convinced on Vegas, it made more sense before that market had NFL, NHL and MLB teams lined up. It's getting a bit saturated.

If they do add two new teams I'd like to see them add some more all-star slots. Make each all-star team 14 spots instead of 12.

[Moranis]

I think they could add a team in any number of cities, both in the US and internationally.  Seattle seems pretty obvious though.  After that Vegas, Louisville (possibly Cinci, but I think Louisville makes more sense in that region), St. Louis (or maybe KC), San Diego in the US all make sense.  I could see Vancouver or maybe even Montreal in Canada and while I don't think the league is ready for Mexico, Mexico City does make some sense.

[Moranis]

They are voting this week to start getting bids for Las Vegas and Seattle with the intent of having the teams for the 28-29 season. 

[wdleehi]

Does the NBA really need two more teams to tank?   

[Donoghus]

Does the NBA really need two more teams to tank?

I think getting to the magic number of 32 was important was balancing and divisional restructuring. It's a good number to settle on although you're right about the tanking implications too.

[Goldstar88]

We barely got enough talent in these teams, and we want to expand...

Most pundits have been raving for years about how deep and talented the league is. If they are going to water it down a little, nows the time I guess.

and most pundits are idiots so that would explain that

I agree withe pundits part, but I honestly believe the level of talent is at an all time high. You can't even compete in the modern NBA without a minimum of 2 superstars and a great supporting cast. That wasn't the case 15 years ago.

15 years ago you needed more than just 2 superstars to win it all (our second big 3 era) but 30 years ago you only needed 2 (the MJ/Pippen run and even just one could get you a title with the Hakeem titles).

All time high for talent was the 80's.  As talented as the Sixers were in the 80's, they only won 1 title and team as loaded as the Bucks couldn't even get to the finals.

Ray Allen and Paul Pierce aren't in the same class as those other guys.  They were clear HOF players, but they aren't in the discussion for best players ever or even the best players of their era.  Not even particularly close.  I mean combined Piere and Allen have 0 1st Team All NBA, just 2 2nd Team All NBA, and just 4 3rd Team All NBA.  COMBINED.  As a comparison, Pippen has 3 1st Team All NBA, 2 2nd Team All NBA, and 1 3rd Team All NBA all by himself.  Just a different class of player and Pippen himself isn't in even a top 15 all time player discussion (and may not even be a top 25 player all time). 

So I think if you are going to say superstar, you may need to clarify if you mean a Ray Allen type superstar, a Scottie Pippen type superstar, or an actual MVP candidate type superstar. Also, most champions only have 1 MVP type candidate player, even today.  I mean last year you had SGA, but after him Williams is very good, certainly looking like he could be a HOF player, but he it would be a surprise if he is anything more than a Ray Allen type.  Holmgren and the rest of the team are a solid supporting cast.  The C's, had Tatum who is likely more like Pippen than Jordan, Brown who is in the PP/RA class, and a nice supporting cast.  The Nuggets had the best player in the world, a PP type player in Murray, and then a bunch of ok players.  The Warriors, given their age, were really just Curry as a true elite player.  I mean Wiggins was probably their 2nd best player.  Really deep team, but Steph was the only superstar (of any class).  The Bucks were similar to the Nuggets in that they had the best player in the world, and then maybe Middleton or Jrue was in the PP class, but frankly I don't think they were.  You really have to go back to the Lakers with Lebron and Davis to find a team with 2 real bonafide superstars.  The Raptors were not that either with Kawhi and a solid supporting cast, but the Warriors with Steph/KD and pre-injury Klay and young Dray were just another level of team.  Cavs and that 1st Warriors team were more like Nuggets/Bucks than the 2nd/3rd Warriors or Lakers. 

Most of the recent champions have had an other wordly player at the top and a very deep supporting cast, but not 2 bonafide superstars.

You just have to go back to 2024 with Tatum and Brown.

[Roy H.]

The NBA will hold a vote at the board of governors meetings next week to explore adding expansion teams exclusively in Las Vegas and Seattle, sources told ESPN, with the two new franchises being targeted to start play in the 2028-29 season.

There is momentum within the board of governors and league office to approve moving forward with taking bids for franchises in Las Vegas and Seattle, according to sources with knowledge of the discussions.

Industry executives project proposals in the $7-10 billion range for each team and estimate that both markets would be among the NBA's top eight revenue generators. The market appeal of Las Vegas and Seattle, plus the parity-friendly collective bargaining agreement, will likely lead to a robust purchase market for expansion.

This marks the first of multiple critical steps toward NBA expansion. This first vote will allow the league to focus on Las Vegas and Seattle and have a bidding process for the teams. There will then be a potential final vote later in the year to finalize the transactions to 32 teams. In both voting rounds, 23 of 30 governors must vote in favor.

A growing number of owners are believed to support expansion because of the long-term revenue growth for the league from the Las Vegas and Seattle markets. Some owners remain hesitant on selling some of their shares and having their league equity go from 1/30 to 1/32, and want to see the final valuations of the bids plus the individual franchise fees before deciding whether to expand now or in a few more years.

The bolded part surprised me a little.  Is that long-term, or just in their first couple of seasons? 

[Celtics2021]

The NBA will hold a vote at the board of governors meetings next week to explore adding expansion teams exclusively in Las Vegas and Seattle, sources told ESPN, with the two new franchises being targeted to start play in the 2028-29 season.

There is momentum within the board of governors and league office to approve moving forward with taking bids for franchises in Las Vegas and Seattle, according to sources with knowledge of the discussions.

Industry executives project proposals in the $7-10 billion range for each team and estimate that both markets would be among the NBA's top eight revenue generators. The market appeal of Las Vegas and Seattle, plus the parity-friendly collective bargaining agreement, will likely lead to a robust purchase market for expansion.

This marks the first of multiple critical steps toward NBA expansion. This first vote will allow the league to focus on Las Vegas and Seattle and have a bidding process for the teams. There will then be a potential final vote later in the year to finalize the transactions to 32 teams. In both voting rounds, 23 of 30 governors must vote in favor.

A growing number of owners are believed to support expansion because of the long-term revenue growth for the league from the Las Vegas and Seattle markets. Some owners remain hesitant on selling some of their shares and having their league equity go from 1/30 to 1/32, and want to see the final valuations of the bids plus the individual franchise fees before deciding whether to expand now or in a few more years.

The bolded part surprised me a little.  Is that long-term, or just in their first couple of seasons?

If they are thinking $7-10 billion to buy in for each team, my guess is long-term.   The Celtics just sold for $6.1 billion, and you would have to think the Celtics are near the top 10 of revenue generators.  If a new ownership group is going to come in and pay up to 50% more than the Celtics just sold for, I imagine they expect a lot of revenue long-term.

[slamtheking]

The NBA will hold a vote at the board of governors meetings next week to explore adding expansion teams exclusively in Las Vegas and Seattle, sources told ESPN, with the two new franchises being targeted to start play in the 2028-29 season.

There is momentum within the board of governors and league office to approve moving forward with taking bids for franchises in Las Vegas and Seattle, according to sources with knowledge of the discussions.

Industry executives project proposals in the $7-10 billion range for each team and estimate that both markets would be among the NBA's top eight revenue generators. The market appeal of Las Vegas and Seattle, plus the parity-friendly collective bargaining agreement, will likely lead to a robust purchase market for expansion.

This marks the first of multiple critical steps toward NBA expansion. This first vote will allow the league to focus on Las Vegas and Seattle and have a bidding process for the teams. There will then be a potential final vote later in the year to finalize the transactions to 32 teams. In both voting rounds, 23 of 30 governors must vote in favor.

A growing number of owners are believed to support expansion because of the long-term revenue growth for the league from the Las Vegas and Seattle markets. Some owners remain hesitant on selling some of their shares and having their league equity go from 1/30 to 1/32, and want to see the final valuations of the bids plus the individual franchise fees before deciding whether to expand now or in a few more years.

The bolded part surprised me a little.  Is that long-term, or just in their first couple of seasons?

If they are thinking $7-10 billion to buy in for each team, my guess is long-term.   The Celtics just sold for $6.1 billion, and you would have to think the Celtics are near the top 10 of revenue generators.  If a new ownership group is going to come in and pay up to 50% more than the Celtics just sold for, I imagine they expect a lot of revenue long-term.

it does sound like a great investment opportunity considering how franchise valuations continue to rise for all major sports.  I think I'm going to start a GoFundMe to help me join in the fun.   hoping to get some contributions from some wellwishers here