LeBron Says Contraction "would be great for the league"

[PosImpos]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/news/story?id=5952952

Easy for him to say, huh?  He just comes off sounding like he's trying to make his decision seem more acceptable.

All I can say anymore to LeBron is..."This guy, huh?  This guy sure is something."

[Snakehead]

So you don't think it's an issue that there is such a huge gap between the quality of teams in the NBA?  Especially when some of these franchises are struggling majorly financially and aren't supported by their fan bases? New Orleans is being propped up by Stern for example and has been leaking money like a sieve. Or some of these franchises that haven't been competitive for huge stretches of time should just go on being terrible?

You can say he's just saying it to justify what he did if you want, but if you get past that and look at what he's saying he is right.  I'd love it if the league was more competitive across the board and guys didn't get stuck on crap teams.  Then we wouldn't watch so many bad games and have so many uncompetitive playoff races and divisions.

I just bet if this quote came from some writer or whatever you wouldn't say anything bad about it.  I've heard Bill Simmons and many sports writers say this exact thing.

[PosImpos]

No, I would disagree with the main sentiment of the statements regardless of who said them.  It just sounds especially hollow coming from LeBron.

If the league is so "watered down," why couldn't LeBron win on his own?  Why does he need to form a superteam in order to win?  But that's another discussion.

I think it's all too easy for Celtics fans to agree to the idea of contraction when there's no danger of their team being contracted.  I am sure that fans in places with struggling franchises would tend to disagree.  There are certainly franchises that are poorly run or that have bad attendance (in many cases because they are poorly run), but I don't think the best solution is to get rid of those teams.  

I think it's certainly possible for all of the teams to be fairly competitive and exciting if they are well managed.  I think the league ought to be more pro-active in seeing to it that franchises which are perennially mismanaged get their acts together.

While football is a much different sport, the NFL has shown that it is possible for a league with 30+ teams to have a good deal of competitive parity.  I think the NFL actually has too  much parity (which again is another discussion), but I think it's possible for the NBA to make positive changes (through the next CBA for example) to create more competition and ensure that there aren't any "loser" franchises without eliminating any currently existing teams. 

Moving some teams to different locations where they will get more local support may in a couple cases be necessary, however.

[PaulPierce34G]

I get what LeBron is saying...would probably make for bigger, more exciting match-ups, but the league is all about expanding nationally and globally...I think it would certainly hurt their fanbase if they downsized...it would be sort of like another Seattle SuperSonics drama.  The population of players in the league would have to decrease, you'd have a bunch of teams filled with guys who demand 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, etc million annually, along with other players who would be starters, or 6th, 7th string guys off the bench, the cap would probably be shot, everyone would probably be on the threshold of paying the luxury tax...financially, from a team/owner standpoint, I don't think it would be a good idea.  You'd have too many middle of the road to high salaries on a roster.  At the end of the day, owners, GMs, staff of a team run their ship like it is any other business...black and white, the dollar is the bottom line.  You'd see an increase in ticket sales in the markets, maybe merchandise, but salaries that teams would be paying would be going up because you'd have 3 guys you'd pay max salary to, and your bench consisting of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 million dollar a year guys due to the fact that the league population has decreased and only the absolute best players remain in the league, because I personally don't see a guy currently making 6-7 million/year taking a pay cut down to 1-2 million to help the team stay under the cap, or due to the fact that the market landscape for the player has changed and there is a smaller sample size to base how much one is paid on the level of their talent. And max salary players certainly wouldn't take a drastic pay cut either..Even if the new CBA does decrease max salary and guaranteed years, it is not going to be by any huge margin, it'll be something that is deemed fair for both sides.  As I said, the dollar is the bottom line, these guys are about trying to deliver the best possible product they can while still stuffing their pockets...some owners spend more than others, and some care about winning more than others, but they all care about money at the end of the day.  
I apologize if my post is a bit confusing, but hopefully you can catch my drift.

Also, I just wouldn't want to see a team with, for example, Chris Paul, Kobe Bryant, Amare Stoudamire as your central core and then your roster is rounded out with middle to upper level talent of players who, under the current set up, would start on a number of teams in the league, or at least be a 6th or 7th man...I know the Celts, Lakers, Mavs, etc are currently set up like this, but the majority of teams, especially the lower tiered ones are not.  I enjoy seeing the Varejaos, Scals, and Eric Williams, Mark Madsens from years past scrap every game, get their couple of points, boards, assists, and sometimes shock you and pull out a hell of a performance that you totally would not expect.  Just like in Hoosiers when Ollie MacFarlane came in to sink 2 free throws to give Hickory the victory...totally unexpected, and in a sense probably more exciting and thrilling than seeing the star player do it.

Bottom line, I'm all for a level playing field, or something remotely close to it, but not doing it in the manner of contraction and only having high level players in the league. Even if this did occur, you'd still have struggling franchises in regards to win/loss, due to any number of reasons such as chemistry, egos, etc.  I like that there is a variety of talent from scrappers, pure role players, and all the way up to franchise guys. 

[birdwatcher]

Contraction would make the games more exciting to watch. The same could be said in the NFL and MLB. If the leagues were more balanced the regular season games would have more meaning, and it would be harder to project wins & losses. I don't understand the economics behind it, but I'm not sure why the bigger markets like LA can have multiple teams. Even if the state is big enough, why give texas or CA three teams? Why not spread them out and make the fanbase more regional?

[footey]

Lebron:

"Hopefully the league can figure out one way where it can go back to the '80s where you had three or four All-Stars, three or four superstars, three or four Hall of Famers on the same team," James said. "The league was great. It wasn't as watered down as it is [now]."

Who, besides the Celtics and the Lakers, met that standard in the 80's? Today, the Lakers and the Celtics again are the only two teams that meet that standard. Nothing has changed. The league is no more watered down than it was in the 80's.  Any dilution that occurred by expansion was off set by improvement in talent, and influx of European professionals.

On the other hand, a contraction of one or two teams would obviously improve the league from a competitive POV. 

[cordialb]

While i'm not for contraction, the ideal time to do it is now if its going to be done. Expanding the D-league to one team per each nba team would keep many players from being without jobs, and provide teams with an adequate 'farm' system.  It sure beats rookies never getting any playing time.

It would also provide games that low budget fans would be able to attend.  Heck, i can afford tickets, but i'd still catch a game that has gody, bradley, etc running the show. 

[cornbreadsmart]

     Talent-wise this is the best the nba has ever been. Way better than the 80's. The Lakers usually strolled into the finals with ease. Also, if you watch a game from the 80's,the point guard is given like three feet of space. The biggest myth going (you don't hear it from basketball 1st fans) is that nobody plays defense. Defense was a joke in the 80's compared to how it is now. It is way more difficult to get an open look at the basket now than it was back then.

[Rondo_is_better]

I think he's right. But contraction would cause such a stink among the owners...

[hpantazo]

I have to admit that for once, I agree with Lebron.

[nickagneta]

I'm all for contraction and I would think the owners would be for it too, especially owners of perennially bad teams that would get to take the best of what the other teams that are being contracted are giving up.

Contract New Orleans and Charlotte, they are pretty much the two worst run teams with the worst fan support and luxury box support. Then hold a contraction draft. Look at the players that would be available:

Chris Paul
David West
Emeka Okafor
Trevor Ariza
Jarrett Jack
Marcus Thornton
Stephen Jackson
Gerald Wallace
Tyrus Thomas
Nazr Mohammed
Boris Diaw
DJ Augustin
Quincy Pondexter
Shaun Livingston
Willie Green
Marco Belinelli
Jason Smith
Dasagana Diop

and a few more.

Keep the player rosters at 15 and give salary exemptions in the amount of any contract absorbed if you draft that player for as long as the contract that player has left. That way teams won't be hugely penalized for draft a star or a big contract player. Each team gets to draft one player and if they decide not to draft a player they are allowed a sandwich pick in the next draft between the first and second round.

The union would have an absolute hissy fit over losing 30 jobs but it would be the worst players on each of the remaining 28 teams that loses their job, not the star big name players.

Imagine Minnesota ending up with Chris Paul or Sacramento with Gerald Wallace or Detroit with Emeka Okafor or Cleveland with Nazr Mohammed or Sacramento with Tyrus Thomas or Washington with David West or New Jersey with Stephen Jackson.

My guess is teams at the bottom of the league will get much tougher to beat and games will get more exciting.

[Moranis]

Contraction is absolutely what is best for the league.  Of the four major sports, the NFL is the only one that doesn't really need to contract from a competition standpoint.  The others could all stand to lose 4-6 teams (not that I think any of the leagues would contract that many if they were even going to contract).  

Get rid of New Orleans, Memphis, Toronto, Sacramento, Oklahoma City, and Charlotte.  Then just shift the divisions around a bit.

North East - Boston, Philly, NY, NJ
South East - Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, Washington
Central - Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Indianapolis

North - Denver, Utah, Minnesota, Milwaukee
South - Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix
West - Lakers, Clippers, Portland, Golden State

Play 80 games. Play your division 8 times (24 games), rest of conference 4 times (32 games), other conference 2 games (24 games).  It really help grow divisional rivalries with all the extra games.  

For the players on the 6 contracted teams, you would just do a draft with worst record getting the first pick.  You don't have to take anyone, but if you do you must keep the contract of the player.  I'd also do it in a snake format, so that the best record would pick first in round 2.  

[screwedupmaniac]

LeBron is still a kid, immature, and proves he doesn't know squat every time he opens his mouth. What would he know about the 80's and which teams had what for superstars? The 80's have been overglorified, and he has simply bought into the hype of how great things "used to be". The league is at an all-time high in talent, and the worst thing that could happen to the league is a contraction.

Just think: if a contraction happened before the era of Michael Jordan, or before the time of Duncan and Robinson, maybe the Bulls and Spurs (and their championships) would no longer exist? The league is competitive even when teams are losing, and it's only a matter of time before different teams rise and decline.

[screwedupmaniac]

"Get rid of New Orleans, Memphis, Toronto, Sacramento, Oklahoma City, and Charlotte.  Then just shift the divisions around a bit."

How do you justify throwing OKC in the midst of that list? They're on the rise, and they're still young. Like I said in my last post, think back on the teams that have won besides the Lakers and Celtics, and consider the fact that the league is competitive, even when some teams are currently losing. One of the teams that I could see being moved, but not cut from the league all together is the LA Clippers. LA simply does not need two teams, and Blake Griffin and co. will always be outshined by their current roommates.

If teams aren't succeeding financially where they are, then they should not be cut...they should simply be moved to cities where they will flourish (Vegas, anyone?)

[Snakehead]

No, I would disagree with the main sentiment of the statements regardless of who said them.  It just sounds especially hollow coming from LeBron.

If the league is so "watered down," why couldn't LeBron win on his own?  Why does he need to form a superteam in order to win?  But that's another discussion.

I think it's all too easy for Celtics fans to agree to the idea of contraction when there's no danger of their team being contracted.  I am sure that fans in places with struggling franchises would tend to disagree.  There are certainly franchises that are poorly run or that have bad attendance (in many cases because they are poorly run), but I don't think the best solution is to get rid of those teams. 

I think it's certainly possible for all of the teams to be fairly competitive and exciting if they are well managed.  I think the league ought to be more pro-active in seeing to it that franchises which are perennially mismanaged get their acts together.

While football is a much different sport, the NFL has shown that it is possible for a league with 30+ teams to have a good deal of competitive parity.  I think the NFL actually has too  much parity (which again is another discussion), but I think it's possible for the NBA to make positive changes (through the next CBA for example) to create more competition and ensure that there aren't any "loser" franchises without eliminating any currently existing teams. 

Moving some teams to different locations where they will get more local support may in a couple cases be necessary, however.

I'm not sure if you read the whole quote.  He cites even specific examples of teams and players and notice they are not teams that are doing well.  He cites BAD teams.  Obviously LeBron thinks and knows there are good teams, that's not the point.  He says the league is "watered down" because there are very good teams with a lot of talent and teams that have maybe 1 or 2 players who could even make a championship level roster and a bunch of scrubs.  That is a huge problem.

It is easy to say that as a Boston fan but so what?  Boston had rough years in the late 90's and early 2000's but were still competitive then (it was really just personnel that seemed championship level but fell short that doomed) and they reloaded and now won a title.  The ownership group is willing to spend money and the fans rabidly support their team.  These are things to be rewarded for.

Maybe you feel bad for teams where there isn't a good fan base or financial situation because they do have legit fans of course, (see Charlotte, New Orleans, etc) but the NBA is a business and the rest of the product should not suffer because we would really like to see Charlotte have a team or whatever.  That's not a realistic way to look at things.  And though you would have to give the shaft to a couple of teams or so to contract, you would seriously be improving the rest of the league.  So IMO not wanting contraction is more selfish because you are dooming more of the league to mediocrity.

The NFL has not had parity throughout its history but it definitely has been trending that way and this year has definitely been the most evident of that.  I completely disagree about not liking it, I love that, for example, this week the Colts are going into Oakland and Oakland could definitely win the game.  Jacksonville has put together a good team this year and has some very talented players.  Or look at the Bills, who despite a pretty poor season have the very promising Ryan Fitzpatrick, CJ Spiller, etc.  That is awesome.

You seem to be implying LeBron is selfish for saying this but I think wanting weaker competition across the league by not contracting is a more selfish stance.