LeBron Says Contraction "would be great for the league"

[Roy H.]

I've been beating this drum for a while, but if what you want is more talent on teams, the first place, the easiest thing to do, is to revamp the D-League and the rules involving it.

First, increase the D-League's maximum money per player, then allow teams to send players down and replace them with another player without keeping a roster spot on the active 15 for the player in the D-League.

You'd get more talent in the D-League (mostly reclaiming players from overseas), and teams would be deeper in the 10-15 roster spots.

You'd see play during games increase in quality dramatically.

To be comparable to Europe, you'd have to increase the salaries in the D-League *a lot*.  Where is the money for that going to come from?   

It's an interesting theory in concept.  I'd say that, in time, the biggest benefit wouldn't be replacing the players who have headed to Europe, but rather would be giving American kids a viable alternative to the NCAA.  If the John Walls, et. al., decided to go to the D-League first, it would greatly improve that league.  However, as mentioned, that would take a huge financial commitment. 

[indeedproceed]

I've been beating this drum for a while, but if what you want is more talent on teams, the first place, the easiest thing to do, is to revamp the D-League and the rules involving it.

First, increase the D-League's maximum money per player, then allow teams to send players down and replace them with another player without keeping a roster spot on the active 15 for the player in the D-League.

You'd get more talent in the D-League (mostly reclaiming players from overseas), and teams would be deeper in the 10-15 roster spots.

You'd see play during games increase in quality dramatically.

To be comparable to Europe, you'd have to increase the salaries in the D-League *a lot*.  Where is the money for that going to come from?   

It's an interesting theory in concept.  I'd say that, in time, the biggest benefit wouldn't be replacing the players who have headed to Europe, but rather would be giving American kids a viable alternative to the NCAA.  If the John Walls, et. al., decided to go to the D-League first, it would greatly improve that league.  However, as mentioned, that would take a huge financial commitment. 

12k to 24k I believe is the current structure.

upping that from 24k to 100k would work wonders. The John Wall case is an excellent one too, and to build on that..you'd see people come out to watch John Wall and Brandon Jennings play.

But, that only works if the age limit gets brought down, and that only works if someone gets David Stern to stop sleeping with the NCAA.

[dpaps]

I did read the comment before I wrote.  The only joke here is that you can look at Glen Davis, all 300 pounds of him, get touched into by someone half his size, flop like he's been hit by a bazooka, and think that he's taken a charge...Obviously a good thing based on the fact that he wears a green uniform. 

You really think Big Baby has never taken a legitimate charge? One of the stupidest comments I've ever heard. And you think that I only think he has because he's a Celtic? Please, grow up. See now, you're argument would be logical if I had argued that no non Celtic in the league has ever taken a charge. But like your argument, that would be retarded. Big Baby has taken dozens of legitimate charges, and anyone who thinks other wise is a moron. If you don't believe me, ask any one involved with the NBA, ask any referee at any level of basketball, or anyone who has any idea about the sport. You would not find a single intelligent human to back you on that thought.

And your points on officiating are just moot, no one in this thread, nor Lebron, are talking about officiating. If you really think that it is impossible to improve the level of play, or the caliber of teams without changing officiating, you don't understand logic. You can argue, the best way to improve the league is by changing the officiating. Fine, but that's another topic. I argue that by contracting teams, the caliber of each team would have to improve because the talent on each individual team would go up. Officiating has nothing to do with that argument.

Eja, The Celtics wouldn't be a better team with Tony Parker instead of Nate Robinson? Have you ever watched a game of basketball in your life? I mean if you really think that, there's no need to argue with you anymore, because as you've demonstrated over the past few days, it's useless. Just a ridiculous statement.

So we should have just 2 teams? Any more than 2 teams and we can make the argument that less teams would make teams better.

If we have only 1 team, they would have no one to play against.

This is why the contraction argument based on consolidating talent is pointless.

That's absolutely incorrect. No one is suggesting we trim the league down to two teams. Would those two teams be better than a team in a league with 30 teams? Yes, absolutely. But clearly, no one wants a league with two teams.

These are two of the main factors you consider when trying to figure out what is the best number of teams to have in your league. For every team you add, the average talent per team goes down a little bit. But of course, to some extent, the more teams the better, until you reach a point where you have too many teams.

 If we have 26 teams as opposed to 30, the average talent per team would increase. Now, One has to decide if that increased level of talent on each team, is worth whatever negative consequences would come from reducing the number of teams. I personally don't think that the league would lose anything from a competitive standpoint by cutting the number of teams by two or four.

If you cut the league to 8 teams, you'd have 8 fantastic teams, but there would be little variety, the fans would get bored of the same matchups, and it simply reduces revenue for the league. If you raised the number of teams to 60, you'd still have decent basketball teams, it would create more jobs around the country, but the level of competition would go down because the teams would be half as good.

What's the perfect number of teams? It's debatable. Lebron thinks it's less than 30. As do I. I feel like 24-28 teams would be preferable. The caliber of each team would be noticably increased, and I don't think there would be a lack of variety in the league, I don't think fans would get bored of the same matchups, and the playoffs could still work with the same format.

Again, I've never argued that the league NEEDS contraction, or that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. I've argued that criticizing Lebron for this and claiming that he's looking for the easy way out by lessening the number of teams he has to beat, is just flat out incorrect.

[guava_wrench]

I've been beating this drum for a while, but if what you want is more talent on teams, the first place, the easiest thing to do, is to revamp the D-League and the rules involving it.

First, increase the D-League's maximum money per player, then allow teams to send players down and replace them with another player without keeping a roster spot on the active 15 for the player in the D-League.

You'd get more talent in the D-League (mostly reclaiming players from overseas), and teams would be deeper in the 10-15 roster spots.

You'd see play during games increase in quality dramatically.

The NBA does not lack talent, so the d-league is irrelevant. The problem is there will always be a worst team that will allow people to come up with these kinds of arguments.

[indeedproceed]

I've been beating this drum for a while, but if what you want is more talent on teams, the first place, the easiest thing to do, is to revamp the D-League and the rules involving it.

First, increase the D-League's maximum money per player, then allow teams to send players down and replace them with another player without keeping a roster spot on the active 15 for the player in the D-League.

You'd get more talent in the D-League (mostly reclaiming players from overseas), and teams would be deeper in the 10-15 roster spots.

You'd see play during games increase in quality dramatically.

The NBA does not lack talent, so the d-league is irrelevant. The problem is there will always be a worst team that will allow people to come up with these kinds of arguments.

I agree with most of what you said.

I disagree that it makes the D-League irrelevant.

The D-League can serve as a valuable tool for developing talent, and it is being treated with kid gloves.

Also, the current roster rules make it so that useful roster spaces need to be taken up by "maybe, but probably not" prospects, even on contending teams. That means teams either need to decide to give up on a player, possibly prematurely, or keep a player on the 15, even though they know they're not productive in a rotation player role, and probably won't be for some time.

It also means that plenty of guys who could contribute are prohibited from a roster spot. Look at guys like Billy Thomas, Randy Livingston, whose careers wasted away in the D-League and overseas because they're borderline top 7 guys, and they're not ever going to be top 5 guys.

Would you rather have a guy like JamesON Curry or Deshawn Sims on the roster or Avery Bradley or Luke Harangody?

[guava_wrench]

I did read the comment before I wrote.  The only joke here is that you can look at Glen Davis, all 300 pounds of him, get touched into by someone half his size, flop like he's been hit by a bazooka, and think that he's taken a charge...Obviously a good thing based on the fact that he wears a green uniform. 

You really think Big Baby has never taken a legitimate charge? One of the stupidest comments I've ever heard. And you think that I only think he has because he's a Celtic? Please, grow up. See now, you're argument would be logical if I had argued that no non Celtic in the league has ever taken a charge. But like your argument, that would be retarded. Big Baby has taken dozens of legitimate charges, and anyone who thinks other wise is a moron. If you don't believe me, ask any one involved with the NBA, ask any referee at any level of basketball, or anyone who has any idea about the sport. You would not find a single intelligent human to back you on that thought.

And your points on officiating are just moot, no one in this thread, nor Lebron, are talking about officiating. If you really think that it is impossible to improve the level of play, or the caliber of teams without changing officiating, you don't understand logic. You can argue, the best way to improve the league is by changing the officiating. Fine, but that's another topic. I argue that by contracting teams, the caliber of each team would have to improve because the talent on each individual team would go up. Officiating has nothing to do with that argument.

Eja, The Celtics wouldn't be a better team with Tony Parker instead of Nate Robinson? Have you ever watched a game of basketball in your life? I mean if you really think that, there's no need to argue with you anymore, because as you've demonstrated over the past few days, it's useless. Just a ridiculous statement.

So we should have just 2 teams? Any more than 2 teams and we can make the argument that less teams would make teams better.

If we have only 1 team, they would have no one to play against.

This is why the contraction argument based on consolidating talent is pointless.

That's absolutely incorrect. No one is suggesting we trim the league down to two teams. Would those two teams be better than a team in a league with 30 teams? Yes, absolutely. But clearly, no one wants a league with two teams.

These are two of the main factors you consider when trying to figure out what is the best number of teams to have in your league. For every team you add, the average talent per team goes down a little bit. But of course, to some extent, the more teams the better, until you reach a point where you have too many teams.

 If we have 26 teams as opposed to 30, the average talent per team would increase. Now, One has to decide if that increased level of talent on each team, is worth whatever negative consequences would come from reducing the number of teams. I personally don't think that the league would lose anything from a competitive standpoint by cutting the number of teams by two or four.

If you cut the league to 8 teams, you'd have 8 fantastic teams, but there would be little variety, the fans would get bored of the same matchups, and it simply reduces revenue for the league. If you raised the number of teams to 60, you'd still have decent basketball teams, it would create more jobs around the country, but the level of competition would go down because the teams would be half as good.

What's the perfect number of teams? It's debatable. Lebron thinks it's less than 30. As do I. I feel like 24-28 teams would be preferable. The caliber of each team would be noticably increased, and I don't think there would be a lack of variety in the league, I don't think fans would get bored of the same matchups, and the playoffs could still work with the same format.

Again, I've never argued that the league NEEDS contraction, or that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. I've argued that criticizing Lebron for this and claiming that he's looking for the easy way out by lessening the number of teams he has to beat, is just flat out incorrect.

I agree with your last paragraph, but I have never claimed that you said those things. I only pointed out that Lebron's logic is misguided and based on a shallow, superficial analysis. I must have missed whoever made the argument that Lebron is looking for that easy way out -- that makes no sense whatsoever. Getting rid of Minny would in no way decrease the # of teams he has to beat since they are a doormat team.

If you cut the league to 8 teams, you'd have 8 fantastic teams

Not likely. You would still have a horrible team among the 8 many season. 'Fantastic' will always be relative. Sure, the horrible team might be great when compared to a team in a foreign league, but it would still be disrespected among NBA fans. Of course, with a smaller number of teams, the distant outliers should likely be less frequent, but the significant variable in this is the # of teams, not the distribution of talent among players.

No matter what number you decide upon, there will be horrible teams in the league!

The level of competition / # of teams correlation argument doesn't seem historically accurate nor logical. Even if we had 24 teams, there would be a teams winning 80% of games and a teams losing 80% of games. It is a product of distributing talent across multiple teams. People would still be making these same complaints, saying "24 teams it too many - look at player X on a team that is 13-69".

The competition argument was more applicable when we were winning every year. This is not a problem at present. Are the worst teams today any less competitive than the worst team in 1972-73 when the league had only 17 teams?

As I have said, talent is not a problem when deciding the # of teams. Finances are.

[guava_wrench]

I've been beating this drum for a while, but if what you want is more talent on teams, the first place, the easiest thing to do, is to revamp the D-League and the rules involving it.

First, increase the D-League's maximum money per player, then allow teams to send players down and replace them with another player without keeping a roster spot on the active 15 for the player in the D-League.

You'd get more talent in the D-League (mostly reclaiming players from overseas), and teams would be deeper in the 10-15 roster spots.

You'd see play during games increase in quality dramatically.

The NBA does not lack talent, so the d-league is irrelevant. The problem is there will always be a worst team that will allow people to come up with these kinds of arguments.

I agree with most of what you said.

I disagree that it makes the D-League irrelevant.

The D-League can serve as a valuable tool for developing talent, and it is being treated with kid gloves.

Also, the current roster rules make it so that useful roster spaces need to be taken up by "maybe, but probably not" prospects, even on contending teams. That means teams either need to decide to give up on a player, possibly prematurely, or keep a player on the 15, even though they know they're not productive in a rotation player role, and probably won't be for some time.

It also means that plenty of guys who could contribute are prohibited from a roster spot. Look at guys like Billy Thomas, Randy Livingston, whose careers wasted away in the D-League and overseas because they're borderline top 7 guys, and they're not ever going to be top 5 guys.

Would you rather have a guy like JamesON Curry or Deshawn Sims on the roster or Avery Bradley or Luke Harangody?

Player development in the d-league is irrelevant to creating parity in the league. That is my point. I am not arguing that there isn't a version of the d-league that could impact individual players.

I'm not sure there is a sensible model for how the d-league should work beyond what it is now.

The problem with the Bradley example is that it isn't clear to me why the league should be adjusted to help the team with the second best record in the NBA that is stuck with having 2 rookies on their 15 man roster. Also, Is the main reasons we don't have confidence in those guys their lack of NBA readiness, or the ridiculously high standard set by the top 10 guys on our roster? Is the problem the level of our 14th and 15th guys on the roster, or management's decision to not worry about health when assembling the team? You can't maximize every variable, and we chose to take our chances on health.

I kinda think the d-league is still irrelevant to the issue of filling out rosters. The relevant variable is roster spots. Add more roster spots and teams can choose what to do with them, with or without a d-league. This might lead to less league parity though as contenders further stock their team with contributors and non-contenders hide away as many prospects as possible as they play for the future. It will most likely result in more money going to guys who aren't doing anything unless their team has a lot of injuries.

The d-league is fine as a place to stick your young guys when your team is too busy to hold practices. Otherwise, the young guys are usually better off attending NBA practices with the best talent and coaches.

Every sport has roster spots filled with guys who fans have no faith in. Why is basketball the only one where people fall back on the expansion explanation, even while basketball attracts more and more people internationally? Why aren't people complaining that football needs to consolidate teams since we have such a small talent pool with zero interest in the sport outside of the US and protectorates (and a few Canadians)? How many teams have pathetic QBs that doom them? How many teams have swiss cheese offensive lines?

[nickagneta]

As I have said, talent is not a problem when deciding the # of teams. Finances are.

I have been arguing the same exact thing guava but some people just aren't understanding that. The league needs to contract because there are 2-3 that are just not viable as teams from a financial point of view. One team is owned by the league. Another has awful attendance, little to no local corporate help through purchased luxury boxes and has never been good but for last year. Another has to move to survive because their owners are losing money like crazy and they can't get anyone to build them a new stadium. A long time established franchise has been amongst the worst team attendance wise in the league for about a decade.

Another is moving in two years because they can't survive where they are and another two to three teams probably need to move but have no place to go. Cincinnati can barely support the Reds and Bengals. St Louis doesn't want basketball. San Diego can't support Padres. Tampa can't support the Rays. Kansas City can't support the Royals. Las Vegas is in a horrible recession and probably can no longer support a team financially.Forget Canada. Where are these severely struggling teams supposed to go?

[Fafnir]

The entire revenue model of sports teams surviving only with huge public subsidies in stadium contstruction needs to be junked.

[Finkelskyhook]

Quote
If you cut the league to 8 teams, you'd have 8 fantastic teams

That superstar consolidation sure worked with the dream team the Lakers put together with Shaq, Kobe, Payton, and Malone.  A similar trainwreck will ultimately occur in Miami.  Consolidating or contracting is not a guaranty of quality of play or team.

And your points on officiating are just moot, no one in this thread, nor Lebron, are talking about officiating. If you really think that it is impossible to improve the level of play, or the caliber of teams without changing officiating, you don't understand logic. You can argue, the best way to improve the league is by changing the officiating. Fine, but that's another topic. I argue that by contracting teams, the caliber of each team would have to improve because the talent on each individual team would go up. Officiating has nothing to do with that argument.

Frankly, I really don't care what the messiah is talking about.                                

On the subject of contraction, it's a question of only being  as strong as your weakest link, IMHO.  When the hirearchy within (coaches, iconic players, owners etc) are publicly questioning the integrity of the product, I would contend that contraction is the wrong solution to fix the problem the league has right now.  The weakest link aren't the weakest teams.  Financially or otherwise.  The weakest link is that the integrity of the product is seriously in question.

30-35 years ago we had coaches and characters just as bombastic and volatile as we have now....Maybe more so.  We had Tommy on the sidelines getting T'd up and thrown out.  Arguing with officials etc.  That's gone on forever.  But at no point during any era up to the Jordan era did I ever hear anybody relevent question the integrity of the officials...Or the league.  Now it happens virtually every week.  It happens so often that it's hardly news anymore.  You think that when different rules apply to different players the quality of the product isn't affected?  You don't think that affects the quality of play?  By contracting you can put together 20 dream teams.  Or 10. Whatever.  In theory you're doing it to improve the product on the court....Which in theory would increase interest and profitability.  But if you have NBA icons like Shaquille O'Neal, among many others rightfully questioning the integrity of the officials and the league , you've got a major problem that contraction isn't going to fix.  

The entire revenue model of sports teams surviving only with huge public subsidies in stadium contstruction needs to be junked.

I agree.  But it's tough to convince a public official who sees public subsidizing of arenas as power via the tax windfall the arena brings.

[Roy H.]

Another is moving in two years because they can't survive where they are and another two to three teams probably need to move but have no place to go. Cincinnati can barely support the Reds and Bengals. St Louis doesn't want basketball. San Diego can't support Padres. Tampa can't support the Rays. Kansas City can't support the Royals. Las Vegas is in a horrible recession and probably can no longer support a team financially.Forget Canada. Where are these severely struggling teams supposed to go?

Seattle.

[Fafnir]

The tax windfall is largely a myth, especially since lately most stadium/arena deals are given huge tax breaks as the largest part of the subsidy.

[Finkelskyhook]

The tax windfall is largely a myth, especially since lately most stadium/arena deals are given huge tax breaks as the largest part of the subsidy.

The sales tax windfall that they generate isn't.  Particularly with so many cities enacting local option sales tax.

[guava_wrench]

Quote
If you cut the league to 8 teams, you'd have 8 fantastic teams

That superstar consolidation sure worked with the dream team the Lakers put together with Shaq, Kobe, Payton, and Malone.  A similar trainwreck will ultimately occur in Miami.  Consolidating or contracting is not a guaranty of quality of play or team.

And your points on officiating are just moot, no one in this thread, nor Lebron, are talking about officiating. If you really think that it is impossible to improve the level of play, or the caliber of teams without changing officiating, you don't understand logic. You can argue, the best way to improve the league is by changing the officiating. Fine, but that's another topic. I argue that by contracting teams, the caliber of each team would have to improve because the talent on each individual team would go up. Officiating has nothing to do with that argument.

Frankly, I really don't care what the messiah is talking about.                                

On the subject of contraction, it's a question of only being  as strong as your weakest link, IMHO.  When the hirearchy within (coaches, iconic players, owners etc) are publicly questioning the integrity of the product, I would contend that contraction is the wrong solution to fix the problem the league has right now.  The weakest link aren't the weakest teams.  Financially or otherwise.  The weakest link is that the integrity of the product is seriously in question.

30-35 years ago we had coaches and characters just as bombastic and volatile as we have now....Maybe more so.  We had Tommy on the sidelines getting T'd up and thrown out.  Arguing with officials etc.  That's gone on forever.  But at no point during any era up to the Jordan era did I ever hear anybody relevent question the integrity of the officials...Or the league.  Now it happens virtually every week.  It happens so often that it's hardly news anymore.  You think that when different rules apply to different players the quality of the product isn't affected?  You don't think that affects the quality of play?  By contracting you can put together 20 dream teams.  Or 10. Whatever.  In theory you're doing it to improve the product on the court....Which in theory would increase interest and profitability.  But if you have NBA icons like Shaquille O'Neal, among many others rightfully questioning the integrity of the officials and the league , you've got a major problem that contraction isn't going to fix.  

The entire revenue model of sports teams surviving only with huge public subsidies in stadium contstruction needs to be junked.

I agree.  But it's tough to convince a public official who sees public subsidizing of arenas as power via the tax windfall the arena brings.

It doesn't make a difference what the league does with refs. There will always be both blown calls and correct calls that are perceived as blown and certain players and fans will get irate.

Blown calls are nothing new. A lack of respect for authority is. That is more of a modern trait. Sports talk radio also allows the over-the-top sports fan to perpetuate memes like the 'NBA refereeing problem' meme that in reality is a perception problem, not a performance problem.

My understanding is that Soccer coaches around the world are big on blaming refs for outcomes. It seems they have a similar culture of ref blaming as had grown in the NBA. I'm sure everyone who has played organized basketball has also been frustrated with refs almost every game.

[Fafnir]

The tax windfall is largely a myth, especially since lately most stadium/arena deals are given huge tax breaks as the largest part of the subsidy.

The sales tax windfall that they generate isn't.  Particularly with so many cities enacting local option sales tax.

The amount of subsidies that the NBA/NFL ask for overwhelms sale tax revenue. They typically ask for hundreds of millions in cash, plus other considerations when it comes to land and infrastructure.