Great article about possible NBA contraction

[nickagneta]

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/15322833/most-logical-fix-for-nba-would-be-simply-to-get-smaller

Though both the league and players privately acknowledge that contraction has been discussed during collective bargaining, it has not been seriously considered, according to sources on both sides. Thirty player jobs would be lost, an anathema to the union, and no one would wish job losses on the dozens of basketball and non-basketball staffers whose livelihoods would be harmed.

But job losses already are being incurred league-wide since the lockout was imposed. This week, the NBA laid off 114 employees across an array of departments and closed its Tokyo and Paris offices in what it described as an unrelated cost-cutting move aimed at saving $50 million. The Pistons (15) and Bobcats (seven) are among the teams that have laid off employees, with more cuts undoubtedly on the way.

[Moranis]

I think cutting two teams wouldn't be bad.  New Orleans seems like a no brainer since it is owned by the league.  I'd personally cut Charlotte as the other, but I think it would probably be Sacramento getting the axe.

I wonder how the contraction draft would work.  Would they just do reverse standings?  Imagine if the Wolves all of sudden had Chris Paul.  Now that would be funny.

[Cman]

I think cutting two teams wouldn't be bad.  New Orleans seems like a no brainer since it is owned by the league.  I'd personally cut Charlotte as the other, but I think it would probably be Sacramento getting the axe.

I wonder how the contraction draft would work.  Would they just do reverse standings?  Imagine if the Wolves all of sudden had Chris Paul.  Now that would be funny.

Yeah, hard to imagine how it would work.
How do you reimburse the owners of the teams that get axed?  What to do about the player contracts?  What to do about rights to future draft picks from the teams that get axed?

[greenpride32]

I think cutting two teams wouldn't be bad.  New Orleans seems like a no brainer since it is owned by the league.  I'd personally cut Charlotte as the other, but I think it would probably be Sacramento getting the axe.

I wonder how the contraction draft would work.  Would they just do reverse standings?  Imagine if the Wolves all of sudden had Chris Paul.  Now that would be funny.

Yeah, hard to imagine how it would work.
How do you reimburse the owners of the teams that get axed?  What to do about the player contracts?  What to do about rights to future draft picks from the teams that get axed?

Well the league owns the Hornets, so they could easily just shut them down.  Not sure how any other owned teams could be cut; probably the league would just buy them out. 

I don't see much of a problem with future picks and player distriubtion; it would just be some sort of draft and/or lottery.  Maybe if you select a player under contract you'd have to take on whatever is remaining.

[wdleehi]

I think cutting two teams wouldn't be bad.  New Orleans seems like a no brainer since it is owned by the league.  I'd personally cut Charlotte as the other, but I think it would probably be Sacramento getting the axe.

I wonder how the contraction draft would work.  Would they just do reverse standings?  Imagine if the Wolves all of sudden had Chris Paul.  Now that would be funny.

Yeah, hard to imagine how it would work.
How do you reimburse the owners of the teams that get axed?  What to do about the player contracts?  What to do about rights to future draft picks from the teams that get axed?

They can get players aboard if they expand the roster by two spots and increase the minimal number of player from 13 to 14.  


Give each team a chance to allow players to be sent to d-league for the whole season.  

[PosImpos]

I like his article on how to change the cap / contracts.

His arguments make sense re: contraction, but I don't see it happening.

[Moranis]

I think cutting two teams wouldn't be bad.  New Orleans seems like a no brainer since it is owned by the league.  I'd personally cut Charlotte as the other, but I think it would probably be Sacramento getting the axe.

I wonder how the contraction draft would work.  Would they just do reverse standings?  Imagine if the Wolves all of sudden had Chris Paul.  Now that would be funny.

Yeah, hard to imagine how it would work.
How do you reimburse the owners of the teams that get axed?  What to do about the player contracts?  What to do about rights to future draft picks from the teams that get axed?

The NBA purchased the Hornets, they would just do the same thing with whatever other team was going to get cut. 

You do a contraction draft, probably by reverse standings and let the teams draft a player if they want to.  The contract and salary must be picked up.  If you pass you don't get another shot, you just do as many rounds as necessary until everyone passes.  Any player that is left becomes an automatic free agent and the league picks up the balance owed (after the new salary is accounted for). 

I'm sure something could get figured out with respect to draft picks that had been traded.  The NFL and MLB add draft picks all the time, you would just have to do that with the teams that were cut.

As has been said, in order to makeup the 24 to 30 NBA jobs lost, the league can just add a roster spot to each team and make 13 the dress and 16 the roster limit. 

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Without considering any other factors, I never like to see jobs lost, and I don't know how all the particulars would be worked out, but from a strictly basketball standout, eliminating at least 2 teams would be good for the league, and good for the game: several other teams would get better via the dispersal of the eliminated teams' players, thus elevating the overall quality of teams in the league, and you'd have (at least) two fewer crappy teams dragging down the league. From a basketball standpoint, I don't see how anyone could disagree with cutting teams from cities such as Charlotte (not a huge market, nor a basketball hotbed, and there are other teams fairly close, such as -- in this case -- Atlanta).

[Eja117]

I don't understand why people discuss this while there are cities that want and can support an NBA franchise. It doesn't make sense to me that Oklahoma City just got a team and is doing well, and we're talking about franchise.

If you heard there was a league where a team could do well in South East Bumblefudge Backwater USA would "contraction" be the thing that comes to mind?

There are at least 8 cities in America that supports two pro franchises that doesn't have an NBA team.

If the NBA really can't make money then they have a problem that goes beyond contraction, o contraction isn't the answer.  And they can't make the argument that they don't have enough talent, because they're a world wide sport.  It's like saying soccer doesn't have enough talent.  I hope I'm allowed to make that analogy.  I know soccer and basketball are two totally different things, but that's what an analogy is and how it works.

[guava_wrench]

I don't understand why people discuss this while there are cities that want and can support an NBA franchise. It doesn't make sense to me that Oklahoma City just got a team and is doing well, and we're talking about franchise.

If you heard there was a league where a team could do well in South East Bumblefudge Backwater USA would "contraction" be the thing that comes to mind?

There are at least 8 cities in America that supports two pro franchises that doesn't have an NBA team.

If the NBA really can't make money then they have a problem that goes beyond contraction, o contraction isn't the answer.  And they can't make the argument that they don't have enough talent, because they're a world wide sport.  It's like saying soccer doesn't have enough talent.  I hope I'm allowed to make that analogy.  I know soccer and basketball are two totally different things, but that's what an analogy is and how it works.

We have no idea whether OKC can support a franchise long term. They are still on their honeymoon. Remember when Sacramento was on top of the world? All it takes is Durant leaving town for OKC to be exposed.

Some cities can only support a team when the team is near the top. Half the teams in the league will be on the bottom. That is just math. Teams like the Knicks can remain solvent while in perpetual lottery. Few teams can say the same.

[LooseCannon]

I think cutting two teams wouldn't be bad.  New Orleans seems like a no brainer since it is owned by the league.  I'd personally cut Charlotte as the other, but I think it would probably be Sacramento getting the axe.

The Kings have prospects of moving to Anaheim.  I would rather see them move rather than disappear.  (At the very least, it should annoy the Lakers, right?)  The Pacers make a lot more sense, if you absolutely had to cut a team.

I still think franchise relocation should be tried before contraction.

One way to run a contraction draft would be to allow teams to either draft a rookie or assume an existing contract from the contracted teams.  Perhaps you add a one-time third round.  You must have cap space to assume the veteran player's contract.

[Moranis]

I think cutting two teams wouldn't be bad.  New Orleans seems like a no brainer since it is owned by the league.  I'd personally cut Charlotte as the other, but I think it would probably be Sacramento getting the axe.

The Kings have prospects of moving to Anaheim.  I would rather see them move rather than disappear.  (At the very least, it should annoy the Lakers, right?)  The Pacers make a lot more sense, if you absolutely had to cut a team.

I still think franchise relocation should be tried before contraction.

One way to run a contraction draft would be to allow teams to either draft a rookie or assume an existing contract from the contracted teams.  Perhaps you add a one-time third round.  You must have cap space to assume the veteran player's contract.

St. Louis, Cincinnati, Buffalo, Seattle, Vancouver, Kansas City, Syracuse, and Baltimore have all already had NBA franchises and couldn't keep their teams.  I really think there are very few cities left and adding a third team to L.A. just seems like a mistake to me.

[Eja117]

I think cutting two teams wouldn't be bad.  New Orleans seems like a no brainer since it is owned by the league.  I'd personally cut Charlotte as the other, but I think it would probably be Sacramento getting the axe.

The Kings have prospects of moving to Anaheim.  I would rather see them move rather than disappear.  (At the very least, it should annoy the Lakers, right?)  The Pacers make a lot more sense, if you absolutely had to cut a team.

I still think franchise relocation should be tried before contraction.

One way to run a contraction draft would be to allow teams to either draft a rookie or assume an existing contract from the contracted teams.  Perhaps you add a one-time third round.  You must have cap space to assume the veteran player's contract.

St. Louis, Cincinnati, Buffalo, Seattle, Vancouver, Kansas City, Syracuse, and Baltimore have all already had NBA franchises and couldn't keep their teams.  I really think there are very few cities left and adding a third team to L.A. just seems like a mistake to me.

All of that besides Seattle and Vancouver was in the era before ESPN and major cable tv and before the sport was global.   

[Eja117]

I don't understand why people discuss this while there are cities that want and can support an NBA franchise. It doesn't make sense to me that Oklahoma City just got a team and is doing well, and we're talking about franchise.

If you heard there was a league where a team could do well in South East Bumblefudge Backwater USA would "contraction" be the thing that comes to mind?

There are at least 8 cities in America that supports two pro franchises that doesn't have an NBA team.

If the NBA really can't make money then they have a problem that goes beyond contraction, o contraction isn't the answer.  And they can't make the argument that they don't have enough talent, because they're a world wide sport.  It's like saying soccer doesn't have enough talent.  I hope I'm allowed to make that analogy.  I know soccer and basketball are two totally different things, but that's what an analogy is and how it works.

We have no idea whether OKC can support a franchise long term. They are still on their honeymoon. Remember when Sacramento was on top of the world? All it takes is Durant leaving town for OKC to be exposed.

Some cities can only support a team when the team is near the top. Half the teams in the league will be on the bottom. That is just math. Teams like the Knicks can remain solvent while in perpetual lottery. Few teams can say the same.

Sacramento had a team for 30 years. They were't on top the whole time. 

[nickagneta]

For those who are just commenting on the subject and did not read the article here is the most important part about where and why contraction should start:
 

Since the CBA debate is first and foremost about the money, the financial reasons for eliminating the worst-performing teams couldn't be more compelling. The leader in the clubhouse is New Orleans, and there simply is no close second. The team was taken over by the other 29 owners last December with $90 million from league reserves, a $70 million loan from outgoing owner George Shinn and undisclosed additional debt, according to the Sports Business Journal. (At 3 percent interest and a two-year repayment schedule, that means the league still owes Shinn about $50 million.)

Even before the league takeover, the Hornets were a bottomless pit of misallocated resources. According to the '09 statements, the Hornets' ownership group was carrying $111 million in long-term debt, including $73.8 million borrowed from the league credit facility. Of the latter amount, $22.7 million is due in June 2013 -- although previous maturity dates were renegotiated and extended because, obviously, Shinn and his partners were tapped out.

As of June 2009, the Hornets still owed $12.6 million of the $30 million relocation fee associated with the move from Charlotte; the initial annual payments were delayed three years. In 2007, the state of Louisiana -- the poorest in the nation, according to Money Magazine -- agreed to pay 20 percent of the remaining balance from the relocation fee. As of June 2009, the state had paid $2.5 million.

An inquiry to New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu's office regarding any debt obligations held by the city associated with New Orleans Arena and the Hornets was referred to Deputy Mayor Andy Kopplin, who did not respond.

In 2009, the Hornets received $3.4 million in revenue assistance from the NBA, had a $3.9 million relocation payment deferred, collected $28.3 million in national broadcast rights fees and $9 million in local broadcast fees -- and had a $5.8 million operating profit nearly wiped out by the crushing debt and interest payments the team had incurred. This is no way to run a business, with no reason to think it would get better if the NBA were somehow able to sell the team for more than it paid Shinn and borrowed from him -- not to mention additional debt taken on by the league to close the sale.

Simply put, the Hornets are a financial mess owing tens of  millions for loans taken out against the league credit facility and millions more to the league for re-location fees that were never paid off. The league in turn owes former owner George Shinn millions in order to buy him out of the league. Then the team is still tens of millions in debt to other creditors and has to pay employees and other overhead expenses just to stay afloat at a loss of profit.

This team is a financial disaster. It needs to be contracted.

Who the other team to be contracted should be is beyond me. I think obvious choices are Minnesota, Memphis, Charlotte, or Sacramento.

Minnesota and Sacramento have horrid arena deals and have had terrible management over the last decade. Memphis and Charlotte are located in the heart of NCAA basketball country where basketball allegiance is to Louisville, Kentucky, Memphis, and UNC, NC State, Duke, respectively. The attendance and average ticket pricing as well as general NBA success as franchises reflect this.

My guess is Charlotte is safe due to who owns the team and the respect that man carries within the league(Michael Jordan). The other three teams have shown that when successful they can probably be mildly profitable but horribly unprofitable when not successful.

I would therefore relocate Sacramento to Seattle or Vegas, leave Memphis where it is and see who the future success plays on establishing that team in that city and contract Minnesota since their arena deal is such a horror and that team will NEVER attract quality free agents due to it being SUCH a cold weather environment.