Supposed disadvantage of small market teams

[guava_wrench]

I keep hearing commentators make misguided comments about this year's free agent moves and claiming the cap bump is a problem for small market teams. When I look at the markets in the NBA, I see SA's dynasty in one of the league's smallest markets. I see the top 5 market teams having only a single team in last year's playoffs (LAC out of NYK, BRK, LAL, and CHI). I see Cleveland winning the title in a middle of the pack market. I see Miami having a recent superteam with a middle of the pack market. How many times have OKC and Memphis missed the playoffs in the last decade, despite being in very small markets?

What do people mean by "small market" anyway? Does the market for Boston include Cambridge? Does it include NH? Maine? Are people basing market size on individual team revenue -- which would be absurd since winning is a mediating variable for revenue.

[Moranis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_metropolitan_areas_by_population

Miami is definitely not a small market.  In fact they are a clear large market. 

Knicks/Nets
Lakers/Clippers
Bulls
Mavericks
Rockets
Raptors
Wizards
Sixers
Heat
Hawks
Celtics
Warriors
Suns
Pistons
Wolves
Nuggets
Hornets
Blazers
Magic
Spurs
Cavs
Pacers

Jazz, Grizzlies, Pelicans, Kings, Bucks, and Thunder aren't in the top 50 in North America.

Now that is by population, but the Celtics and Warriors are likely considered large markets, while the Hawks are likely not despite Atlanta having a larger population than Boston and the Bay Area. 

[Kuberski33]

I think a lot of it is due to middle aged sports writers going back to a time when television markets mattered.  And for a while they really did as teams in the bigger markets could generate more revenue through local TV deals.  The cap, internet and ridiculous amounts of national TV money have all changed that.

I do think there is still a bit of an advantage for outside business opportunities - i.e. Golden State because of Silicon Valley, New York and LA might still have a little bit more leverage vs other markets.  Also climate, social life and taxes can play a role but with the cap the money is more or less the same no matter where you play these days.

[Moranis]

I think a lot of it is due to middle aged sports writers going back to a time when television markets mattered.  And for a while they really did as teams in the bigger markets could generate more revenue through local TV deals.  The cap, internet and ridiculous amounts of national TV money have all changed that.

I do think there is still a bit of an advantage for outside business opportunities - i.e. Golden State because of Silicon Valley, New York and LA might still have a little bit more leverage vs other markets.  Also climate, social life and taxes can play a role but with the cap the money is more or less the same no matter where you play these days.

The teams in the larger markets make more revenue from ticket sales and outside sources and thus are generally more likely to be willing to exceed the cap and pay the luxury tax.  A guy like Dan Gilbert owning the Cavs is far more the exception than the rule.  Even San Antonio doesn't get into the tax range, they have just had players be willing to take less to go there.  If the Thunder were in L.A., they never would have let Harden go and would have had a Big 4.  That is the real difference these days between the large and smaller markets.

[Surferdad]

I think a lot of it is due to middle aged sports writers going back to a time when television markets mattered.  And for a while they really did as teams in the bigger markets could generate more revenue through local TV deals.  The cap, internet and ridiculous amounts of national TV money have all changed that.

I do think there is still a bit of an advantage for outside business opportunities - i.e. Golden State because of Silicon Valley, New York and LA might still have a little bit more leverage vs other markets.  Also climate, social life and taxes can play a role but with the cap the money is more or less the same no matter where you play these days.

The teams in the larger markets make more revenue from ticket sales and outside sources and thus are generally more likely to be willing to exceed the cap and pay the luxury tax.  A guy like Dan Gilbert owning the Cavs is far more the exception than the rule.  Even San Antonio doesn't get into the tax range, they have just had players be willing to take less to go there.  If the Thunder were in L.A., they never would have let Harden go and would have had a Big 4.  That is the real difference these days between the large and smaller markets.

Bingo, and TP Moranis.

Also, I don't you can simply look at recent playoff success as an indicator that market size no longer matters.  A lot of this is the normal cycle of teams like Boston, New York, LAL losing their stars and essentially in rebuilding currently along with good luck for GS and CLE to see their players improve rapidly while still on smaller contracts (Curry, Draymond, Thompson, Kyrie) or good luck in free agency (James, Durant). 

Once the salary cap levels out in a few years, I think you will see 'bigger' markets once again begin to dominate.  JMO

[mctyson]

I keep hearing commentators make misguided comments about this year's free agent moves and claiming the cap bump is a problem for small market teams. When I look at the markets in the NBA, I see SA's dynasty in one of the league's smallest markets. I see the top 5 market teams having only a single team in last year's playoffs (LAC out of NYK, BRK, LAL, and CHI). I see Cleveland winning the title in a middle of the pack market. I see Miami having a recent superteam with a middle of the pack market. How many times have OKC and Memphis missed the playoffs in the last decade, despite being in very small markets?

What do people mean by "small market" anyway? Does the market for Boston include Cambridge? Does it include NH? Maine? Are people basing market size on individual team revenue -- which would be absurd since winning is a mediating variable for revenue.

See bolded text.  There is no such impact of small markets on the ability to sign Free Agents under a rising soft cap.  Further, this cap is up for all teams because of the massive new revenue large (and small) markets are generating for the league.  Let's also not forget that these 'small markets' rake in money from revenue sharing, much of which is generated by large markets.

So whoever is complaining that small markets can't sign free agents is just factually wrong.