Should smaller markets be worried

[thedoper]

Just make it so you can sign players you draft to as much as you want. The ire of the fans can then go back where it belongs if a player doesnt sign, the owners. How the owners got the players to give up more money with the salary cap and the revenue stream and how the greed issues of the NBA seem to be collectively levied at the players seem like incredible shrewdness to me. Not only are the owners making more money than ever, they can still act like victims when their prize ponies want to move.

It's not how much the owners make. The issue is how much more some owners can make because of the markets they're in. The ability to make a lot more in some (larger and/or warm-weather) markets would further skew competitive balance over time and would probably lead to a consolidation in the number of teams and less geographic coverage. Ultimately, that contraction would reduce the overall popularity and viewership, which would reduce overall revenue. The billionaires who own NBA teams wouldn't suffer at all. But the fans would and so would the players since there would be fewer teams and, overall, less revenue to distribute among the players. Furthermore, the salary cap and rookie salary structure spreads then wealth among more players by limiting the amount that would otherwise get tied up with a smaller group of elite stars and highly touted rookies.

The NBA Players Association has agreed to the current structure because they understand that it's in the overall best interest of the majority of players to have some chance of competitive balance with a larger number of teams spread out geographically and to spread the wealth among a larger group of players, including those who weren't highly touted coming out of college but who have proven themselves - players like Middleton.

The intent of the salary cap and other mechanisms to promote competitive balance has been challenged lately by stars flexing their muscle and banding together with each other and the wealthiest franchises to form super teams. As we know, if you create a rule, people will find a way around it. I don't think there's a practical way to fix it. The stars have too much clout in the Players Association and the big-market owners have a lot of power among the NBA ownership group. But all is not lost so long as the League has successful teams like the Bucks, Raptors, Spurs and Hawks.

This really isn't a battle between the players and owners. It's more of a battle between the star players and big-market owners on one side and the non-star players and smaller-market owners on the other side.

Glen Taylor is going to make 20x on his investment. The dispute between owners is negligible. If Glen wanted to make more than that win. They all love the cap, and Glen was and has been one of the biggest proponent of it, when in actuality the only tool the smaller markets could yield (the ability to play your players significantly more) has been stripped away. The solution for competitive balance is simple, allow teams to pay players they draft any amount of $$$. If an owner doesnt want to shell out enough to keep that player so be it. But the owners dont really care, they have a safeguard money making ponzi scheme, the players are then forced to wield any power they can (freedom of movement and external sponsorship), and the fans suffer. Maybe when every owner pays more than they can afford (like Lore and Arod) for a team, the push for competitive balance will matter, but the overwhelming majority of current owners are due for a massive windfall if they ever sell. Why would they care about really addressing competitive balance.

[Monster]

Players are leaving good teams to go to other good teams. I don't think the small markets should be more worried than they were 5-10 years ago. Let's say this Luka stuff is real the Mavs aren't exactly a massive big market team but their owner Mark Cuban is one of the most recognizable owners (across the general population in the country) in the league and they are well run organization with a Future HOF coach. If Dallas can't keep a guy there (maybe) what chance does a poorly run franchise have? I'm not saying small markets aren't at a disadvantage but some of the "small market" teams just aren't that good as organizations.

I think the league trying to move towards having a true minor league system could offer opportunities to teams to gain advantages there if the league would like. Will many stars be found because of a minor league system for the NBA? I think there will be some but honestly one reason some guys have left their teams is because lack of talent around them. If you have a few more chances to develop players at a lower level you might be able to get some solid players to make the team more effective...or maybe even use in trades.

Edit: sorry I had no idea when I posted this that Nelson and Carlisle were leaving Dallas.

[Lipoli390]

Just make it so you can sign players you draft to as much as you want. The ire of the fans can then go back where it belongs if a player doesnt sign, the owners. How the owners got the players to give up more money with the salary cap and the revenue stream and how the greed issues of the NBA seem to be collectively levied at the players seem like incredible shrewdness to me. Not only are the owners making more money than ever, they can still act like victims when their prize ponies want to move.

It's not how much the owners make. The issue is how much more some owners can make because of the markets they're in. The ability to make a lot more in some (larger and/or warm-weather) markets would further skew competitive balance over time and would probably lead to a consolidation in the number of teams and less geographic coverage. Ultimately, that contraction would reduce the overall popularity and viewership, which would reduce overall revenue. The billionaires who own NBA teams wouldn't suffer at all. But the fans would and so would the players since there would be fewer teams and, overall, less revenue to distribute among the players. Furthermore, the salary cap and rookie salary structure spreads then wealth among more players by limiting the amount that would otherwise get tied up with a smaller group of elite stars and highly touted rookies.

The NBA Players Association has agreed to the current structure because they understand that it's in the overall best interest of the majority of players to have some chance of competitive balance with a larger number of teams spread out geographically and to spread the wealth among a larger group of players, including those who weren't highly touted coming out of college but who have proven themselves - players like Middleton.

The intent of the salary cap and other mechanisms to promote competitive balance has been challenged lately by stars flexing their muscle and banding together with each other and the wealthiest franchises to form super teams. As we know, if you create a rule, people will find a way around it. I don't think there's a practical way to fix it. The stars have too much clout in the Players Association and the big-market owners have a lot of power among the NBA ownership group. But all is not lost so long as the League has successful teams like the Bucks, Raptors, Spurs and Hawks.

This really isn't a battle between the players and owners. It's more of a battle between the star players and big-market owners on one side and the non-star players and smaller-market owners on the other side.

Glen Taylor is going to make 20x on his investment. The dispute between owners is negligible. If Glen wanted to make more than that win. They all love the cap, and Glen was and has been one of the biggest proponent of it, when in actuality the only tool the smaller markets could yield (the ability to play your players significantly more) has been stripped away. The solution for competitive balance is simple, allow teams to pay players they draft any amount of $$$. If an owner doesnt want to shell out enough to keep that player so be it. But the owners dont really care, they have a safeguard money making ponzi scheme, the players are then forced to wield any power they can (freedom of movement and external sponsorship), and the fans suffer. Maybe when every owner pays more than they can afford (like Lore and Arod) for a team, the push for competitive balance will matter, but the overwhelming majority of current owners are due for a massive windfall if they ever sell. Why would they care about really addressing competitive balance.

Doper -

These owners didn't get rich by making investments that lost money every year on the assumption that they'd sell later for enough to make up the losses and make a good return. They're not going to be content with annual operating losses based on what they might anticipate making when they sell the team. No rational person, billionaire or not, will do that. And there's no telling whether the escalation in franchise valuations will continue at anything close to the pace they've been at over the past 25 years.

[thedoper]

Just make it so you can sign players you draft to as much as you want. The ire of the fans can then go back where it belongs if a player doesnt sign, the owners. How the owners got the players to give up more money with the salary cap and the revenue stream and how the greed issues of the NBA seem to be collectively levied at the players seem like incredible shrewdness to me. Not only are the owners making more money than ever, they can still act like victims when their prize ponies want to move.

It's not how much the owners make. The issue is how much more some owners can make because of the markets they're in. The ability to make a lot more in some (larger and/or warm-weather) markets would further skew competitive balance over time and would probably lead to a consolidation in the number of teams and less geographic coverage. Ultimately, that contraction would reduce the overall popularity and viewership, which would reduce overall revenue. The billionaires who own NBA teams wouldn't suffer at all. But the fans would and so would the players since there would be fewer teams and, overall, less revenue to distribute among the players. Furthermore, the salary cap and rookie salary structure spreads then wealth among more players by limiting the amount that would otherwise get tied up with a smaller group of elite stars and highly touted rookies.

The NBA Players Association has agreed to the current structure because they understand that it's in the overall best interest of the majority of players to have some chance of competitive balance with a larger number of teams spread out geographically and to spread the wealth among a larger group of players, including those who weren't highly touted coming out of college but who have proven themselves - players like Middleton.

The intent of the salary cap and other mechanisms to promote competitive balance has been challenged lately by stars flexing their muscle and banding together with each other and the wealthiest franchises to form super teams. As we know, if you create a rule, people will find a way around it. I don't think there's a practical way to fix it. The stars have too much clout in the Players Association and the big-market owners have a lot of power among the NBA ownership group. But all is not lost so long as the League has successful teams like the Bucks, Raptors, Spurs and Hawks.

This really isn't a battle between the players and owners. It's more of a battle between the star players and big-market owners on one side and the non-star players and smaller-market owners on the other side.

Glen Taylor is going to make 20x on his investment. The dispute between owners is negligible. If Glen wanted to make more than that win. They all love the cap, and Glen was and has been one of the biggest proponent of it, when in actuality the only tool the smaller markets could yield (the ability to play your players significantly more) has been stripped away. The solution for competitive balance is simple, allow teams to pay players they draft any amount of $$$. If an owner doesnt want to shell out enough to keep that player so be it. But the owners dont really care, they have a safeguard money making ponzi scheme, the players are then forced to wield any power they can (freedom of movement and external sponsorship), and the fans suffer. Maybe when every owner pays more than they can afford (like Lore and Arod) for a team, the push for competitive balance will matter, but the overwhelming majority of current owners are due for a massive windfall if they ever sell. Why would they care about really addressing competitive balance.

Doper -

These owners didn't get rich by making investments that lost money every year on the assumption that they'd sell later for enough to make up the losses and make a good return. They're not going to be content with annual operating losses based on what they might anticipate making when they sell the team. No rational person, billionaire or not, will do that. And there's no telling whether the escalation in franchise valuations will continue at anything close to the pace they've been at over the past 25 years.

Annual loses for the greater good has been an acceptable business model for a while. Especially if it is just in a subset of the overall corporation like the Wolves. That is the modern model for every tech company since the 90s. Rational Billionaires have been doing it for a while. The great thing about the NBA is that it has had a collective profitable revenue stream for 20 + years. Would they like to not incur annual loses in an individual franchise? Sure. But the overall revenue stream hasnt been tickets and tshirts for a while. They could care less about competitive balance, that have been shooting into the stars and are blinded by greed. Glen has never actually given a real shit about winning and why would he? His ticket sales are only a bonus to guaranteed income. The fact that a habitual loser is going to get a 20x return on his investment is robbery after caring so little about the product for so long. What motivation does he have to win? Small percentages in the profitability of his product. There is no major return on investment for putting yourself out there to win.

[SameOldNudityDrew]

Just make it so you can sign players you draft to as much as you want. The ire of the fans can then go back where it belongs if a player doesnt sign, the owners. How the owners got the players to give up more money with the salary cap and the revenue stream and how the greed issues of the NBA seem to be collectively levied at the players seem like incredible shrewdness to me. Not only are the owners making more money than ever, they can still act like victims when their prize ponies want to move.

It's not how much the owners make. The issue is how much more some owners can make because of the markets they're in. The ability to make a lot more in some (larger and/or warm-weather) markets would further skew competitive balance over time and would probably lead to a consolidation in the number of teams and less geographic coverage. Ultimately, that contraction would reduce the overall popularity and viewership, which would reduce overall revenue. The billionaires who own NBA teams wouldn't suffer at all. But the fans would and so would the players since there would be fewer teams and, overall, less revenue to distribute among the players. Furthermore, the salary cap and rookie salary structure spreads then wealth among more players by limiting the amount that would otherwise get tied up with a smaller group of elite stars and highly touted rookies.

The NBA Players Association has agreed to the current structure because they understand that it's in the overall best interest of the majority of players to have some chance of competitive balance with a larger number of teams spread out geographically and to spread the wealth among a larger group of players, including those who weren't highly touted coming out of college but who have proven themselves - players like Middleton.

The intent of the salary cap and other mechanisms to promote competitive balance has been challenged lately by stars flexing their muscle and banding together with each other and the wealthiest franchises to form super teams. As we know, if you create a rule, people will find a way around it. I don't think there's a practical way to fix it. The stars have too much clout in the Players Association and the big-market owners have a lot of power among the NBA ownership group. But all is not lost so long as the League has successful teams like the Bucks, Raptors, Spurs and Hawks.

This really isn't a battle between the players and owners. It's more of a battle between the star players and big-market owners on one side and the non-star players and smaller-market owners on the other side.

Glen Taylor is going to make 20x on his investment. The dispute between owners is negligible. If Glen wanted to make more than that win. They all love the cap, and Glen was and has been one of the biggest proponent of it, when in actuality the only tool the smaller markets could yield (the ability to play your players significantly more) has been stripped away. The solution for competitive balance is simple, allow teams to pay players they draft any amount of $$$. If an owner doesnt want to shell out enough to keep that player so be it. But the owners dont really care, they have a safeguard money making ponzi scheme, the players are then forced to wield any power they can (freedom of movement and external sponsorship), and the fans suffer. Maybe when every owner pays more than they can afford (like Lore and Arod) for a team, the push for competitive balance will matter, but the overwhelming majority of current owners are due for a massive windfall if they ever sell. Why would they care about really addressing competitive balance.

Doper -

These owners didn't get rich by making investments that lost money every year on the assumption that they'd sell later for enough to make up the losses and make a good return. They're not going to be content with annual operating losses based on what they might anticipate making when they sell the team. No rational person, billionaire or not, will do that. And there's no telling whether the escalation in franchise valuations will continue at anything close to the pace they've been at over the past 25 years.

Annual loses for the greater good has been an acceptable business model for a while. Especially if it is just in a subset of the overall corporation like the Wolves. That is the modern model for every tech company since the 90s. Rational Billionaires have been doing it for a while. The great thing about the NBA is that it has had a collective profitable revenue stream for 20 + years. Would they like to not incur annual loses in an individual franchise? Sure. But the overall revenue stream hasnt been tickets and tshirts for a while. They could care less about competitive balance, that have been shooting into the stars and are blinded by greed. Glen has never actually given a real shit about winning and why would he? His ticket sales are only a bonus to guaranteed income. The fact that a habitual loser is going to get a 20x return on his investment is robbery after caring so little about the product for so long. What motivation does he have to win? Small percentages in the profitability of his product. There is no major return on investment for putting yourself out there to win.

I'm with Doper on that point. The economic world just isn't what we used to think it was. You can lose money every year on a team (or Tech company) and easily live off loans backed by the collateral of the team's value, which rises so much faster than interest rates that you're basically swimming in money even if it looks on the surface like you're losing it. Plus there is some degree of profit sharing among the team owners to redistribute wealth from richer teams to "poorer" ones.

I do think Lip is right that we need to stop thinking about the players as a monolith when it comes to these issues though. Some of the provisions to help teams keep stars do squeeze out the salary that more minor players might otherwise have gotten--although I will say the cap does prevent this from being a truly free market like in European soccer, where the best players make WAY more money compared to their counterparts than NBA stars make compared to their role player teammates.

I would add that I think the division we make between "big markets" and "small markets" is often an oversimplification, usually pushed hardest by fans of "small market" teams out of a sense of grievance. I think Minnesota is actually pretty middle of the pack when it comes to market size, but we always complain that we're a small market team, which I think reflects the fact that we suck more than our market size. Of course, certain teams have way more pull for owners or players based on their location. But running a team well matters too. The Nets didn't just get those stars because they're in Brooklyn. They did the work to clear the cap space while keeping enough talent to be attractive to free agents, and then they had the talent and assets to be able to swing the big Harden trade. If we hadn't been such an incompetent organization over the years, I'm guessing we wouldn't be calling ourselves a disadvantaged small market team as often.

[Monster]

Just make it so you can sign players you draft to as much as you want. The ire of the fans can then go back where it belongs if a player doesnt sign, the owners. How the owners got the players to give up more money with the salary cap and the revenue stream and how the greed issues of the NBA seem to be collectively levied at the players seem like incredible shrewdness to me. Not only are the owners making more money than ever, they can still act like victims when their prize ponies want to move.

It's not how much the owners make. The issue is how much more some owners can make because of the markets they're in. The ability to make a lot more in some (larger and/or warm-weather) markets would further skew competitive balance over time and would probably lead to a consolidation in the number of teams and less geographic coverage. Ultimately, that contraction would reduce the overall popularity and viewership, which would reduce overall revenue. The billionaires who own NBA teams wouldn't suffer at all. But the fans would and so would the players since there would be fewer teams and, overall, less revenue to distribute among the players. Furthermore, the salary cap and rookie salary structure spreads then wealth among more players by limiting the amount that would otherwise get tied up with a smaller group of elite stars and highly touted rookies.

The NBA Players Association has agreed to the current structure because they understand that it's in the overall best interest of the majority of players to have some chance of competitive balance with a larger number of teams spread out geographically and to spread the wealth among a larger group of players, including those who weren't highly touted coming out of college but who have proven themselves - players like Middleton.

The intent of the salary cap and other mechanisms to promote competitive balance has been challenged lately by stars flexing their muscle and banding together with each other and the wealthiest franchises to form super teams. As we know, if you create a rule, people will find a way around it. I don't think there's a practical way to fix it. The stars have too much clout in the Players Association and the big-market owners have a lot of power among the NBA ownership group. But all is not lost so long as the League has successful teams like the Bucks, Raptors, Spurs and Hawks.

This really isn't a battle between the players and owners. It's more of a battle between the star players and big-market owners on one side and the non-star players and smaller-market owners on the other side.

Glen Taylor is going to make 20x on his investment. The dispute between owners is negligible. If Glen wanted to make more than that win. They all love the cap, and Glen was and has been one of the biggest proponent of it, when in actuality the only tool the smaller markets could yield (the ability to play your players significantly more) has been stripped away. The solution for competitive balance is simple, allow teams to pay players they draft any amount of $$$. If an owner doesnt want to shell out enough to keep that player so be it. But the owners dont really care, they have a safeguard money making ponzi scheme, the players are then forced to wield any power they can (freedom of movement and external sponsorship), and the fans suffer. Maybe when every owner pays more than they can afford (like Lore and Arod) for a team, the push for competitive balance will matter, but the overwhelming majority of current owners are due for a massive windfall if they ever sell. Why would they care about really addressing competitive balance.

Doper -

These owners didn't get rich by making investments that lost money every year on the assumption that they'd sell later for enough to make up the losses and make a good return. They're not going to be content with annual operating losses based on what they might anticipate making when they sell the team. No rational person, billionaire or not, will do that. And there's no telling whether the escalation in franchise valuations will continue at anything close to the pace they've been at over the past 25 years.

Annual loses for the greater good has been an acceptable business model for a while. Especially if it is just in a subset of the overall corporation like the Wolves. That is the modern model for every tech company since the 90s. Rational Billionaires have been doing it for a while. The great thing about the NBA is that it has had a collective profitable revenue stream for 20 + years. Would they like to not incur annual loses in an individual franchise? Sure. But the overall revenue stream hasnt been tickets and tshirts for a while. They could care less about competitive balance, that have been shooting into the stars and are blinded by greed. Glen has never actually given a real shit about winning and why would he? His ticket sales are only a bonus to guaranteed income. The fact that a habitual loser is going to get a 20x return on his investment is robbery after caring so little about the product for so long. What motivation does he have to win? Small percentages in the profitability of his product. There is no major return on investment for putting yourself out there to win.

I'm with Doper on that point. The economic world just isn't what we used to think it was. You can lose money every year on a team (or Tech company) and easily live off loans backed by the collateral of the team's value, which rises so much faster than interest rates that you're basically swimming in money even if it looks on the surface like you're losing it. Plus there is some degree of profit sharing among the team owners to redistribute wealth from richer teams to "poorer" ones.

I do think Lip is right that we need to stop thinking about the players as a monolith when it comes to these issues though. Some of the provisions to help teams keep stars do squeeze out the salary that more minor players might otherwise have gotten--although I will say the cap does prevent this from being a truly free market like in European soccer, where the best players make WAY more money compared to their counterparts than NBA stars make compared to their role player teammates.

I would add that I think the division we make between "big markets" and "small markets" is often an oversimplification, usually pushed hardest by fans of "small market" teams out of a sense of grievance. I think Minnesota is actually pretty middle of the pack when it comes to market size, but we always complain that we're a small market team, which I think reflects the fact that we suck more than our market size. Of course, certain teams have way more pull for owners or players based on their location. But running a team well matters too. The Nets didn't just get those stars because they're in Brooklyn. They did the work to clear the cap space while keeping enough talent to be attractive to free agents, and then they had the talent and assets to be able to swing the big Harden trade. If we hadn't been such an incompetent organization over the years, I'm guessing we wouldn't be calling ourselves a disadvantaged small market team as often.

+1 on that last paragraph well said Drew.

[AbeVigodaLive]

"Small" market might be a bit of a misnomer. It's about more than size. I think it comes down to desired markets and non-desired markets.

And Minnesota has a few marks going against it, even beyond the mid-size market.

Perceptions matter... especially to young and very wealthy basketball players. Minnesota is a hockey (e.g., pretty white) state. It's cold... very cold. It's in flyover country. It offers no tax benefits. No history. No splashiness at all. Things like a solid corporate base, or education, or theaters, or quality of living for a middle income family of 4 that puts Minnesota high up on the list of good places to live... mean nothing to a 23 - 28 year old from the deep south or California or inner city borough.

Meanwhile, even though a place like Dallas or Brooklyn hasn't been a top-notch destination... both offer distinct advantages over Minnesota.

Brooklyn is in New York. It has things that the Timberwolves can never offer... which make it more desirable... when both teams are bad or both teams are good.

Dallas is larger. More diverse. Warmer. And doesn't have state income taxes. Again, it's infinitely more desirable (all things being equal) than Minnesota.

My point is that whether it's called a small or mid-size market is largely irrelevant. Minnesota is definitely on the list of least desirable NBA markets... and that puts the Timberwolves at a disadvantage vs. almost all of the other NBA teams.

[SameOldNudityDrew]

"Small" market might be a bit of a misnomer. It's about more than size. I think it comes down to desired markets and non-desired markets.

And Minnesota has a few marks going against it, even beyond the mid-size market.

Perceptions matter... especially to young and very wealthy basketball players. Minnesota is a hockey (e.g., pretty white) state. It's cold... very cold. It's in flyover country. It offers no tax benefits. No history. No splashiness at all. Things like a solid corporate base, or education, or theaters, or quality of living for a middle income family of 4 that puts Minnesota high up on the list of good places to live... mean nothing to a 23 - 28 year old from the deep south or California or inner city borough.

Meanwhile, even though a place like Dallas or Brooklyn hasn't been a top-notch destination... both offer distinct advantages over Minnesota.

Brooklyn is in New York. It has things that the Timberwolves can never offer... which make it more desirable... when both teams are bad or both teams are good.

Dallas is larger. More diverse. Warmer. And doesn't have state income taxes. Again, it's infinitely more desirable (all things being equal) than Minnesota.

My point is that whether it's called a small or mid-size market is largely irrelevant. Minnesota is definitely on the list of least desirable NBA markets... and that puts the Timberwolves at a disadvantage vs. almost all of the other NBA teams.

I agree with everything here.

What I find objectionable is the way people like Chris Vernon (mis)use the small market/big market labels, maybe because they don't want to come right out and admit that they are a less desirable destination, as I think you put it well. I like Verno, but I don't like how he and others whine so much about how their team gets cheated because they are a "small market team." I dislike it for a couple reasons.

First, stressing it that much kind of ignores how factors other than a team's location can make it desirable. The factor I think people who cry "small market" are ignoring the most is a team's competence and history of success. The Knicks have the best market and the location is very attractive, but they haven't been a free agent destination in years because they're widely seen as an incompetent organization based on its owner.

Next, focusing so specifically on location--again, under the pretense of market size--starts to sound like an excuse for mediocrity or failure after awhile. You can't improve your market size or location desirability. So the extent to which people argue market size determines the quality of the team, that's the extent to which they're saying a team can never really improve. I find that a fatalistic, defeatist, excuse.

And to be clear, I don't think Abe Vigoda is a defeatist. He beat death multiple times.

[FNG]

Some good takes here. Drew and Abe are correct that MSP is really not a small market...I see 12 NBA markets larger than us and 13 smaller...and several of the smaller ones have no problems attracting free agents. but they are also correct that there are factors much more important than size when free agents consider the Wolves, and we don't stack up well. This article is 11 years old, but it ranked the cities NBA players hate...we were #1.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/439790-do-we-have-to-play-there-the-top-five-places-nba-players-dread-to-play

But things have changed in the past year, and I can tell you from personal experience that it is much easier to attract POCs to the Twin Cities since the George Floyd killing. I have noticed personally, and a close friend who is a recruiter agrees, that the tragic Floyd incident put us "on the map" ...like it or not (and I guess I largely do), the Twin Cities are perceived by POCs as a social justice Mecca, and a place where they can be in the middle of change. Equally important is the pending change of ownership...NBA players love the limelight, and even if we all think of Glen Taylor as a rock star :cool:, ARod and his partner just might be a slightly bigger draw. I'm convinced these two factors have made us instantly more appealing to the typical NBA player who might not have known where "Mindianapolis" was 15 months ago, and are likely more important than climate and nightlife. Ultimately though, winning more games will be vital to making us attractive to the bid free agents.

[Lipoli390]

Owners generally don't buy professional sports teams to make money. They buy them as a competitive outlet and a toy. So all of them, including Glen Taylor, are highly motivated to win. However, not surprisingly, they are loath to operate at a loss regardless of what they might get down the road by selling their franchises.

The comparison to tech companies is apples to watermelons. Tech companies are in the business of making money by increasing share value through investments that create and expand markets for their products. They finance their growth through debt and equity, but they eventually need to become cash-flow positive. If they don't, they'll eventually fail as happened to so many when the dot-com bubble burst in the early 2000s. I know. I worked for one of those companies. Owners of professional sports teams care about competitive balance because they want a chance to win, which is why they own sports teams. Moreover, winning helps avoid annual operating losses, which they want to avoid. The fact that they care about competitive balance is evident in their agreement to revenue sharing.

Note that these tech markets, like most, tend to consolidate as smaller companies fail and larger companies buy them up and merge. Think about Google and Amazon. That's why we have regulatory agencies and anti-trust laws that purport to limit consolidation. Without measures like the salary cap and revenue sharing, the NBA would likely follow the same path. Those terms and others in the collective bargaining agreement serve essentially the same function as regulatory restrictions and anti-trust laws in other industries. Without the limits contained in the NBA's collective bargaining agreement, the League would likely shrink as revenue would consolidate in relatively fewer markets.

I think the NBA has done a terrific job of striking the right balance.

The players contributed to that balance by agreeing to a salary-cap structure that allows the great players to become super rich and the rest of the League's players to share in the bounty with lucrative contracts. The rookie salary scale benefits veteran players and late-bloomers by preserving revenue that would otherwise go to highly-touted draftees who come to the NBA with a lot of gloss but often flop. It also ensures that teams in smaller or less attractive markets can retain their draft picks for a longer period, which gives them a better chance of benefitting from those picks. The owners have also contributed to that balance by agreeing to revenue sharing and by agreeing to the salary cap, which helps smaller (or less desirable) markets compete financially with the franchises in larger, more desirable markets.

Obviously, the current system isn't perfect. But it's good enough to produce successful, winning franchises in mid to small markets like we're seeing this season in Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, Portland, Atlanta and Denver. The Jazz franchise has been repeatedly successful as has the San Antonio Spurs franchise. I do think the balance achieved to date is threatened by efforts of elite stars to build super teams and their threats to leave. But so far, the League is holding up in spite of those efforts and threats. The Lakers were knocked out in the 1st round while the Jazz advanced. Meanwhile, the Hawks and Bucks continue to play. So I'm not too worried. But there is still cause for concern and I continue to believe that both owners and players need to focus on the greater good. I don't consider the owners or players as the problem. I think the main problem will always be the owners of franchises in the larger more desirable markets and the elite star players. Their selfish interests don't align well with the interests of the majority of teams or the majority of players, but those elite owners and elite players wield a disproportionate amount of power. Of course, that's no different than the world outside the NBA.