Does it seem odd that only the "elite" are getting better?

[WayOutWest]

Seems to me that only the teams in the title hunt are aquiring key assests.  Is this a side effect of the economy?  If a team is not in the hunt for the title it seems like they are just staying put and saving money. 

I hope the Lakers resign Odom, Ariza, and Brown, they are going to need every solid player they've got to contend with the upgraded Spurs, Cavs, and Magic.

[westkoast]

Def has to be the recession.  Think about it.  All the top teams tend to have a strong fan base, sell a lot of tickets, sell a lot of merchandise, and tend to get more TV time.  Not to mention they all will be getting playoff money.  They have a bit more money and can count on their fan base.  The Spurs, Celtics, Lakers, and Cavs will fill up the stadium whether they are #1 or #10. 

Whereas you have a team like the Bucs who didn't even want to shell out the dough for Villanueva because they don't have the strongest fan base, they don't always fill up the stadium, and quite frankly no one is running around in Bucs jerseys.

I think Ariza is locked up.  Ariza has bounced around a lot, is an LA native, and went to UCLA so I feel he will want to stay with a team who actually has appreciated him.  Odom I am worried about.  He says he will take less money and loves LA but we will see.  This is his last shot at a 'pay day' technically.

[Lurker]

I agree with koast that it is the recession.  It has made many owners more hestitant to spend any more than necessary.  I was reading an article over the weekend that qouted one GM (it may have been Buford) as saying that they were considering only 12-13 players on the roster instead of 14-15.

I think Ariza will return to the Lakers for all the reasons you guys list.  Also I think the Lakers may spend a little extra to make sure he doesn't look around. 

Odom will look for his payday but I'm not sure anyone will offer the money is looking for.  And if someone does they better be a contender.  Detroit & Memphis have the cap space.  Detroit already has Prince; I don't think they need Odom.  And I don't think Odom would choose Memphis even if they offered the max...which they won't.  So that basically leaves the midlevel and for that why should Odom leave LA.

[westkoast]

I agree with koast that it is the recession.  It has made many owners more hestitant to spend any more than necessary.  I was reading an article over the weekend that qouted one GM (it may have been Buford) as saying that they were considering only 12-13 players on the roster instead of 14-15.

That mentality would cripple lower/mid level teams.  Could you imagine how burnt out your team would get *IF* they stayed healthy the whole year playing a 12 man rotation.  Just one or two injuries would shoot your playoff chances down.

Other than not over paying players I wonder why we haven't heard of more cuts from teams.  For example, couldn't the Clippers just fire their entire front office? lol

[Lurker]

I agree with koast that it is the recession.  It has made many owners more hestitant to spend any more than necessary.  I was reading an article over the weekend that qouted one GM (it may have been Buford) as saying that they were considering only 12-13 players on the roster instead of 14-15.

That mentality would cripple lower/mid level teams.  Could you imagine how burnt out your team would get *IF* they stayed healthy the whole year playing a 12 man rotation.  Just one or two injuries would shoot your playoff chances down.

Other than not over paying players I wonder why we haven't heard of more cuts from teams.  For example, couldn't the Clippers just fire their entire front office? lol

The Spurs organization has quietly cut a few positions.  People have left for whatever reason over the past year & the positions have been consolidated.  The other thing about the Spurs is that the organization includes the WNBA team, a minor league hockey team and the NBDL team in Austin.

[westkoast]

I agree with koast that it is the recession.  It has made many owners more hestitant to spend any more than necessary.  I was reading an article over the weekend that qouted one GM (it may have been Buford) as saying that they were considering only 12-13 players on the roster instead of 14-15.

That mentality would cripple lower/mid level teams.  Could you imagine how burnt out your team would get *IF* they stayed healthy the whole year playing a 12 man rotation.  Just one or two injuries would shoot your playoff chances down.

Other than not over paying players I wonder why we haven't heard of more cuts from teams.  For example, couldn't the Clippers just fire their entire front office? lol

The Spurs organization has quietly cut a few positions.  People have left for whatever reason over the past year & the positions have been consolidated.  The other thing about the Spurs is that the organization includes the WNBA team, a minor league hockey team and the NBDL team in Austin.

That leads to another thought....When is the NBA going to do away with the WNBA?  To be fair this is a business.  The WNBA has to be a major drain on resources and money for many owners and the league itself.  I think it's great there is a pro basketball league for women to strive to get into but business is business.  Even if the WNBA turns a small profit (which I doubt) is it really worth all that effort?

[WayOutWest]

That leads to another thought....When is the NBA going to do away with the WNBA?  To be fair this is a business.  The WNBA has to be a major drain on resources and money for many owners and the league itself.  I think it's great there is a pro basketball league for women to strive to get into but business is business.  Even if the WNBA turns a small profit (which I doubt) is it really worth all that effort?

Even if the WNBA turns a small profit (which I doubt) is it really worth all that effort?

I think you answered your own question.  There are more revenue streams than just ticket sales for pro-teams.

[westkoast]

That leads to another thought....When is the NBA going to do away with the WNBA?  To be fair this is a business.  The WNBA has to be a major drain on resources and money for many owners and the league itself.  I think it's great there is a pro basketball league for women to strive to get into but business is business.  Even if the WNBA turns a small profit (which I doubt) is it really worth all that effort?

Even if the WNBA turns a small profit (which I doubt) is it really worth all that effort?

I think you answered your own question.  There are more revenue streams than just ticket sales for pro-teams.

Do you really think they turn a profit?  Personally I don't think they sell a lot of merchandise.  The Sparks are a pretty successful WNBA team and I can't say I see them represented much at all in Los Angeles or Southern California in general.

[Lurker]

That leads to another thought....When is the NBA going to do away with the WNBA?  To be fair this is a business.  The WNBA has to be a major drain on resources and money for many owners and the league itself.  I think it's great there is a pro basketball league for women to strive to get into but business is business.  Even if the WNBA turns a small profit (which I doubt) is it really worth all that effort?

Even if the WNBA turns a small profit (which I doubt) is it really worth all that effort?

I think you answered your own question.  There are more revenue streams than just ticket sales for pro-teams.

Do you really think they turn a profit?  Personally I don't think they sell a lot of merchandise.  The Sparks are a pretty successful WNBA team and I can't say I see them represented much at all in Los Angeles or Southern California in general.

Profit isn't tied to revenue only...look at the costs associated with the WNBA.  And ask why so many players play a second season in Europe.

[rickortreat]

It's partly the economy but it's also how the NBA teams are managing their salary caps. No one has the money available to sign free agents, or rather very few do, so the market isn't that competitive for them.  It's also early as the draft is just over and free agency has begun.  Boozer and Okur don't even want to see what other teams will offer, which tells you how they and their agents are looking at it.

Since a lot of these players are out of a job, one wonders where they will go, and what kind of a salary they will accept to continue playing.  No one is going to pay AI what he got in his last contract and the same is true of a lot of them.

Don't count other teams out because they haven't acted yet. And definitely don't assume that the Lakers will be able to keep Odom and Ariza. Also are the Lakers ready to go another season with Fisher as their starting point?

[Joe Vancil]

I don't think it's the economy.  I think that it's because winning teams build winning traditions, and therefore, acquire players who help them continue that, even if they have to sometimes go above the cap to do it.  The winning teams keep getting better because players want to play for them, and there's a salary cap in place.

If you're an MLE player, and you can sign with either Cleveland or the Clippers, which team do you sign with?  With the Lakers, or the Grizzlies?  With a "down for now" team like Phoenix, or a "down forever" team like Golden State?

[Lurker]

I don't think it's the economy.  I think that it's because winning teams build winning traditions, and therefore, acquire players who help them continue that, even if they have to sometimes go above the cap to do it.  The winning teams keep getting better because players want to play for them, and there's a salary cap in place.

If you're an MLE player, and you can sign with either Cleveland or the Clippers, which team do you sign with?  With the Lakers, or the Grizzlies?  With a "down for now" team like Phoenix, or a "down forever" team like Golden State?

I agree that is part of it, Joe.  But what if in that scenario Phoenix because of the economy decides that 13 players is enough and won't offer the MLE?  IMO that is what is happening.  Even if every team cuts just one roster spot there is 30 less openings.  So this gives teams stronger bargaining power.

Would you rather take the MLE from GS, Memphis or Clippers OR sit home without a paycheck?  This could be where players like Iverson could be.

[Lurker]

I would also add that next year's anticipated FA frenzy is working to hold down this year's salaries and commitment to long contracts.

[Joe Vancil]

Free agency is nothing more than the opportunity for bad teams to overpay for marginal talent.

Name the last time a major player of elite status changed teams during free agency.

Now, name the last time that turned out to be GOOD for the team getting that free agent.

The last superstar level name that I can think of is GRANT HILL going from Detroit to Orlando.  Ben Wallace to Chicago is close, though.

The last time I remember it working out good for the acquiring team was when Shaq went to the Lakers...in 1996-97.  And he went because he was insulted by Orlando telling him to go find his market value instead of offering him the big bucks themselves.

There is, of course, Nash going to Phoenix.  But was Nash the elite-level player that Hill (Detroit version) was *BEFORE* going to Phoenix?

For every Steve Nash, there are plenty of Ron Mercer stories:  Chicago paid RON MERCER a max-dollar contract because it couldn't get Tim Duncan, Tracy McGrady, or Grant Hill in 2000.  RON MERCER.


Eric Dampier.  Eddy Curry.  Larry Hughes.  It's like reading a list of airplane crashes.  Free agency offers bad teams the opportunity to over-pay for marginal talent.

[WayOutWest]

Free agency is nothing more than the opportunity for bad teams to overpay for marginal talent.

I tend to agree Joe, most teams lock up the good/great talent before they can hit the market.