vedthree":o04qf4bi said:
From 1983 (adding the Mavs) to 2004 (adding the Bobcats) the NBA operated with an odd number of teams. So that argument against is weak.
The "have to wait for the new TV deal" argument is also weak. Right now, the existing deal pays $900M a year. When the existing 30 Owners each get their cut, that works out to $30M per team. Expand to 31 and that drops to $29M per team. Chris Hansen has already shown that he'll drop $30 like it's pocket change. The increased valuation of teams & amount of $ HBN would pay in for an expansion fee would more than offset any $$ the owners would lose under the existing TV deal and the future deal. Plus, adding the Seattle market in advance to renegotiation of the TV deal is in the NBA's best interests, since it increases the asking price.
(BTW - The report that Hansen has supposedly told the NBA they could keep the $30M deposit he made as part of the Kings offer and that $30M happens to be the same amount of TV revenue in question is the one little thing that makes me hope Expansion talks are serious right now ... but maybe I'm just reading too much into things)
The "talent dilution" argument is weak. There are currently 450 roster spots in the NBA. Adding a team increases that to 465. Do you seriously believe there's a big difference between the 450th player vs. the 465th? .. "But there's not enough Star players to go around!!" How many "Stars" are in the NBA at any given time? 15? 20? By that logic, there's been too many teams since the ABA merger. Bottom line - teams with good GM's and good coaches will be able to assemble winning teams. Team with good markets & good products will be successful, teams that suck or are in bad markets will loose money. Doesn't make any difference if there are 28, 29, 30, 31, or 32 teams in the League, that will be true regardless.
Fantastic points all there Ved. I basically agree with everything you said. I hadn't realized the part about the NBA having had an odd number of teams for that 20 year span ... but you are absolutely correct. So, expansion COULD mean just Seattle in theory.
Regarding the NBA's TV contract being an impediment to expansion at the moment, I know it's basically a bogus argument ... and you know know it's a bogus argument ... but that is exactly the point that Stern and the NBA are contending (Stern reiterated that in the press conference). Steve Kyler (who threw out that Tweet about Stern having influenced the owners' vote) said yesterday in an interview on KJR-950am that the NBA was concerned about setting a precedent in this case. That is, they didn't like the idea of having a team ripped out of its existing city (even if there is a superior offer) if that city has done everything that the board has asked that city to do. If that happened, then what about Milwaukee, what about Charlotte, and so on? If that's the case (and I honestly am starting to believe that it is) then I can respect that -- the idea of looking at the whole picture and what's good for the NBA as a whole (not just for 1 team or 1 city).
As crazy as it sounds (and I can't believe I'm saying this because I'm certainly no David Stern fan), I believe that there is a piece of David Stern that actually feels bad about what happened with Seattle in 2008. Erik Erikson (a disciple of Freud's) developed his own theories about personality and really talked a lot about people making critical decisions about life at key stages in life. In Stern's case, Erikson would say that he's at the "Ego Integrity vs. Despair" part of his life. This is the stage of life where people (say 65 or older, but that's a real rough timeline) start to look back on their life and really start to ask questions like, "What's my legacy going to be? How have I impacted the world? What am I leaving behind? How are people going to remember me?" People either look back on their life with a sense of real satisfaction or with a real sense of regret over some of their missteps, their missed opportunities, etc. It's that idea of legacy that I believe could have impacted things in terms of this decision with the Kings. I think it's quite possible that Stern looks at what happened with Seattle as a real failure -- a black mark on his resume as commissioner ... and maybe even regrets some things he did that helped make that failure to keep the Sonics in Seattle possible (there's sure a lot of blame to go around). Anyway, I think it's possible he looked at this situation and said to himself he didn't want the same exact thing to happen in Sacramento. Besides looking at what he perceived as being in the best overall interests of the NBA as a whole ... I think it's possible this could also have gone in to his thinking. And this is part of why (I believe) expansion could honestly be on the table in this case -- a way to make right a wrong that was done to the city of Seattle. Am I going to be remembered as a commissioner who allowed a team with a 41 year history to be torn out of its city ... or as the white knight who helped make its return possible?
For all those reasons and more, I'm honestly buying what Tim Montemayor is selling in saying that expansion for Seattle is on the horizon. As Chris98251 outlined in his points, it sure makes a lot of sense.
