Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gilbert Arenas basically said fans of rebuilding teams don't have a chance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    dballa21 wrote: View Post
    technically he didnt because toronto is a big city. Only the knicks, lakers/clippers, and bulls have a bigger city.
    I don't think Arenas said anything about the size of a city, he said "......have the best chance at the top free agents due to city and money"

    Now MLSE has the money and they are profitable.... but they don't have the city to attract FAs. (16years and the top FA signings have been Hedo, Hakeem well past the twighlight of his career, Jarret Jack and Kapono, what does that tell you?) What Arena's said is the reality of the situation, and has been for sometime.

    Absolutely love that he admitted he wasn't worth his paycheque...

    Comment


    • #17
      joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
      Not the overall Metropolitan Area Population (5.96M vs. 5.11M).
      And thats what determines Market size. Generally.
      not exactly... Toronto is a "bigger" market than NY for Hockey, and they have a much smaller population. Washington and Greenbay are two of the top markets in football.

      Population has an effect on a market... more people means more potential buyers.... but it doesn't necessarily mean bigger market.

      Comment


      • #18
        Arenas' seems to be arguing the points of the NBA owners almost verbatim. I wonder if he got the memo from the NBAPA....

        Comment


        • #19
          The Leaf Ownership

          Leaf Ownership (teachers Fund) spends the dollars as much as they are allowed to and brought in the big time GM (Burke) to handle the hockey decisions. He sucks. But he is not ownership, but is management.'Management sucks,ownership would be rolling in dollars times five if the Leafs could be a top echelon team.

          Brandon wrote: View Post
          I think Gil is absolutely right and I also think it's good for the league that the big market teams win consistently. It hasn't been bad for baseball that the Yankees almost always have a dynastic team in place. Quite the opposite. As well as the NHL is doing right now, it would be a lot better if the Leefs had a good owner because the GTA is swimming in ca$h. The Leefs would be to the NHL what Tiger Woods was/is to golf. The prize money goes up for everybody. I don't believe in the religion of "parity", which I think results in a situation similar to Kurt Vonnegut's story "Harrison Bergeron", where every team is mediocre.

          The Raptors are well capable of being in that elite group of teams that can perennially win. The problem, as Arenas correctly noted, is the owner. The Leefs could carry a Steinbrenner-like payroll and so could the Raptors.

          Comment


          • #20
            GarbageTime wrote: View Post
            not exactly... Toronto is a "bigger" market than NY for Hockey, and they have a much smaller population. Washington and Greenbay are two of the top markets in football.

            Population has an effect on a market... more people means more potential buyers.... but it doesn't necessarily mean bigger market.
            GMan stated Houston is 20% bigger than Toronto.
            dballas was talking about 'size of the city.'
            In the context that we were talking, Population IS the number that matters. Metropolitan Population.
            I understand that a Market is weighted using many different Variables, but in the context with which we were discussing, its the Population that matters.

            And even still, are you saying Houston has a smaller Basketball Market than Toronto ...?
            Because I would REALLY have to disagree with that.

            Comment


            • #21
              joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
              GMan stated Houston is 20% bigger than Toronto.
              dballas was talking about 'size of the city.'
              In the context that we were talking, Population IS the number that matters. Metropolitan Population.
              I understand that a Market is weighted using many different Variables, but in the context with which we were discussing, its the Population that matters.

              And even still, are you saying Houston has a smaller Basketball Market than Toronto ...?
              Because I would REALLY have to disagree with that.
              I agree in this context population is the number being considered... I just completely forsee this becoming the old argument that "Toronto is the 4th largest market" which I think is a misleading statement when discussing basketball markets.

              and no I don't think Houston has a smaller b-ball market than T.O. In fact I think the exact opposite.

              I wasn't trying to disagree with you... but rather hedge (and maybe prematurely) the falsehoods some Raps fans seem to have about the idea of markets and market sizes.

              Comment


              • #22
                GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                I agree in this context population is the number being considered... I just completely forsee this becoming the old argument that "Toronto is the 4th largest market" which I think is a misleading statement when discussing basketball markets.

                and no I don't think Houston has a smaller b-ball market than T.O. In fact I think the exact opposite.

                I wasn't trying to disagree with you... but rather hedge (and maybe prematurely) the falsehoods some Raps fans seem to have about the idea of markets and market sizes.
                Lovely. Then we agree.

                I found this chart to be a fairly accurate portrayal of Market Rankings.

                They put Toronto at 14th. I can't disagree with this.
                But whats funny is that Toronto has the 13th Largest Metropolitan Population.
                So there does seem to be some correlation between the two, none-the-less.

                They also rank "Swag Factor" which is more a subjective Ranking of the Intangibles. (FA draw included)
                Toronto Ranks 22nd. Again, I guess I can't really disagree with this either, but I'd like too.

                Comment


                • #23
                  joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
                  Lovely. Then we agree.

                  I found this chart to be a fairly accurate portrayal of Market Rankings.

                  They put Toronto at 14th. I can't disagree with this.
                  But whats funny is that Toronto has the 13th Largest Metropolitan Population.
                  So there does seem to be some correlation between the two, none-the-less.

                  They also rank "Swag Factor" which is more a subjective Ranking of the Intangibles. (FA draw included)
                  Toronto Ranks 22nd. Again, I guess I can't really disagree with this either, but I'd like too.
                  According to that same article, MLSE is worth 297 million. Which hat they pulled that number out of is beyond me, but it completely ruins the credibility of the article. MlSE is clearly worth north of 2 billion.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
                    Lovely. Then we agree.

                    I found this chart to be a fairly accurate portrayal of Market Rankings.

                    They put Toronto at 14th. I can't disagree with this.
                    But whats funny is that Toronto has the 13th Largest Metropolitan Population.
                    So there does seem to be some correlation between the two, none-the-less.

                    They also rank "Swag Factor" which is more a subjective Ranking of the Intangibles. (FA draw included)
                    Toronto Ranks 22nd. Again, I guess I can't really disagree with this either, but I'd like too.
                    That is an interesting chart. It is tough to argue with any of it. The only team I would question ahead of Toronto is New Jersey but maybe they are factoring in a move to Brooklyn?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      There is something wrong with those rankings.

                      They have Orlando as 8th. The place is a dive, try selling luxury boxes in Orlando. There is just no money there. The place is next to broke. It's not a better market for anything next to the GTA, maybe retirement properties.

                      Jesus, their population is a third of Mississauga's... the chart just lost some credibility, I don't think earning potential is even a criteria. (and revenue sharing would be super important to keep these guys in that 8th ranking, if it wasn't for NBA communism they probably would not be able to have a franchise there). I don't see how they can be 7 spots ahead of Toronto.

                      As for swag factor, New Jersey is 8th and we are 22nd? Swag for whom? Snooki?
                      Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Sun Jul 3, 2011, 10:52 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        "Gilbert's quotes"

                        *Cue him pulling unloaded guns at the reporter and smiling about it. And then losing all credibility and respect*

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Gilbert has it dead on. Without proper revenue sharing its all for naught.
                          NBA team owners don't want to share their money with each other so
                          only a handful of teams can make money. Also, teams like Oklahoma City
                          under the "new system" that the owners want cannot happen. All of their
                          contracts would push them over the cap without Bird Rights, Mid Level, etc.,

                          There's very few good GMs, and no proper revenue sharing -- the current
                          financial situation was created by the owners. You can't ask players to make
                          what they're "worth" if they can make more money than that. They have
                          temporary careers.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
                            Not the overall Metropolitan Area Population (5.96M vs. 5.11M).
                            And thats what determines Market size. Generally.
                            Out of the four metrics in Wiki land the only one where Houston was larger was the one you chose...I think that's cherry picking but okay.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              blackjitsu wrote: View Post
                              Gilbert has it dead on. Without proper revenue sharing its all for naught.
                              NBA team owners don't want to share their money with each other so
                              only a handful of teams can make money. Also, teams like Oklahoma City
                              under the "new system" that the owners want cannot happen. All of their
                              contracts would push them over the cap without Bird Rights, Mid Level, etc.,

                              There's very few good GMs, and no proper revenue sharing -- the current
                              financial situation was created by the owners. You can't ask players to make
                              what they're "worth" if they can make more money than that. They have
                              temporary careers.
                              Okalahoma City can work under the new system. They would potentially have to make tough choices like letting guys who are going to be too expensive walk or trading them for draft picks. The system the NBA wants will make the draft far more valuable and important. It promotes parity. Only the very best management minds will be able to survive long term. Guys like Pop and Presti will be fine. Good management in the NFL doesn't usually have troubles keeping their teams stocked with talent for a long run and so the same should happen in the NBA. A guy like Colangelo, who typically drafts very well, would thrive under such a system.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Apollo wrote: View Post
                                Okalahoma City can work under the new system. They would potentially have to make tough choices like letting guys who are going to be too expensive walk or trading them for draft picks. The system the NBA wants will make the draft far more valuable and important. It promotes parity. Only the very best management minds will be able to survive long term. Guys like Pop and Presti will be fine. Good management in the NFL doesn't usually have troubles keeping their teams stocked with talent for a long run and so the same should happen in the NBA. A guy like Colangelo, who typically drafts very well, would thrive under such a system.
                                We've already seen players are willing to take pay cuts if they think it will lead to wins. The players that matter have multiple streams of revenue. Unless you can keep draft picks through their primes drafting means nothing. If I'm (insert player's name here) and in my third year I have a choice, play in City A and not win or play in City B -- win and have alternative streams of income I'll pick B.

                                It's not about tough choices at all. These are very easy choices. Of course some GMs will come out better than others. The exact same GMs who have been successful all this time. There are a lot of mediocre to bad GMs who have made bad choices and think a change in system will rescue them. It won't.

                                This takes us back to Oklahoma. The questions you and I have to ask is whether Oklahoma City is a basketball destination and if they have a talented GM. You are right they have one of the few good GMs, however, they are not a basketball destination. With losing Bird Rights I would argue they are now competing against teams that can pay far less for players and offer them more alternative streams of revenue. The Bird Rights have to be maintained to give smaller markets a fighting chance.

                                Proper revenue sharing is the only way all teams can have a chance at breaking even, but with so many bad GMs how does dramatically changing the cap system protect teams on and off the court from their bad scouting, personnel and management staffs?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X