Bobcats symbolize the ongoing plight of small-market NBA teams
by David A. Arnott on Aug 15, 2010 11:19 AM EDT
Email
Print
The Observer story about the Bobcats' season ticket sales numbers made its way around the blogosphere, and it inspired different reactions. While I let you draw your own conclusions, and the comments appeared to be mostly positive and optimistic, because I honestly don't know whether they're good or bad, a couple other folks I read regularly have weighed in this weekend.
Tom Ziller, writing for FanHouse, lauds the Cats for taking the route they have:
This success shows another reason middling teams are always pushing for that final playoff spot instead of accepting a lottery spot and a (remote) shot at an impact draft pick. Hardcore fans may not enjoy a four-game first-round playoff blow-out very much, but casual fans do love the mild success a postseason berth signifies.
Rob Mahoney, writing for Pro Basketball Talk, repeats a thought that's long bothered me:
The "right way" to build an NBA franchise is from the ground up. Clear out contracts. Draft well. Sign value free agents to smart deals. Stay young and stay flexible, in the hope that one day an elite player will finally fall into the team's lap. Unfortunately that's not a blueprint most small-market clubs can afford to take, as the pressure to reach a certain level of commercial success ends up superseding the actual team-building strategy.
Read it all the way through. He comes close to the same conclusion Ziller does, in the end, but it's with more of a resigned tone.
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rob Mahoney is delusional
Tanking season after season in hopes that an elite player will fall into your lap is about as solid as buying a Powerball ticket and hoping for the best. On top of that if a team lands an elite player there is no guarantee of winning a championship (see Cleveland) or even going deep in the playoffs. Plus it is hard to keep that elite player long term (see the top free agent signings this season.
by Ft.Mill Bobcat on Aug 15, 2010 11:28 AM EDT reply actions
The Oklahoma City Thunder are the best example of how a small market team should be built. Although they have drafted extemely well, without Durant they go from contender to western conference fringe playoff team. We have wasted every high lottery pick in our existence (Except Okafor in my opinion). Until the Bobcats can begin stockpiling young drafted players with short manageable contracts, we will continue to make trades for them. In doing so we are being forced to take on some bad contracts. As long as they keep building this way, we will always have guys like Diop on our bench stealing paychecks. I like the potential of last years picks, and i hope one or both of them will be allowed to grow in our system. Unfortunately, if LB isn’t satisfied with the team he has 30 games into the next season, then those guys could be dealt. It’s very tough to be patient with a 70 year old coach on board with an itchy trade trigger finger.
Diop wasn't really a bad contract at first.
Larry had big plans for him when he first traded for him, he just didn’t pan out the way they thought he would.
by Charlotte Bobcat on Aug 15, 2010 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm still not sure Gerald henderson pick was a waste. lets give him this season before we call him wasted
by Aisander D on Aug 15, 2010 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Question
Since technically the Thunder used to be the Sonics…were the Sonics a small market team?
by andrewlail76 on Aug 15, 2010 2:33 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
yes
I give up on posting links here it never shows. You’ll have to copy the below into address bar but based on the 2000 us census the population #s were nearly identical.
by Supenusenfone on Aug 15, 2010 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
ha now the links work
fu*k me, well there you go
I clicked the link button copied it in there it wouldnt show up in the preview after i delete the brackets it shows, you live and learn I suppose
by Supenusenfone on Aug 15, 2010 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah how couldnt they be?
the only thing that Detroit has is being the Motor city and thas just as big as Charlotte being the home of Nascar and we are a small market. plus iv never seen a big star go to Detroit
There is no right way to build a franchise.
It’s simply all about luck. There is only one NBA champion every year, so the same people that say you need to rebuild, draft well, and all of that stuff are the same ones that will say teams like Orlando, San Antonio, and Phoenix need to abandon their current plans because the teams that they have now are always pretty good, but not good enough for a title. Look at the past NBA champions. The Lakers and Celtics. They’ve built their teams through trades and haven’t cared at all about “staying young and flexible”. And that’s the ultimate goal? Right? A title. I’m fine with our plan of putting together good players in hopes of putting together a great team. You don’t need a Kobe or a LeBron to win a title, but if you’re not going to have one, make sure you have depth and decency at every position, and you still give yourself a shot. Like the Detroit Pistons did. No great players, but a lot of good ones with depth.
by Charlotte Bobcat on Aug 15, 2010 12:37 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I beg to differ
comparing charlotte to large us cities like boston and LA, even taking their bb heritage out of context it still isnt fair.
A small market franchise dont have the cap room at first of other teams, let alone a big spending owner who has been in his postion for awhile a la boston and LA, a new franchise is a new owner wet behind the ears so to speak.
They cant buy a title thru trades as the salary cap is more imposing on them, and few if any are reluctant to go into the bonus.
When you look at all 32 teams LA and boston are the exception to the rule most teams want to build through the draft very few times can afford to be big spenders like that let alone some team that is just breaking into the league trying to recruit players, fans and business/community ties.
by Supenusenfone on Aug 15, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
The player that pushed the Lakers over the top was Pau Gasol.
He was traded for Kwame Brown, Javaris Crittenton, Marc Gasol, and some 12 bags of peanuts. Instantly, L.A. went from a team on the Phoenix/San Antonio level to a team on the, well, L.A. level. That trade really had nothing to do with having to dive deep into the luxury tax or anything. They were already there. You remember the Knicks from about 2 or 3 years ago? They were the highest paid team in the league, but were still so bad that they had to tear down the whole franchise and rebuild. So, I don’t think that really has much to do with it. Of course, having an owner willing to spend would help, but it’s only necessary when it comes to retaining your own players, because really, that’s the only way you can go over the salary cap anyway. Thus far, I haven’t seen Charlotte readily get rid of any piece of their squad because of cap problems. The only person we’ve really ever let walk has been Raymond Felton. And that’s not because we didn’t have enough to pay him, but because we didn’t want to pay him.
by Charlotte Bobcat on Aug 15, 2010 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
You can't really judge us as a franchise on that regard because
the key to determining what an owner is willing to do hinges on what they do when they taste success. Either you try to keep improving on the team at whatever cost or you fall back into oblivion. As evidenced by the Dampier/Calderon trade that fell apart last week, we’re willing to dangle with the luxury to try to improve. On the other side of the fence, teams like the Hornets and L.A. Clippers have gone from looking like they were on their way to contending in the western conference to not making the playoffs, and it’s all been about money.
by Charlotte Bobcat on Aug 15, 2010 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Hornets and Clippers are Bad Examples
On the other side of the fence, teams like the Hornets and L.A. Clippers have gone from looking like they were on their way to contending in the western conference to not making the playoffs, and it’s all been about money.
While I agree that a NBA team must be willing to spend in order to maintain success, these two examples of regressing teams actually show merely spending money to stay competitive does not necessarily ensure success.
1) Coming off a trip to the WC Semifinals in ’08, the Hornets were supposed to be an up and coming contender. The following season they won 49 games but lost in the 1st round, and of course last season, they regressed further and missed the playoffs.
So what happened? The ’08 team featured CP, West, Stojakovic and Chandler, and the Hornets then spent their MLE on Celtic hero James Posey. That foolish move was supposed to be an investment to establish the Hornets as a legit contender. Instead, Posey turned out to be highly overrated, and the careers of Chandler and Stojakovic fizzled due to age and injuries. The following year, NO traded Chandler for Okafor, another expensive move intended to put the Hornets back into contention. But any chance of that was lost when CP missed half the season with injuries. Clearly, New Orleans was willing to spend money, but the money spent did not bring success.
The Clippers seemed to be an up and coming contender following their breakout ’06 season in which they came within one shot of making the WC Finals. They were a balanced team led by Brand, Cassell, Mobley and Kaman with a rising star in Shaun Livingston in reserve. The following year the Clippers failed to make the playoffs though they signed Tim Thomas to be a sharp-shooting big man who could put them over the top. Thomas was a disappointment; an aging Cassell wore down; and Liv suffered a catastrophic knee injury. The following season, Brand missed nearly the entire year due to injury, and the team crashed hard to a 23-59 record. During that two year nosedive, the Clippers kept all of their ’06 starters. Reserve Vlad Radmanovic (replaced by Thomas) was the most important player lost to free agency.
Both the Clippers and Hornets seemed willing to spend to build their teams, but their window of opportunity quickly closed as players aged and suffered injuries.
That trade really had nothing to do with having to dive deep into the luxury tax or anything. They were already there.
Doesnt that in some way prove Sup’s post though… they were already spending the money… they just ended up spending more in the long run with the deal.
While spending above the luxury tax doesn’t guarantee a good team. There are few good teams that don’t do it. Any fewer (if any) great teams that don’t.
by Not so Friendly Stranger on Aug 15, 2010 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions
'It’s simply all about luck'
is exactly it. From draft position, to draft pick, available FAs in any given year, player injuries, player mentality, to other teams rosters in any give year etc etc.
And this whole ‘keep tanking until you are good’ business is ridiculous. Two examples that I think require little explination LA Clippers and Golden St (and I don’t even think they ever try and tank)
by Not so Friendly Stranger on Aug 15, 2010 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I'll agree with luck..
CHARLOTTE Hornets drafting Lary Johnson and Alonzo Mourning…
Prime example of GOOD Luck
by andrewlail76 on Aug 17, 2010 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Video: Boston works in a half-court football snap after winning the tip
- Judging the choices for the Eastern Conference All-Star team reserves
- Judging the choices for the Western Conference All-Star team reserves
- Jeremy Lin draws inspiration from Tim Tebow
- Stephen Jackson is already tired of Milwaukee
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
