Trueblood
Bench
Expansion
I know that the league has said that they don't want to expand past 30 but I have to think that they would reconsider given the circumstances that the Maloofs have put everyone through. As we've talked about on other threads, the league has to make hard choices as long as these guys are around.
So let's say the league lets the Maloofs leave town with the promise of new teams in Seattle and Sacramento that will be named the Sonics and Kings. These are huge additions for both markets.
Assuming the arena gets voted through in 2 weeks like many have speculated, Seattle gets a new team without having to be called hypocrites by stealing a team from a different market much like what happened to them. Furthermore, Hansen and his team don't have to sit around, waiting for a team to become available before the 5 year MOU runs out. That's the best possible situation for them.
For Sacramento, it's a no brainer. The Maloofs are gone and the city can move forward with an arena in the railyards to go along with further railyards expansion. They keep the name Kings as the Maloofs can either take Royals or some completely new name to fit whatever market they relocate to. The only drawback is that we lose the group of players that we've been rooting for over the last couple seasons but it's not like they're setting the league on fire or anything. Expansion sets us back 3 years at the most.
So, knowing the positives that are in play, what are the negatives?
Dilution of talent? I don't buy it. Basketball is played worldwide and there are only 12 to 15 spots per team. Being an NBA player is about as tough a job to get on a global basis from a pro athlete standpoint. The average Joe Q. Public or Joe Blow media guy can't relate to NBA players so they have a bias against them that skews public perception away from the fact that I brought up at the beginning of this paragraph. The fact of the matter is that these are the greatest athletes in the world and while many of them have personality flaws, it shouldn't take away from the argument of whether or not there would be a dillution of talent that would make the game better or worse.
Less revenue per team? This is true but overblown. While expansion into 2 new markets would probably bring a $700 to $800 million expansion fee ($350 to $400 per team), this results in a loss over time since the league would now be splitting the national tv money between 32 teams instead of just 30. Let's say that the league's tv contract nets $960 million a year. If you divide that by 32 teams, they are making $30 million per season off the contract. If you divide it among 30 teams, it's $32 million per season.
So you have owners getting $2 million less per season off the tv deal. OTOH, they are getting roughly a $12 million up front fee from the expansion entrance. Divide 12 by 2 and you see that they come out ahead for the first 6 years and then start gradually losing from year 7 on.
But how many owners own the team for much longer than 7 years. Lots of these guys are old and are looking to sell anyways. For them, the $12 million up front means more than the $2 million per year loss. Someone may say that they won't be able to sell the team for as much as they would've had expansion not come but there is also the argument that franchises are a rare commodity and they are going to get a good sale price regardless.
Realignment? This is actually an argument FOR expansion. If the Kings were to hypothetically move to VB or Seattle, you have realignment issues. A move to VB would force the league to move an EC team to the west. Most likely Milwaukee. A move to Seattle would be awkward as you would only have 4 teams in the pacific division region, 5 in the northwest and 6 in the southwest since OKC is much closer to the SW teams despite being in the northwest division. They'd probably take Sac's spot in the pacific despite being halfway across the continent.
With realignment, that doesn't become an issue since you could just make the SW division be the 6 team division in the west. Major league baseball has 16 teams in one league and 14 in the other so there's no reason you couldn't have an even 16 and 16 in the NBA with divisions going 6, 5 & 5 in each conference which is still better than the awkward 5, 5 & 4 AL setup and 5, 5 & 6 NL setup in baseball.
All in all, I have to think the positives outweigh the negatives.
I know that the league has said that they don't want to expand past 30 but I have to think that they would reconsider given the circumstances that the Maloofs have put everyone through. As we've talked about on other threads, the league has to make hard choices as long as these guys are around.
So let's say the league lets the Maloofs leave town with the promise of new teams in Seattle and Sacramento that will be named the Sonics and Kings. These are huge additions for both markets.
Assuming the arena gets voted through in 2 weeks like many have speculated, Seattle gets a new team without having to be called hypocrites by stealing a team from a different market much like what happened to them. Furthermore, Hansen and his team don't have to sit around, waiting for a team to become available before the 5 year MOU runs out. That's the best possible situation for them.
For Sacramento, it's a no brainer. The Maloofs are gone and the city can move forward with an arena in the railyards to go along with further railyards expansion. They keep the name Kings as the Maloofs can either take Royals or some completely new name to fit whatever market they relocate to. The only drawback is that we lose the group of players that we've been rooting for over the last couple seasons but it's not like they're setting the league on fire or anything. Expansion sets us back 3 years at the most.
So, knowing the positives that are in play, what are the negatives?
Dilution of talent? I don't buy it. Basketball is played worldwide and there are only 12 to 15 spots per team. Being an NBA player is about as tough a job to get on a global basis from a pro athlete standpoint. The average Joe Q. Public or Joe Blow media guy can't relate to NBA players so they have a bias against them that skews public perception away from the fact that I brought up at the beginning of this paragraph. The fact of the matter is that these are the greatest athletes in the world and while many of them have personality flaws, it shouldn't take away from the argument of whether or not there would be a dillution of talent that would make the game better or worse.
Less revenue per team? This is true but overblown. While expansion into 2 new markets would probably bring a $700 to $800 million expansion fee ($350 to $400 per team), this results in a loss over time since the league would now be splitting the national tv money between 32 teams instead of just 30. Let's say that the league's tv contract nets $960 million a year. If you divide that by 32 teams, they are making $30 million per season off the contract. If you divide it among 30 teams, it's $32 million per season.
So you have owners getting $2 million less per season off the tv deal. OTOH, they are getting roughly a $12 million up front fee from the expansion entrance. Divide 12 by 2 and you see that they come out ahead for the first 6 years and then start gradually losing from year 7 on.
But how many owners own the team for much longer than 7 years. Lots of these guys are old and are looking to sell anyways. For them, the $12 million up front means more than the $2 million per year loss. Someone may say that they won't be able to sell the team for as much as they would've had expansion not come but there is also the argument that franchises are a rare commodity and they are going to get a good sale price regardless.
Realignment? This is actually an argument FOR expansion. If the Kings were to hypothetically move to VB or Seattle, you have realignment issues. A move to VB would force the league to move an EC team to the west. Most likely Milwaukee. A move to Seattle would be awkward as you would only have 4 teams in the pacific division region, 5 in the northwest and 6 in the southwest since OKC is much closer to the SW teams despite being in the northwest division. They'd probably take Sac's spot in the pacific despite being halfway across the continent.
With realignment, that doesn't become an issue since you could just make the SW division be the 6 team division in the west. Major league baseball has 16 teams in one league and 14 in the other so there's no reason you couldn't have an even 16 and 16 in the NBA with divisions going 6, 5 & 5 in each conference which is still better than the awkward 5, 5 & 4 AL setup and 5, 5 & 6 NL setup in baseball.
All in all, I have to think the positives outweigh the negatives.
Last edited: