Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 57

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

  1. #21
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #22
    Super Moderator Joey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    7,818
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote 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.
    In Masai we Trust.

  3. #23
    Raptors Republic Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    83
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote 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.

  4. #24
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,691
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote 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?

  5. #25
    Raptors Republic Starter MyMomLovesMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Streetsville
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    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 3rd, 2011 at 10:52 AM.

  6. #26
    Raptors Republic Rookie your mom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    137
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    "Gilbert's quotes"

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

  7. #27
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    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.

  8. #28
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #29
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    12,138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote 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.

  10. #30
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote 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?

  11. #31
    Super Moderator Joey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    7,818
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Gman wrote: View Post
    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.
    It's not 'cherry picking' at all. It's the ONE stat that takes into account the full estimate of people that would be within a certain distance of the city to contribute meaningfully, in an economical sense, to a given team. That's it. Check any debate over market size and it's not using the downtown core population. It's using the Metropolitan Area of a city.
    In Masai we Trust.

  12. #32
    Super Moderator Joey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    7,818
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote dballa21 wrote: View Post
    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.
    Great point. Was wondering this myself.
    All I can think of is that this did come out in February, which is a while before the Net Worth of the company became a very public issue.
    In Masai we Trust.

  13. #33
    Raptors Republic Starter MyMomLovesMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Streetsville
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    When it comes to market size and using the GMA, one also needs to take into account competition from other sports.

    This is where NJ fails, and Toronto wins.


    In fact a lot of big markets in the US do not perform so well on the NBA level due to the competition for the entertainment dollar from other franchises. Some of the attendance figures in the NBA demonstrate this scenario very well in saturated markets.
    Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Sun Jul 3rd, 2011 at 05:11 PM.

  14. #34
    Raptors Republic Veteran Bendit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,193
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote dballa21 wrote: View Post
    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.
    They may well be referring to just the Raptors portion of MLSE. As far as 2 billion I should think not since there reportedly seem to be no takers at the 1.3 bill. asking price.

  15. #35
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote MyMomLovesMe wrote: View Post
    When it comes to market size and using the GMA, one also needs to take into account competition from other sports.

    This is where NJ fails, and Toronto wins.


    In fact a lot of big markets in the US do not perform so well on the NBA level due to the competition for the entertainment dollar from other franchises. Some of the attendance figures in the NBA demonstrate this scenario very well in saturated markets.
    does Toronto have any less competition though? They have 3 of the 4 major professional sports teams, a CFL team, a MLS team and numerous minor hockey teams that the puckheads follow.

    NJ, as part of the NY metropolitan area, does have atleast 2 of each of the major sports teams, I imagine atleast one MLS team, and numerous college teams. But it also has atleast 4 times the population of the GTA. I'd bet the saturation of sports entertainment is roughly the same.

    Where i think a big difference is, and I imagine would have an effect on attendance, comes in the amount of wealth in the GTA as opposed to the NY Metro area (and more specifically an area like NJ). You take the top couple percentile out of most American cities, the $ per capita drops dramatically. Canada has a more even distribution of wealth.

  16. #36
    Raptors Republic Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    83
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Bendit wrote: View Post
    They may well be referring to just the Raptors portion of MLSE. As far as 2 billion I should think not since there reportedly seem to be no takers at the 1.3 bill. asking price.
    Actually the 1.3 billion asking price was reported not factual. Also it was for the teachers 60% stake in MLSE, not the entire company.

  17. #37
    Raptors Republic All-Star Mediumcore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Wouldn't a hard cap even the field for all teams...even one in Canada? Players will have to go where the money is.

  18. #38
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    916
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    It's interesting how Arenas blames the owners for not being able to control themselves; however, he's forgetting one important legal hammer that the players have: COLLUSION. This actually prevents the owners from working as a group to control themselves as a collective. That's the flaw, IMO which I believe tilts the existing system towards the players. The owners must compete with each other at all times which drives salaries up, yet the players are allowed to work as a collective via a union. If a top free agent came on the market, and all the owners passed or low-balled, collusion is the first thing that the NBAPA would scream. That's happened in baseball on a number of occasions, with steep penalties for the owners imposed, so legal precedent has been set for all pro sports leagues.

  19. #39
    Raptors Republic Veteran LBF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hamilton,ON a.k.a. The Hammer!
    Posts
    5,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    he mentions okc and says...the famous rebuilding. now this is a different sport but the rays do it every few years and still compete in 1 of the toughest divisions in sports.
    durant is signed long term and if they can keep westbrook. perkins,westbrook,and durant there's youre core just plug the other positions with decent to underrated players who will always be available.
    then again you could look at the flames who managed to keep their best player but got rid of their good players and now nobody will sign there even if its for the most money b. richards turned down their 10 mill. extra to join NY.
    same with suns kept best traded good and now their rebuilding and prolly wont be good for 10 yrs.
    If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?

    Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.

  20. #40
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote golden wrote: View Post
    It's interesting how Arenas blames the owners for not being able to control themselves; however, he's forgetting one important legal hammer that the players have: COLLUSION. This actually prevents the owners from working as a group to control themselves as a collective. That's the flaw, IMO which I believe tilts the existing system towards the players. The owners must compete with each other at all times which drives salaries up, yet the players are allowed to work as a collective via a union. If a top free agent came on the market, and all the owners passed or low-balled, collusion is the first thing that the NBAPA would scream. That's happened in baseball on a number of occasions, with steep penalties for the owners imposed, so legal precedent has been set for all pro sports leagues.

    You might be right but take a few things into mind. Everyone knew what the guys in Miami were doing, including the commissioner, who represents the owners, yet they were allowed to pull it off. For the commissioner to now pull the collusion "card" he would partially implicate himself. Secondly, the reason why wages increased so much in the late '80's early 90's was because before then the owners were guilty of collusion. I'm sure the older owners don't want to be reminded of their own underhandedness. Thirdly, only 3 players could be proven to be colluding amongst themselves, as a opposed to twenty something owners in the 80's ...

    Personally I think it's a non starter. The real issue here is profit sharing. As long as owners refuse to share their profits with smaller market teams, players will not give up a thing. Problem is the wealthy teams seem to be controlling the debate instead of the majority of the teams that are allegedly losing money.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •