The Celtics also didn't want to pay him 7 million a year to rebuild. It's a smart move, he doesn't want to rebuild. The value of a great coach can be argued in the NBA, but the move made sense for both sides. Also, the causation of this can be argued, but since 2010, 26 teams have changed coaches. The 4 teams that haven't, the last 4 finals teams, Mavs, Heat, Thunder, Spurs.
The NBA needs to contract. In the long-run, David Stern's model will have 30 or less teams and at least 36 cities (with probably at least one outside the U.S.) who either have a team, have their team stolen away from them, or are promised/offered the prospect of an NBA team coming to their town. It's a glorified athletics ponzi scheme.
The additional 2 teams will come when the TV deals have to be renewed... Seattle for sure is getting 1 franchise...I think KC gets the other...KC will do what OKC did...Get a group of 8-10 rich guys together...
The NBAs core problem is that they fail to promote teams, they only promote superstars. No one goes to see the "clippers", they go to see CP3 and Blake. The only 2 teams the NBA can honestly sell is the Celtics and Lakers. If you compare it to the NFL, even teams like the Colts, people came to see the Colts, not just Peyton. I think post-stern they will change the strategy to further grow the nba
I want to see how they sell the Pacers, a great team, but not a team with big names. The NBA needs to learn how to promote a team like Indy, they still havent learned tbh.
The NBA doesn't need to promote teams because it's a league that is carried by the superstars. It's not the NFL where the player is hidden under a helmet and is surronded by 10 other guys who look the same. In the NBA the talent stands out more because of that superstar. It's worked for the league since the early 80's and people still watch in droves. I'd much prefer to see the NBA stop the "Jordan Rules" for certain players and get back to calling actual violations but that hurt scoring which hurts the ratings. They could use to eliminate a few teams, New Orleans would be a good start.
JA Adande's article about small market teams: http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/9386566/2013-nba-playoffs-big-market-vs-small-market The NBA can't market small market teams because well nobody will watch them. I think Adande is right, nobody would watch. OKC bucks the norm with small market teams getting huge viewings, and why do you think they get huge viewings, KD and Westbrook. The NFL has the idea, because it's partly through, that everyone has a shot at the playoffs and everyone can win the SB once they make the playoffs. The NBA does not and won't have that with 7 game series and the amount of teams they have in the playoffs. Yeah you still get upsets, but it's because a team played better over the 6 or 7 games. The NFL is built on every game counts, the NBA and most other sports leagues are not. It's different. I don't know if the NBA can promote smaller market teams because I don't think people like basketball enough to watch these teams. Think about all the casual bball fans you know who were rooting against or for Lebron. You think those fans watch or even care about the finals if it's IND vs SA, or they stop watching once Lebron lost? One idea that I don't know if it would work logically, but I think would be interesting is the EAH tournament created by Bill Simmons: via http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7519970/time-change Who knows, but a lot of casual fans say they don't care about the NBA and the super teams, but then tune in specifically because of these super teams. The NBA is flawed but with a long season/playoffs, I don't think it's possible to create the SB effect for the NBA. I would really dislike the NBA if they let in 16 playoff teams like now, then just went March Madness on them where you play one game and move on. Take that idea for the 8th seed in the playoffs, you create an underdog story, a cinderella team, but still don't ruin the importance of building a team that can win during an 82 game season then 4 7 game playoff series. Basically I rambled to say I don't know how you fix the NBA to generate interesting in small market teams. The only small market team that draws huge ratings is the Thunder, and that answer to that outlier is Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook.
Zach Lowe about NBA free agency this offseason http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9415882/the-2013-nba-free-agency-primer
If the NBA had similar competition rules (or system) to the NFL then this wouldn't be an issue. Small-market fans are indifferent because the NBA makes them irrelevant just as much as they "make" the matchups irrelevant in the form of low ratings. David Stern is so full of sh*t.
The biggest issue with the NBA free agency is you have to consider the superstar angle. In the NFL team A can draft stud college QB and make him their franchise QB for 10 years regardless of what market he plays in. There are plenty of examples of this however in the NBA team A can draft stud SG or C and when he gets into the final year of his contract can force that team to trade him to big market team and generally get very little in return. In the NBA the players want to be in flashy markets like Miami, NY, LA, Brooklyn. Some teams have figured out how to get players that want to stay like San Antonio or OKC but those are rare examples. Look at Toronto for example... Vince Carter, Chris Bosh, Tracy McGrady were all players for the Raptors that they drafted and lost so they've resorted to going with a more International team because of it. It takes a certain player who wants to stay in Milwaukee or Salt Lake and you can't use Karl Malone and John Stockton as an example as it was a different NBA 20 years ago. Even teams like Detroit and Atlanta who by all accounts are in large markets can't keep their best players. Monta Eliis has already opted out and my guess is the Bucks will also lose Jennings. The best way the NBA can help the smaller teams like Milwaukee and Memphis is to structure the rules so that players that get drafted by them will benefit by staying there, like say if you are an UFA the only team that can give you a max contract is the current team you play for or enacting some type of franchise tag. The NBA isn't interested in helping New Orleans or Portland so you'll never see something like this.
You made really good points, and I just want to add on that Jennings is restricted, so Milwaukee will keep him if they want. However, they wanted Ellis more than Jennings, and now that Ellis opted out, they may just be forced to stick with Jennings. They did decline to give him an extension though, which is sad when the frickin Bucks don't even want you long term. I can't blame them though, Jennings has been immature, inconsistent, and more of a pain than a team leader. I would much rather the franchise build around Ersan, Larry Sanders, and John Henson.
Great news. Apparently the Suns and a few other teams are interested. This means the Knicks will not be able to afford him. THANK GOD! No team will ever have long term success with a guy who's that streaky. He's a cancer and doesn't give a shit about the team. We should focus on keeping Prigs and Copeland.
i have been leaning more and more to not resigning jr smith. i thimk shump can become the #2 scorer we need. and if we dont resign jr we have better chances of bringing back copeland
@WojYahooNBA: Boston and Brooklyn discussing a blockbuster deal that would send Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce to Nets, league sources tell Y! Sports.
If I'm resigning him its for 2 years or something, not 3-4. 2 for 10 or something. Shump is good cutting and shooting but melo and smith are the only two players that can create their own shot. Shump can't do that yet, dribbling is one of his weaker points and court vision
I honestly think the Nets will get this deal done. Its a 2 year plan, the Celtics are trying to tank for Wiggins anyway so at the end of the day they will get rid of pierce and garnett for free if they have to.
