22-23 NBA Season Thread

[dont care]

1 hour ago, GDAWG said:

 

31 is Seattle, but if I was the NBA, I'd make it a wide open competition and not make it such a lock for Las Vegas, but Las Vegas may not want that, as I would suspect that they want to be locked down for the 32nd spot.  I love cities that are brand new to major league sports, like I did with Las Vegas when they got the Golden Knights, so I wouldn't mind Louisville either getting NBA team #32 or an MLS team. 

I just don’t see Louisville being a great pro city the same way I don’t see Tuscaloosa Alabama being a good pro football city. Both are great college cities but putting a pro team in either location won’t pull the college fans in.

[GDAWG]

12 minutes ago, dont care said:

I just don’t see Louisville being a great pro city the same way I don’t see Tuscaloosa Alabama being a good pro football city. Both are great college cities but putting a pro team in either location won’t pull the college fans in.

 

I think Louisville has a shot if MLS expands to 40.  Right now that's just fan speculation.  I think the two MLS teams for 31 and 32 should be Indy and Phoenix.  

[Unocal]

So what the heck did the Hawks do against that seemingly nobody else can against MIA?

[Cujo]

Seattle.

 

Las Vegas.

 

Done.

[OnWis97]

Is 32 an important number? Why not just have 31?

The T-Wolves are absolutely going to need to move within the next decade. Are there three cities that can absorb a team?

[who do you think]

7 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Is 32 an important number? Why not just have 31?

The T-Wolves are absolutely going to need to move within the next decade. Are there three cities that can absorb a team?

 

There's a big drop off in viability after Seattle and Las Vegas that doesn't involve a) encroaching on another team's 150-mile territory, and/or b) adding another city to the map whose ceiling is yet another Utah/OKC/Milwaukee... cold, small, and um "pale" regions that can't attract top talent unless they draft it, and that talent almost always bolts for somewhere warmer and bigger as soon as possible regardless of how good the team is. We already have too many franchises like that.

 

Maybe Tampa is on the league's radar; they did temporarily dump the Raptors in Amalie Arena of all places in 2021. Despite the territory belonging to the Magic, they have no following here that I know of.

 

Also I would argue that Seattle and Las Vegas being by far the most obvious spots for a new team is a reason that the NBA wouldn't/shouldn't expand to 32, because if those are the only two places in North America that you can be confident will work, what leverage do you have on the expansion fees? That's not just free money falling from the sky; you're cutting one slice per new team out of all future central revenue pies (and they're big pies). The NHL takes the quick cash and runs without any regard for the long-term consequences for the league because they're dumb and poor and obsessed with their "footprint", but the NBA doesn't need to be like that.

[BBTV]

8 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Are there three cities that can absorb a team?

 

Has there been any interest from Vancouver in giving it another go?

[kimball]

14 hours ago, who do you think said:

 

There's a big drop off in viability after Seattle and Las Vegas that doesn't involve a) encroaching on another team's 150-mile territory, and/or b) adding another city to the map whose ceiling is yet another Utah/OKC/Milwaukee... cold, small, and um "pale" regions that can't attract top talent unless they draft it, and that talent almost always bolts for somewhere warmer and bigger as soon as possible regardless of how good the team is. We already have too many franchises like that.

 

Maybe Tampa is on the league's radar; they did temporarily dump the Raptors in Amalie Arena of all places in 2021. Despite the territory belonging to the Magic, they have no following here that I know of.

 

Also I would argue that Seattle and Las Vegas being by far the most obvious spots for a new team is a reason that the NBA wouldn't/shouldn't expand to 32, because if those are the only two places in North America that you can be confident will work, what leverage do you have on the expansion fees? That's not just free money falling from the sky; you're cutting one slice per new team out of all future central revenue pies (and they're big pies). The NHL takes the quick cash and runs without any regard for the long-term consequences for the league because they're dumb and poor and obsessed with their "footprint", but the NBA doesn't need to be like that.

 

I'm kind of there with you as well. I feel like Seattle can be the NBA's proverbial "Location Threat" for teams that need leverage for public money, while I can see Las Vegas eventually getting a team, but not until the Commissioner's Cup is established and running for a couple years.

 

There's no rush.

 

However, as far as possible locations outside of Seattle and Vegas ...

• Tampa (seems ideal, but seems too close to Orlando)
• Louisville (untapped market, but is it too close to Indiana?)
• Pittsburgh (mentioned in the past and has a good arena, but is it too small?)
• Kansas City/St. Louis (meh)
• Anaheim (it always seems like they're mentioned as a possibility? The popularity of both the Lakers and Clippers makes this seem like a no)
• San Jose (same situation as Anaheim, just with the Warriors)
• San Diego (I believe they have ground work done for a new arena, but too close to the Lakers/Clippers?)
• Mexico City (The NBA's current infatuation, but there's too many cultural and economic issues that could make it a Grizzlies 2.0)
• Vancouver (The city's situation is much better than it was 25 years ago, but there seems to be better markets)

Possible sexy markets ...

• Albuquerque (could be a sleeper OKC location)
• Montreal (I've read of interest in the past, might work?)
• Chicago 2.0 (Arena in the suburbs? I remember talk back in 2001 when the Grizzlies were shopping for a home. Could work.)
• Des Moines (A less sexier Louisville? Basketball crazy state COULD possibly support a team)
• Rochester (I always thought Rochester could support at least one major league team, second shot?)

Just my two minute spitball opinion. 

[TrueYankee26]

 

[GDAWG]

20 hours ago, kimball said:

 

I'm kind of there with you as well. I feel like Seattle can be the NBA's proverbial "Location Threat" for teams that need leverage for public money, while I can see Las Vegas eventually getting a team, but not until the Commissioner's Cup is established and running for a couple years.

 

There's no rush.

 

However, as far as possible locations outside of Seattle and Vegas ...

• Tampa (seems ideal, but seems too close to Orlando)
• Louisville (untapped market, but is it too close to Indiana?)
• Pittsburgh (mentioned in the past and has a good arena, but is it too small?)
• Kansas City/St. Louis (meh)
• Anaheim (it always seems like they're mentioned as a possibility? The popularity of both the Lakers and Clippers makes this seem like a no)
• San Jose (same situation as Anaheim, just with the Warriors)
• San Diego (I believe they have ground work done for a new arena, but too close to the Lakers/Clippers?)
• Mexico City (The NBA's current infatuation, but there's too many cultural and economic issues that could make it a Grizzlies 2.0)
• Vancouver (The city's situation is much better than it was 25 years ago, but there seems to be better markets)

Possible sexy markets ...

• Albuquerque (could be a sleeper OKC location)
• Montreal (I've read of interest in the past, might work?)
• Chicago 2.0 (Arena in the suburbs? I remember talk back in 2001 when the Grizzlies were shopping for a home. Could work.)
• Des Moines (A less sexier Louisville? Basketball crazy state COULD possibly support a team)
• Rochester (I always thought Rochester could support at least one major league team, second shot?)

Just my two minute spitball opinion. 

 

Louisville and Albuquerque could be options for MLS expansion if they go beyond 32, both find some billionaire to join their ownership group and in the case of ABQ, their own stadium.  

[who do you think]

(EDIT: forgot about the other thread but whatever) Yeah, between the early playoff exit and now this, the Durant trade is looking like a historic poo bomb. I wonder if they might trade him again this coming season, for a lesser package than what they gave to Brooklyn.

 

Also Jokic had a solid night at the office. 30-20-10, Denver wins comfortably. I hope they pull a 2014 Spurs, say enough, and just blow Miami away in Game 4.

[See Red]

This series is over.  Nuggets are too good for this Heat team.

 

Also, why does this league get a pass on its officiating?  They were blatantly trying to even this series up and that quick series of three blown calls against Denver that gave Jokic #5 could've swung this game. 

[GDAWG]

Denver is a win away from their first ever NBA Title.

[Sport]

 

 

 

The last non Californian, non Texas team from the West to win the NBA championship was the Sonics. I knew the Blazers, Suns, Nuggets, Sonics/Thunder, and Jazz were all on pretty long dry runs, but never occurred to me that it's been that long. There's 8 teams that fall into this category and the Clippers and Kings haven't contributed to this at all. That makes Canada's Stanley cup drought look short. 

[Sykotyk]

On 6/7/2023 at 2:17 AM, kimball said:

 

I'm kind of there with you as well. I feel like Seattle can be the NBA's proverbial "Location Threat" for teams that need leverage for public money, while I can see Las Vegas eventually getting a team, but not until the Commissioner's Cup is established and running for a couple years.

 

There's no rush.

 

However, as far as possible locations outside of Seattle and Vegas ...

• Tampa (seems ideal, but seems too close to Orlando)
• Louisville (untapped market, but is it too close to Indiana?)
• Pittsburgh (mentioned in the past and has a good arena, but is it too small?)
• Kansas City/St. Louis (meh)
• Anaheim (it always seems like they're mentioned as a possibility? The popularity of both the Lakers and Clippers makes this seem like a no)
• San Jose (same situation as Anaheim, just with the Warriors)
• San Diego (I believe they have ground work done for a new arena, but too close to the Lakers/Clippers?)
• Mexico City (The NBA's current infatuation, but there's too many cultural and economic issues that could make it a Grizzlies 2.0)
• Vancouver (The city's situation is much better than it was 25 years ago, but there seems to be better markets)

Possible sexy markets ...

• Albuquerque (could be a sleeper OKC location)

Problem is that New Mexico as a whole is quite poor and Albuquerque is extremely isolated inside the state. There's Rio Rancho/Bernillo and South Valley down to about Los Lunas/Peralta that has population for suburbs, but lacks a lot of the exurbs to draw from. If Albuquerque supports any team, it will be an MLS team. I can't imagine the city latching onto an NBA team and fully supporting them.

On 6/7/2023 at 2:17 AM, kimball said:

• Montreal (I've read of interest in the past, might work?)
• Chicago 2.0 (Arena in the suburbs? I remember talk back in 2001 when the Grizzlies were shopping for a home. Could work.)
• Des Moines (A less sexier Louisville? Basketball crazy state COULD possibly support a team)
• Rochester (I always thought Rochester could support at least one major league team, second shot?)

Montreal is always a possibility. Big enough city. Chicago could definitely support a team out towards Aurora/Naperville/Arlington Hts (where the Bears want to move)/around O'Hare/Hoffman Estates (smaller arena built there that hosted indoor football/minor league hockey). Rosemount area could, as well, but may be a little too close to downtown that the Bulls would go nuts fighting the prospect.

 

Des Moines would be another SLC/OKC/Sacramento type situation. Try to be the big fish in a small pond. Collegiate sports are big in Iowa, but at least ISU and UI are far from Des Moines. They support minor league baseball (AAA Iowa Cubs) and hockey (AHL Iowa Wild) quite well.

 

Rochester is an interesting idea. Buffalo owns western New York, but couldn't support a third team. They struggle to keep up with supporting the Bills and Sabres. However, a team in Rochester would siphon a lot of support from Rochester and Syracuse that would be spending sports dollars at U of Syracuse or the Buffalo pro teams. Also draw some basketball fans from Buffalo to them. And grow a new base of fans who may watch on TV Buffalo sports and be fans of them but don't actively spend money attending games might latch on to a Rochester team. And become a regionally aligned team.  There are better options out there, but it is an interesting idea.

 

It was somewhat the basis the Rhinos had growing soccer in western NY, but they missed the boat not believing that MLS was a viable option. Which eventually killed them. At least for NBA, it would be a known quantity.

[tBBP]

1 hour ago, Sykotyk said:

Problem is that New Mexico as a whole is quite poor and Albuquerque is extremely isolated inside the state. There's Rio Rancho/Bernillo and South Valley down to about Los Lunas/Peralta that has population for suburbs, but lacks a lot of the exurbs to draw from. If Albuquerque supports any team, it will be an MLS team. I can't imagine the city latching onto an NBA team and fully supporting them.

Montreal is always a possibility. Big enough city. Chicago could definitely support a team out towards Aurora/Naperville/Arlington Hts (where the Bears want to move)/around O'Hare/Hoffman Estates (smaller arena built there that hosted indoor football/minor league hockey). Rosemount area could, as well, but may be a little too close to downtown that the Bulls would go nuts fighting the prospect.

 

Agreed on the MLS support; that's ABQ's (and, for that matter, New Mexico's) best bet at a top-level pro sports franchise. That said, with the expansion fees creeping ever close to that "B" mark (that'd be the "billion" mark), it's gonna take, as stated, a WHOLE LOT of money from some group of somebodies somewhere who want to see MLS—or a theoretical NBA team—in NM, and I don't know who, if anyone, in NM got loot like that. That said, ABQ may be isolated geographically, but it ain't like it's the only town around; Santa Fe is barely an hour north and I believe people from Las Cruces could be persuaded to roadtrip three hours north for the right reasons. (I base that off having spent a fair amount of time in all three locales and elsewhere in NM.)

 

1 hour ago, Sykotyk said:

Des Moines would be another SLC/OKC/Sacramento type situation. Try to be the big fish in a small pond. Collegiate sports are big in Iowa, but at least ISU and UI are far from Des Moines. They support minor league baseball (AAA Iowa Cubs) and hockey (AHL Iowa Wild) quite well.

 

We can scratch this one right now. DSM, even as a metro, doesn't have anywhere near the population base—or dedicated wealth. And before someone brings up market size in comparison to OKC, recall that the only reason OKC has that team is because the owner who moved the team there was from OKC. College sports, though, are a big thing there. (And by the way, Ames isn't that far from DSM; it's barely 40 miles. Iowa City on the other hand is a good 120 or so—and yet even with that 80% of DSM still sports the black rather than the cardinal with their gold.)  

 

Speaking of moving teams, I'm going to again advocate my case for Omaha...though, in reality, much like the OKC situation it'll take an owner[ship group] with some kind of ties to the Omaha area to move one there (or fight like a mug for a future expansion franchise, which I just can't see happening unless the money is more than right). It's about 370 miles from the next nearest current NBA team (the T-wolves—and we'll see how long they stick around, hence the "current"), which means that like the KC Chiefs they can enjoy a large swath of territorial support, and the town is practically frothing at the mouth for their own pro sports team, whatever it may be. 

 

(Wait—is this the season thread or the pointless realignment outpost? )

[The_Admiral]

Just mercy-kill the Pelicans and send them to Seattle. I don't want to see more teams in a league where a team will win the 3rd overall draft pick and be like "welp, guess it's time to suck for five more years." That we're talking about places like Des Moines, Louisville, Hoffman Estates, and the city from the show about meth clearly demonstrates that there's not a 32nd city to go to.

[Sykotyk]

1 hour ago, tBBP said:

 

Agreed on the MLS support; that's ABQ's (and, for that matter, New Mexico's) best bet at a top-level pro sports franchise. That said, with the expansion fees creeping ever close to that "B" mark (that'd be the "billion" mark), it's gonna take, as stated, a WHOLE LOT of money from some group of somebodies somewhere who want to see MLS—or a theoretical NBA team—in NM, and I don't know who, if anyone, in NM got loot like that. That said, ABQ may be isolated geographically, but it ain't like it's the only town around; Santa Fe is barely an hour north and I believe people from Las Cruces could be persuaded to roadtrip three hours north for the right reasons. (I base that off having spent a fair amount of time in all three locales and elsewhere in NM.)

One obvious factor is calling the team 'New Mexico' and heavily marketing the Las Cruces and Santa Fe areas, as well as peppering the other small cities like Gallup, Santa Rosa, Roswell, T&C, etc try to and garner support (some teams will have "(distant city) Day" where they'll discount tickets and paper the town with discounts to get fans from that area to come out for a game.

 

Another way MLS could work is to A) MLS team to Albuquerque and put the MLS2 team in Las Cruces and have the same identities to try and draw fans in to supporting the other.

 

Funny thing is that Las Cruces is more associated/rivalry with El Paso, which has a slightly larger market size. Clearly MLS could be supported in El Paso, but it's never seen as a big city due to its remoteness and that it's far more transient as a border town and that not a lot of money in the city to support a major league team in pretty much any league.

 

1 hour ago, tBBP said:

 

 

We can scratch this one right now. DSM, even as a metro, doesn't have anywhere near the population base—or dedicated wealth. And before someone brings up market size in comparison to OKC, recall that the only reason OKC has that team is because the owner who moved the team there was from OKC. College sports, though, are a big thing there. (And by the way, Ames isn't that far from DSM; it's barely 40 miles. Iowa City on the other hand is a good 120 or so—and yet even with that 80% of DSM still sports the black rather than the cardinal with their gold.)  

 

Yeah. DM is definitely a long shot. Iowa being a major farming nexus of the country means there's a lot of money but it's thinned out over a lot of people and you don't have a ton of 'uber-wealthy' people to consider bringing a team to town. AAA/AHL/AFL seems to be the top of the level for them.

 

1 hour ago, tBBP said:

Speaking of moving teams, I'm going to again advocate my case for Omaha...though, in reality, much like the OKC situation it'll take an owner[ship group] with some kind of ties to the Omaha area to move one there (or fight like a mug for a future expansion franchise, which I just can't see happening unless the money is more than right). It's about 370 miles from the next nearest current NBA team (the T-wolves—and we'll see how long they stick around, hence the "current"), which means that like the KC Chiefs they can enjoy a large swath of territorial support, and the town is practically frothing at the mouth for their own pro sports team, whatever it may be. 

 

(Wait—is this the season thread or the pointless realignment outpost? )

Chiefs definitely draw from much of the Great Plains as 'their team'. And with their success, there's a lot more KC fans all the way up in SD and Fargo/Bismarck than there ever was where it was staunchly Vikings territory. Even areas where Denver had a lot of sway (Wyoming, western NE, NE NM) you see Chiefs stuff far more often than just bandwagoners. They relate more to KC being the 'plains' team. Other than Colorado, you don't see any Denver fans around the plains like you used to. It's much more mountain states (Utah, CO, northern NM, Cheyenne/Laramie). Also thanks to Denver losing their appeal after the Manning blip in success.

 

Omaha could definitely support a team, but I just don't see that market supporting basketball as a whole. You can look into that as much as you want. But Omaha would probably much rather have Baseball OR hockey. Baseball with 81 games is just not going to happen. NHL could happen. Especially with KC vacant. Football is king in that area, and amazing that the Omaha Beef are in their 24th season of indoor football in the city. Their success has varied over the years bouncing from arenas at times. But that's a ridiculous longevity for a sport with as much turbulence as indoor football.

 

 

[GDAWG]

if ABQ gets an MLS team, it probably won't be New Mexico United.  It would likely be a generic "New Mexico FC"

[Sykotyk]

14 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

if ABQ gets an MLS team, it probably won't be New Mexico United.  It would likely be a generic "New Mexico FC"

Land of Enchantment FC