Jump to content


Photo

Lakers cut big check to rest of League (subsidize Cavs and Spurs)


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#21 Jody Smokes

Jody Smokes

    Legend

  • Member
  • 12,138 posts
  • Fan Since:2003
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted September 22, 2017 - 07:07 AM

You are seriously overthinking how this works.  It's not like the Lakers are bankrolling the lower market teams either.  Even if they did so what? In order for the NBA to survive the WHOLE product has to be good.  You could pile every star in Milwaukee and they would never produce the income the Lakers or Knicks would based on POPULATION and TOURISM alone. 

 

Miami Heat was the same way.  Miami is NOT a sports town.  When the big 3 were there people just weren't interested as much as some thought.  They are profitable but some cities have competitive advantages others simply just don't have. 

 

Right.  Cleveland has a huge payroll and the Lakers help subsidize it.  Lakers wanted Lebron a few years ago, but he chose to go to Cleveland.  Lakers help pay his salary. 

 

 

 

 

Now, all that said, while the NBA, in itself, is a capitalistic organization, that operates within the free market; the teams are not.  The teams operate within the league.   Salary cap, rookie contract scales, max salaries, different markets, etc., all reflect that the teams and players are not operating within a "free market" system.   Technically, that's okay.    Could the Lakers exist on their own?   No, they'd be the Globetrotters.   Part of their profitability is tied to having teams to compete with around the league. 

 

However, keep this in mind.  Why does the league expand into markets where it can't turn a profit?  In theory, expansion is designed to increase revenue and interest (and create more jobs - including roster spots) in new markets around the country/continent/globe.   If so many NBA teams are losing money, why doesn't the league contract?  Why do the Lakers cut a check to teams in losing markets?  Why not eliminate some of those teams?

 

Is the league really better off with a team in Charlotte?  Would the fans there not turn on the TV and support another team?   Of course they would, and have in the past, and will in the future.

 

 

Now, all that said, I actually like the NBA being in so many markets.  In my lifetime, I've lived around the south/southwest and mid-Atlantic, and have had the opportunity to see the Lakers play 15 different teams on the road.   And if you go to Lakers games on the road, you know that frequently, their fans represent a significant portion, if not a majority, of the fans in attendance.   Which, maybe, at the end of the day, is part of the point.  The Lakers drive the league and fan interest all over the country.  The increased markets lead to more fan interest, and larger TV deals, of which all the teams, including the Lakers benefit.   Even though the Spectrum deal is primarily a local deal, it is still the network that airs on League Pass, which (Lakers) fans from all over the country have been subscribing to for over 20 years, largely/primarily to see the Lakers.   

 

So, yes, I think the Lakers (namely Jeannie Buss) see a value in having all these teams in so many markets.  What I don't believe is that A) so many teams are losing money, B) the Lakers need to be sending a bigger payout, and/or C) the Lakers should be subsidizing teams that are paying the luxury tax. 

 

 

As far as the Lakers TV deal.  They get that deal, in large part, due to their popularity.  Absolutely the market matters, but the Clippers don't have that same deal.  Nothing close to it. 

 

My concern is that the Lakers' ownership at one time had the foresight to tap into the LA market.   Other teams could have done it, or could leave for a more attractive market now.  For some reason, they choose not to.  They get beautiful, new, tax-subsidized arenas in various mid-size markets around the country.   And the Lakers cut the check. 

 

Something doesn't add up.

 

Personally, I don't think these teams lose money.  And while the profit sharing may be okay, I think the owners should sell their teams and reap their billions, rather than place further restrictions on the Lakers' ability to more fully utilize the advantage of the market they staked a claim to (and have willingly shared) over 50 years ago.


"Blake and Parker are good at canceling each other out till our bench point guard comes in"  - Majesty aka Bird Ish (12/4/13)


#22 BasketballIQ

BasketballIQ

    Legend

  • Member
  • 16,529 posts
  • Name:Julius Jordan
  • Fav. Laker:24

Posted September 22, 2017 - 10:15 AM

Clippers and Nets disagree.


Brands have power.

#23 UKUGA

UKUGA

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 7,431 posts
  • Location:22033
  • Name:UKUGA
  • Fan Since:1981
  • Fav. Laker:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Posted September 22, 2017 - 10:50 AM

Clippers and Nets disagree.


Brands have power.

 

Both have billionaire owners.  Let them figure this out for themselves. 

 

Prokhorov had a great opportunity with the Barclay's Center in Brooklyn.  He blew it by trading away all those picks for the Celtics remains. 


Don't feed the trolls. 


#24 Jody Smokes

Jody Smokes

    Legend

  • Member
  • 12,138 posts
  • Fan Since:2003
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted September 22, 2017 - 05:00 PM

Brands do have power but I never said population was the ONLY factor.  The Clippers are generating plenty of dough and are in the top 10 most valuable teams list.  Indiana and Dallas have mostly always had a good to great brand and a strong local following but they have been some of the least profitable teams in the NBA for years.  

 

Knicks have been the worst ran franchise in the last 30 years and what does that say when they are 3rd in profits and 1st in value?  The city and history gives them a competitive advantage that would take a generation to break.  

 

Clippers and Nets disagree.


Brands have power.


"Blake and Parker are good at canceling each other out till our bench point guard comes in"  - Majesty aka Bird Ish (12/4/13)


#25 kray28

kray28

    Off The Bench

  • Member
  • 2,509 posts
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA
  • Fan Since:1988
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted September 22, 2017 - 06:47 PM

The league should expand into Mexico. Take one of these basket case small market teams send them to Mexico City. It will be huge. Take another underperforming small market team and send them to Seattle too....that's another market with a great fan base that wants their Sonics back. 


livin' in a river of darkness beneath the neon lights

 

pkray.png


#26 Busty Bluth

Busty Bluth

    --Hey Brother!--

  • Member
  • 26,897 posts
  • Location:Moms House
  • Name:Byron "Buster AKA Busty" Bluth

Posted September 23, 2017 - 10:30 AM

The league should expand into Mexico. Take one of these basket case small market teams send them to Mexico City. It will be huge.



No. Never do this. Players already whine about traveling. Don't need more excuses to rest players either. Plus nobody wants to be in Mexico right now.

Buster_bcfa40_2218659_zpsbf0d8a7a.gif


#27 UKUGA

UKUGA

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 7,431 posts
  • Location:22033
  • Name:UKUGA
  • Fan Since:1981
  • Fav. Laker:Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Posted September 26, 2017 - 05:33 AM

No. Never do this. Players already whine about traveling. Don't need more excuses to rest players either. Plus nobody wants to be in Mexico right now.

 

Mexico used to seem like it would be the place for expansion - nearly 30 years ago.    Have fun getting NBA stars to accept a trade down there. 


Edited by UKUGA, September 26, 2017 - 05:34 AM.

Don't feed the trolls. 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users