This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
October 25, 2010
Stern: We'll contract teams! Just you watch us!
Of more significance was Stern confirming a report by CBSSports.com that the option of contraction will indeed be on the negotiating table. Small market teams such as the Thunder are typically the first on the contraction chopping block. Stern, however, said at this point he's "not spending a lot of time" on a contraction strategy and added that fans of small-market teams shouldn't be worried.
I should hope he's not spending a lot of time on it, because as I covered for the Village Voice way back in 2001 when MLB tried it, the contraction gambit is almost certainly a bluff. It's not as simple as calling up a few teams and disinviting them to the upcoming season — the NBA would have to collect money to buy back the franchises, and then would almost certainly face antitrust lawsuits from the cities that were left suddenly bereft of franchises. And that's without even getting into the problem that the players union would come after Stern with an elephant gun.
The players union, of course, is the intended target of this threat, as the league prepares for a 2011 contract renegotiation that's almost certain to turn into a lockout. So is Stern's concurrent threat to cut player salaries by one-third. ("There's a swing of somewhere in the neighborhood of $750 [million] to $800 million that we would like to change," declared Stern, adding: "That's our story and we're sticking with it.") Unlike certain other people, Stern understands that at the negotiating table, you start by asking for the moon and let the other side bargain you down to a few major asteroids.
Don't think the Thunder would be first on his chopping block even if he is serious. Sacramento though, they'd be gone in a heart beat. The Grizzlies would probably unlucky team number two in his mind. They've been a bastard child that franchise's entire existence.
Posted by Dan on October 25, 2010 11:37 AMThis story is absolutely blowing up in Sacramento.
IF Stern decides to persue this, you can bet the NBA would factor in a number of things when deciding which teams to contract, including:
Market size;
Corporate presence;
Financial stability of owners;
Number of seats sold;
Number of comp seats used to pad attendance;
Arena situation;
Losses/Profits;
Others.
If you go through that list, one team keeps appearing near the top of the list: The Sacramento Kings. Of course, other teams aren't doing well, but I just cannot see how the Kings wouldn't be on that short list. Maybe they get on that short list for two reasons now; to induce panic in local government to fund an arena, through a TIF, without a local vote, and to get the player's union to knuckle.
The reports are that the Maloofs have a $350M balloon payment on the Palms due March 1, 2011... And they don't have it. Something is going to happen. It has to.
Posted by MikeM on October 25, 2010 12:16 PMDan, You know not of what you speak. Even with the lower attendance, Mike Heisley makes money. Not only that, if they DID contract the Grizzlies, the NBA would owe the City of Memphis an amount nearing $100 million in order to pay off the FedExForum. That was negotiated in the agreement to bring them here.
The Grizz aren't going ANYWHERE.
Steve, money still being owed on stadiums/arenas that the public built has never stopped teams from abandoning stadiums in the past, not sure why you think Memphis would be special in that regard. Just as cities like Houston, Seattle, New York, etc...
Posted by Dan on October 25, 2010 04:54 PMIf the NBA is in such trouble, why would they be willing to shell out $100 million to get out of a deal? That tends to undermine their argument of poverty, does it not?
Posted by Steve Steffens on October 25, 2010 05:12 PMIf they do contract, they'll get rid of two NBA teams. I think the list would go like this...
1.) Milwaukee Bucks
2.) Minnesota Timberwolves
3.) Sacramento Kings
4.) New Orleans Hornets
5.) Indiana Pacers
I don't think any other teams are in bad trouble. The top 3 have some of the oldest arenas in the NBA. Maloofs said they're not selling etc, but the fact remains their debt is really bad right now. Senator Kohl or Glen Taylor the head of the Governors Board probably see that as a way out too. My guess would be the Kings & Timberwolves contracting if they went that route.
Posted by kombayn on October 25, 2010 06:51 PMSteve, actually the lease is pretty easy to break in less than 4 years since all the NBA needs to show is that certain suite and attendance levels aren't being reached (which they aren't). It may delay any contraction, in Memphis but they're not entirely safe given their long time attendance woes. I would say the Hornets are safe for the foreseeable future just because no one wants to be seen as the league that bent over New Orleans even this close to Katrina.
Posted by Dan on October 25, 2010 06:59 PMDon't dismiss contraction from the owners point of view. It worked out really well for the ABA Spirits of St. Louis. Though I doubt anyone would get offered than sort of comtract in the future.
Posted by Jmauro on October 28, 2010 08:43 AMYes, and the descendents of the owners of the Federal League Baltimore Terrapins are still getting a sliver of MLB's national TV revenue. But somehow I think the leagues have learned their lesson on this one.
Posted by Neil on October 28, 2010 08:51 AMOh god please, contract the T-wolves. Do it! I dare you!! Please... make them go away.
Please. I beg you!
Posted by Geoff on November 1, 2010 07:42 PMBefore contraction the NBA would try to move teams to better locations first. The Kings to San Jose, and Grizzlies to New Jersey are two examples.
Contraction costs a lot of money upfront and it will hurt the NBA too much in the short term for this to happen.
Best bet is a long lockout that will wipe out the 2011-2012 season and then a few teams will move.
At that time the players will accept a hard salary cap and no guaranteed contracts like the NFL has.
Billy Hunter will go down in history as the worst Executive Director of the NBAPA ever....of course he will be out of a job too.
There is no way around this as the owners/players are too far apart on this. Much further apart than before the 1998-1999 lockout.
Posted by Sid on November 3, 2010 06:04 PMthe league expanded way beyond the available talent level. The only folks who watch NBA today are barely aware of what the sport once looked like. The plodding, boring modern NBA game would be a joke compared to the early 80's NBA. Players are overpaid, under-talented, and teams are managed by hamster-brained fools who bawl for public bailouts every few years. Basketball is the welfare sport of sports.
Posted by daGeezer on November 16, 2010 03:58 PM