Expansion

[hazer]

All this uninformed league-wide fan talk about the Hawks relocating to Seattle (not happening) got me thinking about expansion teams/realignment coming down the pike. 32 teams making the most sense, evening out the East/West at 16/16. The obvious choice (to me) for expansion in the East is St. Louis. Former NBA city, demographics, no other team within 300 miles (Memphis 290 miles). With Pittsburgh, Nashville, and Montreal as other logical candidates. But realigning the Pelicans into the East actually makes the most sense, putting the 2 expansion teams out West. Seattle is a given. But then who? Las Vegas? San Diego? Kansas City? Vancouver? Intriguing stuff, thoughts?

Edited January 11, 2015 by hazer

[hazer]

Didn't even think about realigning Memphis to the East. But since the Griz were formerly in Vancouver, let's just assume they stay in the West ;)

Edited January 10, 2015 by hazer

[hazer]

I chose Pelican realignment, with Seattle and Vegas expansion teams.

Edited January 10, 2015 by hazer

[PSSSHHHRRR87]

I chose Pelican realignment, with Seattle and Vegas expansion teams.

 

My response exactly, but I'd rather see the Grizzlies moved to the East over the Pellies.

[ATLien_]

I voted but I actually don't think the league should expand. I think the talent is spread too thin already; this is why there are so many bad teams right now. They actually should remove two teams, but that will never happen because of the money they would lose. I think it would make the League healthier.

[hazer]

I voted but I actually don't think the league should expand. I think the talent is spread too thin already; this is why there are so many bad teams right now. They actually should remove two teams, but that will never happen because of the money they would lose. I think it would make the League healthier.

Not buying it. There are 1696 NFL players. 1280 MLB players. 690 NHL players. HOCKEY! 600 MLS players. SOCCER!!! You telling me there's not 480 capable NBA players in a country of 300 million and a planet of 7 billion? Nonsense...

Edited January 11, 2015 by hazer

[lethalweapon3]

I'd have the Grizz and Pelicans coming East, the Bulls (a la Blackhawks) and Bucks going West, and then Seattle in the West, and St. Louis since Missouri seems to be just fine chilling in the SEC East anyway.

 

Northeast: Knicks/Nets/Sixers/Raptors/Celtics/Pistons/Cavaliers/Pacers

Southeast: Wizards/Hawks/heat/Magic/Hornets/Grizzlies/Pelicans/(Arches)

Northwest: Bulls/T'wolves/Nuggets/Kings/Blazers/Jazz/Bucks/(Landhawks)

Southwest: Lakers/Clippers/Warriors/Mavericks/Rockets/Suns/Spurs/Thunder

 

~lw3

[hazer]

Only problem with that is Chicago and Milwaukee are both further east on a map than either St. Louis, Memphis, or NOLA. The purpose of realignment is generally to correct any geographical misalignments, not further misalign things.

[bird_dirt]

Expansion to Seattle in West 

and....

Louisville, KY in the East.

 

Louisville came within hours of getting the last Charlotte team.  Brand new arena in place.  Despite smaller overall market size, extremely high basketball market.  

 

Bring back the Kentucky Colonels!  1975 ABA Champions (hence my avatar and sig photo).

[hazer]

Louisville is interesting, but awfully close geographically to Indy (114 miles).

Edited January 11, 2015 by hazer

[bird_dirt]

Pacers and Colonels were both in ABA. There's a pretty big push for a team here, but realistically I don't see it happening. Despite how much I would love it, there are just so many other good options out there. I really see getting an NBADL team here if the NBA ever requires every NBA team to have their own DL affiliate team.

[ATLien_]

Not buying it. There are 1696 NFL players. 1280 MLB players. 690 NHL players. HOCKEY! 600 MLS players. SOCCER!!! You telling me there's not 480 capable NBA players in a country of 300 million and a planet of 7 billion? Nonsense...

Then why aren't they in The NBA tearing it up? You don't think these teams invest money to find players all around the world?

There are only 32 NFL teams and there are barely 15 decent quarterbacks, and there are only 4-5 elite quarterbacks. Using your logic with 7 plus billion people in the world it should be easy to find 32 elite quarterbacks.

Unfortunately life doesn't work like that. There's a reason athletes get paid millions and it's because their skillets are hard to find. This is all about scarcity of talent. I know you can put two more teams out there with 13 players. This however is not the point, you want to field a competitive team.

Where would this talent cone from? The D League? You see anyone there that you feel just can't make a team because there are not enough teams? No, they are not in the NBA because they are not good enough. This is who would be on these expansion teams. They would also raid talent from the top of the draft and current teams. The top picks in the draft for some years would go to these teams hurting the existing bottom dwellers. Expansion would also hurt deep teams like the Hawks because there will be an expansion draft. Meaning the league would determine how many players each team can protect from the expansion draft. For arguments sake let's say you can protect 6 players; let's say we protect our starting 5 and Schröder. That means anyone else from our team is up for grabs; our players are likely to get picked because they are good and on good contracts. No expansion team is stealing Joe Johnson.

How does that help the NBA? All it does is dilute the talent base further. A talent base where half the teams already aren't competitive, and 4 or 5 teams are real contenders.

Edited January 12, 2015 by ATLien_