RealGM

Seattle and Las Vegas

Kalamazoo317 wrote:What's the argument for Minnesota moving to the east over Memphis?

It's actually near the teams in the East.

LakerLegend wrote:

Chinook wrote:

LakerLegend wrote:
Show me yours.

East A -- Boston, Toronto, New York, Brooklyn
East B -- Philadelphia, Indiana, Cleveland, Washington
East C -- Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando Miami
East D -- Minnesota, Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit
West A -- Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, SF
West B -- LAC, LAL, Phoenix, Las Vegas
West C -- Utah, Denver, OKC, Dallas
West D -- Memphis, Houston, New Orleans, SA

You can switch a couple of teams here or there, but this avoids those wonky divisions where teams aren't with clubs right by them in order to be with others half-way across the country. It's not ideal -- frankly it's a bad idea to put more teams out west given the reality of population dynamics in the near future -- but it works.

Mine is based on keeping the California and Texas teams together.

I also tried splitting the CA teams between North and South but that didn't work.

why 8 divisions instead of 4? the 4 team divisions (with a couple of exceptions) are always awkward.

Minnesota moves to the eastern conference (north division)

NORTH
Boston
Toronto
Minnesota
Milwaukee
Chicago
Detroit
Indiana
Cleveland

EAST
New York
Brooklyn
Philadelphia
Washington
Charlotte
Atlanta
Orlando
Miami

CENTRAL
Dallas
Memphis
Houston
New Orleans
SA
Utah
Denver
OKC

WEST
Seattle
Portland
Sacramento
SF
LAC
LAL
Phoenix
Las Vegas

Chinook wrote:

Kalamazoo317 wrote:What's the argument for Minnesota moving to the east over Memphis?

It's actually near the teams in the East.

Pretty negligable differences, IMO

Minneapolis to:
Milwaukee 4 hours 45
Chicago 6 hours
Detroit 9 hours 45

Memphis to:
Atlanta 5 hours 30
Indianapolis 6 hours 45
Chicago 7 hours 45
Charlotte 9 hours

Kalamazoo317 wrote:

Chinook wrote:

Kalamazoo317 wrote:What's the argument for Minnesota moving to the east over Memphis?

It's actually near the teams in the East.

Pretty negligable differences, IMO

Minneapolis to:
Milwaukee 4 hours 45
Chicago 6 hours
Detroit 9 hours 45

Memphis to:
Atlanta 5 hours 30
Indianapolis 6 hours 45
Chicago 7 hours 45
Charlotte 9 hours

Okay, but compare that to the teams Minny would be playing if they stayed in the West.

Seattle 23:43
Portland 25:00
Denver 12:47
SLC 17:59
OKC 11:01

And then Memphis

NOLA: 5:31
SA: 10:23
Houston 8:28
Dallas: 6:33
OKC: 6:29

It's not even close which team should move. The Western Conference is an L-shape while the Eastern Conference is a Y-shape. Minny is randomly a dot floating really far away from the rest of the West by right be the East. You're for some reason using driving distance, which ignores that as the crow flies, Detroit's not very far away from Minny. If you use flight for all of those distances, Minny's Eastern trip gets shorter (controlling for the fact that planes go faster than buses obviously), while their trip out West is still incredibly long. Memphis is not all that far from the some of the East teams, but they are much closer to the West teams than Minny. It just doesn't make sense to move the Grizz over the Wolves.

Nothing nefarious, it was just easier to look up driving distances. Makes sense that Memphis is close to teams on both sides whereas Minny is only close to them on one side. I do dig the idea of having NBA and NFL divisions match up for Detroit.

wegotthabeet wrote:

LakerLegend wrote:

Chinook wrote:
East A -- Boston, Toronto, New York, Brooklyn
East B -- Philadelphia, Indiana, Cleveland, Washington
East C -- Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando Miami
East D -- Minnesota, Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit
West A -- Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, SF
West B -- LAC, LAL, Phoenix, Las Vegas
West C -- Utah, Denver, OKC, Dallas
West D -- Memphis, Houston, New Orleans, SA

You can switch a couple of teams here or there, but this avoids those wonky divisions where teams aren't with clubs right by them in order to be with others half-way across the country. It's not ideal -- frankly it's a bad idea to put more teams out west given the reality of population dynamics in the near future -- but it works.

Mine is based on keeping the California and Texas teams together.

I also tried splitting the CA teams between North and South but that didn't work.

why 8 divisions instead of 4? the 4 team divisions (with a couple of exceptions) are always awkward.

Minnesota moves to the eastern conference (north division)

NORTH
Boston
Toronto
Minnesota
Milwaukee
Chicago
Detroit
Indiana
Cleveland

EAST
New York
Brooklyn
Philadelphia
Washington
Charlotte
Atlanta
Orlando
Miami

CENTRAL
Dallas
Memphis
Houston
New Orleans
SA
Utah
Denver
OKC

WEST
Seattle
Portland
Sacramento
SF
LAC
LAL
Phoenix
Las Vegas

This makes the most sense if the teams go to those cities, which I’m not convinced of. My experience with the Kings relocation sagas (yes, plural) is that fans and owners think about this very differently. The owners will be all about the money. Seattle and Vegas will get teams only if it makes the most money and for no other reason.

SNPA wrote:

wegotthabeet wrote:

LakerLegend wrote:
Mine is based on keeping the California and Texas teams together.

I also tried splitting the CA teams between North and South but that didn't work.

why 8 divisions instead of 4? the 4 team divisions (with a couple of exceptions) are always awkward.

Minnesota moves to the eastern conference (north division)

NORTH
Boston
Toronto
Minnesota
Milwaukee
Chicago
Detroit
Indiana
Cleveland

EAST
New York
Brooklyn
Philadelphia
Washington
Charlotte
Atlanta
Orlando
Miami

CENTRAL
Dallas
Memphis
Houston
New Orleans
SA
Utah
Denver
OKC

WEST
Seattle
Portland
Sacramento
SF
LAC
LAL
Phoenix
Las Vegas

This makes the most sense if the teams go to those cities, which I’m not convinced of. My experience with the Kings relocation sagas (yes, plural) is that fans and owners think about this very differently. The owners will be all about the money. Seattle and Vegas will get teams only if it makes the most money and for no other reason.

what markets could make more?

wegotthabeet wrote:

SNPA wrote:

wegotthabeet wrote:
why 8 divisions instead of 4? the 4 team divisions (with a couple of exceptions) are always awkward.

Minnesota moves to the eastern conference (north division)

NORTH
Boston
Toronto
Minnesota
Milwaukee
Chicago
Detroit
Indiana
Cleveland

EAST
New York
Brooklyn
Philadelphia
Washington
Charlotte
Atlanta
Orlando
Miami

CENTRAL
Dallas
Memphis
Houston
New Orleans
SA
Utah
Denver
OKC

WEST
Seattle
Portland
Sacramento
SF
LAC
LAL
Phoenix
Las Vegas

This makes the most sense if the teams go to those cities, which I’m not convinced of. My experience with the Kings relocation sagas (yes, plural) is that fans and owners think about this very differently. The owners will be all about the money. Seattle and Vegas will get teams only if it makes the most money and for no other reason.

what markets could make more?

All it takes is a Billionaire or group of them, in a viable market, to throw down more than Seattle or Vegas.

Seattle offers 2 billion buy in. San Jose offers 4 billion. Guess what Warriors and Seattle, you’re out voted. Welcome the SJ Tech Nerds to the league.

SNPA wrote:

wegotthabeet wrote:

SNPA wrote:This makes the most sense if the teams go to those cities, which I’m not convinced of. My experience with the Kings relocation sagas (yes, plural) is that fans and owners think about this very differently. The owners will be all about the money. Seattle and Vegas will get teams only if it makes the most money and for no other reason.

what markets could make more?

All it takes is a Billionaire or group of them, in a viable market, to throw down more than Seattle or Vegas.

Seattle offers 2 billion buy in. San Jose offers 4 billion. Guess what Warriors and Seattle, you’re out voted. Welcome the SJ Tech Nerds to the league.

No one is going to make a blowout offer that is way more than a fair franchise valuation, offers are all going to be in the same ballparks in all likelihood.

These guys didn't get rich by throwing money away.

Seattle and Tampa

Kalamazoo317 wrote:

Chinook wrote:

Kalamazoo317 wrote:What's the argument for Minnesota moving to the east over Memphis?

It's actually near the teams in the East.

Pretty negligable differences, IMO

Minneapolis to:
Milwaukee 4 hours 45
Chicago 6 hours
Detroit 9 hours 45

Memphis to:
Atlanta 5 hours 30
Indianapolis 6 hours 45
Chicago 7 hours 45
Charlotte 9 hours

That’s only half the argument though. Memphis is much closer to all the West teams. OKC, NOLA, all the Texas teams, etc.

Memphis is a little farther east in a US map, but in a map of NBA franchises, Minnesota is closer to Eastern teams, and certainly farther from Western ones.

LakerLegend wrote:

SNPA wrote:

wegotthabeet wrote:
what markets could make more?

All it takes is a Billionaire or group of them, in a viable market, to throw down more than Seattle or Vegas.

Seattle offers 2 billion buy in. San Jose offers 4 billion. Guess what Warriors and Seattle, you’re out voted. Welcome the SJ Tech Nerds to the league.

No one is going to make a blowout offer that is way more than a fair franchise valuation, offers are all going to be in the same ballparks in all likelihood.

These guys didn't get rich by throwing money away.

Then those other owners will likely lose out. This is a competition to see who is willing to pay the most for a shinny new toy.

If it’s all fairly close monetarily then other factors kick in more and Seattle does probably get an advantage.

Special_Puppy wrote:Seattle and Tampa

Tampa doesn’t get talked about, but they are a possibility.

The NBA is focused on their longterm profits, and that means generating fans by being seen in the biggest markets. Seattle-Tacoma and Tampa-St Pete are the only two Top 20 Markets that don’t have an NBA team. I doubt that San Jose would get a team regardless of the upfront payment, since it’s already considered part of the SF-Oakland market.

Seattle I think is a lock, particularly since the NBA community wants one there after they lose their franchise. But I think Vegas still gets the nod over Tampa, because of the uniqueness of Vegas. While it’s only the 40th biggest market, other pro sports team have flourished there because of all the tourism and entertainment. I will say that as soon as they have a team, I’ll fly out to Vegas to see my home team play. Now that the NBA has finally embraced gambling, the free-spending tourists in Vegas will make it one of the best markets in the NBA.

shrink wrote:

Special_Puppy wrote:Seattle and Tampa

Tampa doesn’t get talked about, but they are a possibility.

The NBA is focused on their longterm profits, and that means generating fans by being seen in the biggest markets. Seattle-Tacoma and Tampa-St Pete are the only two Top 20 Markets that don’t have an NBA team. I doubt that San Jose would get a team regardless of the upfront payment, since it’s already considered part of the SF-Oakland market.

Seattle I think is a lock, particularly since the NBA community wants one there after they lose their franchise. But I think Vegas still gets the nod over Tampa, because of the uniqueness of Vegas. While it’s only the 40th biggest market, other pro sports team have flourished there because of all the tourism and entertainment. I will say that as soon as they have a team, I’ll fly out to Vegas to see my home team play. Now that the NBA has finally embraced gambling, the free-spending tourists in Vegas will make it one of the best markets in the NBA.

Why Tampa and not Jacksonville? More than double the the population

PlatinumState wrote:

shrink wrote:

Special_Puppy wrote:Seattle and Tampa

Tampa doesn’t get talked about, but they are a possibility.

The NBA is focused on their longterm profits, and that means generating fans by being seen in the biggest markets. Seattle-Tacoma and Tampa-St Pete are the only two Top 20 Markets that don’t have an NBA team. I doubt that San Jose would get a team regardless of the upfront payment, since it’s already considered part of the SF-Oakland market.

Seattle I think is a lock, particularly since the NBA community wants one there after they lose their franchise. But I think Vegas still gets the nod over Tampa, because of the uniqueness of Vegas. While it’s only the 40th biggest market, other pro sports team have flourished there because of all the tourism and entertainment. I will say that as soon as they have a team, I’ll fly out to Vegas to see my home team play. Now that the NBA has finally embraced gambling, the free-spending tourists in Vegas will make it one of the best markets in the NBA.

Why Tampa and not Jacksonville? More than double the the population

Tampa is too close to Orlando, there’s no point in putting a team there.

LakerLegend wrote:

PlatinumState wrote:

shrink wrote:Tampa doesn’t get talked about, but they are a possibility.

The NBA is focused on their longterm profits, and that means generating fans by being seen in the biggest markets. Seattle-Tacoma and Tampa-St Pete are the only two Top 20 Markets that don’t have an NBA team. I doubt that San Jose would get a team regardless of the upfront payment, since it’s already considered part of the SF-Oakland market.

Seattle I think is a lock, particularly since the NBA community wants one there after they lose their franchise. But I think Vegas still gets the nod over Tampa, because of the uniqueness of Vegas. While it’s only the 40th biggest market, other pro sports team have flourished there because of all the tourism and entertainment. I will say that as soon as they have a team, I’ll fly out to Vegas to see my home team play. Now that the NBA has finally embraced gambling, the free-spending tourists in Vegas will make it one of the best markets in the NBA.

Why Tampa and not Jacksonville? More than double the the population

Tampa is too close to Orlando, there’s no point in putting a team there.

I assume the NBA uses DMA’s (which includes nearby suburbs and exburbs), and not the strict population of the individual city.

For example, Tampa-St Pete-Sarasota is the #13 DMA in the US (Seattle is #12). Jacksonville is #41. That’s a better market.

shrink wrote:

LakerLegend wrote:

PlatinumState wrote:
Why Tampa and not Jacksonville? More than double the the population

Tampa is too close to Orlando, there’s no point in putting a team there.

I assume the NBA uses DMA’s (which includes nearby suburbs and exburbs), and not the strict population of the individual city.

For example, Tampa-St Pete-Sarasota is the #13 DMA in the US (Seattle is #12). Jacksonville is #41. That’s a better market.

Than Seattle? Absolutely not.

Jacksonville I don't care about. We don't need 3 teams in Florida.

There's no point in putting a team in Tampa with the Magic nearby.

LakerLegend wrote:

shrink wrote:

LakerLegend wrote:Tampa is too close to Orlando, there’s no point in putting a team there.

I assume the NBA uses DMA’s (which includes nearby suburbs and exburbs), and not the strict population of the individual city.

For example, Tampa-St Pete-Sarasota is the #13 DMA in the US (Seattle is #12). Jacksonville is #41. That’s a better market.

Than Seattle? Absolutely not.

Jacksonville I don't care about. We don't need 3 teams in Florida.

There's no point in putting a team in Tampa with the Magic nearby.

That’s kind of like saying, “there’s no point having the Clippers when we already have the Lakers.”

The NBA’s bottom line isn’t geography .. it’s dollars. While Tampa and Orlando are only a ninty minute drive down I-4, people in Tampa don’t see Orlando as a destination. Tampa is a bag of money themselves, and the NBA misses out on it if they say, “oh, you should all just go to Orlando.”

Regardless, I think the two teams will be Seattle, who will draw from the whole Pacific Northwest including Vancouver, and Las Vegas, who will be able to sell tickets to lots of people from all over coming to the town and wanting to be entertained

One_and_Done wrote:Seattle isn't even my top choice, they had their chance to keep their team. That said, I'm broadly in favour of more teams. Let's add 4 more. Despite what ppl will say, there's more than enough talent. Mexico next. I'd love to see Vancouver, Seattle and Kentucky too. Vegaa is fine also. Plus let's add an extra team in NY and LA. There's more than enough money to support it.

32’s a nice even number that they should definitely play with for a while when Seattle and Vegas come in, but I agree that shouldn’t be the end of it. The superstar talent all around the league is insane right now and the talent pool’s grown much faster than the number of teams since I started watching with all the international players joining.

Also, I really like the playoff setup right now with 6 teams qualifying outright and 4 qualifying for the play-in, but it does have a few too many teams with losing records qualifying for the postseason. I think eventually 36 teams would be a perfect number.

Can’t imagine a bunch of generationally wealthy young players wanting to live in Mexico though. Why risk getting kidnapped when you’re already set for life? London will get a team before Mexico does. Likewise, the Clippers and the Nets have already shown that it’s extremely difficult to gain fan support in New York or LA over the established teams. I don’t see any point in trying to put a third team in when the second team is already getting so little traction.

After Seattle and Vegas, I’d go:

Tampa- largest media market in the US by far without a team

Vancouver- beautiful large city that actually supported the original Grizzlies very well despite a putrid on court product

St. Louis- Missouri needs a team and St. Louis is very underserved for a city of its size with only 2 major teams.

Montreal- Largest city in North America without an NBA team