A different view of the League.

[AtLaS]

This is Cleveland... Ranked #5

This is NY...Ranked #1

NY is already #1 of all NBA teams as far as team valuations go. Cleveland just jumped to #5. They made their stride in 2003.

What you fail to realize is that NY is STILL making more than Cleveland (who is the best team with the best player). They are doing this without a star player and with a losing team. If NY becomes a great team and has the best player, those revenues will be off the charts.

Of course the NBA doesn't mind a small market team winning, because it gives everyone a chance to win. If the Spurs were in NY the NBA would've made a lot more money the past 10 years.

You act like small market NBA teams aren't successful. Orlando is great this year. The Spurs have won 4 championships in the past 10 years. Miami and Detroit are only about the 10th biggest market.

And, you act like it's nothing but big market teams winning. Chicago has done nothing since Jordan left. The Lakers, nothing since Shaq left save their Gasol trade last year. Boston was the worst team in the NBA before acquiring the big 3. NY hasn't won a championship in over 30 years. Philidelphia (#5 market) has done nothing in a long time.

There is no question that the NBA is so much more profitable with LeBron in NY.

Edited May 11, 2009 by AtLaS

[Diesel]

I

Cleveland is such a pathetic market, that even with the best team and best player in the league, Cleveland is 13th in the league in % seats filled for the season, behind, yes, the knicks.

http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance?sort=hom...mp;seasonType=2

For last season, the Knicks had 50 million more in revenues than the Cavs, and this is with the Cavs getting to the second round of the playoffs and going 7 games with Boston.

And this all without getting into the media market. The local NY media market is top in the nation. And this is without getting into the added visibilty that Lebron would have there.

They give Lebron the calls and the treatment because they want their superstars to shine and sell the game. But to say that the league prefers Cleveland to do well over new york, and that is why they are trying to get him to stay in cleveland, is ridiculous.

OK... I have to say this.

These are all arguments I would make for Lebron staying in Cleveland.

Since you want to bring in the gate continuously...

let's go there..

I asked the question before, when was the last time the Knicks didn't have a sellout?

That was a hint...

BUt since you seem not to get the hint, here's my real question....

If NY is selling out the house every night, why would you take Lebron away from a place that surely would not see a sellout without him and put him in a place where it doesn't matter if he plays or not, will be sold out??

TV Contract.

Madison Square Garden Network. (Cablevision)

It's nice to have your TV contract and your ownership working at the same desk in the same office at the same time. I don't think much else needs to be said here.

The only way that Stern would want Bron going to NY is for sentimental reasons. You know he's one of those diehard Knicks fans. Otherwise the league loses.

[dlpin]

According to Forbes....

Cleveland is the 5th most valuable team in the league. According to Forbes, they pull in the 5th highest amount of revenue. According to Forbes they just jumped Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, and Boston to be there. And if you look at the numbers inside... It starts and ends with Lebron. Without Lebron, they sink down to 28th in the market.

So does the NBA care about Cleveland? I think so. YOu lose Lebron, you lose a market.

And New York is tops, without having been to the playoffs in years, by a very wide margin.

Your rationale makes no sense. If they want smaller markets to do well, why do they keep showing the big market teams?

They promote Lebron, again, because this is a superstar league. It has NOTHING to do with wanting him to stay in Cleveland.

[Diesel]

What you fail to realize is that NY is STILL making more than Cleveland (who is the best team with the best player). They are doing this without a star player and with a losing team.

No... I realize this all too well. In fact, it's the point I'm making.

Without a star player, NY still is the #1 valued team. Had you said that NY was losing fan interest, was sagging in sellouts and was losing it TV contract... you'd have a point... but you're talking about making the rich richer. Here's the bigger point, there's no value in making NY richer. They won't sellout better than they're selling out. I mean once you get the roughly 18k people inside... how can you do better than that.

2009: some guy: Wow that was a great sellout.

2010: same guy: Wow, that sellout was better than all 41 sellouts from 2009.

The tv contract is owned/maintained by the owners of the Knicks. The NBA is not going to get more from them than they want to pay.

Since that's the case, why not leave them be and let Cleveland grow.

You guys are about as anti-Monroe doctrine as they come.

[Diesel]

Your rationale makes no sense. If they want smaller markets to do well, why do they keep showing the big market teams?

They don't show bigger market teams? Lebron was on TV far more than the Knicks. Just to wreck your weak point. However, NBA for the last 20 years have promoted players.. not cities or teams. That is why I said that they have gone beyond the gate. For the last few years, why do you think you got the Lakers vs. Miami on Christmas. At one time or another both LAL and Miami were out of contention but originally, it was Shaq vs. Kobe. Then it became Kobe vs. Wade. Even now, Lebron vs. Kobe. 23 vs. 24. That's what is fueling this offseason. No player or coach can be interviewed on ESPN without giving his take on Kobe vs. Lebron. I saw them badger Spike Lee about it today. That's not about teams that's about personalities... that's what Stern promotes.

[dlpin]

OK... I have to say this.

These are all arguments I would make for Lebron staying in Cleveland.

Since you want to bring in the gate continuously...

let's go there..

I asked the question before, when was the last time the Knicks didn't have a sellout?

That was a hint...

BUt since you seem not to get the hint, here's my real question....

If NY is selling out the house every night, why would you take Lebron away from a place that surely would not see a sellout without him and put him in a place where it doesn't matter if he plays or not, will be sold out??

TV Contract.

Madison Square Garden Network. (Cablevision)

It's nice to have your TV contract and your ownership working at the same desk in the same office at the same time. I don't think much else needs to be said here.

The only way that Stern would want Bron going to NY is for sentimental reasons. You know he's one of those diehard Knicks fans. Otherwise the league loses.

Because attendance is not the only thing that determines revenue. Ticket prices are also important. Don't you think the knicks would be able to charge a lot more than they currently are if they were finals bound? The giants were able to bump up their ticket prices almost 10% after they won the super bowl.

Not to mention the extra playoff games. 16 additional home games, however many more games total, for the largest media market? for the team that makes the most money from gate receipts and luxury boxes? Do you think if the knicks were in the playoffs there would be any chance their games would be relegated to NBA tv, as opposed to TNT or ABC?

And are you really arguing that there is no incentive for him to go to NY because the knicks are owned by a cable company? Heck, that cuts the middle man and simply gives them boatloads more subscribers and add revenue...

You absolutely make no sense. The idea that the league wants a smaller market team to do better than the biggest market in the world is ludicrous.

They want Lebron to do well regardless of where he is. Doing stuff to keep him in a place that is mediocre at best is nonsense.

[AtLaS]

No... I realize this all too well. In fact, it's the point I'm making.

Without a star player, NY still is the #1 valued team. Had you said that NY was losing fan interest, was sagging in sellouts and was losing it TV contract... you'd have a point... but you're talking about making the rich richer. Here's the bigger point, there's no value in making NY richer. They won't sellout better than they're selling out. I mean once you get the roughly 18k people inside... how can you do better than that.

2009: some guy: Wow that was a great sellout.

2010: same guy: Wow, that sellout was better than all 41 sellouts from 2009.

The tv contract is owned/maintained by the owners of the Knicks. The NBA is not going to get more from them than they want to pay.

Since that's the case, why not leave them be and let Cleveland grow.

You guys are about as anti-Monroe doctrine as they come.

LOL, as if most of the NBA's profits comes from attendance. The NBA also has a MULTI-BILLION dollar national TV contract which you have yet to mention, and which is negotiated and signed based on TV ratings that would increase with LeBron in NY. The NBA makes lots on merchandise sells which would drastically increase with LeBron in NY as there are so many more NY fans than Cleveland ones.

NY is #1 in revenue but that market is not being used to NEAR it's highest potential. All of those NY revenues would at least double if LeBron is in NY.

What do you think the NBA prefers. A NY team in the finals (which adds 20+ million metro NY viewers for ratings) or Cleveland in the finals (which adds roughly 3 million). That's not even mentioning all the NY transients around the country which largely outnumbers the Cleveland transients around the country.

[dlpin]

No... I realize this all too well. In fact, it's the point I'm making.

Without a star player, NY still is the #1 valued team. Had you said that NY was losing fan interest, was sagging in sellouts and was losing it TV contract... you'd have a point... but you're talking about making the rich richer. Here's the bigger point, there's no value in making NY richer. They won't sellout better than they're selling out. I mean once you get the roughly 18k people inside... how can you do better than that.

2009: some guy: Wow that was a great sellout.

2010: same guy: Wow, that sellout was better than all 41 sellouts from 2009.

The tv contract is owned/maintained by the owners of the Knicks. The NBA is not going to get more from them than they want to pay.

Since that's the case, why not leave them be and let Cleveland grow.

You guys are about as anti-Monroe doctrine as they come.

Man, this is getting ridiculous. So now ticket prices dont matter? TV ratings don't matter? Additional knicks games in the playoffs dont matter? They want cleveland to do well, so they are trying to keep lebron there? really?

Do you even know how the profit sharing agreement works? It is the interest of every other owner for the knicks to do as well as possible, because they have to share revenue.

[dlpin]

They don't show bigger market teams? Lebron was on TV far more than the Knicks. Just to wreck your weak point. However, NBA for the last 20 years have promoted players.. not cities or teams. That is why I said that they have gone beyond the gate. For the last few years, why do you think you got the Lakers vs. Miami on Christmas. At one time or another both LAL and Miami were out of contention but originally, it was Shaq vs. Kobe. Then it became Kobe vs. Wade. Even now, Lebron vs. Kobe. 23 vs. 24. That's what is fueling this offseason. No player or coach can be interviewed on ESPN without giving his take on Kobe vs. Lebron. I saw them badger Spike Lee about it today. That's not about teams that's about personalities... that's what Stern promotes.

So they care about players, not cities, and that is why they want cleveland to do well? You are not even making any sense now.

I said from the start that they give Lebron the treatment because he is a super star, and that this is a superstar league. Ive also said that they don't care where Lebron is playing.

and now you are even contradicting yourself. You started out saying that they gave him the special treatment because they wanted him to stay in cleveland, and now you are saying they give him the special treatment because he is a star...

[Diesel]

LOL, as if most of the NBA's profits comes from attendance. The NBA also has a MULTI-BILLION dollar national TV contract which you have yet to mention, and which is negotiated and signed based on TV ratings that would increase with LeBron in NY. The NBA makes lots on merchandise sells which would drastically increase with LeBron in NY as there are so many more NY fans than Cleveland ones.

NY is #1 in revenue but that market is not being used to NEAR it's highest potential. All of those NY revenues would at least double if LeBron is in NY.

What do you think the NBA prefers. A NY team in the finals (which adds 20+ million metro NY viewers for ratings) or Cleveland in the finals (which adds roughly 3 million). That's not even mentioning all the NY transients around the country which largely outnumbers the Cleveland transients around the country.

You do know that the Knicks TV contract is owned by the Knicks owners?

Madison Square Gardner Network... aka Cablevision.

I have mention this before.

So, I guess I have to break down the meaning too.

That means that Cablevision can put in how much it wants to put into the NBA cost sharing.

The place where NY prospers is in the branding and they can charge even more (hard to believe) in the stadium... However, none of that will increase the NBA's take.

[Diesel]

So they care about players, not cities, and that is why they want cleveland to do well? You are not even making any sense now.

I said from the start that they give Lebron the treatment because he is a super star, and that this is a superstar league. Ive also said that they don't care where Lebron is playing.

and now you are even contradicting yourself. You started out saying that they gave him the special treatment because they wanted him to stay in cleveland, and now you are saying they give him the special treatment because he is a star...

Bottom line.

You're Stern.

You can have 2 teams...

1 at #1 and 1 at #5 in terms of revenue

or

1 at #1 and 1 at #26 in terms of revenue.

What do you want Stern?

Does this make sense to you???

If not....

[AtLaS]

Man, this is getting ridiculous. So now ticket prices dont matter? TV ratings don't matter? Additional knicks games in the playoffs dont matter? They want cleveland to do well, so they are trying to keep lebron there? really?

Do you even know how the profit sharing agreement works? It is the interest of every other owner for the knicks to do as well as possible, because they have to share revenue.

Well, revenue sharing in the NBA is different than that of the NFL and the MLB. But, regardless it is a big factor, especially with merchandise, national TV contracts and luxury taxes.

Regardless, I agree with you. Diesel is in over his head and I have a lot of experience with major sports leagues revenue plans and the impact of star players in bigger markets.

[AtLaS]

You do know that the Knicks TV contract is owned by the Knicks owners?

Madison Square Gardner Network... aka Cablevision.

I have mention this before.

So, I guess I have to break down the meaning too.

That means that Cablevision can put in how much it wants to put into the NBA cost sharing.

The place where NY prospers is in the branding and they can charge even more (hard to believe) in the stadium... However, none of that will increase the NBA's take.

Oh really? The national TV contract that is owned by TNT, ESPN and ABC are supplied by cablevision? LOL. The national TV contract pays a lot more than a local one, Diesel, even though NY's is one of the biggest. You just don't understand the economics of the situation.

[dlpin]

Diesel,

You can't have it both ways. Ive said from the start that they give him the preferential treatment because he is a star, not because of where he plays.

You started out saying that they give him the preferential treatment because they want him to stay in cleveland, and that he is better for the league in cleveland than in new york.

And after having that argument shot to bits, and shown again and again how he would be more profitable in NY, you now reverse yourself and say that "NBA for the last 20 years have promoted players.. not cities or teams." Isn't that exactly what I said? That they promote him because he is a super star, not because they want him to stay in cleveland?

How can you say, in the same thread, that the treatment Lebron gets is all because Stern wants him to stay in Cleveland, and wants to promote the Cleveland market, and then say that "NBA for the last 20 years have promoted players.. not cities or teams." If that is not a contradiction, I don't know what is.

[Diesel]

So they care about players, not cities, and that is why they want cleveland to do well? You are not even making any sense now.

I said from the start that they give Lebron the treatment because he is a super star, and that this is a superstar league. Ive also said that they don't care where Lebron is playing.

and now you are even contradicting yourself. You started out saying that they gave him the special treatment because they wanted him to stay in cleveland, and now you are saying they give him the special treatment because he is a star...

Before you try to put words in my mouth, you need to read what I said... to your first post, which you brought up the two different points, this was my response...

No...

That's a Lebron View... not a league view.

From a league View, Cleveland is a big City that's a small Market.

What if Lebron can do for Cleveland what Jordan did for Chicago?

Stern doesn't want the same 3 teams being the major teams in the nba.. (i.e. the major markets). He would like to see more major markets develop.

Now, I agree that Stern "protects his star players" as he calls it. However, I would be willing to bet that Lebron staying in Cleveland is something that Stern wouldn't be upset about.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

And New York is tops, without having been to the playoffs in years, by a very wide margin.

Your rationale makes no sense. If they want smaller markets to do well, why do they keep showing the big market teams?

They promote Lebron, again, because this is a superstar league. It has NOTHING to do with wanting him to stay in Cleveland.

How many national TV games did TNT, ABC and ESPN show of the Knicks this year? How many did the Bulls play this year, when it was viewed that they weren't going to be all that good? Boston, before they got KG and PP last year?

The thing about the NBA is this. If you're a team with a popular player, and that team is good, it pretty much doesn't matter what media market you're in. That team will get a lot of national TV airtime. The Hawks, if they keep everyone together, and/or if they add another star caliber player, will get more national TV time next year.

Denver, because of the run they made this year, will DEFINITELY get a ton of coverage next year. And Denver is a smaller TV market than Atlanta.

If Kobe opts out of his deal in LA ( which won't happen, but he does have a player option ), and goes to Charlotte, you better believe that the Bobcats will not only get a ton of national TV games, their value as a franchise will skyrocket.

Meanwhile, teams like the Knicks and Lakers, unless they're just god awful, will always make a ton of money, based off of their local tv deals and the luxury suites that they can sell at a ridiculous rate.

Diesel isn't out in left field with this.

Another interesting thing about that Forbes chart, is to see the effect that the JJ trade, along with the development of our young players, had on the Hawks value as a franchise.

2005: we had a value of $38 million

2006: that amount doubles, to $76 million

2007: $83 million

2008: $111 million . . which directly coincides with us making the playoffs.

2009: I don't know, but I would suspect that we may be around the $120 - 130 million mark when it's all calculated.

Revenue wise, we've gone from 87 million in '05 . . . to 102 million in '08.

[Popeye]

I agree with Diesel here, Cleveland before Lebron came in was averaging only 11,000 fans per game.... They were dead last in the league... If you take away Lebron from them than might as well move the team somewhere else cause the Cavs or the league will not be making any money...

On the other hand, The Knicks will always put people in the seats... They don't need a superstar, they just need a winner...

THey were drawing 471,000 fans per season before Lebron... Now they are up to 820, 439..... Multiply this by the average ticket price and you will find out how much more they get per season... Also i am sure the tickets now are more expensive than they used to be in 02-03 season...

[AtLaS]

Bottom line.

You're Stern.

You can have 2 teams...

1 at #1 and 1 at #5 in terms of revenue

or

1 at #1 and 1 at #26 in terms of revenue.

What do you want Stern?

Does this make sense to you???

If not....

Bottom line. Under the current situation, the Kincks made $209 million revenue in 08 and Cleveland made 159.

With LeBron in NY the Knicks would drastically increase and probably double. Cleveland would probably drop to around 100 million or so which is relative to other similar market sizes and team success.

Under which policy would the NBA make the most money?

[AHF]

It is similar to the impact of Calipari at Memphis versus at UK.

[dlpin]

Bottom line.

You're Stern.

You can have 2 teams...

1 at #1 and 1 at #5 in terms of revenue

or

1 at #1 and 1 at #26 in terms of revenue.

What do you want Stern?

Does this make sense to you???

If not....

Relative position means absolutely nothing. You have 2 teams, one that even with the best player and a team going deep into the playoffs, still only gets 150 mill in revenue and 13 mill profit, and one with 200 mill revenue and 29 mill profit even while having the most expensive, worst team in the league that hasn't been to the playoffs in years. Which would you want having more games in the playoffs?

And this is a relatively minor point: for your argument to be valid, staying in Cleveland would have to be so much better than going to new york that it would have to be worth it to go whatever lengths necessary to get it. To say that Lebron is as profitable in Cleveland as he would be in NY is nonsense. To say that he is MORE profitable in Cleveland than he would be in NY is completely absurd.