OT - Pistons to move?
I may live in AZ, but I've always been a devoted follower of the Pistons. Streaming WTKA this morning they commented about an article that was in that most hated of papers today that has comments from Stern when asked about his commitment to the Detroit market;
"We like to stay where we are, but if you judge us by our past we haven’t been entirely successful,” Stern said. “But our first choice is always to have the team sold to somebody that will keep it in the market.”
If I may paraphrase real quickly, "I'll give it the old college try to keep Detroit in it's market, but if Louisville or Kansas City have a newer stadium, See Yaa!"
That is just ridiculous and a huge concern with the NBA. With all the recent moves you are losing the legacy of the league. Every time I see a poll showing the Thunder as the best team in the West, I have to remind myself that isn't an expansion team it is the Super Sonics. If Seattle with all that technology money can't keep their team how are the rest of us going to? It is just really depressing and would be a huge loss for the NBA and the city if the 3 time champions to end up as the Kansas City Barbeques or the Louisville Sluggers.
Reluctant Article Link - http://www.freep.com/article/20100712/SPORTS03/100712061/
I think the Pistons will stay put. Rumor has interest for Illitch and Co. So hey maybe they do move-- to Detroit.
I think it really depends on who buys them. Once someone owns them, they will likely have the ultimate decision.
Print version of the article: http://www.freep.com/print/article/20100712/SPORTS03/100712061/David-St…
Make the team a winner and you will fill seats, this means spending money. Detroit is a bigger market (11th) than any market lacking a NBA franchise. Team up with old man Ilitch for a new venue downtown and they would be fine.
They don't need a new venue... The Palace is great in NBA standards
It isn't like they play in Crisler. One of the things Ms. Davison says is that for someone to move the team to a new city, they'd have to have a nicer stadium than the Palace, or be willing to build one. She's betting that no municipality is in a hurry to build a stadium right now. Also, the price of the Pistons has got to be astronomical, seeing as they are a top 5 team in terms of franchise value.
With all that said, Kansas City does have a very nice basketball stadium. It would be a travesty to see the Pistons leave for KC.
i doubted you but you sir are correct on being a top 5 franchise valued team
It is a great venue but the location sucks. I can sympathize with the push for a downtown stadium for both the Wings and Pistons.
Have you ever seen that show on TLC or the History Channel or Discovery where they have people jack buildings off their foundations and roll them to new locations?
That would be incredible to do with the Palace.
I would never want to jack off a building...that's just absurd.
Of "professionals".
And if you're gonna do that, it wouldn't be the Palace. More likely the Ypsilanti Water Tower, winner of the World's Most Phallic building award.
would be the YMCA in Jerusalem
If one was going to jack off that building, they'd need some ice cold phallic-shaped refreshment:
The city of Detroit has actually done this many times, including recently with the Elwood Bar and Grill and (I believe) the Gem Theater. It'd be a bit tougher to pull off with the Palace, though.
They might not today, but since even if they broke ground today it would be a three year wait for the place to open, and there are no (official) plans for a new venue known, you are probably looking at five or more years before they could move. This would put the Palace at 27 years old, it would be time for a change at that point, but I'm more for it to help downtown
The NBA's main problem is the consolidation of Megastars. If that Chris Paul + Carmelo to NYC rumor has any truth to it, by the 2011 NBA season there will be about 4 teams worth watching (Laker, Heat, NYK, Orlando) and the rest will be full of role players. My hometown Wizards are putting all their eggs into the John Wall basket, but even if he ends up being a superstar point guard he's going to be distributing to the likes of Andre Blatche. We have no hope of any sort of surprise season that you see in other sports (Butler in college basketball, Utah in college football, New Orleans Saints in the NFL, Tampa Bay Rays a few years back when they went worst-to-first and made the world series, etc.)
But I wouldn't put the Saints as a surprise champion last season.
Other than that, you're spot on.
the NBA should euthanize the Hornets. I live in NOLA and I'm a Hornets fan but the NBA is turning into such a start-driven league, if you find yourself without a star (and outside a major market) you might as well close-up shop. Stern is VERY shrewd but ultimately this star-culture will choke the game, he needs to do something to change this back into a team game.
While I agree with the sentiment, I remember hearing this concern of top-heavy champions all the time when the Yankees signed another superstar, Malone and Payton went to LA, Red Wings signed a top FA, etc. Especially in sports with salary caps (like the NBa and NHL), grabbing a couple of max-price superstars leaves you with very little room to fill out your roster with the consumate pros you need to win. Looking at Miami, they basically have 6 players right now (Wade, Bosh, Lebron, Haslem, Mike Miller, and Chalmers), with barely any additional cap space to sign more players. That top 6 looks great offensively, but they have no shot-blocker, no real defensive pressence, and a dangerously-thin bench when one of those guys needs a breather. They might be fun to watch early on, but when the Heat are struggling to close out games at the end of the year because the Big 3 have played 38+ minutes all year and are dead tired, fans might turn away.
All leagues are star driven, but while collecting them might work for fantasy purposes, winning takes a collection of talent that most teams can acquire with shrewd signings and good drafts. Fans will watch winners, and I'm not ready to lose hope for other teams just because a couple of big-name guys are going to be playing in NYC or Miami.
Haslem and Miller are those consumate pros. The fact that they got those guys to sign for peanuts when they had no cap room is quite impressive. They can round out their roster with rookies they drafted (which includes 2 big men and Desaun Butler). They can exceed the salary cap to sign those guys.
Are the Red Wings bad for Hockey? How about the Yankees/Red Sox, are they bad for baseball?
In 2004 there was supposed to be "no way" the Pistons could beat the Lakers (Kobe, Shaq, Karl Malone, Gary Payton). The Pistons damn near swept the Finals. It can be done.
The only difference between the Heat and the "Showtime" Lakers (Magic, Kareem, Worthy) is that the Heat were assembled through free agency. Like it or not, everything that happened is 100% pure Colubmbian fairness.
Small/Medium market teams bitched before free agency because they couldn't compete. Now they're bitching because, wait for it, they can't compete. New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Oklahoma City, you name the place, would have no problem if the Trio had come to their city. Sour grapes is all this is.
If parity is a real concern, then they should reduce the salary cap; otherwise the NBA needs to sleep in the bed they made. But in that case, non-glamour teams will still be at a disadvantage to the glamour spots, there's no way around that.
It would be an epic failure on behalf of the NBA if the Pistons left Detroit. While Seattle has a good basketball history, the Pistons have been one of the most memorable and celebrated franchises in NBA history. Seattle losing the Supersonics nearly led to a riot in certain NBA circles, but losing the Pistons to a significantly smaller city (Louisville or KC) would probably drive quite a few fans, not just in MI but nationally, away from the league. As it is, the NBA is struggling to retain fans, but when an iconic franchise is moved to another city because they have a shiny new stadium, it is hard to see how that sends a good message to your remaining fans that your club will still be there in 5-10 years.
If there is any movement in the near future (outside of the Nets), I would expect it to be in Memphis or Atlanta, with the latter less likely because of the huge media market (despite the apathetic local fanbase).
What polls are showing the Thunder as best team in the West
ESPN had them ranked #9 overall to finish the season, so not too shabby, and my comment was just in reference to some talking heads on ESPN Radio, but the Thunder are going to surprise you. Suns, Spurs, and Jazz all are going backwards in the West. That leaves Portland and the Nuggets to challenge for #2. Oklahoma lost game 6 by only a point to the Lakers, so I think they are legit and only getting better.
I agree with you that Seattle is a different situation, but Detroit (the city) is not doing very well financially either. I doubt they could green light another stadium project after Coamerica and Ford Field. Now, Oakland County probably could handle the load better if it came to that, though I agree that the Palace is still a good facility and doesn't seem to be an issue anyway.
Seattle losing the SuperSonics had far more to do with the ownership group getting a great deal in OKC and (having ties to that region) moving there. If they had wanted to stay in Seattle, something would have been worked out.
The Sonics moved because the city/county/state would not replace a 40-year old arena that had no luxury boxes, no modern amenties, and virtually no parking near the arena.
And the reluctance to build an arena had nothing to do with the local economy. It was the product of a deeply-entrenched anti-development sentiment that Seattle has had for decades.
People forget sometimes that Seattle is a college town. The "Down with Capitalism" crowd is front and center there.
I think the NBA should just contract to four teams. Because in a few years that's about how many will be worth watching.
The Pistons are arguably the 3rd most historic franchise in the NBA, behind the Celtics and Lakers. Stern would be the worst commissioner in the history of time to move them.
no they're not
They're one of the most valuable in the United States...
I think you're looking for something that isn't there. First, it's not up to David Stern to decide where franchises go, and second, he said nothing out of the ordinary. What else could he say - "No more relocations, ever"?
They won't go anywhere...A new owner couldn't possibly that much of a dick...I hope....