What’s the best way for small market teams rebuild? My idea how they could.

 Lin and Asik contracts weren’t front loaded, they were backloaded which is why their respective teams didn’t match. Both those guys had minimal impact to Houston turning it around it was James Harden exploding into the scene

 Lin and Asik contracts weren’t front loaded, they were backloaded which is why their respective teams didn’t match. Both those guys had minimal impact to Houston turning it around it was James Harden exploding into the scene

 Lin and Asik contracts weren’t front loaded, they were backloaded which is why their respective teams didn’t match. Both those guys had minimal impact to Houston turning it around it was James Harden exploding into the scene

 I’m pretty sure front loading a contract isn’t allowed in the NBA.  What the Rockets did was back load the contracts for Asik and Lin which is known as a "poison pill contract".  For the Rockets the cap hit was spread out evenly so it didn’t really change their cap flexibility over the years of the contract.  

An example of the poison pill this offseason was Tyler Johnson getting a back loaded deal from the Nets.  It made it harder for Miami to match the contract(which they did).  If he went to the Nets his cap hit would have been 12.5mil per year but with Miami it doesn’t get evened out.  Instead the Heat will take a much higher cap hit in years 3 and 4.  

 I’m pretty sure front loading a contract isn’t allowed in the NBA.  What the Rockets did was back load the contracts for Asik and Lin which is known as a "poison pill contract".  For the Rockets the cap hit was spread out evenly so it didn’t really change their cap flexibility over the years of the contract.  

An example of the poison pill this offseason was Tyler Johnson getting a back loaded deal from the Nets.  It made it harder for Miami to match the contract(which they did).  If he went to the Nets his cap hit would have been 12.5mil per year but with Miami it doesn’t get evened out.  Instead the Heat will take a much higher cap hit in years 3 and 4.  

 I’m pretty sure front loading a contract isn’t allowed in the NBA.  What the Rockets did was back load the contracts for Asik and Lin which is known as a "poison pill contract".  For the Rockets the cap hit was spread out evenly so it didn’t really change their cap flexibility over the years of the contract.  

An example of the poison pill this offseason was Tyler Johnson getting a back loaded deal from the Nets.  It made it harder for Miami to match the contract(which they did).  If he went to the Nets his cap hit would have been 12.5mil per year but with Miami it doesn’t get evened out.  Instead the Heat will take a much higher cap hit in years 3 and 4.  

Sam Presti, is that you? 

I assume the OP is "asking for a friend." 

Sam Presti, is that you? 

I assume the OP is "asking for a friend." 

Sam Presti, is that you? 

I assume the OP is "asking for a friend." 

 Small-market teams need to nail draft picks first and foremost. 

Doesn’t matter what pick you have in the lottery, if you miss, you are screwed. Have to be able to nail those high picks. 

Also have to be able to capitlize on trades. Need to be able to identify when a player has hit his peak and if value is at its peak, trade them for pieces. Have to be good at the buy-low, sell-high type moves. 

Have to be able to supplement built up roster with good FA moves. Mid-market teams will almost never be able to attract superstar franchise piller type players, but if they can sign role players – again in the buy-low bins – they can build up depth and quality. 

Teams I look at that seem to have this kind of model figured out for the msot part – excluding the Spurs – are teams like Indiana and Atlanta. 

Those teams nailed draft picks that weren’t gimmes (top 3-5) and continued to supplement their rosters with good trades, mid first round picks and buy-low veterans. 

Hawks started the their nice little run with getting Joe Johnson in a trade, and he outperformed what the Hawks gave up for him. They hit on Horford. Hit on Josh Smith. Hit on Josh Childress – kind of – and then added vets like Mike Bibby, Kirk Hinrich. They hit on Teague, Schroeder, and they’ve supplemented their roster with buy-low FAs like Korver, Carroll and Bazemore and their big splash was adding Millsap, who was underrated because he was a bench guy. 

They’ve cycled completely through the starting five that got them to the playoffs with Iso Joe and Horford and have continually put out a good team. Probably not a championship contending team, but a very competitive one. 

Pacers are kind of in the same boat althought they’ve maybe been more impressive with the ability to rebuild on the fly. 

When Vogel took over, they had a fast-paced up and down scheme with players that didn’t fit. 

They hit on picks with George (major hit), Hibbert to a degree, Stephenson to a degree and made trades that helped them like getting George Hill and Darren Collison. They supplemented their roster with decent free agency signings like West, Watson, Scola. 

That team hit its ceiling and when Stephenson left, they changed identities on the fly, hitting on picks like Myles Turner and adding below-market free agents like Monta Ellis and Rodney Stuckey while maximizing George Hill’s value in a trade for Teague. They’ve since added Jefferson on a cheap contract and traded a late-first rounder for a decent starting PF. 

They haven’t drafted in the top-5 but they continue to hit on picks, make good trades and sign guys who are in the buy-low bin. 

Again, will the Pacers win the title? That’s hard to see. But teams can get to a point where they are very good without "tanking" for a top-3 pick. 

there’s practically no margin for error and you’ve got to be willing to move players for assets before they leave for nothing, which means a lot of hard emotional decisions, but it can be done. 

 Small-market teams need to nail draft picks first and foremost. 

Doesn’t matter what pick you have in the lottery, if you miss, you are screwed. Have to be able to nail those high picks. 

Also have to be able to capitlize on trades. Need to be able to identify when a player has hit his peak and if value is at its peak, trade them for pieces. Have to be good at the buy-low, sell-high type moves. 

Have to be able to supplement built up roster with good FA moves. Mid-market teams will almost never be able to attract superstar franchise piller type players, but if they can sign role players – again in the buy-low bins – they can build up depth and quality. 

Teams I look at that seem to have this kind of model figured out for the msot part – excluding the Spurs – are teams like Indiana and Atlanta. 

Those teams nailed draft picks that weren’t gimmes (top 3-5) and continued to supplement their rosters with good trades, mid first round picks and buy-low veterans. 

Hawks started the their nice little run with getting Joe Johnson in a trade, and he outperformed what the Hawks gave up for him. They hit on Horford. Hit on Josh Smith. Hit on Josh Childress – kind of – and then added vets like Mike Bibby, Kirk Hinrich. They hit on Teague, Schroeder, and they’ve supplemented their roster with buy-low FAs like Korver, Carroll and Bazemore and their big splash was adding Millsap, who was underrated because he was a bench guy. 

They’ve cycled completely through the starting five that got them to the playoffs with Iso Joe and Horford and have continually put out a good team. Probably not a championship contending team, but a very competitive one. 

Pacers are kind of in the same boat althought they’ve maybe been more impressive with the ability to rebuild on the fly. 

When Vogel took over, they had a fast-paced up and down scheme with players that didn’t fit. 

They hit on picks with George (major hit), Hibbert to a degree, Stephenson to a degree and made trades that helped them like getting George Hill and Darren Collison. They supplemented their roster with decent free agency signings like West, Watson, Scola. 

That team hit its ceiling and when Stephenson left, they changed identities on the fly, hitting on picks like Myles Turner and adding below-market free agents like Monta Ellis and Rodney Stuckey while maximizing George Hill’s value in a trade for Teague. They’ve since added Jefferson on a cheap contract and traded a late-first rounder for a decent starting PF. 

They haven’t drafted in the top-5 but they continue to hit on picks, make good trades and sign guys who are in the buy-low bin. 

Again, will the Pacers win the title? That’s hard to see. But teams can get to a point where they are very good without "tanking" for a top-3 pick. 

there’s practically no margin for error and you’ve got to be willing to move players for assets before they leave for nothing, which means a lot of hard emotional decisions, but it can be done. 

 Small-market teams need to nail draft picks first and foremost. 

Doesn’t matter what pick you have in the lottery, if you miss, you are screwed. Have to be able to nail those high picks. 

Also have to be able to capitlize on trades. Need to be able to identify when a player has hit his peak and if value is at its peak, trade them for pieces. Have to be good at the buy-low, sell-high type moves. 

Have to be able to supplement built up roster with good FA moves. Mid-market teams will almost never be able to attract superstar franchise piller type players, but if they can sign role players – again in the buy-low bins – they can build up depth and quality. 

Teams I look at that seem to have this kind of model figured out for the msot part – excluding the Spurs – are teams like Indiana and Atlanta. 

Those teams nailed draft picks that weren’t gimmes (top 3-5) and continued to supplement their rosters with good trades, mid first round picks and buy-low veterans. 

Hawks started the their nice little run with getting Joe Johnson in a trade, and he outperformed what the Hawks gave up for him. They hit on Horford. Hit on Josh Smith. Hit on Josh Childress – kind of – and then added vets like Mike Bibby, Kirk Hinrich. They hit on Teague, Schroeder, and they’ve supplemented their roster with buy-low FAs like Korver, Carroll and Bazemore and their big splash was adding Millsap, who was underrated because he was a bench guy. 

They’ve cycled completely through the starting five that got them to the playoffs with Iso Joe and Horford and have continually put out a good team. Probably not a championship contending team, but a very competitive one. 

Pacers are kind of in the same boat althought they’ve maybe been more impressive with the ability to rebuild on the fly. 

When Vogel took over, they had a fast-paced up and down scheme with players that didn’t fit. 

They hit on picks with George (major hit), Hibbert to a degree, Stephenson to a degree and made trades that helped them like getting George Hill and Darren Collison. They supplemented their roster with decent free agency signings like West, Watson, Scola. 

That team hit its ceiling and when Stephenson left, they changed identities on the fly, hitting on picks like Myles Turner and adding below-market free agents like Monta Ellis and Rodney Stuckey while maximizing George Hill’s value in a trade for Teague. They’ve since added Jefferson on a cheap contract and traded a late-first rounder for a decent starting PF. 

They haven’t drafted in the top-5 but they continue to hit on picks, make good trades and sign guys who are in the buy-low bin. 

Again, will the Pacers win the title? That’s hard to see. But teams can get to a point where they are very good without "tanking" for a top-3 pick. 

there’s practically no margin for error and you’ve got to be willing to move players for assets before they leave for nothing, which means a lot of hard emotional decisions, but it can be done. 

Sadly, this sort of thing is not allowed, so all contracts are slightly back-loaded. I think what the last CBA messed up was the change they made to extensions. There is now very little incentive for players to sign them (tbh there never really was) since they just chop off guaranteed years at the end of the contract for a bit more now. If the NBA wants to encourage teams to be able to build up homegrown teams and give smaller markets like OKC a chance, players should be allowed to sign a contract a year in advance for players (like how it is for RFA’s). This would give incumbent teams the ability to offer long-term security to players in a way no other team would, and make sure their stars never hit the market to get wooed by better teams. However, this isn’t actually what the NBA wants. The league benefits from superteams and FA chatter, so we always need to take their talk about parity with a few grains of salt. What the NBA really wants is for super teams to challenge each other, and come from different regions of the country every time.

Also, a team that drafts a good young player gets to keep them for 9 years if they want. 4 years on a rookie deal, plus 5 years as a RFA. If a team cannot build a good team around them after a decade of trying, its fair to say that they blew their chance, it wasnt stolen from them.

Sadly, this sort of thing is not allowed, so all contracts are slightly back-loaded. I think what the last CBA messed up was the change they made to extensions. There is now very little incentive for players to sign them (tbh there never really was) since they just chop off guaranteed years at the end of the contract for a bit more now. If the NBA wants to encourage teams to be able to build up homegrown teams and give smaller markets like OKC a chance, players should be allowed to sign a contract a year in advance for players (like how it is for RFA’s). This would give incumbent teams the ability to offer long-term security to players in a way no other team would, and make sure their stars never hit the market to get wooed by better teams. However, this isn’t actually what the NBA wants. The league benefits from superteams and FA chatter, so we always need to take their talk about parity with a few grains of salt. What the NBA really wants is for super teams to challenge each other, and come from different regions of the country every time.

Also, a team that drafts a good young player gets to keep them for 9 years if they want. 4 years on a rookie deal, plus 5 years as a RFA. If a team cannot build a good team around them after a decade of trying, its fair to say that they blew their chance, it wasnt stolen from them.

Sadly, this sort of thing is not allowed, so all contracts are slightly back-loaded. I think what the last CBA messed up was the change they made to extensions. There is now very little incentive for players to sign them (tbh there never really was) since they just chop off guaranteed years at the end of the contract for a bit more now. If the NBA wants to encourage teams to be able to build up homegrown teams and give smaller markets like OKC a chance, players should be allowed to sign a contract a year in advance for players (like how it is for RFA’s). This would give incumbent teams the ability to offer long-term security to players in a way no other team would, and make sure their stars never hit the market to get wooed by better teams. However, this isn’t actually what the NBA wants. The league benefits from superteams and FA chatter, so we always need to take their talk about parity with a few grains of salt. What the NBA really wants is for super teams to challenge each other, and come from different regions of the country every time.

Also, a team that drafts a good young player gets to keep them for 9 years if they want. 4 years on a rookie deal, plus 5 years as a RFA. If a team cannot build a good team around them after a decade of trying, its fair to say that they blew their chance, it wasnt stolen from them.

 You can only really pay 5 or 6 guys tops. Can’t rely on a Bad Boys type team that goes 10 or 11 deep.

You have to have 2 or 3 MAX guys that FIT. Then 3 or 4 guys payed decent money as glorified role players.

the back end of the bench is filler — cheap MLE guys and players on rookie deals.  

But now, you get your mileage out of your top 2 or 3 guys.  Middling players are getting paid TOO much money for a team to rely on building a "deep, chemistry-dependent" contender.

 You can only really pay 5 or 6 guys tops. Can’t rely on a Bad Boys type team that goes 10 or 11 deep.

You have to have 2 or 3 MAX guys that FIT. Then 3 or 4 guys payed decent money as glorified role players.

the back end of the bench is filler — cheap MLE guys and players on rookie deals.  

But now, you get your mileage out of your top 2 or 3 guys.  Middling players are getting paid TOO much money for a team to rely on building a "deep, chemistry-dependent" contender.

 You can only really pay 5 or 6 guys tops. Can’t rely on a Bad Boys type team that goes 10 or 11 deep.

You have to have 2 or 3 MAX guys that FIT. Then 3 or 4 guys payed decent money as glorified role players.

the back end of the bench is filler — cheap MLE guys and players on rookie deals.  

But now, you get your mileage out of your top 2 or 3 guys.  Middling players are getting paid TOO much money for a team to rely on building a "deep, chemistry-dependent" contender.

 Small market teams need to lose this inferiority complex of being undesirable, because tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 There are top players who’d like to play for San Antonio…. Memphis has been able to hold onto talent…. 

Meanwhile the Lakers can’t get a meeting with Durant. 

What’s the common thread here? Management and culture. No one wants to play for Sacramento because they’d instantly become a laughing stock with no prospect of winning, not because its Sacramento. No one wants to sign with Orlando not because its Central Florida, (which is understandable), but because its in the 6th year of ‘rebuilding’, with another 6 to go probably.  

If small market teams want to compete, they should focus on what they have control over, their management and plan for winning. LA and NYC can have the glitz and drama. The SAs of the league can hang their hat on a brand of unity and winning, similar to a college program. They won’t be able to lure Carmelo Anthony who views location as the top prioirty, but who cares when you can attract the more serious players. 

OKC may have a tougher time than other small market cities, since it’s one of the worst towns in America. But if Presti can continue to draft well, and keep the team focused, they should stay on top. 

 Small market teams need to lose this inferiority complex of being undesirable, because tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 There are top players who’d like to play for San Antonio…. Memphis has been able to hold onto talent…. 

Meanwhile the Lakers can’t get a meeting with Durant. 

What’s the common thread here? Management and culture. No one wants to play for Sacramento because they’d instantly become a laughing stock with no prospect of winning, not because its Sacramento. No one wants to sign with Orlando not because its Central Florida, (which is understandable), but because its in the 6th year of ‘rebuilding’, with another 6 to go probably.  

If small market teams want to compete, they should focus on what they have control over, their management and plan for winning. LA and NYC can have the glitz and drama. The SAs of the league can hang their hat on a brand of unity and winning, similar to a college program. They won’t be able to lure Carmelo Anthony who views location as the top prioirty, but who cares when you can attract the more serious players. 

OKC may have a tougher time than other small market cities, since it’s one of the worst towns in America. But if Presti can continue to draft well, and keep the team focused, they should stay on top. 

 Small market teams need to lose this inferiority complex of being undesirable, because tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 There are top players who’d like to play for San Antonio…. Memphis has been able to hold onto talent…. 

Meanwhile the Lakers can’t get a meeting with Durant. 

What’s the common thread here? Management and culture. No one wants to play for Sacramento because they’d instantly become a laughing stock with no prospect of winning, not because its Sacramento. No one wants to sign with Orlando not because its Central Florida, (which is understandable), but because its in the 6th year of ‘rebuilding’, with another 6 to go probably.  

If small market teams want to compete, they should focus on what they have control over, their management and plan for winning. LA and NYC can have the glitz and drama. The SAs of the league can hang their hat on a brand of unity and winning, similar to a college program. They won’t be able to lure Carmelo Anthony who views location as the top prioirty, but who cares when you can attract the more serious players. 

OKC may have a tougher time than other small market cities, since it’s one of the worst towns in America. But if Presti can continue to draft well, and keep the team focused, they should stay on top. 

Hire Sam Hinkie. I bet he can streamline a tank down to 150 games. In all seriousness Sam will probably get hired again based on his ability to move pieces to gain assets, draft picks and more draft picks, while keeping the cap # low. That is the way of the tank. Maybe he can even disguise it to look like something other than a total tank job. He could call it a Well rebuild…the idea being, when well water becomes contaminated or drys up you have build a new one. Search for ground water, dig a well and hope it fill with a potable product…I should be his agent.

Hire Sam Hinkie. I bet he can streamline a tank down to 150 games. In all seriousness Sam will probably get hired again based on his ability to move pieces to gain assets, draft picks and more draft picks, while keeping the cap # low. That is the way of the tank. Maybe he can even disguise it to look like something other than a total tank job. He could call it a Well rebuild…the idea being, when well water becomes contaminated or drys up you have build a new one. Search for ground water, dig a well and hope it fill with a potable product…I should be his agent.

Hire Sam Hinkie. I bet he can streamline a tank down to 150 games. In all seriousness Sam will probably get hired again based on his ability to move pieces to gain assets, draft picks and more draft picks, while keeping the cap # low. That is the way of the tank. Maybe he can even disguise it to look like something other than a total tank job. He could call it a Well rebuild…the idea being, when well water becomes contaminated or drys up you have build a new one. Search for ground water, dig a well and hope it fill with a potable product…I should be his agent.

Market size matters very little in the current NBA imo. The idea that superstar players want to play in big markets is a outdated myth. Kevin Durant did not leave the thunder because they were a small market team. He left because he felt he had a better chance to win in gs. That is what matters to most superstars. Being in the situation where they feel they have the most talent around them and the best chance to win titles, because ultimately that’s what their legacy will be judged on.

What is there in the current NBA landscape to draw players to so-called major markets? The superstars will get paid max money wherever they go. The current cba actually incentivizes free agents to stay with the team that drafted them, as they have the opportunity to offer the most money and the most years. If you are a true superstar, you are going to endorsements whether you play in la or Minnesota. So it’s obviously not a financial decision. There’s always the idea of mystique and tradition, as if winning in my means more than anywhere else, but most players see past that.

The most successful and consistent sports franchise of the past 25 years, the San Antonio spurs, do not play in what most would consider a major market. If you want a blueprint for how to succeed as a small market franchise, all you would need to do is just copy everything they have done. Of course, it would require a lot of luck and is much easier said than done.

Market size matters very little in the current NBA imo. The idea that superstar players want to play in big markets is a outdated myth. Kevin Durant did not leave the thunder because they were a small market team. He left because he felt he had a better chance to win in gs. That is what matters to most superstars. Being in the situation where they feel they have the most talent around them and the best chance to win titles, because ultimately that’s what their legacy will be judged on.

What is there in the current NBA landscape to draw players to so-called major markets? The superstars will get paid max money wherever they go. The current cba actually incentivizes free agents to stay with the team that drafted them, as they have the opportunity to offer the most money and the most years. If you are a true superstar, you are going to endorsements whether you play in la or Minnesota. So it’s obviously not a financial decision. There’s always the idea of mystique and tradition, as if winning in my means more than anywhere else, but most players see past that.

The most successful and consistent sports franchise of the past 25 years, the San Antonio spurs, do not play in what most would consider a major market. If you want a blueprint for how to succeed as a small market franchise, all you would need to do is just copy everything they have done. Of course, it would require a lot of luck and is much easier said than done.

Market size matters very little in the current NBA imo. The idea that superstar players want to play in big markets is a outdated myth. Kevin Durant did not leave the thunder because they were a small market team. He left because he felt he had a better chance to win in gs. That is what matters to most superstars. Being in the situation where they feel they have the most talent around them and the best chance to win titles, because ultimately that’s what their legacy will be judged on.

What is there in the current NBA landscape to draw players to so-called major markets? The superstars will get paid max money wherever they go. The current cba actually incentivizes free agents to stay with the team that drafted them, as they have the opportunity to offer the most money and the most years. If you are a true superstar, you are going to endorsements whether you play in la or Minnesota. So it’s obviously not a financial decision. There’s always the idea of mystique and tradition, as if winning in my means more than anywhere else, but most players see past that.

The most successful and consistent sports franchise of the past 25 years, the San Antonio spurs, do not play in what most would consider a major market. If you want a blueprint for how to succeed as a small market franchise, all you would need to do is just copy everything they have done. Of course, it would require a lot of luck and is much easier said than done.

 @Dolan teams retaining their own players who have been in the system is the entire key to building for small-market teams. So not sure where you got the idea that there is this notion that they can’t hang onto their own talent. 

Attracting outside talent is an entirely different thing. Very few small market teams build successful teams on the backs of free agency. It can be used to supplement the roster (West in Indy, Millsap in ATL) but Minnesota, Milwaukee, Indiana, you name it, isn’t going to acquire their best player in FA and win anything. 

Thats why drafting and developing is the biggest thing. You have to nail draft picks and those guys have to develop. 

It’s the same thing in baseball where small market teams are never going to go out and sign an ace pitcher. If a team like the Twins or the Oakland A’s is going to have an ace, it’s going to be a guy they identified and brought up through the system. the NBA is different in that there isn’t quite as much crapshoot on finding those superstars but it’s the same principle. Drafting and developing is the key. 

 @Dolan teams retaining their own players who have been in the system is the entire key to building for small-market teams. So not sure where you got the idea that there is this notion that they can’t hang onto their own talent. 

Attracting outside talent is an entirely different thing. Very few small market teams build successful teams on the backs of free agency. It can be used to supplement the roster (West in Indy, Millsap in ATL) but Minnesota, Milwaukee, Indiana, you name it, isn’t going to acquire their best player in FA and win anything. 

Thats why drafting and developing is the biggest thing. You have to nail draft picks and those guys have to develop. 

It’s the same thing in baseball where small market teams are never going to go out and sign an ace pitcher. If a team like the Twins or the Oakland A’s is going to have an ace, it’s going to be a guy they identified and brought up through the system. the NBA is different in that there isn’t quite as much crapshoot on finding those superstars but it’s the same principle. Drafting and developing is the key. 

 @Dolan teams retaining their own players who have been in the system is the entire key to building for small-market teams. So not sure where you got the idea that there is this notion that they can’t hang onto their own talent. 

Attracting outside talent is an entirely different thing. Very few small market teams build successful teams on the backs of free agency. It can be used to supplement the roster (West in Indy, Millsap in ATL) but Minnesota, Milwaukee, Indiana, you name it, isn’t going to acquire their best player in FA and win anything. 

Thats why drafting and developing is the biggest thing. You have to nail draft picks and those guys have to develop. 

It’s the same thing in baseball where small market teams are never going to go out and sign an ace pitcher. If a team like the Twins or the Oakland A’s is going to have an ace, it’s going to be a guy they identified and brought up through the system. the NBA is different in that there isn’t quite as much crapshoot on finding those superstars but it’s the same principle. Drafting and developing is the key. 

 @Dazzling – I agree and disagree with your post to a varying degrees. 

I’ll agree that market size doesn’t matter AS MUCH as it did and stars can market anywhere. I’ll also agree that they want to win. 

But stars want to win on their terms. 

If MN and L.A are close to similar, stars aren’t going to MN. It just isn’t happening. I love MN. Lived here all my life, and I think I’d hate L.A., but the perception is that MN is the tundra and guys won’t come here unless it is by far the best option both financially and competitively. 

Using the Spurs as an example of a small market team attracting players doesnt make a whole lot of sense because the only "star" they’ve ever poached that I can remember was just last year with Aldridge. 

They’ve never gone out and signed a guy who would be their best player. 

They’ve been successful because they’ve mastered the draft and develop – and they got a Hall of Fame 7 footer and coach – while plugging in players perfectly into their system. 

That’s what the small-market teams have to do. They aren’t drawing superstars to their teams, they have to draft one and build around them the best they can. 

 @Dazzling – I agree and disagree with your post to a varying degrees. 

I’ll agree that market size doesn’t matter AS MUCH as it did and stars can market anywhere. I’ll also agree that they want to win. 

But stars want to win on their terms. 

If MN and L.A are close to similar, stars aren’t going to MN. It just isn’t happening. I love MN. Lived here all my life, and I think I’d hate L.A., but the perception is that MN is the tundra and guys won’t come here unless it is by far the best option both financially and competitively. 

Using the Spurs as an example of a small market team attracting players doesnt make a whole lot of sense because the only "star" they’ve ever poached that I can remember was just last year with Aldridge. 

They’ve never gone out and signed a guy who would be their best player. 

They’ve been successful because they’ve mastered the draft and develop – and they got a Hall of Fame 7 footer and coach – while plugging in players perfectly into their system. 

That’s what the small-market teams have to do. They aren’t drawing superstars to their teams, they have to draft one and build around them the best they can. 

 @Dazzling – I agree and disagree with your post to a varying degrees. 

I’ll agree that market size doesn’t matter AS MUCH as it did and stars can market anywhere. I’ll also agree that they want to win. 

But stars want to win on their terms. 

If MN and L.A are close to similar, stars aren’t going to MN. It just isn’t happening. I love MN. Lived here all my life, and I think I’d hate L.A., but the perception is that MN is the tundra and guys won’t come here unless it is by far the best option both financially and competitively. 

Using the Spurs as an example of a small market team attracting players doesnt make a whole lot of sense because the only "star" they’ve ever poached that I can remember was just last year with Aldridge. 

They’ve never gone out and signed a guy who would be their best player. 

They’ve been successful because they’ve mastered the draft and develop – and they got a Hall of Fame 7 footer and coach – while plugging in players perfectly into their system. 

That’s what the small-market teams have to do. They aren’t drawing superstars to their teams, they have to draft one and build around them the best they can.