Cuban would have to leave Dallas.
***Official 2023 - 2024 Dallas Mavericks Season Thread***
321,364 Views |
5852 Replies |
Last: 6 mo ago by M.C. Swag
Because the NBA isn't a national product, it's a local product. As much as they like to pretend they're the NFL, they're not. Local viewership is substantially more important to NBA teams and moving a successful franchise from one of the largest local viewing platforms to one of the smallest is frankly terrible business.ChoppinDs40 said:M.C. Swag said:T dizl televizl said:
I actually thought about this the other day. All along I've thought the new owners must have some inside knowledge about legalized gambling in Texas coming soon, but what if they don't care about keeping the team here and just move them?
Seems far fetched based on the size of Dallas and the good support they have, but who knows.
0 chance they move from the 5th largest media market to the 40th. Especially since Dallas has had consistent fan support the last 25 years. It would be a step down in every category to re locate to Vegas.
Why would they care about media market? Butts in seats and gambling will thwart any local tv media deal.
"Butts in seats" is exactly what the Mavericks have been doing for decades. They're in the top 5 attendance of all NBA franchises annually. And they're matching that in TV eyeballs as well. This year the Mavs had the 6th most 'live' viewers in the league (only behind Lakers, Warriors, Celtics, Clippers, and Suns....aka bigger media markets). THAT is why they aren't moving out of Dallas. Bigger market = bigger audience = bigger profits.
And the days of gambling belonging only to Vegas is quickly dying. Texas will surely be a stalwart in holding out as long as possible, but people only need an internet connection to sports bet.
Also forgot to add that if the Adelsons bought the Mavs with the intent to move them, i don't think they'd be buying up acres of undeveloped land in Dallas and Irving.
I agree that there is very little chance the Mavs are leaving. But I just looked at the TV rights deals for the NFL and NBA and they are actually closer than what I would have thought. NFL is 110 Billion over 11 years and the new NBA deal is 76 Billion over 11 years.
And I wonder how much the Mavs are getting from their local TV deals these days. With the Bally's disaster and many games getting played over the air this season, I wonder if the local TV market deals are drying up? I honestly have no clue.
And I wonder how much the Mavs are getting from their local TV deals these days. With the Bally's disaster and many games getting played over the air this season, I wonder if the local TV market deals are drying up? I honestly have no clue.
Idk if anyone would consider 44% more money as "close."
All the news articles I've seen about local tv deals are pretty outdated (2017ish), but they vary widely from market to market. An article by ESPN in 2017 says the lakers made more than $100m annually from their tv deals (almost enough to offset their entire payroll). Source: A confidential report shows nearly half the NBA lost money last season. Now what?
I have no idea how the local landscape has changed, but I would confidently say that a team operating in a larger media market (aka more live viewership) is making more money than teams in a smaller market. So whether Dallas' local tv deal has gone up or gone down, I don't think it would be wrong to assume it would still dwarf whatever local tv deal could be signed in Las Vegas.
The only figures I could find about the Mavs said their annual $20m local tv deal ended in 2018 and with the recent bally/WFAA shakeup, it doesn't seem like anyone has any idea what the Mavs current local tv revenue is.
I have no idea how the local landscape has changed, but I would confidently say that a team operating in a larger media market (aka more live viewership) is making more money than teams in a smaller market. So whether Dallas' local tv deal has gone up or gone down, I don't think it would be wrong to assume it would still dwarf whatever local tv deal could be signed in Las Vegas.
The only figures I could find about the Mavs said their annual $20m local tv deal ended in 2018 and with the recent bally/WFAA shakeup, it doesn't seem like anyone has any idea what the Mavs current local tv revenue is.
ChoppinDs40 said:Iowaggie said:jeffdjohnson said:
The NBA needs to address the East/West imbalance. There are like 5 contenders in the West and only 1 in the East. It has been like this for seemingly 2 decades. Balance the schedules and let the top 16 teams face off, teams have travel down to a science at this point. It's not like the old days.
Truth since the origins of Texags (and before). The Southwest division could be really strong for a number of years, and the bottom of the EC will help inflate the EC top team records.
An NBA expansion to Seattle and Vegas would mean two "weaker" teams to the West, depending on the expansion draft and FA cap rules, and it would also send either Minnesota, Memphis or NO to the East, but that is pretty insignificant.
By expansion, you mean the Mavs getting moved to Vegas because gambling won't pass in Texas. Won't that just be swell.
Expansion, not relocation. A 32-team league.
Dallas would not be in the top 20 of relocation candidates anyway: New Orleans, Memphis and Charlotte would probably be 3 of the top candidates for a relocation.
Every "report" I've heard on expansion is that it will happen after the signing of the newest media rights deal so that the teams know how much they would be losing by slicing the pie up into 32 parts for the teams instead of 30.
(So for the bored, figure out how to do 8 divisions of 4 teams or 4 divisions of 8 teams)
(For the really bored, pt 2: figure out what 6-8 players would be protected in an expansion draft, if it were to happen this year-even though it is not).
Think there's a misperception by some that gambling revenue from a team being associated with a casino would be relevant to the NBA. I don't think casino revenues would ultimately have anything to do with the NBA, which leaves owners to only consider the revenue share derived from basketball operations (tickets, apparel, TV), which makes Dallas a much more appealing location for a team than Vegas.
I'm not sure why that would be the case, unless the new tv rights deal included the potential revenue generated by 2 additional teams. The teams would be getting hosed by a TV deal that is for 30 teams that is split 32 ways until the next deal.Iowaggie said:ChoppinDs40 said:Iowaggie said:jeffdjohnson said:
The NBA needs to address the East/West imbalance. There are like 5 contenders in the West and only 1 in the East. It has been like this for seemingly 2 decades. Balance the schedules and let the top 16 teams face off, teams have travel down to a science at this point. It's not like the old days.
Truth since the origins of Texags (and before). The Southwest division could be really strong for a number of years, and the bottom of the EC will help inflate the EC top team records.
An NBA expansion to Seattle and Vegas would mean two "weaker" teams to the West, depending on the expansion draft and FA cap rules, and it would also send either Minnesota, Memphis or NO to the East, but that is pretty insignificant.
By expansion, you mean the Mavs getting moved to Vegas because gambling won't pass in Texas. Won't that just be swell.
Expansion, not relocation. A 32-team league.
Dallas would not be in the top 20 of relocation candidates anyway: New Orleans, Memphis and Charlotte would probably be 3 of the top candidates for a relocation.
Every "report" I've heard on expansion is that it will happen after the signing of the newest media rights deal so that the teams know how much they would be losing by slicing the pie up into 32 parts for the teams instead of 30.
(So for the bored, figure out how to do 8 divisions of 4 teams or 4 divisions of 8 teams)
(For the really bored, pt 2: figure out what 6-8 players would be protected in an expansion draft, if it were to happen this year-even though it is not).
Agree that any talk about Dallas being on the move is ridiculous. It's only been about 30 years since we took a hockey team from a northern state that borders Canada. Can't be stressed how wild that is and shows how desirable the Dallas market is to people who want to make money. The Mavs aren't in bad shape in terms of fan support or in terms of an arena home like the Coyotes had been for going on a decade. The Mavs have some of the best attendance for games and, at worst, have a home at the AAC and, at best, will get a new arena very soon.
Alex Caruso being traded to the Thunder for Josh Giddey. That sucks on multiple levels
Holy crap. Presti continues to fleece the rest of the league.... Great job by Chicago to be terrible next year and be top contenders for Cooper Flagg.FTAco07 said:
Alex Caruso being traded to the Thunder for Josh Giddey. That sucks on multiple levels
FTAco07 said:
Alex Caruso being traded to the Thunder for Josh Giddey. That sucks on multiple levels
Well that is definitely a team I did not want Caruso to end up on
worst news since we lost the ship
Maybe they'd take THJ for Lonzo
shack009 said:
Maybe they'd take THJ for Lonzo
Gimme THJ for Lavine
HawthornAggie said:shack009 said:
Maybe they'd take THJ for Lonzo
Gimme THJ for Lavine
Want no part of Lavine. If Kyrie wasn't already on the team then I could talk myself in to it. Bad fit for us right now.
I think the thinking would be that if the next TV deal is $76 billion for 11 years, or $7 billion/year. Divided among 30 teams, that is $233.3 mm/team/year (although the league probably gets a share). Dividing among 32 teams would be about $219 mm/team per year.
So they could easily justify part of the expansion fee of $14.3 mm * 11 years * 30 teams == $4.7 bn on lost revenue. I'm guessing that to get into the conversation for an expansion team, some potential owner will need to bring at least $5 billion to the table, just to make up for that lost TV revenue. Probably closer to $6 bn.
I also wouldn't be surprised if part of the TV deal discussions included an increase in the inventory of games with the additional teams added.
So they could easily justify part of the expansion fee of $14.3 mm * 11 years * 30 teams == $4.7 bn on lost revenue. I'm guessing that to get into the conversation for an expansion team, some potential owner will need to bring at least $5 billion to the table, just to make up for that lost TV revenue. Probably closer to $6 bn.
I also wouldn't be surprised if part of the TV deal discussions included an increase in the inventory of games with the additional teams added.
Random end-of-season tidbit, but I didn't realize Spencer Dinwiddie only put up 6.8 pts/game while averaging 24 mins during his time with the Lakers. Did hit about 39% of his threes, but still, what a terrible decision in hindsight. Especially after trashing the Mavs and calling them soft or whatever he said.
I remember there being a pretty lengthy discussion about him on this thread back in February and how disappointed I was that he didn't sign with Dallas after he got bought out. Definitely don't think he would have put us over the top or anything like that, but surely he could've gotten Luka and Kyrie more rest along the way and maybe made things against the Celtics more interesting. Oh well. On to the next one.
I remember there being a pretty lengthy discussion about him on this thread back in February and how disappointed I was that he didn't sign with Dallas after he got bought out. Definitely don't think he would have put us over the top or anything like that, but surely he could've gotten Luka and Kyrie more rest along the way and maybe made things against the Celtics more interesting. Oh well. On to the next one.
Marc Stein rumor
A full potential trade construction has not yet emerged, but league sources say there have been scenarios discussed in which Quentin Grimes would land in Dallas.
— Marc Stein (@TheSteinLine) June 25, 2024
More NBA from me: https://t.co/A6ycVmnrjq https://t.co/Kol90DMmmB
in my mind grimes for thj straight up. yes pls
Iowaggie said:
Marc Stein rumorA full potential trade construction has not yet emerged, but league sources say there have been scenarios discussed in which Quentin Grimes would land in Dallas.
— Marc Stein (@TheSteinLine) June 25, 2024
More NBA from me: https://t.co/A6ycVmnrjq https://t.co/Kol90DMmmB
Free agents are avoiding Detroit so much they have to trade for THJ
Weird trade.Iowaggie said:
Marc Stein rumorA full potential trade construction has not yet emerged, but league sources say there have been scenarios discussed in which Quentin Grimes would land in Dallas.
— Marc Stein (@TheSteinLine) June 25, 2024
More NBA from me: https://t.co/A6ycVmnrjq https://t.co/Kol90DMmmB
Grimes is in that 'nebulous' zone where he's too good to be traded for just a SRP but not quite good enough to warrant a FRP. I feel like Detroit simply taking THJ's salary off our books alone is compensation enough, but to also net Grimes in return would have me guessing we're tossing in Green.
If we are tossing in Green then they better be tossing in Ausar.M.C. Swag said:Weird trade.Iowaggie said:
Marc Stein rumorA full potential trade construction has not yet emerged, but league sources say there have been scenarios discussed in which Quentin Grimes would land in Dallas.
— Marc Stein (@TheSteinLine) June 25, 2024
More NBA from me: https://t.co/A6ycVmnrjq https://t.co/Kol90DMmmB
Grimes is in that 'nebulous' zone where he's too good to be traded for just a SRP but not quite good enough to warrant a FRP. I feel like Detroit simply taking THJ's salary off our books alone is compensation enough, but to also net Grimes in return would have me guessing we're tossing in Green.
But seriously, if we are trading both THJ and Josh Green then there is a $25 million wing out there that we think we are landing. I don't think they want to trade Josh Green, though.
I'm not a huge Grimes fan, but he's not worse than THJ and he's $12 million less this year than THJ, so it's a decent roster move.
Tough to make any assumptions without knowing what they want to do with DJJ. His market value is completely unknown. Could be $12m/yr or $20m/yr lolshack009 said:If we are tossing in Green then they better be tossing in Ausar.M.C. Swag said:Weird trade.Iowaggie said:
Marc Stein rumorA full potential trade construction has not yet emerged, but league sources say there have been scenarios discussed in which Quentin Grimes would land in Dallas.
— Marc Stein (@TheSteinLine) June 25, 2024
More NBA from me: https://t.co/A6ycVmnrjq https://t.co/Kol90DMmmB
Grimes is in that 'nebulous' zone where he's too good to be traded for just a SRP but not quite good enough to warrant a FRP. I feel like Detroit simply taking THJ's salary off our books alone is compensation enough, but to also net Grimes in return would have me guessing we're tossing in Green.
But seriously, if we are trading both THJ and Josh Green then there is a $25 million wing out there that we think we are landing. I don't think they want to trade Josh Green, though.
I'm not a huge Grimes fan, but he's not worse than THJ and he's $12 million less this year than THJ, so it's a decent roster move.
Who the heck is Quentin Grimes?
Mrs. Grimes' son.
Logic checks out
Lol a young 3&D wing who ironically was drafted by the Knicks with the first Mavs pick from the KP trade.HawthornAggie said:
Who the heck is Quentin Grimes?
Pistons hiring Dennis Lindsey from our FO.
Brooklyn all in on being terrible this year. What else would we have to add in a THJ for Cam Johnson trade?
shack009 said:
Brooklyn all in on being terrible this year. What else would we have to add in a THJ for Cam Johnson trade?
Got to find a way to get a draft pick that interests them.
The 2031 1st? I like Cam, but not sure I'd want to give up a first, but maybe that's the price of doing business.
Obviously Brooklyn would want to extract as much as possible, but is that realistic? Cam is solid, but is it worth it to give up a 1st for a 5th best player type?
Probably want to hold on to those firsts for a bit higher of a ceiling.
Obviously Brooklyn would want to extract as much as possible, but is that realistic? Cam is solid, but is it worth it to give up a 1st for a 5th best player type?
Probably want to hold on to those firsts for a bit higher of a ceiling.
I didn't want Reed Sheppard on Houston or San Antonio and it looks like that is probably going to happen. Don't think he'll be some dominant player but just hate playing against guys who can make 8 3s in a game and always worry you from distance.
If Houston takes Clingan for some reason, I think Reed may drop to Detroit at 5 .shack009 said:
I didn't want Reed Sheppard on Houston or San Antonio and it looks like that is probably going to happen. Don't think he'll be some dominant player but just hate playing against guys who can make 8 3s in a game and always worry you from distance.
Who do you think y'all take? Castle?
Yeah, I think Houston takes Reed, then we take Castle. I had Castle #1 on my board for the Spurs.shack009 said:
Who do you think y'all take? Castle?