| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5360
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
 Posted: 02/08/14 12:30 am ::: Expansion and Mr. Lacob |
Reply  |
|
| Expansion of the W is a touchy subject here I know. Some feel its idiotic to think of expansion at this stage of the league, instead we should be praying that it doesn't contract. Others are all for any expansion, especially if it gets a team in or near their hometown. Some, like me, welcome expansion when it is financially viable, the potential owners vetted to the best of the leagues ability, the area has the potentially to successfully support a franchise. That being said, I think Lacob would make a great owner. From articles and SOME posts here, Oakland seems to be a viable locale for a team. The rub is to keep the league even, they would have to bring in another team at the same time or am I mistaken about that? |
|
FS02
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 9699
Location: Husky (west coast) Country
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/08/14 12:59 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| I think when you have a good owner in a good market you have to do it. That just makes business sense, but who in the east is going to step up to balance it when Mr. Lacob gets a team?
_________________
@dtmears2
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63769
Back to top |
|
SpaceJunkie
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 4241
Location: Minnesota
Back to top |
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/08/14 1:59 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| hyperetic wrote: |
| Expansion of the W is a touchy subject here I know. Some feel its idiotic to think of expansion at this stage of the league, instead we should be praying that it doesn't contract. Others are all for any expansion, especially if it gets a team in or near their hometown. Some, like me, welcome expansion when it is financially viable, the potential owners vetted to the best of the leagues ability, the area has the potentially to successfully support a franchise. That being said, I think Lacob would make a great owner. From articles and SOME posts here, Oakland seems to be a viable locale for a team. The rub is to keep the league even, they would have to bring in another team at the same time or am I mistaken about that? |
I've never really thought about it, i mean it would be better if things were even 6 and 6, 7 and 7 or whatever the case maybe, but if it were 6 and 7 would that really have that much of an impact on the league, sure the schedules would be a bit off, probably take a bit work creating them, but I don't see it as being that important to have an even number of teams.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9617
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/08/14 7:01 am ::: Re: Expansion and Mr. Lacob |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
| Some feel its idiotic to think of expansion at this stage of the league, instead we should be praying that it doesn't contract. |
To me most, if not all, of the talk against expansion was with regard to a feeling that there were not enough talented players to support a 13 or 14 team league.
| hyperetic wrote: |
| The rub is to keep the league even, they would have to bring in another team at the same time or am I mistaken about that? |
By my calculations the league has had an odd number of teams for 4 different years (2004,2005,2007,2009). Each time it was 13 teams but each time they reached 13 due to contraction, not expansion.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63769
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/08/14 9:36 am ::: Re: Expansion and Mr. Lacob |
Reply |
|
| hyperetic wrote: |
| The rub is to keep the league even, they would have to bring in another team at the same time or am I mistaken about that? |
It would be nice to bring in two teams at the same time to keep things even. The trouble with that is every team would be losing two of their better bench players all at once.
Using the Lynx for an example, if you kept the protect list at 6 (and therefore these new teams would be very noncompetitive), they would be losing Dev Peters for sure plus one of either Rachel Jarry or Lindsey Moore (or Amber Harris if she was still around). I just killed most of my point bringing Harris into the equation. I guess the Lynx could swallow that loss without too much pain.
Let's do it! Let's expand the league to 14!
If the league were expand to 14, would the total number of games each team played also rise from 34?
It's weird how quickly talk went from "the sky is falling" (the league is folding) to expanding the league.
Lacob most likely be the backup plan if another club is poorly managed or cannot sustain any further losses. ATL, are vou next? Where's your jersey deal because I know you're not cutting it at the gate.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11146
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/08/14 11:41 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Though I don't think expanding the roster to 12 is all that important, I am hopeful it happens because every year there are a few times that teams wind up without enough players.
And if you think about it, that's really adding an expansion team because 12 more players have jobs. That also would make it easier to expand down the road, because a couple of those 12 would probably develop unexpectedly over a couple years, and there would be a little more depth when it came time for an expansion draft.
But really, who would want to start a new team now given the draft rules?
Rough guesses for the six protected (ignoring free agency):
Atlanta: Le'Coe Willingham, Aneika Henry, Alex Bennett
Chicago: Shay Murphy, Carolyn Swords, Avery Warley, Allie Quigley (or you could keep one of those and not protect Swin Cash)
Connecticut: Kalana Greene, Iziane Castro Marquez, Kayla Pedersen
Indiana: Katie Douglas, Erin Phillips (or Layshia Clarendon), Karima Christmas
New York: Leilani Mitchell, Alex Montgomery, Toni Young
Washington: Monique Currie, Michelle Snow, Nadira McKenith
Los Angeles: A'dia Mathies, Marissa Coleman
Minnesota: Monica Wright, Devereaux Peters
Phoenix: Charde Houston, Brianna Gilbreath, Krystal Thomas
San Antonio: Davellyn Whyte, Shameka Christon, Shenise Johnson
Seattle: Alysha Clark, Tianna Hawkins
Tulsa: Nicole Powell (or Candice Wiggins), Riquna Williams, Jennifer Lacy, Roneeka Hodges
Obviously, there are different ways teams could go, and I'm sure I've made some dumb mistakes, so this list is far from definitive. And you could patch together a decent starting five that might have an outside shot at winning 15 games, but depth would be non-existent, and the odds of all the pieces fitting are pretty low. (And of course some players would retire if forced to go to an expansion team, so Seattle might not protect LJ and Bird, and San Antonio might not protect Hammon, watering down the pool even further.)
So do you, as prospective owner, want to lose $1 million a year to watch that group play?
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/08/14 12:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
Though I don't think expanding the roster to 12 is all that important, I am hopeful it happens because every year there are a few times that teams wind up without enough players.
And if you think about it, that's really adding an expansion team because 12 more players have jobs. That also would make it easier to expand down the road, because a couple of those 12 would probably develop unexpectedly over a couple years, and there would be a little more depth when it came time for an expansion draft.
But really, who would want to start a new team now given the draft rules?
Rough guesses for the six protected (ignoring free agency):
Atlanta: Le'Coe Willingham, Aneika Henry, Alex Bennett
Chicago: Shay Murphy, Carolyn Swords, Avery Warley, Allie Quigley (or you could keep one of those and not protect Swin Cash)
Connecticut: Kalana Greene, Iziane Castro Marquez, Kayla Pedersen
Indiana: Katie Douglas, Erin Phillips (or Layshia Clarendon), Karima Christmas
New York: Leilani Mitchell, Alex Montgomery, Toni Young
Washington: Monique Currie, Michelle Snow, Nadira McKenith
Los Angeles: A'dia Mathies, Marissa Coleman
Minnesota: Monica Wright, Devereaux Peters
Phoenix: Charde Houston, Brianna Gilbreath, Krystal Thomas
San Antonio: Davellyn Whyte, Shameka Christon, Shenise Johnson
Seattle: Alysha Clark, Tianna Hawkins
Tulsa: Nicole Powell (or Candice Wiggins), Riquna Williams, Jennifer Lacy, Roneeka Hodges
Obviously, there are different ways teams could go, and I'm sure I've made some dumb mistakes, so this list is far from definitive. And you could patch together a decent starting five that might have an outside shot at winning 15 games, but depth would be non-existent, and the odds of all the pieces fitting are pretty low. (And of course some players would retire if forced to go to an expansion team, so Seattle might not protect LJ and Bird, and San Antonio might not protect Hammon, watering down the pool even further.)
So do you, as prospective owner, want to lose $1 million a year to watch that group play? |
My picks in bold. Though I could see changing some of them. Maybe we should start a fantasy expansion league.....  BTW - don't see Tulsa not protecting Williams.
|
|
Angus24
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 686
Location: South Dakota
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/08/14 12:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| If Lacob wants a team the WNBA is crazy not to go for it. How often do you find a guy with all the financing and machinery in place to start and run a new team. The odd number of teams has happened before and should not be even a minor factor in the decision. Who knows when one of the existing teams will fail? As others have pointed out the Bay Area should be ideal. If California cannot support two teams they should be disconnected from the mainland and shoved out in the Pacific to form a new island. I think there is plenty of talent to support another team.Look how many teams now have a player on the bench who is qualified to be a starter. I for one, cannot think of any really valid reason for not giving Lacob a team in Bay area.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63769
Back to top |
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22474
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/08/14 12:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| let's all remember that the league was once at 16 teams when the talent level was lower. Some players that started on teams from 2000-2002 might not even make a roster today. I'd feel perfectly content if the league opted to expand to 14 teams for 2015. And with the possibilty of rosters expanding to 12 players, we'd have 168 players on rosters in 2015 compared to just 132 in 2013(+36).
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9617
Back to top |
|
bullsky
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 20310
Back to top |
|
Angus24
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 686
Location: South Dakota
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/08/14 9:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Maybe that big drop in viewers 2011-2012 on ESPN2 was simply due to availability of Live Access.
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5360
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/09/14 5:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Whatever happened to striking while the iron is hot? Nothing in business is 100% worry-free. Were I the powers that be, after sufficiently vetting Lacob, his organization, facilities, financials, etc. and it panned out, I wouldn't hesitate on awarding him a franchise. I know its not that simple and much more to consider but i don't see any serious roadblocks with him. |
|
sammieee
Joined: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 608
Back to top |
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/10/14 5:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
With those possibilities in bold up there and a lottery pick, I think a scrappy team could provide a decent on-court product, and an excellent fan-interaction one. I don't mind bringing one more team in, with the strike while the iron is hot mentality.
But I think that depends on Lacob. If he wants to concentrate on the new arena first, maybe we spend that time (couple of years?) seeing if any teams needs to relocate, or if Colorado figures their stuff out, and expand by one (if relocate) or two and reshuffle the conferences. If he wants a team now, give him one.
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63769
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/12/17 1:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/12/purdy-joe-lacob-lost-10-million-on-his-first-basketball-investment-and-has-no-regrets/
| Quote: |
So then what about a WNBA team in the Bay Area’s future? Lacob said he and league officials have talked.
“They would like us to have a WNBA team,” Lacob said. “And I would like to have one, too. We just have a few tasks that we’re dealing with right now, building an arena. But I think ultimately we will have one here . . . I think it’s inevitable. We would have done it earlier except there was a lot to do to turn this team around in the first few years. It’s something we could see in the future.” |
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5360
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/12/17 2:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/12/purdy-joe-lacob-lost-10-million-on-his-first-basketball-investment-and-has-no-regrets/
| Quote: |
So then what about a WNBA team in the Bay Area’s future? Lacob said he and league officials have talked.
“They would like us to have a WNBA team,” Lacob said. “And I would like to have one, too. We just have a few tasks that we’re dealing with right now, building an arena. But I think ultimately we will have one here . . . I think it’s inevitable. We would have done it earlier except there was a lot to do to turn this team around in the first few years. It’s something we could see in the future.” |
|
 |
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22474
Location: NJ
Back to top |
|
|
|
)