Although all 30 NBA governors voted this week to formally explore the possibility of expanding to Seattle and Las Vegas, there are at least two or three owners who have concerns about the financial aspect and aren’t thrilled by the idea of adding two new expansion teams, writes Howard Beck of The Ringer. According to Beck, there are also several front office executives who view expansion as being solely financially motivated and are skeptical about whether it’s a good idea from a basketball perspective.
“Is (expansion) good? I would say no,” one executive from a playoff team told Beck. “I look at some of these rosters and can say some teams have at least one, if not two, players that shouldn’t be in the NBA. There should be a concern about dilution of talent. The two new teams are going to be really bad for a while. Add to it that good players are staying in college for the paydays they are getting (via NIL), and there is even less talent available.”
As Beck notes within his story, the NBA’s decision to approve an “exploration” of expansion is something of a hedge, giving the league an out if the process doesn’t go as planned. For instance, while team owners would surely feel comfortable moving forward with expansion if it can extract fees in the $8-10 billion range for two new franchises, many of those same owners would be less enthusiastic if the bids topped out at, say, $5 billion.
Beck also wonders if the NBA might be willing to turn away from either Seattle or Las Vegas if a prospective ownership group from another city came through with a massive bid, given that the process appears to be driven by money. However, one executive he spoke to predicted that Seattle and Vegas would be “better markets than some we already have.”
We have more odds and ends from around the basketball world:
- With the Sweet 16 games set to tip off in a matter of hours, Sam Vecenie of The Athletic shares his thoughts on how the NCAA tournament has impacted his perception of several of this year’s top draft prospects, Jonathan Wasserman of Bleacher Report updates his 2026 mock draft, and Kevin O’Connor of Yahoo Sports and Brett Siegel of ClutchPoints each identify four players – one from each region – whom they’ll be watching on Thursday and Friday.
- Arguing that a single Coach of the Year award isn’t sufficient to recognize the exceptional performances in the NBA’s head coaching ranks, Kelly Iko of Yahoo Sports introduces his “All-Coaching team,” headlined by J.B. Bickerstaff of the Pistons, Mitch Johnson of the Spurs, and Joe Mazzulla of the Celtics.
- Elsewhere on the made-up-award front, Fred Katz of The Athletic unveils the 10 players who made his All-Surprise first and second teams this season. The first team consists of Pistons center Jalen Duren, Hawks guard Nickeil Alexander-Walker, Cavaliers wing Jaylon Tyson, Thunder guard Ajay Mitchell, and Celtics center Neemias Queta.
Nobody is forking over 8-10 billion for a new franchise lol. Why wouldn’t they just wait to buy an existing team with existing deals in place if it costs the same?
Exactly..These new expansion owners aren’t buying the Celtics or the Lakers, or even the Suns or Trailblazers. They have to start from scratch to build a brand, rosters and organizational success so why would you pay 8-10 bil, what those teams sold for just a couple years earlier?? Blatant money grab by the NBA if obviously, but it’s good to hear a few executives are already lampooning it 😂 I think Seattle makes sense, but Vegas is a reach imo; didn’t LeBron speak this into existence? Smh
The ego to be the one that builds the franchise from the start is what will drive the sale. These are almost all group sales now like NFL Broncos and Washington.
Seattle is for sure getting a team but Seahawks are also for sale. The groups that look have options.
@ Ancient
Totally. Seattle already has the history, the fan base, and a brand that’s still marketable to this day even though they don’t even exist, so I’d tend to agree it’s a much easier sell, maybe an inevitability, a lot like Charlotte back in ‘04. Easier even since OKC never even took the Sonics name I would think like NO did b4 the Pelicans rebrand
WA_BON … are you then predicting there will be no expansion from 30 to 32? That seems unlikely, no?
31 teams isn’t out of the question as Silver said in his presser yesterday or whenever that was..will the money be there? Or will enough money be there really?? Seattle is a natural fit, in a lot of ways, but I’m skeptical the NBA can get 8-10 billion for a completely fresh franchise in LV unless you have a splashy face like LeBron attached to add value instantly
Not at all. Expansion is happening. But you’re not getting 8-10 billion. I’d guess 7 billion max for the Sonics as you’re acquiring the existing branding and “history”. Can’t imagine the Vegas teams gets you more than 5/6 billion UNLESS they have an exclusive agreement for something like the in season tournament or Summer League. I don’t see existing owners being okay with such an agreement.
Then folks’ thinking is there will be no expansion, right??
Both Seattle and Vegas will have expansion teams which will begin play in the autumn of 2027. The price to be paid for those franchises may not approach some of the numbers being bandied about, but does anyone really believe there will not be two new expansion teams in 2027?
Anyone? … Anyone? … Buehler?
I don’t think that’s possible realistically..that’s way too fast. 2028-29 would be way more doable and I believe that’s the target date as of rn
Don’t count out the Flint Tropics just yet.
Anthony: Both cities have arenas that are well appointed, but perhaps you’re right. I just read something from a usually reliable local fan page which fairly directly implies that 27-28 would be the first for these expansion teams. Time will tell if and how two teams will be added. :)
Is that in/near Seattle? The local news source I mean? I think Seattle could do it earlier because they have a name, brand, arena, and history and general fan base set up and ready in an uber wealthy area; idk if the owners want it enough to grease the wheels and do it fast enough
; it’s a lot of voting, vetting, bidding and voting again and again to get done in not many months
Is the league having a expansion draft like the WNBA? Imagine having a contract and you’re forced to leave where you’ve set up your life without the team or player wanting to leave. Where’s this players association on this? Do those players get a little bonus cash bump or just the owners get richer for agreeing to said expansion?
Eventually if there’s a new team; but im not really sure how or when the union gets involved tbh
That’s how all the leagues have always done it. Do you have a better way.
Except the team chooses which contracts to protect from the expansion draft meaning the team is at the very least okay with you leaving over 8 other guys. Don’t really see how it differs from being traded?
Really. I’ll do Boston because I’m most familiar. Queta, Hugo Gonzalez or Walsh gone. Maybe even two of them. So we find or draft guys like this and turn them into rotation pieces who contribute to winning on team friendly contracts, which is vital to success with this CBA.Just so some less competent ball club can take them. I wouldn’t care if I was a kings fan but I’m not. Even add Hauser. He doesn’t want to leave and Boston don’t want him to leave. How is that the same as being traded?
The dilution of talent argument is negligible, if not entirely untrue.
There would be more good players if there were more good organizations. You can’t tell me that the Washington wizards just didn’t land a single good role player in 35 years.
If you don’t have a vision and a system in place, every player is going to try and pad their stats in order to maximize their next paycheck. But if you do have a system in place then you can tell player X that he’s being valued on his contributions on the parameters that you’re looking for him to fulfill in his role. This is why Julian Champagne is about to make much more money on his next contract instead of the situation that his twin brother is dealing with.
Ultimately, what this anonymous coward GM (my bet Knicks GM) had subtextually expressed is his fear of greater competition in the long-term.
More teams means more games and more people that can attend those games. Yes the teams will be bad for a little bit, but it didn’t take Oklahoma or the Spurs very long to become very good. However, it seems like these new tanking rules might make it impossible for these new teams to ever become good. I really hate the suggested rule in which a team can’t draft top 4 the year after a year.
People want to see competitive teams, not teams that are mediocre and don’t know whether to tank or go for a playoff run. Everything is fine as it is right now I enjoy trading during live games on whether the nets will lose by over/under 30.5, depending on how many minutes it seems like the coach will give Ben Saraf, who plays exactly like the next Ginobili by the way.
Such a weird time in the economic cycle to announce this…
Euro NBA I understand… As their economy will be recovering by then…