Rich get richer and poor get poorer

It's not competitive?

Outside of the Knicks, Grizzlies and Bobcats every single team in the league has been to the second round or farther this decade. A super majority of the league has been there in the last five years.

Since 2001, the East has seen the Bucks, 76ers, Nets, Celtics, Pistons, Pacers, Heat, Cavaliers, and Magic appear in the Conference Finals. The West has seen the Lakers, Spurs, Kings, Mavericks, Timberwolves, Suns, Jazz, and Nuggets appear. Half of each conference has been in the Conference Finals in the last decade. The East has seen nine different teams in nine years, the West has seen eight in nine years. Go back a year earlier and you can add the Knicks and Blazers. Why did the Lakers and Spurs win so many titles? Because outside of the Pacers in 2000, and The Perfect Team the East was in shambles for most of the decade until saved by the 2003 Draft and subsequent drafts. An entire conference could not be considered a contender. The Lakers and Spurs just had to win the West and then they'd win the title in crushing dominating fashion.

You go out of your way to claim that the NBA is extremely competitive and then go on to say that for a while a complete conference was a joke. You can't have it both ways.

Why can't both be true?

Perhaps it can be to a certain extent, but the way you describe it reminds me a bit of women's tennis. There can be close matches along the way but don't be surprised if the final is 6-0 6-0.

I don't personally think the NBA is not competitive enough but I agree with nextnba if he means that teams that don't play to get the best record possible for a season or a stretch of few seasons are a nuisance. The fact that a bad record is rewarded with a bigger chance at the highest pick in the draft is therefor a bad thing if you ask me.

That's assuming that those teams could be playing better and winning more games than they actually are, though. Tanking is difficult to prove and it's an accusation that's thrown around too lightly, since some teams do flat out suck. Besides, it's not like the team with the worst record wins the lottery year after year, so anyone who wants to tank does so at their own risk.

That's not what I mean - although I regret the fact that the system reinforces that suspicion - as for circumstantial evidence, motive is established for all teams.

But, what I mean is rebuilding teams that are fine with a losing record and that are not trying to put a winning team on the floor, or are hindered by the cap. That's also somewhat speculative, but it's a feeling I get. Like there are a handful of zombie teams out there that may wake up from the dead in 3 or 4 years.

I don't mind teams that just aren't good enough. That's a part of every sport. But I like it if teams are fighting not to be last or in the bottom three. Because of the threat of relegation or just the honour. In the NBA there is no incentive to dread being the worst in the league, no it's quite the contrary.

What if they would give nr.17 the best chance for the first pick (best team not to make the po's) and so on? I'd like that a lot better.

What if they would give nr.17 the best chance for the first pick (best team not to make the po's) and so on? I'd like that a lot better.

Then the bad teams would likely remain at the bottom of the league, teams would become stacked and some high profile rookies would get stuck on the bench.

That's a good point bringing up PT, allthough I don't think team #17 will be stacked. And they should be able to be push it into the top 16 with the nr.1 pick (or the best chance - at least nr.4, with the lottery as is now). Actually top 8 of conf. ofcourse but still, it would be weird if a team that's just out of the playoffs wouldn't be able to break in after 1 or 2 high picks. And the number 30 still gets at least the 14th pick. Maybe add a little socialism and let them pick first in the 2nd round.

Well, consider this past season. Team number seventeen, the Phoenix Suns, won 46 games and heading into the Draft they had Shaquille O'Neal, Amar'e Stoudemire, Jason Richardson and Steve Nash. Even accounting for the Shaq trade, that would place Blake Griffin on the same team as Amar'e and possibly behind not only Amar'e but also two other established veterans Richardson and Nash in the pecking order. Meanwhile, who would the Clippers be left with? Someone like Earl Clark or Austin Daye. Now, with all due respect to Clark and Daye, that would be the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Like you said, nr.30 isn't guaranteed the first pick so nr.17 isn't either. The Clippers were 3rd seed, so if you look at it that way the Bobcats would have had the chance to snatch Griffin. They sure are talented, but I bet they can use him. And, Shaq was traded to the Cavs just before the draft.

But I concur that for the playing time of the 1st pick being drafted by a bottom dweller is a good thing. For his career however not per sé.

I don't pity teams that finish last. Do better. And do a good job drafting at 14. I'm positive there will be good players available. You can put together a pretty respectable roster of players who went undrafted. Especially a couple of years ago when Big Ben and Brad Miller still had their legs.

Well, that was how the lottery was originally implemented. But there were complaints about that system too, when the Magic won the lottery in back-to-back years despite improving their record in Shaq's rookie season.

But I concur that for the playing time of the 1st pick being drafted by a bottom dweller is a good thing. For his career however not per sé.

Perhaps. But then there have been players who have come to losing teams courtesy of lottery picks and turned the franchise around. It depends on the players themselves and how well the team drafts. No matter what the system, much is left up to the players themselves with the rest left up to fortune.

I don't pity teams that finish last. Do better. And do a good job drafting at 14. I'm positive there will be good players available. You can put together a pretty respectable roster of players who went undrafted. Especially a couple of years ago when Big Ben and Brad Miller still had their legs.

But again, that's assuming that bottom teams can do better and can draft well at fourteen. Again, take this year for example. Would a bottom team do as well to draft Earl Clark as they would to draft Griffin? Perhaps, but we don't know that yet. It seems less likely though. You certainly can find diamonds in the rough with low draft picks and undrafted players, but the Ben Wallaces and Brad Millers of the world do not equate to the Michael Jordans, Larry Birds and Magic Johnsons et al of yesteryear, nor the Kevin Garnetts, LeBron James or Kobe Bryants of today.

But again, that's assuming that bottom teams can do better and can draft well at fourteen. Again, take this year for example. Would a bottom team do as well to draft Earl Clark as they would to draft Griffin? Perhaps, but we don't know that yet. It seems less likely though. You certainly can find diamonds in the rough with low draft picks and undrafted players, but the Ben Wallaces and Brad Millers of the world do not equate to the Michael Jordans, Larry Birds and Magic Johnsons et al of yesteryear, nor the Kevin Garnetts, LeBron James or Kobe Bryants of today.

No but I wouldn't have picked Earl Clark is what I'm implying.

Funny that you mention Bryant btw, he was drafted 13th. Almost.
Garnett 5th, Bird 6th and Jordan 3rd. Just sayin'.

The top pick player turning around the franchise is on the one hand a romantic idea, but I also hate it because it's like winning the lottery and charity at the same time. I kind of like it the number 30 almost never wins the lottery because of that. Let them lose indefinitely for all I care. If you're 30th you should be able to gradually improve anyway, if not you suck as a GM.

Adding José Calderon, Bruce Bowen and the Birdman to our undrafted roster.

Jose Calderon, Bruce Bowen and Chris Andersen still do not measure up to the likes of the players I mentioned though.

Yes, some players do get drafted low. There's no accounting for oversight. If the teams in their respective drafts had been able to forsee how special those players would be, they wouldn't have been drafted that low. My point remains that the teams that are at the bottom of the league are the ones that need the most help improving because they have the least trade assets and as such, it's not unreasonable that they get to select from the incoming players every year before teams that are better off. It's still up to the GM to pick the right player and surround them with talent.

If you're 30th you should be able to gradually improve anyway, if not you suck as a GM.

Not necessarily. How do you improve if you're not going to be able to get fresh talent coming in? If you have lousy players, how are you going to make trades? If you're not winning, how are you going to attract high profile free agents? There has to be some way of distributing new talent through the league and giving bad teams the chance to better themselves, and that's what the draft lottery provides. There's still a chance the team with the worst record will drop as low as fourth and the team that just misses out on the Playoffs will get the top pick, so any team that tanks does so at the risk of alienating fans and potential free agent signees alike.

I like the idea of reversing the second round. Although it'd kill a lot of trades. Teams like the Spurs, Pistons, etc. specifically acquire second round picks to take the guys who slip and stash them. It'd also kick a lot of Euros out of the first round into the high second round picks.

Since I've been away, forgive me.

Perhaps it can be to a certain extent, but the way you describe it reminds me a bit of women's tennis. There can be close matches along the way but don't be surprised if the final is 6-0 6-0.

A shot or two goes the other way and the champion changes. The East was terrible, but now the East is almost more favorable than the West. It comes and goes as teams break down and rebuild.

My major point was that the contenders are changing, five years ago we wouldn't be talking about the Celtics or Magic, probably not even the Lakers or Blazers, now we are. The Lakers and Spurs ARE dominating this decade, but it's just they're a slight cut above the rest. And even the Lakers could have had three fewer titles this decade on a handful of shots going the other way. (And also to point out, the Bulls and Rockets basically won all the titles of the 1990s, the Lakers and Celtics the 1980s, the Celtics the 1960s. But we still consider those competitive because teams like the Sonics, Blazers, Jazz, Knicks, Sixers, Bucks, Lakers, Pistons, etc. put up their own efforts at it.)

Last edited by benji on Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I actually wouldn't mind that either, though I'd leave the first round alone.

Perhaps it can be to a certain extent, but the way you describe it reminds me a bit of women's tennis. There can be close matches along the way but don't be surprised if the final is 6-0 6-0.

A shot or two goes the other way and the champion changes. The East was terrible, but now the East is almost more favorable than the West. It comes and goes as teams break down and rebuild.

I was talking the past, this year was pretty balanced, I agree.

And even the Lakers could have had three fewer titles this decade on a handful of calls going the other way.

Fixed.

(And also to point out, the Bulls and Rockets basically won all the titles of the 1990s, the Lakers and Celtics the 1980s, the Celtics the 1960s. But we still consider those competitive because teams like the Sonics, Blazers, Jazz, Knicks, Sixers, Bucks, Lakers, Pistons, etc. put up their own efforts at it.)

I read the other day that 7 teams have won it in 25 years. I guess that more variation than your average sports league.
Btw you're forgetting two of my favorite three. The Kings and the Pacers. Kings after 2000 obviously.

Jose Calderon, Bruce Bowen and Chris Andersen still do not measure up to the likes of the players I mentioned though.

5 players on the roster and already defensively more gifted than most in the NBA with Big Ben (4-time DPOY), Bruce Bowen (8x All-NBA Defensive selection) and Chris Andersen one of the best shot blockers in the league.

Here's Anthony Morrow to provide some shooting from outside (highest 3-pt % in the league @ .467 %).
Set the NBA record for highest scoring game by an undrafted rookie. 37 pts from 15-20 fg, 4-5 3pt, 3-3 ft vs Clippers.

Yes, some players do get drafted low. There's no accounting for oversight. If the teams in their respective drafts had been able to forsee how special those players would be, they wouldn't have been drafted that low.

This goes directly to your next question. This is where GM's and scouts can make the difference. Be better informed and have better vision on the talents at hand. Perhaps take a gamble on the talented rookie that had knee surgery (f.i. DeJuan Blair, projected as high as 8th in a mock draft, picked 37th by the Spurs).

My point remains that the teams that are at the bottom of the league are the ones that need the most help improving because they have the least trade assets and as such, it's not unreasonable that they get to select from the incoming players every year before teams that are better off. It's still up to the GM to pick the right player and surround them with talent.

I'm still wondering why other teams/the league has to provide for that. They need talent, well here it is on silver platter (providing that you pick the right one of course).

It's not that I'm against the worst teams improving themselves but this is too easy on the one hand and I think my idea of nr. 17 having the best chance up til 30 still a chance - but the higher the better - would provide something to play for for every team right up to the last game of the season, playoff team or not. That is equally if not more effective to make the league more entertaining as making sure the Lakers miss out on the playoffs once in a while is imo. Figuratively spoken.

Getting the 1st pick in round 2 + mimimum 14th overall should bring in some talent.

If you're 30th you should be able to gradually improve anyway, if not you suck as a GM.

Not necessarily. How do you improve if you're not going to be able to get fresh talent coming in? If you have lousy players, how are you going to make trades? If you're not winning, how are you going to attract high profile free agents? There has to be some way of distributing new talent through the league and giving bad teams the chance to better themselves, and that's what the draft lottery provides. There's still a chance the team with the worst record will drop as low as fourth and the team that just misses out on the Playoffs will get the top pick, so any team that tanks does so at the risk of alienating fans and potential free agent signees alike.

Well, the only way is up. Lousy untradeable players with bad contracts, you will have to sit them out I guess, just like now.
High profile free agents will be out of reach likely, but that doesn't mean you can't make smart moves, improvements.

I'm still wondering why other teams/the league has to provide for that. They need talent, well here it is on silver platter (providing that you pick the right one of course).

They have to perform terribly the season before that to get the top pick; some silver platter. Why should teams on the verge of the Playoffs be handed those picks on a silver platter? What makes it less of a handout to give it to them? "Ah well, you came close to the Playoffs...here, have the top pick in the Draft, you'll get there next year." That philosophy makes even less sense.

Getting the 1st pick in round 2 + mimimum 14th overall should bring in some talent.

Keyword there is some. More often than not, it's not going to be a player that will turn the team around anytime soon. Why give the higher picks to teams that are in a better position? Like I said, that's allowing the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.

Take the 2009 Draft for example. Swap the Clippers with the Suns; who could they get with the fourteenth pick who could have anywhere near as big an impact as Blake Griffin could?

Lousy untradeable players with bad contracts, you will have to sit them out I guess, just like now.
High profile free agents will be out of reach likely, but that doesn't mean you can't make smart moves, improvements.

But how do they improve? If they can't sign a high profile free agent, have no valuable trade assets and don't get first choice of the best new players coming in, where is the talent going to come from? No matter how clever a GM is, they're not going to conjure talented players out of thin air. They need to either sign them, trade for them and draft them. You can't sign players who don't want to play for you and the only way you're going to trade bad players for good ones or get a really good player outside of the upper lottery is to rely on the mistakes of others. That's leaving a lot up to chance, no matter how competent you are as a GM. You can't get blood from a stone, as the old saying goes.

Yeah but that's all with the premisse in mind that every team has to be enabled to succeed. I think that's very weird. Why does every team has have a shot? Just because teams like Memphis Grizzlies can't go bankrupt because that's supposed to hurt the league? Sport is not charity, I think that's lame.

The Clippers have sucked forever and have squandered many good picks. Olokawandi is considered one of the worst 1st picks off all time. That was in 1998, with that pick they had 9 top ten picks in the last 12 drafts. Twice the 1st pick, once the 2nd, once the 3rd and twice the 4th. They screwed up big time having all that free talent available.

Nr. 17 would have earned it by playing better than other lottery teams. I would feel for a rule that prohibits a team from repeating the first pick, or maybe even a top 5 pick the year after the first or a top 5 pick all-together.

It's not charity though. They may or may not get the top pick if they have the worst record. They still have to make the right pick and surround that player with talent. The team that just missed out on the Playoffs doesn't necessarily earn that pick either. Why should mediocrity be rewarded any more than flat out failure?

I don't see it as enabling. Bad teams are given the opportunity to become better, but they're still free to blow it.

I would be fine with a pure lottery or credit system that takes past years in account as well.
But I looked for a compromise where it's still the bottom 14 that get a chance to catch up rather than putting the best prospects with the top teams but also providing incentive for all teams to get the best record also if they don't make the playoffs.

The way the Clippers do it they make a semi-right pick and they don't surround him with talent and they get the same chance the next year. Well, until Blake Griffin the saviour of course.

Enabling or giving the opportunity, same difference. The point is still why? You say "How do they have to improve?" I say 'How is that the league's problem?' If you're bottom you screwed up and you better do something smart to get out of it. If it takes five years instead of one, tough luck.

If you're bottom you screwed up and you better do something smart to get out of it. If it takes five years instead of one, tough luck.

Or you've had players retire, or players suffer career ending injuries, or players have been lost to free agency for reasons beyond your control. To say that if you're at the bottom of the league you've screwed up is far too glib, too black and white. Why punish teams for failing to win by saying "You're not good enough to pick good players in the Draft"? Why reward middle of the pack teams for mediocrity? Why is a 35 win team any more deserving of a handout from the league than a 15 win team? Why should it be the league's problem that a team came close to the Playoffs but missed out? Maybe they should have done a better job, too?

I don't see how that is all relevant.

You don't think the bottom dwellers get rewarded but an opportunity, but if it's the middle of the pack than you do?

Injuries can hit everybody, I'm sure that will even out. If not, you're clearly unlucky. But that is part of competition, bad luck happens all the time, I don't see why that should be compensated.

Retiring players are a completely different thing. It's fair to assume they're not at the top of their game any more the year before (so unlikely to be key players) and besides that this is a thing one should be able to manage through and foresee happening. Perhaps not every team finishing 30th had an abysmal season and bad management to get there but let's not pretend that teams can't help their situations at all.

I'm not out to reward anybody - no draft at all would work for me - but if somebody is going to get that pick it might as well be a team that has won a few games. Apparently you don't care for the incentive to make teams want to win every game since you completely ignore that aspect. Not making them eligible for next year's top pick would be a fine way to prohibit any team getting all the talent for free imo.

I'm not saying the bottom team isn't good enough to draft # 1. They still get a chance in the lottery, just some % pts less than the others.

I have to agree with Andrew right here.

Hedonist, as it seems to me, you really like the system, which is held in Euro football(soccer), hence the suggestions(thoughts). But in my opinion, this would not work for NBA, one system doesn't work for every league(or sports). I don't want to belittle the football system in Europe, rather opposite, it works brilliantly there, but the thing is unlike the NBA, there isn't just one league, there are many different leagues, 4 strong ones which I would say. Teams have their ups and downs, but the biggest clubs still remain on top(e.g. ManU, Real Madrid, Barca etc.).

But I don't think this would work for NBA, because it's one ELITE league, where huge majority of the best players in the world plays. The majority of the best players are formed into one league, while in football it's much more spread wider. Not as big clubs as the top most, also get their young bright stars until they will eventually will be sold(e.g. Torres, Rooney etc.), but they still remain mediocre.

Thing is, if the team sucks, just like Andrew brought an example, it's not easy to become at least mediocre, because no one wants to go there, they don't have any trade assets etc(what Andrew said). Which would eventually lead to death of salary cap(or if not, then overpaying their players big time, like Daye for 15$mil/per year, just to maintain some of their talent, which they already lack, because they need to fill their seats somehow, even if they get some good players, they do not have interest in staying, because they don't want to lose all the time, unlike current bad teams(who will eventually get some bright time), those bad(actually awful) remain as awful teams), because the bottom teams doesn't have a chance to invest their money to anybody and after some time they just give to some players very bad contracts, because there is a limit, how low the salary cap can be, you need to fill that(I think it's something 43$M currently, you can't have your salary cap lower than that), hence you will remain sucky(I dare to say that for some teams after 5 years, getting 10 wins would be an achievment, if this 'experiment' would be taken place).

I don't see how that is all relevant.

You don't think the bottom dwellers get rewarded but an opportunity, but if it's the middle of the pack than you do?

No, I think in both cases it would be opportunity. But it seems to me that you're suggesting that giving the bottom teams the best odds in the lottery is rewarding tanking/teams sucking, which is why I bring up rewarding one or the other for either flat out sucking or being mediocre respectively. I don't see how being mediocre makes you any more worthy of having a better opportunity of getting the top pick than someone in more desperate need of new talent. From the player's perspective, it wouldn't be much better for their careers as there's a good chance they'd be lower in the pecking order or even on the bench stuck behind an established veteran, which doesn't seem right for the top prospects who capable of contributing right away.

Injuries, retirement and just plain bad luck with free agents or draftees are relevant because you also seem to be suggesting that if a team sucks, it's their own fault and they should just do a better job. While that certainly may be true, and poorly managed teams do continue to dwell in the basement, it's not always the case. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say; it's easy to look back at a Draft a couple of years ago and suggest what teams should and shouldn't have done, but there's always going to be can't-miss prospects that flop and teams that look great on paper falling apart for one reason or another. Teams can appear to do everything right, but still have everything end up going wrong.

You can't fairly say a team that's at the bottom of the league necessarily deserves to be there. It's like saying that someone has a low paying job is stupid or lazy. They might be, or they might be currently getting an education so that they can enter a higher paying vocation, or they might not have had the opportunity to further their education, they might be between jobs and so on and so forth. It's assuming a lot to say they're in their current position because they're incompetent or unwilling to put in the effort.

So it goes with NBA teams. Just because they're at the bottom of the standings doesn't necessarily mean they're poorly managed (but certainly might be, I won't deny that) or that they tanked to get there. If we flip the lottery system on its head, we're punishing all future basement teams for the transgressions of a few, the few that are legitimately and undeniably tanking. And seeing as though tanking doesn't guarantee anything except the chance they might get one of the top three picks, I say let them take the risk. If they're willing to lose face, alienate fans and potentially turn away free agents on the slim chance they'll get the top pick and the Next Big Thing coming out of college, that's their risk to take.

Hedonist, as it seems to me, you really like the system, which is held in Euro football(soccer), hence the suggestions(thoughts).

No I don't, I just think it makes more sense.

There are many things not to like about it.

The team I support never wins anything, with a draft system + salary cap they would probably have a much bigger chance. They always end up selling their best player - which is frustrating obviously. These players are almost always young talents who use the club as a stepping stone for their future.

And I'm not talking bottom dweller. We were 10 years ago, because of bad management and even fraud 20+ years ago that came back to haunt us, but now we're a steady top half team perenially aiming for 5th place. In 2007 we reached the finals of the playoffs (which is a pretty new thing) for a Champions League spot, representing 2nd place, and almost won.

A turnaround that happened through good management and scouting in an average market in a 2nd tier competition and that has resulted in financial growth hand in hand with a new venue. Just giving an example of volatility within a free market.

But in my opinion, this would not work for NBA, one system doesn't work for every league(or sports). I don't want to belittle the football system in Europe, rather opposite, it works brilliantly there, but the thing is unlike the NBA, there isn't just one league, there are many different leagues, 4 strong ones which I would say. Teams have their ups and downs, but the biggest clubs still remain on top(e.g. ManU, Real Madrid, Barca etc.).

But I don't think this would work for NBA, because it's one ELITE league, where huge majority of the best players in the world plays. The majority of the best players are formed into one league, while in football it's much more spread wider. Not as big clubs as the top most, also get their young bright stars until they will eventually will be sold(e.g. Torres, Rooney etc.), but they still remain mediocre.

Ok, I concur that the structure of the competitions are different, but you don't put forth any argument why that makes a difference. Also, you can argue that the top European teams are in a league of their own, especially if it comes down to competition for players.

I think if it can work in a sport where at least 300 teams are viable as a professional organization that put more than double the talent on the floor than a basketball team than it can definitely work in a league with 30 elite organizations that employ 500 eligible players. The fact that pretty much all elite players want to play in the NBA should enable low profile teams to attract talent on its own imo - that being said, again, not my problem nor should it be the league's problem.

Btw, cycling is performed in an "elite league" and it works fine, in the sense that sucky teams have raison d'être.

Thing is, if the team sucks, just like Andrew brought an example, it's not easy to become at least mediocre, because no one wants to go there, they don't have any trade assets etc(what Andrew said). Which would eventually lead to death of salary cap(or if not, then overpaying their players big time, like Daye for 15$mil/per year, just to maintain some of their talent, which they already lack, because they need to fill their seats somehow, even if they get some good players, they do not have interest in staying, because they don't want to lose all the time, unlike current bad teams(who will eventually get some bright time), those bad(actually awful) remain as awful teams), because the bottom teams doesn't have a chance to invest their money to anybody and after some time they just give to some players very bad contracts, because there is a limit, how low the salary cap can be, you need to fill that(I think it's something 43$M currently, you can't have your salary cap lower than that), hence you will remain sucky(I dare to say that for some teams after 5 years, getting 10 wins would be an achievment, if this 'experiment' would be taken place).

Quite a quote but there are a lot of assumptions in there.

1. You can become mediocre if you suck. Be smart and play team ball. I'm convinced this is possible and you know, why should it be easy?
2. Why would turning the lottery upside down lead to the end of the cap? Not that I'm against that.
3. Sure people want to play there. Not all good players think they can be the centerpiece of a championship team. Some will make nice careers with bottom dwellers. And besides that, there's nothing against awful teams. I love them, no kidding. But not if they're not trying. Lamrock said in another thread about Philly losing Miller that "it's better to be a lottery team than lose in the first round in 6". Now, that is AWFUL! (and what this discussion was really about in the first place)
4. Minimum payroll is even more ridiculous than maximum. Come on now, what the hell is that for? It's so stupid. And please don't tell me it's because of teams setting themselves up for draft and cap reasons haha. Still I'm sure every team is responsible for its own mistakes in overspending. Top teams make the mistake much more often btw (in soccer).
5. Filling your seats is important, but what's the use of bandwagon fans that will leave gain once the star player is not there or the team is not winning?

This 'experiment' is pretty well tested in the rest of society. The NBA (and other American leagues) are the outcast here.

If a certain city or market is not capable of putting a team together that can win more than 10 games (and I really think you're exaggerating), they shouldn't survive, it's that simple. That's life.