Recently, it was reported that expansion is being discussed for the 2028/29 season. Would it be a good decision that elevates the game, or would it lead to a dilution of talent?
Jacob Douglas: There is a surplus in NBA talent right now, but there is a lack of competent front offices and organizations that can capitalize on that talent. The league’s tanking problem makes it a tough time to support expansion. Do we really want to add two more teams that are getting blown out by 30-40 points in March while sitting their starters? That said, I hope that Seattle gets their team back in some capacity. The city has a rich basketball culture and needs a pro team to match it.
Bill
Huan: It’s absolutely a good decision. Every team in the league has multiple guys who can drop 40+ on any given night, assuming they’re actually fielding their best lineup. The bigger issue is tanking, and having more teams might mean that more front offices will deem it necessary to tank, but that shouldn’t stop the league from expanding. The quantity and quality of talent have never been higher, and it makes sense to showcase that skill in more places to grow the game. My only concern is the NBA prioritizing Vegas as a potential destination. The city isn’t the party hub it once was, and there are already countless pro sports teams there already. Wouldn’t it make more sense to give Vancouver another chance, so that they could create an instant rivalry with Seattle while growing the game in a country that’s producing more NBA talent than ever before? Or how about Mexico City, where there’s already a G League team in place? There’s enough interest in basketball in the States — if Adam Silver wants to maximize growth, he needs to consider America’s neighbors.
Devon Birdsong: I’m of the opinion that expansion is always the right choice when a league has the right mixture of appeal and finances, and I think the NBA is going to be hard-pressed to find a better time to do so. Growing up around and writing about the only “Big Four” professional sports team in the area has given me a lot of perspective regarding what that might mean for a city without multiple teams, so I’d prefer to see the second team go somewhere other than Vegas. As it is, there seems to be some conversation about the Grizzlies potentially moving to Nashville, and I’d really feel for Memphis fans if that came to pass. Expansion might forestall that. As for dilution of talent, that seems like a thin excuse not to. There are only 450 players on permanent rosters as is, and with two-ways, that approaches 500+, so I think it’s safe to say that there’s room for 30 more players out of that surplus without much issue. The bigger issue, in my view, is tanking. It doesn’t matter what the talent balance is if you have too many teams losing on purpose.
Jeje Gomez: The talent is there. The problem is how it’s spread around. There are no real superteams, and the draconian apron rules should lead to more player movement eventually, as some teams go back to prioritizing free agency when others simply can’t retain all their stars, an issue the Spurs might experience as their young players become more expensive. The problem is that, as long as rookie contracts and restricted free agency are in place, the best way to acquire cheap talent will be through the draft, which might lead to more teams tanking, which subsequently will give the illusion of dilution, even if there are more good players now than ever. An example of that are the Wizards, who traded for two All-Stars but don’t seem all that interested in playing them. The biggest battle the league will have to win when it comes to expansion is a battle of perception, since a lot of fans already think there are too many games and bad teams.
If Seattle and Las Vegas get the two expansion teams as reported, two Western Conference teams will have to move to the East. Which teams should go to the weaker conference?
Douglas: Minnesota, Memphis, and New Orleans could all easily be moved to the East. Minnesota would easily slot into the Central division with Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Indiana, and Cleveland. Memphis could make sense in that conference, or in the Southeast with Charlotte, Atlanta, Miami, Washington, and Atlanta. New Orleans could go to the Southeast, but given their proximity to the Texas teams in the Southwest division, I’d keep them in the West.
Huan: I agree with Jacob here: it should be Minnesota and Memphis given their proximity, and New Orleans can stay in the West since they’re already close to the Texas teams. Having young stars in Ant and whoever Memphis gets in the lottery this year will also be important to give the East more players to feature and market, and hopefully even out the talent across the two conferences some more.
Birdsong: Geographically speaking, Minnesota is an obvious choice. I would also include Oklahoma City. Not as much because it makes sense as because I hate them. And also, I would like to avoid playing them on the Western side of the playoff bracket. Actually, if you were asking me to do this out of pure spite, I would also include either the Rockets or the Lakers alongside the Thunder. Maybe the Clippers as a third choice to atone for their multitude of sins. Much more satisfying if you ask me. I’d be the most beloved NBA commissioner in San Antonio history.
Gomez: Minnesota and Memphis feel like the best answers, not only because of proximity but because moving the Pelicans to the East could create a future problem if the franchise moves. New Orleans can probably support a good NBA team and should get a chance to prove that, but they have struggled to consistently create one so far, and they seem like the type of franchise that could be relocated if the league eventually tries to go to Mexico or Canada. To avoid a new reshuffling in the future, keeping the Pelicans in the West might be the smart move, even though they would probably love to go to the weaker conference.
Expansion is not coming for a while, but if it were to happen this offseason, which eight players should the Spurs protect?
Douglas: This will probably change in a few years, but the score to keep around is Wembanyama, Castle, Harper, Fox, Vassell, Johnson, Bryant, and Champagnie. No offense to Kornet, who has been incredible this season, but we’ve seen quality big men picked up on cheaper deals by other teams in the last few seasons. I have confidence that San Antonio could find another quality big man if Kornet were to be drafted to Seattle or Vegas.
Huan: Off the top of my head, it should be Wemby, Harper, Castle, Fox, Champagnie, Vassell, Johnson, and Bryant. Devon brought up the idea of leaving Fox unprotected, which will likely gain some traction, but I’d still avoid that. Yes, his contract isn’t the greatest, but we’ve seen star-level players get traded time and time again in recent years, even with questionable contracts. We can’t risk letting a talent like Fox go for free, and by the time the expansion teams come in, he’ll already be on the second-last year of his current deal. Even factoring a decline and the contract potentially becoming negative value, opposing teams are always willing to make deals with soon-to-be-expiring money.
Birdsong: Based on the roster right now, I’d say Wemby, Castle, Harper, Vassell, Keldon, Kornet, Bryant, and Champagnie. My reason for not protecting Fox is largely strategic due to his contract. Expansion teams may be leery of taking on a max contract so early in their existence, and if not, it saves the Spurs having to figure out what to do with that contract if Fox begins to decline (and no, he is not currently). Of course, a lot of this depends on how the postseason goes. If the Spurs bring Larry home, I 100% stand by my order. If not…I may have to make changes to it.
Gomez: Since we are talking about the upcoming season for this exercise, I’d go with Wembanyama, Fox, Castle, Harper, Vassell, Bryant, Johnson, and Champagnie. Kornet is in a great contract, but so is Champagnie, and he’s younger and plays a position that has more scarcity. Not protecting Fox and daring the expansion teams to take on his contract could be smart, but if they call the Spurs’ bluff, San Antonio would be losing a key player. If we are talking years down the line, the list would change and Fox would likely not be protected, but for now, he’s too important.
