| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21948
Back to top |
 Posted: 05/10/24 6:15 am ::: Toronto Awarded WNBA Expansion Team for 2026 |
Reply  |
|
| Quote: |
Women's professional basketball is coming to Toronto.
CBC Sports has learned that Kilmer Sports Inc., headed by Toronto billionaire Larry Tanenbaum, has been granted an expansion franchise with the Women's National Basketball Association.
An announcement is expected May 23 in Toronto, with the team to begin play in May 2026, according to four people with knowledge of the deal but who are not authorized to speak about it. |
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/basketball/wnba-toronto-awarded-expansion-team-1.7198595
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
johnjohnW
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1856
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 7:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Let’s go!!
I’m really intrigued to see how Toronto factors in to Free Agency due to the differences in the e value of their dollar and taxes as well as if we will see Canadian players flocking to sign there? Conversely, I worry about players forcing their way out from Toronto. Do they poach Noelle Quinn from Seattle for HC?
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11166
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 9:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Good news all around.
I think it would make sense to digest these two teams for a couple years before expanding again. Consider that each existing team is likely to lose its seventh best player in back-to-back years.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24386
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 9:34 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
Good news all around.
I think it would make sense to digest these two teams for a couple years before expanding again. Consider that each existing team is likely to lose its seventh best player in back-to-back years. |
With most players avoiding signing contracts that go past 2025 due to expecting numbers to go up in a new CBA, there may not be 7 players under contract for most teams to worry about in the 2025-26 offseason. So that one's potentially a bit different in terms of what would be lost.
But I agree that you don't really want to be having expansion drafts year after year after year. GMs in particular won't want that. In fairness, they clearly wanted these two new teams to come in together, which would've meant one big draft instead, but plans got somewhat derailed. |
|
johnjohnW
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1856
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 9:38 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I’m surprised they aren’t having them start in 2025. There is plenty of time and already another team in motion.
As exciting as expansion is, I would probably wait at least 3-4 years before expanding. It’s true that there are a lack of roster spots but it’s also true that there is a finite pool of top tier talent. There are a lot of mid level and benchwarmers but there aren’t a ton of Griners, Arikes, Stewies, or Clarks out there.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63831
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 9:53 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| johnjohnW wrote: |
| There are a lot of mid level and benchwarmers but there aren’t a ton of Griners, Arikes, Stewies, or Clarks out there. |
There’s more than you think. They just don’t get the opportunity. Also, there’s a lot more coming. Be ready for them. Be proactive instead of reactive for once. Don’t wait until you get mass outrage for not broadcasting preseason games and commercial flights until you actually do something about it. With expansion teams, it’s two years from concept to fruition. I wouldn’t worry about having too many teams. The biggest problem is not enough teams. It’s hard for most to take the league seriously with so few teams and most people not having a home team to root for.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 12544
Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 10:05 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Expansion draft in 3 of the 4 next years seems rough , but this is what we all wanted. Golden State & Toronto , and now Portland and Philly are on the rise. Sitting at 16 for about 5 -7 years would be ideal .
_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
|
|
jmvcity
Joined: 21 Jun 2013
Posts: 343
Location: Big Apple
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 10:12 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Toronto Rex
T-Rex for short.
|
|
SPD
Joined: 29 Oct 2021
Posts: 681
Location: California
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 11:32 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Excellent!
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11166
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 12:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Expansion is good, as it broadens the footprint of the league and adds value to TV and sponsorship contracts.
But if there's all that talent out there, how come there's such a dropoff when teams try to replace injured players? It's really irrelevant whether the talent is out there or not, but if there really were 10 or 15 more starter-level players available, Veronica Burton would not be the Dallas starting point guard, nor would Tina Charles be getting big minutes in Atlanta. (And I could go on ...)
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66993
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 1:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| But if there's all that talent out there, how come there's such a dropoff when teams try to replace injured players? |
Is there? When stars get hurt there's a dropoff, of course, but for other players not so much. When Aari McDonald was out for Atlanta last year there wasn't a significant difference. The Dream's record was actually much better without her.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
craigmont
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 990
Location: Bing-town
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 3:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
There are a lot of replacement-level players, but franchise players will always be at a premium.
With more teams, we won't have teams starting 4 All-Stars.
|
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6813
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 3:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The Talons
The Chill
The Owls
The River
The Truth
The Great North
The Tower
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19781
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 3:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| craigmont wrote: |
There are a lot of replacement-level players, but franchise players will always be at a premium.
With more teams, we won't have teams starting 4 All-Stars. |
And we have the stars to have more teams.
All 8 remaining NBA teams have two stars they’ve built around, and a bunch of good players who fit well with them.
Next step for the WNBA is to have a soft cap like the NBA - which allows for GM’s to actually have quality roster construction.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32339
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 3:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
Good news all around.
I think it would make sense to digest these two teams for a couple years before expanding again. Consider that each existing team is likely to lose its seventh best player in back-to-back years. |
With most players avoiding signing contracts that go past 2025 due to expecting numbers to go up in a new CBA, there may not be 7 players under contract for most teams to worry about in the 2025-26 offseason. So that one's potentially a bit different in terms of what would be lost.
|
That also means you have the opportunity to sign some of those FAs which could mean a stronger team faster if you can actually convince them to come. $$$
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66993
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 3:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| J-Spoon wrote: |
The Talons
The Chill
The Owls
The River
The Truth
The Great North
The Tower |
Pterodactyls
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9661
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 4:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
Next step for the WNBA is to have a soft cap like the NBA - which allows for GM’s to actually have quality roster construction. |
What is a "soft cap"? One with a luxury tax that allows uber rich owners like the Warriors group to field dynasty teams by going over the salary cap? Why is that good?
|
|
PickledGinger
Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 1368
Back to top |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19781
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 5:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
Next step for the WNBA is to have a soft cap like the NBA - which allows for GM’s to actually have quality roster construction. |
What is a "soft cap"? One with a luxury tax that allows uber rich owners like the Warriors group to field dynasty teams by going over the salary cap? Why is that good? |
I would suggest the WNBA structures it like the new cap. Which has a soft cap where owners pay a luxury tax, and a second limit that severly handicaps owners (essentially a hardcap)
Why is it good?
1. Because it raises players salaries. Right now, players CAN’T be paid above a certain amount, but if there is a soft cap an own r much decide they want a player enough to do so.
2. Because of the significant flexibility it gives team building. There are players who are cut that are better than those that make the roster. Why? Because teams can’t afford them - not because they aren’t willing to pay - but because team’s have to stay under the cap.
The result is that teams aren’t as good as they could be. Players who should be playing in this league - aren’t.
Will there be some owners who choose to not go over the cap? Sure. And that’s their choice, and that will limit those teams. But I think the overall benefit outweighs the negative. Especially given better players = better teams = better product = more overall money.
These are steps the NBA took to grow the game, and we’re in a moment to consider potentially huge growth.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6813
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 5:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| J-Spoon wrote: |
The Talons
The Chill
The Owls
The River
The Truth
The Great North
The Tower |
Pterodactyls |
I like it! Fun mascot too. (Terri from peewee’s playhouse).
Otters are one of my fav animals
The Ontario Otters?
(I agree that Talons feels like the obvious realistic choice.)
|
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21948
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 6:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
Next step for the WNBA is to have a soft cap like the NBA - which allows for GM’s to actually have quality roster construction. |
What is a "soft cap"? One with a luxury tax that allows uber rich owners like the Warriors group to field dynasty teams by going over the salary cap? Why is that good? |
I would suggest the WNBA structures it like the new cap. Which has a soft cap where owners pay a luxury tax, and a second limit that severly handicaps owners (essentially a hardcap)
Why is it good?
1. Because it raises players salaries. Right now, players CAN’T be paid above a certain amount, but if there is a soft cap an own r much decide they want a player enough to do so.
2. Because of the significant flexibility it gives team building. There are players who are cut that are better than those that make the roster. Why? Because teams can’t afford them - not because they aren’t willing to pay - but because team’s have to stay under the cap.
The result is that teams aren’t as good as they could be. Players who should be playing in this league - aren’t.
Will there be some owners who choose to not go over the cap? Sure. And that’s their choice, and that will limit those teams. But I think the overall benefit outweighs the negative. Especially given better players = better teams = better product = more overall money.
These are steps the NBA took to grow the game, and we’re in a moment to consider potentially huge growth. |
Personally I disagree with throwing away the concept of parity entirely.
Having a salary arms race is only beneficial if all the owners can afford to participate in it, which I don't believe to be the case atm or ever in the history of the W.
Losing teams again is really not what we want to be doing IMO.
I think things have been tracking well in the post-Covid era, and continued sustainable growth is what we should be sticking with.
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9661
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 6:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
I would suggest the WNBA structures it like the new cap. Which has a soft cap where owners pay a luxury tax, and a second limit that severly handicaps owners (essentially a hardcap)
Why is it good?
1. Because it raises players salaries. Right now, players CAN’T be paid above a certain amount, but if there is a soft cap an owner much decide they want a player enough to do so.
2. Because of the significant flexibility it gives team building. There are players who are cut that are better than those that make the roster. Why? Because teams can’t afford them - not because they aren’t willing to pay - but because team’s have to stay under the cap.
The result is that teams aren’t as good as they could be. Players who should be playing in this league - aren’t.
|
I don't think that players who get cut because they make more than a rookie would get any significant amount of playing time. More like they would be sitting in the league. Even in practice as all the teams use men to play the starters.
They could allow teams to have up to 15 players like the NBA and have a different cap for each roster size.
If only certain teams can afford higher salaries then the league is going to end up with dynasties from only some teams being able to pay for extra talent. Good players benefit as well as fans of teams with richer owners, and fans of less rich owners lose. Seems like a win/lose.
But I guess it depends on the less rich owners. Are they willing to have more money from the luxury tax and worse records and chances of winning a title. I guess in the NBA the answer is yes.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24386
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 7:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
If you're going to soften the cap that much why have a cap in the first place? Just go with the model that most of the planet uses and let each team be run as a business, spending what they have (or are willing) to spend.
We already essentially have most of what a soft cap would 'create' anyway, i.e. lots of talent grouping together. The players have just done it themselves by taking discounts to fit under the cap. |
|
Rock Hard
Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 5387
Location: Chocolate Paradise
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 8:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| craigmont wrote: |
There are a lot of replacement-level players, but franchise players will always be at a premium.
With more teams, we won't have teams starting 4 All-Stars. |
Hmmm? You have heard about the Las Vegas under the table payment plan?
_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14113
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/10/24 10:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| craigmont wrote: |
There are a lot of replacement-level players, but franchise players will always be at a premium.
With more teams, we won't have teams starting 4 All-Stars. |
If players want to win what would be the incentive for them to move to different teams, just cause more teams exist doesn't mean players will still try to play with other players to put them in the best position to win a title. With the current 12 teams you still have players moving to play with specific players and taking pay cuts, I don't see how 16 teams instead of 12 teams would stop that from happening.
|
|
|
|
