The competitive lifespan of the NBA franchise is fragile. The degree to which a team is involved in a championship depends on many factors, including the competence of the leadership, the coaching staff and the full strength of the stars on the field. “Poverty” in the NBA sense can be defined by the erosion of the team’s ethics and business methods.
The line between poverty and purgatory is a razor blade. Many franchises alternate between the two while balancing back-office scandals while appeasing superstar talent (see Boston Celtics and Brooklyn Nets). But usually, there are some acceptable metrics to label a franchise “poverty.” This term can be misleading and is supposed to mean a bankrupt team in regards to talent, limited available space, or draft capital. Those factors contribute, but it’s more about the moral and existential dilemmas that haunt a team on and off the field. We contrasted the brand that fell off the moral cliff and headed for the internal boom to find out who earned the title of poor brand.
Due to their proximity to the ocean, franchises like the Los Angeles Lakers, Clippers, Miami Heat, and Golden State Warriors can enjoy long-term success as free agency destinations. Smaller markets depend on draft deals and are calculated to stay competitive but could see their windows closed as their star searches for a more cosmopolitan city. For years, the league’s poorer brands were the subjects of frequent suspicion, the New York Knicks, the Minnesota Timberwolves and the Sacramento Kings. These three teams are the benchmark for NBA poverty, breaking losing records and squandering young talent and draft picks while mired in controversies on and off the field. But all three teams have turned the tide over the past few years on competence and mediocrity, one notch above the poverty line in Dante’s NBA Hell. This list will identify exactly which three teams, due to recent failures on and off the field, have taken their place as poor brands.
