So did the Title Contention window just close? Is a rebuild incoming?
I don't think she as now a free agent signs anywhere else if she doesn't retire, but that's just it: Have we seen the last of Candace Parker? Is she about to retire?
Quigley may be done in the W, as she's up there in age now and didn't seem super committal to playing in the W after this year. We'll wait to hear more, but she may effectively retire as well.
Sloot it sounds like wants to keep doing the year-round playing thing, but the problem may be if she's able to due to Prioritization. She's signed to a team in Hungary. It's now a common question: Even if she wants to come back to the W, can she? And would she go back to Chicago or go elsewhere? (Like home to Seattle since we now have an open role to fill at starting PG, hint hint!)
The players signed through next year are Allemand, Copper, Evans, Hebard, and Li Yueru. In 2023 Chicago also has the #5 Pick, amongst two other picks much later (#23, #35).
I wouldn't be surprised if Parker retires after this. The Sky were stacked and now there's a possibility of Quigley retiring and Sloot sitting out. Sky may be several teams in rebuild.
Strangely, that is the second time this month I've seen someone try to say "dominant" in a tweet but spell it as "dominate" – if they even know that "dominant" is in fact a word. 😩
Statistically, Parker basically had the same season that she had last season, in only a couple more MPG. I'm gonna guess that she'll come back for a proper farewell tour next year (possibly her + Taurasi). We'll see how she feels next February though, apparently. Like basically all the other greats who have announced retirements recently, she has nothing left to prove.
Strangely, that is the second time this month I've seen someone try to say "dominant" in a tweet but spell it as "dominate" – if they even know that "dominant" is in fact a word. 😩
Statistically, Parker basically had the same season that she had last season, in only a couple more MPG. I'm gonna guess that she'll come back for a proper farewell tour next year (possibly her + Taurasi). We'll see how she feels next February though, apparently. Like basically all the other greats who have announced retirements recently, she has nothing left to prove.
True, but there is also the question of what she wants to do after retirement. Broadcasting games could be an option, but the problem is there are so many players doing that already. They can't all keeps those jobs, and I'd bet the pay and travel is a lot worse than WNBA players are used to. Whether they are athletes or anyone else, a lot of people keep on working cause they have no idea of what they would do afterwards. So I'd guess there is at least a farewell tour next year.
It's hard to see all the pieces coming back together for the Sky next year. The numbers are pretty clear that 27 is the peak age for athletes, and after that, the odds say there will be a decline. Not a single starter for the Sky is younger than 27, so the chances of improvement are low. Of course, there's a chance a player defies the aging curve, and maybe even two, but history strongly suggests that the starting five of the Sky will not be as productive, in total, in 2023 as they were in 2022.
Or, to put it another way, we're going to find out just how good a GM James Wade really is.
I think Wade has a more immediate problem than the players age. Age is only factor when you have players under contract. Only a few Sky players are contract and it is quite uncertain whether Sloot, Quigley, Parker, Meesseman and Stevens (all UFA's) will be back. Gardner (a Reserved player) played a big role this year but she has been playing mostly in Europe, so she can't be counted on either. Same for Allemond (who might not be back if Emma doesn't come back.) So basically, at this point the Sky are an expansion team w/o an expansion draft (but lots pf cap space)....Of course, several of the players might come back, then clayk's >>27 is a factor.
This is going to be a pretty crazy FA season - Sky and Storm may anywhere between contenders or lottery teams.
I wonder how different the 2022 season would've been had Evans been more involved than Allemand. Allemand is a great PG. She's talented enough to be a good starting PG, as she showed in the wubble season with Indiana. The problem is, she gives you nothing off the bench. Assists, yes, but not scoring or defending or anything else. Evans held Allemand's role until Allemand arrived, where Evans got effectively benched. Wade didn't even try to keep Evans in his rotation. If he had, maybe the Sky would be in the Finals again. Evans would've given the team what good bench players give – energy and scoring, neither of which Allemand provided.
If Sloot leaves, then ideally Allemand comes back and is the team's starting PG. It may be a hot take, but there's not a whole lot of drop-off from Sloot to Allemand. Evans then resumes her role as a microwave off the bench.
If neither Sloot nor Allemand returns, is Evans good enough to be a starting guard, much less PG? She at least has the shooting talent to stick in this League, so honestly, I'd like to find out. Good teams trot out starting PGs who can either shoot, score, or both. If they are great distributors, that is a plus, but imo not as high up the totem pole as scoring or shooting ability.
Hebard meanwhile will surely be in next year's rotation. All the Sky posts in front of her in the rotation are all free agents – someone's not coming back out of that group (Meesseman, probably).
Last Edit: Sept 9, 2022 13:37:12 GMT -5 by Deleted
There's also the issue of Allemand also not possibly being able to come over next year. The Sky could be in the same situation as Seattle where they need to replace their starting PG and their backup PG. I agree about Evans. She was pretty solid at the beginning of the season for Wade and is a solid 3pt threat. Maybe the cards fall for Evans in 2023 and she ends up the Sky's starting PG if Wade can't get anyone else.
But then, haven't we seen countless international players only show up to the W for a year at a time anyway? Some of them we never see again after a single year. A lot of them seem to use the W as a litmus test for their own skills, perhaps out of curiosity – otherwise, those same players who call Europe their home continent have no financial incentive to show up to the W annually. Meesseman was previously one of the few exceptions to that group up until the past few years, as she has sat out multiple seasons (2018, 2021).
Honestly, I'm absolutely fine with Prioritization effectively keeping those players out, because they could never be counted on regularly even before Prioritization. Unless top dollar in the W starts getting legitimately competitive, that trend was never gonna change.
TBH - I've gotten tired of the WNBA being a farm system for foreign clubs and NT's. I'd rather the W just have players who want to stay here all year or at least go to a league where the schedule doesn't conflict with the WNBA. I wouldn't mind the next 3 seasons turning things upside down as far as talent goes. A lot of talent didn't play in 2020 and the games were good and entertaining to watch. New players emerged during that season. Some have regressed but some have continued to play at a high level. Talent is not absolute, but relative. Conversely, I have no issue with WNBA players who would rather play overseas and make more money. We don't live in a "have your cake and eat it" world. Anyway, it's an experiment that I'd like to see tried and if it fails, they can always go back to the WNBA being second fiddle to overseas clubs and NT's.
TBH - I've gotten tired of the WNBA being a farm system for foreign clubs and NT's. I'd rather the W just have players who want to stay here all year or at least go to a league where the schedule doesn't conflict with the WNBA. I wouldn't mind the next 3 seasons turning things upside down as far as talent goes. A lot of talent didn't play in 2020 and the games were good and entertaining to watch. New players emerged during that season. Some have regressed but some have continued to play at a high level. Talent is not absolute, but relative. Conversely, I have no issue with WNBA players who would rather play overseas and make more money. We don't live in a "have your cake and eat it" world. Anyway, it's an experiment that I'd like to see tried and if it fails, they can always go back to the WNBA being second fiddle to overseas clubs and NT's.
I have come to agree completely with all of this. This is why Prioritization had to be agreed upon for the League in order to even think about raising salaries. This League was always going to need to take a hard stance if it wanted to grow.
Another way it grows is if more college talent gets an actual chance to crack rosters – not just a token week in a Training Camp, never to be seen again – where some college athletes have bigger followers than actual WNBA players, which is truly a bonkers concept. The League needs to tap into that way more. That's a way of getting newer viewers, too, if previously marginal W talent out of college actually gets afforded a chance to grow. As long as the WNBA's talent is viewed as even a marginal step up from the college game, I don't think it'll negatively affect ratings.
If the WNBA can't raise salaries competitively and thus becomes an actual farm system for foreign clubs, then so be it. At least they'd be picking a direction. I just don't think the people who do currently watch the W would stop watching it because of a possibly discernible loss in quality of play. Breanna Stewart and Chelsea Gray were trading bucket after bucket and the top trends on twitter, and even then, it seems to me that people still didn't actually care.
I do think the main priority for the next CBA would be to up salaries again and have a longer season. The bulk of WNBA viewership and getting fans into arenas happens in July & August typically. So there's no need to start the season earlier plus they'd have the NBA playoffs to deal with that can cause arena conflicts. A 44 game season beginning Memorial Day weekend and running until mid-late September. Playoffs get upped where the first round is a best-of-5 and the Finals become a best-of-7. Playoffs would run most of October. Also, let there be a respectable preseason(3 weeks?) and try and get some of those games on TV. This is also contingent on 1.) another TV partner & 2.) expansion.
This is obviously a complex issue so there's no one take that covers all the territory ...
One thing I've always felt strongly about is quality of play, which for the WNBA is the quality of the product. In business terms, there is a value to the quality of the product, and in general, higher quality products generate more income. In the entertainment industry, which is the one the WNBA is in, higher quality products also generate a larger audience.
I have felt that the 2022 WNBA is the best I have ever seen it. The quality of play is very high, and I have no problem recommending it to sports fans who haven't watched it in a while. It is very good basketball.
Now, the point about competition being relative is accurate. If stars are removed, the WNBA will still be a competitive league, which is a part of the entertainment formula. But note that Big West basketball is just as competitive, in those terms, as Pac-10 basketball, but yet many fewer people watch. There are many reasons for this, but one is the quality of the product, the quality of the game and players.
If the WNBA has lesser talent, it will resemble the early years of the league, which for those who weren't watching, was pretty hard to take. If the WNBA has lesser talent, it will be less entertaining -- still competitive, but there is something real about quality. High school games are competitive, but the games are not nearly as entertaining because of the quality of play.
So I am reluctant to bid a fond farewell to quality players and replace them with the Mya Hollingsheds of the world, while expecting the WNBA to function at the same level.
Obviously, the financial and scheduling issues are critical here too, but this post is plenty long enough already.
I think people, and especially newer fans of the league, don't know that the league was once at 16 teams with lesser talent. The non-playoff teams may not have been fun to watch, but the league still had a solid product on the floor. I think expansion will only enable some players the opportunity to take a leap forward in their WNBA careers while also allowing some veterans to extend their careers.
I think people, and especially newer fans of the league, don't know that the league was once at 16 teams with lesser talent. The non-playoff teams may not have been fun to watch, but the league still had a solid product on the floor. I think expansion will only enable some players the opportunity to take a leap forward in their WNBA careers while also allowing some veterans to extend their careers.
Have to disagree. The quality of play and coaching with 16 teams was noticeably and markedly inferior to the quality of play with 12 teams. In part, that's because it takes a lot longer than it appears to build a league, and full maturity of the WNBA hadn't been reached, but in terms of the product the networks were buying and fans were watching, it was not as good.
How important is the quality of the product? How important is it to extend the careers of vets and add borderline college players and coaches to the league?
That was 20 years ago. There's much more depth of talent now. The success of players like Rebekah Gardner and Maya Caldwell demonstrate clearly that there is sufficient talent to add more teams.
I think people, and especially newer fans of the league, don't know that the league was once at 16 teams with lesser talent. The non-playoff teams may not have been fun to watch, but the league still had a solid product on the floor. I think expansion will only enable some players the opportunity to take a leap forward in their WNBA careers while also allowing some veterans to extend their careers.
Have to disagree. The quality of play and coaching with 16 teams was noticeably and markedly inferior to the quality of play with 12 teams. In part, that's because it takes a lot longer than it appears to build a league, and full maturity of the WNBA hadn't been reached, but in terms of the product the networks were buying and fans were watching, it was not as good.
How important is the quality of the product? How important is it to extend the careers of vets and add borderline college players and coaches to the league?
. There are just about as many NCAA women’s teams as there are NCAA men’s teams. The NBA has 30 teams, and their draft goes much deeper. So you are saying that the men can bring in all these players, either directly to the NBA or to the G League, but the women shouldn’t because they are “borderline”?