NBA still has expansion in mind, though no timetable set in place yet
NEW YORK (AP) — Stay patient, Seattle. You too, Las Vegas, and every other city awaiting word on whether an NBA franchise could be headed its way.
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver addressed expansion again Thursday following a two-day Board of Governors meeting. In short, there is still no timetable for when the league will look to add to its current 30-team format but the league is continuing to study what a 31- or 32-team NBA might look like.
'I wish I could be more conclusive today and say, 'Here it is, here's the timeline,'' Silver said. 'There are events that are clearly outside of my control. Part of it, as I said, is trying to assess value in a way that's both fair, even to a potential owner, and fair to the existing owners in terms of what it means to add additional partners, different cities, divide up our current media pie with the 31st or 32nd share.
Advertisement
'And also, we want to make sure we put teams in a position, particularly as we're setting the price, to be in a position to be competitive, economically successful and just as important for the other teams, successful on the floor.'
Seattle has also long been mentioned as an expansion target. Some players have lobbied for Seattle to return to the NBA, and many — LeBron James among them — have said they strongly support the notion of Las Vegas getting a franchise. Other cities will be considered as well.
Asked specifically about Seattle, Silver said the league does not take those former SuperSonics fans for granted.
'We're thankful that the interest has remained over all these years,' Silver said. 'So, I would just say the fact that we're not ready to make any public announcements with a specific timeline doesn't mean we don't care a lot about those fans and we aren't focused on the potential for the NBA to return to Seattle.'
Advertisement
TV ratings
NBA ratings have picked up as the season has gone along, and Silver said he's pleased by how things are going headed into the start of the postseason in a couple weeks.
'I am happy with where we are trending now,' Silver said. 'No question, we started slow. We were up against a Dodgers-Yankees World Series, a presidential election that commanded enormous interest, and our ratings were down significantly early on in the season. We've gained so much over the last two months. In fact, the ratings for the last two months were the highest in six years, which has enabled us to get to roughly even with last year, regular season, which were our highest ratings in four years.'
Silver said the league is up about 10% on ABC over last year, 'up a bit' on ESPN and 'down a bit' on Turner. Add it all up, and Silver said it's about a 2% drop compared to last season.
Advertisement
'But as I said, in this environment, where particularly when you're largely featured in legacy media and particularly cable, and no question cable subscriptions are going down, that seems like a victory,' Silver said. 'I think given the momentum right now, we're well-poised going into the playoffs.'
Timberwolves sale
Last month, a few days after an arbitration panel ruled that ownership transfer of the Minnesota Timberwolves to Marc Lore and Alex Rodriguez — who would get the majority stake for $1.5 billion — must continue as originally planned, Silver said the league is waiting to see what happens next.
On Thursday, Silver said the league is still waiting, specifically to see if Wolves owner Glen Taylor will appeal that arbitration decision.
Advertisement
'Glen Taylor does have the right to appeal, and I know he is considering his various options right now, and I believe he's also talking directly to Marc Lore and Alex Rodriguez,' Silver said. 'We're on hold there and waiting for decisions among the parties.'
___
AP NBA: https://apnews.com/hub/NBA
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Golden State Warriors Fans Have Request For NBA During Offseason
Golden State Warriors Fans Have Request For NBA During Offseason originally appeared on Athlon Sports. The Golden State Warriors, along with 27 other teams, are watching the NBA Finals ensue just before the offseason kicks off. Advertisement Soon, the NBA Draft will roll around, followed quickly by free agency and the Summer League. The Warriors will have an actionable offseason plan ready to build around Stephen Curry, Jimmy Butler and Draymond Green. Late in the season, it was made clear that Golden State can build around the trio while competing at the highest level. Still, Warriors general manager Mike Dunleavy Jr. is going to have to make big offseason moves. While the franchise aims to make proper basketball moves -- like bringing in a big man or adding perimeter shooting -- they've also got the opportunity to make identity changes. Jerseys, branding and identity are something fans keep a close eye on. Every team already has a leaked city jersey, which is simply a rumor at this point in time, with nothing having been confirmed. This design mock-up is similar to a past edition of the city uniforms the Warriors used. Still, Golden State fans have a clear favorite and wish for the NBA to deploy once again. Advertisement They want the league to return the Warriors' classic jersey to their lineup. "I'm saying," one fan responded, giving their stamp of approval. Another fan responded with three fire emojis, seconding the motion. Fans across the league often enjoy having a splash of a classic feel in the Rolodex of jerseys each season, complementing the two main jerseys and the city jersey. Some teams, like the Orlando Magic, are implementing their classic look into their everyday wear. If the Warriors were to add a classic jersey, specifically the one the fans were raving about, to their lineup, they would certainly receive a positive reaction. This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 9, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
2025 NBA Draft: Why all eyes are on Victor Wembanyama, the Spurs and the No. 2 pick
Victor Wembanyama is a 7-foot-5 alien who warps the court on both ends and might be the most important draft pick since LeBron James. The San Antonio Spurs have one job: don't screw it up. The modern blueprint is crystal clear: space the floor, play with pace, and surround your star with shooters and decision-makers. Instead, they're on track to stack three shaky-shooting ball-handlers like it's still 2005. Last year, San Antonio drafted Stephon Castle, who won Rookie of the Year. At the deadline, they traded for De'Aaron Fox. And now they're expected to take Dylan Harper with the second pick in the 2025 NBA Draft, a 6-5 lefty who thrives with the ball in his hands. That's potentially adding three shot-creators in 12 months with not a reliable jumper between them. Advertisement San Antonio's vision is obvious: give Wemby playmakers so he doesn't have to do everything himself. But in today's NBA, it's not just about who can create, it's about who can space the floor. This is the pick that will define the direction of the Spurs, either clarifying their identity or blurring it even further. The situation in San Antonio Here are the shooting numbers for Castle, Fox, and Harper, via Synergy Sports — Fox's entire NBA career; Castle's NBA and college games; and Harper's college and high school games since 2023: Fox hasn't become a great shooter in eight NBA seasons. He's increased his volume from 1.1 catch-and-shoot 3s per game in his first two years to 3.2 in his last two, but the percentages haven't budged: 35.5% then, 35.2% now. Still below the league average of 37.2%. Advertisement And it's not just from deep. From midrange to the line, Fox has always been streaky. These flaws made his acquisition a gamble for San Antonio. But the low cost of expendable assets made him more than worth it. All-Star caliber players that actually want to play for the Spurs are hard to come by. Early returns were underwhelming, though. In 210 minutes together, Castle and Fox got outscored by 10.5 points per 100 possessions. In their 33 minutes with Wemby: minus-12.3. It's a small sample, but the results were ugly before Fox's season was ended by surgery to repair a tendon on his left hand. Still, Fox's arrival takes the pressure off Castle to be a full-time lead guard. Castle, for his part, had a strong rookie year. He looked like the Swiss Army knife scouts promised by defending, cutting, making the extra pass, and overall looking like the NBA's new Andre Iguodala. Castle flashed playmaking upside, and he didn't need the ball to contribute. But he shot just 28.5% from 3, which mirrors his college numbers: Though Castle is still only 20, his shooting has always been the primary concern about his future going back to youth levels. If Castle doesn't become a reliable shooter at some point in his career, it'll make it more difficult to get him minutes if the Spurs have more options to handle the ball. Advertisement Harper's form looks fine and he's confident. He even hit 36.8% of his catch-and-shoot 3s as a freshman at Rutgers, which isn't all too bad. But the rest of his profile is loaded with red flags. These aren't the numbers of a sure-thing shooter. An even closer look at Harper's 3-point misses adds more cause for concern. I watched all 104 of Harper's misses at Rutgers and he didn't just miss short or long. He missed in every direction. On dribble jumpers, 26.5% were short, and 14.7% were either air balls or blocked, pointing to rhythm issues, lower-body power inconsistencies, and a low release point. On catch-and-shoot attempts, 22.2% of his misses went left and 19.4% went right, revealing directional instability even on his cleanest looks. In total, 24 of his 104 misses either hit the backboard, air-balled, or were blocked, while nearly one-third sprayed left or right. Harper is clearly still searching for his shot. Advertisement The Spurs could bet he steadily improves, but if so it's more of a hope than a plan. The case for Harper Harper's appeal is related to the way he lived in the paint at Rutgers, finishing 67.5% of his shots at the rim. He doesn't blow by you with blazing speed, but he's got a herky-jerky, keep-you-guessing handle where every move sets up the next. There's a craft to him with the way he splits pick-and-rolls and manipulates defenders that makes him look more like an NBA veteran than a 19-year-old incoming rookie. And he doesn't need a screen to get into the paint either. With a beefy frame and elite body control, Harper barrels downhill at will. Defenses knew he was coming — 47.4% of his shots came in the paint — and they still couldn't stop it. On his drives inside, he's not a genius-level passer, but he's composed, accurate, and tough to speed up. Harper doesn't cough the ball up despite a high degree of difficulty in his reps. He's capable of making every pass on the floor, and his feel should only improve over time. (Taylor Wilhelm/Yahoo Sports Illustration) Harper compares himself to Cade Cunningham, which makes sense since they're both jumbo guards with an all-around offensive skill set and defensive versatility. Much like Cunningham, Harper looks like a future starter at a minimum, and maybe much more. But one difference is this: Cade went first overall to a team that cleared the runway for him. San Antonio already has Castle, Fox, and Wemby. There's no runway left. But Harper's path to stardom likely requires space, touches, and shooters around him, not sharing a clogged paint. Advertisement And that's the paradox. Harper's talent justifies the pick. His fit makes it risky. If San Antonio takes him, it is effectively copying the Oklahoma City and Indiana blueprint with multiple playmakers and positional flexibility. But those teams work because they surround their stars with players who can either shoot, slash, or process quickly enough to keep defenses honest. And their stars can play that way too. San Antonio's potential perimeter trio wouldn't check all of those boxes. They're more slashers, not spacers who stretch defenses. None scare you without the rock, and each of them have their respective issues with it too. The Thunder and Pacers show that players can improve their shots. Tyrese Haliburton dropped in the draft because of concerns about his form, and now he's hitting game-winners in the NBA Finals. Andrew Nembhard entered the league as an unpolished shooter and is in the middle of a playoff run making nearly half of his 3s. In Oklahoma City, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Jalen Williams, Lu Dort, and basically the entire roster have improved. Of course, it helps when you hire Chip Engelland. In 2022, the Thunder poached the NBA's most respected shot doctor after he spent nearly two decades in San Antonio. Since then, Oklahoma City's shooting has trended up. San Antonio's has flatlined. Jeremy Sochan is just as suspect of a shooter as he was at Baylor. Keldon Johnson has regressed. Devin Vassell has smooth mechanics and touch, but even he's never cracked 40% from 3. The Spurs used to be the league's gold standard for skill development. Now no one's getting better as a shooter except for Wemby himself. But in his two seasons, the Spurs have ranked 28th and 20th in 3-point percentage. Advertisement Is having three guards with iffy jumpers really the best way for the Spurs to optimize Wembanyama? Is it best if your second-, third-, and fourth-best players all have erratic jumpers? Because this isn't just about skill sets overlapping in the backcourt, it's about how they impact the generational player they're supposed to elevate. The Wemby fit We've yet to see Wembanyama surrounded by four shooters. We haven't even seen him run two-man actions with a competent partner. Inverted pick-and-rolls. Quick slips into space. Dribble handoffs. Stuff that would weaponize his passing and make life easier for everyone. Wemby averaged just 4.8 handoffs per game this past season. For comparison: Domantas Sabonis led the league at 21.1. Rookie Alex Sarr logged 8.1. Even Zach Collins, Wemby's own backup, had more at 4.9. It's absurd that this is true. Yes, Wemby is often the receiver of a handoff. But with his vision, shooting, and ball-handling, he should be initiating more of those actions in an ecosystem that provides him space to go to work. The whole point of adding shot-creators is to get Wembanyama easy shots in the paint. No surprises there: Wemby shot an absurd 79% at the rim last season. He's a cheat code in the paint. But he took only 3.2 restricted area attempts per game. That's the same volume as Lauri Markkanen, Rui Hachimura, and Jonathan Kuminga. You know who else took more? Jeremy Sochan. Yes, Sochan had 5.1 per game. Sochan had more rim attempts than Wemby. What are we doing here? Advertisement The problem is obvious: there's no room. Sochan can't shoot (career 29% from deep) and the rest of the perimeter isn't any better. So even though Wemby can shoot, he has to for the offense to breathe. The Spurs have added creators, but they haven't added spacing to open lanes for Wemby he should be owning. The paths forward The Spurs are at a crossroads. Their actions say they want to win now. Their roster says they're not ready. And Wembanyama's rookie contract clock is ticking. So, what should they do? Option 1: Draft Harper, keep Fox and Castle In 2022, the Kings chose Fox over Tyrese Haliburton. Not because Haliburton was worse, but because they didn't think the two could coexist. Maybe they were right. Trading Haliburton for Sabonis helped end a 16-year playoff drought. Advertisement But in hindsight, they acted too fast. Now Haliburton is clearly the better point guard and running one of the best offenses in the league, and the Kings are still trying to figure out what their post-Fox future looks like. The lesson isn't don't choose. The lesson is don't choose before you have to. That's the case for keeping the trio intact. Draft Harper. Let it breathe. Give the coaching staff a year or two or three to figure out who works best with Wemby. Castle's cutting, Harper's slashing, Fox's speed all bring value. Maybe it works. And on defense, it should. Castle was already guarding top options as a rookie. Harper has the size and instincts to be switchable. And when Fox is locked in, he's a defensive playmaker fighting through screens and picking up steals. If the Spurs stick with all three, they could smother perimeter scorers and funnel everything to the league's best rim protector. But Wemby is such a dominant paint protector that he can erase defensive breakdowns. What he can't do is manufacture spacing for himself on the other end. So there'd be more pressure for them to figure it out on offense no matter how good the team's defense becomes. And that concern is shared for the guards, not just Wemby. Harper projects best as a lead initiator with shooting around him, not as the third wheel on a team that can't space the floor. There were better lottery outcomes for him. And if Harper is the pick, what happens to Castle? He's not a shooter. He's not running the offense. So is the reigning Rookie of the Year now a low-usage cutter who doesn't space the floor? It's unclear how Castle's development tracks next to Fox and Harper. Advertisement This option doesn't just assume internal development. It assumes internal compliance that no one pushes for touches, for usage, for clarity. It assumes Wemby will keep deferring while the team figures itself out. San Antonio has a pile of extra first-rounders and zero albatross deals, so they can patch holes on the fly if things sour. So they could take Harper and wait. But if they're wrong, they won't just waste touches. They'll waste time. Option 2: Trade Castle If San Antonio believes Harper has higher long-term upside as a lead initiator, they could explore the idea of moving Castle while his value is sky-high. He's the reigning Rookie of the Year. He's young, versatile, and scalable. And he plays with a maturity being his years. But if his jumper never comes around, and Fox and Harper are ahead of him on the ball, his role could get squeezed quickly. Advertisement Maybe the Bucks would prefer Castle and picks over Harper in a deal for Giannis Antetokounmpo. Maybe the Celtics bite on a Castle-Vassell-picks package for Jaylen Brown. Maybe another young star becomes available. Option 3: Trade down Teams like the Jazz, Wizards, Pelicans, and Nets all need initiators. Maybe one of them would offer a haul to move up for Harper. Looking at the history of trade downs, usually a team would give up their own first and one future first. But considering Harper's upside perhaps the Spurs could haggle for much more. The Nets, holding the 8th pick and a mountain of future firsts plus Cam Johnson, are the most interesting trade partner. Harper is a local kid with star potential, and the Nets have a clean slate he could grow with. If the Spurs want to pivot toward shooting, Johnson plus picks is a logical foundation. Advertisement In that range, Duke wing Kon Knueppel, Arizona forward Carter Bryant, and Washington State wing Cedric Coward would all be strong fits. They bring shooting and versatility, which is exactly what the current Spurs core lacks. The question: Are any of them worth passing on Harper's ceiling for? Option 4: Trade out of the draft for a star The Spurs might not need another teenager. They already have youth like Wemby, Castle, Vassell, Sochan, and a war chest of future picks even after adding Fox. So maybe the next move is to skip the draft entirely and chase a star. Right now, the Giannis whispers persist. They've also been linked to Kevin Durant. Around the league, sources say the Spurs have explored packaging the 14th pick with a player to upgrade the roster. Whether that upgrade is marginal or massive depends on who shakes loose, but it's clear San Antonio isn't waiting around. So if Giannis actually is available, maybe San Antonio's willing to put Harper on the table. Advertisement Option 5: Trade Fox Fox signed up to be Tony Parker to Wembanyama's Tim Duncan. But the Spurs weren't planning on drafting another primary ball-handler months later. Plans change. There's a case to move Fox before he signs a four-year, $229 million extension — or even a cheaper hometown discount deal. He turns 28 later this year. He's made just one playoff appearance. He still doesn't have a reliable jumper. And for a guard who lives off speed, any athletic slippage could get ugly, fast. And even if he ages gracefully and ends up being by far the most expensive of three quality shot-creators, he won't come close to having the trade value he holds right now. San Antonio has one last window to sell high. Advertisement Harper, on the other hand, is 19 with real long-term upside. Castle is younger, cheaper, and easier to fit in because he's a far better cutter and defender than Fox. It's not as if Fox and Wemby made a great first impression. Granted they ran only 46 pick-and-rolls together, they scored a measly 0.77 points per play. A full training camp might help, but maybe not if the team's shooting situation doesn't improve. Plus Castle and Harper also need touches. Fox/Wemby simply might not be the high-usage combo they envisioned. If moving Fox were on the table, the logical targets are the teams that were connected to him at the deadline: Miami Heat: Fox for Duncan Robinson, Haywood Highsmith, Nikola Jović, the No. 20 pick, and unprotected firsts in 2030 and 2032. Fox upgrades Miami's point guard spot, while San Antonio gets picks and three shooters including a young piece in Jović. Brooklyn Nets: Fox for Cam Johnson and draft capital. Johnson spaces the floor and fits the timeline. Houston Rockets: Fox (plus Malaki Branham and Blake Wesley) for Fred VanVleet, Jabari Smith, the 10th pick, and future firsts. FVV gives the Spurs a vet, while Smith would be a fascinating fit next to Wemby. Other playmaking-needy teams like the Bulls, Magic, Suns, and Timberwolves could emerge as dark horses. Phoenix is especially interesting: if the Spurs really want Durant, Fox's salary helps make the math work. Keldon Johnson, Harrison Barnes, or Devin Vassell could be added to build a separate bigger deal. Advertisement But there's real risk here. Fox is a known commodity as an All-Star in his prime, capable of carrying an offense, capable of making Wemby's life easier today. Harper is unproven. If his jumper never levels up or his fit with Castle overlaps too much, San Antonio may have traded a sure thing for a question mark. You don't get many chances to pair a young superstar with a reliable point guard who actually wants to be there. If Harper doesn't hit, they'll spend the next five years trying to replace what they already had. When San Antonio traded for Fox, they were trying to make the playoffs. Instead, both Fox and Wemby got hurt. The team cratered. And the lottery gave them an unexpected gift. Don't waste the alien If the Spurs keep loading up on guards with questionable jumpers, they're doing it around a star who should be the gravitational center of the entire offense. Instead, they're building a roster that pulls him to the perimeter while everyone else clogs the lane. Advertisement It's not that Castle, Fox, and Harper are bad players. It's that together, they risk becoming a well-intentioned mess. Add inconsistent shooters like Sochan and Johnson, and the Spurs look like a roster that needs less of a tweak and more of an overhaul. Maybe keeping all three guards works. Maybe Castle becomes a league-average shooter, maybe Harper becomes a star, and maybe Fox finds his ideal role. But that's a lot of maybes and this isn't the kind of decision you get to re-do. The Spurs don't just have a top pick. They have a rare opportunity to choose a direction, and not waste Wemby's prime untangling a roster that never fit. Advertisement Because we've seen this before. Kevin Garnett in Minnesota. Anthony Davis in New Orleans. Generational bigs held back by years of mismatched rosters and delayed decisions. The cautionary tales are clear. So is the counterexample — and the Spurs know it better than anyone. Tim Duncan's prime was maximized because San Antonio built with precision. Shooting. Defense. Clarity. Manu Ginobili didn't need the ball to impact the game. Tony Parker could bend defenses without dominating possessions. Everyone fit around Duncan, and San Antonio always evolved with the times as the NBA changed. And because of that, it lasted two decades. Wembanyama deserves that kind of infrastructure. And right now, it feels like the Spurs are building a roster better suited for 2005. But the blueprint has never been clearer: surround your generational star with players who space the floor, make quick decisions, and elevate him without always needing the ball to do it. Do that, and Wembanyama changes the sport. Don't, and years from now we'll talk about how the Spurs landed an alien and built a roster that made him look human.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can $1,000 at birth change a child's future? A Republican proposal aims to find out
WASHINGTON (AP) — When children of wealthy families reach adulthood, they often benefit from the largesse of parents in the form of a trust fund. It's another way they get a leg up on less affluent peers, who may receive nothing at all — or even be expected to support their families. But what if all children — regardless of their family's circumstances — could get a financial boost when they turn 18? That's the idea behind a House GOP proposal backed by President Donald Trump. It would create accounts for all babies born in the U.S. over the next four years with $1,000 that would accrue interest until the children reach adulthood. At age 18, they could withdraw the money to put toward a down payment for a home, education or to start a small business. If the money is used for other purposes, it'll be taxed at a higher rate. It builds on the concept of ' baby bonds,' which two states — California and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have introduced as a way to reduce gaps between wealthy people and poor people. Rep. Blake Moore, a Republican from Utah, spearheaded the effort to get the initiative into a massive House spending bill. In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, he said wealth inequality has soured many people on capitalism. 'Trump Accounts,' as the proposal calls them, could be the antidote, he said. 'We know that America's economic engine is working, but not everyone feels connected to its value and the ways it can benefit them," Moore wrote. 'If we can demonstrate to our next generation the benefits of investing and financial health, we can put them on a path toward prosperity.' The bill calls for the money to be handled by investment firms. The bill would require at least one parent to produce a Social Security number with work authorizations, meaning the U.S. citizen children born to some categories of immigrants would be excluded from the benefit. But unlike other baby bond programs, which generally target disadvantaged groups, this one would be available to families of all incomes. 'When little baby is born they're gonna start off with a thousand dollars and if we do a good job of investing their money — we're going to go with one of the investing guidelines, who the hell knows if they're any good — but they have a chance to be very rich,' Trump said at a rally last week in Pittsburgh. 'It's going to be very cute to see.' Economist Darrick Hamilton of The New School, who first pitched the idea of baby bonds a quarter-century ago, said the GOP proposal would exacerbate rather than reduce wealth gaps. He envisioned a program that would be universal but would give children from poor families a larger endowment than their wealthier peers, in an attempt to level the playing field. The money would be handled by the government, not by private firms on Wall Street. 'It is upside down,' Hamilton said. 'It's going to enhance inequality.' Hamilton added that $1,000 — even with interest — would not be enough to make a significant difference for a child living in poverty. A Silicon Valley investor who created the blueprint for the proposal, Brad Gerstner, said in an interview with CNBC last year that the accounts could help address the wealth gap and the loss of faith in capitalism that represent an existential crisis for the U.S. 'The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system,' Gerstner said. 'We're not agentless. We can do something.' The proposal comes as Congressional Republicans and Trump face backlash for proposed cuts to programs that poor families with children rely on, including food assistance and Medicaid. Even some who back the idea of baby bonds are skeptical, noting Trump wants to cut higher education grants and programs that aid young people on the cusp of adulthood — the same age group Trump Accounts are supposed to help. Pending federal legislation would slash Medicaid and food and housing assistance that many families with children rely on. Young adults who grew up in poverty often struggle with covering basics like rent and transportation — expenses that Trump Accounts could not be tapped to cover, said Eve Valdez, an advocate for youth in foster care in southern California. Accounts for newborn children that cannot be accessed for 18 years mean little to families struggling to meet basic needs today, said Shimica Gaskins of End Child Poverty California. 'Having children have health care, having their families have access to SNAP and food are what we really need ... the country focused on,' Gaskins said. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
