NBA expansion questions, Knicks' playoff hopes, Kawhi's resurgence

Welcome to From The Logo, a collection of opinions, analysis, and locker room insights from theScore's lead NBA reporter, Joseph Casciaro.

NBA expansion questions

The NBA has approved exploring expansion to Seattle and Las Vegas, so let's dive into some questions that will arise.

Is expansion a foregone conclusion?

Not necessarily. The league will conduct its due diligence by examining the economics, infrastructure, and prospective ownership groups in each market before making a decision. Once all those details have been thoroughly investigated and sorted out, the Association's 30 owners would have a final vote on expansion, requiring at least 23 votes in favor for approval.

Given how long expansion to Vegas and Seattle has been bubbling beneath the surface, it seems likely the NBA will confirm the addition of two new teams. But road bumps could emerge.

The big question owners must ask

The deciding factor for each of the league's owners is a multi-billion-dollar question: Is the lump sum of expansion fees worth more than what they'd be sacrificing in the long run by diluting their interest in the NBA from one-thirtieth to one-thirty-second, which represents a roughly 6% decrease.

If the two new franchises net the league a combined $15 billion-$20 billion - delivering at least half a billion dollars to each of the Association's 30 current teams - I'd imagine the vote would be nearly unanimous in favor of expansion. Remember, owners don't have to share a cent of expansion-related proceeds with players, unlike basketball-related revenue. However, if the expansion fees come in lower than expected, don't be surprised to hear some owners push back against the idea.

Is it good for basketball?

The short-term answer is simple: no. Two new teams built through an expansion draft - essentially two rosters of castaways - will only increase the number of non-competitive games on the schedule. Meanwhile, the league is already facing that problem this season, with a third of the teams tanking for draft lottery positioning.

Additionally, just as current owners would be diluting their financial interests in the NBA, the league's teams would be diluting their shares of star talent (though the players' association would surely support the creation of 30 new full-time jobs and six extra two-way slots). Finally, what's already been North America's most championship-exclusive league would see two more teams vying for the same singular trophy (all due respect to the NBA Cup).

Still, the long-term gains could be worth it in commissioner Adam Silver's view. Though the league has historically thrived when there's been a dynastic superpower to conquer, Silver has long sought and trumpeted the idea of parity. A 32-team league with talent more spread out, stricter luxury-tax aprons that discourage star-hoarding, and new anti-tanking measures that encourage struggling teams to stay engaged could foster a competitive yet balanced environment.

Though a league full of mediocre, .500-caliber teams wouldn't be compelling, an increase in the number of fan bases that can enter a season with somewhat realistic title hopes can't be a bad thing.

Why not relocation?

Seattle should've never lost its team to begin with, and Vegas has become a pro-sports fixture the NBA already calls an unofficial home (between Summer League, the NBA Cup, and other events), so I have no qualms with these markets being next in line. But the league should ensure it has 30 viable long-term markets before expanding. Are we sure a 32-team NBA would be better than a 30-team league in which Vegas and Seattle simply replaced New Orleans and Memphis, or whichever two cities are the least lucrative?

Then again, expansion now doesn't have to rule out relocation later. After cashing in on a multi-billion-dollar expansion windfall by welcoming Seattle and Las Vegas, the owners could still move the league's most unstable franchises to even newer markets (like perhaps Kansas City, Louisville, Montreal, or Vancouver) in the future.

Are the Knicks built for a deep run?

This question comes from reader Jake Rothenberg, who emailed to ask about the Knicks' chances of a deep playoff run and how New York matches up with rival East contenders like Detroit, Boston, and Cleveland.

The Knicks own a top-five record overall, a top-five point differential, and boast top-five marks on both ends of the court, which are all indicators of a no-brainer contender. And yet, something about the team feels ... off, or at least disappointing. It could just be the weight of Finals-or-bust expectations in the championship-starved mecca of basketball.

To overcome the defensive vulnerabilities of a team featuring the undersized Jalen Brunson and somewhat clumsy Karl-Anthony Towns, the Knicks need to harness the full offensive power of the duo's two-man game. Brunson has largely done his part, but Towns is navigating one of the least efficient (though still statistically impressive) seasons of his career. Much has also been made of Mikal Bridges' inconsistency.

With respect to intra-conference matchups, I think the Knicks stack up best against the Pistons. In OG Anunoby and Bridges, New York has the big wings to contain (the currently sidelined) Cade Cunningham. And if Mitchell Robinson is healthy, New York has the size to combat All-Star big man Jalen Duren. It also boasts a deeper squad, with deadline acquisition Jose Alvarado bolstering an improved bench unit. Finally, the Pistons' lack of 3-point shooting makes them vulnerable.

I wonder if the Knicks would prefer the fourth seed and a second-round matchup with the top-seeded Pistons rather than potential home-court advantage in a second-round series against Boston or Cleveland. A Knicks/Cavs matchup still feels like a toss-up to me, while an overachieving Celtics team bolstered by Jayson Tatum's return should be the East favorite, especially if Boston has home-court advantage over New York and Cleveland. Knicks fans will surely counter with the results of last year's East semifinals, when New York was cruising against the higher-seeded Celtics even before Tatum's season-ending Achilles injury.

Player of the week

Kawhi Leonard: 29.7 PPG, 64.8% TS, 4.7 RPG, 3.3 APG, 2.7 STL + BLK, 3-0 record

Victor Wembanyama and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander gave him a run for his money, but Leonard deserves theScore's weekly honor (which takes into account games played since last Friday).

In the bigger picture, Leonard deserves serious All-NBA first-team consideration and even downballot MVP votes for his remarkable and underrated campaign. Perhaps it's the alleged cap-circumvention scandal under league investigation that's overshadowed Leonard's season, but not enough people are talking about it.

The oft-injured 34-year-old is averaging a career-high 28.3 points on 50-38-90 shooting splits while leading the league in defensive plays per foul (steals plus blocks divided by personal fouls). The Clippers have also performed like a top-five team with Leonard on the court and nearly a bottom-five club with their franchise player on the bench.

Among high-usage players who've logged at least 1,200 minutes this season, only Wembanyama and three-time MVP Nikola Jokic own bigger on/off differentials.

Leonard has to play in eight of the Clippers' last nine games to qualify for major award eligibility. If he does, I'd strongly consider him over Cunningham and Jaylen Brown for the fifth All-NBA first-team spot after Gilgeous-Alexander, Jokic, Wembanyama, and Luka Doncic.

We want to hear from you!

Perhaps you want my opinion or insight on a burning NBA question you've had. Or, let me know if there's something specific you'd like me to ask your favorite player the next time they're in Toronto, where I speak with people from around the league before and after they face the Raptors.

Whatever it is, you can submit your questions three ways.

• Comment on this story in theScore app
• Email me at [email protected]
• Send me a message on X (@JosephCasciaro)