The NBA is in transition. Over the past two years, star players on even the most solid of teams in small market cities have jumped ship in favor of lackluster teams in major cities.

Chris Bosh evaded Toronto for the lights of Miami,and LeBron left his legacy in Cleveland to follow him and Dwayne Wade. But let’s go back further.

In 2007, the Celtics traded for Garnett who waived his no-trade clause to leave Minnesota, and they then traded  for Ray Allen who had expressed interest in being  a Celtic for some time which meant leaving Seattle. Now, let’s bring it back to 2010. Amare Stoudemire left a rock-solid Suns team for New York; we all know the Carmelo Anthony drama, and Deron Williams is now on a Nets team that will end up in Brooklyn. This is a trend the NBA needs to deal with, sooner rather than later.

Given the evidence listed, it is seemingly inevitable that small market teams are on the decline, with the exception of Oklahoma City. Big-time players are no longer interested in building dynasties in low-interest cities like New Orleans (see Chris Paul), whose financial disorganization has fans nearing a boiling point, or Charlotte, whose coaching changes have proven to be far from productive. All these players care about is winning.

The NBA should not be focused on expansion, but instead be focused on contraction. Take Sacramento, for example. The team is filled with budding young talent, but attendance and ticket sales are low. The fans are not half as loyal as they were during the Chris Webber era, and the owner wants to move them to Anaheim (aka Los Angeles). Why? Because even the thought of being the third-favorite team in a big city is more appealing than being stuck in Sacramento.

The NBA should contract from 32 teams (16 per conference) to 26 (13 per conference). This means eliminating six teams, and potentially restructuring conferences based on who is left. Charlotte is the first one I knock off based on their inability to hit the ground running, and considering the amount of times they’ve tried, I don’t see a change anytime soon in their management. Toronto is next to go in the east, only because of their inability to make any progress with the young potential they have. To conclude the east: Cleveland. Let’s be real here. Does anyone really want to: a) play for Dan Gilbert, or b) follow up on LeBron James’ shadow? Yeah, didn’t think so.

In the west, New Orleans is up first with Chris Paul about to leave; he is going to take any ounce of hope left with him. Their financial disparity makes it hard to believe they’ll be able to garner enough financial stability to attract a star player. Second, I eliminate Sacramento for the reasons I listed earlier. They just don’t have what it takes to bring back the fan base that was once so strong. Plus they are the worst of the four teams in California. To wrap up the west, out goes the Minnesota Timberwolves. While I recognize that the Timberwolves are potentially a draft-pick away from success, understand that Minnesota is not, and will never become a basketball town. Kevin Love is great, and the only way the Wolves can convince me that they’re going to make it one day is by getting Love a guard who will feed him the rock.

Now, the chance of the NBA decreasing its total revenue by cutting teams is highly unlikely. Correspondingly, the demand isn’t going to fade anytime soon either for small states and cities to have teams. It’s a matter of recognition of the fact that those markets aren’t productive environments for an NBA team, and that recognition isn’t coming anytime soon from Commissioner David Stern or any other NBA official.