72 Suburbs in Search of a City: Anthony Davis to Los Angeles Lakers

ElUno20

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,649
Teams stopped treating veterans like this year’s ago. Power brokers control movement in this league and the Grizzlies would be foolish to do something so negligent to a player of Iguodala’s stature if he demands to me bought out or moved. I can’t imagine it happening.
I get this point and know this is how it works. But i dont understand why the smaller markets (new orleans, Memphis) ever give 2 shits about this. They're NEVER signing marquee free agents regardless of relationships. So the only way they'd be seriously hit is with mid tier guys holding out but those guys wont. They want to get paid (the jj reddicks).
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
8,074
I get this point and know this is how it works. But i dont understand why the smaller markets (new orleans, Memphis) ever give 2 shits about this. They're NEVER signing marquee free agents regardless of relationships. So the only way they'd be seriously hit is with mid tier guys holding out but those guys wont. They want to get paid (the jj reddicks).
At first I was ready to agree. But then I realized that Iguodala will be entering his 16th and probably final season. There's two reasons I can think of for the Memphis GM to care:

a.) Memphis could eventually improve, and at that point they would want to be attractive to veteran players.

b.) Wallace may want to work elsewhere in the NBA at some point, and perceived relationship with players and agents will matter.
 

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
265
I get this point and know this is how it works. But i dont understand why the smaller markets (new orleans, Memphis) ever give 2 shits about this. They're NEVER signing marquee free agents regardless of relationships. So the only way they'd be seriously hit is with mid tier guys holding out but those guys wont. They want to get paid (the jj reddicks).
This plus Landmark is not really a power broker anymore.

That does not mean you keep Iggy or ship him to Atlanta, but there is a lot of wiggle room between doing right by him and buying him out so he can sign with the Lakers.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
18,146
How many 28 year olds (who haven't been crushing lines of coke for years) are truly washed up? He's not 35. My guess is you can get plenty of mileage out of Avery if you use him right.
Exactly. There are reasons why a 28-year old player hasn't progressed in his game over the past few years. Injuries, system fit, complacency with a big contract, etc.....I'm not sure there is any rational reason for him to simply be "washed up." Full recovery from his groin injury, improved conditioning (from being healthy), and a similar role as he had in Boston suggests that Avery should be one of the Lakers many valuable role players around LeBron and AD.

Sure, but it seems he no longer can hit an open shot.
What is this based on? There isn't anything rational to suggest this is the case.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
37,550
Sure, but it seems he no longer can hit an open shot.
What is this based on? There isn't anything rational to suggest this is the case.
Yeah, that's actually not the case, at least compared to how he's always performed with what the NBA considers "wide open". First column is 2 pointers, second is 3 pointers.

18/19: 45.8 40.4
17/18: 49.0 43.1
16/17: 46.4 42.2
15/16: 43.1 41.4
14/15: 43.2 37.6
13/14: 47.9 42.3
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,908
Guys, it's simple. If a player isn't on the Celtics, he's an under-the-radar gem that's about to blossom, perfectly complementing the other parts of his team. If he's on the Celtics, he's overrated, a bad fit, and soon to be exposed as a fraud. Try to keep up.
This post deserves more love.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,284
Exactly. There are reasons why a 28-year old player hasn't progressed in his game over the past few years. Injuries, system fit, complacency with a big contract, etc.....I'm not sure there is any rational reason for him to simply be "washed up." Full recovery from his groin injury, improved conditioning (from being healthy), and a similar role as he had in Boston suggests that Avery should be one of the Lakers many valuable role players around LeBron and AD.


What is this based on? There isn't anything rational to suggest this is the case.
Found the rational reason:

https://twitter.com/geeter3/status/1149741522889277441

"Avery Bradley battled injuries after his strong year in 16 he’s now in shape and shed the 40 extra pounds he had w Clipps...he has a lot to prove at 28 he said..I will post later Laker fans will love his attitude...btw off camera he said Boogie is in shape been texting him a lot"

Dude gained 40 extra lbs.?!! So he got fat and complacent and started to suck. If he's in shape and motivated maybe it comes back, but I'm not holding my breath.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
18,146
Found the rational reason:

https://twitter.com/geeter3/status/1149741522889277441

"Avery Bradley battled injuries after his strong year in 16 he’s now in shape and shed the 40 extra pounds he had w Clipps...he has a lot to prove at 28 he said..I will post later Laker fans will love his attitude...btw off camera he said Boogie is in shape been texting him a lot"

Dude gained 40 extra lbs.?!! So he got fat and complacent and started to suck. If he's in shape and motivated maybe it comes back, but I'm not holding my breath.
Yes he had recurring groin injuries......but there is zero chance Avery gained 40 lbs. I recall noticing that he wasn’t his normal super lean and was thinking maybe 8-10 lbs. An extra 40 is like Shawn Kemp and John “Hot Plate” Williams territory......he wasn’t even in that stratosphere.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Exactly. There are reasons why a 28-year old player hasn't progressed in his game over the past few years. Injuries, system fit, complacency with a big contract, etc.....I'm not sure there is any rational reason for him to simply be "washed up." Full recovery from his groin injury, improved conditioning (from being healthy), and a similar role as he had in Boston suggests that Avery should be one of the Lakers many valuable role players around LeBron and AD.


What is this based on? There isn't anything rational to suggest this is the case.
AB posted a sub-10 PERs and a sub-500 TS% for three straight seasons (2015-16 through 2017-18), then played only 14 games in 2018-19. I’m struggling to think of a player who went through a multi-year stretch that bad and recovered to become an effective player again.

Do you have data that suggests this commonly happens? Because if you don’t, I don’t see why it’s irrational to think AB might be cooked.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,270
AB posted a sub-10 PERs and a sub-500 TS% for three straight seasons (2015-16 through 2017-18), then played only 14 games in 2018-19. I’m struggling to think of a player who went through a multi-year stretch that bad and recovered to become an effective player again.

Do you have data that suggests this commonly happens? Because if you don’t, I don’t see why it’s irrational to think AB might be cooked.
Bradley played 63 games last year, the 14 games were just his Memphis tour.

I'm not a big PER believer, but his PER was 13.25 in 15-16 and 14.52 in 16-17. I think you're counting his split seasons the last two seasons as full ones.

It looks to me like he was just a disaster with the Clippers. He was approximately the same guy he's been in Detroit and in his short run in Memphis.

I think he'll be fine as a bench player with the Lakers. Especially considering the cupboards were picked pretty bare when they agreed to sign him.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Bradley played 63 games last year, the 14 games were just his Memphis tour.

I'm not a big PER believer, but his PER was 13.25 in 15-16 and 14.52 in 16-17. I think you're counting his split seasons the last two seasons as full ones.

It looks to me like he was just a disaster with the Clippers. He was approximately the same guy he's been in Detroit and in his short run in Memphis.

I think he'll be fine as a bench player with the Lakers. Especially considering the cupboards were picked pretty bare when they agreed to sign him.
Thanks. Looks like I screwed up. Though I’d submit he’s been pretty bad in the two years since he’s left Boston, the short stint in Memphis at the end of last season aside. If that Memphis stint represents the player AB is now when he’s healthy (ad opposed to just being SSS good shooting), I agree he’ll be a useful bench player for the Lakers. If he’s the guy we saw on the Pistons and Clippers, he’s toast.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
18,146
Thanks. Looks like I screwed up. Though I’d submit he’s been pretty bad in the two years since he’s left Boston, the short stint in Memphis at the end of last season aside. If that Memphis stint represents the player AB is now when he’s healthy (ad opposed to just being SSS good shooting), I agree he’ll be a useful bench player for the Lakers. If he’s the guy we saw on the Pistons and Clippers, he’s toast.
I don’t know of any data for “system fit” but Bradley has had several injuries slowing him down the past couple years as well. Time will tell if he has lost his skill set however it is reasonable to point to these other factors as contributors to his demise. Plenty of players have recovered from injuries after a couple years and returned to being valuable pieces on winning teams.

Maybe it was complacency with his contract and/or being a father or whetever else he has doing on personally. These are unknowns but we do know about the role change where he wasn’t utilized as a weak side cutter as he was in Boston and the injuries that he’s had.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
501
Brooklyn by way of Orono
Yea there is not even the slightest chance that he lost 40 pounds
As someone of his height (6'2") who may have hypothetically gained 40lbs at one point, I can testify its not possible to hide this much weight on that frame without it being obvious :)


I don’t know of any data for “system fit” but Bradley has had several injuries slowing him down the past couple years as well. Time will tell if he has lost his skill set however it is reasonable to point to these other factors as contributors to his demise. Plenty of players have recovered from injuries after a couple years and returned to being valuable pieces on winning teams.
Avery is one of the guards, Rondo another, that seemed to have made a choice to simply stop playing defense one offseason. He was an RPM darling for the three years leading through the '15-'16 season, and maybe injuries are the underlying driver, but to my eyes he went from being a stopper to average bordering on checked out at the defensive end.

Sort of a larger NBA trend I believe, though admittedly a data free opinion, but there was a time when a guard could built a rep on D (Payton for example). I just don't see that anymore once a player gets 'established' (Rondo, Avery, etc.) they just go for offensive #s. I'll stand by for the counterexamples.
 

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
485
As someone of his height (6'2") who may have hypothetically gained 40lbs at one point, I can testify its not possible to hide this much weight on that frame without it being obvious :)




Avery is one of the guards, Rondo another, that seemed to have made a choice to simply stop playing defense one offseason. He was an RPM darling for the three years leading through the '15-'16 season, and maybe injuries are the underlying driver, but to my eyes he went from being a stopper to average bordering on checked out at the defensive end.

Sort of a larger NBA trend I believe, though admittedly a data free opinion, but there was a time when a guard could built a rep on D (Payton for example). I just don't see that anymore once a player gets 'established' (Rondo, Avery, etc.) they just go for offensive #s. I'll stand by for the counterexamples.
Smart.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
501
Brooklyn by way of Orono
Darn, I was hoping you were referring to my post but good call: he's 100% a guard that's made his bones on D.

That said, I still believe he's the exception not the rule, and that guard defense is not being emphasized/expected the same way.

To avoid just sounding like "You Kids Get Off My Lawn" I looked a defensive win shares for the top 50 guards every ten years going back from this season.

Year Average Defensive Win Shares Top 50 Guards
99 0.1197
09 0.1149
19 0.1131


For those more knowledgeable on the DEF WS methodology, perhaps there is a trending Team Pace or League Points per possession, etc. that makes this analysis moot, but I thought it was interesting.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
2,046
JR Smith will become a free agent today, according to Windhorst. The Lakers still have the room exception, and can carve out a piece of it for JR.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
18,146
JR Smith will become a free agent today, according to Windhorst. The Lakers still have the room exception, and can carve out a piece of it for JR.
I think the Lakers are more likely to save the room for down the road. Even LeBron knows JR is finished.
 

Tony C

Dope
Dope
Apr 13, 2000
11,263
Yeah, don't they already have a ton of guards? It seems their need is at forward -- they probably can't afford Iggy, but that'd seem more up their alley.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
10,382
Somewhere
It's fun to re-read this thread again. Quite a bit of drama for our cross-country rivals this offseason.

I wonder who the Lakers would have signed if they knew up front that Kawhi wasn't going to sign with them.

Would they have tried to dump their money on Kemba?

I'm not sure they're totally happy with Rondo-Cook-Bradley as their #2-#4 players in their guard rotation but they probably got their best fit for a #1 guy.

Also, the Cousins-McGee pairing will definitely test ol' Rocco's "two donkeys" theory.
 

JohnnyTheBone

Member
SoSH Member
May 28, 2007
17,115
A Buick 6
Steve Kerr not holding back his contempt of Anthony Davis and the way it all went down.
“I'm talking more about the Anthony Davis situation. Where a guy is perfectly healthy and has a couple years left on his deal and says, 'I want to leave.' That's a real problem that the league has to address and that the players have to be careful with.

"When you sign on that dotted line, you owe your effort and your play to that team, to that city, to the fans. And then [once the contract runs out] it's completely your right to leave as a free agent. But if you sign the contract, then you should be bound to that contract.

“If you come to an agreement with the team that, hey, it’s probably best for us to part ways, that’s one thing. But the Davis stuff was really kind of groundbreaking — and hopefully not a trend, because it’s bad for the league.”
 

oumbi

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 15, 2006
2,416
Interesting argument by Kerr. But that, in turn, raises of the argument of wouldn't we similarly expect team GMs to show loyalty to their fans and the player and never trade them during the contract? It seems a double standard is being invoked here. It is all right to trade a player you signed to a contract to play hard and stay loyal to the team and fans. But the GM also has the right to trade a player who signed to stay and be loyal to the team and fans.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
9,560
Interesting argument by Kerr. But that, in turn, raises of the argument of wouldn't we similarly expect team GMs to show loyalty to their fans and the player and never trade them during the contract? It seems a double standard is being invoked here. It is all right to trade a player you signed to a contract to play hard and stay loyal to the team and fans. But the GM also has the right to trade a player who signed to stay and be loyal to the team and fans.
Uh, yeah, that's the bargain you make signing a contract under this collective bargaining agreement. One that pays you to perform for the franchise, but also compensates you for the fact that they can trade you if it's in the best interests of the franchise. If players could choose to leave at the drop of a hat, fully at-will (other than, you know, retiring), then there'd be no opportunity to market them to your fans because they could be gone tomorrow. So that's part of what the franchises are paying for with longer contracts.

edit: to expand on that, the NFL treats its players with all the regard you might give to meat being fed through a grinder. My sympathies are with the players, there. But in the NBA, if the players can just capriciously invalidate their signed contracts, effectively, by choosing not to play and whining publicly and privately that they want a trade, then I think there's too much power with those players and the league needs to do something about it (so I agree with Kerr). It's at the opposite end of the spectrum, and frankly MLB might have the best model because you almost never see star players making mid-contract trade demands, but they're still treated quite well.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,974
Kiev, Ukraine
Uh, yeah, that's the bargain you make signing a contract under this collective bargaining agreement. One that pays you to perform for the franchise, but also compensates you for the fact that they can trade you if it's in the best interests of the franchise. If players could choose to leave at the drop of a hat, fully at-will (other than, you know, retiring), then there'd be no opportunity to market them to your fans because they could be gone tomorrow. So that's part of what the franchises are paying for with longer contracts.

edit: to expand on that, the NFL treats its players with all the regard you might give to meat being fed through a grinder. My sympathies are with the players, there. But in the NBA, if the players can just capriciously invalidate their signed contracts, effectively, by choosing not to play and whining publicly and privately that they want a trade, then I think there's too much power with those players and the league needs to do something about it (so I agree with Kerr). It's at the opposite end of the spectrum, and frankly MLB might have the best model because you almost never see star players making mid-contract trade demands, but they're still treated quite well.
The bolded is important: the team is guaranteeing significant dollars in order to get that exclusive right to have you play or to trade you. Sometimes it goes quite wrong for the team: the list of 30M+ AAV contracts that are underwater is not a pretty one.

Now, teams still get more value from having the guy under contract long-term: the value Presti got for PG was more than IND got for him (given Oladipo and Sabonis’ value at the time).

This is all moving rapidly in a soccer direction. Top soccer players rarely finish their contracts and go to FA, and instead force moves to the clubs of their choice. In return, the acquiring team pays large transfer fees. The NBA’s economic system is different, but we’re seeing huge draft pick packages take the place of transfer fees.
 

ugmo33

Member
SoSH Member
May 6, 2016
61
I agree with Kerr that this trend is bad for the league but it is also a glaring double standard. Maybe the next CBA should make no-trade clauses easier to get
 

bowiac

I've been living a lie.
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,372
New York, NY
I obviously didn't particularly like the AD situation, but the original "sin" in this case was the system of the draft, and subsequent restricted free agency (and designated player extension), which means that players have little to no say as to where they play for their first eight years in the league. I'm sympathetic to Kerr's "he signed a contract" point, but he didn't really have any plausible alternatives to signing that contract either (apart from playing for the qualifying offer I guess).
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,974
Kiev, Ukraine
I obviously didn't particularly like the AD situation, but the original "sin" in this case was the system of the draft, and subsequent restricted free agency (and designated player extension), which means that players have little to no say as to where they play for their first eight years in the league. I'm sympathetic to Kerr's "he signed a contract" point, but he didn't really have any plausible alternatives to signing that contract either (apart from playing for the qualifying offer I guess).
Changing gears slightly, Lowe made the point in his recent article that teams now feel that it's a matter of when, not if, a player signs the qualifying offer after his rookie deal. The willingness of teams to max players who are about to miss a full year indicates that the risk isn't that high. It would also put immediate pressure on their current team to ship them to a preferred destination, rather than lose them for money.

Based on the reporting, it appears that Porzingis threatened just that to the Knicks, and was able to get himself moved to a desired team and extended, even while hurt. I think we'll start to see this kind of thing more, now that concept is proven. And if RFA stops being a hammer, I'm not sure what owners will do next--that upends a lot of team-building assumptions.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
I obviously didn't particularly like the AD situation, but the original "sin" in this case was the system of the draft, and subsequent restricted free agency (and designated player extension), which means that players have little to no say as to where they play for their first eight years in the league. I'm sympathetic to Kerr's "he signed a contract" point, but he didn't really have any plausible alternatives to signing that contract either (apart from playing for the qualifying offer I guess).
Playing for the QO and becoming a free agent after year 5 is an option. If you want the generational wealth that comes from signing an extension (or for lesser stars, a max contract in RFA that gets matched), you have to commit to an additional 3 years with your initial team. I’m with Kerr on this one — AD wanted the security that came with the extension but didn’t want to hold up his end of the bargain.

Like others, I view this situation as different than an NFL player with a non-guaranteed contract who holds out. I’d even say it’s less sympathetic than an MLB player stuck in the arbitration system, or an NBA player on a rookie deal. What AD did would be considered unethical in most lines of work — because he did have the option of becoming a free agent, and passed on it.
 

Tony C

Dope
Dope
Apr 13, 2000
11,263
I agree with Kerr that this trend is bad for the league but it is also a glaring double standard. Maybe the next CBA should make no-trade clauses easier to get
I love Kerr, but I'm surprised by this the more control players have over their destinies the better in my book. Particularly since these guys are giving up money to play in situations that for family and/or competitive reasons they prefer.

And, btw, New Orleans (and its fans) did just fine out of the deal...much better than if AD had simply played out the string and left. Same as OKC with PG. All this hand wringing about he signed on the dotted line -- so he did and due to that NO was able to trade him for a shit-ton.

Who was hurt? AD gets to play with the GOAT in the city where he wants to be. NO's future is much brighter. And competitive balance is outrageously good -- the West will be a dogfight next year.

The only loser is some traditional idea of players as chattel.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,974
Kiev, Ukraine
I love Kerr, but I'm surprised by this the more control players have over their destinies the better in my book. Particularly since these guys are giving up money to play in situations that for family and/or competitive reasons they prefer.

And, btw, New Orleans (and its fans) did just fine out of the deal...much better than if AD had simply played out the string and left. Same as OKC with PG. All this hand wringing about he signed on the dotted line -- so he did and due to that NO was able to trade him for a shit-ton.

Who was hurt? AD gets to play with the GOAT in the city where he wants to be. NO's future is much brighter. And competitive balance is outrageously good -- the West will be a dogfight next year.

The only loser is some traditional idea of players as chattel.
Fairness isn’t really a relevant concept here. The NBA is a highly artificial construct. The money in the NBA only exists because people like the entertainment product as a whole. Allowing fans to connect with players over multiple years is a part of that product.

Americans for whatever reason don’t seem to respond as well to the mostly free-market dynamics of soccer player movement and team-building, and so the NBA needs to balance

1. the excitement generated by marquee players moving teams
2. the needs of its smaller market franchisees
3. the guaranteed money that players have bargained for (in contrast to the NFL)
4. the desire of players to play in marquee markets with good weather and hot girls

...among a lot of other things. It’s absolutely appropriate for the league to be debating whether the current dynamics are good for its long-term interests, because that’s ultimately to the benefit of everyone, players and teams alike.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
8,074
It is indeed correct that Americans want their sports leagues to be relatively fairly balanced. Sure, maybe the Pelicans don't have a prayer of winning anything right now, but hope still springs there with the Zion train heading their way. Relegation would never, ever fly here in the US, for example. And so the NBA does have a vested interest in balancing out the needs of the various owners as well as the players. While there is no NBA without players, there is no league without owners either.

Anyway, I would agree more strongly with Kerr if New Orleans and the Thunder received 2nd round picks in exchange for their star players that demanded trades. Instead, they both received a haul of assets (and asses) that they could put to good use when it comes to building the next contender.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
9,560
Who was hurt? AD gets to play with the GOAT in the city where he wants to be. NO's future is much brighter. And competitive balance is outrageously good -- the West will be a dogfight next year.

The only loser is some traditional idea of players as chattel.
The loser is the competitive balance of the league, and the ability of small market teams to compete. If it's the case that even when they manage to draft someone who grows into a top player, small-market teams nevertheless have that player immediately start wrangling to try and leave and go to bigger markets, then merely recovering some good draft picks or good-value contracts is not an answer for them - even if they spend those draft picks brilliantly, the cycle will continue again, rather than leaving them in a position to compete. It means a third of the league, maybe half, might as well fold up shop because they're never going to sniff a title, because any of the players who could actually deliver a decent shot at one are going to shoot their way out of town for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with how well the front office has done at assembling a roster, hiring a coach, marketing the team, etc. It means the franchises are hopeless when it comes to competing, and the fans will shortly know it.

That outcome hurts the league as a whole every bit as much as it hurts the franchises in question, because US sports leagues have convinced viewers and fans that they are predicated on every team having a more-or-less level playing field, and that even if you sink low, you still have a chance to rebuild and become the next small-market success story. The TB Rays made the World Series, the Jaguars almost went to the Super Bowl, the Marlins won two championships. Tons of smaller-market teams have won in the NHL, NFL and even MLB. The same has been true historically of the NBA, but if star players can shoot their way out of town and only really want to play for a half-dozen teams, it hurts everyone.

That's the way it is in european soccer leagues, where the financial advantage of a few teams means that there is almost no ability for most teams to truly compete for a title, and it's just a question of whether you can move up or down the pecking order a little bit. But there are almost no surprises in the top UEFA leagues, which is why Leicester City winning the EPL a few years ago was truly the shock of a lifetime.

So, no, the "only loser" is not some idea of "owning a person". The harmed party need not be a single person or team, it can be the league and viewing public at large.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
9,560
It is indeed correct that Americans want their sports leagues to be relatively fairly balanced. Sure, maybe the Pelicans don't have a prayer of winning anything right now, but hope still springs there with the Zion train heading their way. Relegation would never, ever fly here in the US, for example. And so the NBA...
It's off-topic, but I actually disagree that relegation couldn't fly here, particularly if it were a closed relegation system among 2-3 professional divisions. I think the essence of competitive balance in MLS is the draft, the salary cap, and the various exceptions to it - those satisfy Americans' general preference or expectation for equality of opportunity. I think Americans are very accepting of the fact that losing should have consequences, i.e. that there's not equality of outcome. We're not flipping coins here. And although normally the consequences of losing are limited to players making less for having sucked, and coaches / GMs getting fired, I think there's a lot of enthusiasm for the idea that there's a huge difference between being merely mediocre vs being truly awful, because the latter could get you sent down to play less-competitive teams next year. As with the EU leagues, it would definitely make for a greater level of interest in a greater fraction of teams, because those competing to not get relegated would be fighting hard till the end.

Plus we have some pop culture precedent for it :)
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,974
Kiev, Ukraine
...
So, no, the "only loser" is not some idea of "owning a person". The harmed party need not be a single person or team, it can be the league and viewing public at large.
This. Sports leagues exist for entertainment. They make money for players and owners when they fulfill that function. If they stop fulfilling that function, the players and owners have no contracts or money or teams to argue about in the first place.

I suppose there is an argument, however, that maybe the existence of 30 teams, in a range of markets, is an artifact of pre-Twitter/streaming video NBA? Like...is it bad that most players would be happy only playing in NYC, Miami, LA and SF?

Would it change most fans’ experience if the league contracted to 20 teams that only played in 4-5 markets, and everyone chose their laundry accordingly?

Obviously this will never happen because of path dependence and everyone’s franchise values, but I don’t want to treat the player movement argument as prima facie ridiculous—if most players want to be in LA or NYC, why do we go to great lengths to stop that?
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
9,560
Obviously this will never happen because of path dependence and everyone’s franchise values, but I don’t want to treat the player movement argument as prima facie ridiculous—if most players want to be in LA or NYC, why do we go to great lengths to stop that?
Because republicans Wisconsinites buy sneakers NBA tickets too. To accede to the preferences of "most players" would be to voluntarily forego the vast sums of money that 2nd and 3rd-tier cities' residents would gladly pay to see top-quality basketball.

Most customers department stores would prefer that we take out the cash registers there and just let people grab merchandise and leave without paying. That'd make them each a lot happier than the current regime. But it's not what's in the best interests of the customers and the stores (and manufacturers, and and and) collectively.

It's a collective-action problem. Individually, there's no issue with any one player expressing that preference through (say) taking less money to play in a big market. But writ large, there is a substantial and negative impact on the league that will, in the end, come back to bite the players making those decisions en masse.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,974
Kiev, Ukraine
Because republicans Wisconsinites buy sneakers NBA tickets too. To accede to the preferences of "most players" would be to voluntarily forego the vast sums of money that 2nd and 3rd-tier cities' residents would gladly pay to see top-quality basketball.

Most customers department stores would prefer that we take out the cash registers there and just let people grab merchandise and leave without paying. That'd make them each a lot happier than the current regime. But it's not what's in the best interests of the customers and the stores (and manufacturers, and and and) collectively.

It's a collective-action problem. Individually, there's no issue with any one player expressing that preference through (say) taking less money to play in a big market. But writ large, there is a substantial and negative impact on the league that will, in the end, come back to bite the players making those decisions en masse.
Yeah, I’m with you, was mostly playing devil’s advocate. How much does the NBA depend on local markets vs national TV, “national” fans, and larger markets?