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

Tony C

Dope
Dope
Apr 13, 2000
11,078
...

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.
1: The Pelicans had AD for years and did a shit job building around him. Their future now is rosier w/out him than it was with him. I think the cause and effect here is ass backwards. Milw acquired a star like AD in a secondary market and has not had a problem building around him. AD is not a villain nor is the system: the Pelicans have had crappy management and have paid the price. Indeed, that bad management failed to trade AD in what clearly would have been a very good deal due, simply, to spite. They got a competent GM and, voila, they make that trade (or a similar one) and...the rebuild is on. Management is key.

2: The NBA is more popular than ever so I fail to see how it as an entity is suffering, either.

3: The teams in last year's finals were Toronto, Milw, GS (Oakland or the Bay Area, in general), and Portland. None of those are giant markets (though the Bay Area is pretty rich). For next year. there are 6 excellent teams in the West (including Portland and Utah) and two in the East (including Milw) -- plenty of winning to go around/plenty of competitive balance.

4: The two NYC teams have been awful for years and 1 of the L.A. teams has been awful and the other just kinda good. Both the Clippers and Nets have had exemplary rebuilds that have relied little on their being in major markets. The Lakers have been sort of dysfunctional and have paid they price -- they are, if memory serves, the losing-est team in the NBA over the last 6 years. In re LeBron wanting to sign with them due to them being the Lakers (I guess), clearly they took advantage of both their brand and their city in a way that, say, Charlotte couldn't. But in the big picture, even with Magic in charge they've fucked up lots of little things but mostly did the big things right in re clearing cap space to build around LeBron. The Knicks have been a total shit show and...they lose and lose and lose.

I'm not saying being in L.A. or NY or Miami (another marquee city not doing all that great) isn't an advantage -- clearly it is and clearly that has benefited the Lakers, specifically. But I'm failing to see a major issue here. Compared to the years when the Lakers and Celtics were seemingly winning every year, there's far, far more balance in the NBA, the league is much healthier, and players have more control of their own destinies which I think is just.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,759
3: The teams in last year's finals were Toronto, Milw, GS (Oakland or the Bay Area, in general), and Portland. None of those are giant markets (though the Bay Area is pretty rich). For next year. there are 6 excellent teams in the West (including Portland and Utah) and two in the East (including Milw) -- plenty of winning to go around/plenty of competitive balance.
The Toronto media market is pretty huge, the greater area (the Golden Horseshoe) has a population of around ten million.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
8,196
Two points in response:

1) What's true and doing well today isn't necessarily what is, foreseeably, going to do well 10 years from now. I doubt you own much Blockbuster Video stock, or did as it ran into the ground. So it is an area of prime concern for the league's owners, as reported on extensively.

2) Milwaukee is a case in point. If they can keep Giannis and build around him, clearly the league is doing well with respect to competitive balance. But their owner is terrified of having him poached (probably in a way that circumvents the tampering rules). From that same article:

Marc Lasry, co-owner of the Milwaukee Bucks, spoke of his concern of the gray areas of tampering rules; it was lost on no one in the room that Milwaukee's franchise player, Giannis Antetokounmpo, could be the most sought-after star in free agency in 2021 if he does not sign an extension with the team before then. Other owners expressed frustration that some deals had apparently been agreed to well before the official start of free agency.
Quality management should, and today largely does, make a decisive difference in a team's future. So why would Lebron (and then AD) force their way to the Lakers, of all places? Is it good that Jimmy Butler chose a shit-show in Miami over staying with Philly and making them a top-tier contender? Kawhi went to LA (and got Paul George to shoot his way out of a small-market situation that he was quite happy with), who had a decent cap situation but not particularly well-regarded management, rather than staying in Toronto where he'd just won a championship? How many stars who've just led a team to a championship end up departing immediately after? Has to be vanishingly few. Not to mention that Ujiri is regarded as one of the top GMs in the league. I'm sure there's nothing to the reports that Kawhi's uncle was trying to angle for side benefits for himself, and when rebuffed (and narc'd out over it) suddenly Kawhi leaves Toronto as abruptly as he arrived - and obviously-good management was able to make absolutely no difference.

Sorry, I'm seeing a trend that ought to worry any team in a bottom-10 NBA market. Other considerations are clearly swamping good management (or likelihood to win, or roster quality, etc) as a reason for signing somewhere. Maybe if there weren't a max salary things would be different, but I think that even if so, the non-salary advantages of a big market would still be a siren call.
 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
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.
AD could have been a free agent two years ago. Instead, he signed a contact that guaranteed him tens of millions of dollars. If the fates had turned differently, and AD had torn his Achilles instead of Boogie, the Pelicans would still have owed him that money. And no one besides Pelicans’ fans would feel too bad for them, because they understood the deal they signed. By publicly demanding a trade in violation of league rules, AD denied the Pelicans the benefit of the bargain in a contract where the Pels bore the lion’s share of the risk.

In most other fields of endeavor, AD would now be facing a lawsuit that would strip him of many of the millions he earned from the contract that he no longer felt like honoring. I’m not saying that should happen — it’s well-settled that public trade demands by NBA stars are punished by a slap on the wrist, and that was part of the collectively bargained context in which the Pelicans and AD negotiated that contract. But you don’t have to be the sort of person who thinks players are chattel and should be grateful for whatever they get to think the whole situation stinks.

And whatever you think of AD’s ethics, it’s dumb luck that his behavior didn’t completely screw the Pelicans. If the Pels and Lakers didn’t both hit the draft lottery, this situation would look very different. Perhaps the NBA and the union should revisit the rules in this area before that happens.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
3,232
New York City
Two points in response:

1) What's true and doing well today isn't necessarily what is, foreseeably, going to do well 10 years from now. I doubt you own much Blockbuster Video stock, or did as it ran into the ground. So it is an area of prime concern for the league's owners, as reported on extensively.

2) Milwaukee is a case in point. If they can keep Giannis and build around him, clearly the league is doing well with respect to competitive balance. But their owner is terrified of having him poached (probably in a way that circumvents the tampering rules). From that same article:


Quality management should, and today largely does, make a decisive difference in a team's future. So why would Lebron (and then AD) force their way to the Lakers, of all places? Is it good that Jimmy Butler chose a shit-show in Miami over staying with Philly and making them a top-tier contender? Kawhi went to LA (and got Paul George to shoot his way out of a small-market situation that he was quite happy with), who had a decent cap situation but not particularly well-regarded management, rather than staying in Toronto where he'd just won a championship? How many stars who've just led a team to a championship end up departing immediately after? Has to be vanishingly few. Not to mention that Ujiri is regarded as one of the top GMs in the league. I'm sure there's nothing to the reports that Kawhi's uncle was trying to angle for side benefits for himself, and when rebuffed (and narc'd out over it) suddenly Kawhi leaves Toronto as abruptly as he arrived - and obviously-good management was able to make absolutely no difference.

Sorry, I'm seeing a trend that ought to worry any team in a bottom-10 NBA market. Other considerations are clearly swamping good management (or likelihood to win, or roster quality, etc) as a reason for signing somewhere. Maybe if there weren't a max salary things would be different, but I think that even if so, the non-salary advantages of a big market would still be a siren call.
I don't think it's correct to say that "big-market" teams have an advantage. Chicago is the third-largest market - when was the last time anyone tried to force his way there? Dallas, Philly, and Toronto are all up there too and, other than Horford, what stars or quasi-stars have voluntarily chosen those cities recently?

Really, it's just LA and Miami (and NY to a lesser extent) that have an advantage because they are fun cities to live in for NBA players - that's always been the case and presumably always will be. Other than that I don't see what "non-salary advantages of a big market" players are looking for or choosing.
 

Bunt Single

lurker
Aug 11, 2010
29
I don't see the situation as one of big market or even desirable city any more. I think it's more a question of the players wanting -- and increasingly expecting -- to be able to form the teams they want to play on. These days it's who else will I be playing with, more than where will I be playing . Hence, AD to play with LeBron. And Kyrie to play with KD. And Kawhi to play with PG.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,541
Kiev, Ukraine
I don't see the situation as one of big market or even desirable city any more. I think it's more a question of the players wanting -- and increasingly expecting -- to be able to form the teams they want to play on. These days it's who else will I be playing with, more than where will I be playing . Hence, AD to play with LeBron. And Kyrie to play with KD. And Kawhi to play with PG.
The thing is, by some wacky coincidence, in the last 10 years they have only formed those teams in LA, Miami, and NYC (SF if you count Durant).

Edit: to be clear, I’m not saying that any of this is bad. I do think, however, that it’s very real, and something the league and players need to keep an eye on, in the interest of maximizing long-term equity value.
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,936
I don't see the situation as one of big market or even desirable city any more. I think it's more a question of the players wanting -- and increasingly expecting -- to be able to form the teams they want to play on. These days it's who else will I be playing with, more than where will I be playing . Hence, AD to play with LeBron. And Kyrie to play with KD. And Kawhi to play with PG.
We just had a summer where the 5 biggest stars either signed with or forced their way to LA, NY, and Miami. Interesting time to pull out the “Stars no longer favor big markets” card.

It’s like the Celtics fan who is in denial with the cries of, “See we can attract stars!” because Kemba didn’t turn down a max offer as Kyrie and Horford couldn’t bolt quick enough only months after KG openly persuaded Davis to go to LA over Boston.
 
Last edited:

ugmo33

Member
SoSH Member
May 6, 2016
59
I agree that player movement is fun and makes the offseason more interesting, but it also makes me question what the hell I'm doing as a fan. I was pissed about the IT4 trade when we were all of a sudden supposed to start rooting for a guy I had spent years hating. I understand the players' desire for autonomy and the GMs desire to make cut throat deals, but where does that leave us? personally, I would almost rather ironclad deals with no-trade clauses and no "pre-agency" trade requests. I'd love to watch Jaylen and Tatum develop over 8 years even if we never made the conference finals.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,759
It’s like the Celtics fan who is in denial with the cries of, “See we can attract stars!” because Kemba didn’t turn down a max offer as Kyrie and Horford couldn’t bolt quick enough only months after KG openly persuaded Davis to go to LA over Boston.
Clearly Boston was the only team willing to pay Kemba. And Davis was clearly waffling on his decision between playing for either his agent, who was offering him a movie deal, or any other NBA team. Good thing he had KG there to advise him. :rolleyes:
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,541
Kiev, Ukraine
Clearly Boston was the only team willing to pay Kemba. And Davis was clearly waffling on his decision between playing for either his agent, who was offering him a movie deal, or any other NBA team. Good thing he had KG there to advise him. :rolleyes:
I don’t think we have to be binary here. Clearly some good free agents (3rd team All-NBA ish) have wanted to play for Boston recently, and, just as clearly, it would be much, much, much, much better for the Celtics to be located in NYC, Miami, or LA.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
3,930
I’d probably throw Houston in there as a destination city. In the recent past, they signed Dwight Howard away from the Lakers (back when signing Dwight Howard was a good thing), got CP3 to pick up his option to facilitate a trade away from the other LA team, and this offseason got Westbrook’s approval as a trade destination.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,472
We just had a summer where the 5 biggest stars either signed with or forced their way to LA, NY, and Miami. Interesting time to pull out the “Stars no longer favor big markets” card.

It’s like the Celtics fan who is in denial with the cries of, “See we can attract stars!” because Kemba didn’t turn down a max offer as Kyrie and Horford couldn’t bolt quick enough only months after KG openly persuaded Davis to go to LA over Boston.
Being located in the largest media market in North America did the Knicks a lot of good during their pursuit of Kemba.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,541
Kiev, Ukraine
I’d probably throw Houston in there as a destination city. In the recent past, they signed Dwight Howard away from the Lakers (back when signing Dwight Howard was a good thing), got CP3 to pick up his option to facilitate a trade away from the other LA team, and this offseason got Westbrook’s approval as a trade destination.
Yeah, this isn’t binary: there are tiers of cities. Houston isn’t on the top one, but it’s there with Boston, Philly and a few others on the level below, where they sometimes get free agents, and guys will agree to be traded there in the right circumstances.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,541
Kiev, Ukraine
Being located in the largest media market in North America did the Knicks a lot of good during their pursuit of Kemba.
“Necessary but not sufficient” is a fairly straightforward concept.

Edit: Yes, I should probably say “mostly necessary”, but you get the idea. Showing that X was not sufficient does not counter the argument that X was necessary, and in fact is barely relevant to that argument.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,472
“Necessary but not sufficient” is a fairly straightforward concept.

Edit: Yes, I should probably say “mostly necessary”, but you get the idea. Showing that X was not sufficient does not counter the argument that X was necessary, and in fact is barely relevant to that argument.
My main point was countering the silliness that the Celtics were the only team willing to offer Kemba a max contract, or what KG says on a talk show matters to anyone anymore.

I don't doubt that LA has a lot of things going for it when it comes to attracting NBA stars. NY and Miami are probably Tier 1A comparatively. But I do think the players forming their own teams in big markets is a trend that should be watched.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,936
My main point was countering the silliness that the Celtics were the only team willing to offer Kemba a max contract, or what KG says on a talk show matters to anyone anymore.

I don't doubt that LA has a lot of things going for it when it comes to attracting NBA stars. NY and Miami are probably Tier 1A comparatively. But I do think the players forming their own teams in big markets is a trend that should be watched.
Or the "silliness" of Horford catching the first train out before the FA period even began, or Kyrie wanting out 7 months ago, or Davis saying he wouldn't sign here, or KG refusing a trade here until being convinced to come only if Ray Allen is acquired. Man......those are a lot to counter with, "The Knicks didn't benefit so it can't be a big market thing."
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,472
Last I recalled, KG did come here, and stayed here a few years, so I'm not sure what your point was. He wanted a ring, and probably wasn't getting that unless and until the Celtics had a 3rd star.

Horford's departure had nothing to do with Boston, per se. The reasons have been well documented, and by all accounts he liked playing here. He also wants a ring, and Kyrie-less Celtics weren't getting him one in the near term.

Davis would sign only in LA. And only for the Lakers. And Kyrie still thinks the earth is flat, and is entering the twilight of his career anyway (I doubt his game ages well).
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,741
Given the history of professional sports, I'm surprised that people are dumping on players for exercising all of the leverage they have been given. As a corollary to an age-old maxim, a contract really is only as good as the remedies that can be gained if the other party defaults. And in the NBA, the players have found that there really are no remedies.

If the owners want to fix what is going on they certainly have the ability to put new rules into the CBA. One of the problems - I'm not sure the owners see the biggest problem, which is (as noted multiple times in prior discussions) the star players of the league are woefully underpaid.

Lowe's article had this one paragraph nugget: "There was confusion about the tendency for players to turn down the extra year(s) and connected salary that incumbent teams can offer." Assuming this is true, that means the owners could not figure out when they were negotiating the last CBA that every 25-ish year old player hitting FA would assume that after a 4 year deal, they'd get another max deal, which effectively means that the extra year for an incumbent team is meaningless.

Which means to me that at least some of the owners are either not thinking these proposals through. Which lead us to where we are.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,741
Horford's departure had nothing to do with Boston, per se. The reasons have been well documented, and by all accounts he liked playing here. He also wants a ring, and Kyrie-less Celtics weren't getting him one in the near term.
Horford also wanted money, probably more than the Celtics were willing to pay.
It fits HRB's narrative much better to speculate that Horford bolted BOS presumably because he couldn't stand it here (despite the many pre free agency quotes to the contrary) so we're just going to have to get used to seeing it I guess.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,917
around the way
It fits HRB's narrative much better to speculate that Horford bolted BOS presumably because he couldn't stand it here (despite the many pre free agency quotes to the contrary) so we're just going to have to get used to seeing it I guess.
Yeah they signed three max FA in four years, but clearly no max guys want to play here. This line of conversation is like a homeless guy vigorously defending his pile of junk as you walk past in the train station.
 

Caspir

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
5,215
Yeah, this isn’t binary: there are tiers of cities. Houston isn’t on the top one, but it’s there with Boston, Philly and a few others on the level below, where they sometimes get free agents, and guys will agree to be traded there in the right circumstances.
I think there's a bit of a cultural difference here. Houston is one of the favorite cities for young, rich, black men to party and spend time in. There is a massive hip hop culture that caters to athletes via Rap-A-Lot and some other groups. Roc Nation is setting up a satellite there as well. Houston and Boston/Philly do not compare at all on this stuff.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,472
Yeah they signed three max FA in four years, but clearly no max guys want to play here. This line of conversation is like a homeless guy vigorously defending his pile of junk as you walk past in the train station.
But those 3 don't really count. The only ones that matter are the ones that sign with other teams.

I think there's a bit of a cultural difference here. Houston is one of the favorite cities for young, rich, black men to party and spend time in. There is a massive hip hop culture that caters to athletes via Rap-A-Lot and some other groups. Roc Nation is setting up a satellite there as well. Houston and Boston/Philly do not compare at all on this stuff.
I've heard similar about Atlanta, but not knowledgeable enough to know where the similarities begin and end, other than the fact that Atlanta is a couple of tiers below Houston when it comes to size of media market.
 

Caspir

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
5,215
I've heard similar about Atlanta, but not knowledgeable enough to know where the similarities begin and end, other than the fact that Atlanta is a couple of tiers below Houston when it comes to size of media market.
Atlanta is definitely similar, and has a younger vibe culture wise. Texas has no state income tax, so point there for the high earners. It's interesting how these things impact people's decision making process, especially at this level.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,541
Kiev, Ukraine
I think there's a bit of a cultural difference here. Houston is one of the favorite cities for young, rich, black men to party and spend time in. There is a massive hip hop culture that caters to athletes via Rap-A-Lot and some other groups. Roc Nation is setting up a satellite there as well. Houston and Boston/Philly do not compare at all on this stuff.
Totally agree wrt to partying/culture in Houston.

My point in “tiering” cities wasn’t to suggest that cities in the 2nd tier were the same. Rather, like unhappy families, they each get 2nd tier FAs to sign in their own ways.

There’s then a pretty steep drop-off after the 2nd tier, where you have the 20 or so teams that have no chance to sign an unrestricted All-NBA guy in his prime (when they’d have to switch teams; incumbency clearly still has some advantages).
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,635
Santa Monica
Given the history of professional sports, I'm surprised that people are dumping on players for exercising all of the leverage they have been given. As a corollary to an age-old maxim, a contract really is only as good as the remedies that can be gained if the other party defaults. And in the NBA, the players have found that there really are no remedies.

If the owners want to fix what is going on they certainly have the ability to put new rules into the CBA. One of the problems - I'm not sure the owners see the biggest problem, which is (as noted multiple times in prior discussions) the star players of the league are woefully underpaid.

Lowe's article had this one paragraph nugget: "There was confusion about the tendency for players to turn down the extra year(s) and connected salary that incumbent teams can offer." Assuming this is true, that means the owners could not figure out when they were negotiating the last CBA that every 25-ish year old player hitting FA would assume that after a 4 year deal, they'd get another max deal, which effectively means that the extra year for an incumbent team is meaningless.

Which means to me that at least some of the owners are either not thinking these proposals through. Which lead us to where we are.
This nails it. Well put Wade.

Nothing is going to stop, especially a contract, an Agent from doing everything in their power to "do right" by their client. Even if it's ethically right/wrong. ALSO the fine was not large enough from making the trade demand public.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,759
I don’t think we have to be binary here. Clearly some good free agents (3rd team All-NBA ish) have wanted to play for Boston recently, and, just as clearly, it would be much, much, much, much better for the Celtics to be located in NYC, Miami, or LA.
I wasn’t being binary, just mocking the very tired “Free agents never sign in Boston!!!” trope that should be recognized as garbage by now given how many free agents in all sports that choose to come here.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
10,088
A Lost Time
Tbh, I suspect Al Horford leaving Boston was less of a Horford decision and more of a front office decision.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
35,300
I wasn’t being binary, just mocking the very tired “Free agents never sign in Boston!!!” trope that should be recognized as garbage by now given how many free agents in all sports that choose to come here.
Not, you know, *real* FA.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,472
Tbh, I suspect Al Horford leaving Boston was less of a Horford decision and more of a front office decision.
If, the minute the season ended, Danny told Al that he could make 4/109 and play the 4 half time, he’s probably a Celtic this season.

Whether that was the right move is debatable, but I can understand why Danny didn’t do that.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,759
Not, you know, *real* FA.
I mean the Celtics used to have a problem, and his name was Thanks, Dad!!!. When your team is, in essence, owned by Donald Sterling you’re going to have problems getting agents and major free agents to trust your organization. That clearly isn’t the case anymore. Despite Horford deciding to take the $109 million from Philly that Boston wasn’t willing to pay. Because at the end of the day Kemba Walker elected to play in Boston for the max rather than taking a max deal from a New York team (which is currently suffering from Boston’s problem given that they’re being run by Thanks, Dad!!! Jr.) or any of the other options out there.

Irving did leave, but in retrospect it’s pretty safe guess that Roc Nation began the recruitment process last summer. And ultimately Irving did what he said he was going to when the Cleveland situation blew up. Back then he said he wanted to be traded to the New York market and that he’d just go there anyway in free agency. Which, despite his later words, he did.

A large part of this is on the owners, though. Home teams used to have a considerable advantage in re-signing their own players. Owners reduced that advantage a couple of CBAs ago, and lo and behold players have been more willing to walk in free agency. And more willing to force their way out in trades. And because teams have less time to build their GMs are more prone to blink and trade than get Irvinged in free agency.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
3,232
New York City
I think there are two things being conflated to some degree in this thread.

The first is the issue that Kerr specifically raised, which is star players demanding trades with multiple years left on their contracts. That could be an issue going forward, but for now I feel like the sample size is too small to know if this is really an issue. We really just have three examples from recent years, don't we? Kawhi on the Spurs, AD on the Pels and Paul George on OKC. And each of those had some idiosyncratic factors that make me question whether they are harbingers of similar issues to come (Kawhi's disappointment with the way the Spurs handled his injury, AD's signing with Klutch and well-known longtime desire to play in LA, and Paul George's request being tied to Kawhi's FA decision).

The second issue is whether free agents, taken collectively, prefer to play in certain cities over others. There I think the answer is obviously "yes," but I don't really see how that is an issue anymore than, say, MLB teams with larger payrolls being able to attract more free agents. Cities/teams will always use whatever advantages they have to attract players and a small-market team in a cold climate is always going to be at a relative disadvantage.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
8,196
how did a discussion about the impact of player-driven superteam formation on small-market team viability, turn into another conversation about whether Boston is a desirable place for free agents?

Looks like HRB in post #1058 baited a reply from Nighthob in #1060, and then HRB doubled down on the topic change in #1067. At least we got some good snark over it.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,759
how did a discussion about the impact of player-driven superteam formation on small-market team viability, turn into another conversation about whether Boston is a desirable place for free agents?
I mentioned this too, part of what drove the player created superteam phenomenon was the owners largely ending the home team advantage a few CBAs ago. The difference over five years between what your present team can pay and what another team can pay you is negligible (it’s under ten million). So if there’s no monetary advantage to staying, why not go form a superteam with your buddies elsewhere?

I guarantee you that if max deals (for the home team) ran two years more than the alternative, with double the raises, more guys will sign with their present team. And with the extra year to build, present teams will be more likely to just hold on to guys.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,541
Kiev, Ukraine
I mentioned this too, part of what drove the player created superteam phenomenon was the owners largely ending the home team advantage a few CBAs ago. The difference over five years between what your present team can pay and what another team can pay you is negligible (it’s under ten million). So if there’s no monetary advantage to staying, why not go form a superteam with your buddies elsewhere?

I guarantee you that if max deals (for the home team) ran two years more than the alternative, with double the raises, more guys will sign with their present team. And with the extra year to build, present teams will be more likely to just hold on to guys.
Agree that the financial incentives you mention would move the needle at the margin (although we did see Kawhi and AD force themselves out of supermax situations).

The thing is (and this goes to Kerr’s point): what happens when a guy signs a supermax, and then a year or two later makes a trade request? Because that’s where this is all headed, and rapidly.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,759
Agree that the financial incentives you mention would move the needle at the margin (although we did see Kawhi and AD force themselves out of supermax situations).

The thing is (and this goes to Kerr’s point): what happens when a guy signs a supermax, and then a year or two later makes a trade request? Because that’s where this is all headed, and rapidly.
Right, but I think the extra year would make a difference even there. In other words, with a guy on a seven year deal, and acres of time to rebuild, teams might just ignore the request. Or at least only pay attention to it if they’re overwhelmed by an offer (a la OKC with George).

Is Thanks Dad a term used or a forum filter for some person?
It was originally a nickname for Paul Gaston, who was given the Celtics by his father, and then proceeded to strip mine one of the NBA’s flagship franchises for every penny he could get out of them (he really was Donald Sterling East). Jim Dolan is basically the same situation, he was given the Knicks by his father to keep him from interfering in the family’s core business. And while he isn’t Donald Sterling, his ineptitude has earned him the right to proudly wear the nickname.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,741
The thing is (and this goes to Kerr’s point): what happens when a guy signs a supermax, and then a year or two later makes a trade request? Because that’s where this is all headed, and rapidly.
You structure a CBA where it isn't possible for teams to trade for multiple max players. I mean the easiest way to do that is to allow an incumbent team to pay the player money that would go away in a trade or allow a portion of Bird raises not to count against the salary cap for max players (yes I understand there would be unintended consequences but you would think that a bunch of smart people could get in a room and figure this out).
 

ElUno20

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,546
Anyone else just grown incredibly tired of lebron? Whining about the new ncaa agent rule, forcing david griffin to go on tv to apologize because he's so damn sensitive, warning everyone he's going off this season. Like dude, just stop.

Looking forward to his complete collapse. Father time is undefeated.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,240
Saint Paul, MN
Anyone else just grown incredibly tired of lebron? Whining about the new ncaa agent rule, forcing david griffin to go on tv to apologize because he's so damn sensitive, warning everyone he's going off this season. Like dude, just stop.

Looking forward to his complete collapse. Father time is undefeated.
We do wonder if you would be saying these same things should he have chosen the other LA team last year :)
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,936
Anyone else just grown incredibly tired of lebron? Whining about the new ncaa agent rule, forcing david griffin to go on tv to apologize because he's so damn sensitive, warning everyone he's going off this season. Like dude, just stop.

Looking forward to his complete collapse. Father time is undefeated.
Can't really blame him for either though......especially the NCAA rule which is purposely targeted to affect him and Rich Paul. Griffin was completely out of line imo.

I mean ANY NBA talk that isn't Carmelo right now I'm down with but yeah, you'll be waiting til about 2024-25 for LeBron's complete collapse.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,287
Anyone else just grown incredibly tired of lebron? Whining about the new ncaa agent rule, forcing david griffin to go on tv to apologize because he's so damn sensitive, warning everyone he's going off this season. Like dude, just stop.

Looking forward to his complete collapse. Father time is undefeated.
I’ll be a fan of anyone who openly mocks the NCAA.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
8,196
Yeah, much like how nobody who speaks German could be an evil man, nobody who speaks ill of the NCAA can be all wrong.
 

Gdiguy

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,366
San Diego, CA
As someone who doesn’t care either way - that agent rule seems like a complete joke. Certification sure ok, but the hilarity of requiring ‘any bachelor degree’ is almost comical in how it exactly reflects the NCAA in general - who cares whether you’re actually getting a useful degree or even learning and doing your own work - but you have to get one! It’s a joke.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
8,196
Yeah I can't wait to see them try to enforce that in court, especially to argue (again) that players are employees when it comes to the degree of control they can exercise over non-school and non-athletics-related activity, but "student-athletes", definitely not employees, when it comes to the question of whether they can unionize or demand wages. And given that a large majority of the NCAA's revenue is tied to the March Madness basketball tournament, there's more than a little "whiff of the plantation" about the whole thing.

Contempt really is the right word for how people ought to feel about it.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
9,786
Somewhere
The more interesting part of the NCAA rule is which big time college coach did Paul piss off? It had to be one of them. I'm guessing K.
 

GBA

lurker
Jul 18, 2005
23
Not really replying to you two specifically, as I’ve heard others say similar, but didn’t they carve out an exemption specifically for Paul? Seems like this is more about preventing the next Paul/Klutch. Doesn’t really change the overall view of these new rules or make the NCAA less loathsome, but it’s not quite so anti-Lebron.
Can't really blame him for either though......especially the NCAA rule which is purposely targeted to affect him and Rich Paul. Griffin was completely out of line imo.

I mean ANY NBA talk that isn't Carmelo right now I'm down with but yeah, you'll be waiting til about 2024-25 for LeBron's complete collapse.
The more interesting part of the NCAA rule is which big time college coach did Paul piss off? It had to be one of them. I'm guessing K.