1 team can have 4 max contracts and

[Pointguard]

four fifths of the starting All Star team. Small markets have to hate this.

[Gileraracer]

Kyrie, Love, Thompson and Lebron. 4 max players

[Pointguard]

Kyrie, Love, Thompson and Lebron. 4 max players
Not starting all stars tho.

[ISHGoat]

Didn't Bulls have rose, butler, gasol, and Noah?

Too bad Rose and Noah are bums now.

[Kblaze8855]

Small markets? What is all that cap space doing for the Lakers or Philly even with the huge markets? The Cavs meanwhile have 4 max contracts in a market smaller than Minneapolis. You generally need a desirable situation and money. The market size isnt helping much. Not like Durant went to GS because of Oakland. He went because they have a great team he can win on....and didnt even listen to the Lakers.

[DMAVS41]

Small markets? What is all that cap space doing for the Lakers or Philly even with the huge markets? The Cavs meanwhile have 4 max contracts in a market smaller than Minneapolis. You generally need a desirable situation and money. The market size isnt helping much. Not like Durant went to GS because of Oakland. He went because they have a great team he can win on....and didnt even listen to the Lakers.

Most of this is true, however I think it is a little silly to pretend markets don't matter.

The question would be...would Durant have gone to the Warriors if they were located in Milwaukee.

Or...

Given two identical or very similar teams in place...are players more likely to go to a desirable market than a non desirable market.

Like...is a player more likely to choose the Lakers over the Grizzlies if the teams in place and money is the same?

My answer is yes.

[Kblaze8855]

Really nothing to judge the Lakers bad team drawing potential by before now. They have been good to great for most of 70 years. They had only won under 33 games once since they were in Minny. They have been a glory franchise with the pieces, managment, and potential for greatness....most of all of our lives. So its hard to say what drew people there. Now that they suck....it doesnt seem the market makes it happen. It sure as hell never drew significant players to the Clippers.

It seems the Lakers....when poorly run/rebuilding....are no more of a destination than anywhere else. What evidence do I have the city draws anyone....when the city always had a good team to offer as well? Now that they dont...it seems it wasnt the city after all. Or at least it isnt anymore.

The Lakers and Knicks seem to have been counting on that "People will come because we are who we are" shit for some time and finding that people were not coming because it was LA and NY. They were coming when the team offered something worth coming to.

Brooklyn...the Knicks...Lakers...Philly? Eh.

Seems like people go where there is a reason to go. Just so happens big markets have often been worthwhile basketball wise largely through good drafting and managment. When they arent....nobody seems to care.

[bdreason]

four fifths of the starting All Star team. Small markets have to hate this.


Cleveland has 4 MAX contract starters and the largest payroll in the league.

[DMAVS41]

I don't think that is the question though. I think we all agree that money and basketball situation are big factors that will almost always over-ride market...especially now.

The question is;

Same money
Same team strength

Is a player more likely, on average, to choose a market like LA over a market like Memphis or Milwaukee...etc.

I think that answer is obviously yes.

So it is a factor...it is just not an over-riding factor.

You also have to factor in how much money franchises make as well. The Lakers owners...Warriors now... would be far less likely to want to trade James Harden because they were scared of the luxury/repeater tax like OKC was. I don't think that led to Durant leaving...so I'm not making that argument, just pointing out that there is more to all this than just the above.

[UK2K]

Or one team could have 12 all stars making $8m a piece because their salaries would be 1/100th of what their endorsements would be.

[DirkNowitzki41]

Kyrie, Love, Thompson and Lebron. 4 max players

1 allstar

[Kblaze8855]

People dont seem to have a problem signing with shitty teams for the same money they could get from the Lakers. Nearly everyone has money. Half the league sucks. The Lakers seem to have no advantage at all. They arent even getting the second tier free agents. They are out here giving Peyton Manning paydays to backups while guys they would take sign to other bad teams.

They are starting to feel like the Clippers for years. Great market...bad team...nobody wants to go. Some of these teams who get mentioned all the time as FA destinations have just....always been good as well.

Kinda makes it hard to say what drew people in.

[DMAVS41]

People dont seem to have a problem signing with shitty teams for the same money they could get from the Lakers. Nearly everyone has money. Half the league sucks. The Lakers seem to have no advantage at all. They arent even getting the second tier free agents. They are out here giving Peyton Manning paydays to backups while guys they would take sign to other bad teams.

They are starting to feel like the Clippers for years. Great market...bad team...nobody wants to go. Some of these teams who get mentioned all the time as FA destinations have just....always been good as well.

Kinda makes it hard to say what drew people in.

Not sure if this is a response to my posts or not. So I won't treat it as such.

I will ask a question.

If you have two teams of equal strength and the money is the same...do you think a star player is more likely to choose a desirable market or not a desirable market?

[Sarcastic]

Markets don't matter. Durant didn't leave OKC because they were small. He picked GS because it was the best chance to win.

He didn't even grant NY, and LA meetings. They couldn't even make a pitch.


For the last time, MARKETS DO NOT MATTER!

[Sarcastic]

Not sure if this is a response to my posts or not. So I won't treat it as such.

I will ask a question.

If you have two teams of equal strength and the money is the same...do you think a star player is more likely to choose a desirable market or not a desirable market?


Players have picked Texas and Florida teams, when all things are equal, because of the no state tax. That is hugely more beneficial, and plays a far bigger role than the market size. In fact, it's such a huge issue that the league will be adjusting it in the next CBA.

[DMAVS41]

Players have picked Texas and Florida teams, when all things are equal, because of the no state tax. That is hugely more beneficial, and plays a far bigger role than the market size. In fact, it's such a huge issue that the league will be adjusting it in the next CBA.

How is that a point against my argument? How is that not a part of what makes up the value of certain markets?

To say that markets do not matter at all...is silly. I doubt you actually mean that.

[Sarcastic]

How is that a point against my argument? How is that not a part of what makes up the value of certain markets?

To say that markets do not matter at all...is silly. I doubt you actually mean that.


Ok I should say market size doesn't matter. The only player that has ever picked a team just based off market size, was Shaquille O'neal. He wanted to be more than a basketball player, and make movies, and music, so LA and NY were the 2 places he wanted to go. NY had Ewing, so that was out of the question, and he chose LA.

That is literally the only player that made his choice because of market size.

Last year Greg Monroe picked Milwaukee over the Knicks. Lamarcus Aldridge picked San Antonio over the Knicks. Heck, San Antonio even got a meeting with Kevin Durant, which the Lakers and Knicks couldn't even do.

Nobody makes market size an issue, unless they are looking to do things other than basketball.

[Dresta]

How is that a point against my argument? How is that not a part of what makes up the value of certain markets?

To say that markets do not matter at all...is silly. I doubt you actually mean that.
He doesn't realise he defeated his own argument.

:facepalm


How anyone can think that where a person lives is a complete non-factor issue is beyond me. Most people care about where they live, even NBA players...

[DMAVS41]

Ok I should say market size doesn't matter. The only player that has ever picked a team just based off market size, was Shaquille O'neal. He wanted to be more than a basketball player, and make movies, and music, so LA and NY were the 2 places he wanted to go. NY had Ewing, so that was out of the question, and he chose LA.

That is literally the only player that made his choice because of market size.

Last year Greg Monroe picked Milwaukee over the Knicks. Lamarcus Aldridge picked San Antonio over the Knicks. Heck, San Antonio even got a meeting with Kevin Durant, which the Lakers and Knicks couldn't even do.

Nobody makes market size an issue, unless they are looking to do things other than basketball.

Nobody is claiming it is only market size.

The claim is that markets matter...and all that entails. How much they matter is up for debate, but claiming where a player plays makes absolutely no difference is just idiotic.

I just don't believe that you and others actually think this. There is no way that the average superstar throughout NBA history would say "makes no difference if I play in even a great spot like Toronto vs LA" if the teams and money were the same.

Do you actually believe that?

[Kblaze8855]

Well doesnt the term "Desirable" kinda imply where he wants to go? If he likes it more than another of course he would go if all else were equal. But just what a player desires....changes man to man. We have multiple dudes leaving Miami for the frozen tundra of the north, huge free agents not even meeting with LA, guys leaving 50-60 win teams in nice weather cities to go play in Boston and shovel snow on a similar or worse team...

Recent events seem to have shaken up what desirable actually means.

[DMAVS41]

Well doesnt the term "Desirable" kinda imply where he wants to go? If he likes it more than another of course he would go if all else were equal. But just what a player desires....changes man to man. We have multiple dudes leaving Miami for the frozen tundra of the north, huge free agents not even meeting with LA, guys leaving 50-60 win teams in nice weather cities to go play in Boston and shovel snow on a similar or worse team...

Recent events seem to have shaken up what desirable actually means.

Sure...if you completely ignore the fact that I've repeated that the basketball situation clearly is a large factor.

Not sure if you aren't reading my posts or just choosing not to respond to what I've actually said.

On average...star players are going to be drawn to bigger markets in more desirable locations to live if all the basektball/money stuff is equal.

Tell me if you disagree with the bold.

[sammichoffate]

Sure...if you completely ignore the fact that I've repeated that the basketball situation clearly is a large factor.

Not sure if you aren't reading my posts or just choosing not to respond to what I've actually said.

On average...star players are going to be drawn to bigger markets in more desirable locations to live if all the basektball/money stuff is equal.

Tell me if you disagree with the bold.Isn't this common sense tho, wtf?

[DMAVS41]

Isn't this common sense tho, wtf?

Not to people claiming that markets do not matter at all apparently.

[Hey Yo]

People dont seem to have a problem signing with shitty teams for the same money they could get from the Lakers. Nearly everyone has money. Half the league sucks. The Lakers seem to have no advantage at all. They arent even getting the second tier free agents. They are out here giving Peyton Manning paydays to backups while guys they would take sign to other bad teams.

They are starting to feel like the Clippers for years. Great market...bad team...nobody wants to go. Some of these teams who get mentioned all the time as FA destinations have just....always been good as well.

Kinda makes it hard to say what drew people in.
Bottom line:

Players no longer need to play in big markets for endorsements and big money.

[Kblaze8855]

And that creates a large portion of my issue. For years it was big market big market....largely due to money...outside deals.

And now there is a shift to include not just big markets....but whatever else is needed to make a team a hot spot for talent. Miami for example....people used them as a big market example...ignoring that they aren't an especially large market. So it was altered....big market/warm city....and now we just kinda cover the whole spectrum of what makes a team worth going to by calling it desirable.

Well....once you ask if someone wants to be somewhere "desirable" or not that kinda makes it not worth asking. It feels like when people shifted from global warming to climate change to keep up an argument the original term doesn't always apply to anymore.

It was market market market.....but so many big markets now don't get anyone. Then it was warm city.....and warm cities keep losing guys too. Miami lost its two greatest players to cold weather cities in 2 years. The Clippers didn't sign anyone of note for 30 years playing next to the Lakers in southern cali. The warriors sucked all but like 5-6 seasons since Rick Barrys day and off the top of my head...never signed a major FA until yesterday but now its a desirable location? Why wasn't it desirable for 50 years? Seems we just kinda make the cities that get everyone at the moment out to be desirable locations...even if they were in the same place being shunned for decades.

Im not sure what evidence there is that a great situation with equal money in a less "desirable" location results in less players wanting to go.

I'll think about it for a few minutes....but...off the top? Im not coming up with much. Often the examples people cite have just as much going the other way.

The Lakers used to be the "Well....yea the Lakers just get who they want" team you had to concede were special. Now? Im not seeing it.

Too much money out here now and you can get it anywhere. Guys want to win too bad. I get the feeling Durant would have signed with the Pacers if they had Steph and company. He wants that ring.

[DMAVS41]

And that creates a large portion of my issue. For years it was big market big market....largely due to money...outside deals.

And now there is a shift to include not just big markets....but whatever else is needed to make a team a hot spot for talent. Miami for example....people used them as a big market example...ignoring that they aren't an especially large market. So it was altered....big market/warm city....and now we just kinda cover the whole spectrum of what makes a team worth going to by calling it desirable.

Well....once you ask if someone wants to be somewhere "desirable" or not that kinda makes it not worth asking. It feels like when people shifted from global warming to climate change to keep up an argument the original term doesn't always apply to anymore.

It was market market market.....but so many big markets now don't get anyone. Then it was warm city.....and warm cities keep losing guys too. Miami lost its two greatest players to cold weather cities in 2 years. The Clippers didn't sign anyone of note for 30 years playing next to the Lakers in southern cali. The warriors sucked all but like 5-6 seasons since Rick Barrys day and off the top of my head...never signed a major FA until yesterday but now its a desirable location? Why wasn't it desirable for 50 years? Seems we just kinda make the cities that get everyone at the moment out to be desirable locations...even if they were in the same place being shunned for decades.

Im not sure what evidence there is that a great situation with equal money in a less "desirable" location results in less players wanting to go.

I'll think about it for a few minutes....but...off the top? Im not coming up with much. Often the examples people cite have just as much going the other way.

The Lakers used to be the "Well....yea the Lakers just get who they want" team you had to concede were special. Now? Im not seeing it.

Too much money out here now and you can get it anywhere. Guys want to win too bad. I get the feeling Durant would have signed with the Pacers if they had Steph and company. He wants that ring.


Bold isn't the question though.

Question is;

Does he choose the Pacers over the Lakers if both teams had the equivalent of Steph and company.

On average...I feel comfortable saying the answer to that is no.

Hence markets matter...they just don't over-ride a lot of other important factors.

[Sarcastic]

He doesn't realise he defeated his own argument.

:facepalm


How anyone can think that where a person lives is a complete non-factor issue is beyond me. Most people care about where they live, even NBA players...


Instead of speaking hypothetically, name me the players in reality that have picked a team because of location.

[DMAVS41]

Instead of speaking hypothetically, name me the players in reality that have picked a team because of location.

You don't think the Knicks being in NY had at least a little to do with Melo going there?

You don't think Shaq going to the Lakers had at least a little to do with LA?

[Sarcastic]

You don't think the Knicks being in NY had at least a little to do with Melo going there?

I think Melo being born in NY, and his wife being born in NY had more to do with it than anything. And I think his wife had more weight on the decision than anything.

[FireDavidKahn]

The players association will never agree to this...but I just wish they would take away the max limit on max contracts...let the market decide how much you are really worth. That would help prevent superteams like the Warriors.

[FireDavidKahn]

You don't think the Knicks being in NY had at least a little to do with Melo going there?

You don't think Shaq going to the Lakers had at least a little to do with LA?
Melo had no choice...Lala forced the trade to NY

[DMAVS41]

Melo had no choice...Lala forced the trade to NY

Haha. True.

Yet that makes my point for me.

Lala ain't going to Milwaukee if she has a choice.

[Sarcastic]

In reality there are 2 factors that decide where a player will sign:
1 How much money will they pay me
2 Can I win


Everything else doesn't matter. How the weather is, how the schools are, how big the market is, do the houses appreciate in value, etc. None of that shit matters.

Can I win, and how much will they pay me. Those are the only factors.

[Sarcastic]

Haha. True.

Yet that makes my point for me.

Lala ain't going to Milwaukee if she has a choice.


But Greg Monroe did, and didn't even meet with the Knicks.

[DMAVS41]

I think Melo being born in NY, and his wife being born in NY had more to do with it than anything. And I think his wife had more weight on the decision than anything.

So...lets get this straight.

You think that a star player is just as likely to choose Memphis or OKC or Milwaukee as they are New York or LA...

If the money and basketball situations are even?

[DMAVS41]

But Greg Monroe did, and didn't even meet with the Knicks.

Yea...I guess you missed my point about the basketball situation mattering.

[Sarcastic]

So...lets get this straight.

You think that a star player is just as likely to choose Memphis or OKC or Milwaukee as they are New York or LA...

If the money and basketball situations are even?


Can you name me a player other than Shaq that went to NY or LA because of market?

I already explained about him. He picked LA because he wanted to make movies and music. That is a once in our lifetime example though.

[DMAVS41]

Can you name me a player other than Shaq that went to NY or LA because of market?

I already explained about him. He picked LA because he wanted to make movies and music. That is a once in our lifetime example though.

Could you answer the question?

[Sarcastic]

Could you answer the question?


It's a trick question. There are no such things as equal basketball situations.

[FireDavidKahn]

Can you name me a player other than Shaq that went to NY or LA because of market?

I already explained about him. He picked LA because he wanted to make movies and music. That is a once in our lifetime example though.
Melo.

[FireDavidKahn]

It's a trick question. There are no such things as equal basketball situations.
...That is actually a valid answer:eek:

[DMAVS41]

It's a trick question. There are no such things as equal basketball situations.

It is a question designed to illustrate how absurd the position is that where a player decides to play...has 0 factor in their decision.

[Sarcastic]

Melo.


He wanted NY because he and his wife are from there, not because of market size.

[Dro]

Really nothing to judge the Lakers bad team drawing potential by before now. They have been good to great for most of 70 years. They had only won under 33 games once since they were in Minny. They have been a glory franchise with the pieces, managment, and potential for greatness....most of all of our lives. So its hard to say what drew people there. Now that they suck....it doesnt seem the market makes it happen. It sure as hell never drew significant players to the Clippers.

It seems the Lakers....when poorly run/rebuilding....are no more of a destination than anywhere else. What evidence do I have the city draws anyone....when the city always had a good team to offer as well? Now that they dont...it seems it wasnt the city after all. Or at least it isnt anymore.

The Lakers and Knicks seem to have been counting on that "People will come because we are who we are" shit for some time and finding that people were not coming because it was LA and NY. They were coming when the team offered something worth coming to.

Brooklyn...the Knicks...Lakers...Philly? Eh.

Seems like people go where there is a reason to go. Just so happens big markets have often been worthwhile basketball wise largely through good drafting and managment. When they arent....nobody seems to care.
I agree with this pretty much....When the Lakers had garbage teams before Shaq got there, was anybody begging to go play with Sedale Threat and Vlade Divac? (was Divac still there?) lol

[Sarcastic]

It is a question designed to illustrate how absurd the position is that where a player decides to play...has 0 factor in their decision.


And I told you there are 2 factors, money and chance to win. Money can be equal, but chance to win is not. There are different teammates on every team, hence there are no equal situations.

For example, Chris Paul doesn't actually have a twin named Cliff Paul. So playing with him on the Clippers is unlike any other situation on every other team. If someone wants to play with Chris Paul, it would have to be on the Clippers. You can't play with Chris Paul on Memphis.

[DMAVS41]

And I told you there are 2 factors, money and chance to win. Money can be equal, but chance to win is not. There are different teammates on every team, hence there are no equal situations.

For example, Chris Paul doesn't actually have a twin named Cliff Paul. So playing with him on the Clippers is unlike any other situation on every other team. If someone wants to play with Chris Paul, it would have to be on the Clippers. You can't play with Chris Paul on Memphis.

Again...just to be clear.

You are saying that the location where a player plays is no factor whatsoever.

And...that it is just as easy to build a great team in all markets.

Correct?

[Sarcastic]

Again...just to be clear.

You are saying that the location where a player plays is no factor whatsoever.

And...that it is just as easy to build a great team in all markets.

Correct?


It's never been shown to be a factor, except for Shaq. No other player has ever picked a team because of market size. It's always been money, chance to win, or hometown team (Lebron for example left mid market Miami for small market Cleveland because it was his hometown).

If you can provide me an example, where a player picked a team because of large city, please do so.

[DMAVS41]

It's never been shown to be a factor, except for Shaq. No other player has ever picked a team because of market size. It's always been money, chance to win, or hometown team (Lebron for example left big market Miami for small market Cleveland because it was his hometown).

If you can provide me an example, where a player picked a team because of large city, please do so.

You are smuggling in chance to win though.

That is why I asked you if you thought every market has the exact same chance of building a contender.

Do you?

Also...we just disagree on certain things.

Like...I don't think Lebron ever leaves Cleveland if they build a great team around him. And if they were in a better market...I think that is easier. I think the Wolves have a better chance to build around KG in a better market.

I think OKC has a better chance at keeping Durant and building a better team if his owners weren't worried about the luxury tax and repeater tax.

You think Monroe picking an up and coming Bucks team over a 17 win Knicks team makes your point...I think it doesn't.

So I need you to answer the question above.

[Sarcastic]

You are smuggling in chance to win though.

That is why I asked you if you thought every market has the exact same chance of building a contender.

Do you?

Also...we just disagree on certain things.

Like...I don't think Lebron ever leaves Cleveland if they build a great team around him. And if they were in a better market...I think that is easier. I think the Wolves have a better chance to build around KG in a better market.

I think OKC has a better chance at keeping Durant and building a better team if his owners weren't worried about the luxury tax and repeater tax.

So I need you to answer the question above.

See you're trying to create equal situations, when just like the same player can't play for 2 teams, the GM and owners can't run 2 different teams. There can never be 2 equal situations, because there are not 2 Jerry Wests for example. He's shown to be one of the best basketball minds ever. He even helped build a good team in Memphis, which is a small market team. Now he did it for Golden State, who by the way are a small market team. They play in Oakland, which is the home of Billy Bean's Moneyball, because he couldn't compete against the large markets in MLB (they have a totally different system than the NBA).

You can put Jerry West to run any team in the NBA, and he will make a competitive team. He's done it time and time again. Meanwhile, since he's left the Lakers, what have they done? They've been absolutely awful, and couldn't attract a free agent to save their life. Their biggest prize without him is Timofey Freaking Mozgov.


Again, there are no equal basketball situations. Not with talent, not with leadership.

[DMAVS41]

See you're trying to create equal situations, when just like the same player can't play for 2 teams, the GM and owners can't run 2 different teams. There can never be 2 equal situations, because there are not 2 Jerry Wests for example. He's shown to be one of the best basketball minds ever. He even helped build a good team in Memphis, which is a small market team. Now he did it for Golden State, who by the way are a small market team. They play in Oakland, which is the home of Billy Bean's Moneyball, because he couldn't compete against the large markets in MLB (they have a totally different system than the NBA).

You can put Jerry West to run any team in the NBA, and he will make a competitive team. He's done it time and time again. Meanwhile, since he's left the Lakers, what have they done? They've been absolutely awful, and couldn't attract a free agent to save their life. Their biggest prize without him is Timofey Freaking Mozgov.


Again, there are no equal basketball situations. Not with talent, not with leadership.


No. I'm asking you if you think every market has the same chance to build a great team.

It is a simple question.

Let me ask you this.

Do you think the luxury tax / repeater tax would have been such a huge factor for the Lakers if they had the OKC team after the 12 finals?

[Sarcastic]

You can think market size matters, and hypothetically it might actually matter. I mean for me personally, yea I would rather live in a nice city than a dump.

But these guys don't live our lives. They are multi multi millionaires. When you are a millionaire you can live a nice life in West BubbleFck Kansas. Players care about 2 things: money, and can I win.

And like I said, money can be equal. There is a cap on salaries. They can get the same offers from Minnesota as they get from NY. So as long as the team offers what the player is worth, that is taken off the table. After that, it's: can I win here. The basketball situation will be different for every team, from player personnel to management to ownership. Those things matter a lot.

[DMAVS41]

You can think market size matters, and hypothetically it might actually matter. I mean for me personally, yea I would rather live in a nice city than a dump.

But these guys don't live our lives. They are multi multi millionaires. When you are a millionaire you can live a nice life in West BubbleFck Kansas. Players care about 2 things: money, and can I win.

And like I said, money can be equal. There is a cap on salaries. They can get the same offers from Minnesota as they get from NY. So as long as the team offers what the player is worth, that is taken off the table. After that, it's: can I win here. The basketball situation will be different for every team, from player personnel to management to ownership. Those things matter a lot.

Never did I ever argue that the basketball situation or money aren't the over-riding factors.

All I have ever said is that the market and all that entails also is a factor....not only from the player perspective, but also from a team building perspective.

[Sarcastic]

No. I'm asking you if you think every market has the same chance to build a great team.

It is a simple question.

Let me ask you this.

Do you think the luxury tax / repeater tax would have been such a huge factor for the Lakers if they had the OKC team after the 12 finals?


Cheapness of ownership has nothing to do with market size. They are all billionaires, and can afford whatever they want. The Chicago Bulls have one of the cheapest owners in the NBA. The richest owner is in Portland. The owner in Miami didn't want to pay the luxury tax, so they let players leave. Dan Gilbert has the highest payroll in Cleveland. Donald Sterling was notoriously the cheapest owner in the NBA in LA.

OKC's ownership is not cheap because they are in OKC. They are just cheap. And dumb.

Look at the Mets in NY. They are one of the cheapest teams in baseball, and they are beating the Yankees in ratings and ticket sales the past 2 years.

[DMAVS41]

Cheapness of ownership has nothing to do with market size. They are all billionaires, and can afford whatever they want. The Chicago Bulls have one of the cheapest owners in the NBA. The richest owner is in Portland. The owner in Miami didn't want to pay the luxury tax, so they let players leave. Dan Gilbert has the highest payroll in Cleveland. Donald Sterling was notoriously the cheapest owner in the NBA in LA.

OKC's ownership is not cheap because they are in OKC. They are just cheap. And dumb.

Look at the Mets in NY. They are one of the cheapest teams in baseball, and they are beating the Yankees in ratings and ticket sales the past 2 years.

I don't think it is always a direct correlation, but I disagree with this. It is easier to spend money on the tax when you have the Lakers TV deal or you print money like the Warriors currently do.

This is my point...the fact that you are arguing there is no advantage to stuff like that...I just don't understand. Again...no advantage at all. That is your position?

[Sarcastic]

I don't think it is always a direct correlation, but I disagree with this. It is easier to spend money on the tax when you have the Lakers TV deal or you print money like the Warriors currently do.

This is my point...the fact that you are arguing there is no advantage to stuff like that...I just don't understand. Again...no advantage at all. That is your position?

So why aren't the Lakers getting every free agent? Why is everyone turning them down? I mean they have the name brand recognition. They will pay the luxury tax. What's the matter with them?

You are constantly trying to bring up these hypothetical examples that just don't exist. Look at the facts and what has actually happened. No one has picked a team for market size since Shaq and he was a one off. Small market teams have built contenders, for a long time now, and have won it all. Small market teams have even retained their players, and didn't lose them to the big markets.


Please show me the example of the city that can't field a competitor because of market size. Please just 1. Not hypothetical. Actual example.

[DMAVS41]

So why aren't the Lakers getting every free agent? Why is everyone turning them down? I mean they have the name brand recognition. They will pay the luxury tax. What's the matter with them?

You are constantly trying to bring up these hypothetical examples that just don't exist. Look at the facts and what has actually happened. No one has picked a team for market size since Shaq and he was a one off. Small market teams have built contenders, for a long time now, and have won it all. Small market teams have even retained their players, and didn't lose them to the big markets.


Please show me the example of the city that can't field a competitor because of market size. Please just 1.

What are you talking about? I have repeatedly said that the basketball situation matters.

I don't need to explain why the Lakers are struggling now...it makes perfect sense based on my position.

We disagree on stuff.

You'll look at Amare signing with the Knicks and say it doesn't matter. You'll see Melo going to the Knicks and say it doesn't matter.

You'll say OKC has the same chance to keep max players as the Lakers. That the Cavs had the same chance to build a great team around Lebron as more desirable markets. You'll say it is just coincidence that the big 3 teamed up in Miami and not Milwaukee.

You'll say it is just coincidence that the Mavs haven't landed a free agent of note in years. That DJ's ultimate decision had nothing to do with market.

You'll say Kobe's people pushing him toward LA doesn't matter. Howard agreeing to go to LA doesn't matter. Durant going to a more desirable market doesn't matter.

The Wolves failing to give KG anything of note for over a decade doesn't matter.

We already know we disagree on that stuff.

Who said certain markets "can't" field a competitor? Please stop the straw men arguments. I said it is inherently easier over time in certain markets than others.

I'm asking you as simple question. If you started from scratch right now...do you think the Lakers and Bucks have the same chance of building and keeping a contender together inherently.

[Sarcastic]

What are you talking about? I have repeatedly said that the basketball situation matters.

I don't need to explain why the Lakers are struggling now...it makes perfect sense based on my position.

We disagree on stuff.

You'll look at Amare signing with the Knicks and say it doesn't matter. You'll see Melo going to the Knicks and say it doesn't matter.

You'll say OKC has the same chance to keep max players as the Lakers. That the Cavs had the same chance to build a great team around Lebron as more desirable markets. You'll say it is just coincidence that the big 3 teamed up in Miami and not Milwaukee.

You'll say it is just coincidence that the Mavs haven't landed a free agent of note in years. That DJ's ultimate decision had nothing to do with market.

You'll say Kobe's people pushing him toward LA doesn't matter. Howard agreeing to go to LA doesn't matter. Durant going to a more desirable market doesn't matter.

The Wolves failing to give KG anything of note for over a decade doesn't matter.

We already know we disagree on that stuff.

I'm asking you as simple question. If you started from scratch right now...do you think the Lakers and Bucks have the same chance of building and keeping a contender together inherently.


Amare signed with the Knicks because they were the only team stupid enough to give him a 5 year deal, when everyone else knew his knees would last 2 years.

The Wolves didn't put a contender around KG because they fcked up with the Joe Smith situation, which set them back for years. And KG still wanted to stay, and had to be talking into finally leaving. He wanted to stay in Minnesota, and even went back to end his career there. He didn't go to big market team at the end.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/nba-joe-smith-illegal-contract-timberwolves

Deandre Jordan didn't go back to the Clippers because of the city. He did it because he really wanted to stay with the team he had before, and he's a little bitch.

Dwight Howard actually didn't want to go to LA. They actually got down and begged him, and begged to suck his C if he would stay, and he still said "FCK YOU LA".
http://www.insidesocal.com/lakers/files/2013/06/BNszKfACMAIaPg6-2.jpg

[DMAVS41]

Like I said...you'll discount it all. And I disagree.

You think Durant's decision is just as easy if the Warriors are in Milwaukee. I don't. I think it is both naive and ignorant to think the market and location of the current Warriors plays absolutely no factor at all.

Durant has openly talked about how back and forth he was. You really think it played no factor going to the Bay and not a freezing cold Minny team? Okay...

So what is the point of arguing it?

You have still yet to answer the simple question I've asked repeatedly.

Does every market inherently have the same ability to build and keep a great team?

[Sarcastic]

Like I said...you'll discount it all. And I disagree.

So what is the point of arguing it?

You have still yet to answer the simple question I've asked repeatedly.

Does every market inherently have the same ability to build and keep a great team?


Yes they do.

[DMAVS41]

Yes they do.

Ok.

Could not disagree more.

So...just to clarify one more time. You are saying that Durant would have been just as likely to join a great team in Minnesota as he would in the Bay area.

You've now heard Durant openly talk about how tough the decision was and how back and forth it was. You don't think the location, market, money, Nike pushing him...all that adds up to a big 0...right?

[Sarcastic]

Ok.

Could not disagree more.


Did Cleveland not just win the title? Are they a large market team?

Did Golden State not win the title the year before? Are they a large market team?

Did San Antonio not win the title the year before that? Are they a large market team?



I mean I'm waiting for this example of a small market team that can't win because of market. You have yet to answer that, other than just bring up your hypothetical.

[DMAVS41]

Did Cleveland not just win the title? Are they a large market team?

Did Golden State not win the title the year before? Are they a large market team?

Did San Antonio not win the title the year before that? Are they a large market team?



I mean I'm waiting for this example of a small market team that can't win because of market. You have yet to answer that, other than just bring up your hypothetical.

Do you really want to go through every title team? I'm trying to argue fairly. If we just look at the markets that win almost every title....it won't be a good look for you.

And again...please stop the straw men. Never did I say it was impossible for a small market to win. I said there are some inherent advantages to certain markets.

At least address my arguments please.

[Doranku]

What are you talking about? I have repeatedly said that the basketball situation matters.

I don't need to explain why the Lakers are struggling now...it makes perfect sense based on my position.

We disagree on stuff.

You'll look at Amare signing with the Knicks and say it doesn't matter. You'll see Melo going to the Knicks and say it doesn't matter.

You'll say OKC has the same chance to keep max players as the Lakers. That the Cavs had the same chance to build a great team around Lebron as more desirable markets. You'll say it is just coincidence that the big 3 teamed up in Miami and not Milwaukee.

You'll say it is just coincidence that the Mavs haven't landed a free agent of note in years. That DJ's ultimate decision had nothing to do with market.

You'll say Kobe's people pushing him toward LA doesn't matter. Howard agreeing to go to LA doesn't matter. Durant going to a more desirable market doesn't matter.

The Wolves failing to give KG anything of note for over a decade doesn't matter.

We already know we disagree on that stuff.

Who said certain markets "can't" field a competitor? Please stop the straw men arguments. I said it is inherently easier over time in certain markets than others.

I'm asking you as simple question. If you started from scratch right now...do you think the Lakers and Bucks have the same chance of building and keeping a contender together inherently.

Things are different now. This is the collusion era. Stars are following the LeBron blueprint and taking shortcuts to become champions.

The days of stars trying to carve out their own paths in the limelight of big markets are over with. If Milwaukee is able to construct a 73 win team almost purely off drafting like the Warriors, then that's where the beta stars of today like KD will go.

Market size is an afterthought in today's league. Now it's all about stacking the deck and playing with your buddies. Just keep watching every free agency and you'll see that things aren't the same as they were.

[DMAVS41]

So...just to clarify one more time. You are saying that Durant would have been just as likely to join a great team in Minnesota as he would in the Bay area.

You've now heard Durant openly talk about how tough the decision was and how back and forth it was. You don't think the location, market, money, Nike pushing him...all that adds up to a big 0...right?

You seem to have missed this a couple times.

[DMAVS41]

Things are different now. This is the collusion era. Stars are following the LeBron blueprint and taking shortcuts to become champions.

The days of stars trying to carve out their own paths in the limelight of big markets are over with. If Milwaukee is able to construct a 73 win team almost purely off drafting like the Warriors, then that's where the beta stars of today like KD will go.

Market size is an afterthought in today's league. Now it's all about stacking the deck and playing with your buddies. Just keep watching every free agency and you'll see that things aren't the same as they were.

That wouldn't go against anything I've said though.

[Sarcastic]

That wouldn't go against anything I've said though.

San Antonio and NY both disprove everything you've argued.
Small market SA has had sustained success for 20 + years.
Big market NY has has sustained failures for a decade and a half.

[Dro]

What is even going on in this thread anymore?

[DMAVS41]

San Antonio and NY both disprove everything you've argued.
Small market SA has had sustained success for 20 + years.
Big market NY has has sustained failures for a decade and a half.

Completely false.

Find me where I've argued that market is the over-riding factor...and that a team drafting Tim Duncan isn't at an advantage over a team that doesn't have him or a player of relatively equal value.

Please.

What you have done is create a straw man of my position.

My position is not that it is impossible for certain markets to build and keep great teams. It is that it is harder for certain markets to build and keep great teams than other markets.

So if you are going to respond...at least respond to my argument...not a straw man version please.

[Sarcastic]

Let's look at the 2 best teams since 2000, LAL and SAS.
According to you LA has inherent market advantages over SA, yet LA has fallen off the map and SA continues to attract better players and continues to win.

Whatever advantage LA may have has no effect on wins and losses. None.

[DMAVS41]

Let's look at the 2 best teams since 2000, LAL and SAS.
According to you LA has inherent market advantages over SA, yet LA has fallen off the map and SA continues to attract better players and continues to win.

Whatever advantage LA may have has no effect on wins and losses. None.

Again...you don't want to do this. If your argument is about what markets have won.

I win. The majority of NBA titles have been won by the markets you say don't offer advantages.

But I'm not even arguing that...because it is silly to begin with and there are extenuating circumstances that go way beyond market anyway.

All I am arguing is that certain markets have inherent advantages that will factor in more than 0 over time both for player preferences and ability to win.

[Sarcastic]

Completely false.

Find me where I've argued that market is the over-riding factor...and that a team drafting Tim Duncan isn't at an advantage over a team that doesn't have him or a player of relatively equal value.

Please.

What you have done is create a straw man of my position.

My position is not that it is impossible for certain markets to build and keep great teams. It is that it is harder for certain markets to build and keep great teams than other markets.

So if you are going to respond...at least respond to my argument...not a straw man version please.

I'm not building strawman at all. I am presenting the actual facts of what has happened. I'm not setting up a different position to argue. I am showing actual real life examples of teams, markets, and their success.

You have yet to show me a small market team that can't compete, and a large market that is good only because of market or even where the mark has given an advantage.

[DMAVS41]

I'm not building strawman at all. I am presenting the actual facts of what has happened. I'm not setting up a different position to argue. I am showing actual real life examples of teams, markets, and their success.

You have yet to show me a small market team that can't compete, and a large market that is good only because of market or even where the mark has given an advantage.

I never asserted the bold. Hence the straw man.

[Sarcastic]

Again...you don't want to do this. If your argument is about what markets have won.

I win. The majority of NBA titles have been won by the markets you say don't offer advantages.

But I'm not even arguing that...because it is silly to begin with and there are extenuating circumstances that go way beyond market anyway.

All I am arguing is that certain markets have inherent advantages that will factor in more than 0 over time.


Again with your hypothetical. "Certain markets". Which market exactly?
NY? Nope.
LA for the Clippers? Nope.
Chicago outside of Jordan years? Nope.
Philly? Nope.
Washington DC? Nope.

[DMAVS41]

Again with your hypothetical. "Certain markets". Which market exactly?
NY? Nope.
LA for the Clippers? Nope.
Chicago outside of Jordan years? Nope.
Philly? Nope.
Washington DC? Nope.

This comes down to you thinking that the Lakers offer no advantages to players or building and keeping a great team over the Bucks.

I find that naive and ignorant.

Again...I have stated your position clearly. You say it is a factor of zero.

[Sarcastic]

This comes down to you thinking that the Lakers offer no advantages to players or building and keeping a great team over the Bucks.

I find that naive and ignorant.

Again...I have stated your position clearly. You say it is a factor of zero.

Then why couldn't they keep Dwight?

[DMAVS41]

Then why couldn't they keep Dwight?

Because of the basketball situation.

But again...this is not all or nothing.

Your question is akin to asking...why don't the Lakers win the title every year if you think they have some advantages other teams don't.

Like really? You are going to play dumb now...

[Sarcastic]

Because of the basketball situation.

But again...this is not all or nothing.

Your question is akin to asking...why don't the Lakers win the title every year if you think they have some advantages other teams don't.

Like really? You are going to play dumb now...

Then show me the example where the market kept the player.

You keep using this unrealistic hypothetical "if LA and Milwaukee are equal...". That hypothetical will never ever happen.

[smoovegittar]

Then show me the example where the market kept the player.

You keep using this unrealistic hypothetical "if LA and Milwaukee are equal...". That hypothetical will never ever happen.
Hypothetically, someone is looking to break the "1 million posts".

:rolleyes:

[DMAVS41]

Then show me the example where the market kept the player.

You keep using this unrealistic hypothetical "if LA and Milwaukee are equal...". That hypothetical will never ever happen.

Dude.

I've given you examples...you just discount them.

You think Durant leaves OKC for sure if it is the Milwaukee Warriors instead of the Golden State Warriors.

I'm saying I am skeptical of that.

I'm saying that it is naive and ignorant to think that the location, exposure, Nike pushing him, the weather...etc. is at least some part of the equation.

If it was leaving OKC to go to a terrible climate with less exposure like Minnesota...I'm saying that would factor into his decision like it is a factor for any person in the world when they have a choice of what city they live in.

Sometimes the money and situation will over-ride the benefits of a city. And sometimes the benefits of a city will over-ride the money/situation.

And in the best situations...the money/situation and the city all line up...and it makes the decision rather easy.

Anyone in the world that has changed companies or made moves knows things like this are factors.

To argue that those things make absolutely no impact at all. A big zero...I'm struggling to believe you actually believe this.

And if you want to just add up what markets, proven by NBA history, are more likely to win...go ahead. But I don't think that proves anything for what I'm arguing to be honest...but if you want to destroy your own position...go ahead.

[Sarcastic]

You're being skeptical is not an example. Durant didn't choose his new team because of market, otherwise NY and Lakers would've at least gotten a meeting. And Oakland is not a large market. The A's and Raiders will vouch for that. He went to the Warriors to ring chase.

I'm still waiting for my Knicks BIGGEST MARKET Championship. How much longer do you think it will be?

[Sarcastic]

Players will go wherever they think they can win. Beautiful weather Miami couldn't keep Lebron from going back to shitty weather Cleveland.

And do you honestly think Milwaukee couldn't attract free agents if they won 73 games? I mean they attract free agents by barely making the playoffs.

[DMAVS41]

You're being skeptical is not an example. Durant didn't choose his new team because of market, otherwise NY and Lakers would've at least gotten a meeting. And Oakland is not a large market. The A's and Raiders will vouch for that. He went to the Warriors to ring chase.

I'm still waiting for my Knicks BIGGEST MARKET Championship. How much longer do you think it will be?

Actually my position holds up quite nicely to why NY and Lakers didn't get meetings.

Your inability to actually understand that in no way am I saying team strength is irrelevant...is on you.

Yes...it is an example. We just saw Durant leave a less desirable market with a loaded roster that could pay him the most money to go to a more desirable market.

I'm saying, clearly, a huge part of that is the fact that the Warriors have the team they do.

I'm also saying that is silly to think the location of the team and the market has absolutely nothing to do with any decision ever.

Listening to a podcast right now between Lowe and Arnovitz and I've heard the phrase "desirable market like 5 times"...guess those guys are nuts. How dare they think, on average, someone would rather live in San Francisco than Milwaukee.

:hammerhead:

[DMAVS41]

Players will go wherever they think they can win. Beautiful weather Miami couldn't keep Lebron from going back to shitty weather Cleveland.

And do you honestly think Milwaukee couldn't attract free agents if they won 73 games? I mean they attract free agents by barely making the playoffs.

Never once did I even come close to asserting the bold.

You are becoming a joke at this point.

The entire time I have said that money and basketball situation are the most important factors.

[Kblaze8855]

And if you want to just add up what markets, proven by NBA history, are more likely to win...go ahead. But I don't think that proves anything for what I'm arguing to be honest...but if you want to destroy your own position...go ahead.

I think this point...and how its used by many...is my primary issue.

You see charts on who won....small market fans talk it up as if market won all those rings...and they just don't know shit about the history of the NBA.

Literally 27 "big market" rings can be traced to the contributions of 2 people...one of them discarded by a small market....one who didn't want to go to the big market he ended up on.


The Hawks in a matter of a few seasons gave the Celtics 40 years of success. Red Auerbach was the coach of the Hawks. They refused to give him total control of basketball as he wanted....and the owner traded his favorite player. he says **** you and quits. Joins the Celtics. Then what? The Hawks draft Bob Cousy. He wants 10 thousand a season...they counter with 6.....he says go **** yourself....guess who calls after they get rid of him with an offer of 9? Good old Red. Shortly after they draft Bill Russell. Who calls? Red once more. He trades them Easy Ed....a scorer...for Russell...who they didn't value because he couldn't shoot.

So what now?

Small market idiots lose the GOAT team builder and the two cornerstones of 11 rings. One of which hated Boston and said he only played for Red and the Celtics...never for Boston. Red later drafts Hondo, Sam Jones, Bird(a year early...outsmarting the entire league), cowens, and jojo White....trades Joe Barry Carroll and a guy I cant remember for McHale and Parish....

16 rings later....the Celtics are a "big market" hoarding all the rings from the little guy...who essentially gave away the dynasty.

Jerry West has his hands all over 11 rings. 10 in LA....where he did not want to go. you should get his most recent book. He goes into it. LA wasn't some destination back then. He almost quit basketball. But he went....hated it. Everyone picked on his accent....didn't like how much of a loner he was. He didn't like LA....and hated the owner. Ended up suing him multiple times. Owner lied and told him he and Wilt made the same money...but he paid Wilt 400 thousand and West 250.

Lawsuits go both ways....owner hires West to work for the team...suit dropped. As coach/gm/scout he was in on trading Gail Goodrich for the pick from the Jazz that became Magic....he was in on trading for the Cavs pick that became James worthy...he traded Norm Nixon to free up point guard duties for Magic and make Byron Scott the scoring 2 they needed. He later built the Shaq/Kobe lakers from scratch and while they won 2 after him...it was led by Kobe who he saw something in and had to have. And if they listened they would have won even more. In 76 when he was merely the coach he had a deal in place to buy Doctor J from the Nets and his much hated owner wouldn't give him the money.

He wanted to combine Doc and Kareem. And considering that he helped get them the 2 #1 picks that were Magic and Worthy...even though they were 50+ win contenders already...its entirely possible he ends up with all 4.

He fleeced Cleveland, Utah, and Charlotte and offered Shaq like 30 million more than the lowballing Magic...

He didn't big market the Lakers to glory. He outsmarted lesser basketball minds. He was gonna quit if the Warriors traded Klay(who he had them draft) for Kevin Love. He got them to trade Monta so Steph could develop. And he just had a huge hand in getting KD as well.

Jerry is just a beast behind the scenes.

But it isnt because of his market....and only 1 of his current rings was won by someone who joined as a free agent to begin with. Hes drafting guys....setting up draft night deals...robbing other Gms blind....hes playing chess against toddlers.

But we hear...how many titles big markets have...as if the market is why the Hawks gave up the architect of 16 rings or as if the market makes Jerry West smarter than everyone.

And its just like this down the line. all the way down. You look into it....some smart guy outwitted the league or a team tanked to get a pick(Duncan, Hakeem, Jordan).

But I hear market...from people who don't have a clue about any of it....

Im hoping you can understand how frustrating that gets.

[DMAVS41]

Blaze...

While I don't fully agree with your take...I do broadly...

Which is why I said the following in relation to that point;

But I'm not even arguing that...because it is silly to begin with and there are extenuating circumstances that go way beyond market anyway.

But I don't think that proves anything for what I'm arguing to be honest.

[Pointguard]

Thanks Dmavs,

Its bottom line, if the league contracts I have that feeling that its going to be Washington before NY. Seattle before LA. Kentucky before Chicago. Every reality follows the bigger cities, bigger names and bigger base. Its like the deep stream that has more flowing thru it. Product follows more consumers. You can kid yourself all you want and think that the NBA is now the equivalent to Amazon. Not saying OKC can't thrive but its a reality that's there. For the big and the ambitious, you want to go where there are others pretty similar: Magic wasn't thriving to go to Minny. He wanted to be around others who had big names. Jordan was fearless, he was in the 3rd biggest city on the map. It happens that way. You rarely see fearless greats on those fringe teams.

With that said the title was my bigger point as the title suggest. 1 team with 4 starting allstars is a different era... .

[Sarcastic]

Blaze...

While I don't fully agree with your take...I do broadly...

Which is why I said the following in relation to that point;

But I'm not even arguing that...because it is silly to begin with and there are extenuating circumstances that go way beyond market anyway.

But I don't think that proves anything for what I'm arguing to be honest.


What you are arguing is a hypothetical situation that will never happen. The situation where all things are equal, and a player has to pick between Milwaukee and LA, solely based on location will not happen.

[Sarcastic]

Thanks Dmavs,

Its bottom line, if the league contracts I have that feeling that its going to be Washington before NY. Seattle before LA. Kentucky before Chicago. Every reality follows the bigger cities, bigger names and bigger base. Its like the deep stream that has more flowing thru it. Product follows more consumers. You can kid yourself all you want and think that the NBA is now the equivalent to Amazon. Not saying OKC can't thrive but its a reality that's there. For the big and the ambitious, you want to go where there are others pretty similar: Magic wasn't thriving to go to Minny. He wanted to be around others who had big names. Jordan was fearless, he was in the 3rd biggest city on the map. It happens that way. You rarely see fearless greats on those fringe teams.

With that said the title was my bigger point as the title suggest. 1 team with 4 starting allstars is a different era... .


WTF does that have to do with the argument? Of course the NBA is gonna keep a team in NY or LA over Toledo or Greensboro. That has nothing to do with whether teams in those cities have a competitive disadvantage relative to the other teams. The NBA is not structured in a way where the large markets have any advantage over the smaller markets.

The NY Knicks, in the largest US market by far, have never had even a top 30 player of all time. The best player they ever had was Patrick Ewing, and he was acquired through the draft. They didn't get him because they are NY, and NY attracts free agents. They got him the same way that most other teams get their players - the draft.

San Antonio, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Oklahoma, Orlando, and others have all had players better than anything NY has ever had.

[DMAVS41]

What you are arguing is a hypothetical situation that will never happen. The situation where all things are equal, and a player has to pick between Milwaukee and LA, solely based on location will not happen.

A hypothetical situation or thought experiment is often useful in a discussion like this. Your refusal to answer simple questions is telling.

We just saw Kevin Durant leave a market that by any definition would not be considered a desirable market on average. He left a loaded roster...flanked by a top 5 player in the game. Where did he go? He went to a more desirable market.

This just happened. It is not a hypothetical.

You want to argue that he would have left to go to the Bucks or Wolves if they had as good a team as the Warriors. What are you basing this on again?

You want to just assume that any team that drafted MJ just gets him forever. But what if MJ was drafted by a team in a worse market...you confident he sticks it out like he did through the growing pains of the Bulls?

Lebron left his hometown team to go to a more desirable market. You want to argue that the big 3 would have formed up in Memphis if they had the chance. I disagree....again...why are these things always happening in more desirable markets on average?

Why do you think Miami even entertained the idea of having room? It is because they knew it was a market that could attract star players like that.

Could it be that there is at least some benefit to teams being located in certain markets over others?

Could it be that rich 30 year old athletes would, on average, rather live in Miami or LA than Minnesota?

Like...you are honestly telling me that if given the choice of playing in either Miami or Minnesota...you would expect it to be a near 50% split of NBA players if the situations were similar. Forget identical...just similar.

Please answer the bold.

[Kblaze8855]

The NY Knicks, in the largest US market by far, have never had even a top 30 player of all time. The best player they ever had was Patrick Ewing, and he was acquired through the draft. They didn't get him because they are NY, and NY attracts free agents. They got him the same way that most other teams get their players - the draft.

San Antonio, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Oklahoma, Orlando, and others have all had players better than anything NY has ever had.


Problem here is....things like that require effort. Looking into things. Fans dont do that before they form opinions on how things came to be.

I read about Magic....nobody cares that the Lakers(a 53ish win team) got that pick from a small market by trading a washed up combo guard.

Jordan just ended up chicago...thems the breaks right? But Portland decided not to draft him.

Larry Bird ended up on the title hoarding big market Celtics....but the Blazers, Kings, and his own hometown Pacers chose not to draft him. Red picked him 6th. After his own favorite team...the team he later said was in the only place hed rather be than Boston....chose Rick Robey. But market market market....

Its brains. Thats what its always been.

Red takes Bird...pacers take Robey. And to drive home the point? The Celtics later traded to get Robey from the pacers. Know who they gave up? Billy Knight. Know who Red then turned around and flipped Robey for?

Dennis Johnson.

And that very season...DJ puts up like 20/10 the last 4 games of the finals including putting two games away at the Ft line with seconds to go.

Celtics get what was their 14th ring.

Pacers win 20 games.

But market though...it was the market.

[DMAVS41]

Could you guys point to where anyone has said that the over-riding factor on this stuff is the market?

I know I haven't said it...and maybe someone else has, but it really seems like you guys are arguing with a ghost.

My sole claim in this thread is that there are differences in markets and that it matters more than zero.

[Gileraracer]

1 allstar

Lebron ball

[Sarcastic]

Could you guys point to where anyone has said that the over-riding factor on this stuff is the market?

I know I haven't said it...and maybe someone else has, but it really seems like you guys are arguing with a ghost.

My sole claim in this thread is that there are differences in markets and that it matters more than zero.


Ok fine. It's not zero. It's maybe a 1 or 1.5 on a 10 point scale, meanwhile money is a 10 and chance to win is a 10 as well.

[Pointguard]

WTF does that have to do with the argument? Of course the NBA is gonna keep a team in NY or LA over Toledo or Greensboro. That has nothing to do with whether teams in those cities have a competitive disadvantage relative to the other teams. The NBA is not structured in a way where the large markets have any advantage over the smaller markets.
You tell me "of course" big market teams have an advantage in existing right? Is that because people make the world go round? More people, more goes around. Culturally OKC and Boston got hardcore fans so they do well. More of the like attracts more of the like. Its human nature's nature. The ancients said all four of those principles.


The NY Knicks, in the largest US market by far, have never had even a top 30 player of all time. The best player they ever had was Patrick Ewing, and he was acquired through the draft. They didn't get him because they are NY, and NY attracts free agents. They got him the same way that most other teams get their players - the draft.
Still a great basketball town. Starks gets more love than Ewing because he's a fearless type and he got plenty of love for that. NY is a different situation as you got to have strong qualities here. Bad management has been their main problem.


San Antonio, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Oklahoma, Orlando, and others have all had players better than anything NY has ever had. You haven't been to Orlando? I do think NY has a better chance of four starting all stars in their primes than those teams do.

Minny and LA both have stellar great young talent. I think Minny has better talent. I regret thinking LA is going to have a better future.

[DMAVS41]

Ok fine. It's not zero. It's maybe a 1 or 1.5 on a 10 point scale, meanwhile money is a 10 and chance to win is a 10 as well.

Pretty much agree. Especially in the new climate...

[Sarcastic]

Pretty much agree. Especially in the new climate...

Market size in the current CBA is a minuscule factor for free agents. If Milwaukee had 73 wins, Kevin Durant or any free agent would go there just as soon as they would anywhere else, just like he went to Oakland.

[DMAVS41]

Market size in the current CBA is a minuscule factor for free agents. If Milwaukee had 73 wins, Kevin Durant or any free agent would go there just as soon as they would anywhere else, just like he went to Oakland.

Like I said. Pretty much agree...although I'm not fully with you on some things.

I don't think Durant is just as likely to leave OKC for Milwaukee as he is Oakland and soon to be San Francisco.

But I do agree it is a much smaller factor than money and team strength.

[Pointguard]

If a player has a lot of flash and flair and charisma like an Ali or Magic or the cool know how of a Derek Jeter (who made over 150% more, careerwise, because he rocked a NY uniform...). And the difference in his legacy is monumental. If Serena just had stronger NY ties she makes 50% more and has a much stronger legacy because of the US open alone, she would be bigger than life now. True most players are boring and conservative, but if you got personality and some flair you can get more out of a big market, based on the fact more is happening there.

When you hear the new wave talking about product and brand you guys think it doesn't have any value and don't think its an evolving trend?