The Legacy of today's Free Agency system. Is it good for the NBA?

It's kind of weird, but another aspect is the size of the fan bases and media market.

The best teams and storied franchises in the NBA are in big cities, like SF, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and etc.

Sadly, it's the same with NFL franchises, the teams with the most Super Bowls are still big city teams with big fan bases - Dallas, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Washington DC, New York teams, and New England (Boston and the rest of the New England states).

The franchises in bigger cities tend to cost more to buy and are thoroughly worth more, because they are franchises in big cities with more potential revenue. Why was the league trying so hard to get a team in Los Angeles?

I also must add expectations are much higher and much more is in stake with big city franchises than smaller ones. Smaller franchises in smaller cities can afford to be bad, especially if people are still coming to the games.

San Antonio, Green Bay, and St. Louis (Cardinals) are the lone exceptions. But, they succeed for having competent organizations. There's nothing magical about that.

 

11 in last 25 years then, you forgot the Cavs

 

10 I mean

 

It's good for the casual NBA fan who is only going to watch the games they think will be talked about around the water cooler the next day. A super team makes the average NBA game an event and thus drives viewership and subsequently revenue for the league and its players. It's bad for real NBA fans because it's less competitive now and more predictable but that doesn't matter to the league because the casual fan represents a larger chunk of revenue and is of far more interest to advertisers, sponsors, and team owners alike.

The one thing that makes me pause however is that I feel like players are being influenced greatly behind the scenes by the sponsors and TV Networks. I mean Nike just got an extra 30 games of Durant televised a season, a larger fan base to sell shoes to (and potentially steal revenue from Under Armour), and a million articles about the influence of Durant for the next few years. You have to think they have a strong hold on Durant. Also, isn't it very convenient that this super team came together at the very moment that the TV networks new deal was being paid out? The Warriors went from "don't miss" TV to "must watch" TV and the networks are going to get PAID now.

Which brings me to my final point. ESPN is directly tied to the viewership of the games so their agenda is to drum up as much excitement about the Warriors as possible(and call it news or analysis). You thought last year's around the clock coverage of the Warriors was more annoying than the Heat coverage? You ain't seen nothing yet...

Everyone get prepared for an all Warriors Western Conference All Star lineup. Sigh...

 

Last years around the clock coverage of the Warriors has nothing to do with them anointing the Warriors anything... and has everything to do with... wait for it...

a once in a few decades event called winning 73 freaking games. Give them some credit. If the Rockets were winning 73 games, I guarantee you it would have been us around the clock.

 

Why would anybody care?

 

I don't know man, I think Golden State's smart organizational moves had a lot to do with getting Durant (plus luck too). You have to draft smart, trade smart, and still have room to sign a big contract. They wouldn't have gotten Durant had Barnes not turned down his extension.

And organizations themselves vary so much in competence when it comes to drafting, signing players, and coaching, that they do a great job themselves of destroying league balance.

 

We should be mad that players get to control their destiny and "fix" the league and opt instead to return to a system where rich billionaires get to own their rights, force them to play where they want them to play and never let anyone change teams unless the owner is ok with.

The league was just as "fixed" in the past by superteams.

 

Not to mention signing all of curry, klay and green to below market deals not pegged to the cap.

They sign klay and green to true max deals, this superteam is a lot harder to come together.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Adam Silver from AS Game: We’d prefer a system in which stars are distributed throughout the league as opposed to congregating in one market</p>&mdash; Jeff Zillgitt (@JeffZillgitt) <a href="https://twitter.com/JeffZillgitt/status/750065236925935617">July 4, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Job well done, Commish!

 

Blame Fisher and the players union

 

Why are folks mad? Wilt forced a trade to LA in 1969 by threatening to go to the ABA. He had just won the MVP and lost in the conf finals. LA had just lost in the Finals and Baylor was 3rd in MVP voting. This isn't new. The option of free agency surely is but guys have been using their clout to force trades.

 

Is that what explained the around the clock Warriors love at the start of the season or the previous season before it, or the Heat around the clock watch during the Heat championship era?

GTFO with that revisionist point of view. The Warriors media love started long before there was any talk of them becoming a 73 win team. Curry was being shoved down our throats every 5 minutes the previous year when they were just a very good team who caught some big breaks.

 

Forcing trades yes. Heck we got T-Mac on the heels of a scoring title, and MVP potential. But what KD did is unprecedented. Even compared to LeBron.

 

They won 67 games the year before, which is still one of the highest in league history. They started last year like 30-0, is that not unusual?

Sorry man, people love winners. If you win a lot, especially in a big market, you get media coverage.

When the Rockets start winning 65-75 games a year and no one talks about it, you might have a point.

 

You misread me son - not only do I not care, but I am inarguably and profoundly RIGHT in not caring. This righteousness has given me strength and serenity.

If you're not directly or personally involved in the situation, and if you're a mentally stable and functional individual, your care-o-meter for whether some dipsh-t billionaire bloviator like Mark Cuban or Joe Lacob has more leverage in NBA "free" agency, than their hundred millionaire employees like Kevin Durant or LeBron James - should register about zero point zero.

You should go about your business.

If you are so petty as to become upset by something like this, you should not watch or consume basketball. I assume there are people like that out there - to them I say good riddance, enjoy tournament korfball.

I have answered your query.

 

I wasn't alive then and there was no internet to voice my displeasure.

 

No to both. A possible solution to help the hometown teams keep their star players would be to allow them to pay more annually in the 1st year of the contract and all subsequent years rather than just being able to give more money in the form of an extra year. Most star players don't even opt into that last year so this alternative would give the home team a significant advantage, at least in terms of money.