If the trend stopped with MIA then I wouldn't have an issue with it.......but it won't if things remain the way they are now. It can get to the point where all your marquee talent is on 3-5 teams and that is a problem. Does that clarify my position?
That's the whole point. They are not normal workers. THEY ARE NOT SLAVE. Do not compare their job with normal jobs. If their not having freedom to choose teams makes their "industry" work better, then they better comply because that's how they can make millions of dollars out of it in the first place. I always laugh when people compare the pro athletes as slave. Give me a break!
Yes, I am dead serious. We are the customers. Tell me one industry whose workers and owners do not want to satisfy their customers.
No, they are beyond normal people, they don't have to comply to squat. They are more desired than you or me, they are special, they beat one million people for their spot. That was point, never said they were slaves, I say they are special, special people get special privileges. It's called capitalism.
Yes they do. As soon as you sign a contract, you are bound by the terms of it. Regardless of how many people are impressed by your vertical leap
Are the people in Miami happy? That's the goal of owner of Miami Heat, to satisfy the customers of Miami heat. Plus, most people are bandwagon fans anyways, people in Houston wore Cowboy Jerseys during their heyday. Casual fans will still go to games (because it's just one of the things to do), and in all honesty they make up a large portion of what's profitable. As much as people complain about super team, national TV games (the big money makers) only need a few good large media teams and this is what happens when you have super teams in media friendly cities. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/basketball/nba/12/27/nba.christmas.ratings/index.html
Well, I do mean they have to apply to contracts. But the suggestion that players can't leave as FA or complaining about wanting to be traded just because they are in the NBA is dumb. If it's not in the contract, then you can't stop them from doing it.
I'm glad you brought this point up. Let's play your doomsday scenario lol. For every fan they alienated in Minnesota, Milwaukee, Cleveland, or even Houston (you for example), they will get 4x more fans in cities like New York, who have 4x media market and metro population. So this isn't actually bad for the NBA. This is just bad for YOU. The NBA will still make money. In fact, maybe even more so than now. Hmmm.. So let's employ your "capitalistic scenario". End result: Lose 1 fan, gain 4 more.. Not exactly a net loss. Once again, not bad for NBA, just bad for YOU. Even the argument of this being "bad for basketball" is illogical. Technically speaking, the "quality of basketball" won't actually decrease since the same talent will still be in the league, it'll just be more concentrated. The same level of basketball will be in the league. It could actually result in more intriguing playoff matchups, which ultimately means more money! You don't have to watch anymore. You won't be missed, 4 more people will watch instead of you. Sorry but you are wrong. The NBA's entire audience will not walk away. Actually, far from it. Nor will it die a lonely death because YOU choose to walk away. So basically, we've concluded this isn't bad for the NBA or for basketball fans in general. Rather, this is just bad for you. However if you lived in cities where you were reaping the benefits of such scenario, you probably wouldn't be complaining as much. So if you have such a problem with this "capitalistic" situation, then you should move to one of those cities. Supply and demand.
WNBA players are special too. All Olympic gold medal winners are special. But these people don't get special privileges or make lots of money by playing their sports. NBA players can make so much money only when what they do is desired by millions of people. If fans start to lose interest, they aren't going to get the kind of money they get now. That's called capitalism. You didn't said they were slaves. But someone did. People say if you don't let them choose where they want to play, then they are like slave. That is an insult to the real slaves who suffer horrible abuses with no way out. Real slaves cannot quit. These players can quit any time if they don't like their line of work, and go work in a factory or something. See how that works out for their life.
LMAO... you say that as if you're the sole customer of a restaurant/franchise and their livelihood depends on you. I guess its hard for you the comprehend the magnitude of the market NBA is appeasing to. It's much bigger than you. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Capitalism baby.
Yeah life isn't fair. So move out of Cleveland, Minnesota, Milwaukee, and move to a city where professional leagues can make REAL money so you can enjoy your city's team put forth the best talent possible.
We'll see how that works out. Teams are losing money. That's why the upcoming CBA doesn't look optimistic. When the league overall aren't making money, players are going to make less dough. My point is, people just assume FA is an entitlement, and compare it to the Normal Joe's job. That is really missing the point. Players are not entitle to FA. It is there only because they have leverage to bargain for it now. If the profits shrink, if their product become less desirable, they may lose that leverage. Anyway, if the NBA become a few teams' league and the other teams have no hope of competing, I'll lose interest and stop following. Then I don't really care who plays where and makes how much money.
You guys are being pretty dramatic. No way can NYC afford all of Deron, Amare, and Carmelo. And if they only get two of them, they will probably be good, but nothing to be terrified of.
I wonder if you've taken the most basic economics course. Profits won't shrink. And if it did, then the normal course of contraction of the league is necessary in the unprofitable cities.
You wonder why teachers make $35,000 and professional athletes make millions? It's because less people have the ability to do the things professional athletes do, the amount of people willing to spend money/time to watch them do what they do for a living, the amount of advertising revenues/ticket sales earned from these people. So why do teachers get paid less? Because nobody wants to spend two and a half hours, $50s on game tickets, and $10 on a beer to watch someone teach. The comparison you drew of WNBA players and Olympic athletes is a weak one because they hold few similarities. Despite the obvious social/moral importance of teachers, strictly monetarily speaking like WNBA players, in relative terms their skills are in less demand. The comparison wizkid83 drew of the top 0.01% of lawyers/politicians/doctors/bankers is much more relevant. Like them, people are willing to pay top dollar for their services. And like others in the top 0.01% of their industry, NBA players had to beat out millions to get there.
Once again, how is super teams bad for NBA again? Especially if they're in big media cities? Did you not remember the 80's Lakers big 3 vs. Celtics big 3? Did you not remember how everyone became a Bulls fan in the 90's? Fans, especially casuals, are interested in superstars, personalities and story line. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...ings/index.html
It clarifies it. I just don't think it makes much sense. I'm not trying to insult you or anyone else. I just think some of you have a problem with something that is yielding the same results that have been there since at least 1980. The only thing changing is players choosing where to consolidate talent. The league has been run by consolidated talent for years. As far as the end result, nothing has changed.* Has the league had stacked teams before? Yes (see the 80s Celtics/Lakers/Pistons, 90s Bulls and the current Lakers/Pistons). The super friends team isn't better than any of those teams. Have two stars played together in their primes? Yes (see Bird/McHale, Jordan/Pippen, Shaq/Kobe). Has the league been historically competitive? No, and I've already shown how it hasn't been. Each year 3-4 teams have a shot to win and the rest of the teams don't. For the past 4 years the major players have been the Lakers/Celtics/Magic and whatever team LeBron played on. Coincidentally the teams with the best players (or player). There is no suspense or parity.* So at the end of the day the only thing that you actually have a beef with is players choosing to put themselves in these situations. And sorry, but that is just silly to me. If it's ok for a team to get top talent by tanking (like we got Hakeem) or from a BS trade (like we got Drexler), then it should be ok for a free agent to decide to team up with a buddy. Your doomsday scenario of no stars being left on sorry teams won't happen because the average player still wants all his money (see the Melo situation, which is forcing the Knicks to gut their team for him). The Heat trio took less to play together and I definately don't see that happening a lot. Nothing has changed....
First of all, I don't think this is too great of a threat. There's too much talent in the NBA for it to be distributed between just a few teams. This will probably (hopefully) just be a fad, and may not even yield successful results. That being said, I don't think I'd support (and certainly not champion) anything that makes the NBA less competitive as a whole. Isn't that the reason most of us watch sports? I'd definitely support any measures that discourage this trend. Mainly because as a fan of a team not in the big three or four markets, why wouldn't I?
If one of the stud guards go to NY in 2012 and Howard goes to LA as rumored, then your power teams will be Miami, LA and NY. 3 stud teams and the rest. How will that be any less competitive than the 80s (2 teams get 8 titles) 90s (2 teams get 8 titles) and 2000s (Lakers and Spurs combine for 8 titles)? And it looks like the Lakers/Celtics may hook up for their 3rd Finals in 4 years, which probably would have been 4 in 4 if KG didn't get hurt.*
