In baseball, players routinely go for the most money or best situation and nobody bats an eye. Same thing with the NFL, where players look out for their own interests and it's understood as good business. This is why I find it strange that NBA stars are called disloyal and greedy if they even think about signing with another team. I've heard many people say that they'll lose all respect for LeBron/Wade/Dwight if they leave and these aren't even fans of those teams. When a fan refutes allegations that a player is considering leaving, he/she says that the star "cares about winning" and "wouldn't do that to the fans." I just don't get why it's seen as such a despicable thing for a franchise player to play where he wants to play when it's common practice in other sports. Why do you guys think that is?
I think basketball is different. You have 15 players on each team. And if a team has a superstar franchise player. The whole dimension of that team could change if he were to leave. example if Cleveland were to lose Lebron. That team pretty much becomes worthless.
Smaller team and more fan exposure. NBA fans tend to think they KNOW the players and in turn have much stronger feelings (negative or positive) towards them. It's not really about the money or leaving. Two players can leave under similar circumstances and the consensus fan view can still be completely different. Most of us here love Scola. If he were to jump ship after next season and land a large contract, there wouldn't be much anger towards him. You would see more "go make your money, Scola" type comments here. Von Wafer left and fans were either saying good riddance or complaining that he asked for too much money.
I don't think players get too blasted for leaving--Magic fans had no bad blood with Shaq, generally speaking. What bothers people, myself included, is when players hold team managements hostage ("make desperate trades that jeopardize the team's future, or I'm bolting next off-season--and don't you dare think about criticizing me!") and self-servingly draw media attention to their career plans for years on end. That's why Lebron annoys so many people, whereas people would not (justifiably, at least) lose respect for Wade or Bosh if they sign elsewhere.
For football, careers are usually a lot shorter than typical NBA careers. A player plays with a single team for his whole career more often in the NFL than in the NBA or MLB. I don't really see this as an issue in the NFL. For the MLB, players do get heat from the fans for signing with another team. I think Nolan Ryan raised a lot of fuss when he signed with Houston in 1979, where he became the first player to make $1M in a season. Teams do play a part in this, in that they often trade a upcoming free agent (see: Texas and Mark Texiera, when they traded him to the Braves). SS Renteria got some heat for signing with Boston after the 2005 season after playing the previous 6 seasons in St. Louis. Finally, for NBA, superstars have a 10+ year career, and they are only tied to their rookie contracts for at most 4 seasons. They enter free agency far earlier in their careers than MLB players do. Also, the average NBA salary is higher than the average MLB salary. I think the average fan thinks, "He's making $4M here. Why would he want to leave?", when he could easily get $6M somewhere else.
They get mad in every sport. Just see how Philly treats JD Drew, when drew did nothing but refuse to sign after being drafted because he wanted more money. He never even played for the team. People hated on ARod for his Texas contract. The NFL it happens the least often, because players are more easily replaced, teams can Franchise a player every year, and players rarely spend their careers with one team. It does happen in the NFL though.
I don't think most people realize it's starting to become rare for a player to stay with one team throughout their career nowadays. Can you guess the player who has stayed 10+ years with their first and only team in the nba and is a superstar no less?
Today it's only Tim Duncan and Kobe. It's becoming rare because teams are throwing millions at these people. Who would pass that up?
Added with that is once a player signs a big money contract, is overpaid or perceived as overpaid, even years after the fact the opinon of that player will always seem 5 times more harsh. Its almost impossible for them to shake off the label and have "earned" the money Andre Iguodala 2006 - Emerging player in the leauge, an up and coming talent. Andre Iguodala 2009 - He's not a TRUE #1 option, doesn't have great handles, suspect defense, bad attitude... Even if their numbers are the same or a little better. Its 75% jealousy. I myself dont like constant turnover on a team and following a new set of guys every year. Its just how the sports market is now though, gotta get the money while the getting's good.
But superstars aren't really leaving their teams through free agency with player max contracts and the ability to offer more than an opposing team.
arent basketball contracts the most guaranteed? I think it has to do with the fact that fans expect players to "return the favor" to the team for giving them long term, possibly max, guaranteed contracts. In football i'm pretty sure they arent guaranteed and it's not uncommon for good players to be cut. In baseball i've also heard of solid players being cut, but i think in baseball it's more common for them to be traded for prospects. So in those two sports there's isn't as much "loyalty" from teams, so fans seem to understand why the players would look out for themselves first. In the NBA you do have some good players who are bought out or traded for crap/picks, but it's usually in extreme cases like Marbury or Artest, where teams are pushed against a wall....however, i do think times are changing and soon fans won't be so hard on NBA players because more trades are happening, specially blockbuster ones (at least that's how it seems to me).
