2024-25 NBA Season Discussion

[BIGJ1ER]

I'm not seeing the AD top 25 case tbh. He's clearly slipped a few rungs since his true prime. If he was still at that 18-20 level and had played around there for longer, then sure.

Catch all's have stopped rating his defence in May 2023, his jumpshot has abandoned him, he doesn't have the speed to abuse 2025 level C's off the catch/dribble at a reliable level anymore.

That's focusing on the negatives, of course he's still a very good player and probably a back end top 10/high end top 15 guy, but would you really have him having a top 25 case over names that are in that tier like James Harden/Steve Nash/Chris Paul etc?

[Doctor MJ]

And why should we treat Lebron's capacity to bully for that outcome as uniquely different from his capacity to do so on the fronts of ty lue or dan hurley?

I think the clear thing here is that LeBron has regularly pushed his franchises to make win now moves as a matter of course for forever.

And this constitutes bullying?

He doesn't always get what he wants, but the mere fact that the Lakers said "Yes" to LeBron's plan with Westbrook but "No" to some other things doesn't mean he wasn't pushing for Westbrook

You need to first establish Westbrook was Lebron's plan, then you need to establish he pushed and exerted power to force this plan to fruition to a degree that constitutes bullying, preferably establishing a bar for bullying you are comfortable applying evenly. "Russell Westbrook" doesn't really do any of these things.

They deserve blame too, but that doesn't let LeBron off the hook.

Assuming for the sake of this exercise you have established Lebron pushed for the Westbrook trade, sure. But this reasoning would also suggest Lebron has not only played for, but helped build multiple championship rosters and several contenders and deserves credit for those beyond his own play. That part mostly isn't accounted for in this sort of discourse, lest we accept the possibility individual autonomy can be a good thing.

1. Yes, that’s what I’d say the word means in this context.

2. See Google. If that’s not proof for you, okay, but this isn’t some random thing I’m bringing up out of nowhere.

3. True. LeBron’s machinations have had positive effects as well as negative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doctor MJ]

This was about Luka’s fitness and attitude, and these were issues we were well aware of.

"Fitness and attitude" was merely one of the post-trade rationalizations thrown out by the Mavs to try and spin this garbage trade. There are already other narratives being put out there and there will be more in the days and weeks to come. Sure, we all know Luka's fat, but that still doesn't justify trading him for way below market value without any advance warning or even shopping him around to the rest of the league first.

From a conspiratorial perspective, it also seems very convenient that Luka is being gifted the juiciest possible bulletin-board material to motivate him now that he's on the Lakers. Even if it's true that Luka isn't taking his fitness seriously enough, it's still utterly moronic to say that in public after you've traded him to a conference rival who you're going to have to play against on a regular basis for the next 20 years. Especially when it's a player as hyper-competitive as Luka is. It just adds to the shadiness around this trade that the Mavs would come out and say that anyway when they have to know how likely it is to backfire on them.

This is pretty amazing in its own right after LeBron bullying every franchise he’s ever played for (other than the Heat where his attempted bullying went nowhere).

How has LeBron "bullied" the Lakers? They've consistently ignored his opinions on everything, even to the team's detriment (such as letting Caruso walk). The only bone they've thrown him over the years was drafting Bronny, but handing out roster spots to your franchise player's relatives is nothing new. See: Giannis' brother, Lillard's cousin... the Knicks even did it for JR freaking Smith.

Claiming “fitness” makes no sense when trading for Day to Davis - a player who is much older and just as injury prone as Luka.

A fat Luka on a super max - even if you think that is where this is headed - is still a tradeable asset.

He just took them to the Finals for god sake.

In other words - trading Luka is clearly unwise for basketball reasons (not really a debate). Trading him to save money or for future health concerns makes sense for financial / risk reasons. Trading him for THIS package is unconscionable.

That is why people are claiming conspiracy. I am not a conspiracy theorist - but the explanations thus far just don’t add up.

First, it’s not like we’re talking about comparable contracts going forward. The Mavs were about to have to make the choice for a 350 mill extension with Luka. That’s not the situation with AD.

Second, let’s not confuse injury proneness in an extreme athlete with obesity due to refusing to take staying shape seriously no matter what help the franchise offers.

But again, to be clear, I’m not saying I would have wanted to do this trade, it’s just a matter of what best explains why the Mavs did what they did.

I don’t think the Mavs did this to purposefully destroy the franchise, and I think it quite unlikely they did it to make the Lakers happy.

By contrast:

Do I think the size of the upcoming contract extension probably loomed large in ownerships concerns regardless of made sense for the basketball team? Yup.

Do I think Luka being in bad physical shape was on their mind? Yup.

Do I think Mavs ownership and management came to dislike Luka as a person and this factored in? Yup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cavsfansince84]

I'd take Davis in 2019 at around the same age over 2025 Doncic and I expect Davis to rank higher on my ATL list at the end of their careers. I think 29 year old Davis with sweetener for Luka would've been a fair trade but Dallas got a version a bit too old for me for a player never expected to age amazingly.

Really depends if Luka wants to get in shape I think. Otherwise I think his regular seasons will continue to trend downwards and his defense will continue to get worse and we might think of him as post prime by age 30-31. If he gets into shape though and returns to his 21-24 levels for a while I think he'll end up higher. His game should also age well even if he's not in great shape at age 33+.

[lessthanjake]

On the question of the significance of LeBron’s waning power over the franchise, I wouldn’t really characterize this as a situation in which the Lakers actually went against LeBron James’s interests. It definitely seems like they made a really major decision without his input, which is significant in terms of assessing his influence. But it’s not a move that goes against LeBron’s interests of winning now. To the contrary, while there’s certainly potential questions about fit, I think our baseline assumption should be that the Lakers will become a better team in the near-term as a result of this trade, for the simple reason that Luka is meaningfully better than Anthony Davis. So I find it difficult to believe LeBron would’ve opposed this trade if he *had* been consulted about it, unless for some non-basketball reason (i.e. perhaps friendship with Anthony Davis). It’s basically a deal that not only is clearly good for the Lakers long-term, but also is likely better for them in the near-term too. There wasn’t really some trade-off in that regard for the Lakers to consider, so they didn’t actually make a major move that was against LeBron’s interests. Which still leaves an open question about whether the team would’ve been willing to do something major that *would* be against his interests. That Rubicon has yet to be crossed, though making a huge decision without his input makes it seem more likely that they’d be willing to do so.

[bballcool34]

"Fitness and attitude" was merely one of the post-trade rationalizations thrown out by the Mavs to try and spin this garbage trade. There are already other narratives being put out there and there will be more in the days and weeks to come. Sure, we all know Luka's fat, but that still doesn't justify trading him for way below market value without any advance warning or even shopping him around to the rest of the league first.

From a conspiratorial perspective, it also seems very convenient that Luka is being gifted the juiciest possible bulletin-board material to motivate him now that he's on the Lakers. Even if it's true that Luka isn't taking his fitness seriously enough, it's still utterly moronic to say that in public after you've traded him to a conference rival who you're going to have to play against on a regular basis for the next 20 years. Especially when it's a player as hyper-competitive as Luka is. It just adds to the shadiness around this trade that the Mavs would come out and say that anyway when they have to know how likely it is to backfire on them.


How has LeBron "bullied" the Lakers? They've consistently ignored his opinions on everything, even to the team's detriment (such as letting Caruso walk). The only bone they've thrown him over the years was drafting Bronny, but handing out roster spots to your franchise player's relatives is nothing new. See: Giannis' brother, Lillard's cousin... the Knicks even did it for JR freaking Smith.

Claiming “fitness” makes no sense when trading for Day to Davis - a player who is much older and just as injury prone as Luka.

A fat Luka on a super max - even if you think that is where this is headed - is still a tradeable asset.

He just took them to the Finals for god sake.

In other words - trading Luka is clearly unwise for basketball reasons (not really a debate). Trading him to save money or for future health concerns makes sense for financial / risk reasons. Trading him for THIS package is unconscionable.

That is why people are claiming conspiracy. I am not a conspiracy theorist - but the explanations thus far just don’t add up.

First, it’s not like we’re talking about comparable contracts going forward. The Mavs were about to have to make the choice for a 350 mill extension with Luka. That’s not the situation with AD.

Second, let’s not confuse injury proneness in an extreme athlete with obesity due to refusing to take staying shape seriously no matter what help the franchise offers.

But again, to be clear, I’m not saying I would have wanted to do this trade, it’s just a matter of what best explains why the Mavs did what they did.

I don’t think the Mavs did this to purposefully destroy the franchise, and I think it quite unlikely they did it to make the Lakers happy.

By contrast:

Do I think the size of the upcoming contract extension probably loomed large in ownerships concerns regardless of made sense for the basketball team? Yup.

Do I think Luka being in bad physical shape was on their mind? Yup.

Do I think Mavs ownership and management came to dislike Luka as a person and this factored in? Yup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with what you are saying but this trade is not a rational move - when you think about maximizing the value of the Mavericks basketball team while balancing very real financial / health risk constraints

That doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy - it could be emotional. It could be bad decision making. But when teams with multi billion dollar valuations and individuals with a lot to lose / gain make moves that aren’t “rational” - then those moves should be investigated by the league. I’m not surprised unfortunately that the media isn’t really calling for this.

Presuming that we know the full story here is foolhardy IMO

[OldSchoolNoBull]

This was about Luka’s fitness and attitude, and these were issues we were well aware of.

"Fitness and attitude" was merely one of the post-trade rationalizations thrown out by the Mavs to try and spin this garbage trade. There are already other narratives being put out there and there will be more in the days and weeks to come. Sure, we all know Luka's fat, but that still doesn't justify trading him for way below market value without any advance warning or even shopping him around to the rest of the league first.

From a conspiratorial perspective, it also seems very convenient that Luka is being gifted the juiciest possible bulletin-board material to motivate him now that he's on the Lakers. Even if it's true that Luka isn't taking his fitness seriously enough, it's still utterly moronic to say that in public after you've traded him to a conference rival who you're going to have to play against on a regular basis for the next 20 years. Especially when it's a player as hyper-competitive as Luka is. It just adds to the shadiness around this trade that the Mavs would come out and say that anyway when they have to know how likely it is to backfire on them.

So you're best theory is one where the Lakers are secretly in control of the NBA? I think you can do better than that.

This trade - and the way it went down - is so bizarre that it's hard not to entertain conspiracy theories. That said, "Lakers are secretly in control of the NBA" isn't one I would entertain. The three that have been batted around are:

1. That Adam Silver and the NBA are in on this and conspired to get Luka to the Lakers to help the NBA's sagging ratings.

I don't buy this one. This trade makes the whole league look bad, with everyone saying the NBA is the WWE, etc, and I don't think commissioner would want to participate directly in something that calls the league's legitimacy into question. Also, it strikes me as odd that the league would think the answer to their ratings problems is a player that they've manifestly failed to market properly for six years now.

2. That Mavs' new ownership is intending on relocating the team and that this somehow facilitates that.

The Mavs' ownership is behind this one way or another, because no GM can make this kind of trade without ownership signing off and keep their job. For whatever reason, Mavs' ownership wanted Luka gone, and I don't believe it's just because of fitness reasons. Whether It's money, or just not liking the guy and/or the way he carries himself, they didn't want to pay him the supermax, and that may or may not figure into a desire to relocate the team in the future. Ownership wanted him gone and I have a feeling there's much we still don't know about that.

3. That Klutch Sports is somehow behind this because LeBron and AD are represented by Klutch and because Rich Paul, Nico Harrison, and Rob Pelinka are all tight from their work with Klutch and Nike.

I've never liked Klutch, I've always thought they're shady, and I have little trouble believing they'd pull shenanigans to give their players what they want. That said, I'm not 100% sure what their motivation here would be. Perhaps they just want to get LeBron another ring and they think Luka makes that more possible than AD? But if that were the case, LeBron would be in on it, and the reporting suggests he was in the dark about it.

More likely, things between AD and the Lakers behind the scenes were worse than was publicly reported(this is somewhat substantiated by AD's willingness to waive his trade kicker), and Klutch was looking to move him to a situation more to his liking, and then Luka fell in their, and the Lakers, laps because of their relationship with Nico and the motivations - whatever they may be - of Mavs' ownership.

---

As an aside, I'd hate to be Mark Cuban right about now. He's said in a brief statement that he wasn't involved in this deal, and I believe that. But he is the guy that sold controlling interest of the team to the ownership group that made this decision. If you think fanbases forget that kind of thing, ask the erstwhile Seattle Supersonics fanbase whether or not they've forgiven Howard Schultz for selling their team to the guy who moved it to OKC.

In the end, i believe the circumstances around this trade are bizarre enough and are provoking enough questions that a league investigation is warranted. Maybe it wouldn't uncover anything nefarious, but the league might at least look a little more credible investigation a trade that made the entire basketball world sit up and say "WTF" and think Shams was hacked.

[Doctor MJ]

On the question of the significance of LeBron’s waning power over the franchise, I wouldn’t really characterize this as a situation in which the Lakers actually went against LeBron James’s interests. It definitely seems like they made a really major decision without his input, which is significant in terms of assessing his influence. But it’s not a move that goes against LeBron’s interests of winning now. To the contrary, while there’s certainly potential questions about fit, I think our baseline assumption should be that the Lakers will become a better team in the near-term as a result of this trade, for the simple reason that Luka is meaningfully better than Anthony Davis. So I find it difficult to believe LeBron would’ve opposed this trade if he *had* been consulted about it, unless for some non-basketball reason (i.e. perhaps friendship with Anthony Davis). It’s basically a deal that not only is clearly good for the Lakers long-term, but also is likely better for them in the near-term too. There wasn’t really some trade-off in that regard for the Lakers to consider, so they didn’t actually make a major move that was against LeBron’s interests. Which still leaves an open question about whether the team would’ve been willing to do something major that *would* be against his interests. That Rubicon has yet to be crossed, though making a huge decision without his input makes it seem more likely that they’d be willing to do so.

So, the Lakers just replaced the superstar teammate with greatest fit that LeBron's ever played with...with a guy who basically does the same thing as LeBron but better.

The Lakers are now Luka's team, and any further complaints about the roster not being good enough coming from LeBron will be left with "You're right, so will you waive your no trade clause so we can get better fitting talent around Luka?"

Now, maybe Luka & LeBron will end up working really well together, but I would not expect that that's really what the Lakers were thinking about when they said yes to the trade. It was surely less about max-ing out the remainder of LeBron's contract, and more about Luka becoming their franchise player for a considerably longer period of time.

All this to say that maybe LeBron will be happy with the results, but after the Lakers making move after move designed to build around LeBron, that's not what this move was about, and that's not what any other moves going forward will be about. LeBron is now, for the first time in his life, not his team's priority.

[Dr Positivity]

No need to entertain conspiracy. Probably what happened was

- The Mavs knew Luka was turning down supermax this summer and recognized trading with 1.5 years left gives them more value than than a year left post trade demand, similar to how a team like Utah back in the day surprised everyone by trading Deron before people knew about it.

- They then made a trade we don't like, maybe it was Kidd's history with AD, maybe it was a fixation on two way bigs, maybe it was thinking they needed the big matchup to beat teams like Boston and OKC, maybe they're weirdly high on Christie, etc. Teams have made polarizing trades before like MIN giving up THAT much for Gobert. It's not like it was Doncic for Reaves and salaries straight up, AD was probably going to be voted the 17th or 18th best trade asset in the league according to my current T&T board series, although Doncic was voted 4th. Christie is worth a 1st so that and 2029 is two firsts, so there is some sweetener, though I'd argue not enough for that difference.

[Doctor MJ]

Claiming “fitness” makes no sense when trading for Day to Davis - a player who is much older and just as injury prone as Luka.

A fat Luka on a super max - even if you think that is where this is headed - is still a tradeable asset.

He just took them to the Finals for god sake.

In other words - trading Luka is clearly unwise for basketball reasons (not really a debate). Trading him to save money or for future health concerns makes sense for financial / risk reasons. Trading him for THIS package is unconscionable.

That is why people are claiming conspiracy. I am not a conspiracy theorist - but the explanations thus far just don’t add up.

First, it’s not like we’re talking about comparable contracts going forward. The Mavs were about to have to make the choice for a 350 mill extension with Luka. That’s not the situation with AD.

Second, let’s not confuse injury proneness in an extreme athlete with obesity due to refusing to take staying shape seriously no matter what help the franchise offers.

But again, to be clear, I’m not saying I would have wanted to do this trade, it’s just a matter of what best explains why the Mavs did what they did.

I don’t think the Mavs did this to purposefully destroy the franchise, and I think it quite unlikely they did it to make the Lakers happy.

By contrast:

Do I think the size of the upcoming contract extension probably loomed large in ownerships concerns regardless of made sense for the basketball team? Yup.

Do I think Luka being in bad physical shape was on their mind? Yup.

Do I think Mavs ownership and management came to dislike Luka as a person and this factored in? Yup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with what you are saying but this trade is not a rational move - when you think about maximizing the value of the Mavericks basketball team while balancing very real financial / health risk constraints

That doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy - it could be emotional. It could be bad decision making. But when teams with multi billion dollar valuations and individuals with a lot to lose / gain make moves that aren’t “rational” - then those moves should be investigated by the league. I’m not surprised unfortunately that the media isn’t really calling for this.

Presuming that we know the full story here is foolhardy IMO

Good thoughts and I'll go so far as to say:

Emotions are part of this, just as they were when the Brooklyn Nets decided to not give Kyrie that last extension. Billionaires aren't used to kowtowing to anyone, and they resent when their employees act like divas who hold all the cards.

This is of course very different from the fan perspective where no one matters as much as the franchise player and so whatever he's like to actually work with, it doesn't matter because keeping him happy is the most important thing. This also explains how an owner can make a deal that seems clearly bad from a basketball perspective, but in terms of them enjoying their purchase, it makes all the difference.

[lessthanjake]

On the question of the significance of LeBron’s waning power over the franchise, I wouldn’t really characterize this as a situation in which the Lakers actually went against LeBron James’s interests. It definitely seems like they made a really major decision without his input, which is significant in terms of assessing his influence. But it’s not a move that goes against LeBron’s interests of winning now. To the contrary, while there’s certainly potential questions about fit, I think our baseline assumption should be that the Lakers will become a better team in the near-term as a result of this trade, for the simple reason that Luka is meaningfully better than Anthony Davis. So I find it difficult to believe LeBron would’ve opposed this trade if he *had* been consulted about it, unless for some non-basketball reason (i.e. perhaps friendship with Anthony Davis). It’s basically a deal that not only is clearly good for the Lakers long-term, but also is likely better for them in the near-term too. There wasn’t really some trade-off in that regard for the Lakers to consider, so they didn’t actually make a major move that was against LeBron’s interests. Which still leaves an open question about whether the team would’ve been willing to do something major that *would* be against his interests. That Rubicon has yet to be crossed, though making a huge decision without his input makes it seem more likely that they’d be willing to do so.

So, the Lakers just replaced the superstar teammate with greatest fit that LeBron's ever played with...with a guy who basically does the same thing as LeBron but better.

The Lakers are now Luka's team, and any further complaints about the roster not being good enough coming from LeBron will be left with "You're right, so will you waive your no trade clause so we can get better fitting talent around Luka?"

Now, maybe Luka & LeBron will end up working really well together, but I would not expect that that's really what the Lakers were thinking about when they said yes to the trade. It was surely less about max-ing out the remainder of LeBron's contract, and more about Luka becoming their franchise player for a considerably longer period of time.

All this to say that maybe LeBron will be happy with the results, but after the Lakers making move after move designed to build around LeBron, that's not what this move was about, and that's not what any other moves going forward will be about. LeBron is now, for the first time in his life, not his team's priority.

I think this is right, but I also think that Luka is enough better than Anthony Davis that the team will probably be better in the near-term even assuming that the fit with LeBron isn’t as good. And, if LeBron’s priority is to win now, then this would improve the prospects of that, even if it does so by minimizing LeBron’s primacy. I guess maybe LeBron’s personal interests also include valuing having primacy over the team (perhaps in part because that determines how much credit he’d get if they’re successful), but just in terms of chances of winning now, I do think that this is a good move for the Lakers, and so I definitely don’t think it’s squarely against LeBron’s interests. It’s just an *even better* move for the Lakers from the perspective of winning later.

[sp6r=underrated]

In the end, i believe the circumstances around this trade are bizarre enough and are provoking enough questions that a league investigation is warranted.

This is nuts and it wouldn't satisfy anyone who is upset about this trade.

Lots of fans are jealous of the Lakers and hate em for their success. Anytime things come up their way a subset of nutballs think it was a conspiracy. If the NBA did an investigation, the people claiming conspiracy will call the investigation a sham.

Teams do stupid stuff is a satisfactory explanation. if you're really this outraged you should just stop following the sport.

But when teams with multi billion dollar valuations and individuals with a lot to lose / gain make moves that aren’t “rational” - then those moves should be investigated by the league. I’m not surprised unfortunately that the media isn’t really calling for this.

It isn't in Luka interests just as it wasn't in Shaq interests to eat terribly, yet they did. It isn't in Draymond interests to focus on the refs during games, yet he does. The NBA would have to do endless investigations if their standard was rational.

Replay review can increase ref complaining because it forces fans to watch 6-7 angles of the same play for 2 minutes while the announcers debate it. and if we did investigations of poor decisions it would add fuel to the fire.

The recourse is simple, don't follow the Mavs. And if you think the commissioner is fixing things stop watching the sport.

Billionaires aren't used to kowtowing to anyone, and they resent when their employees act like divas who hold all the cards.

This I suspect matters a lot. People who own companies are used to being the most important person in every room and having employees adapt to their needs. basketball is a rare workplace where top line talent is much more important than the brand so employees can throw their weight around.

This infuriates a lot of owners. Especially when the player is in the wrong, such as Luka and his diet.

[MartinToVaught]

This trade makes the whole league look bad

They already look bad. The ratings decline has gotten them so nervous that Silver's been saying crazy stuff to the media about shortening the quarters of games, starting a European league, and all sorts of other foolishness that nobody asked for, without even getting into the previous rinky-dink gimmicks like the in-season tournament and the play-in games. The NBA is just so desperate at this point that they don't even care anymore how it makes them look.

I don't think commissioner would want to participate directly in something that calls the league's legitimacy into question.

Its legitimacy is already being questioned and where's Silver? He's so outspoken about stuff nobody cares about, but he has nothing to say about the biggest BS trade ever? Come on now.

And if you think it's farfetched for Silver to meddle with a team's front office, I think Sam Hinkie would disagree with you there. That Pandora's Box was already opened a long time ago with what Silver did to the Sixers.

Also, it strikes me as odd that the league would think the answer to their ratings problems is a player that they've manifestly failed to market properly for six years now.

The NBA has always been terrible at anything other than shoving the biggest brands down our throats. The media photoshopping every star into a Lakers jersey is like 90% of their marketing in any given year. They are never going to figure out how to market a small-market player better, they'll always just push them towards the Lakers/Warriors/Heat (mostly the Lakers) where they can be marketed on autopilot instead.

Meanwhile, the NFL has managed to make the whole country sick of a team from Kansas City due to extreme overexposure. This is why the NBA will never surpass the NFL.

[tone wone]

On the question of the significance of LeBron’s waning power over the franchise, I wouldn’t really characterize this as a situation in which the Lakers actually went against LeBron James’s interests. It definitely seems like they made a really major decision without his input, which is significant in terms of assessing his influence. But it’s not a move that goes against LeBron’s interests of winning now. To the contrary, while there’s certainly potential questions about fit, I think our baseline assumption should be that the Lakers will become a better team in the near-term as a result of this trade, for the simple reason that Luka is meaningfully better than Anthony Davis. So I find it difficult to believe LeBron would’ve opposed this trade if he *had* been consulted about it, unless for some non-basketball reason (i.e. perhaps friendship with Anthony Davis). It’s basically a deal that not only is clearly good for the Lakers long-term, but also is likely better for them in the near-term too. There wasn’t really some trade-off in that regard for the Lakers to consider, so they didn’t actually make a major move that was against LeBron’s interests. Which still leaves an open question about whether the team would’ve been willing to do something major that *would* be against his interests. That Rubicon has yet to be crossed, though making a huge decision without his input makes it seem more likely that they’d be willing to do so.

So, the Lakers just replaced the superstar teammate with greatest fit that LeBron's ever played with...with a guy who basically does the same thing as LeBron but better.

The Lakers are now Luka's team, and any further complaints about the roster not being good enough coming from LeBron will be left with "You're right, so will you waive your no trade clause so we can get better fitting talent around Luka?"

Now, maybe Luka & LeBron will end up working really well together, but I would not expect that that's really what the Lakers were thinking about when they said yes to the trade. It was surely less about max-ing out the remainder of LeBron's contract, and more about Luka becoming their franchise player for a considerably longer period of time.

All this to say that maybe LeBron will be happy with the results, but after the Lakers making move after move designed to build around LeBron, that's not what this move was about, and that's not what any other moves going forward will be about. LeBron is now, for the first time in his life, not his team's priority.

Typed with a massive erection.

[sp6r=underrated]

They are never going to figure out how to market a small-market player better, they'll always just push them towards the Lakers/Warriors/Heat (mostly the Lakers) where they can be marketed on autopilot instead.

Disclosure: I live in SF. The absurd is above.

There is no national Warriors brand. The Warriors had no national following before Curry and their current national fan base will collapse after he leaves ala Jordan and the Bulls.

The Heat struggle to draw in Miami. Silver has no interest in propping up these two franchises just as Stern had no interest in propping them up.

Again, if the NBA fixes things why haven't they made the Knicks a juggernaut? unlike the warriors/heat, the Knicks do have a national fan base.

The reason why they haven't is simple. They aren't fixing things. There is no conspiracy.

Lots of players prefer to live in LA/NYC because the entertainment industry is based out of those 2 cities. The Lakers for decades had great management which built up their brand with fans/players. Players know superstars decide things in the NBA so the top players try to sign with LA.

The one thing the Nba could do about this is get of max salaries. But the owners oppose because max salaries helps break up the union.

Other than that there really isn't anything the NBA can do.

Meanwhile, the NFL has managed to make the whole country sick of a team from Kansas City due to extreme overexposure. This is why the NBA will never surpass the NFL.

The NFL is more popular than the NBA because it sells football not basketball. Americans love football the way other Germany loves Soccer and India loves cricket.

The Chiefs are able to develop a national following because the NFL is a once a week TV show in which the fans watch all the games not just their favorite team.

You're confusing cause and effect.

The NFL is more popular than the NBA and that explains why the Chiefs have a national following.

[Statlanta]

LeBron is now, for the first time in his life, not his team's priority.

We are now heading towards a new era of basketball.

[MartinToVaught]

Again, if the NBA fixes things why haven't they made the Knicks a juggernaut? unlike the warriors/heat, the Knicks do have a national fan base.

I respect Knicks fans and their passion for the game, so don't take this as a diss, but this prompts the question of why the ratings are tanking in the first place. The Knicks are good this year and have been competitive for a few years now. Shouldn't they be carrying the league?

I think what it really comes down to is that Knicks fans already pack the Garden and are rabidly loyal to the Knicks regardless of how the team's doing. Even in the Isiah years, they were routinely outdrawing a lot of good teams. I also think this is why the NBA isn't bailing the Bulls out no matter how bad they get under Jerry. The Knicks and Bulls don't have the same national or international following that the Lakers have, and they don't always need to have the best players to keep the fans they do have engaged, so in a coldly rational way, I can see why the league wouldn't bother catering to them as much. As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the Knicks' and Bulls' wheels just aren't squeaky enough.

Similarly, when I take my Clippers fan goggles off, I can see why we don't get VIP treatment either despite being in LA. We have a small fanbase and no national or global relevance. The league doesn't need us to be good, it thrived for over 30 years while Sterling was running our team into the ground.

In an ideal world, the NBA would be able to build up any of their franchises as juggernauts, but this has been their biggest weakness for a while now. They had a playbook that worked for them in the '80s with the Lakers and Celtics and MJ and they've never updated since then. Duncan and the Spurs should have been a marketer's wet dream and they fumbled it.

[bballcool34]

No need to entertain conspiracy. Probably what happened was

- The Mavs knew Luka was turning down supermax this summer and recognized trading with 1.5 years left gives them more value than than a year left post trade demand, similar to how a team like Utah back in the day surprised everyone by trading Deron before people knew about it.

- They then made a trade we don't like, maybe it was Kidd's history with AD, maybe it was a fixation on two way bigs, maybe it was thinking they needed the big matchup to beat teams like Boston and OKC, maybe they're weirdly high on Christie, etc. Teams have made polarizing trades before like MIN giving up THAT much for Gobert. It's not like it was Doncic for Reaves and salaries straight up, AD was probably going to be voted the 17th or 18th best trade asset in the league according to my current T&T board series, although Doncic was voted 4th. Christie is worth a 1st so that and 2029 is two firsts, so there is some sweetener, though I'd argue not enough for that difference.

Niko was explicit that Luka did not indicate he wanted to leave or would not sign the super max. That’s a lot of money - why would he NOT sign? His thank you note to Dallas also said he imagined retiring there…

This is not a case of Luka wanting out with ant evidence we have so far

[TheGOATRises007]

Yeah no evidence at all Luka wanted out

He would have stayed

[Special_Puppy]

What’s the Steelman version for why it was both a good idea to only listen to the Lakers offer for Luka and not the Thunder, Cavs, and Rockets offers