Does Dallas seem like it should be more of a FA attraction?

[CobraCommander]

Chris Broussard said Toronto isn't black enough for African Americans

I see post here saying Dallas isn't black enough

Boston (one of the most racist NBA cities as far as players say) still attracts players some how

I don't see stars running to ATL or Knicks

It's the two LA teams / Miami / GS / will attract stars just cuz of location

BK Boston Chicago will attract players because of big city market

Houston will attract guys when they're good again because of the night life + tax benefits

Phx is hot so they tend to have solid teams once they draft well, but are they even a FA destination

All the other teams gotta work harder or pay a little more...

Chris Bro is right - that’s why the cowboys never have had a black QB and the cowboys cant ever get black dudes to come in FA...not TO not Primetime....that’s why Old 21 reasons spent his whole career in Atlanta cause black people can’t even go to Dallas

[DreamTeam09]

Chris Broussard said Toronto isn't black enough for African Americans

I see post here saying Dallas isn't black enough

Boston (one of the most racist NBA cities as far as players say) still attracts players some how

I don't see stars running to ATL or Knicks

It's the two LA teams / Miami / GS / will attract stars just cuz of location

BK Boston Chicago will attract players because of big city market

Houston will attract guys when they're good again because of the night life + tax benefits

Phx is hot so they tend to have solid teams once they draft well, but are they even a FA destination

All the other teams gotta work harder or pay a little more...

Chris Bro is right - that’s why the cowboys never have had a black QB and the cowboys cant ever get black dudes to come in FA...not TO not Primetime....that’s why Old 21 reasons spent his whole career in Atlanta cause black people can’t even go to Dallas

That is definitely a good point ppl don't bring up, football players don't chase locations a lot or as much as the NBA guys

[SelfishPlayer]

That's another problem, Dallas is a football city. If a similar thread were created about the Lakers, no one would mention the Rams and Chargers. This can matter to a free agent who is making choices beyond contract size.

[sp6r=underrated]

I've said before there are only two top markets for free agents: NY, LA. Those two cities have real advantages over other cities. Due to population size, media concentration and economic factors they are at the center of global culture. For people who work in the entertainment industries like athletes this is hugely appealing. They are also amazing places to live if you're young, tons of cash and want the nightlife. And if they're not attracting free agents like the current era Knicks or Sterling era Clippers it is a sign of gross mis-management.

On the other end of the spectrum you have a few cities either due to economics/population size (New Orleans) or population size/culture (Utah) or at a massive disadvantage. These clubs can't run major payrolls and struggle to keep free agents for obvious reasons.

In the middle are most teams and the teams at the top end of this spectrum have far more in common with the bottom end spectrum teams than they do with LA/NY.

As to Dallas vs the Bay Area, these are two middle spectrum area metro areas. I've lived in SF for a decade so I'll comment on SF. Briefly bio, white middle aged, lived here over a decade. SF is great if you're into things like the outdoors. Beautiful scenary, hiking trails, sailing. Just great for outdoor activites. The downside is SF's economics are driven by the tech industry. Tech industry is super rich but techbros are not like financebros in NYC or entertainment types in LA. They don't like the nightlife. Really SF's nightlife is pathetic for a global city.

Due to housing cost African American population in the area is shrinking rapidly. SF's African American population decline was covered in the great movie "the last black man in San Francisco." I'd imagine most young players would prefer Oakland nightlife over SF. LA offers far more for the average athlete than SF.

For the average person, SF is a bad deal economically. I'm fortunate and have a six figure income. I'm still shut out of the housing market. If you're not in a 200k household, or have the reasonable expectation of moving into that class, I would not recommend here. Living dwellings are terrible relative to the rest of the country for middle income workers which is why this region really suffers a drain in that class. I expect as the century goes on, SF will either rapidly expand its housing pool so that 2 million+ live in the City or it really will become a tale of two cities with almost all middle income jobs moved out of the area. It will just be rich tech workers, service workers who cater to them and very poor people living on public assistance.

[azcatz11]

I’ve lived in Tokyo, Honk Kong, Monaco, Dubai, London etc. received my PHD studying abroad in Dublin.

[SelfishPlayer]

I've said before there are only two top markets for free agents: NY, LA. Those two cities have real advantages over other cities. Due to population size, media concentration and economic factors they are at the center of global culture. For people who work in the entertainment industries like athletes this is hugely appealing. They are also amazing places to live if you're young, tons of cash and want the nightlife. And if they're not attracting free agents like the current era Knicks or Sterling era Clippers it is a sign of gross mis-management.

On the other end of the spectrum you have a few cities either due to economics/population size (New Orleans) or population size/culture (Utah) or at a massive disadvantage. These clubs can't run major payrolls and struggle to keep free agents for obvious reasons.

In the middle are most teams and the teams at the top end of this spectrum have far more in common with the bottom end spectrum teams than they do with LA/NY.

As to Dallas vs the Bay Area, these are two middle spectrum area metro areas. I've lived in SF for a decade so I'll comment on SF. Briefly bio, white middle aged, lived here over a decade. SF is great if you're into things like the outdoors. Beautiful scenary, hiking trails, sailing. Just great for outdoor activites. The downside is SF's economics are driven by the tech industry. Tech industry is super rich but techbros are not like financebros in NYC or entertainment types in LA. They don't like the nightlife. Really SF's nightlife is pathetic for a global city.

Due to housing cost African American population in the area is shrinking rapidly. SF's African American population decline was covered in the great movie "the last black man in San Francisco." I'd imagine most young players would prefer Oakland nightlife over SF. LA offers far more for the average athlete than SF.

For the average person, SF is a bad deal economically. I'm fortunate and have a six figure income. I'm still shut out of the housing market. If you're not in a 200k household, or have the reasonable expectation of moving into that class, I would not recommend here. Living dwellings are terrible relative to the rest of the country for middle income workers which is why this region really suffers a drain in that class. I expect as the century goes on, SF will either rapidly expand its housing pool so that 2 million+ live in the City or it really will become a tale of two cities with almost all middle income jobs moved out of the area. It will just be rich tech workers, service workers who cater to them and very poor people living on public assistance.

The Knicks have never attracted free agents. NYC is not attractive to African Americans. African Americans for decades have been moving out of NYC migrating back to the parts of America they initially migrated from during "The Great Migration." African Americans have a different view of NYC than people try to force upon them when discussing the desirability of the place. Even you try to pawn it off on "current era Knicks." How about "no era Knicks?" NYC is cramped, crowded, and you can't protect yourself. Being able to legally protect yourself is important to rich African Americans driving around in luxury vehicles. https://nypost.com/2000/06/21/nets-star-guard-picked-clean-marbury-is-robbed-of-150g-necklace/

Harlem used to be important to African Americans. What happened? NYC lost its appeal... Just look at the NBA players from NYC, they are getting fewer and fewer in number and their last names tell you that their families are immigrants and not part of long standing African American population that has been steadily moving out of NYC.

[PlayerUp]

Great city, charismatic owner, usually good teams contending or on the fringe. Even going back to the 00’s era cant remember a lot of notable FA signings.

Cap space is a problem of course, but im surprised one of these years a marquee FA hasnt wanted to go to Dallas with Luka and Dirk and the history there. Never really hear rumors linking any to them either.

The fact that Dallas is in Texas is going to turn some free agents off because it's a very conservative state, and Dallas is thought of as particularly conservative versus some other cities in the state. Kind of a similar issue with Utah and they've long had problems with race and recruiting.

Dallas votes more blue than red and your opinion has little to do with this. Florida is leaning conservative doesn't stop Miami from recruiting.

#1 factor is money. #2 is the players and leadership with recruiting players and winning. Dallas is doing something wrong in this department which is why they fail to be an attractive destination. Been like this for decades.

[PlayerUp]

Curious why Dragic didn't sign with Mavs, looks like Mavs didn't even offer vet min, or else why would Dragic sign vet min with Bulls?

This is puzzling because the Bulls already are deep at the guard spot. My speculation is that Vucevic had a great impact on recruiting Dragic and of course Chicago is a better overall basketball market to be in than Dallas.

[sp6r=underrated]

I've said before there are only two top markets for free agents: NY, LA. Those two cities have real advantages over other cities. Due to population size, media concentration and economic factors they are at the center of global culture. For people who work in the entertainment industries like athletes this is hugely appealing. They are also amazing places to live if you're young, tons of cash and want the nightlife. And if they're not attracting free agents like the current era Knicks or Sterling era Clippers it is a sign of gross mis-management.

On the other end of the spectrum you have a few cities either due to economics/population size (New Orleans) or population size/culture (Utah) or at a massive disadvantage. These clubs can't run major payrolls and struggle to keep free agents for obvious reasons.

In the middle are most teams and the teams at the top end of this spectrum have far more in common with the bottom end spectrum teams than they do with LA/NY.

As to Dallas vs the Bay Area, these are two middle spectrum area metro areas. I've lived in SF for a decade so I'll comment on SF. Briefly bio, white middle aged, lived here over a decade. SF is great if you're into things like the outdoors. Beautiful scenary, hiking trails, sailing. Just great for outdoor activites. The downside is SF's economics are driven by the tech industry. Tech industry is super rich but techbros are not like financebros in NYC or entertainment types in LA. They don't like the nightlife. Really SF's nightlife is pathetic for a global city.

Due to housing cost African American population in the area is shrinking rapidly. SF's African American population decline was covered in the great movie "the last black man in San Francisco." I'd imagine most young players would prefer Oakland nightlife over SF. LA offers far more for the average athlete than SF.

For the average person, SF is a bad deal economically. I'm fortunate and have a six figure income. I'm still shut out of the housing market. If you're not in a 200k household, or have the reasonable expectation of moving into that class, I would not recommend here. Living dwellings are terrible relative to the rest of the country for middle income workers which is why this region really suffers a drain in that class. I expect as the century goes on, SF will either rapidly expand its housing pool so that 2 million+ live in the City or it really will become a tale of two cities with almost all middle income jobs moved out of the area. It will just be rich tech workers, service workers who cater to them and very poor people living on public assistance.

The Knicks have never attracted free agents. NYC is not attractive to African Americans. African Americans for decades have been moving out of NYC migrating back to the parts of America they initially migrated from during "The Great Migration." African Americans have a different view of NYC than people try to force upon them when discussing the desirability of the place. Even you try to pawn it off on "current era Knicks." How about "no era Knicks?" NYC is cramped, crowded, and you can't protect yourself. Being able to legally protect yourself is important to rich African Americans driving around in luxury vehicles. https://nypost.com/2000/06/21/nets-star-guard-picked-clean-marbury-is-robbed-of-150g-necklace/

Harlem used to be important to African Americans. What happened? NYC lost its appeal... Just look at the NBA players from NYC, they are getting fewer and fewer in number and their last names tell you that their families are immigrants and not part of long standing African American population that has been steadily moving out of NYC.

I am quite confident if Pat Riley took over the Knicks instead of the Heat in 96 realgm would be full of threads of people whining about how unfair it is that NYC always gets top free agents. Brooklyn just landed a top two duo a couple of years ago. Didn't work but they landed em. And Durant Kyrie was a big free agent coup.

Zion & Steph tried to force their way in the draft to NYC. Knicks not landing free agents is entirerly due to **** mgmt. Just like the Clippers couldn't land free agents due to **** mgmt. Once Ballmer took over free agents wanted to play for the Clippers. If knicks ever get good mgmt, NY will get tons of free agents

[SelfishPlayer]

I've said before there are only two top markets for free agents: NY, LA. Those two cities have real advantages over other cities. Due to population size, media concentration and economic factors they are at the center of global culture. For people who work in the entertainment industries like athletes this is hugely appealing. They are also amazing places to live if you're young, tons of cash and want the nightlife. And if they're not attracting free agents like the current era Knicks or Sterling era Clippers it is a sign of gross mis-management.

On the other end of the spectrum you have a few cities either due to economics/population size (New Orleans) or population size/culture (Utah) or at a massive disadvantage. These clubs can't run major payrolls and struggle to keep free agents for obvious reasons.

In the middle are most teams and the teams at the top end of this spectrum have far more in common with the bottom end spectrum teams than they do with LA/NY.

As to Dallas vs the Bay Area, these are two middle spectrum area metro areas. I've lived in SF for a decade so I'll comment on SF. Briefly bio, white middle aged, lived here over a decade. SF is great if you're into things like the outdoors. Beautiful scenary, hiking trails, sailing. Just great for outdoor activites. The downside is SF's economics are driven by the tech industry. Tech industry is super rich but techbros are not like financebros in NYC or entertainment types in LA. They don't like the nightlife. Really SF's nightlife is pathetic for a global city.

Due to housing cost African American population in the area is shrinking rapidly. SF's African American population decline was covered in the great movie "the last black man in San Francisco." I'd imagine most young players would prefer Oakland nightlife over SF. LA offers far more for the average athlete than SF.

For the average person, SF is a bad deal economically. I'm fortunate and have a six figure income. I'm still shut out of the housing market. If you're not in a 200k household, or have the reasonable expectation of moving into that class, I would not recommend here. Living dwellings are terrible relative to the rest of the country for middle income workers which is why this region really suffers a drain in that class. I expect as the century goes on, SF will either rapidly expand its housing pool so that 2 million+ live in the City or it really will become a tale of two cities with almost all middle income jobs moved out of the area. It will just be rich tech workers, service workers who cater to them and very poor people living on public assistance.

The Knicks have never attracted free agents. NYC is not attractive to African Americans. African Americans for decades have been moving out of NYC migrating back to the parts of America they initially migrated from during "The Great Migration." African Americans have a different view of NYC than people try to force upon them when discussing the desirability of the place. Even you try to pawn it off on "current era Knicks." How about "no era Knicks?" NYC is cramped, crowded, and you can't protect yourself. Being able to legally protect yourself is important to rich African Americans driving around in luxury vehicles. https://nypost.com/2000/06/21/nets-star-guard-picked-clean-marbury-is-robbed-of-150g-necklace/

Harlem used to be important to African Americans. What happened? NYC lost its appeal... Just look at the NBA players from NYC, they are getting fewer and fewer in number and their last names tell you that their families are immigrants and not part of long standing African American population that has been steadily moving out of NYC.

I am quite confident if Pat Riley took over the Knicks instead of the Heat in 96 realgm would be full of threads of people whining about how unfair it is that NYC always gets top free agents. Brooklyn just landed a top two duo a couple of years ago. Didn't work but they landed em. And Durant Kyrie was a big free agent coup.

Zion & Steph tried to force their way in the draft to NYC. Knicks not landing free agents is entirerly due to **** mgmt. Just like the Clippers couldn't land free agents due to **** mgmt. Once Ballmer took over free agents wanted to play for the Clippers. If knicks ever get good mgmt, NY will get tons of free agents

The duo the Nets landed were headed to their third team, and both of those guys now are requesting trades to a fourth team. So the Nets aren't in any way special for acquiring the duo. The Knicks have been around since 46-47, if free agents or players by way of trade had a higher desire to be there than the average NBA franchise then it would be part of established history and not something conveniently attributed to current ownership detracting from them wanting to be there. It's 2022, NYC being a highly desirable location for NBA players is a lie.

[Jonny Blaze]

Dallas has everything that Houston has.

Still nope.

Global presence
Cultural diversity
Cost of living
Restaurant/Dining diversity
Night life
Home prices
Entertainment costs
Transportation costs
Healthcare costs
Higher education
Household income
Median income
Beaches, Lakes, waterways, and green space

...ALL advantage Houston.

https://www.zumper.com/blog/houston-vs-dallas/
https://livingcost.org/cost/dallas/houston
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/how-houston-became-global-city/15661/
https://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/houston_tx/dallas_tx/education
https://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/houston_tx/dallas_tx/economy
https://stacker.com/texas/texas-has-4-50-cities-most-green-space-capita

The demographics of the city are damn near the same.

Again, nope.
Houston has held the title of most diverse city in America 3 of the last 5 years.
Dallas has never topped 4th.

https://wallethub.com/edu/most-diverse-cities/12690


Now can we please put this Dallas vs Houston pissing contest your keep trying to materialize to bed and maybe you can try extolling the virtues of D-Town on its own merit.

Or better yet, let's get back to the original topic:
WHY DALLAS HAS STRUGGLED FOR SO LONG TO ATTRACT NBA FREE AGENTS.

I'll fill you in on something. I like Houston. Houston is one of my favorite cities.
Seriously. I like big dirty cities like Los Angeles, Houston, and even New York.


But Houston sucks. It really does.
I love Los Angeles....but I totally understand why most people hate LA....Houston has a lot of the same issues (pollution, insane traffic, crime) without the fantastic weather.

The air smells horrible, and will give you cancer if you live there too long. Why do you think Big Oil has made MD Anderson the best Cancer Hospital in the World?
Its because all the people that live in Houston, Beaumont and SE Texas that are at risk of getting Cancer because of the proximity to the refineries.

Yes.....Houston has a lower cost of living and lower home prices than Dallas. That's because the city is built off a swamp called the Buffalo Bayou. This is what causes the horrible year round humidity and mosquitos that Houston is known for.
Houston is where you if you want to live in a decent place at a cheap price. That's not really an advantage.

This humidity is why Houston night life isn't really that great. Its very hard to dress up in Houston if you are going to be sweating your ass off all night.

This is what I will give Houston over Dallas:
I think the nicest areas of Houston are superior to their counterparts in Dallas. The problem is that the rest of the city looks like a dump. Especially if you are driving from IAH to downtown Houston from either 59, 45 or the Hardy Toll Road.

Houston has better seafood and Cajun.
Yes...Houston has access to the beach that Dallas does not. I grew up going to Galveston. I was in my 20's before I realized it wasn't normal to not be able to see your feet because the water is so filthy and dark colored from the oil.

In all honesty Dallas and Houston are about the same.....but Dallas is just way better organized than Houston and a much nicer city.
Houston looks very disorganized and haphazard because of the lack of zoning laws.

[sp6r=underrated]

The Knicks have never attracted free agents. NYC is not attractive to African Americans. African Americans for decades have been moving out of NYC migrating back to the parts of America they initially migrated from during "The Great Migration." African Americans have a different view of NYC than people try to force upon them when discussing the desirability of the place. Even you try to pawn it off on "current era Knicks." How about "no era Knicks?" NYC is cramped, crowded, and you can't protect yourself. Being able to legally protect yourself is important to rich African Americans driving around in luxury vehicles. https://nypost.com/2000/06/21/nets-star-guard-picked-clean-marbury-is-robbed-of-150g-necklace/

Harlem used to be important to African Americans. What happened? NYC lost its appeal... Just look at the NBA players from NYC, they are getting fewer and fewer in number and their last names tell you that their families are immigrants and not part of long standing African American population that has been steadily moving out of NYC.

I am quite confident if Pat Riley took over the Knicks instead of the Heat in 96 realgm would be full of threads of people whining about how unfair it is that NYC always gets top free agents. Brooklyn just landed a top two duo a couple of years ago. Didn't work but they landed em. And Durant Kyrie was a big free agent coup.

Zion & Steph tried to force their way in the draft to NYC. Knicks not landing free agents is entirerly due to **** mgmt. Just like the Clippers couldn't land free agents due to **** mgmt. Once Ballmer took over free agents wanted to play for the Clippers. If knicks ever get good mgmt, NY will get tons of free agents

The duo the Nets landed were headed to their third team, and both of those guys now are requesting trades to a fourth team. So the Nets aren't in any way special for acquiring the duo. The Knicks have been around since 46-47, if free agents or players by way of trade had a higher desire to be there than the average NBA franchise then it would be part of established history and not something conveniently attributed to current ownership detracting from them wanting to be there. It's 2022, NYC being a highly desirable location for NBA players is a lie.

Everyone in the NBA wanted Durant and he picked NYC. If the Nets had been based out of Charlotte, he wouldn't have picked the Nets.

[SelfishPlayer]

I am quite confident if Pat Riley took over the Knicks instead of the Heat in 96 realgm would be full of threads of people whining about how unfair it is that NYC always gets top free agents. Brooklyn just landed a top two duo a couple of years ago. Didn't work but they landed em. And Durant Kyrie was a big free agent coup.

Zion & Steph tried to force their way in the draft to NYC. Knicks not landing free agents is entirerly due to **** mgmt. Just like the Clippers couldn't land free agents due to **** mgmt. Once Ballmer took over free agents wanted to play for the Clippers. If knicks ever get good mgmt, NY will get tons of free agents

The duo the Nets landed were headed to their third team, and both of those guys now are requesting trades to a fourth team. So the Nets aren't in any way special for acquiring the duo. The Knicks have been around since 46-47, if free agents or players by way of trade had a higher desire to be there than the average NBA franchise then it would be part of established history and not something conveniently attributed to current ownership detracting from them wanting to be there. It's 2022, NYC being a highly desirable location for NBA players is a lie.

Everyone in the NBA wanted Durant and he picked NYC. If the Nets had been based out of Charlotte, he wouldn't have picked the Nets.

He picked a team with his fried Kyrie Irving already on it.

[sp6r=underrated]

In all honesty Dallas and Houston are about the same.....but Dallas is just way better organized than Houston and a much nicer city.
Houston looks very disorganized and haphazard because of the lack of zoning laws.

I'll say this Houston's low level of zoning had made it super affordable. I live in SF. We have tons of zoning that ensures it is walkable. It is also designed to prevent housing construction so it costs an arm and a leg to live in a **** 1 br.

[sp6r=underrated]

I don't know what to say if you don't think the richest city in the world, which offers massive media exposure, a nightlife on par with any city on the globe isn't attractive to NBA free agents, I don't think you understand the difference between outcomes and opportunities.

The knicks are a super dysfunctional franchise. They've also been snakebit. Despite that Zion badly wanted to be a knicks. Steph badly wanted NYC. Durant and Kyrie picked NYC. Melo picked NYC.

If we had someone like Jerry West run the show our franchise history would look a lot different.

[sp6r=underrated]

The duo the Nets landed were headed to their third team, and both of those guys now are requesting trades to a fourth team. So the Nets aren't in any way special for acquiring the duo. The Knicks have been around since 46-47, if free agents or players by way of trade had a higher desire to be there than the average NBA franchise then it would be part of established history and not something conveniently attributed to current ownership detracting from them wanting to be there. It's 2022, NYC being a highly desirable location for NBA players is a lie.

Everyone in the NBA wanted Durant and he picked NYC. If the Nets had been based out of Charlotte, he wouldn't have picked the Nets.

He picked a team with his fried Kyrie Irving already on it.

1. Durant was urging the knicks. He wanted NYC.
2. Kyrie wanted NYC too so this doesn't establish your point that NYC is not a draw.

[SelfishPlayer]

Everyone in the NBA wanted Durant and he picked NYC. If the Nets had been based out of Charlotte, he wouldn't have picked the Nets.

He picked a team with his fried Kyrie Irving already on it.

1. Durant was urging the knicks. He wanted NYC.
2. Kyrie wanted NYC too so this doesn't establish your point that NYC is not a draw.

Kyrie "wanted to return home." Durant came to play with his buddy.

[ORL_on_FIRE]

I’m not sure why it’s like that as far as the Mavs go but they will literally predict every major free agent is going to the Cowboys regardless of the situation. Even if Jerry Jones hasn’t paid an outside free agent big money in a decade. Media gonna media.

[sp6r=underrated]

He picked a team with his fried Kyrie Irving already on it.

1. Durant was urging the knicks. He wanted NYC.
2. Kyrie wanted NYC too so this doesn't establish your point that NYC is not a draw.

Kyrie "wanted to return home." Durant came to play with his buddy.

Durant wanted NYC too.

Like I said

I don't know what to say if you don't think the richest city in the world, which offers massive media exposure, a nightlife on par with any city on the globe isn't attractive to NBA free agents, I don't think you understand the difference between outcomes and opportunities.

The knicks are a super dysfunctional franchise. They've also been snakebit. Despite that Zion badly wanted to be a knicks. Steph badly wanted NYC. Durant and Kyrie picked NYC. Melo picked NYC.

If we had someone like Jerry West run the show our franchise history would look a lot different.

If you want to pretend NYC has no appeal to players be my guest. Being that in every other sport NYC attracts tons of free agents, and is global capital of culture, we will have to agree to disagree.

Professional athletes don't care about media exposure, nightlife and business opportunities.

[SelfishPlayer]

1. Durant was urging the knicks. He wanted NYC.
2. Kyrie wanted NYC too so this doesn't establish your point that NYC is not a draw.

Kyrie "wanted to return home." Durant came to play with his buddy.

Durant wanted NYC too.

Like I said

I don't know what to say if you don't think the richest city in the world, which offers massive media exposure, a nightlife on par with any city on the globe isn't attractive to NBA free agents, I don't think you understand the difference between outcomes and opportunities.

The knicks are a super dysfunctional franchise. They've also been snakebit. Despite that Zion badly wanted to be a knicks. Steph badly wanted NYC. Durant and Kyrie picked NYC. Melo picked NYC.

If we had someone like Jerry West run the show our franchise history would look a lot different.

If you want to pretend NYC has no appeal to players be my guest. Being that in every other sport NYC attracts tons of free agents, and is global capital of culture, we will have to agree to disagree.

Professional athletes don't care about media exposure, nightlife and business opportunities.

What does that mean?