Ghost of Kleine wrote:With respect man, A couple of points:
It's important to remember that this is a business, And in any business, The greatest benefit comes in ensuring the profitability and overall sustainability of the biggest markets, As they obviously have the largest number of fans and as a result,
The greatest potential to add to the overall TV revenue and marketing sales for the NBA'S overall profit margin obviously.
So that alone is a very legitimate motivator. Now again, Consider the teams that moved up, And the obvious vested assets and interests involved, prior to heading into free agency:
1- The Pels: The whole Laker Fiasco was an embarrassment to the league. And with the trade failing to occur,
The result is the Lakers missing the playoffs AND becoming dysfunctional and losing viability( means losing money as the league's long time "Cash Cow"!).
As they're the largest market and NBA's "Darling" of a franchise. But currently unable to attract any discernable Big Name players. The Pels are still sore over the whole Rich Paul fiasco, So how do you smooth things over, in order to get the trade done, and restore your largest markets viability???
By enticing the team that still has control of Davis with a "Generational Talent " in Zion, that ensures their franchise marketing and media interest.
Now, Why not New York you ask, Because New York already pretty much has Durant locked up.
And Having Durant and Barrett together, along with the big market draw of New York itself,
As well as another max contract slot to boot, Pretty much ensures they can get another big name, such as Kemba Walker, Who would surely like to play alongside Durant in a huge Market like theirs.
The Mavs, again aren't as big of a marketing draw as LA or New York, So therein lies my point.
It's a business model, And a very lucrative one at that. So to assume that they'd in any way elect to leave potential profits up to genuine chance is highly unrealistic.
So again man, With respect, We're just going to have to have two very differing opinions obviously , and that's fine.
But as neither perspective, can be or have yet been completely proven or discounted, It then becomes only a matter of perspective obviously for now. However, with the same respect......
There's obviously been evidence that can to a point, Substantiate both perspectives too. Otherwise there wouldn't be a continuing debate over such ideas after all these years.
In the end, I don't ask/nor do I expect anyone to subscribe to my perspective on this subject. But just because we see things differently, doesn't mean that I'm wrong anymore than you're perspective is right either.
As again neither perspectives has been irrefutably proven, even after all these years.
All we can do is see how things play out this summer, and make further assertions from that point.
