Race to the bottom: Who's our biggest competition?

[DetroitSho]

And that's the part I don't get. It's like saying that if the Pistons don't get Cade, Suggs or Green all hope for building a championship team is lost. As I stated previously that's premature and short-sighted, especially considering where the team is already. If the Pistons finished with the worst record because Weaver's draft picks turned into so-so rookies who couldn't beat anyone, may or may not be around in a couple of years and they got Cade in the draft, are they better off in the grand scheme? I don't think so.

You almost certainly need a superstar to be a serious title contender, and I'm pretty sure Bey or Stewart won't be that. In this market your best (only?) path is through the draft.

This raises an interesting hypothetical - if we land outside the top four, would we trade Bey and/or Stewart to move up? My guess is a team with a top four pick wouldn't do it.

I'm not saying a team doesn't need a superstar to win a championship and never did. Why people keep overlooking that it beyond me. My argument is that all is NOT lost if the Pistons don't draft 1-3 in THIS DRAFT, as if that's the only possibility of adding a superstar to this team, ever, because every superstar was drafted 1-3.

I will still argue that if the Pistons land another quality young player to go with the current roster, and next year the Pistons have a team that can win 45-50 games and make a decent playoff run with a bunch of kids under team control while having the cap space to sign a superstar, there will be an option available either via a trade or free agency. Especially if it's a player who's just hitting superstar status and is looking for that first max contract that his current team doesn't have cap space to offer, is disgruntled with his current situation, etc. No one will ever convince me that Detroit can't draw a superstar that wasn't drafted because "cold weather, the city sucks, blah blah blah." Detroit hasn't drawn a big free agent superstar because the team's OUTLOOK sucked. Now you're talking new arena which is once again a top notch facility, a chance at a championship (in this example), and money.

Can you please post this in every thread from here on out because I'm so sick of the clichés of "the stars only want big markets, warm weather" blah blah blah. Stars want a competent organization and a chance to win, PERIOD!

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[Manocad]

You almost certainly need a superstar to be a serious title contender, and I'm pretty sure Bey or Stewart won't be that. In this market your best (only?) path is through the draft.

This raises an interesting hypothetical - if we land outside the top four, would we trade Bey and/or Stewart to move up? My guess is a team with a top four pick wouldn't do it.

I'm not saying a team doesn't need a superstar to win a championship and never did. Why people keep overlooking that it beyond me. My argument is that all is NOT lost if the Pistons don't draft 1-3 in THIS DRAFT, as if that's the only possibility of adding a superstar to this team, ever, because every superstar was drafted 1-3.

I will still argue that if the Pistons land another quality young player to go with the current roster, and next year the Pistons have a team that can win 45-50 games and make a decent playoff run with a bunch of kids under team control while having the cap space to sign a superstar, there will be an option available either via a trade or free agency. Especially if it's a player who's just hitting superstar status and is looking for that first max contract that his current team doesn't have cap space to offer, is disgruntled with his current situation, etc. No one will ever convince me that Detroit can't draw a superstar that wasn't drafted because "cold weather, the city sucks, blah blah blah." Detroit hasn't drawn a big free agent superstar because the team's OUTLOOK sucked. Now you're talking new arena which is once again a top notch facility, a chance at a championship (in this example), and money.

Can you please post this in every thread from here on out because I'm so sick of the clichés of "the stars only want big markets, warm weather" blah blah blah. Stars want a competent organization and a chance to win, PERIOD!

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

I chalk it up to people who don't really understand what motivates millionaires who have the money to live a completely comfortable lifestyle no matter what the geographic location is. You can think what you want about the city of Detroit but the players don't live IN Detroit, and there are plenty of really nice suburbs. Relative to weather, the players are on the road for half the season anyway. As far as exposure, sure, Detroit isn't New York, LA, Chicago or at this point even Dallas. But relative to the number of fans you still have pretty much the entire state of Michigan, every single game on TV, etc. Now, I completely agree that those things factor in at some point, but that point is AFTER the player wins the championship. Lebron is once again a perfect example. And as someone who has done a LOT of travel around this country I can tell you right now that if your assertion is that Detroit can't draw a superstar based on geography, the city/state itself, etc. then explain how Minneapolis, Houston, Memphis, OKC, Charlotte, Indianapolis or Cleveland can. Because I'd take metro Detroit over any of those cities--and Michigan over most of those states--hands down.

[NYPiston]

I chalk it up to people who don't really understand what motivates millionaires who have the money to live a completely comfortable lifestyle no matter what the geographic location is. You can think what you want about the city of Detroit but the players don't live IN Detroit, and there are plenty of really nice suburbs. Relative to weather, the players are on the road for half the season anyway. As far as exposure, sure, Detroit isn't New York, LA, Chicago or at this point even Dallas. But relative to the number of fans you still have pretty much the entire state of Michigan, every single game on TV, etc. Now, I completely agree that those things factor in at some point, but that point is AFTER the player wins the championship. Lebron is once again a perfect example. And as someone who has done a LOT of travel around this country I can tell you right now that if your assertion is that Detroit can't draw a superstar based on geography, the city/state itself, etc. then explain how Minneapolis, Houston, Memphis, OKC, Charlotte, Indianapolis or Cleveland can. Because I'd take metro Detroit over any of those cities--and Michigan over most of those states--hands down.

Not that I completely disagree with your point but Charlotte is a really nice city, its downtown is far nicer than the likes of Cleveland and Detroit. Houston is an underrated ugly city, I never understood the appeal of it especially when you factor in the disgusting weather on top of it.

In any event, money and winning is what drives most of these players and I don't even think it's a location thing with Detroit, it's a brand name thing. Players want to build their brand, Detroit is one of the worst places to do that fair or not.
I think if all else was equal that Detroit would be really low on the list (and is why I think it's imperative to draft their star) but if Detroit built a winner and could offer more money, I think they'd have a fighting chance to land a star if they built up their reputation as an attractive place to play and potentially win.

Just look at the Knicks, arguably the most attractive location in the league for a young millionaire but because of their utter incompetence and buffoon of an owner, it scares stars away so location alone doesn't guarantee that you'll land a top talent.

[DetroitSho]

I chalk it up to people who don't really understand what motivates millionaires who have the money to live a completely comfortable lifestyle no matter what the geographic location is. You can think what you want about the city of Detroit but the players don't live IN Detroit, and there are plenty of really nice suburbs. Relative to weather, the players are on the road for half the season anyway. As far as exposure, sure, Detroit isn't New York, LA, Chicago or at this point even Dallas. But relative to the number of fans you still have pretty much the entire state of Michigan, every single game on TV, etc. Now, I completely agree that those things factor in at some point, but that point is AFTER the player wins the championship. Lebron is once again a perfect example. And as someone who has done a LOT of travel around this country I can tell you right now that if your assertion is that Detroit can't draw a superstar based on geography, the city/state itself, etc. then explain how Minneapolis, Houston, Memphis, OKC, Charlotte, Indianapolis or Cleveland can. Because I'd take metro Detroit over any of those cities--and Michigan over most of those states--hands down.

Not that I completely disagree with your point but Charlotte is a really nice city, its downtown is far nicer than the likes of Cleveland and Detroit. Houston is an underrated ugly city, I never understood the appeal of it especially when you factor in the disgusting weather on top of it.

In any event, money and winning is what drives most of these players and I don't even think it's a location thing with Detroit, it's a brand name thing. Players want to build their brand, Detroit is one of the worst places to do that fair or not.
I think if all else was equal that Detroit would be really low on the list (and is why I think it's imperative to draft their star) but if Detroit built a winner and could offer more money, I think they'd have a fighting chance to land a star if they built up their reputation as an attractive place to play and potentially win.

Just look at the Knicks, arguably the most attractive location in the league for a young millionaire but because of their utter incompetence and buffoon of an owner, it scares stars away so location alone doesn't guarantee that you'll land a top talent.

Just ffs, what makes Detroit a bad place to "build your brand"? Whatever that means.

An actual star/super can build a brand anywhere. You build your brand by being in a winning situation. The Bad Boys and Going to Work teams are all remembered collectively and INDIVIDUALLY. Do you think people would really remember Rip Hamilton if he stayed in Washington? I contend more people will know who Rip is than Bradley Beal if he plays his whole career there. On the flip side, people barely remember/associate Stackhouse and Grant Hill as Pistons even though they were stars/superstars in their time here.

That brand building is stuff that fans make more out of than the players really care about. And it's the biggest contradiction biggest nobody chose the Knicks to build their brand over the last 20 years. And it's for the very reasons given, players care about a winning situation alot. I'll tell you what, let the Pistons go into next off-season coming off a hard fought playoff series on the backs of the youngsters, with a ton of cap space and tell me a free agent won't have a helluva decision to make if presented an offer.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[Manocad]

I chalk it up to people who don't really understand what motivates millionaires who have the money to live a completely comfortable lifestyle no matter what the geographic location is. You can think what you want about the city of Detroit but the players don't live IN Detroit, and there are plenty of really nice suburbs. Relative to weather, the players are on the road for half the season anyway. As far as exposure, sure, Detroit isn't New York, LA, Chicago or at this point even Dallas. But relative to the number of fans you still have pretty much the entire state of Michigan, every single game on TV, etc. Now, I completely agree that those things factor in at some point, but that point is AFTER the player wins the championship. Lebron is once again a perfect example. And as someone who has done a LOT of travel around this country I can tell you right now that if your assertion is that Detroit can't draw a superstar based on geography, the city/state itself, etc. then explain how Minneapolis, Houston, Memphis, OKC, Charlotte, Indianapolis or Cleveland can. Because I'd take metro Detroit over any of those cities--and Michigan over most of those states--hands down.

Not that I completely disagree with your point but Charlotte is a really nice city, its downtown is far nicer than the likes of Cleveland and Detroit. Houston is an underrated ugly city, I never understood the appeal of it especially when you factor in the disgusting weather on top of it.

In any event, money and winning is what drives most of these players and I don't even think it's a location thing with Detroit, it's a brand name thing. Players want to build their brand, Detroit is one of the worst places to do that fair or not.
I think if all else was equal that Detroit would be really low on the list (and is why I think it's imperative to draft their star) but if Detroit built a winner and could offer more money, I think they'd have a fighting chance to land a star if they built up their reputation as an attractive place to play and potentially win.

Just look at the Knicks, arguably the most attractive location in the league for a young millionaire but because of their utter incompetence and buffoon of an owner, it scares stars away so location alone doesn't guarantee that you'll land a top talent.

Charlotte is the only one that made me say "and most of those states." I love North and South Carolina. Tennessee too for that matter, but I'd go for the Nashville area; no way I'd live in Memphis. I love hunting in Texas but wouldn't want to live there, and Oklahoma is pretty much the same. I've had some great times in Indy and in Cleveland but as far as Indiana and Ohio go you could wipe both states off the map and I wouldn't miss them for one second. Especially Ohio.

[Laimbeer]

I'm not saying a team doesn't need a superstar to win a championship and never did. Why people keep overlooking that it beyond me. My argument is that all is NOT lost if the Pistons don't draft 1-3 in THIS DRAFT, as if that's the only possibility of adding a superstar to this team, ever, because every superstar was drafted 1-3.

I will still argue that if the Pistons land another quality young player to go with the current roster, and next year the Pistons have a team that can win 45-50 games and make a decent playoff run with a bunch of kids under team control while having the cap space to sign a superstar, there will be an option available either via a trade or free agency. Especially if it's a player who's just hitting superstar status and is looking for that first max contract that his current team doesn't have cap space to offer, is disgruntled with his current situation, etc. No one will ever convince me that Detroit can't draw a superstar that wasn't drafted because "cold weather, the city sucks, blah blah blah." Detroit hasn't drawn a big free agent superstar because the team's OUTLOOK sucked. Now you're talking new arena which is once again a top notch facility, a chance at a championship (in this example), and money.

Can you please post this in every thread from here on out because I'm so sick of the clichés of "the stars only want big markets, warm weather" blah blah blah. Stars want a competent organization and a chance to win, PERIOD!

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

I chalk it up to people who don't really understand what motivates millionaires who have the money to live a completely comfortable lifestyle no matter what the geographic location is. You can think what you want about the city of Detroit but the players don't live IN Detroit, and there are plenty of really nice suburbs. Relative to weather, the players are on the road for half the season anyway. As far as exposure, sure, Detroit isn't New York, LA, Chicago or at this point even Dallas. But relative to the number of fans you still have pretty much the entire state of Michigan, every single game on TV, etc. Now, I completely agree that those things factor in at some point, but that point is AFTER the player wins the championship. Lebron is once again a perfect example. And as someone who has done a LOT of travel around this country I can tell you right now that if your assertion is that Detroit can't draw a superstar based on geography, the city/state itself, etc. then explain how Minneapolis, Houston, Memphis, OKC, Charlotte, Indianapolis or Cleveland can. Because I'd take metro Detroit over any of those cities--and Michigan over most of those states--hands down.

They haven't.

[NYPiston]

Charlotte is the only one that made me say "and most of those states." I love North and South Carolina. Tennessee too for that matter, but I'd go for the Nashville area; no way I'd live in Memphis. I love hunting in Texas but wouldn't want to live there, and Oklahoma is pretty much the same. I've had some great times in Indy and in Cleveland but as far as Indiana and Ohio go you could wipe both states off the map and I wouldn't miss them for one second. Especially Ohio.

I haven't travelled as much as you have so I haven't been to all those cities but I saw Charlotte on that list and figured I would defend its honor since I have a house about 30 miles south of there and love the Carolinas.

[MotownMadness]

I chalk it up to people who don't really understand what motivates millionaires who have the money to live a completely comfortable lifestyle no matter what the geographic location is. You can think what you want about the city of Detroit but the players don't live IN Detroit, and there are plenty of really nice suburbs. Relative to weather, the players are on the road for half the season anyway. As far as exposure, sure, Detroit isn't New York, LA, Chicago or at this point even Dallas. But relative to the number of fans you still have pretty much the entire state of Michigan, every single game on TV, etc. Now, I completely agree that those things factor in at some point, but that point is AFTER the player wins the championship. Lebron is once again a perfect example. And as someone who has done a LOT of travel around this country I can tell you right now that if your assertion is that Detroit can't draw a superstar based on geography, the city/state itself, etc. then explain how Minneapolis, Houston, Memphis, OKC, Charlotte, Indianapolis or Cleveland can. Because I'd take metro Detroit over any of those cities--and Michigan over most of those states--hands down.

Not that I completely disagree with your point but Charlotte is a really nice city, its downtown is far nicer than the likes of Cleveland and Detroit. Houston is an underrated ugly city, I never understood the appeal of it especially when you factor in the disgusting weather on top of it.

In any event, money and winning is what drives most of these players and I don't even think it's a location thing with Detroit, it's a brand name thing. Players want to build their brand, Detroit is one of the worst places to do that fair or not.
I think if all else was equal that Detroit would be really low on the list (and is why I think it's imperative to draft their star) but if Detroit built a winner and could offer more money, I think they'd have a fighting chance to land a star if they built up their reputation as an attractive place to play and potentially win.

Just look at the Knicks, arguably the most attractive location in the league for a young millionaire but because of their utter incompetence and buffoon of an owner, it scares stars away so location alone doesn't guarantee that you'll land a top talent.

Charlotte is the only one that made me say "and most of those states." I love North and South Carolina. Tennessee too for that matter, but I'd go for the Nashville area; no way I'd live in Memphis. I love hunting in Texas but wouldn't want to live there, and Oklahoma is pretty much the same. I've had some great times in Indy and in Cleveland but as far as Indiana and Ohio go you could wipe both states off the map and I wouldn't miss them for one second. Especially Ohio.

I grew up in here and in Eastern Kentucky appalachian territory and I must say when you drive through all of Ohio you realize just what a god awful boring state it is.

[Manocad]

Can you please post this in every thread from here on out because I'm so sick of the clichés of "the stars only want big markets, warm weather" blah blah blah. Stars want a competent organization and a chance to win, PERIOD!

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

I chalk it up to people who don't really understand what motivates millionaires who have the money to live a completely comfortable lifestyle no matter what the geographic location is. You can think what you want about the city of Detroit but the players don't live IN Detroit, and there are plenty of really nice suburbs. Relative to weather, the players are on the road for half the season anyway. As far as exposure, sure, Detroit isn't New York, LA, Chicago or at this point even Dallas. But relative to the number of fans you still have pretty much the entire state of Michigan, every single game on TV, etc. Now, I completely agree that those things factor in at some point, but that point is AFTER the player wins the championship. Lebron is once again a perfect example. And as someone who has done a LOT of travel around this country I can tell you right now that if your assertion is that Detroit can't draw a superstar based on geography, the city/state itself, etc. then explain how Minneapolis, Houston, Memphis, OKC, Charlotte, Indianapolis or Cleveland can. Because I'd take metro Detroit over any of those cities--and Michigan over most of those states--hands down.

They haven't.

Sure they have. Minneapolis got Al Jefferson and re-signed Garnett to his first big contract when he could have gone somewhere else, same with Durant in OKC. Houston got Harden, and Charlotte and Indy have had plenty over the years. Kevin Love went to Cleveland and sure, it was because Lebron wanted him. But that demonstrates my point--the chance at winning a championship, even over money in some cases, is the driving factor. Certainly those teams don't have a superstar right now, but the majority of NBA teams don't.

The only evidence anyone could provide that the city itself is driving away a superstar player is presenting a situation where a superstar turned down the best contract and best situation for winning a championship solely because of the city. I'd challenge anyone to come up with even one example, especially if it's a star who hadn't won a championship yet.

[Snakebites]

You can attract/keep free agents in a small market.

Just not if you’re bad.

And really, the only teams that have been able to attract free agents despite the lack of a winning situation are the Lakers and Nets- both big markets.

It’s not an absolutist game, but it is better to be in a bigger market.

[Manocad]

Not that I completely disagree with your point but Charlotte is a really nice city, its downtown is far nicer than the likes of Cleveland and Detroit. Houston is an underrated ugly city, I never understood the appeal of it especially when you factor in the disgusting weather on top of it.

In any event, money and winning is what drives most of these players and I don't even think it's a location thing with Detroit, it's a brand name thing. Players want to build their brand, Detroit is one of the worst places to do that fair or not.
I think if all else was equal that Detroit would be really low on the list (and is why I think it's imperative to draft their star) but if Detroit built a winner and could offer more money, I think they'd have a fighting chance to land a star if they built up their reputation as an attractive place to play and potentially win.

Just look at the Knicks, arguably the most attractive location in the league for a young millionaire but because of their utter incompetence and buffoon of an owner, it scares stars away so location alone doesn't guarantee that you'll land a top talent.

Charlotte is the only one that made me say "and most of those states." I love North and South Carolina. Tennessee too for that matter, but I'd go for the Nashville area; no way I'd live in Memphis. I love hunting in Texas but wouldn't want to live there, and Oklahoma is pretty much the same. I've had some great times in Indy and in Cleveland but as far as Indiana and Ohio go you could wipe both states off the map and I wouldn't miss them for one second. Especially Ohio.

I grew up in here and in Eastern Kentucky appalachian territory and I must say when you drive through all of Ohio you realize just what a god awful boring state it is.

Trust me, I've driven through and spent time in Ohio A LOT, and my hatred of Ohio goes far beyond my Michigan alum status. That state flat out sucks as much as any state in this country. I always laugh at Ohio State fans who when trash talking try to bash Michigan as a state. As in vs Ohio? Seriously? Then why am I seeing cabins all over the place in northern Michigan with signs reading "The Johnsons, Toledo, Ohio" or "The Smiths, Findlay, Ohio"? Because you sure as hell aren't seeing any cabins in Ohio with signs like "The Millers, West Bloomfield, Michigan." You can knock Michigan for some things, like the roads suck, but as an overall state? Michigan shoreline, all the inland lakes, the UP and everything it has to offer, Mackinac Island, etc. Ohio? "We have Cedar Point and the worst one of the Great Lakes." Killer resume there, guys.

[DBC10]

You can attract/keep free agents in a small market.

Just not if you’re bad.

And really, the only teams that have been able to attract free agents despite the lack of a winning situation are the Lakers and Nets- both big markets.

It’s not an absolutist game, but it is better to be in a bigger market.

Agreed with this.

All things holding consistent, when a star is presented with both options of being paid and being competitive and we were among the teams hypothetically, I don't think that star would choose us if both LA and NY teams are also options. There's always going to be a leg up playing in a more glamorous market like the New York teams, and both LA teams. If the four of those teams above are competitive with a max slot, more often than not stars would be making that their top 4 to their agents and be done. And then it's the next crop whether it's us or Charlotte or whoever

There's always going to be a tier to this just from the vain perception that those more popular destinations present. Just from the sheer amount of fans and worldwide name recognition the Lakers or Knicks have

[Laimbeer]

I chalk it up to people who don't really understand what motivates millionaires who have the money to live a completely comfortable lifestyle no matter what the geographic location is. You can think what you want about the city of Detroit but the players don't live IN Detroit, and there are plenty of really nice suburbs. Relative to weather, the players are on the road for half the season anyway. As far as exposure, sure, Detroit isn't New York, LA, Chicago or at this point even Dallas. But relative to the number of fans you still have pretty much the entire state of Michigan, every single game on TV, etc. Now, I completely agree that those things factor in at some point, but that point is AFTER the player wins the championship. Lebron is once again a perfect example. And as someone who has done a LOT of travel around this country I can tell you right now that if your assertion is that Detroit can't draw a superstar based on geography, the city/state itself, etc. then explain how Minneapolis, Houston, Memphis, OKC, Charlotte, Indianapolis or Cleveland can. Because I'd take metro Detroit over any of those cities--and Michigan over most of those states--hands down.

They haven't.

Sure they have. Minneapolis got Al Jefferson and re-signed Garnett to his first big contract when he could have gone somewhere else, same with Durant in OKC. Houston got Harden, and Charlotte and Indy have had plenty over the years. Kevin Love went to Cleveland and sure, it was because Lebron wanted him. But that demonstrates my point--the chance at winning a championship, even over money in some cases, is the driving factor. Certainly those teams don't have a superstar right now, but the majority of NBA teams don't.

The only evidence anyone could provide that the city itself is driving away a superstar player is presenting a situation where a superstar turned down the best contract and best situation for winning a championship solely because of the city. I'd challenge anyone to come up with even one example, especially if it's a star who hadn't won a championship yet.

Garnett and KD were extended after being originally drafted by those teams. That happens - Giannis also comes to mind. But they weren't originally attracted as free agents. And as you said, Love went because of LeBron. And who the heck are these "plenty" of that went to Indiana and Charlotte?

Harden is interesting. Houston traded for him before he became Harden - and didn't give up a king's ransom for him. If we could pull something like that off...I can dream...

[zeebneeb]

Charlotte is the only one that made me say "and most of those states." I love North and South Carolina. Tennessee too for that matter, but I'd go for the Nashville area; no way I'd live in Memphis. I love hunting in Texas but wouldn't want to live there, and Oklahoma is pretty much the same. I've had some great times in Indy and in Cleveland but as far as Indiana and Ohio go you could wipe both states off the map and I wouldn't miss them for one second. Especially Ohio.

I grew up in here and in Eastern Kentucky appalachian territory and I must say when you drive through all of Ohio you realize just what a god awful boring state it is.

Trust me, I've driven through and spent time in Ohio A LOT, and my hatred of Ohio goes far beyond my Michigan alum status. That state flat out sucks as much as any state in this country. I always laugh at Ohio State fans who when trash talking try to bash Michigan as a state. As in vs Ohio? Seriously? Then why am I seeing cabins all over the place in northern Michigan with signs reading "The Johnsons, Toledo, Ohio" or "The Smiths, Findlay, Ohio"? Because you sure as hell aren't seeing any cabins in Ohio with signs like "The Millers, West Bloomfield, Michigan." You can knock Michigan for some things, like the roads suck, but as an overall state? Michigan shoreline, all the inland lakes, the UP and everything it has to offer, Mackinac Island, etc. Ohio? "We have Cedar Point and the worst one of the Great Lakes." Killer resume there, guys.

Ohio sucks, and driving thru it is a chore. Funny story my sister in law told me. Kids in car, they are driving thru Ohio and notices one of the boys(16)is wearing a mask inside the car. She asks him "why do you have your mask on in the car?" "Uh, because we are in Ohio"

Kills me everytime. Ohio is a damn dump and in direct comparison to Michigan it's a damn wart. Like you I have spent a fair amount of time driving thru, or being in a bunch of states, and even though I loathe the Winter, and our roads look like the Oregon trail at times, Michigan is a really nice damn state.

I just got back from vacation in Tennessee (smokey mountains) and that state is also really nice. Although, can anyone explain to me why pigeon forge, and Gatlinburg both feel like giant Cedar points, with crazy ass upside-down buildings, wizard castles, and the like? Absolutely insane. Like a giant carnival. Oh and Ole smokey distillery is great stuff, highly recommended. Their Moonshine is second to none, and their whiskeys are spot on.

[DetroitSho]

Can you please post this in every thread from here on out because I'm so sick of the clichés of "the stars only want big markets, warm weather" blah blah blah. Stars want a competent organization and a chance to win, PERIOD!

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

I chalk it up to people who don't really understand what motivates millionaires who have the money to live a completely comfortable lifestyle no matter what the geographic location is. You can think what you want about the city of Detroit but the players don't live IN Detroit, and there are plenty of really nice suburbs. Relative to weather, the players are on the road for half the season anyway. As far as exposure, sure, Detroit isn't New York, LA, Chicago or at this point even Dallas. But relative to the number of fans you still have pretty much the entire state of Michigan, every single game on TV, etc. Now, I completely agree that those things factor in at some point, but that point is AFTER the player wins the championship. Lebron is once again a perfect example. And as someone who has done a LOT of travel around this country I can tell you right now that if your assertion is that Detroit can't draw a superstar based on geography, the city/state itself, etc. then explain how Minneapolis, Houston, Memphis, OKC, Charlotte, Indianapolis or Cleveland can. Because I'd take metro Detroit over any of those cities--and Michigan over most of those states--hands down.

They haven't.

Houston drew Dwight Howard. Charlotte signed Gordon Hayward, TWICE. First off there's only a handful of SUPERstars to begin with. So yes, the easiest way to obtain one is to draft them, by sheer scarcity. Name me a time when a market like one of these were setup to win AND had capspace to add a superstar, and I'll show you a Chicago, a Miami, a New York and a Clippers who've ALL been shunned in that very same type of instance.

If we're not counting LeBron signing in Cleveland because he's from there then we're not counting Kawhi with the Clippers. We're not counting Kyrie with his childhood franchise. That's where end up with Bosh and LeBron (twice), Dwight Howard and less than a handful other top tier star level players moving in free agency that didn't have some previous tie there.

Superstars don't move in free agency to begin with.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[Manocad]

They haven't.

Sure they have. Minneapolis got Al Jefferson and re-signed Garnett to his first big contract when he could have gone somewhere else, same with Durant in OKC. Houston got Harden, and Charlotte and Indy have had plenty over the years. Kevin Love went to Cleveland and sure, it was because Lebron wanted him. But that demonstrates my point--the chance at winning a championship, even over money in some cases, is the driving factor. Certainly those teams don't have a superstar right now, but the majority of NBA teams don't.

The only evidence anyone could provide that the city itself is driving away a superstar player is presenting a situation where a superstar turned down the best contract and best situation for winning a championship solely because of the city. I'd challenge anyone to come up with even one example, especially if it's a star who hadn't won a championship yet.

Garnett and KD were extended after being originally drafted by those teams. That happens - Giannis also comes to mind. But they weren't originally attracted as free agents. And as you said, Love went because of LeBron. And who the heck are these "plenty" of that went to Indiana and Charlotte?

Harden is interesting. Houston traded for him before he became Harden - and didn't give up a king's ransom for him. If we could pull something like that off...I can dream...

Extending/re-signing a player who could leave for somewhere else still counts since coming back to a city carries the same contextual weight as going to that city. The point remains the same--they didn't say no because of the location of the team.

[Manocad]

You can attract/keep free agents in a small market.

Just not if you’re bad.

And really, the only teams that have been able to attract free agents despite the lack of a winning situation are the Lakers and Nets- both big markets.

It’s not an absolutist game, but it is better to be in a bigger market.

No disagreement there.

And anyone can think what they want relative to the whole plan going down the toilet if the Pistons finish 5th or 6th and wind up drafting 7th or 8th, for example. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or convince them that they shouldn't be bitching. Just offering up a countering view.

[El Chivo]

5/6th worst record looks like a lock.

[The Moose]

yea i've pretty much accepted we will finish 5th or 6th worst. Our young players are playing too well, and the way other teams are playing atm means even probably 4 more wins to end the season guarantees us 5th or 6th spot.

[Laimbeer]

OKC and Orlando coming on strong. #5 is my best guess.