I agree completely. Bibby looked old this year. Sometimes on defense he was standing there watching as the ball passed around him, not guarding anybody.
We haven't historically been a big player in the FA market, that's true. But, Memphis is a larger market and has better weather?
Well, who has been "high profile"? Derek Anderson or Brian Grant, maybe? Jeff McInnis chose the Blazers over other teams. Joel re-signed as a free agent. *shrug* The Blazers are an up-and-coming team, in a way that they haven't been in a decade or more... I think that players would be willing to trade in some golf days over the season for a chance to still be playing in May. Ed O.
High profile players rarely switch teams in free agency, because they can be paid more by their current team and their current team can generally exceed the salary cap to sign them. Beyond that, it's rare for a team to be attractive in terms of winning and also have cap space at the same time. When you combine those things, almost no one signs high-profile free agents. I don't think market has much to do with it at all. Portland right now is attractive in terms of a place to win and also has money to pay a free agent. They still have to overcome the problem of most high profile free agents staying put, but I don't think market size is much of an issue. Players want cash first and foremost and secondly a chance to win. Market size is a pretty small factor, IMO.
You would be wrong about market size being a small factor. If the money is about the same, they can make a lot more in a larger market from endorsements. Portland is extremely attractive if they can offer the most money, but with everything else not so much. Young players want to run and score and not play a lot of defense. That makes Portland the worst place for any of them because we never run, and we play defense. Older players want to win a title, but Portland realistically is still a couple years away from being a serious players. No player would come to Portland during basketball season for the weather. (If Portland had a MLB team then great though.) Portland players also have to pay state tax (unlike Memphis by the way). Another factor is playing close to home. Nate Robinson is a prime example. The reason he wants to come to Portland isn't to win or whatever, it's to play closer to home. Most NBA players don't come from the Pacific NW, so that's not a good reason. Most FA's likely want to be more of "the man" than they could be in Portland with Roy, Aldridge and Oden hopefully. What I am saying is that if the money is the same Portland is not the most likely place for a player to come right now.
Is this actually true? We hear it all the time, but... what "endorsements" are these? Are we talking local ones (car dealerships, local Subway marketing, etc.) or national advertising (since Nike might prefer LeBron to be in NY, rather than Portland)? For super-duper stars, I could see how major endorsements would make a big difference, but when free agents are making $5m+ a year, does another hundred grand a year from endorsements really matter? I think that income tax considerations might be a bigger deal than "endorsements". Ed O.
Very few players make a lot of money from endorsements. Those who have that kind of star power get their national endorsements regardless of where they play. Vince Carter was getting nationwide ads while he was playing in Toronto (which is not considered a large market when it comes to US visibility). Kobe Bryant would be in tons of commercials whether he was in LA or Portland. So, yes, I think the "endorsements" angle is overhyped. There is something to it, but I think it's a pretty minor concern to most players. This seems like completely baseless speculation, nothing more than pop psychology. "Young players" don't have a single mindset. Neither do older players. Each person has their own desires and motivations. Money and success (individual and team) are pretty universal human desires. "Running" and "not playing defense" aren't. Yes, and I disagree. Portland was tied for the second-best record in the West and projects to get better simply due to having a lot of pre-prime talent that won those 54 games. If the money is equal, I think a lot of players would want to be involved with a team that gives them a good chance of going deep in the playoffs every year and being a title contender as soon as next year or the year after.
I think veterans want to win and make thier money.....The question is at what point does the money outweigh the "I want to win"..... THAT would be barometer for a veteran signing with a team like MEM over a team like POR.... and market size and marketing opportunities do not come near to eclipsing either of those reasons....
I don't supposed the Blazers could fire Blaze, and use his whole minimum wage salary to bring somebody in!
Don't take me as gospel truth on this as I can't provide a link, but I recall an interview with an agent a few years back saying that it's standard for endorsement contracts with shoes and apparel to automatically triple if the player is in one of the top 3 markets. STOMP
I don't remember that interview, but on the radio here in Houston last month they were talking to an agent who said the bigger the market the larger the deals (endorsements) He was saying you have to take that into account when you sign a deal. Radio shows was another thing he brought up. For example, here in Houston there are 3 sports radio channels, and all of them are very good unlike the idiots over on the FAN in Portland. He also brought up what I said about younger players vs older players. He said young guys are all about the money and being the man. Older guys, who have already made their money, were all about rings. He mentioned Cleveland as an example of a team that probably wouldn;t attract many FA's because they have Lebron already, and anyone who signed there woul dbe second or third fiddle. And that their market was smaller. Then said teams like Cleveland, Utah, Indiana, Memphis Denver and Portland usually need to overpay to get FA's, while similar market sized teams like Orlando and SA don;t need to as much because there is no state tax those states.
4 things......... 1-I'm BACK bitches! Took a few days off from you computer geeks to relax and refresh. 2-My directTV went out yesterday and they said the soonest they can get to me is Junes 6TH!!!!!!!! So you might be seeing more of me around here! 3- Are you sure about the whole market size thing. Have any of you been to Memphis? Place is tiny! Ghost town! Downtown is only about 10 blks long and the biggest building they have there is that stupid pyramid. 4-Who does this EWT guy think he is anyway? What a HORRIBLE thread! (ps- I know the guy, so relax!)
Are you saying that SA's Tony Parker is an unrestricted Free Agent? If so, this is our salvation! You bring Tony Parker to to play with BRoy, Oden et al, and you are a Veteran Banger to back-up Aldridge - away from a Championship(s)!
I would believe that, but the three biggest markets are NY, LA and Chicago. So that's five of 30 teams, and only the Lakers have been able to, I think, demonstrably be able to attract FAs without overpayment. Even then, though... how much are these deals? Do they go from $100k to $300k, for example? $200,000 is nothing to sneeze at, but when a player's starting first year salary is 25 times that, do we think that they'd rather lose as a Clipper than win as a Blazer? Ed O.
You know who is an unrestricted free agent this summer? Jamaal Magloire! We should so get him! He was so great here, I loved his dunks with his eyes covered. Those were so cool! Jamaal is an all-star! Let's use our cap space on getting Mags back! Or not. barfo
