Hard to find something that doesn't exist. Again, I've heard the same thing again and again from players and agents, that it's standard language in the shoe deals (and such) for players to make multiple times more money when they go to a top market. It makes perfect sense why as they have a larger platform and reach more consumers. Of course some players reach a point where their fame is so great that their it transcends the local market and they're pitching nationally & internationally, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm pointing out. Additionally to standard shoe contract language benefiting larger markets, all the little side deals at car dealerships and restaurants are worth more to the guys down the pecking order of the team for obvious reasons. The reasons that talent flow goes from small market to big isn't a mystery. STOMP
I've already said that the only guys that depend on bigger local media markets are guys that can't get away with demanding a trade to a specific market or team. Yes of course large media markets are a huge plus for middling stars in this league and that's why there is a clear advantage in free agency. It's just that the kind of solid players that cash in on local markets are not the same players that have the sway to demand trades with a specific destination. So again, there is no advantage on the trade market for large market teams and there is no disadvantage when it comes to trades for us. That's all there is to it. Am I supposed to say STAMP or some bullshit like that my answer is the end all be all now? What you would need to do is come up with guys who forced trades to a specific places that weren't national level superstars and you would have to show a pattern of it. I don't think you'll find that because it doesn't exist. We actually know very little besides reports about guys demanding trades to specific places but we know that reports had us on the lists of both Harden and PG13 who are the only guys I remember having a reported list in the last decade or two. Supposedly Simmons would only accept a trade to a California team but then he ended up in Brooklyn because they offered the guy that Morey wanted. Your claim of inequity is the one that needs to be proven, I'm just saying that it is what the league owners have agreed it is an imbalanced free agent market while having an equitable draft and trade market.
I've been following the Blazers for 45 years now & the only significant FA signing of a quality established player I can think of during that entire stretch was Brian Grant. No, overpaying for mediocre crap like Evan Turner doesn't count. Of fucking course the league presents an un-level playing field for the large and small markets to compete against each other, but thats not what set off this back and forth. Good grief man... instead of coming up with lists of things you want me to do to satisfy your laziness and the gobbledy gook you posted above, my suggesting is to pay attention. You responded to me posting the fact that shoe contracts automatically going up isn't in fact reality. Don't just say it, prove it. Red herring anecdotes about Harden or LeBron have nothing to do with what is standard in shoe contracts. So sorry. And like more then a few other posters I sign my name/handle at the end of my posts... thats been happening for 20+ years now. Lol at getting bent over that. STOMP
Every time I've responded to you in this back and forth I've talked about the fact that there is definitely huge inequity in free agency. So really you can stop talking about that, it's obvious and you're right about that but it has nothing to do with the trade market. The trade market is set up so teams have to look for the best offer possible to recoup value for their outgoing players, regardless of where that value is coming from. Now I guess you could argue that perception of destination can impact where the handful of players who can dictate where they end up are traded to but that's not market size like you've been talking about. Paul George going to OKC is not a red herring. Kawhi going to Toronto and winning them a title is not a red herring. Yeah, both guys ended up in LA but one was through free agency and the other got a rebuilding team a huge haul. The trade market does have equity. You would have to go back to Pau Gasol to the Lakers fourteen years ago to find a time that an all star level player was traded to a large market team for a discount and that had nothing to do with the Lakers being in a large market and everything to do with the guy trading Gasol being a fucking double agent for the team that he spent 40 years playing for, coaching and then general managing. Seriously try to find some examples of how the trade market is skewed to favor large media market teams. You'll need to find trades that are favorable to those teams and show there were actually better offers available from small market teams. The reason the onus is on you to prove your point of view is because you're the one saying that there's some kind of conspiratorial inequity in which teams around the league take back less from large markets therefore giving those large markets an even bigger advantage than they already have because of the obvious inequities in free agency. That's some tin foil hat bullshit, so I think it's fine for me to request that you show some proof of your half cocked theory.
Seriously, what in the world are you talking about? I've never talked about the trade market once. You are off in la la land inventing viewpoints for me I've never considered let alone expressed. Maybe you're confusing me with another poster, but lol at this unhinged nonsense STOMP
