I think this point is often ignored in favor of short-term value, and/or "honoring Dame's request", and that it is utterly crucial we add this to the calculus of a Dame trade. Thus, I thought it was worthy of its own post, because I haven't seen anyone even slightly debunk it. Theory: If indeed all the people who believe Dame goes to Miami are correct, then this signals the end of "undesirable markets" ever winning a championship again. Of course, this is post-Jokic in Denver as that team is already assembled. I see that if Dame and his agent get their way, that this will become standard operating procedure for literally every player in the League. The minute your rookie contract is over, you get the maximum new contract you can, let the ink dry...or maybe not even that long, and you simply demand a trade to California, Boston, NY, Florida, or Texas. You then poison the well and ensure that no other team will trade for you, and your new team gets to pay pennies on the dollar for you, thereby screwing your former team. This would defacto mean, no undesirable market team will EVER win a championship again (post-Jokic). That seems to be an EXTREMELY high price to pay for a marginally better offer from Miami than say OG from Toronto, or really just about any other possibility. It seems to me, that if Dame succeeds that is the curtain call for any championship in Portland ever again. If Dame, "Mr. Loyalty" himself is doing this, do you really think the LeBrons, AD's and Tatum's of the world are going to do anything else? Lillard was the exception not the rule, sure maybe you can find some Serbian player who has TRUE loyalty, but the odds of that player being a Superstar are exceedingly low. Superstars generally have gigantic egos and want to play in the aforementioned areas. I don't see Scoot or Sharpe (or any other player we draft) staying if they see they can just bully their way out with the Lillard Method (TM). Please debunk this with facts and reason. If you can't, you might want to consider coming aboard Team "Anywhere but Miami".
I think we ignore it because it's apocryphal speculation. It doesn't need to be "debunked" because it's just an opinion. Your opinion, which you've shared many times, and nobody seems to share.
So why am I wrong? Please explain. Saying it's apocryphal isn't a rebuttal. This is a rather straightforward and frying pan to the face obvious extrapolation of the future based on current trends. If you can't rebut it, then it seems pretty sound to me. What you wrote is an opinion, what I wrote is a theory that I'd like to see debunked. It seems you can't do that. I think people are afraid I'm right, or unable to extrapolate into the future based on current trends.
It's not a "theory"; it's a prediction. If the aftermath of a Dame-to-Miami deal were the path of a hurricane, your "theory" would be on the far edge of the cone of uncertainty. Sure it's possible, but it's the most extreme result possible, and it's not something I'm going to fret about. I don't believe in borrowing trouble from tomorrow; today has enough trouble of its own.
Uh, so you don't believe in making decisions based on mitigating risks? Huh, we will have to agree to disagree. What I said is pretty far from uncertain. It has already happened in fact with Kawhi and AD both being examples. The big difference here, is Dame has 4 years left and they were on expiring contracts. The reason this is so different is that Dame has so many years left, AND what his agent did, is as far as I know, unprecedented. If you can see how Miami giving us scraps for Dame is bad, and how Lillard got what he wanted, how is it even slightly hard to imagine that it might not only happen again, but it is very likely to happen based on the examples of AD and Kawhi doing similar things but in the last year of a contract when they had the leverage. If you can create leverage simply through a media blitz and a shady agent poisoning the well, why would you NOT do this as an agent and/or a player who isn't playing in a desirable market? I can't see any reason why this wouldn't become at best an occasional thing, and at worst standard operating procedure. Consider, this also helps the League from their point of view (hence the toothless response from the League when they could have been MUCH more heavy handed) in consolidating talent with Superteams, but unlike in the past you can do it without giving up literally anything but capspace. Superteams are awesome for the League in terms of media money and viewership, but absolutely horrific in my model for undesirable teams. I can't see a flaw in my logic, but I see in your case my idea is see by you as "borrowing trouble" and not thinking about long term consequences seems to be your rebuttal, which an appeal to pathos actually.
Not at all what I said. I have no control of what happens with players in the NBA, so there's no risk for me to mitigate, no decisions for me to make. If I were Adam Silver, I'd take a different position
Lillard isn't leaving "for a big market" he is leaving for a better chance to win a title. If the Blazers were contenders, he would be ecstatic to stay here. If Charlotte had Jimmy and Bam, he would be "demanding" a trade there instead. I get what you are saying, but this is a bad example of it.
Then I misunderstood you and my apologies for that. I think as armchair GM's, which is 90% of what we do on this site, we are all pretending to have GM level powers. We are all proposing trades non-stop for Lillard. I fail to see how considering future consequences is anything other than wise and intelligent.
Are you sure that's why he's Miami or bust? I'm pretty sure its a combination of the following: he is friends with Bam, the no-state taxes thing pretty big with Lillard's salary, the weather, possibly the women/nightlife, AND a shot at a title. If he just wanted a real shot at a title, then Boston and even teams like Toronto, Brooklyn and quite a few other teams would have been on his list.
We would only know that if Miami hadn't been in the finals last season. No matter what he says to anyone, even his best friend, I wouldn't believe it. Plus, his main problem with the Trail Blazers is that he wants "to go for it." Not that he doesn't like his teammates.
The league has survived the Karl Malone Gary Payton to the Lakers and the Shaq and Payton to Miami ring chasing culture a long time ago. I was just thrilled Malone didn't win a championship after bailing on Utah. As to Dame, he's created his own path and it's not one I have much respect for but as others have said...I'm not losing sleep over millionaires problems anytime soon. Lillard leaving is a lesson in attachments I don't want him here if he doesn't want to be here. That's about as deep as it gets for me.
It's understood that LeBron runs the show before he agrees to a deal... why would he denand and trade from himself?
That and the Markets will change with Global Warming putting California and Florida and Boston and New York under water. Seems like Denver might be a great place to play?
