The myth of players signing in big cities only....

[Hicks123 [enjin:6700838]]

This is to address the so many threads I see where this myth pops up. Is it the snow here that deters FA, or a lack of winning success? I firmly believe it is #2. Heck, look at the 2 largest market teams in the NBA in the Lakers and Knicks. Who exactly have these "prime destinations" been able to sign over the past 5-6 years? I haven't seen guys pining over these teams for quite some time. Is it because the markets all the sudden stink.....or is it because the teams and organizations have been less than ideal.

The thing that will keep top-tier FA from coming to MN will be a continued losing tradition. That and the lack of flexibility. I truly don't believe that if we had recent success and money to spend that we are going to lose out to bottom feeding teams in markets like LA and NY. Most players stay with current team or follow the money. The last guy to make a move for "market only" was Melo, and we have seen how that turned out for both the player and organization.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

With the exception of Lebron going home, what stars have signed max level deals to go to a new, small market team? There hasn't been a ton of movement recently and most of it has been the star leaving a smaller market team for a bigger market team. Dwight to Houston is really the only one in recent memory and Houston isn't like a Minnesota or Milwaukee.

CP3 to LAC from NO
Dwight to HOU from LAL from ORL
D Will and Joe Johnson to Brooklyn from Utah and ATL
Lebron to MIA and then back to CLE
Bosh to MIA from TOR (TOR is a bigger market, but basketball in Canada is just different than in the US)
Pau to CHI from LAL from Memphis
Iggy to GS from PHI
Melo to NY from DEN
Harden to HOU from OKC (he didn't force his way though)
Love to CLE is a wash, but word is he wants out which very well could change this to LA or NY

There hasn't been really any other movement involving star level players, so what about that list shows that winning trumps market by so much guys would be willing to go to small markets. Based on that list, you really have to find and develop the guy yourself as your only shot to keep him long-term because the stars just aren't committing long-term in small markets unless they start their careers there and most of that is because they pretty much have to with RFA. The Love, Durant, Westbrook, etc. round of free agencies is the next round to put the winning vs. market theory to the test.

[Coolbreeze44]

This is to address the so many threads I see where this myth pops up. Is it the snow here that deters FA, or a lack of winning success? I firmly believe it is #2. Heck, look at the 2 largest market teams in the NBA in the Lakers and Knicks. Who exactly have these "prime destinations" been able to sign over the past 5-6 years? I haven't seen guys pining over these teams for quite some time. Is it because the markets all the sudden stink.....or is it because the teams and organizations have been less than ideal.

The thing that will keep top-tier FA from coming to MN will be a continued losing tradition. That and the lack of flexibility. I truly don't believe that if we had recent success and money to spend that we are going to lose out to bottom feeding teams in markets like LA and NY. Most players stay with current team or follow the money. The last guy to make a move for "market only" was Melo, and we have seen how that turned out for both the player and organization.

Can't agree with any of this. The reasons players haven't been pining to go to those markets recently is lack of cap space. This was a result of years of terrible management in the Knicks case, and Kobe's 30 million/year deal in the Lakers case. Seems to me Melo pined to get on the Knicks though. Trust me, if the cap space was available elite players would move quickly to take advantage of it.

[Phenom]

There is not one single variable to attract free agents. It is about money, winning, P.T., starting roles, friendships, family and probably other things. Most players are about at least one of those things at different points in their career. The Wolves have rarely had the money to spend that it takes to get up and coming studs to come in. Same with the promise of winning for more established players. The one thing this team can usually offer is P.T. and starting roles and unfortunately the players who are looking for this are usually unproven guys.

[TheGrey08]

There is not one single variable to attract free agents. It is about money, winning, P.T., starting roles, friendships, family and probably other things. Most players are about at least one of those things at different points in their career. The Wolves have rarely had the money to spend that it takes to get up and coming studs to come in. Same with the promise of winning for more established players. The one thing this team can usually offer is P.T. and starting roles and unfortunately the players who are looking for this are usually unproven guys.

Truth. When KG was here there was FA interest, but the team lacked cap space & flexibility.

[Hicks123 [enjin:6700838]]

It will be interesting to see what happens in a city like NY this off-season. They are going to have a boatload of money available to sign at least 2 max guys.....but honestly, I am not sure they get any top tier guy (top guy at position) to sign with them based on recent issues with the team and management. We shall see.

And I guess my point is that if it was all about location, then it would certainly seem to me that the records of teams would be skewed positively to these markets. I am certainly not seeing that.

[WildWolf2813]

It will be interesting to see what happens in a city like NY this off-season. They are going to have a boatload of money available to sign at least 2 max guys.....but honestly, I am not sure they get any top tier guy (top guy at position) to sign with them based on recent issues with the team and management. We shall see.

And I guess my point is that if it was all about location, then it would certainly seem to me that the records of teams would be skewed positively to these markets. I am certainly not seeing that.

As a New Yorker, the Knicks will have trouble attracting players because of how toxic it is to be there. The organization is clueless and nobody wants to be a sacrificial lamb. With that said, NYC will always be an option because if you win it all there, you're an instant God. What we have seen in the past is that NYC is enough of an allure to get big time players to think about it, whereas Minneapolis or a small market cold weather spot is enough of a deterrent to make players think that it's easier to lure good players away from here than it is to be lured there.


That's another thing that hurts the Wolves (and this is exemplified in the ownership): for all of the players that seem to be buddy buddy with everyone, we always seem to have players off on their own island. The closest guy we had in terms of having connections to players that were also really good was Love and he linked up with a buddy somewhere else. It's hard for players here to make a pitch to someone else if they don't know them. Right now all we really have on that front is the hope that Wiggins becomes so good that guys he knows will wanna join him one day because we're at a disadvantage in terms of market, weather, franchise management, luck and connections.

[AbeVigodaLive]

As noted, there are many factors when free agents choose destinations. Including... but not limited to...

- Market size/opportunity. Minnesota is a middle-of-the-pack team.
- Winning culture. Is there a team in the NBA with less of a winning culture than the Wolves?
- Income tax. Minnesota wants that money.
- Culture. This is still a hockey state, even if there's an underrated basketball crowd. I'm quite certain that the posters here have very divergent ideas on how much this matters. But, MN is not known as a "fun" state for young black men who've probably never been here before. It's cold. Very cold. Now, a family man looking to settle down with his family in an area with good people, schools, et al... might be very different.
- Star players. Nobody on the Wolves is a star. Wiggins might be someday, but he's not there yet. He has a long way to go yet.
- Opportunity. Now, we're on to something. Bad teams offer opportunities.
- Money. Ok. The Wolves will have money. But, when MN falls behind the pack in the first few items on the list... will an equal amount of money be enough to lure players away from "more favorable" destinations? The top guys can usually get most of what they want. That leaves teams like the Wolves often overpaying for guys who may not be the biggest difference makers.

Of course, any rebuild will take a combination of factors. Great (lucky) drafting. FA signees. Unheralded guys on cheap contracts. Internal development.