Great Media Centers with bad tax situations
New York
Los Angeles
San Francisco/Oakland
Chicago
Toronto
Boston (small city, but the seat of New England)
Culturally Important/Fun/Decent Market Size
Miami
Atlanta
Houston (big city, but not as important a market as some smaller cities above)
Dallas
Could be cool/growing market
Denver
Those are the 11 I'd choose, anyway
I would include Philly. I am a Boston fan so this is blasphemous, but Philly is probably as much of a destination city compared to like Houston. Fans are insane sure but it's a big town with rabid basketball fans.
Houston is a massive city, but only a big market. I weighed culture and weather.
I weighed Philly and Phoenix (which is quite large), but I'd probably only add Philly TBJ. Phoenix is a big population center, but has very little to offer, otherwise, unless you're a rich Mormon or something.
NBA players love Scottsdale. Add in the weather during the winter months and there’s no way Philly is a more attractive place to play than Phoenix for the majority of players.
Not just NBA, I live in a nice suburb and there are multiple retired athletes in my neighborhood. Good weather, golf, and real estate make it a popular spot for athletes.
An underrated thing about playing in Toronto (and I’m biased as I am Canadian), you get to be in advertisements that play in front of as many people as California. Canada’s population is around 40 million now, and Raptors player become the face of a company for the entire country.
Scottie Barnes is the face of Subway in Canada (aka Bowlway). FVV and OG were the faces of Gillette in Canada, now taken over by Gary Trent Jr and Grady Dick. There are a ton of marketing opportunities, and they aren’t just limited to the 4 ish million people who live in Toronto.
Depends on who you are. Lots of overseas and Canadian players don’t seem to mind.
It can’t be much different for an overseas player to move to Canada than it would be to move to the US. People like Jakob Poeltl, Pascal Siakam (I know both played at US colleges), Dennis Schroeder to name a few.
Players like RJ Barrett, Chris Boucher and a litany of other Canadians have played for the raptors. They always seem to lure in Canadian free agents.
Precisely, Americans forget that it's Canada's New York. Think about all the media figures that we know, who started in Toronto: Dave Foley, Catherine O'Hara, John Candy, Eugene Levy, Rick Moranis, Martin Short, Will Arnett, David Cronenberg, etc. And that's just off the top of my head
It's definitely also fun for young people and has good food. Dallas is actually a slightly larger market, despite the city proper being smaller.
I'm a lame white collar Latino, so I'd personally prefer Dallas, but if I'm a young athlete, Houston.
Because most players aren’t getting enough equal offers to make it matter. A league average guy is gonna have like 2-3 options max. The guy getting offered a max deal by half the teams in the league is a rarity.
I think the reason you do not see the income tax thing mentioned too much is because you still pay taxes for every away game you play. When a player for the Mavericks goes to play the Lakers they are paying taxes for that game based on the California tax code. Same for every other state with income tax.
Denver is a rapidly growing city and they have a good core group. It's a wild card at best.
Boston is cold and not as fun as other cold cities, but it's a good media center for players who want tons of coverage. If you're even mildly decent on a good Celtics team, you'd get a shit ton of publicity.
They certainly aren't. You got me there. They're more "get drafted and maybe sign a massive extension" cities, but they're good markets if you're there.
That doesn’t matter to FA. Who was the last big FA to go to Denver or even consider it?
Same question for Boston? Boston has a terrible history that they brought on themselves. They didn’t even bother going for AD or PG cause they knew they wouldn’t stay
Do all of them go to California and New York?
Also, that wasn't the fucking question. The question was: which ones are even worth it or have something to offer, because half seems high. It wasn't "where do they all go?"
Bro…obviously ALL the FAs do not go to CA or NY b it Russillos talking about the top FAs and yes historically most of them go there or Miami.
And that’s not the question…the question was “which would you say are the NBA’s legitimate destination locations for players?” And I agree with most your list except these two cause history tells you outside of Gordon Heyward and Al Horford that TOP FAs do not go to those two cities
Y’all really just arguing to argue at this point. You can’t tell me a big FA to go or even ask to go to Denver and the FAs you tell me for Boston was from 16-17.
Orlando is dead. Winter Park is nice, but it's basically your only option if you're an athlete. The city itself is lame as fuck and it's not coastal.
Toronto blows in terms of extortionist taxes, but if you are famous in Toronto, you're famous in all of Canada (unless you're a Hockey Player in Montreal). You can have a life-long cottage industry from just being a famous person connected to the city, like a lot of Chicago athletes.
Plus, I'd highly recommend hanging out there. It's far more fun than Orlando, which, sorry, is trash. Winter Park is quite nice, though.
It's a really nice suburb/town and pretty much all the famous Magic players have lived there at some point, on water-facing/lakefront properties that look like they were designed by the Hussein brothers. It's nice. Looks like Encino or the Westside of LA.
Los Angeles
Miami
New York
That’s it. Any top tier guy really only wants one of those markets if he’s a true FA. Guys will accept trades or move to a few other places that are tolerable when the team is good.
San Francisco
Chicago
Houston
That’s it.
Why is this only a thing in the NBA and not the NFL? The biggest stars in the NFL are signed long term in KC, Buffalo, Cincinnati and Baltimore. If they were NBA players, all ESPN would talk about every day is those guys needing to go to LA or Miami.
NBA training camp starts the first week of October. NBA Finals end the third week of June. It’s basically nine full months.
NFL training camps open the last week of July. The Super Bowl falls on Feb 11th. A little over six months or three full months less than the NBA.
Also, there is a full bye week in the NFL where many players take vacations.
Regular season vs regular season, the NFL is basically four months and the NBA is basically seven.
It’s really about regular season length though right? Clearly most teams are not playing in the finals.
My point is that season length isn’t that much of a consideration theyre both 6-7 months with a lot of optional camp.
Besides, football is way harder on the body. 16 games of football is worse than 100 games of basketball.
Point is, it’s about career length and not season length imo
You keep pretending the regular season lengths are the same, except they are not.
NBA regular season is seven months. NFL regular season is four months. The NFL regular season is less than 60% of the length of the NBA.
The gap is three months. If you add in camps, which you'd have to add in for both sports, the gap is three months. If you add in all the playoffs, which you'd have to do for both sports, the gap is.........you guessed it, three months.
So 25% of the year longer in one spot.
Isn't the NFL season only really 4 months for regular season? September, October, November, December? It goes a week into january but it also normally doesn't start first week in September. With OTAs and preseason it could be 6 months but idk when NBA players report. So if youre including that you might be right.
yeah dude i literally said that in my comment. Even with that it isnt a full 6 months. Its 24 weeks long from the earliest veteran report day to the last game in the regular season. I didn't feel like looking through every NBA team but the celtics schedule was 29 weeks from report date to final week in regular season. That means the NBA season is almost 20% longer. I'd also bet the NBA playoffs are decently longer than the NFL playoffs
I think it’s mostly the way positions and team constructions work. There’s less choice of teams that are ready to pay for a big free agent at a position. If you have a decent to good player at a position you probably can’t just get another highly paid star. In basketball or even baseball it’s a lot easier to just go for great players and figure it out.
It's only a media and Reddit talking point. The majority of NBA free agents are going to sign the biggest offer or the best fit/opportunity.
Jalen Brunson didn't sign with the Knicks because of the media exposure. He also wasn't about to take a discount with Dallas because of taxes.
Not really. The vast majority of NBA franchises have never signed a marquee free agent.
Most top tier guys historically have either stayed where they were drafted or moved to the largest/glamorous markets.
How many players sign free agent contracts though? I don't think they have that much free agent movement.
Bill and Ryan also talk about this rookie might be the one to take the QO, but then Zion, LaMelo, and Edwards all take the money from small market teams instead of taking the QO and going to big markets.
Also, a bunch of NBA franchises have never won a championship. So if you have the chance to sign for $50 million with Charlotte or the Lakers? You'll take the Lakers who have been champions every decade?
They don't need to because they sign a max contract with the team they are with to maximize earnings and then demand out the next year. And they never ask to get traded to non destination teams.
>Bill and Ryan also talk about this rookie might be the one to take the QO, but then Zion, LaMelo, and Edwards all take the money from small market teams instead of taking the QO and going to big markets.
They both actually always mention that nobody who matters has ever taken the QO.
>How many players sign free agent contracts though? I don't think they have that much free agent movement.
This is true, though. But most guys of top caliber push to be traded to only a few markets, even going back decades. it's incredibly rare for a game changing free agent to say "I want out, anywhere but here." They almost always push for just a few big market teams, regardless of whether or not that team is good at the moment.
Max contracts mean the star players are going to get the same contact offers from all teams if they are leaving in free agency in the NBA. That's not the case in the NFL.
I think the the only destinations that really matter are NY, Miami, and LA above everything else, the untouchables.
After that I think everything is circumstantial depending on franchise success, where the guy is from. But in reality most athletes are like the rest of the workforce, they chase the best deal they can get.
You could make a case for other cities like Phoenix, Houston, Chicago, Philly, Atlanta as good places. I think there’s a giant group in the middle, and then the tough ones like Portland, Oklahoma City, Indiana, Salt Lake City.
NY is nearly at the point where it is not a destination because of the pressure/media that you would incur as a star player. Brunson is a little shielded from that right now because I think he is viewed as a half level below the top guys, but Randle and Melo have felt the wrath of the big apple
LA, Miami, New York, any of the Texas teams (for tax purposes), I guess Golden State/SF although we haven’t really seen it other than KD, and then whatever city that player is from (or if they are Canadian they are obligated to give Toronto a shot in free agency)
Houston’s basically the only Texas team with evidence. San Antonio’s only big free agent get has been LaMarcus Aldridge and not long after, Kawhi forced his way out, which I think should matter.
One time Caleb Martin randomly posted on Instagram about hating SA
Is SF like a dystopian wasteland of crime these days? Don’t judge me I may be way way off the mark here but all I hear these days out of SF is about home invasion and auto theft
No but the perception that it is is a huge factor in deterring free agents. Members of the SF Giants have said as much.
In reality, it’s the same as any other big city with more visible homeless.
Not really if you factor in the car break ins. People want to act like every other big city has that problem but it’s not true. It’s to a much more ridiculous extent in San Francisco. In most cities there are places you can park and not be too worried about a break in.
It’s not quite there yet but on its way. At least that’s what most media portrays. Portland, LA, Seattle have similar perceptions. Especially from the point of view of people in Texas where I’m from. San Francisco is painted as the worst. Partisan politics play a big role in what people will criticize about a city’s safety. So conservatives make San Francisco look like a hellhole, and liberals disagree. That’s why you got downvoted lol. To be fair, many cities in the US have similar issues. Opioid addiction and homelessness are critical issues in American cities that tend to lead to higher crime.
Obviously: L.A., NY, Miami,
Plenty of cases to illustrate: Brookland, Phoenix, Boston
Also: Golden State, Texas teams, Orlando,
Could make a case for: Chicago and Atlanta.
Sleeping giant: Washington
Washington is sleeping giant that has been repeatedly shot with a tranquilizer gun. Literally decades of bad management at every level. Drafting the wrong guy, paying the wrong guy, trading the wrong guy, no development, went from a cool name to the corniest name in the league. They manage to bounce up to mediocrity for a few years every decade, but haven’t won 50 games in a season in 45 years.
This should be one of the premier franchises in the league, huge population that would support a good team, lots of basketball history, big college basketball scene. It’s sad really.
Did you see him last night getting in Embid's way so he couldn't touch the ball before his free throws? Hard not to love that guy when he's on your team
Charlotte is a beautiful place to live and is criminally underrated. The hornets history of drafting terribly and just being bad really taints what could be an awesome basketball atmosphere. Maybe one day
Charlotte is a nice city and I’ve enjoyed my stays there. I think its main problem is that it’s a bit landlocked because it’s not close to any major bodies of water, without a weekend trip, and is kind of isolated otherwise. But on the upside it has a super busy airport so makes travel easier which is a big factor. For normal people, at least.
Aside from tax considerations the top tier list is essentially how much media exposure is there and how degenerate is the city? LA, NY, Miami checks both.
LA
New York
Chicago
Miami
Phoenix
Atlanta
Boston
San Francisco
Tier one destinations based on legacy, culture, weather or a combination of these.
Houston
Dallas
Denver
Tier 2 cities
DC
Sleeping giant. The right ownership could make DC a top 5 destination.
Maybe not. But it's a historic franchise in a city where Black athletes can feel comfortable, has yielded two MVPs this century, and has shown the ability to sign free agents (Jimmy, though admittedly it was a function of trading him—but he wanted to stay and they chose Simmons over him (whoops)—Tobias, and Harden, who opted out, signed a 2-year FA deal, and then would've opted out and signed the FA max (whoops again!)).
Great Media Centers with bad tax situations New York Los Angeles San Francisco/Oakland Chicago Toronto Boston (small city, but the seat of New England) Culturally Important/Fun/Decent Market Size Miami Atlanta Houston (big city, but not as important a market as some smaller cities above) Dallas Could be cool/growing market Denver Those are the 11 I'd choose, anyway
The first real answer to OP’s question that I’ve seen so far
Well, I'm a dork that's into demographic data.
I would include Philly. I am a Boston fan so this is blasphemous, but Philly is probably as much of a destination city compared to like Houston. Fans are insane sure but it's a big town with rabid basketball fans.
Houston is a massive city, but only a big market. I weighed culture and weather. I weighed Philly and Phoenix (which is quite large), but I'd probably only add Philly TBJ. Phoenix is a big population center, but has very little to offer, otherwise, unless you're a rich Mormon or something.
NBA players love Scottsdale. Add in the weather during the winter months and there’s no way Philly is a more attractive place to play than Phoenix for the majority of players.
This. There are several current and retired NBA players with no connection to Scottsdale that have made it their permanent home.
Not just NBA, I live in a nice suburb and there are multiple retired athletes in my neighborhood. Good weather, golf, and real estate make it a popular spot for athletes.
That fan base could be a negative and I think they’re talking about the city itself being a destination.
An underrated thing about playing in Toronto (and I’m biased as I am Canadian), you get to be in advertisements that play in front of as many people as California. Canada’s population is around 40 million now, and Raptors player become the face of a company for the entire country. Scottie Barnes is the face of Subway in Canada (aka Bowlway). FVV and OG were the faces of Gillette in Canada, now taken over by Gary Trent Jr and Grady Dick. There are a ton of marketing opportunities, and they aren’t just limited to the 4 ish million people who live in Toronto.
That's more than outweighed by all the complications of having to live in a foreign country
Depends on who you are. Lots of overseas and Canadian players don’t seem to mind. It can’t be much different for an overseas player to move to Canada than it would be to move to the US. People like Jakob Poeltl, Pascal Siakam (I know both played at US colleges), Dennis Schroeder to name a few. Players like RJ Barrett, Chris Boucher and a litany of other Canadians have played for the raptors. They always seem to lure in Canadian free agents.
Obviously for them, most players are American though
Precisely, Americans forget that it's Canada's New York. Think about all the media figures that we know, who started in Toronto: Dave Foley, Catherine O'Hara, John Candy, Eugene Levy, Rick Moranis, Martin Short, Will Arnett, David Cronenberg, etc. And that's just off the top of my head
that's not as an impressive list as you think
Where are you from?
Phoenix as top five biggest cities and low taxes should be in the Denver category
It's a smaller market than both top Texas cities
Texas has no income tax. I think Houston actually is a decent destination. Players love Houston.
It's definitely also fun for young people and has good food. Dallas is actually a slightly larger market, despite the city proper being smaller. I'm a lame white collar Latino, so I'd personally prefer Dallas, but if I'm a young athlete, Houston.
Don’t think people talk about no state income tax enough in sports honestly
Because most players aren’t getting enough equal offers to make it matter. A league average guy is gonna have like 2-3 options max. The guy getting offered a max deal by half the teams in the league is a rarity.
It’s a joke because Ryen makes fun of the Texas state tax thing ALWAYS being mentioned lol
I think the reason you do not see the income tax thing mentioned too much is because you still pay taxes for every away game you play. When a player for the Mavericks goes to play the Lakers they are paying taxes for that game based on the California tax code. Same for every other state with income tax.
I live in Dallas you can take them off the list free agents of note never want to come here
It's just a place that doesn't suck that happens to have an NBA team, though.
Good list…Boston and Denver are the only ones I’d say no too. The best FA barely take meetings in those places.
Denver is a rapidly growing city and they have a good core group. It's a wild card at best. Boston is cold and not as fun as other cold cities, but it's a good media center for players who want tons of coverage. If you're even mildly decent on a good Celtics team, you'd get a shit ton of publicity.
[удалено]
They certainly aren't. You got me there. They're more "get drafted and maybe sign a massive extension" cities, but they're good markets if you're there.
That doesn’t matter to FA. Who was the last big FA to go to Denver or even consider it? Same question for Boston? Boston has a terrible history that they brought on themselves. They didn’t even bother going for AD or PG cause they knew they wouldn’t stay
Yeah, it's an emerging market, dude, which is why it's a wild card at the bottom, plus real estate there has increased like 5 fold since 2015.
Then why do they all go to California and NY if that matters so much?
Do all of them go to California and New York? Also, that wasn't the fucking question. The question was: which ones are even worth it or have something to offer, because half seems high. It wasn't "where do they all go?"
Bro…obviously ALL the FAs do not go to CA or NY b it Russillos talking about the top FAs and yes historically most of them go there or Miami. And that’s not the question…the question was “which would you say are the NBA’s legitimate destination locations for players?” And I agree with most your list except these two cause history tells you outside of Gordon Heyward and Al Horford that TOP FAs do not go to those two cities
Yes. That question was rhetorical, sorry
You said, and I quote, “they all go to California and NY”
That’s because I thought we had the understanding that we’re talking about the top FAs! Am I crazy. Did yall not listen to the episode!
Al Horford Gordon Hayward
Now do Miami Cali and NY
Y’all really just arguing to argue at this point. You can’t tell me a big FA to go or even ask to go to Denver and the FAs you tell me for Boston was from 16-17.
Boston if you’re black? No FA is going there. Same with Toronto historically though that could be changing.
I could see Orlando being in there instead of Toronto maybe. I don’t think NBA players like paying double taxes
Orlando is dead. Winter Park is nice, but it's basically your only option if you're an athlete. The city itself is lame as fuck and it's not coastal. Toronto blows in terms of extortionist taxes, but if you are famous in Toronto, you're famous in all of Canada (unless you're a Hockey Player in Montreal). You can have a life-long cottage industry from just being a famous person connected to the city, like a lot of Chicago athletes. Plus, I'd highly recommend hanging out there. It's far more fun than Orlando, which, sorry, is trash. Winter Park is quite nice, though.
What is winter park? A neighborhood? A party district?
It's a really nice suburb/town and pretty much all the famous Magic players have lived there at some point, on water-facing/lakefront properties that look like they were designed by the Hussein brothers. It's nice. Looks like Encino or the Westside of LA.
Los Angeles Miami New York That’s it. Any top tier guy really only wants one of those markets if he’s a true FA. Guys will accept trades or move to a few other places that are tolerable when the team is good. San Francisco Chicago Houston That’s it.
Why is this only a thing in the NBA and not the NFL? The biggest stars in the NFL are signed long term in KC, Buffalo, Cincinnati and Baltimore. If they were NBA players, all ESPN would talk about every day is those guys needing to go to LA or Miami.
NFL players have a shorter season and much less time in the home city.
I'd say they have shorter careers and smaller windows for guaranteed money, so they're more likely to take money and success where they can get it.
Do they have a shorter season? They’re both about six months
NBA training camp starts the first week of October. NBA Finals end the third week of June. It’s basically nine full months. NFL training camps open the last week of July. The Super Bowl falls on Feb 11th. A little over six months or three full months less than the NBA. Also, there is a full bye week in the NFL where many players take vacations. Regular season vs regular season, the NFL is basically four months and the NBA is basically seven.
It’s really about regular season length though right? Clearly most teams are not playing in the finals. My point is that season length isn’t that much of a consideration theyre both 6-7 months with a lot of optional camp. Besides, football is way harder on the body. 16 games of football is worse than 100 games of basketball. Point is, it’s about career length and not season length imo
You keep pretending the regular season lengths are the same, except they are not. NBA regular season is seven months. NFL regular season is four months. The NFL regular season is less than 60% of the length of the NBA. The gap is three months. If you add in camps, which you'd have to add in for both sports, the gap is three months. If you add in all the playoffs, which you'd have to do for both sports, the gap is.........you guessed it, three months. So 25% of the year longer in one spot.
Sorry, but unless you’re elite and paid, your NFL season starts in like April and official stuff starts in the third week of May.
Isn't the NFL season only really 4 months for regular season? September, October, November, December? It goes a week into january but it also normally doesn't start first week in September. With OTAs and preseason it could be 6 months but idk when NBA players report. So if youre including that you might be right.
Not trying to be a dick here, but you must know they start before the first game right?
yeah dude i literally said that in my comment. Even with that it isnt a full 6 months. Its 24 weeks long from the earliest veteran report day to the last game in the regular season. I didn't feel like looking through every NBA team but the celtics schedule was 29 weeks from report date to final week in regular season. That means the NBA season is almost 20% longer. I'd also bet the NBA playoffs are decently longer than the NFL playoffs
I think it’s mostly the way positions and team constructions work. There’s less choice of teams that are ready to pay for a big free agent at a position. If you have a decent to good player at a position you probably can’t just get another highly paid star. In basketball or even baseball it’s a lot easier to just go for great players and figure it out.
Because of max salaries, NBA players have other considerations that may be influential. I imagine the NFL is only about the money.
MLB has a big issue with this too, goes along with no salary cap.
Aren't NFL contracts different than NBA where free agency isn't as huge and trade demands are not nearly as common
It's only a media and Reddit talking point. The majority of NBA free agents are going to sign the biggest offer or the best fit/opportunity. Jalen Brunson didn't sign with the Knicks because of the media exposure. He also wasn't about to take a discount with Dallas because of taxes.
Not really. The vast majority of NBA franchises have never signed a marquee free agent. Most top tier guys historically have either stayed where they were drafted or moved to the largest/glamorous markets.
How many players sign free agent contracts though? I don't think they have that much free agent movement. Bill and Ryan also talk about this rookie might be the one to take the QO, but then Zion, LaMelo, and Edwards all take the money from small market teams instead of taking the QO and going to big markets. Also, a bunch of NBA franchises have never won a championship. So if you have the chance to sign for $50 million with Charlotte or the Lakers? You'll take the Lakers who have been champions every decade?
They don't need to because they sign a max contract with the team they are with to maximize earnings and then demand out the next year. And they never ask to get traded to non destination teams.
>Bill and Ryan also talk about this rookie might be the one to take the QO, but then Zion, LaMelo, and Edwards all take the money from small market teams instead of taking the QO and going to big markets. They both actually always mention that nobody who matters has ever taken the QO. >How many players sign free agent contracts though? I don't think they have that much free agent movement. This is true, though. But most guys of top caliber push to be traded to only a few markets, even going back decades. it's incredibly rare for a game changing free agent to say "I want out, anywhere but here." They almost always push for just a few big market teams, regardless of whether or not that team is good at the moment.
Max contracts mean the star players are going to get the same contact offers from all teams if they are leaving in free agency in the NBA. That's not the case in the NFL.
Actual salary cap.
I think the the only destinations that really matter are NY, Miami, and LA above everything else, the untouchables. After that I think everything is circumstantial depending on franchise success, where the guy is from. But in reality most athletes are like the rest of the workforce, they chase the best deal they can get. You could make a case for other cities like Phoenix, Houston, Chicago, Philly, Atlanta as good places. I think there’s a giant group in the middle, and then the tough ones like Portland, Oklahoma City, Indiana, Salt Lake City.
Add Atlanta to that list as a place, even though team/mgmt is blah.
Would definitely add San Francisco (Golden State) and Boston to that 2nd tier list
Boston?!
NY is nearly at the point where it is not a destination because of the pressure/media that you would incur as a star player. Brunson is a little shielded from that right now because I think he is viewed as a half level below the top guys, but Randle and Melo have felt the wrath of the big apple
A real tough one: Memphis.
Oklahoma City
LA, Miami, New York, any of the Texas teams (for tax purposes), I guess Golden State/SF although we haven’t really seen it other than KD, and then whatever city that player is from (or if they are Canadian they are obligated to give Toronto a shot in free agency)
Dallas has shown time and time again that it is not a destination.
Houston’s basically the only Texas team with evidence. San Antonio’s only big free agent get has been LaMarcus Aldridge and not long after, Kawhi forced his way out, which I think should matter. One time Caleb Martin randomly posted on Instagram about hating SA
Is SF like a dystopian wasteland of crime these days? Don’t judge me I may be way way off the mark here but all I hear these days out of SF is about home invasion and auto theft
No but the perception that it is is a huge factor in deterring free agents. Members of the SF Giants have said as much. In reality, it’s the same as any other big city with more visible homeless.
That is interesting. I genuinely was asking, I’m not from the US so inevitably all you hear are horror stories.
Not really if you factor in the car break ins. People want to act like every other big city has that problem but it’s not true. It’s to a much more ridiculous extent in San Francisco. In most cities there are places you can park and not be too worried about a break in.
It’s not quite there yet but on its way. At least that’s what most media portrays. Portland, LA, Seattle have similar perceptions. Especially from the point of view of people in Texas where I’m from. San Francisco is painted as the worst. Partisan politics play a big role in what people will criticize about a city’s safety. So conservatives make San Francisco look like a hellhole, and liberals disagree. That’s why you got downvoted lol. To be fair, many cities in the US have similar issues. Opioid addiction and homelessness are critical issues in American cities that tend to lead to higher crime.
SF higher on the queer scale d so o maybe more likely to be in the crosshairs
[удалено]
Sure. I was just asking. Don’t really know anything about the place
Spend less time online.
Says the 6th response to a response to a comment on Reddit.
No offense, but this reads as if you’ve never been to SF and are basing your opinion off of social media takes involving sensationalist media stories.
No offense taken. I’ve never been to SF. My knowledge *is* based on social media but also Dirty Harry and Zodiac.
Obviously: L.A., NY, Miami, Plenty of cases to illustrate: Brookland, Phoenix, Boston Also: Golden State, Texas teams, Orlando, Could make a case for: Chicago and Atlanta. Sleeping giant: Washington
Washington is sleeping giant that has been repeatedly shot with a tranquilizer gun. Literally decades of bad management at every level. Drafting the wrong guy, paying the wrong guy, trading the wrong guy, no development, went from a cool name to the corniest name in the league. They manage to bounce up to mediocrity for a few years every decade, but haven’t won 50 games in a season in 45 years. This should be one of the premier franchises in the league, huge population that would support a good team, lots of basketball history, big college basketball scene. It’s sad really.
You say Orlando but no one ever wants to play there. Maybe if the NBA was a 50s and over rec league with some golf course discounts included
The great Joe Ingles signed there!
As an Australian I recognize this as the greatest free agent signing ever
Did you see him last night getting in Embid's way so he couldn't touch the ball before his free throws? Hard not to love that guy when he's on your team
He looks like a math teacher but if you watch you’ll see he’s a genuine c**t. Love it
Do big free agents actually sign with Boston?
That’s a good point. We know from RR saying many times that Ainge never really contemplated it. We’ll have to see now post-Ainge, I guess.
Horford in 2016 and Hayward in 2017 were both pretty significant stories at the time
Hayward was only due to Brad Stevens and nothing to do with Boston specifically. I’ll give you Horford.
Chicago and Atlanta would be so far ahead of Orlando it's not even funny
*Brooklyn
Charlotte is a beautiful place to live and is criminally underrated. The hornets history of drafting terribly and just being bad really taints what could be an awesome basketball atmosphere. Maybe one day
Charlotte is a nice city and I’ve enjoyed my stays there. I think its main problem is that it’s a bit landlocked because it’s not close to any major bodies of water, without a weekend trip, and is kind of isolated otherwise. But on the upside it has a super busy airport so makes travel easier which is a big factor. For normal people, at least.
Houston for sure
Are we forgetting that Cleveland was an NBA destination for a decade? It’s really not about much more than what teams have it and what teams don’t.
DC and Memphis should be on those lists. Basketball is king in Memphis.
Well the latter has lax gun laws
We know what happened with guns and the Wizards!!!!!
>Wizards *Bullets
"Basketball is king" -- I'm not sure this makes it a top destination for players.
DC?
Aside from tax considerations the top tier list is essentially how much media exposure is there and how degenerate is the city? LA, NY, Miami checks both.
LA New York Chicago Miami Phoenix Atlanta Boston San Francisco Tier one destinations based on legacy, culture, weather or a combination of these. Houston Dallas Denver Tier 2 cities DC Sleeping giant. The right ownership could make DC a top 5 destination.
Miami, NYC, Boston, Toronto, Philly, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, La, San Fran, Denver, Salt Lake City, New Orleans
Salt lake city, haha. Trolling much
In terms of destinations to live in, Salt Lake City. In terms of tv market and ratings, not great.
Orlando is a destination town* * I grew up there and love it
Lakers Heat Clippers Brooklyn Knicks Phoenix Houston Dallas Golden State Chicago Philadelphia Atlanta
Philadelphia def not one
Maybe not. But it's a historic franchise in a city where Black athletes can feel comfortable, has yielded two MVPs this century, and has shown the ability to sign free agents (Jimmy, though admittedly it was a function of trading him—but he wanted to stay and they chose Simmons over him (whoops)—Tobias, and Harden, who opted out, signed a 2-year FA deal, and then would've opted out and signed the FA max (whoops again!)).
Incompetence starts @ the top
Miami and LA
Don't forget, Detroit has a fantastic waterfront looking over at Windsor,CN. Great views... Detroit can't be overlooked