http://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/01/blake-griffin-trade-reaction-no-trade-clause-free-agents-clippers-pistons-contract-loyalty-nba
Do you think players should be informed when being traded, and if they are, should they get a say in where they go?
How do you think the lack of loyalty from sports teams effects their business (fanbase, sales, public opinion, etc.)?
How do you think this trade effects future free agents outlook on the Clippers?
Why is it that when players leave by choice they are heavily scrutinized, but the same criticism is not given to those teams that trade these franchise players away?
1.) I don't think GMs/Front offices should feel obligated to tell their players when they are trading them. NBA is a business and the players know that.
ReplyDelete2.) I don't think fans care about their teams lack of loyalty if applied. All the fans care about is winning, while sometimes it hurts to trade a franchise player, I think that fans are more concerned with if a move will benefit their team or not.
3.) I don't think it's gonna change anything. Clippers aren't a huge free agent destination anyway and it's not like the clippers are the only ones who have traded a big player.
4.) I think it depends on the way players leave. In KD's situation, he left a great team to make an all time great team and didn't want to step up to the challenge after blowing a 3-1 lead in the WCF. GMs do what is best for their team and while this is sometimes true for players, they have the option to stick around for their team or take the easy way out.
1. I definitely think that NBA players need to be informed on when they are being traded and where they are being moved to. The act of trading someone uproots their whole life and the lives of their family members, so it's only fair to give them a warning.
ReplyDelete2. I think that if one of the best players on a team is traded randomly then it more strongly affects their fanbases loyalty than other players. This is because some people like teams for their players not necessarily for their location or team overall. While, if less known / bad players get traded I don't think that fans become less loyal often because they want to see their team win.
3. I think that free agents will be more nervous about signing with the Clippers if they want to be able to settle down in one place, but if they're newer players or don't really care about the team they play for then they won't be.
4. I think that player's are more heavily scrutinized because they are personally choosing to leave a team that they played for. Furthermore, they often make connections with fans whether it's meeting them or just kids looking up to these players and that makes it hard for people to just let them go. While, if their team trades them randomly then they are not to be blamed and in this case no one really knows who to blame.
1. I believe players should be informed when being traded, as a sort of respect and commodity. Yet, the NBA is a business so I believe the GM and management in general has the authority to handle these situations in any way they see fit and player for the most part understand.
ReplyDelete2. I think the loyalty of sports teams can impact their business tremendously. If a player has been with a specific team for many years and has witnessed the highs and lows that are inevitable and the organization trades them in an inappropriate manner or fashion for the type of player he/she is, then I believe the team's business could be negatively effected. On the other hand, I think if a player is not loyal (like Lebron when he left Cleveland for the first time) due to difficult competition or other potentially unworthy reasons, that particular player could face a lot of criticism from fans and the media.
3. I think this trade involving Blake Griffin and the Detroit Pistons will not greatly effect future free agents looks on the Los Angeles Clippers. This trade was not an example of taking the easy way out by a player as he was not in control of the decision, and the management of the club was simply doing what they thought was right for the team. Therefore, I do not believe this trade will impact future free agents outlooks and opinions on the team and its organization.
I think the NBA is a business and players should know that when they get on a team there is a chance you will be traded. However, I do believe the GM/Owner should tell the player if they are being traded. If you work at a law firm and you get fired, the owners tell you. Law firms are businesses just like NBA but on different scales. don't like hearing players say they found out about the trade on twitter or on tv. Players have the right to hear the real story to their face on from a sports anchor on ESPN who is going off assumptions. The NBA is turning into a trade every week league, which is fine, but players need to know before anyone. Finally I believe that if this chain continues, player signs then gets traded, then people will put no trade clauses in and stay with a team for a while.
ReplyDelete1. I think that NBA players have the right to be informed on when they are being traded and to where they are going to be playing. Trading a player to another team completely changes their own life due to housing, family, etc. I think that it is necessary to tell the player that they are being traded.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that if an amazing player on a team is moved randomly to another team like Blake Griffin was, it would affect their fans but would also weed out the bandwagoners. This is because some people only like a team for one or two players on their roster and not the franchise as a whole. On the other hand, if less recognizable players get traded, loyal fans would be unhappy, but the loyalty of the fans wouldn’t change because they still have the big stars they love as well as the franchise they support.
3. I think that free agents will be more cautious and more anxious about signing with the Clippers. I think this because if the player and his family want to settle down and live somewhere for awhile, based on Blake Griffin’s situation, it would not be in LA with the Clippers. However if you are a new player in the league dying to go to whatever team chooses you, it does not matter for the most part if they ended up in a place like LA.
4. I think that players are more heavily scrutinized because they are choosing to leave a team and a franchise that they played for. I also think the fashion they leave is critical in the old fans responses. An example of this is LeBron James. When he left Cleveland to play in Miami, he held a giant ESPN all exclusive show about where he was going to play. This angered the fans of Cleveland so much that people were burning his jersey. However, if they get traded without their say, the fans are not mad at them, rather at the franchise.
1) Yes, I think that players should be informed when being traded. In the article, it shows a tweet that says “The Clippers gave Blake Griffin a crazy-elaborate free agent pitch, even mock-retiring his jersey to the rafters...six months later he's shipped off to Detroit, a team he'd never have even taken a meeting with. Expect every big free agent this summer to demand a no-trade clause”. It is shocking that he has not even had a meeting with the Detroit team before being traded to them. I also think that they players should have a say in where they get traded to because even though the NBA is a business, moving is a huge part of his life, especially with family. I think that because of all of these factors, the players should definitely be informed about when and where they are being traded.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the say of whether a player gets traded or not should rest in the hands of the General Manager and the front office, but I do not think that they should be traded without a warning. I do not feel bad for these players as it is their choice to participate in this top tier sport and receive a lot of money to do so.
ReplyDeleteI think that loyalty to certain players does effect the fans and effects the overall quality of the team. While it is possible to have a successful team of new players I think that most successful teams are those who are comprised of players who have been working together for a while. I do not think that fans will stop watching a team because of a trade but I do think that it can certainly upset them and it can change the team dynamics.
I think that this move gave a wake up call to all the players that no players job on one particular team is totally secure. I think that teams like this fear as it may drive players to perform to their highest ability.
I cannot speak for others but I have been upset by the choices made by both players and teams in the past. I think that many players throw away their legacy by moving to other teams. I also feel that teams have made choices that seem to be not well thought out or without good reason. I think that this is one of the fault with pretty much all team sports and may be a reason why some choose to play individual sports where they have more control.
Players often make a big deal out of being traded; this is not as necessary as they make it out to be. Professional sports leagues are just like any other company; they are a business. The owners of the company hire the people that are best fit for the success of the company. When these people no longer can perform, they are gotten rid of that (in the case of the NBA this is where trading comes into play). Just like when someone applies for a new job, they don't get to decide whether they work there, an NBA player should not be allowed to choose where they are traded to. This causes the dilemma of whether one should leave their job or be forced out. As the NBA demonstrates, if one leaves his job, he will never be welcomed back again. This was shown by the lack of loyalty with Blake Griffin and his contract. The reason for this issue is as follows: when someone chooses to do something that another person does not like, it is deemed the fault of the person who committed the action. When someone is forced to do something, it is no longer the fault of the person doing the action but instead the fault of the "faulter," or person forcing the action. This is the reason that fans get so angry when players leave teams of their own free will.
ReplyDeletePlayers should 100% be informed if they are going to be traded, as they are human beings, who might have formed strong bonds with the community and the fans that they have been playing for. They also may have moved their entire family, just to get traded to another team and have to move again. However, they should not get a say in what town they go to, because they are playing for a business model that is based on profit, and teams have to deal with costs and salary cap. They are getting paid millions of dollars per year, and have to accept that teams have the practical need to shift players accordingly to their financial needs. I do not think that a lack of loyalty from the sports teams with affect their business because the true fans are there for the city, not for a player. I do not think this trade will affect the Clippers different than any other team, however they just set the precedent for trading a star midseason. I think any other team in the same position might have to do the same thing. The players look greedy when they leave by choice, since they are already making bank. The team's however, are dealing with league rules salary caps that impact their financial bottom line.
ReplyDeletePlayers should be informed when they are being traded rather than being surprised. In Blake Griffin’s situation they should have given him more of a heads up before trading him especially because he was just resigned. Players should have a say with where they are traded to but should not have the final decision. The GM/Coach should be the one controlling this process not the players because the staff wants what's best for the team and not the player. Professional sports is a business.
ReplyDeleteI thinks teams that lack loyalty can affect their business in a negative way. Some of the fanbase may not care about some bench player being traded because of his/her GM not showing any loyalty but as soon as a significant player on that team is turned against it completely changes. Devoted fans get mad because their team is not being loyal to their superstar. Now player bandwagons now have another team to root for which will hurt team sales and their fan base. Sponsors may pull or not even offer any deals to teams so they aren’t associated with a lying team.
This trade may sway possible free agents to stay away from the Clippers because they showed zero loyalty to arguably one of their best players, Blake Griffin. I don’t think any player would want the possibility that the team they play on has no sympathy for them and would trade him/her when they felt they needed to even after signing their contract. The NBA is a business but sometimes viewing the players perspective as a coach or GM can be a very smart business decision.
Players are scrutinized for leaving a team by choice more than a team trading away it’s franchize player because many fans things it’s selfish of a player to leave a team that is providing him/her with a job and money. Does that mean this is right? No, in fact it’s extremely unfair. Every player, coach, or GM should have the right to do what they’d like in their best interest. One should be selfish when it comes to choosing where you or who should play because your career is on the line if you do not make the right choice. Players are made fun of, howerever, of making this decision when the fan base has no right whatsoever to call him/her out for it because it should be their decision. It’s in their best interest which is why many fans and analysis have a hard time wrapping their heads around it.
I think the players should for sure be told when and where they are being traded with at least some warning. Imagine if someone just called you and said "Oh by the way, you and your family need to go move to this new city tomorrow". Or even worse, found out by twitter or the news. I think that players should have a say in the process, but it makes sense for the GM to have the final say. However, I believe that the organizations should have players' best interests at heart. I don't believe that future players will feel comfortable going to the clippers. This is especially true for big names. No one is going to want to go to a team that has snakes for management. Loyalty is important to true fans of a franchise, mostly because all of these fans have most likely been very loyal to the clippers franchise and watching them just abandon a star player like that(whose jersey many fans bought) is a shot in the gut to the fans. I think this move hurt the clippers because now the entire NBA knows how much of a snake that team is and no one really wants to sign there.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI don't think that players should expect to be informed when traded. Like the article said “NBA teams have made it abundantly clear that they’re not obligated to be loyal to players, and it’s about time that players stop expecting it.” It is a business, players should expect that they are working a job, and the employer does have power. I think getting a say in where they go would be unfair because then the best players would just go to the best teams.
I don't think that the lack of loyalty from sports team affects the business much. While fans may be upset that a star player is leaving, the trade often happens for an equal player, so fans will rally around them. Also fans generally only care about winning, so as long as it happens, the fans will be happy. Also, the business would only be hurt a little bit from star players. Small trades won’t affect the team.
While the trades might not affect the business that much, I think players might not be as inclined to head to the clippers as before. Veteran players might want team loyalty, so they might not head to the clippers after this trade. Young players I don't think will care too much because they just want to play in the NBA. As the article says “ Monday’s shocking trade of Blake Griffin to the Detroit Pistons will surely resonate with NBA stars and affect how they address free agency.” I think mostly veteran players will try to sign no trade clauses, but overall, players won’t be too mad at the clippers.
I think fans often realize that a team truly is just a business, so when a player is traded away, they realize it is hopefully for the good of the franchise. They hope that the trade will benefit them in some way as a fan. However, when a player leaves by choice, fans feel that they are being betrayed, especially because “players are expected to connect with their community, give everything to the team and, at times, take a hometown discount” Fans want to be able to connect with a player, and if a veteran player walks away from a team, fans will be extremely angry, especially because they feel that the player “belongs to the city.”I do however think teams should face more scrutiny towards trading away veteran star players.
NBA players should definitely be informed when being traded. After all, it's the player that is being traded. They are the one who has to relocate cities, take their children out of school, and start a new life. I don't think it's fair to an NBA athlete to just be told that out of the blue. Also, NBA athletes should always have some say in where they want to go. In professional soccer, for example, the player can request a transfer and has a large say in where they want to go as they must agree to personal terms with a new club before any transfer happens.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason why athletes who leave by choice are scrutinized far more than teams who trade franchise players away is that one is perceived as disloyalty and the other is perceived as just business. When a player wants out of a team it's mostly because they are upset with some asset of the organization; be it the players, the coaches, the city, etc. This sometimes falsely makes that player seem disloyal to their team. In the case of teams who trade away franchise players, like the article says, "sports is a business". If the team that trades one of their best players away is doing well with or without that person, fans couldn't care less.
1. Players have the right to know when they are being traded and have veto power for where they go. This would mean players could prepare to leave their team and potentially their home, and they could say no to being traded to a team if there is reason and logic behind it. This keeps players informed while the teams still have the power.
ReplyDelete2. I think the lack of loyalty negatively impacts the brand of each team. The fanbase and sales of each team is built around the players, so when a key player is traded each team must rebrand themselves and the fanbase could decrease. This also affects the merchandise of the team where they must completely remake all products that included that player.
3. I think trading a big and important player poorly reflects the team because if they are willing to give away such an vital and key member then it seems as if they don"t care about their players. I don't think any free agent would want to join a team that doesn't care for and value their players.
4. I think it is easier to be angry at one individual player than a whole team. The saying "don't hate the player, hate the game" is very relevant here, because everyone seems to direct their anger towards the player leaving, instead of the teams that just drop the players. By being angry at one player you can still cheer for the team, but if your angry at the team then there is no more fun in rooting for them.
To me, when you get you get drafted to an NBA team, you not only become part of their roster, but you become part of their family. Your team is your best friends. You are loyal to one another. If you get traded unknowingly, you have simply lost respect. It could be from your GM, your coaches, or simply a trade negotiation. Blake Griffin is big talk in the NBA. Any player in the NBA should have the right to know if and when they are going to be traded. Trading in the NBA changes your whole view of the association and how it functions. And of course, players should be allowed to make any negotiations with the League and their team, as well as their GM. This keeps players informed while the teams still have ownership of that individual.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of loyalty from sports teams effects their business big-time. Take a look at the trade between the Celtics and the Cavaliers to swap Isaiah for Kyrie. That trade skyrocketed because both players are big names in the league, and Kyrie Irving has been a star player for the Cavaliers since 2011. In 2011, he is the first overall pick for the Cleveland Cavaliers. He helped lead his team to the 2016 Championship after beating the Golden State Warriors. So yeah, it would effect public opinion, teams' fan base, and a team's sales. Trading players effects a team's reputation. I remember watching the first game of the 2017-2018 NBA season. It was a matchup between the Cavaliers and the Celtics. As soon as Kyrie Irving's name was announced, allowing him to run onto the court, fans immediately started booing in disappointment. The same goes for Isaiah Thomas when he stepped out onto the court that same night.
The Blake Griffin trade was a shocker. He was notified of the trade via twitter. How impersonal this must have made Blake feel. Free agents have a lot more control of their destiny now then ever before. They have clauses that allow them to pick what trades they will accept and to which teams. Do free agents that have that power want to go to an organization that can alienate or cast aside one of their best players so callously? I think the actions of the organization and how they handled the Blake Griffin trade will have serious negative impact for future free agents going forward.
When you leave by choice, you are making a conscious decision to leave the team. When a player leaves by choice, they are looking to seek a higher paid contract, or upgrade the quality of the team they are looking to play for. They are also seen as being selfish, looking to play for a team that can win championships. Sometimes, these are more team-oriented decisions.Sometimes, it all comes down to dollars and cents.
1.)
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe that players should be informed when being traded because it changes their whole lives and careers but in regards to where they go I do not think they should have a say for the most part because like any job sometimes you have to move for your career to keep it in the right direction and if you don’t like it then you should find a new career that involves less moving. I think NBA players know that when they sign up, they now what they are signing up for and that is an agreement to joining a team.
2.)
I believe that the lack of loyalty from sports teams effects their business a lot because many people, unfortunately, like teams for two or three of their specific players instead of the whole team so when a favorited player moves it changes the whole team dynamic for the fan. If there is one specific highly liked played with numerous fans then of course the sales and fanbase will go down for that team because they are losing the specific love of the player. But this could be a good way to weed out the “fake fans”, the fans who only like the team for a specific player so they have “real fans” who like the team as a whole.
3.)
I think this trade will effect future free agents outlook on the clippers because it will make them more cautious about signing with the clippers. Especially with what happened with Blake Griffen being traded out of the blue with no warning what so ever. It shows a lack of support and loyalty and is not something free agents will want to deal with in the future.
4.)
I think when players leave by choice they are heavily scrutinized more than they would be if they were traded because it is a personal decision to leave a team and it means they dislike something about it which gives fans something to be upset about because a player who is supposed to have his teams back decides he doesn’t want to anymore and fans can take it as an insult.
I do think that players do have a right to know when they are being traded. I think in sport especially regarding the trading process, it's so easy to think of players as employees. USA Today states, "We often hear that 'sports is a business,' and that players should never take any trade or roster move as a personal slight". However, by that token, all employees are given plenty of notice if they are being transferred. I think that the same should qualify for the NBA and professional sports in general. The underlying reality that a player could be traded at anytime no matter how much of an impact player they are, definitely can cause issues in the locker room. It is really hard for a team to establish good chemistry if the players feel like they can be out the door the next day with no notice. However, when a franchise decides to trade a player what appears to be rather spontaneously, the franchise receives little to no scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteOn the other end of the spectrum, when players decide to leave fans and reporters tend to make the player feel like they have disrespected their team. I think that if a player makes the decision to leave for whatever reason, I think the decision deserves to be respected. One of the most covered players who left their team is Kevin Durant. Granted, KD did leave OKC after losing to the Warriors in the playoffs, however, I don't think that should take away from what KD did for the Thunder and how his legacy is remembered.
I think that ultimately, players should be given far warning if they are being traded, and that players should tell their franchise if they are planning on leaving.
I feel players should be informed on the fate of their career at all times. Being traded to a different team is a risk, because there is still a big chance that the traded player wouldn't play well with their new teammates. They should have some input as to where they go, but because they're contracted with one team, so whoever they have an agreement with should be able to have a majority say in where the player goes.
ReplyDeleteLack of loyalty kills player morale. Saying that teams shouldn't have to be loyal to players. Players are the only reasons that teams exist, so when a team mis-treats its players, and trades them off to a team that wouldn't fit, I beleive that the player would have every right to be angry at the team.
I thonk the Clipper's fanbase may take a break from being passionate about their team. Trading Blake Griffin, and then making a scene about loyalty is a horrible PR move, and will probably affect the team long-term.
When players leave a team, it shows that they are unloyal to their team. Considering that the team they formerly played for provided them a paycheck to support themselves, leaving the team just how un-thankful a player can be. The double-standard can be seen because people are so used to teams dropping players, it is just common place, and fans may think that it is for the greater good of that player.