The legacies of super-teams and ring-chasers...does it really matter?

[Indy]

Yeah I understand what you guys were saying, and I hesitated when I said Dumars. But I do place more value on a guy who sticks with his team... I'm disappointed that guys like Pierce and Wade left their original teams, and even more so with Durant. He chased a ring, that's all there is to it for me. He may be an alpha dog, but to me a top player has to have the competitiveness and confidence that he can take his supporting cast to the promised land. As soon as he gives up on that, his ranking drops in my book.

This exacerbated by the fact that I think with Adams' rapid development, OKC was the favorite to win the championship this year for me. At least on equal levels with the Warriors and Cavs. If he was stuck in a situation like AD, I could be more forgiving. In this case, I chose to err on the side of being mean.

At least KG was traded.

Why is it honorable/have a higher value for a guy to stick with the team that drafted him? It isn't like the team wouldn't be willing to trade him if a better offer came along, so why is it bad for a player to take a better offer? Seems like a double standard to me, with the benefit going to billionaire owners instead of the workers.

It's our romantic vein. You value it as much if the team treats the lifer well and takes care of their side of the deal providing a decent team. It is so absurd that FOs end up alienating players like Kevin Garnett.

But if we were able to trade Shawn Marion and pieces for KG, and won a title, the FO would have been cheered. If it were Shawn demanding to be traded away so he had a chance to win a ring, he would be jeered. I just don't get the double standard.

[Ring_Wanted]

Yeah I understand what you guys were saying, and I hesitated when I said Dumars. But I do place more value on a guy who sticks with his team... I'm disappointed that guys like Pierce and Wade left their original teams, and even more so with Durant. He chased a ring, that's all there is to it for me. He may be an alpha dog, but to me a top player has to have the competitiveness and confidence that he can take his supporting cast to the promised land. As soon as he gives up on that, his ranking drops in my book.

This exacerbated by the fact that I think with Adams' rapid development, OKC was the favorite to win the championship this year for me. At least on equal levels with the Warriors and Cavs. If he was stuck in a situation like AD, I could be more forgiving. In this case, I chose to err on the side of being mean.

At least KG was traded.

Why is it honorable/have a higher value for a guy to stick with the team that drafted him? It isn't like the team wouldn't be willing to trade him if a better offer came along, so why is it bad for a player to take a better offer? Seems like a double standard to me, with the benefit going to billionaire owners instead of the workers.

It's our romantic vein. You value it as much if the team treats the lifer well and takes care of their side of the deal providing a decent team. It is so absurd that FOs end up alienating players like Kevin Garnett.

But if we were able to trade Shawn Marion and pieces for KG, and won a title, the FO would have been cheered. If it were Shawn demanding to be traded away so he had a chance to win a ring, he would be jeered. I just don't get the double standard.

You know what? Shawn Marion and the Suns needed to be done by that time. Towards the end Marion was not happy to the point he demanded a trade after the trade to the Celtics was killed.

Marion was well taken care of. He was the highest paid player on a team with Steve Nash and Amare Stoudemire. It is true that said contract predated the Nash era, but still the largest contract. He was the kind of player Draymond is now for the Warriors (who by the way is starting to sound very much like Marion). He could never be the most loved player with the kind of game he had, but absolutely everybody recognized his huge contribution. Almost everybody gets traded and absolutely everybody is subject to trade rumors. In this case, I think the player has issues for which the Franchise can't be held responsible.

Funny. In my opinion, Amare fits your argument better. After all it was just a matter of money.

[Indy]

Yeah I understand what you guys were saying, and I hesitated when I said Dumars. But I do place more value on a guy who sticks with his team... I'm disappointed that guys like Pierce and Wade left their original teams, and even more so with Durant. He chased a ring, that's all there is to it for me. He may be an alpha dog, but to me a top player has to have the competitiveness and confidence that he can take his supporting cast to the promised land. As soon as he gives up on that, his ranking drops in my book.

This exacerbated by the fact that I think with Adams' rapid development, OKC was the favorite to win the championship this year for me. At least on equal levels with the Warriors and Cavs. If he was stuck in a situation like AD, I could be more forgiving. In this case, I chose to err on the side of being mean.

At least KG was traded.

Why is it honorable/have a higher value for a guy to stick with the team that drafted him? It isn't like the team wouldn't be willing to trade him if a better offer came along, so why is it bad for a player to take a better offer? Seems like a double standard to me, with the benefit going to billionaire owners instead of the workers.

It's our romantic vein. You value it as much if the team treats the lifer well and takes care of their side of the deal providing a decent team. It is so absurd that FOs end up alienating players like Kevin Garnett.

But if we were able to trade Shawn Marion and pieces for KG, and won a title, the FO would have been cheered. If it were Shawn demanding to be traded away so he had a chance to win a ring, he would be jeered. I just don't get the double standard.

You know what? Shawn Marion and the Suns needed to be done by that time. Towards the end Marion was not happy to the point he demanded a trade after the trade to the Celtics was killed.

Marion was well taken care of. He was the highest paid player on a team with Steve Nash and Amare Stoudemire. It is true that said contract predated the Nash era, but still the largest contract. He was the kind of player Draymond is now for the Warriors (who by the way is starting to sound very much like Marion). He could never be the most loved player with the kind of game he had, but absolutely everybody recognized his huge contribution. Almost everybody gets traded and absolutely everybody is subject to trade rumors. In this case, I think the player has issues for which the Franchise can't be held responsible.

Funny. In my opinion, Amare fits your argument better. After all it was just a matter of money.

I was just using an example. It could be Amare. Or Nash. Or anyone.

[Ring_Wanted]

I was just using an example. It could be Amare. Or Nash. Or anyone.

I know man. I see your point. The player has also a right to look for his own and fans tend to sour on it, but give Franchises a pass when they dispose of the asset. I think very much like every breakup, it is a matter of who has more blame to carry. Sometimes it is the team, some others it is the player. The ideal still stands for those who believe, I guess

[Indy]

I was just using an example. It could be Amare. Or Nash. Or anyone.

I know man. I see your point. The player has also a right to look for his own and fans tend to sour on it, but give Franchises a pass when they dispose of the asset. I think very much like every breakup, it is a matter of who has more blame to carry. Sometimes it is the team, some others it is the player. The ideal still stands for those who believe, I guess

I would say it is less of a pass, and more of a huge round of support when it goes well. I guess it all comes back to homer-ism. If it benefits you, you support it. If it doesn't, you don't. (hmm, sounds a lot like what players do and get bashed for!)

[Ring_Wanted]

I was just using an example. It could be Amare. Or Nash. Or anyone.

I know man. I see your point. The player has also a right to look for his own and fans tend to sour on it, but give Franchises a pass when they dispose of the asset. I think very much like every breakup, it is a matter of who has more blame to carry. Sometimes it is the team, some others it is the player. The ideal still stands for those who believe, I guess

I would say it is less of a pass, and more of a huge round of support when it goes well. I guess it all comes back to homer-ism. If it benefits you, you support it. If it doesn't, you don't. (hmm, sounds a lot like what players do and get bashed for!)

Well people are fans of the team, not the player right? The team is home?

[Indy]

I was just using an example. It could be Amare. Or Nash. Or anyone.

I know man. I see your point. The player has also a right to look for his own and fans tend to sour on it, but give Franchises a pass when they dispose of the asset. I think very much like every breakup, it is a matter of who has more blame to carry. Sometimes it is the team, some others it is the player. The ideal still stands for those who believe, I guess

I would say it is less of a pass, and more of a huge round of support when it goes well. I guess it all comes back to homer-ism. If it benefits you, you support it. If it doesn't, you don't. (hmm, sounds a lot like what players do and get bashed for!)

Well people are fans of the team, not the player right? The team is home?

Yes, which means the owner is more important to your fandom than the players... hmmm.

[LazarusLong]

Well people are fans of the team, not the player right?

I'd say both apply. Fans who live in an NBA town/area will most likely cheer for the team in their area.
Fans who don't have a team in their town/area/state might go with a regional team, or with a player.

And then there's the tens of thousands of international fans who follow the NBA. My guess is they identify for an iconic player from their country or continent -- Yao, for example -- or an NBA star like Kobe, LeBron or Durant.

[Ring_Wanted]

Yes, which means the owner is more important to your fandom than the players... hmmm.

Negative. At least in my case. The owner is not the team.

[pickle]

Wow, a lot of discussion. Since every scenario is different, I don't feel like they can be simply labeled as a case for the player vs. a case for the team. For instance, when Carmelo forced his way out of Denver, I don't think that's simply a case of the team making a trade and some billionaire owner benefiting by ripping off the player. Which is why I really don't want to make that comparison of player vs. owner. I just want to evaluate each case on its own.

Regarding Pierce vs. Garnett, I stand corrected. Pierce was in fact traded too, but I guess to me, I was more talking about his journey through the NBA thereafter, whereas Garnett (maybe memory is failing me) just went back to Minnesota after he left the Nets, and that I can understand.

Even with just players making a conscientious decision to leave, I still grade them differently. For a guy in the tail end of his career just trying to get a ring because he's tried his best where he was, such as Karl Malone, I appreciate (I can't believe I'm appreciating Malone in any way shape or form) what he did more than Durant.

As for why it matters that a player finished his career in one place, I don't know. It's just a story that I can appreciate. When DeRozan said he wanted to stay in Toronto for his whole career and he wants new players that join the franchise to want to catch up to his records, that made me respect him more. You can, of course, feel nothing about this, but to me, I respect Duncan, Nowitzki, Stockton, and David Robinson, and many other players who stay with one franchise for their full careers. When a player is traded of course I don't count that against them. When a player leaves to chase a ring, that hurts their legacy a bit in my mind. If it doesn't for you, good for you. I don't know that this preference is something that I can or need to justify. Someone asked a general question about whether Durant's move hurt his legacy in the fans' minds. I as one fan of basketball think that it hurt his legacy in mine. Of course not everyone feels this way, and that's great. Diversity and all that.

[pickle]

And FWIW, as much as I'm a homer of the Suns, I'd like to think that I can jump outside that role and evaluate moves and decisions fairly. Maybe I'm giving myself too much credit, but like I said in the previous post, this is not about the owners or players, or about whether the Suns were part of a particular move. I can at once think that a trade for a star player to come to the Suns will hurt his legacy a little bit in the minds of romantics like myself, and fully support it because he's coming to the Suns. I don't think that's a self-contradictory position to take.

[Indy]

Yes, which means the owner is more important to your fandom than the players... hmmm.

Negative. At least in my case. The owner is not the team.

So if the "Suns" isn't the players, and it isn't the owner, what is it? Just the history of the previous players and previous owners?

[Indy]

Wow, a lot of discussion. Since every scenario is different, I don't feel like they can be simply labeled as a case for the player vs. a case for the team. For instance, when Carmelo forced his way out of Denver, I don't think that's simply a case of the team making a trade and some billionaire owner benefiting by ripping off the player. Which is why I really don't want to make that comparison of player vs. owner. I just want to evaluate each case on its own.

Regarding Pierce vs. Garnett, I stand corrected. Pierce was in fact traded too, but I guess to me, I was more talking about his journey through the NBA thereafter, whereas Garnett (maybe memory is failing me) just went back to Minnesota after he left the Nets, and that I can understand.

Even with just players making a conscientious decision to leave, I still grade them differently. For a guy in the tail end of his career just trying to get a ring because he's tried his best where he was, such as Karl Malone, I appreciate (I can't believe I'm appreciating Malone in any way shape or form) what he did more than Durant.

As for why it matters that a player finished his career in one place, I don't know. It's just a story that I can appreciate. When DeRozan said he wanted to stay in Toronto for his whole career and he wants new players that join the franchise to want to catch up to his records, that made me respect him more. You can, of course, feel nothing about this, but to me, I respect Duncan, Nowitzki, Stockton, and David Robinson, and many other players who stay with one franchise for their full careers. When a player is traded of course I don't count that against them. When a player leaves to chase a ring, that hurts their legacy a bit in my mind. If it doesn't for you, good for you. I don't know that this preference is something that I can or need to justify. Someone asked a general question about whether Durant's move hurt his legacy in the fans' minds. I as one fan of basketball think that it hurt his legacy in mine. Of course not everyone feels this way, and that's great. Diversity and all that.

1) I completely agree that there is no need to justify why you feel one way or the other about this.
2) My questions about why you value player loyalty to a team more than owner loyalty to a player isn't about saying you are wrong. I am really trying to understand that sentiment. I know I used to feel that way too, but as I reflect now I don't. So I am just trying to learn from those that do.

[Ring_Wanted]

So if the "Suns" isn't the players, and it isn't the owner, what is it? Just the history of the previous players and previous owners?

It isn't just the owner or the players and obviously not just its past. The coach, the fans, the gorilla, the cheerleaders, Cedric the entertainer, the arena. All of that together. I don't think this is a new concept. Suns Nation, Planet Orange or whatever you want to call it. I don't align by default with the owner or the player. In Planet Orange sometimes it's the owner who is to blame (often) and other times it is the player.

[Superbone]

As a lifelong Suns fan, it's definitely NOT the owner. I'm not a fan of Sarver. It's the team and its history and the city. But I do respect a good owner. Jerry Colangelo was the man.

[Indy]

When you say it is the 'team,' what do you mean? All the stuff Ring said (cheerleaders, Gorilla, etc), or former players, something else? I guess I am trying to understand the drive behind fandom, since players, coaches, and owners change over time. So what is the essence of the team that we are all fans of?

[Hermen]

When you say it is the 'team,' what do you mean? All the stuff Ring said (cheerleaders, Gorilla, etc), or former players, something else? I guess I am trying to understand the drive behind fandom, since players, coaches, and owners change over time. So what is the essence of the team that we are all fans of?

Would you still be a fan of Seattle Suns? Would interest fade away as players from the Phoenix get traded/sign elsewhere?

[Cap]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Indy]

When you say it is the 'team,' what do you mean? All the stuff Ring said (cheerleaders, Gorilla, etc), or former players, something else? I guess I am trying to understand the drive behind fandom, since players, coaches, and owners change over time. So what is the essence of the team that we are all fans of?

Would you still be a fan of Seattle Suns? Would interest fade away as players from the Phoenix get traded/sign elsewhere?

Exactly? Or are we just a fan of basketball, and the city, so we are fans of the Suns? If that same history/organization moved to another city, are we all following them?

[Mori Chu]

It's a potpourri of many factors, including city, players, logos/iconography, coaches, owner, announcers, fellow fans, team/fan history, and many other things. Take away some and leave others intact, am I still a fan? Probably, unless you take away too much.

I do know this: It isn't just the players. If we right now swapped our entire roster with that of, say, the Orlando Magic, I would immediately become a fan of our new Suns roster. It would be jarring, but I would see no point in rooting for the now-Orlando roster that used to be ours. Might follow them for a while, but they wouldn't be my team any more.