BearGoggles said:

---

As a laker fan, I love this trade, mostly because I don't think the Lebron/Davis core was going to produce another championship. In truth, the Lakers should also consider trading Lebron to build a better team going forward, but reportedly he does not want to be traded.

For those criticizing the trade, I think you're overlooking the fact that Dallas was going to have to give Luka a 5 year/$360+ deal. By virtue of the weird NBA collective bargaining agreement, the max the lakers (or any other team) can offer is around $230M. Dallas didn't want to make that offer, reportedly because of his work ethic/attitude/conditioning issues and also because it would severely impact the ability to build a team around him. And if they don't offer it, then they have a disgruntled player (who reportedly already has a questionable attitude). Dallas was wanting to avoid all of this.


So once Dallas decided to move on from Luca, they targeted probably the only other top 10 player available (Davis) who in their view fits their team need. Any other trade gets them someone not as good as Davis and some future picks. Dallas didn't want futures - they want to try and win now.

Dallas also didn't want news of a potential trade to get out, which would have allowed Luca and his agent to torpedo a deal. Given that reality, the lakers had to take a real risk as to whether Luca will sign an extension. That is why the return from the Lakers was not more.

---

Good outline of why the trade might not have been as bad for Dallas as most folks are saying.

As one pundit put it: Nobody Knows Doncic better than the Mavs... and they were willing to part with him.

He's still young in years, but he has a lot of mileage on him, for his age.

As far as shopping him around, there could be a downside to that. Word gets out and maybe somebody tries to nix the trade (LeBron?). And when a player is known to be on the trading block, sometimes his value goes down, not up.

Yes, this trade still looks like the future LA Lakers are the winners. Just saying there may be other factors at play. Well, we'll know how it all worked out in as little as five years!

bear2034 said:

---

In NBA First, LeBron And Bronny Execute Synchronized Father-Son Flop #BestOfTheBee2024 https://t.co/yj8FZJM771

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) December 30, 2024

It would be great to see Bronny and his dad play together. Sorry Laker fans, I couldn't resist.

---

I usually hate your posts, but I love this one.

Light the Beam

Go Bears Forever

Big C said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

As a laker fan, I love this trade, mostly because I don't think the Lebron/Davis core was going to produce another championship. In truth, the Lakers should also consider trading Lebron to build a better team going forward, but reportedly he does not want to be traded.

For those criticizing the trade, I think you're overlooking the fact that Dallas was going to have to give Luka a 5 year/$360+ deal. By virtue of the weird NBA collective bargaining agreement, the max the lakers (or any other team) can offer is around $230M. Dallas didn't want to make that offer, reportedly because of his work ethic/attitude/conditioning issues and also because it would severely impact the ability to build a team around him. And if they don't offer it, then they have a disgruntled player (who reportedly already has a questionable attitude). Dallas was wanting to avoid all of this.


So once Dallas decided to move on from Luca, they targeted probably the only other top 10 player available (Davis) who in their view fits their team need. Any other trade gets them someone not as good as Davis and some future picks. Dallas didn't want futures - they want to try and win now.

Dallas also didn't want news of a potential trade to get out, which would have allowed Luca and his agent to torpedo a deal. Given that reality, the lakers had to take a real risk as to whether Luca will sign an extension. That is why the return from the Lakers was not more.

---

Good outline of why the trade might not have been as bad for Dallas as most folks are saying.

As one pundit put it: Nobody Knows Doncic better than the Mavs... and they were willing to part with him.

He's still young in years, but he has a lot of mileage on him, for his age.

As far as shopping him around, there could be a downside to that. Word gets out and maybe somebody tries to nix the trade (LeBron?). And when a player is known to be on the trading block, sometimes his value goes down, not up.

Yes, this trade still looks like the future LA Lakers are the winners. Just saying there may be other factors at play. Well, we'll know how it all worked out in as little as five years!

---

Unless there's something in Luka's medical that hasn't been revealed, the trade is completely idiotic and indefensible. Even if they intended to get rid of him, they could've gotten way more from the Lakers. Austin Reaves, Dalton Knecht, more draft picks. You can't seriously tell me Luka for AD and what will basically be a very late in the round first) is even in the ballpark's parking lot of a fair deal... You can go 3 entire drafts without a player as good as Luka. All-star level players are one thing, but perennial all-NBA first team players who haven't even entered their primes are another.

Big C said:

---

As far as shopping him around, there could be a downside to that. Word gets out and maybe somebody tries to nix the trade (LeBron?). And when a player is known to be on the trading block, sometimes his value goes down, not up.

---

I absolutely do not believe this would have happened with Luka. A perennial All-Star who has already gotten a middling team to the conference finals and is only 25? Come on. Teams would be lining up to bid on him.

sycasey said:

---

Moving on from Luka is defensible. I don't buy any arguments that they shouldn't have opened up the bidding to more teams.

---

It is not defensible. A 25 year old perennial MVP candidate who wants to stay? There aren't more than 3-5 guys in the league who have that kind of unique value and none of them were on the Lakers a few days ago. Dallas should've laughed at anyone on the Lakers (or even the whole roster) for Luka. You don't "move on" from a player like Luka.

This is basketball malpractice. Completely indefensible.

All the "reasons" given are nonsense. And the worst one is "they know more than everyone else." That kind of thing is just stupid. It's the kind of nonsense people who defend terrible performance at Cal use. Oh wise and sage Mavs management who don't know how who Steph Curry is going into a meeting with Steph Curry. You and only you, immaculate oracles of basketball, know the real future of Luka. Nobody else in the NBA ever speaks with him or plays with him or sees him in the offseason. Nobody has any idea what kind of person he is or work ethic he has. Nobody else has passed through the Mavs organization and interacted with Luka, and if they did they were mind-wiped Men In Black style.

Can't wait to find out that this was because Luka didn't sign a ball for the new owner's grandkid or the new owner's nephew had success in a fantasy league with AD.

At least we know who the next AD at Cal is going to be - the idiot who made this move.

sycasey said:

---

Moving on from Luka is defensible. I don't buy any arguments that they shouldn't have opened up the bidding to more teams.

---

how the two sides kept it quiet is another interesting facet to the trade.

Utah played a minor role in the trade. Ainge - Utah's GM - had no idea Luka was involved. The CIA doesn't have lips that tight

SBGold said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

I don't know that 16/4/4 against G League comp = tearing it up.

This trade is 100% insane and involves zero business sense. Is the Dallas GM getting some huge under the table kickback?

---

This, lol. I think Bronny has had one monster game in the G League, and a terrible performance the other night in a Laker game where Redick criticized his play extensively.

003 tends to get posts wrong.

Go Bears Forever

---

The qualifier was G League. Yes, he is tearing up the G League. I even further expanded to saying he might not be a good NBA player, but he certainly isn't as bad as folks that are hating on LeBron claim. He is doing fine for a 55th pick. SBGold is narrow-minded and tends to whine about posters she doesn't like.

SBGold said:

---

I usually hate your posts, but I love this one.

Light the Beam

Go Bears Forever

---

Hate the post but don't hate the poster.

Big C said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

As a laker fan, I love this trade, mostly because I don't think the Lebron/Davis core was going to produce another championship. In truth, the Lakers should also consider trading Lebron to build a better team going forward, but reportedly he does not want to be traded.

For those criticizing the trade, I think you're overlooking the fact that Dallas was going to have to give Luka a 5 year/$360+ deal. By virtue of the weird NBA collective bargaining agreement, the max the lakers (or any other team) can offer is around $230M. Dallas didn't want to make that offer, reportedly because of his work ethic/attitude/conditioning issues and also because it would severely impact the ability to build a team around him. And if they don't offer it, then they have a disgruntled player (who reportedly already has a questionable attitude). Dallas was wanting to avoid all of this.


So once Dallas decided to move on from Luca, they targeted probably the only other top 10 player available (Davis) who in their view fits their team need. Any other trade gets them someone not as good as Davis and some future picks. Dallas didn't want futures - they want to try and win now.

Dallas also didn't want news of a potential trade to get out, which would have allowed Luca and his agent to torpedo a deal. Given that reality, the lakers had to take a real risk as to whether Luca will sign an extension. That is why the return from the Lakers was not more.

---

Good outline of why the trade might not have been as bad for Dallas as most folks are saying.

As one pundit put it: Nobody Knows Doncic better than the Mavs... and they were willing to part with him.

He's still young in years, but he has a lot of mileage on him, for his age.

As far as shopping him around, there could be a downside to that. Word gets out and maybe somebody tries to nix the trade (LeBron?). And when a player is known to be on the trading block, sometimes his value goes down, not up.

Yes, this trade still looks like the future LA Lakers are the winners. Just saying there may be other factors at play. Well, we'll know how it all worked out in as little as five years!

---

Had they gotten wind of the trade talks, Luca and his agent absolutely could (and probably would) have killed the deal, not to mention potentially Davis or Lebron (or their agent). All Luca has to do is say "I won't sign there" and it kills the deal or greatly reduces the return.

mbBear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

---

But I'm a Sixers fan, so the "moving on" thing in an interesting question here. It's so hard to replace stars in the NBA, but damn, you know this deal has some Sixer fans wondering, should Philly have had the guts to do the same with Embiid?

---

The best response I have seen on that question is something a writer said about trading Luka: Even if you are ready to move on from a star player who is a fan favorite, you have to make him ask to be traded. Don't offer him a max extension, have the coach criticize him in public, whatever it takes, but the blowback is far less when the fan favorite asks for a trade (like Damian Lillard did).

concernedparent said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

As a laker fan, I love this trade, mostly because I don't think the Lebron/Davis core was going to produce another championship. In truth, the Lakers should also consider trading Lebron to build a better team going forward, but reportedly he does not want to be traded.

For those criticizing the trade, I think you're overlooking the fact that Dallas was going to have to give Luka a 5 year/$360+ deal. By virtue of the weird NBA collective bargaining agreement, the max the lakers (or any other team) can offer is around $230M. Dallas didn't want to make that offer, reportedly because of his work ethic/attitude/conditioning issues and also because it would severely impact the ability to build a team around him. And if they don't offer it, then they have a disgruntled player (who reportedly already has a questionable attitude). Dallas was wanting to avoid all of this.


So once Dallas decided to move on from Luca, they targeted probably the only other top 10 player available (Davis) who in their view fits their team need. Any other trade gets them someone not as good as Davis and some future picks. Dallas didn't want futures - they want to try and win now.

Dallas also didn't want news of a potential trade to get out, which would have allowed Luca and his agent to torpedo a deal. Given that reality, the lakers had to take a real risk as to whether Luca will sign an extension. That is why the return from the Lakers was not more.

---

Mr. Harrison, with all due respect, it is a terrible deal for your franchise. The threat of opening it up to other bidders alone would've pressed the Lakers into giving up more... which they absolutely 100% would for the chance to land a TOP 3 player who hasn't even hit his prime.

---

Since you are asserting omniscience, please tell me what player better than Davis would have been offered for Luca? Because Dallas wanted a top player, preferably a big. I'll wait.

You and others are ignoring the 5 year/$345 contract (my number above was off). How many successful teams have been built where one player commands 35% of the cap?

Personally, if I'm the GM of Dallas, I would not have traded Luca based on what I know. But I don't know everything and, in any event, pretending that there is no rational explanation for the trade is wrong.

BearGoggles said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

As a laker fan, I love this trade, mostly because I don't think the Lebron/Davis core was going to produce another championship. In truth, the Lakers should also consider trading Lebron to build a better team going forward, but reportedly he does not want to be traded.

For those criticizing the trade, I think you're overlooking the fact that Dallas was going to have to give Luka a 5 year/$360+ deal. By virtue of the weird NBA collective bargaining agreement, the max the lakers (or any other team) can offer is around $230M. Dallas didn't want to make that offer, reportedly because of his work ethic/attitude/conditioning issues and also because it would severely impact the ability to build a team around him. And if they don't offer it, then they have a disgruntled player (who reportedly already has a questionable attitude). Dallas was wanting to avoid all of this.


So once Dallas decided to move on from Luca, they targeted probably the only other top 10 player available (Davis) who in their view fits their team need. Any other trade gets them someone not as good as Davis and some future picks. Dallas didn't want futures - they want to try and win now.

Dallas also didn't want news of a potential trade to get out, which would have allowed Luca and his agent to torpedo a deal. Given that reality, the lakers had to take a real risk as to whether Luca will sign an extension. That is why the return from the Lakers was not more.

---

Mr. Harrison, with all due respect, it is a terrible deal for your franchise. The threat of opening it up to other bidders alone would've pressed the Lakers into giving up more... which they absolutely 100% would for the chance to land a TOP 3 player who hasn't even hit his prime.

---

Since you are asserting omniscience, please tell me what player better than Davis would have been offered for Luca? Because Dallas wanted a top player, preferably a big. I'll wait.

You and others are ignoring the 5 year/$345 contract (my number above was off). How many successful teams have been built where one player commands 35% of the cap?

Personally, if I'm the GM of Dallas, I would not have traded Luca based on what I know. But I don't know everything and, in any event, pretending that there is no rational explanation for the trade is wrong.

---

Every NBA player besides Jokic, Wemby, and Shai would've been on the table. Even if their heart was set on AD they could've gotten more from the Lakers. Reaves, Knecht, more draft picks, etc. I've never seen a more universally ridiculed (by fans, media, other parties in the NBA, etc.) trade and trade process in basketball history.

Warriors and Nuggets won rings with a supermax player. Boston has a supermax player in Jaylen Brown and is a top contender again. It's not the supermax that's the problem, it's who you supermax.

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

I don't know that 16/4/4 against G League comp = tearing it up.

This trade is 100% insane and involves zero business sense. Is the Dallas GM getting some huge under the table kickback?

---

This, lol. I think Bronny has had one monster game in the G League, and a terrible performance the other night in a Laker game where Redick criticized his play extensively.

003 tends to get posts wrong.

Go Bears Forever

---

The qualifier was G League. Yes, he is tearing up the G League. I even further expanded to saying he might not be a good NBA player, but he certainly isn't as bad as folks that are hating on LeBron claim. He is doing fine for a 55th pick. SBGold is narrow-minded and tends to whine about posters she doesn't like.

---

It's idiotic to claim that he is tearing up the G League. Stockton has more players tearing up the G League who will probably not ever play in the league.

Go Bears Forever

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

I don't know that 16/4/4 against G League comp = tearing it up.

This trade is 100% insane and involves zero business sense. Is the Dallas GM getting some huge under the table kickback?

---

This, lol. I think Bronny has had one monster game in the G League, and a terrible performance the other night in a Laker game where Redick criticized his play extensively.

003 tends to get posts wrong.

Go Bears Forever

---

The qualifier was G League. Yes, he is tearing up the G League. I even further expanded to saying he might not be a good NBA player, but he certainly isn't as bad as folks that are hating on LeBron claim. He is doing fine for a 55th pick. SBGold is narrow-minded and tends to whine about posters she doesn't like.

---

It's idiotic to claim that he is tearing up the G League. Stockton has more players tearing up the G League who will probably not ever play in the league.

Go Bears Forever

---

The Stockton Kings are in first place in the G League. They have three total players who have averaged as many points as Bronny this season. Two are on two way NBA / G League contracts and the other one is assigned to the NBA Sacramento Kings. Bronny is also younger than them by 2, 4, and 6 years. This refutes your assertion that "Stockton has more players tearing up the G League who will probably not ever play in the league.".

SBGold said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

In NBA First, LeBron And Bronny Execute Synchronized Father-Son Flop #BestOfTheBee2024 https://t.co/yj8FZJM771

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) December 30, 2024

It would be great to see Bronny and his dad play together. Sorry Laker fans, I couldn't resist.

---

I usually hate your posts, but I love this one.

Light the Beam

Go Bears Forever

---

Yeah, I don't think the Kings will be lighting many beams. I'm ok with trading Fox - a he's good player but they should have traded him instead of Halliburton several years ago. Now, he's too expensive, so they unload him for LaVine, also too expensive and also not much of a leader, and first-round picks in 2027 and beyond. So they're simultaneously trying to win now and win in the future. That rarely works. Basically, the team is doomed by an impulsive owner who just doesn't know much about basketball.
EDIT - I'm only a casual Kings fan, but live in the area. Whatdaya expect from basketball commentary in the Growls forum?

HearstMining said:

---

SBGold said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

In NBA First, LeBron And Bronny Execute Synchronized Father-Son Flop #BestOfTheBee2024 https://t.co/yj8FZJM771

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) December 30, 2024

It would be great to see Bronny and his dad play together. Sorry Laker fans, I couldn't resist.

---

I usually hate your posts, but I love this one.

Light the Beam

Go Bears Forever

---

Yeah, I don't think the Kings will be lighting many beams. I'm ok with trading Fox - a he's good player but they should have traded him instead of Halliburton several years ago. Now, he's too expensive, so they unload him for LaVine, also too expensive and also not much of a leader, and first-round picks in 2027 and beyond. So they're simultaneously trying to win now and win in the future. That rarely works. Basically, the team is doomed by an impulsive owner who just doesn't know much about basketball.
EDIT - I'm only a casual Kings fan, but live in the area. Whatdaya expect from basketball commentary in the Growls forum?

---

dude, we are the 8th seed and moving up. Light the Beam!

Go Bears Forever

Here is Doncic trying to have a beer to celebrate winning the West.

The Luka trade has nothing to do with Luka, and everything to do with the fact that sports gambling is illegal in Texassistan.

So the Adelsons, having lobbied TX to change the law (to no avail) are going to move the team to Las Vegas, where sports gambling is legal.

They just traded Luka so that the Mavs would be a mediocre team, with a less loyal fan base, and easier to move.

That's what's happening.

cbbass1 said:

---

The Luka trade has nothing to do with Luka, and everything to do with the fact that sports gambling is illegal in Texassistan.

So the Adelsons, having lobbied TX to change the law (to no avail) are going to move the team to Las Vegas, where sports gambling is legal.

They just traded Luka so that the Mavs would be a mediocre team, with a less loyal fan base, and easier to move.

That's what's happening.

---

Moving from the 4th biggest market in the country to the 40th would be a WILD move. That's why I don't buy it.

7:30pm PT tonight - the Luka Laker era begins!

Seriously, what other players at this point in the season would have been available to the Mavs had they shopped him around? Seems like the teams with the good players aren't looking to make a wholesale revamp just before the playoffs and the ****ty teams just don't have a ton to offer. Could it be that shopping him around just wasn't in the cards at this point in the season? What was the statistic about the last time two players of this quality were traded at this time? never.

This should be fun.

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

The Luka trade has nothing to do with Luka, and everything to do with the fact that sports gambling is illegal in Texassistan.

So the Adelsons, having lobbied TX to change the law (to no avail) are going to move the team to Las Vegas, where sports gambling is legal.

They just traded Luka so that the Mavs would be a mediocre team, with a less loyal fan base, and easier to move.

That's what's happening.

---

Moving from the 4th biggest market in the country to the 40th would be a WILD move. That's why I don't buy it.

---

I can roughly break it down for you. They don't really care about the delta in local media rights, some teams like the Suns actually provide those for free to fans in-state. They bought a Texas franchise because it was for sale first and gambling was expected to be legalized in Texas and owning the first mega-casino in Texas would be worth more than another one in Vegas. Now some political heavy-hitters have vehemently opposed legalized gambling -including Jerry Jones, neighboring Louisiana casino owners, neighboring Oklahoma tribal casinos, and the classic "think of the children" special interest groups- and the ownership is pivoting to a move to Vegas.

The market size of Vegas is not all that important to them because they will build a massive arena and entertainment venue that will likely become the premier spot in Vegas. The value of the market will pale in comparison to the money they print from the attached hotel and casino where most people will stay when coming in for events there. They will host NBA games (and they don't care if it's mostly away fans because that's actually more money in their pocket), concerts, wrestling events, conventions, and, given their connections, likely an RNC or two.

It would be more valuable to have that happen in Dallas but, with that looking unlikely, this is an attractive second option all while the value of their sports franchise constantly appreciates, they make money off the league-wide media deals, and an extra sprinkling from the luxury tax paying teams. Then the league puts an expansion franchise in Dallas when they would've expanded to Vegas and they get to charge more in expansion fees for the bigger market so the Adelsons recoup even more money. They also have Vegas connections so they probably get a sweetheart deal from the county when buying the land.

With all of these things going on the Adelsons know they're sitting on a winning lotto ticket regardless; either political pressure and the threat of losing the Mavs helps push through legalized gambling in Texas, or they take their goldmine to Vegas and keep raking in money. They win one way or the other

Bearly Clad said:

---

sycasey said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

The Luka trade has nothing to do with Luka, and everything to do with the fact that sports gambling is illegal in Texassistan.

So the Adelsons, having lobbied TX to change the law (to no avail) are going to move the team to Las Vegas, where sports gambling is legal.

They just traded Luka so that the Mavs would be a mediocre team, with a less loyal fan base, and easier to move.

That's what's happening.

---

Moving from the 4th biggest market in the country to the 40th would be a WILD move. That's why I don't buy it.

---

I can roughly break it down for you. They don't really care about the delta in local media rights, some teams like the Suns actually provide those for free to fans in-state. They bought a Texas franchise because it was for sale first and gambling was expected to be legalized in Texas and owning the first mega-casino in Texas would be worth more than another one in Vegas. Now some political heavy-hitters have vehemently opposed legalized gambling -including Jerry Jones, neighboring Louisiana casino owners, neighboring Oklahoma tribal casinos, and the classic "think of the children" special interest groups- and the ownership is pivoting to a move to Vegas.

The market size of Vegas is not all that important to them because they will build a massive arena and entertainment venue that will likely become the premier spot in Vegas. The value of the market will pale in comparison to the money they print from the attached hotel and casino where most people will stay when coming in for events there. They will host NBA games (and they don't care if it's mostly away fans because that's actually more money in their pocket), concerts, wrestling events, conventions, and, given their connections, likely an RNC or two.

It would be more valuable to have that happen in Dallas but, with that looking unlikely, this is an attractive second option all while the value of their sports franchise constantly appreciates, they make money off the league-wide media deals, and an extra sprinkling from the luxury tax paying teams. Then the league puts an expansion franchise in Dallas when they would've expanded to Vegas and they get to charge more in expansion fees for the bigger market so the Adelsons recoup even more money. They also have Vegas connections so they probably get a sweetheart deal from the county when buying the land.

With all of these things going on the Adelsons know they're sitting on a winning lotto ticket regardless; either political pressure and the threat of losing the Mavs helps push through legalized gambling in Texas, or they take their goldmine to Vegas and keep raking in money. They win one way or the other

---

I guess if the league would be putting an expansion franchise in Dallas then that would be the only way I could see the other owners going along with it. Otherwise they would not want to give up a market as large as that.

sycasey said:

---

I guess if the league would be putting an expansion franchise in Dallas then that would be the only way I could see the other owners going along with it. Otherwise they would not want to give up a market as large as that.

---

The other owners, by-and-large, are happy about this. A few are pissed because they gave him up to the Lakers without even considering or hearing other offers but only like 4-5 teams at any one time are really trying to win it all and the rest are just there to keep printing money. League viewership is in the dumpster and LBJ, Steph, and KD will all retire in the next few years. The league hasn't marketed their younger stars well, they have them but Jokic/Giannis/Embiid/Edwards/Shai/Wembanyama don't drive viewership and ticket sales the way LBJ/Steph/KD do. So now the Lakers have a face of the league type talent for the next decade+ and all the owners know that drives ratings and media money, especially if they make deep playoff runs. They could even get a Lakers/Celtics Finals series in the next couple years which would be a ratings godsend.

Also, now instead of just a lesser expansion fee for a smaller market they can charge the Adelsons a relocation fee and then get a higher return for a Dallas expansion team. So it's just more money in their pockets

sycasey said:

---

I guess if the league would be putting an expansion franchise in Dallas then that would be the only way I could see the other owners going along with it. Otherwise they would not want to give up a market as large as that.

---

I doubt the Mavericks franchise would move. Seems more likely IMO that the Dumont/Adelson game plan is: (A) Try to pay off enough Texas legislators to get casino gambling legalized in Texas so they can build their dream casino/arena complex in Dallas. Just imagine all those Texans being able to gamble away their entire net worth without traveling to Vegas or Mississippi or Connecticut! (B) If they give up on Plan A, persuade the NBA to give them an expansion franchise in Vegas and sell the Mavericks to finance the expansion fee. That would be easier to get past the other owners than taking the Mavericks franchise to Vegas.

Bearly Clad said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I guess if the league would be putting an expansion franchise in Dallas then that would be the only way I could see the other owners going along with it. Otherwise they would not want to give up a market as large as that.

---

The other owners, by-and-large, are happy about this. A few are pissed because they gave him up to the Lakers without even considering or hearing other offers but only like 4-5 teams at any one time are really trying to win it all and the rest are just there to keep printing money. League viewership is in the dumpster and LBJ, Steph, and KD will all retire in the next few years. The league hasn't marketed their younger stars well, they have them but Jokic/Giannis/Embiid/Edwards/Shai/Wembanyama don't drive viewership and ticket sales the way LBJ/Steph/KD do. So now the Lakers have a face of the league type talent for the next decade+ and all the owners know that drives ratings and media money, especially if they make deep playoff runs. They could even get a Lakers/Celtics Finals series in the next couple years which would be a ratings godsend.

Also, now instead of just a lesser expansion fee for a smaller market they can charge the Adelsons a relocation fee and then get a higher return for a Dallas expansion team. So it's just more money in their pockets

---

I'm sure they are fine with the trade, I just don't think they would be fine with the NBA losing the Dallas-Fort Worth market in exchange for Las Vegas.