But why isn't this a problem for well-run teams? This discussion has been framed as "small markets" or "non-destination" teams are at a disadvantage, yet there are several small markets thriving. Looking at the standings, I don't see the correlation between big market/destination and winning. The real cause for alarm should be that Pelicans ownership was so asleep at the wheel for years that they had their president of Saints football operations also running the basketball team. Or that Sacramento is owned by a crazy person. These teams suck not because stars are asking out, but because the situations are so poisonous from top down that winning and attracting talent are impossible goals. Again - market size/location has nothing to do with it, just look at the Knicks.
I get the player movement thing, but I'll ask - what's the alternative? Longer contracts? We saw that and the league was inarguably worse because owners couldn't help themselves. They'd lock their team into 7 year contracts to Baron Davis, Gilbert Arenas, Jerome James, etc. Having a cap sheet dedicated to bloated salaries of injured players for half a decade does not seem like hope to me.
I really think that players are seeing the extent to which the grass isn't always greener. May not happen immediately, but you can't help but notice that the players begging out, moving around - they don't seem happier for doing it. Meanwhile, Dame Lillard is a fucking legend in Portland for life, Ja Morant is already at that level in Memphis, Luka in Dallas, Giannis, etc. Players like that in their prime don't typically want to become secondary ballhandlers to someone else, even if it means possibly winning a championship.