In-season NBA news thread
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
"Objection, assumes facts not in evidence" is a phrase we toss around on here all the time to question an assumption in someone's statement. It's nerdy banter, not meant as a personal or condescending phrase, but if that's how I came across I apologize and assure you that's not what I was going for. I appreciate and enjoy the intelligent points raised here by you and others, and save my scorn for the Ben Thompson article.
And yes, I know you didn't post that article, but my post was half to you and half in reply to it, because it seems you're trying to defend Thompson's thesis. I would summarize that thesis as "the NBA has a fan- and viewer-relationship problem and it heralds trouble to the league's revenue growth and long-term stability". That's what I took from your choice to argue that the NBA's TV viewership numbers are a matter of serious concern (or ought to be) to league management and fans such as we here, and to rebut others' points.
My references to twitter, jerseys and other things are meant to be illustrative of the types of influence, of soft power, that social media and brand value and other such things can have on long-term revenue potential. It's not an attempt to quantify specific impact or make a forecast, because for that we have the actual revenue numbers - and I hardly need to tell you what that looks like over the past 10-20 years for the NBA. One can simply glance at franchise valuations (as DBMH points out) or the salary cap and TV deals, to gauge that. Anyone arguing "these TV numbers are a canary in the coal mine for the NBA!" needs to reckon with the fact that revenues continue climbing quickly, and the next TV deal will be multiples of their current one.
And yes, the league would much prefer that someone who only has a few minutes for the NBA watch a highlight, than the obvious alternative that exists in a world without social media, which is "they don't watch anything, and are a non-fan". Someone who interacts with the NBA in a limited way is far more likely to someday decide to start watching games or even attending them, than someone who doesn't interact with them at all and has no gateway drug available. I would think that obvious, but I suppose it's possible there's evidence to the contrary out there - and if that's what's driving your remark, I'd be interested to know more.
Last edited:
I didn't want anyone to think I was lumping Ben Thompson in with the likes of youMan, how am I catching strays over here?
...yeah, I should probably log off. Fair enough.
The Ja story is so bizarre. He allegedly punched a kid and threatened him with a gun. Ja did this allegedly at his own house. He told a police officer later that the boy was the aggressor because the boy checked the ball to him aggressively.
I can get wanting to be a cool neighbor and playing pickup with local kids, but how does this happen? The power imbalance that happens when an all world athlete punches a kid… I mean, if I’m playing pickup with the neighbors then I’m playing zone and I’m not going hard.
I can get wanting to be a cool neighbor and playing pickup with local kids, but how does this happen? The power imbalance that happens when an all world athlete punches a kid… I mean, if I’m playing pickup with the neighbors then I’m playing zone and I’m not going hard.
I appreciate your clarification and additional context - I hadn't seen that posted before and it seemed like you were equating me with Thompson (which you kind of are) and then saying some nasty things about Thompson.
I know I could be chicken little here. The cynical part of me thinks that the NBA is currently kind of a Ponzi scheme, with combined bubbles of bloated team valuations and TV deals that can't possibly continue to rise so drastically forever, and the owners are just pressing their luck until some group of them are going to be left holding the bag. These don't seem like massively profitable businesses on a day-to-day basis, so they're really just prestigious, limited, speculative investments, and those don't always work out (as we've seen over the last couple of years). We'll see what the actual new TV deal is, but some of these talk of "multiples" just seem like NBA negotiating tactics rather than an objective reality today. Caveat - i'm often wrong!
We may not think the TV numbers are a canary in the coal mine, but I think we can look at the actions of the league and see that their leadership does - why else are they looking at adding midseason tournaments, play-in tournaments, rules changes and other ways to appease fans? If everything in their eyes is hunky dory, they'd be like the NFL and trying to keep the league on an even keel. The wild swings at improvements seem like increasingly large bets to fix the fundamental issue that people aren't paying attention as much as they used to.
It’s amazing how quickly both Ja and the Grizzlies turned from league darlings to…this. This story and the Pacers one are very alarming.
Marc Lasry, probably one of the sharpest owners, may agree with your NBA team valuation top.
Using current franchise valuations, coming at the end of the TV sports rights bubble, is like saying the music industry was in great shape in 2001 because of how many CDs they sold in the 90s. The NBA has one more giant TV deal and then it's a guessing game.
To keep this in proper context let’s be aware that the “kid” was 17 and Ja is what, 23/24? This is obv wrong but this isn’t like a 34 yr old punching a 13 yr old…..or insert your own Karl Malone reference.
You may indeed be correct and this is all a bubble.
However I am curious what alternative you use to assess the state of the league aside from franchise valuations. What other alternatives are there to estimate the economic value of the NBA?
Yes, the miscommunication was my fault.
For the bolded, I think the mistake is to assume that these are being considered to appease fans. It's perfectly possible that things are fine and they're just always looking at opportunities to improve things, because that's what good businesspeople should do. What they're paid to do, frankly. And in comparison to the NFL - the NFL recently added one more game, they tinker with the rules every year, they're adding more international games, there are lots of changes every year and I think the scope of what all leagues are considering is roughly the same. MLB just instituted the biggest rule changes in decades, shortly after making the DH universal. Hockey changed its overtime format (and probably more that I'm not aware of) within the last few years. MLS changed its postseason and may do more experimenting. It's in the nature of sports leagues to try new stuff occasionally. It doesn't mean that the fans are up in arms and need "appeasing", not necessarily. The NFL makes its fans eat shit on a regular basis (Personal Seat Licenses, anyone?) and they keep coming back for more. Sports allegiance is very sticky, even if fan intensity can wax and wane.
Anyway, I don't think you or anyone would be crazy to argue that NBA teams are over-valued. It's just that we have no real insight into the inner P&L of teams, so other than the trend of what teams are selling for, we can't really make arguments about different valuation models and what long-term trends could support this multiple or that discount rate. There's times it looks like "greater-fool theory" to me too, on that front. Maybe the Saudi Public Investment Fund will come to Owner X's rescue, or maybe Owner X will be the one holding the bag when the music stops and he takes a big haircut. Maybe a big portion of the value is an enjoyment / prestige premium that you pay in order to get to play around with an NBA team and be referred to publicly as the owner. None of us can say, really, except maybe Forbes or the Sportico guys.
But that's valuation of ownership, which is supposed to represent the NPV of all future cashflows. What I'd assume we fans are more concerned with is the fundamental profitability of the business, whether the game is growing and is financially healthy both short and long-term. Let the bankers argue about what it's worth to own it, I say. And from a revenue perspective, at least, we can break it down and look at some of the pieces starting from some amount of agreed-upon fact.
Television: $5.5 Bn / yr, 56% of total
- National: $2.7 Bn / year, with the NBA looking for the next one in 2025 to go up 2-3x, and with other packages being currently tendered incl a streaming-only one for $1 Bn. Both sides are clearly posturing, but the pool of bidders is wider than previously.
- Local TV / RSN contracts between $10-$150M / yr per team, which is another $2.4Bn / year total
- Foreign: $300M / yr from China, total $450M. Allegedly has been more static than the other revenue streams
Merchandise: $1.0Bn / yr, 10% of total.
- Based on a couple estimates I've seen
Sponsorships: $1.4 Bn / yr, 14% of total
- Strong growth trend the last decade
- Good synergies through things like the centrally-managed jersey patch sponsorships, which do really well with global brands
Tickets / In-Person (includes concessions): $1.9 Bn / yr, 19% of total
- Based on avg ticket price $109, avg attendance 14k, and not including playoffs
- Arguments over whether tickets are overpriced and the NBA is driving fans away is a classic complaint by sports media, because it gets clicks... but the trend of attendance tells a different story (As does that Athletic article above).
That presentation says the average NBA team has a 23% profit margin, with the Warriors leading the way at $200M and the average team making $63M. That's a lot of cushion to invest with.
To be pessimistic about the future sustainability of that, imo you'd have to think that the Local TV revenue stream is likely to fall off a cliff. And I certainly wouldn't bet on that one to outpace the others. But I just can't see how it declines by enough soon enough to matter to the league's overall picture.
If this game were an American only game I may not disagree but the globalization of the NBA is imo not being accounted for by anyone who takes this position. This league is massive now in so many countries with so much growth still ahead.
This league has 30 franchises and they rarely trade. When they do, in the case of Marc Lasry, the returns are staggering.
The other thing to add is that there are pools of money out there looking for homes and the NBA is an attractive option. From The Athletic:
The potential pool of investors from the group in the Athletic piece linked above collectively controls hundreds of billions of dollars. It seems like a no brainer for them to diversify into a franchise because even if one of them buys a share of the Warriors, its likely an odd-lot when compared to the rest of their holdings. Plus, they get to say they own an NBA team.
Whether this is the market top or a bubble I leave to those with a better crystal ball. However for every seller there is a buyer and the NBA makes even forced sellers like Sarver (~10x) and Sterling (a ~$12.5mm investment in 1981 turned into ~$2B in 2014) eye popping stacks of money.
The other thing to add is that there are pools of money out there looking for homes and the NBA is an attractive option. From The Athletic:
If the Forbes valuations from December are even remotely accurate - and they had the Suns at at ~$2.7B while they traded at ~$4B and they had the Bucks at ~$2.3B so if anything they skewed low - the total value of all the teams in NBA is somewhere in the $80-90B range.
The potential pool of investors from the group in the Athletic piece linked above collectively controls hundreds of billions of dollars. It seems like a no brainer for them to diversify into a franchise because even if one of them buys a share of the Warriors, its likely an odd-lot when compared to the rest of their holdings. Plus, they get to say they own an NBA team.
Appreciate your post, but this quote is an oversimplification. MLB and hockey are in a much worse position than the NBA in terms of fandom shrinking, hence their current flailing. MLS... I don't pay much attention, but I imagine they're growing at a snails pace. And the NFL - the things you mentioned are like small changes at the margin for incremental gains. They're not adding a game because people are losing interest in the sport. They're adding a game because people have so much interest in the sport that demand is outpacing the supply. That's the opposite of the NBA, which is considering wholesale changes to the structure of their season to stop the bleeding. The motivations are clearly different.
I don't. The fact TV contracts keep going up is a sign of scarcity as much as value they derive. There certainly is value from a scarcity perspective but TNT / TBS have no intrinsic value without have pro sports. The NBA knows this and can play them against each other for large national TV contracts. It also presumes social media / short-form consumption will lead to long-term sticky relationships with fans which is a major assumption. It may, it may not, but to say it will definitively translate to the same fan engagement today is a guess.
And it ends with a weird ad hominem attack where he exposes that he knows nothing about Thompson or his reach / influence.
Silver has been talking about the mid-season tournament for several years now. So I don't see what Silver's proposal had anything to do with trying to stop the bleeding.
EDIT: Also, the mid-season tournament idea was proposed to help with the problem of teams tanking, which was indeed starting to get to absurd levels ("The Process"). Instead, the NBA went with the playin, mostly in response to CoVid, and those games have been an unqualified success by all measures.
I do feel some of the "sky is falling" memes are an overreaction to the ratings of the NBA All Star game, which is truly a red herring. TV viewers barely care about All Star games these days; even MLB's, probably the most famous and by far the most entertaining, has struggled to draw ratings. NFL cancelled theirs; NHL turned theirs into a 3-on-3 tournament geared for live fans. Those games are not huge pieces of the league's TV revenues to begin with.
Last edited:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-27/lasry-said-to-sell-stake-in-bucks-valuing-team-at-3-5-billion
counterpoint, Lasry starting a fund to invest in sports franchises could also be a bullish sign
Avenue Capital Groups' buying power is multiples larger than Marc Lasry's PA account.
All-Star weekend is one of the biggest weekends on the NBA calendar. They make a big deal out of which cities are hosting the all-star game. It's one of the reasons I fell in love with the NBA as a kid, as well as the Saturday NBC broadcasts. It may not be a "revenue driver" but it's certainly a big spot on the league's calendar that fans now don't give a shit about. Citing two other leagues that are doing worse than the NBA does not prove this point; it serves as a sign that they're closer to the MLB and NHL than the NFL.
And don't point out that the pro-bowl sucks, too. It's always sucked, and has never been a marquee event for the league. The NBA all star game was the second highest rated game on the calendar behind finals games for decades. It's not nothing that ratings collapsed.
Private equity is gobbling up as many minority stakes as they can get their hands on. I side with DeJesus on this one. I always follow the money and the money is still flowing quite a bit.
Just to put a fine point on it, this is institutional money and while those people aren't immune to bad decisions or herd following, they are typically pretty shrewd. If they are allocating into a space there are usually healthy margins involved.
His ownership stake in the Bucks probably conflicted with ACGs ability to bid for stakes in numerous sports franchises. The ~150MM he threw into the initial purchase of the Bucks, with the subsequent monetization will be part of a new Sports Fund's "track record".
Now he can use his GP status to use LP money to splash on numerous sports franchises. Going for fees/carried interest is in his wheelhouse and a better ROI.
Also his Bucks sale/starting a Fund greatly reduces his risk while retaining upside optionality. The asymmetric return profile every fund mgr craves
Thompson has a high reach and audience, and was one of the main reasons that Substack exists. I respect his hustle. I have read a number of things he's written, most of it probably linked from SoSH. Sometimes I have found them thought-provoking, but mostly I think he suffers from a lack of ever having run a business more complicated than his own blogging side gig - and this article suffered more than most. I'm sure I hardly need to provide examples of people who have a lot of reach or influence and yet obviously lack wisdom - hell, just look at the Elon/Twitter thread. If I made an ad hominem, this rebuttal feels like an appeal to authority
> The fact TV contracts keep going up is a sign of scarcity as much as value they derive. There certainly is value from a scarcity perspective but TNT / TBS have no intrinsic value without have pro sports. The NBA knows this and can play them against each other for large national TV contracts.
I would say,
- This probably overstates the extent to which TNT / TBS lack other enticing content. I'm sure they lead their presentations to advertisers with the NBA, but it's not all they got, they're not a regional sports network. When CBS lost the NFL, they didn't die. Other networks are doing fine without any live sports. Thus far, however, nobody has regretted the terms of a deal they made with a major sports network, only the deals they didn't make. Let me know the first such time you see one, and then we can talk about calling a peak.
- This statement, while it might be mostly true, does not rebut the idea that the league's finances are healthy, sustainable and trending well.
> It also presumes social media / short-form consumption will lead to long-term sticky relationships with fans which is a major assumption. It may, it may not, but to say it will definitively translate to the same fan engagement today is a guess.
It's a guess, based on every bit of accumulated understanding of the impact social media advertising has on consumer behavior. There's a reason social media advertising has been growing at a huge rate year-over-year for the last decade while many other channels are flat (and portions of offline spend are declining), and that is first and foremost the extent to which you can attribute future user action to previous influence and connection with them.
- Deloitte: consumers who are influenced by social media are 4 times more likely to spend more on purchases. Moreover, the influence can be so high that 29% of consumers are more likely to make a purchase on the same day of using social media.
- Academic thesis, 2021: Many forms of social media engagement, particularly when categorized as entertainment, have positive correlations with brand loyalty and retention
- This study says that in 2017-18, the NBA's brand partnerships generated >$800M of value for those brands, up 40%, and that the overall value of its social media footprint is $5 Bn. And that was 5 years ago.
(many more in that vein are a google away)
Consider this quote from Kevin Esteves, the NBA's VP of digital strategy:
I think that qualitatively illustrates why they're focusing on it and what sort of impact it can have. And you might reasonably respond, "ok, if it's 'complementing and increasing linear viewership', Kevin, where is that showing up in the numbers?" And all I can say is, we only have some of the numbers. And social media views / virality, streaming / league pass and international attention all contribute to that. Esteves does offer numbers with one anecdote:
On its own it doesn't prove his strategic thesis, but it does show that the effort has some real-world effects that make a difference. The full article adds a lot more on their Youtube performance, how they optimize, etc.
Then there's the various other reinforcing actions. One of the major points of social media is how interactive it can be, how it can be a two-way channel for fans to engage with players and other public figures. Consider this discussion about the NBA doing just that with some of its all-stars. The engagement cost them almost nothing but definitely reinforced a lot of fans' relationships with the league. And that's before you get into the extent to which the NBA and its stars can influence political causes and issues - the financial impact of which is nebulous, but may have some social good attached, too, if you consider multiple bottom lines.
So I think the default assumption has to be that social media has positively impacted customer lifetime value / brand loyalty and the revenues that flow from that, and anyone thinking otherwise ought to be prepared to show their work.
Others have addressed some of your points, but just to say: MLS, since 2002 when ownership recommitted to its growth and especially since 2007 when David Beckham came over, has been growing leaps and bounds year-over-year. Paid attendance at games (Avg 21k per game, with 17 home games per team per season) now exceeds that of NHL or NBA on a per-game basis, and due to the league having 30 teams to EU leagues' 18-20, total attendance leaguewide now exceeds that of 2 of Europe's Big 5 leagues. It has been growing very impressively and recently got a 4x bump on their TV deal by going with Apple TV. Average team valuation is now around $600M. So, a bit better than "a snail's pace".
For the rest, you're looking at very similar fact patterns - NFL and NBA both tinkering with formats, calendars, marketing mix, etc - and ascribing entirely opposite narratives to them. If I wanted to be uncharitable, I could argue the NFL's TV ratings are down and so they're the ones flailing. In reality, of course, neither league regards themselves as "bleeding", both of them have "demand exceeding the supply", and they're just investing in trying to improve the product in reasonably incremental ways.
Last edited:
Thanks as always for the links in your posts. Great stuff to digest.
With regards to brand value, while looking for something else I stumbled across this article - https://www.mvpindex.com/insights/nba-partners-prosper-on-social-during-2022-playoffs - that discusses the brand value generated during the 2022 NBA playoffs.
My one takeaway from the F1/NBA article was that it's a dumb conceit to build your "what should the NBA do" column around. F1 has grown a ton in the US because it was a super-niche sport that had a ton of money put behind moving it to a niche sport, it was essentially an exercise in entering a market. That's a completely different profile than a major sport in a market trying to keep or grow. If you want to compare the NBA's domestic viewership (he ignores international) to car racing, you would compare it to NASCAR (in a ratings slump).
In response to @InstaFace
Thompson has a high reach and audience, and was one of the main reasons that Substack exists. I respect his hustle. I have read a number of things he's written, most of it probably linked from SoSH. Sometimes I have found them thought-provoking, but mostly I think he suffers from a lack of ever having run a business more complicated than his own blogging side gig - and this article suffered more than most. I'm sure I hardly need to provide examples of people who have a lot of reach or influence and yet obviously lack wisdom - hell, just look at the Elon/Twitter thread. If I made an ad hominem, this rebuttal feels like an appeal to authority
The above (and earlier posts) is (1) comically arrogant and (2) demonstrates your lack of knowledge about Thompson, Stratechery, its business model, or its growth strategy. That's fine, he serves a niche audience, but your characterization of Stratechery and its business model is laughable. There's a great episode on the Acquired podcast where they interview Ben and he talks about his vision and intentionality in scaling it with the tradeoffs it entails in much greater detail. As a separate aside, he's a great read if you want to make money by trading off his analysis. More than pays for the annual subscription fees.
> The fact TV contracts keep going up is a sign of scarcity as much as value they derive. There certainly is value from a scarcity perspective but TNT / TBS have no intrinsic value without have pro sports. The NBA knows this and can play them against each other for large national TV contracts.
I would say,
- This probably overstates the extent to which TNT / TBS lack other enticing content. I'm sure they lead their presentations to advertisers with the NBA, but it's not all they got, they're not a regional sports network. When CBS lost the NFL, they didn't die. Other networks are doing fine without any live sports. Thus far, however, nobody has regretted the terms of a deal they made with a major sports network, only the deals they didn't make. Let me know the first such time you see one, and then we can talk about calling a peak.
What enticing content does TNT / TBS have besides pro sports and reruns? You're talking around my point with a bunch of vagaries instead of addressing it. There's a reason "TNT knows drama" is no longer a thing. I'm all ears to understand how TNT can survive solely on AEW, reruns, and a bunch of nondescript original content.
- This statement, while it might be mostly true, does not rebut the idea that the league's finances are healthy, sustainable and trending well.
Over the next handful of years largely because they have a new TV deal coming through. But there is significant upheaval in the area where the NBA generates a significant amount of revenue. My expectation is the TV deal after this will be markedly different. In addition, something will have to replace the RSN model as that is not sustainable without a signficant model
> It also presumes social media / short-form consumption will lead to long-term sticky relationships with fans which is a major assumption. It may, it may not, but to say it will definitively translate to the same fan engagement today is a guess.
-snip-
I am not saying social media is bad, it's the equation of how the NBA gets fans that is changing. To date the NBA has gotten the majority of new fans from a combo of local and national television. They have done a good job using social media to likely convert more given the traditional constructs in place. In the future, the national television will stay in place but will have a smaller reach and who the hell knows what will happen to the local television. That means they'll have to convert fans from social media consumption either using less television inventory or through other methods, such as streaming. It could work great, it could work okay, and it could be a disaster. I don't know, it's a major assumption. Television has historically been an extremely powerful tool that won't be as powerful moving forward.
Thompson has a high reach and audience, and was one of the main reasons that Substack exists. I respect his hustle. I have read a number of things he's written, most of it probably linked from SoSH. Sometimes I have found them thought-provoking, but mostly I think he suffers from a lack of ever having run a business more complicated than his own blogging side gig - and this article suffered more than most. I'm sure I hardly need to provide examples of people who have a lot of reach or influence and yet obviously lack wisdom - hell, just look at the Elon/Twitter thread. If I made an ad hominem, this rebuttal feels like an appeal to authority
The above (and earlier posts) is (1) comically arrogant and (2) demonstrates your lack of knowledge about Thompson, Stratechery, its business model, or its growth strategy. That's fine, he serves a niche audience, but your characterization of Stratechery and its business model is laughable. There's a great episode on the Acquired podcast where they interview Ben and he talks about his vision and intentionality in scaling it with the tradeoffs it entails in much greater detail. As a separate aside, he's a great read if you want to make money by trading off his analysis. More than pays for the annual subscription fees.
> The fact TV contracts keep going up is a sign of scarcity as much as value they derive. There certainly is value from a scarcity perspective but TNT / TBS have no intrinsic value without have pro sports. The NBA knows this and can play them against each other for large national TV contracts.
I would say,
- This probably overstates the extent to which TNT / TBS lack other enticing content. I'm sure they lead their presentations to advertisers with the NBA, but it's not all they got, they're not a regional sports network. When CBS lost the NFL, they didn't die. Other networks are doing fine without any live sports. Thus far, however, nobody has regretted the terms of a deal they made with a major sports network, only the deals they didn't make. Let me know the first such time you see one, and then we can talk about calling a peak.
What enticing content does TNT / TBS have besides pro sports and reruns? You're talking around my point with a bunch of vagaries instead of addressing it. There's a reason "TNT knows drama" is no longer a thing. I'm all ears to understand how TNT can survive solely on AEW, reruns, and a bunch of nondescript original content.
- This statement, while it might be mostly true, does not rebut the idea that the league's finances are healthy, sustainable and trending well.
Over the next handful of years largely because they have a new TV deal coming through. But there is significant upheaval in the area where the NBA generates a significant amount of revenue. My expectation is the TV deal after this will be markedly different. In addition, something will have to replace the RSN model as that is not sustainable without a signficant model
> It also presumes social media / short-form consumption will lead to long-term sticky relationships with fans which is a major assumption. It may, it may not, but to say it will definitively translate to the same fan engagement today is a guess.
-snip-
I am not saying social media is bad, it's the equation of how the NBA gets fans that is changing. To date the NBA has gotten the majority of new fans from a combo of local and national television. They have done a good job using social media to likely convert more given the traditional constructs in place. In the future, the national television will stay in place but will have a smaller reach and who the hell knows what will happen to the local television. That means they'll have to convert fans from social media consumption either using less television inventory or through other methods, such as streaming. It could work great, it could work okay, and it could be a disaster. I don't know, it's a major assumption. Television has historically been an extremely powerful tool that won't be as powerful moving forward.
I'm not sure if you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, but saying the NFL and NBA are at similar points health-wise is like saying my body looks like Channing Tatum's because we're the same weight. When the NFL starts considering gimmicky tournaments to resuscitate a regular season that even die-hard fans start tuning out, I'll agree with you. They're just totally different things. The end of the NFL season is exciting with teams vying for playoff spots. March/April in the NBA is a dead zone because the teams don't care about what seeds they are anymore. How are these things even comparable?
This feels spot on. The NBA might see some of it's broadcast partners get consolidated (in TNT's case) or spun off ( in ESPN's case) in the 2020s.
LeBron will not need surgery, but will be revaluated in three weeks for his right foot injury. The West is such a mix of mediocrity that its possible this Lakers team could remain competitive for the play-in with LeBron on the shelf, but it will be tough, especially if Davis is also missing time.
Yeah they'll still be in it. But at his age, wouldn't that be a massive risk if he came back? He needs to be thinking more of playing going forward then forcing a play in run. I think his season is done.
It's remarkable that LeBron at times can be such an incredible player at his age, but it also needs to be acknowledged that he has only been able to do that over the last few years by taking a lot of games off and being extremely careful in pacing himself. It's why I am so doubtful the Lakers can just get it together and go on a run in the playoffs; his body doesn't seem physically capable of that kind of grind anymore. He hasn't played anywhere close to a full NBA season in LA, except the bubble year which had it's own wonkiness to it. The last three years it feels like anytime he's had to play seriously for an extended period of time, he's gotten injured.
And even if he misses the rest of the season, he'll have more games played over the last 3 years than Anthony Davis.
And this morning he was apparently flashing a piece on IG Live:
View: https://twitter.com/raphousetv7/status/1632018247997624322?s=20
Either he's spiraling badly or he's been an utter dunce this whole time and just been lucky that it hasn't really hurt his public image until this point.
Yikes
Playing with fire here, Memphis should move him this summer, before his value completely craters.
They are 4-5 in games without Ja this season
20-5 without Ja last season
His small size and attacking-the-rim style of play make him a major injury risk anyways.
Ugh, probably is both. I bet he was an ass before and now the baller life is making it worse. We’re headed towards something worse, I’m afraid.
Kid from the burbs looking for some street cred. This is the image he wants so yeah def a dunce.
The rapper Yung Dolph was shot and killed in Memphis while trying to buy cookies at a bakery. Memphis is not the city to play pretend. Ja pisses the wrong person off and he'll have bigger problems than Adam Silver.
Don't like the smoke coming out of House Morant these days but if his value is cratering across the league I hope the Cs check in on him.
I think the takes about his future ending in no championships and tears are certainly possible. But I also am noting that he is immensely talented and, as far as we know (I read the entire WaPo piece earlier in the week), he is just being a crappy, entitled 23 year old. I don't condone the behavior and the pattern is definitely concerning. But it hasn't yet crossed the threshold where he is irredeemable in my eyes. I understand that others may not agree.
Based on what is public, I doubt Memphis trades Morant because of this. He needs better people around him. He should be emulating Mogul Life rather than whatever this is but its his career.
I think the takes about his future ending in no championships and tears are certainly possible. But I also am noting that he is immensely talented and, as far as we know (I read the entire WaPo piece earlier in the week), he is just being a crappy, entitled 23 year old. I don't condone the behavior and the pattern is definitely concerning. But it hasn't yet crossed the threshold where he is irredeemable in my eyes. I understand that others may not agree.
Based on what is public, I doubt Memphis trades Morant because of this. He needs better people around him. He should be emulating Mogul Life rather than whatever this is but its his career.
It's tough for him to justify, union is stronger and CBA less commish rule by fiat friendly than the Stern Era.
Morant is clearly a problem, and I'm not sure it changes unless he gets shot or Nike drops him. His Dad is an attention whore fake tough guy too, and his Mom got him into one of these problems by calling her millionaire son to try and beat up a mall employee she was fighting with.
Even if nothing really happens I bet he ends up a 30 for 30, his game screams out "guy who loses his freak athleticism to an injury and career nosedives"
I will be surprised if his Nike handlers aren't all over him given the week's headlines. Their necklace is prominently featured on that clip and it feels like they are in the position of punting on star athletes who don't fit their brand. But that's just conjecture.
Again, with most young NBA stars emulating the LeBron/Steph/KD etc brand building model, its fascinating that Morant is trending in this direction. LeBron's sort of path typically ends up being fairly lucrative whereas late career mafia/gangster types tend to end up in worse spots.
Again, with most young NBA stars emulating the LeBron/Steph/KD etc brand building model, its fascinating that Morant is trending in this direction. LeBron's sort of path typically ends up being fairly lucrative whereas late career mafia/gangster types tend to end up in worse spots.
Silver clearly running from Ja and his piece. We knew for years who Stern’s replacement was going to be…..but who is next in line this time around?
That's a wild rumor. Way more likely that Iger's next job is NBA owner than Silver running Disney.
View: https://twitter.com/GrizzliesPR/status/1632093630792966148?t=WPtM-ALkbFFOh2yPDxw01Q&s=19
Grizz with what looks like a 2 (minimum) game suspension, but may not officially be a suspension
Grizz with what looks like a 2 (minimum) game suspension, but may not officially be a suspension
Sounds like one of those “Let’s get ahead of this before Silver does with the strong PR move.”
