| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
UofDel_Alum
Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Posts: 3979
Location: Delaware
Back to top |
 Posted: 01/16/17 9:39 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| J-Spoon wrote: |
Here is a risky three team trade, but if Chicago can wait until 2018 might get them the best possible player if she can get her health back (and a lottery player in 2018 if next season doesn't work out)
Was gets EDD
Conn gets Dolson (UConn connection) and the #2 pick (or flip it and put Hill here)
Chicago gets C. Ogwumike and Hill (and the #2 pick here) |
Very thoughtful J-Spoon, I think whatever trade Chicago makes this year, Chicago will get the worse of the trade this year. If the trade could include 2018 the trade could work in Chicago's benefit.
I will say up front this is speculation on my part. It seems to me the issue with Elena is she is upset with the owner of Chicago. She has always been very loyal to her coaches. I have to wonder if she is upset with the removal of Pokey. Again I would like to know, even if it makes Elena look bad.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63767
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/17 10:07 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm on record (I think in the ATL thread) of saying if nobody or even just one player declares early in the 2017 draft, there will be a high quality player for (nearly) every team in the first round (deep draft).
So how about CHI thinking long term if Meesseman is off the table:
EDD for Dolson + #2 in 2017 + WAS's first round in 2018
A team like SEA might make a crazy deal for #2 involving their first round in 2018 if they can get Plum. If SAN wants Plum, I suppose it could throw a spanner in the works. Does SAN want Plum because she reminds them of Hammon, or do they trade down the pick for one of the top posts in the draft and a little something extra? Maybe SAN can get #6 plus SEA's first round in 2018 for #1, and then maybe pick up BJones with #6. This is getting complicated.
Anyway, with their own pick in 2018, CHI could potentially come away 3 first rounders in 2018. Nice draft to have three first round picks. Hopefully CHI would have room for all three. Will Cappie have seen her better days by 2018? Young could finally move on. Laney might not be much of a factor. dos Santos? Breland? Still married to Faulkner?
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/17 12:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
I'm on record (I think in the ATL thread) of saying if nobody or even just one player declares early in the 2017 draft, there will be a high quality player for (nearly) every team in the first round (deep draft).
So how about CHI thinking long term if Meesseman is off the table:
EDD for Dolson + #2 in 2017 + WAS's first round in 2018
A team like SEA might make a crazy deal for #2 involving their first round in 2018 if they can get Plum. If SAN wants Plum, I suppose it could throw a spanner in the works. Does SAN want Plum because she reminds them of Hammon, or do they trade down the pick for one of the top posts in the draft and a little something extra? Maybe SAN can get #6 plus SEA's first round in 2018 for #1, and then maybe pick up BJones with #6. This is getting complicated.
Anyway, with their own pick in 2018, CHI could potentially come away 3 first rounders in 2018. Nice draft to have three first round picks. Hopefully CHI would have room for all three. Will Cappie have seen her better days by 2018? Young could finally move on. Laney might not be much of a factor. dos Santos? Breland? Still married to Faulkner? |
I agree, draft picks may be the way to go if Chicago can pull it off. It gives them more time to work things out. Too bad the WNBA isn't like the NBA where you can trade picks 4 or 5 years into the future, but the upside is that next year's draft looks deep. Chicago doesn't need Dolson, Hill or anything Washington is likely to offer if Meesseman is untouchable. Well, maybe Copper because they need an upgrade at SF. Otherwise, Dolson is not a PF and Chicago already has a better 4 in Breland. Hill is younger than Cappie and Quigley, but she's not necessarily better. What are you going to do in the meantime? Either way, it looks like Chicago needs to get other teams involved. We may require diagrams or maybe a slide presentation to keep track of everything going on. 
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
UK1996
Joined: 03 Sep 2015
Posts: 403
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/17 3:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think if Chicago plays its cards right they can still be a pretty decent team. Breland can be a pretty solid starter when healthy. If Chicago can get Copper and/or the 2nd pick they will have a solid lineup. Not a contender this year, but if Boyette continues to develop along with Copper or the 2nd pick they can be pretty good in a year or two. With the 2nd pick they could draft Plum, or Deshields. Chicago is better off biting at decent players than letting her sit in my opinion. Washington can then draft a SF to develop and move Meeseman back to center.
EDD & #9 for Copper, Dolson, & #2
PG: Vandersloot/ Faulkner
SG: Pondexter/ Quigley/ Plum?
SF: Copper/ Young/ Deshields?
PF: Breland/ Dos Santos/ Parker
C: Boyette/ Dolson
PG: Hartley/ Cloud
SG: Hill/ Latta/ FA or 2nd Round Pick
SF: Ruffin-Pratt/#9
PF: Delle Donne/ Mallot/ Sanders
C: Meeseman/ Vaughn
_________________
Kentucky Wildcats, Sky, & Spurs
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24351
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/17 4:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Unless she herself has specifically told the teams that she's not interested in playing in Chicago, I'd laugh off the concept of Meesseman being 'untouchable'. You want an All-World player like Delle Donne - who's also semi-local and could help sell tickets just as you're building a new venue in a dubious part of town - you have to be willing to give up your all-star level player who plays virtually the same position.
I understand the 'take what you can get if the alternative is nothing' perspective, but Meesseman really should be part of the package. Trades of nickels and dimes for a silver dollar very rarely work out well for the team that takes the pocket change back. |
|
UofDel_Alum
Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Posts: 3979
Location: Delaware
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/17 4:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
Unless she herself has specifically told the teams that she's not interested in playing in Chicago, I'd laugh off the concept of Meesseman being 'untouchable'. You want an All-World player like Delle Donne - who's also semi-local and could help sell tickets just as you're building a new venue in a dubious part of town - you have to be willing to give up your all-star level player who plays virtually the same position.
I understand the 'take what you can get if the alternative is nothing' perspective, but Meesseman really should be part of the package. Trades of nickels and dimes for a silver dollar very rarely work out well for the team that takes the pocket change back. |
Yep! Dolson will stay with Washington at Center and and Meesseman would go to Chicago. I think that would be a very good Chicago team.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63767
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/17 4:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
Unless she herself has specifically told the teams that she's not interested in playing in Chicago, I'd laugh off the concept of Meesseman being 'untouchable'. You want an All-World player like Delle Donne - who's also semi-local and could help sell tickets just as you're building a new venue in a dubious part of town - you have to be willing to give up your all-star level player who plays virtually the same position.
I understand the 'take what you can get if the alternative is nothing' perspective, but Meesseman really should be part of the package. Trades of nickels and dimes for a silver dollar very rarely work out well for the team that takes the pocket change back. |
Or in Copper's case, a penny (see what did there?)
I thought Copper was very underrated by draftsite.com and that greener than grass "WNBA analyst" Howard Megdal, who both had Copper in the third round, but I can't see Copper as being a major component in a trade for Delle Donne. Would love to see it happen. Megdal and his lapdog would never live it down. I'd rather have that pricey first round pick in 2018.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6796
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/17 4:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Here is a 3 teamer for NY
NY gets EDD
Dallas gets Rodgers, Wright and Stokes
Chicago gets Diggins, #3 and NY 2018 1st round pick
Ok a little far fetched but EDD and Charles makes NY a championship contender so it is worth giving up a third of the roster (with Prince, Boyd, Swords, Zahui B. Allen and Zellous you still have enough to put around your two stars), Dallas improves its defense especially in the post with Stokes, gets a better match with Sims in the back-court in Rodgers and a nice Vet in Wright who can get Dallas' roster together on the court.
Chicago gets a box office draw in Diggins, a lottery pick this year(Coates, Plum, Deshields) a second pick added to their own in 2018 and can probably move one of its other vet guards (Pondexter, Quigley, Young, Sloot) to shore up any holes in other places.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63767
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/17 4:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Not sure Dallas would love this trade.
They give up Diggins & #3 for (a player who cost a swap of third round picks) + (a no cost to NYL free agent) + (a player who cost NYL the fifth guard in the current Lynx lineup).
The Liberty get a nice return on their initial investments.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
NYL_WNBA_FAN
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 14097
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/17 5:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I wouldn't give up both Wright and Stokes along with Rodgers to get EDD. Not only does your PG situation take a hit, but your defensive core that you've built around is gutted. Yes, you have Tina and EDD, but I don't think that would necessarily be enough to win a title.
Plus, I don't see Wright willingly playing anywhere besides NY, and certainly don't see her willingly being part of a rebuild. I'd grudgingly give up Rodgers, Kiah and a 2018 first rounder, but even then I would have reservations for the same reasons as above. We'd have the firepower to outscore teams. I'm not sold by any stretch that we would have the defense needed to win a title. Which should be the rationale for acquiring a franchise player to begin with.
It's fun dreaming that EDD will be part of the Libs. But realistically, between a reported desire to play in DC, an affinity for Thibault and the lack of a great fit in NY, I think EDD is moving to DC. Offensively you could make it work with NY. Defensively if you were able to retain Kiah you could also make that work. But I don't see a Rodgers/AZB/Draft choice package enough to acquire EDD whether she wants out of Chicago or not.
_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
|
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6796
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/17 6:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Yeah I don't think NY has the pieces but I thought I'd give it the old college try.
I really like the players we have now but keeping it real if NY could acquire EDD and keep Tina they would have to do it, the talent of two MVP level super stars out weighs all realistic concerns about chemistry, defense, etc. IMO.
Shades I agree Dallas would be the least likely to want the trade and would be the reason it wouldn't happen, but players aren't worth what they were worth then, they are worth what they are worth now. Rodgers is no longer a swap of third round picks kind of player, she's decent two way playing shooting guard with a strong 3pt fg percentage, Wright is a vet accredited with bringing the leadership to the Liberty that took them to the next level, something the Wings surely could benefit from and Stokes is an all defensive team WNBA player who would become Dallas' best post defender the first day she walked on the court in a Wings uniform. I think those player would be a decent help to the Dallas team.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66905
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/17 6:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| J-Spoon wrote: |
Here is a 3 teamer for NY
NY gets EDD
Dallas gets Rodgers, Wright and Stokes
Chicago gets Diggins, #3 and NY 2018 1st round pick |
No way Dallas does this deal. Trading a 1st team All WNBA player and a lottery pick for three second tier players is a recipe for disaster.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9617
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/17 9:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Not sure if anyone else has ever had to trade a current Olympic team member, but Chicago has to be the first WNBA team that had to trade two Olympic Team members. Let's hope they can trade Delle Donne without having to throw in a draft pick like Pokey did with Fowles.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66905
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/17 9:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| Not sure if anyone else has ever had to trade a current Olympic team member |
Had to, who knows? Olympians have been traded several times, starting with Jennifer Azzi getting traded from Detroit to Utah right before the 2000 season.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/17 11:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
Unless she herself has specifically told the teams that she's not interested in playing in Chicago, I'd laugh off the concept of Meesseman being 'untouchable'. You want an All-World player like Delle Donne - who's also semi-local and could help sell tickets just as you're building a new venue in a dubious part of town - you have to be willing to give up your all-star level player who plays virtually the same position.
I understand the 'take what you can get if the alternative is nothing' perspective, but Meesseman really should be part of the package. Trades of nickels and dimes for a silver dollar very rarely work out well for the team that takes the pocket change back. |
It really starts the league down a slippery slope if a pseudo-star like Meesseman can refuse trades. If she can, why not Dolson? Why not Hill? For that matter, why can't a college prospect make it known that she doesn't want to be drafted by particular teams? Epiphanny Prince apparently got a decent overseas deal after her junior year at Rutgers. So, someone like Plum who is far more accomplished should be able to secure a good contract too. Why couldn't she use that possibility as leverage like the veteran players? I would think that the WNBA has to take a stand somewhere before the whole system blows-up.
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24351
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/16/17 11:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
How exactly do you get around a situation where players are willing to say "if you say I have to play in City X, my preference is to just not play at all"? When your player base holds that card and are legitimately willing to use it (not just dangle it as an idle threat), it's hard to do anything but cater to it (at least to some extent).
With an international player like Meesseman, who has no real ties to the US or reason to play in the WNBA beyond competitive instincts, in some ways you have to worry about their sentiments even more. Because it's even easier for them to just decide playing in the US isn't worth it at all. |
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/17 1:28 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
How exactly do you get around a situation where players are willing to say "if you say I have to play in City X, my preference is to just not play at all"? When your player base holds that card and are legitimately willing to use it (not just dangle it as an idle threat), it's hard to do anything but cater to it (at least to some extent).
With an international player like Meesseman, who has no real ties to the US or reason to play in the WNBA beyond competitive instincts, in some ways you have to worry about their sentiments even more. Because it's even easier for them to just decide playing in the US isn't worth it at all. |
I understand, but is it your prediction then that the system will collapse? Most people play overseas and make more money over there. Obviously, if you're a deep bench player teams can tell you to take a hike, but every decent player has some kind of leverage. If more people resist trades every year -- or in some other way dictate where they play -- then eventually it's going to become the norm rather than the exception. The only way to see if players are bluffing is to call their bluff. Will they actually sit out and forgo a salary? For how many seasons?
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
Michelle89
Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 16464
Location: Holland
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/17 1:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
How exactly do you get around a situation where players are willing to say "if you say I have to play in City X, my preference is to just not play at all"? When your player base holds that card and are legitimately willing to use it (not just dangle it as an idle threat), it's hard to do anything but cater to it (at least to some extent).
With an international player like Meesseman, who has no real ties to the US or reason to play in the WNBA beyond competitive instincts, in some ways you have to worry about their sentiments even more. Because it's even easier for them to just decide playing in the US isn't worth it at all. |
This.. But there has been no evidence of Meesseman not wanting to play for another team. Like none. She is going to miss games this season due to Eurobasket thats for sure. I dont see her sitting out because of being traded to another team
_________________
"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
|
|
zvyn3
Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 418
Location: away from here
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/17 5:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| Not sure if anyone else has ever had to trade a current Olympic team member |
Had to, who knows? Olympians have been traded several times, starting with Jennifer Azzi getting traded from Detroit to Utah right before the 2000 season. |
Tina Charles, Swin Cash
|
|
kool-aide
Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Posts: 1650
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/17 8:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| why can't a college prospect make it known that she doesn't want to be drafted by particular teams? |
Like Bo Jackson? Like John Elway? Like Eli Manning?
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24351
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/17 10:29 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| Richyyy wrote: |
How exactly do you get around a situation where players are willing to say "if you say I have to play in City X, my preference is to just not play at all"? When your player base holds that card and are legitimately willing to use it (not just dangle it as an idle threat), it's hard to do anything but cater to it (at least to some extent).
With an international player like Meesseman, who has no real ties to the US or reason to play in the WNBA beyond competitive instincts, in some ways you have to worry about their sentiments even more. Because it's even easier for them to just decide playing in the US isn't worth it at all. |
I understand, but is it your prediction then that the system will collapse? Most people play overseas and make more money over there. Obviously, if you're a deep bench player teams can tell you to take a hike, but every decent player has some kind of leverage. If more people resist trades every year -- or in some other way dictate where they play -- then eventually it's going to become the norm rather than the exception. The only way to see if players are bluffing is to call their bluff. Will they actually sit out and forgo a salary? For how many seasons? |
Is it that much different now from how it's been for ages? Plenty of players over the years have strongly requested or forced trades, often to a specific or limited list of destinations. Saying no to a trade is really just the reverse side of that.
I think, given the global state of the women's game, the best we can hope for is pretty much what we've got. Most of the teams (or at least a lot of them) try to walk a middle ground. If a player really wants to play somewhere specific (whether to be near home, or with a partner, or whatever), the teams usually try to accommodate them. Obviously they'll try to get similar value back, and things get more difficult if it's a star player, but generally speaking the sides end up working together. And for a large proportion of players, being paid a decent amount of money to play a game for a living is a pretty good gig, wherever it may be.
Although, as many long-time fans have mentioned over the years, there definitely isn't the sense of responsibility to the game any more that players had when the WNBA was just getting started and trying to establish itself. Hence players like Taurasi, Parker, McCoughtry etc. being willing to skip time to rest. But it's hard to blame them, given the global calendar. And in some ways it's worked out okay. It's shown that the league can cope with these things and carry on, establishing different and new stars if it needs to. And it's a reminder that while there might be an occasional player who skips a season or a couple of months, generally speaking the US stars want to play in the US league, even if purely monetarily you could argue they shouldn't bother.
I don't think the sky is exactly falling in. |
|
UofDel_Alum
Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Posts: 3979
Location: Delaware
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/17 11:28 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
| root_thing wrote: |
| Richyyy wrote: |
How exactly do you get around a situation where players are willing to say "if you say I have to play in City X, my preference is to just not play at all"? When your player base holds that card and are legitimately willing to use it (not just dangle it as an idle threat), it's hard to do anything but cater to it (at least to some extent).
With an international player like Meesseman, who has no real ties to the US or reason to play in the WNBA beyond competitive instincts, in some ways you have to worry about their sentiments even more. Because it's even easier for them to just decide playing in the US isn't worth it at all. |
I understand, but is it your prediction then that the system will collapse? Most people play overseas and make more money over there. Obviously, if you're a deep bench player teams can tell you to take a hike, but every decent player has some kind of leverage. If more people resist trades every year -- or in some other way dictate where they play -- then eventually it's going to become the norm rather than the exception. The only way to see if players are bluffing is to call their bluff. Will they actually sit out and forgo a salary? For how many seasons? |
Is it that much different now from how it's been for ages? Plenty of players over the years have strongly requested or forced trades, often to a specific or limited list of destinations. Saying no to a trade is really just the reverse side of that.
I think, given the global state of the women's game, the best we can hope for is pretty much what we've got. Most of the teams (or at least a lot of them) try to walk a middle ground. If a player really wants to play somewhere specific (whether to be near home, or with a partner, or whatever), the teams usually try to accommodate them. Obviously they'll try to get similar value back, and things get more difficult if it's a star player, but generally speaking the sides end up working together. And for a large proportion of players, being paid a decent amount of money to play a game for a living is a pretty good gig, wherever it may be.
Although, as many long-time fans have mentioned over the years, there definitely isn't the sense of responsibility to the game any more that players had when the WNBA was just getting started and trying to establish itself. Hence players like Taurasi, Parker, McCoughtry etc. being willing to skip time to rest. But it's hard to blame them, given the global calendar. And in some ways it's worked out okay. It's shown that the league can cope with these things and carry on, establishing different and new stars if it needs to. And it's a reminder that while there might be an occasional player who skips a season or a couple of months, generally speaking the US stars want to play in the US league, even if purely monetarily you could argue they shouldn't bother.
I don't think the sky is exactly falling in. |
I believe your exactly right Richyyy. Until WNBA raise their salaries we should expect the elite players to dictate where they want to play and the WNBA must accommodate those players.
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/17 2:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
Is it that much different now from how it's been for ages? Plenty of players over the years have strongly requested or forced trades, often to a specific or limited list of destinations. Saying no to a trade is really just the reverse side of that. |
It's a funny thing. Ideas are often just sitting in front of people, but they don't act on them until someone else does it first. As you say, resisting trades is just the flipside of the coin from demanding them. And yet, we haven't heard much about players refusing to move. I'm sure it has happened before -- I remember back in 2010, Pierson was offered a trade to NY but she initially declined. However, it sounded like a discussion before a trade rather than a refusal to comply. Anyway, it just seems like another crack in the wall for the powers that be who want to control players. On the college side, we're wondering if more and more players will leave school with eligibility left. Did Zahui B. and Loyd start a trend? It probably won't be a deluge, but the idea of leaving "early" is certainly more viable and acceptable than before. No, the sky probably isn't falling, but we're seeing some significant erosion to the "rules" of behavior.
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9617
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/17 9:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| UofDel_Alum wrote: |
I believe your exactly right Richyyy. Until WNBA raise their salaries we should expect the elite players to dictate where they want to play and the WNBA must accommodate those players. |
If I was the WNBA President I would try the opposite. I would just wish any elite player the best and let them play only overseas. Then sit back and see how many took up the offer and how ESPN ratings and attendance were effected. None of these women are household names and none of them are as good as college men. So I think there is a good possibility that the fans just become attached to their replacements, despite some refusing to watch without their favorite player in the league. I think the league is ultimately healthier if an Olympic team member can't force their way onto a team with 3 other Olympic team members allowing the same team to win yet another title.
|
|
Bob Lamm
Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Posts: 5065
Location: New York City
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/17 10:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| UofDel_Alum wrote: |
I believe your exactly right Richyyy. Until WNBA raise their salaries we should expect the elite players to dictate where they want to play and the WNBA must accommodate those players. |
If I was the WNBA President I would try the opposite. I would just wish any elite player the best and let them play only overseas. Then sit back and see how many took up the offer and how ESPN ratings and attendance were effected. None of these women are household names and none of them are as good as college men. So I think there is a good possibility that the fans just become attached to their replacements, despite some refusing to watch without their favorite player in the league. I think the league is ultimately healthier if an Olympic team member can't force their way onto a team with 3 other Olympic team members allowing the same team to win yet another title. |
In my view, the WNBA suspending or banning stars who want to move to another team would be disastrous. The league has enough problems right now without all the terrible ramifications of this dubious stance.
_________________
Remember Roe v. Wade. Work for and support legal abortion all over the world and full reproductive rights for everyone.
|
|
|
|
