Chicago Bulls: Are large markets unappealing to NBA free agents?

NBA free agency started off with a big bang on Sunday, with numerous smaller markets having great success. Could large markets be unappealing for NBA free agents? That could be bad news for the Chicago Bulls.

The Chicago Bulls have always been one of the most iconic franchises in the NBA. But unfortunately for the city of Chicago and the Bulls fanbase, the organization has failed to attract a true superstar in free agency throughout much of its history.

In fact, not a single one of the top ten scorers in Bulls history were acquired via free agency. All came to the Bulls via either the draft or trade.

Given that the Bulls have one of the largest fanbases in the NBA and are one of the most historic franchises, one would expect the Bulls to often have their selection of the top free agents each year.

Alas, that’s not the case. As another free agency class has all but committed to sign with their next teams, the Bulls only splash came from free agent F Thaddeus Young. Though a solid depth addition, Young is far from a superstar or a player that the Bulls can build a franchise around. Like, really far.

While there are undoubtedly many reasons that the Bulls front office has failed to attract top-tier talent, perhaps one reason is out of the Bulls control.

Could it be that large markets are unappealing to NBA free agents when making a decision?

At first, it may sound absurd. Larger markets equal more fame and fortune.

That is, IF you succeed. If you fail, don’t expect to be allowed back into the city.

With the exposure and popularity comes a tremendous amount of criticism, pressure and media scrutiny.

That’s a lot for even the most competitive athlete.

Let’s take a look at some of the free agent moves from this past weekend.

Though there is a likely possibility that the Lakers will end up with Kawhi Leonard within the coming days, many large market teams failed to make any splashes in free agency thus far.

And even Kawhi would realistically be  downgrading market size by going to Los Angeles. Though the Lakers may be an iconic franchise with the game’s most iconic player, Leonard would no longer carry an entire country’s hopes and dreams on his shoulders by leaving Toronto.

The Bulls largest move was the aforementioned signing of Thaddeus Young. The Knicks signed a full squad of little sisters of the poor. Houston and Philadelphia, the nation’s fourth and sixth largest markets, respectively were shunned by Jimmy Butler for Miami.

And yes, we know that Kyrie Irving and Kevin Durant left Boston and the Bay Area to head to New York. But instead of signing with the iconic Knicks to play in Madison Square Garden, they opted to sign with the Brooklyn Nets.

Seriously, the Nets have less fans than the Weber State swim team.

They don’t even have a million followers on Twitter. The Celtics and Warriors are 400,000 short of 10 million combined.

USA Today’s For the Win broke down the winner and losers of NBA free agency Day 1.

The winners? The Brooklyn Nets, Philadelphia 76ers, Utah Jazz, Indiana Pacers, and Sacramento Kings

The losers? The Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Clippers, Charlotte Hornets, Houston Rockets and Phoenix Suns.

Small markets for the win.

Of course the Lakers had a solid two offseasons with the acquisitions of LeBron James and Anthony Davis. However, one could argue that LeBron’s move to the Lakers was more of a business move than a championship.

He’s already gotten started on Space Jam 2 and a new TV show. His son is soon to transfer from Crossroads High School to Sierra Canyon School.

Sure, there are plenty of exceptions. But it almost seems as if the rule is that NBA free agents are more inclined to opt for smaller markets than the league’s iconic franchises in large markets.

If that’s the case, then the NBA Draft and trade deadline are twice as important. That’s not the most reassuring thing for Bulls fans to hear.

Maybe it’s time for the Bulls to move to Iowa.

Just don’t tell GarPax that the team is moving.