Sports question your the best player on a eternally s--ty team how long do you stay for the stats before you leave or ask to be traded?

I know convential theory is when your drafted or in mlbs case brought up from the farm league you play for a few seasons on the team your drafted so everyone can see how good you play and get some positive stats for the next contract

But what do you do if say your the best hitter for the orioles or used to be the best player on the Denver nuggets …How long do you keep going because hey your the best player there by comparison Or say " this place has and will suck forever and I can’t make it better …

I know the NFL is different because is depends so much on other people like your getting sacked 50 times a season because your blockers are a waste and your getting hurt and the like

How well paid am I?

I would only want to be traded as a last resort. Being traded tends to come with steep expectations by your new team, and they get madder if you perform subpar relative to the higher the trade-value price they paid for you. Demanding a trade also leaves bad feelings at your home shitty team.

Assuming my contract wasn’t some super-long deal, like a 10-year thing, I think I would just play it out, then leave as an unrestricted free agent.

I would say look at what players like Ichiro, Alex Rodriguez and Joey Votto have done, or what Mike Trout and Shohei Otani do. At least for MLB where longer contracts and structures of the league and game make staying in one place more likely for stars. Good players on bad teams that arent seeing themselves (the team) being close to contention also have a higher chance of being traded because of getting prospects. (Unless it’s the Rockies)

NBA players seem a lot more willing and their contract are more able to let them change teams to chase a ring.
And NFL contracts are so short I can’t think of many players who would ever get a long contract with injury risks and a large pool of cheap college talent to draft from. (Tom Brady and Peyton Manning had long stints, but hardly stuck on bad teams.)

If you looking at the difference between the quality of player and the team’s results, Mike Trout and the Angels has to be one of the largest disparities. He’s signed through 2031.

Ernie Banks was sort of the epitome of this, with the Cubs. But that was before free agency, so there he stayed.

There are so many it depends here. Where am I playing? Sucking in Denver is one thing sticking in Cleveland is another. Am I getting paid like I deserve? If I’m raking in cash and sponsorship deals then it’s worth it to stick around. How bad is the team around me? Losing isn’t fun and constantly getting your teeth kicked in for 20 years would suck but if you’re at least a 500 club with occasional years making the playoffs that wouldn’t be so bad.

I think the Seattle Mariners are one example of how players choose to sign with a team that’s been pretty mediocre to bad for 20 years. Players have still signed pretty long contracts with them. And might need overpaid, but they have still joined the team. Possibly because they seemed close to contention.

I wouldn’t say a .500 that makes the playoffs occasionally is an eternaly bad sort of team. The Angels have been like that for a while now, but they still have Mike Trout and Shohei Otani, two of the best players in the MLB.

I definitely think that each sport is different and baseball has a small enough an volitile enough of a post-season that teams just need i get in to have a chance, football as well.

Each sport is much different. In baseball you have to play in the majors for 6 years before you can become an unrestricted free agent. In general you that’s when you leave. Either the current team shows you they want to keep you or you find a team that does. Future hall of famers will get paid wherever they go. For the vast majority you get paid as much as possible while they still want to pay you.

Of course, a team’s fortunes can change in a year or two, and 2031 is eternity from now.

I have a hard time picturing how I would feel about it, at least in part because I’m no athlete, and I know that I lack the strong competitive streak that the vast majority of high-level athletes have.

And, I think that that’s what it comes down to: if you’re a professional athlete (and a great one, at that), you almost undoubtedly aspire to win your sport’s championship at least once during your career, as it represents the ultimate competitive achievement that you can realize. When players are evaluated (by writers and fans) after they retire, such players would rather not be affixed with the parenthetical statement, “yeah, but he never won the big one.”

As @RickJay notes, in the major U.S. professional sports, between free agency and the draft (which allows weaker teams access to the best players entering the league), it’s entirely possible to turn a team’s fortunes around fairly quickly. But, this requires team leadership – the owner, the front office, and the coaching staff – that is able to make the right decisions, and pick the right players; some teams (the Detroit Lions are probably the the poster child for this) seem to be perpetually unable to get out of their own way, and never seem to be able to get over that hump.

If, as per the OP, you’re such a player, and are with a team that has not only been weak for years, but shows no sign of finding a way out of the wilderness, then, yes, I would not be surprised at all to see that player decide that they want out, before their chance to actually win the big game evaporates entirely. (FWIW, Matthew Stafford, the former Lions quarterback, did exactly this over this past offseason, and forced a trade to the Rams.)

Matt Le Tissier is one of the best players in Premier League history but spent his entire professional career with his local team Southampton. He never won a trophy and in sixteen years the team only had one season where they finished higher than 10th. Every other season they were in the bottom half of the league. Sometimes battling relegation. But as a midfield player he scored 161 league goals and 209 goals in all competitions. He was a hero to a lot of young kids growing up because of his remarkable skill. But he only played for the England national team eight times. If he played for a more fashionable club team he definitely would have played every game for years and years but the England team selection had a bias to the bigger clubs.

Check out his reel here. Imagine how good he would have been if his team mates were on the same level.

Even the Lions could pull it off. It takes one new GM.

It was not that long ago that the idea of the Chicago Cubs, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Los Angeles Kings, or Toronto Raptors winning a championship would have caused uproarious laughter. Of course, great franchises can be laid low as well.

Players are humans, too, and may like one city over another, or not want to move their families… or they may just enjoy the idea of trying out a new city.

I agree; however, I think it also takes ownership being able to select the right GM, and the Lions have made some really horrible choices for that position, too.

I truly feel sad for Lions fans. Their team has won exactly one playoff game since 1958, and that win was in the 1991 postseason.

Definitely so. They may decide to give a “hometown discount” during contract negotiations with their current team because they really like the city where they’re playing, or they may be willing to take a lower salary in order to free up cap room for their team to sign other players (something that Tom Brady apparently did when he was with the Patriots).

Speaking as a Packer fan, who grew up during my own team’s “wandering in the wilderness” in the 1970s and 1980s, one of the issues that they did run into was that, as a small (and very white) city, they were not particularly appealing to African American players, and had a difficult time attracting top free agents, until Reggie White decided to come to Green Bay.

heres an example

“It’s hard to have fond emotions when the team you knew has been systematically dismantled and replaced with an unrecognizable losing machine.”

In Watt’s case, the situation in Houston went completely into the crapper over the past year-plus, and it was clear that the front office situation was a disaster.

Watt originally loved playing in Houston, and they had been a pretty successful team up through 2019.

And Houston loves him. He did a ton of charity work for the community.

If the idea is that I’m great, but have never won anything and don’t expect to win anything if I stay, I move as soon as possible.

If the team has promise for the future or if I’m late in my career and have already won, then it would depend on if I’m being compensated fairly and like the city. If those are true I’m probably ok playing on a bad team.

Watt’s situation makes sense. He’s already made a ton of money, pretty much any team would be happy to have him. Why spend your last few productive years with an organization in complete disarray?

I’ve always wondered why Miguel Cabrerra stuck around in Detroit so long.

The Tigers were contenders from 2011 to 2014, making postseason appearances in each of those years (including being swept in the WS by the Giants in 2012).
2016 was Cabrera’s final season playing at an elite level. At that point, he still had 7 years and $212 million left on his guaranteed contract. If he had an opt out, he would have been crazy to exercise it. As for the Tigers, they would have loved to have traded him, but who would take that on? Or even half of it? It’s bonkers that he’s going to make $32 in each of the next two seasons, but if the Tigers had managed to win a WS or two while Miguel was still in his prime, they would have eaten the money happily.