I never understood the "Weather" thing...
Would you rather be in a place with fat women in parkas or skinny women in tank tops? Would you rather be somewhere you can drive 90 on the highway in a sportscar or where you might be going slower than OJ in a white Ford Bronco because of snow and ice? How often have you had to sit through an airplane takeoff or landing in a snowstorm?
For some people it takes one bad flight or one car accident, or even a near-accident, to convince them that they don't want to spend any time living in a city that has a decent chance of going through a few blizzards every winter.
So, I understand why weather would matter to some people and why they would be willing to take less money to play elsewhere.
Oh, I forgot, California doesn't have fat woman, and Boston doesn't have attractive women...
On the flip side, would you rather see fat ladies in tank tops as well?
The players take their own plane. It's not like they're sitting coach with a bunch of random people waiting for the plane to take off. What I'm saying is, during the season, you're probably traveling about half the time anyway, so it doesn't even matter where you live. Going on a west coast road trip, then coming home for 2 games, then going back on the road again 4 days after you just came home. I have never shadowed an NBA player, but I imagine a majority of their time is spent recovering from these trips, not driving 90 down the highway.
The only time it would matter, would be in the offseason... In which case, the NBA offseason in Boston, as far as weather is concerned, is during summer, and the start of fall. Hardly awful weather. Also, it's not hard to have houses in other parts of the country when you make millions.
Basically what I'm saying is, weather shouldn't even be a factor. It should be about what organization can put together the best team to win games. The Lakers AND the Celtics have historically done this, and the Celtics current ownership has shown they are willing to spend money if they think they can compete.