Cause it can’t have both

SCOTT JACOBS

Here’s what we know.  Leagues shouldn’t own teams.  Because when the interests are mixed between what’s right for one team, and what’s right for all, you get dumbfounding situations like Thursday, when an agreed upon trade which would have sent all world PG Chris Paul to the Lakers, gets vetoed, by one, David Stern.

Cavs owner Dan Gilbert wrote another epic letter, this time to the commish, telling him that amongst other things, “it would be a travesty” and that the league should “just change the name of the 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals.”

While Gilbert is taking a lot of heat for this email, which was published by Yahoo! Sports, it raises some good points:

1. How did we get here?

How did we get to the point where every big-time player the NBA has, just lines up behind one another (like it’s Black Friday or something) and basically dictates where they want to play?  People want to blame LeBron and friends, but this goes much further back than that.

Remember when Alonzo Mourning refused to play for Toronto after being traded to the Raptors in 2004?  He bought his time, until they bought him out ($10 million to do nothing, where can I sign up?) and eventually landed with the Heat where he helped them bring home a title.

Ironically, the same deal that sent Mourning to the Raptors was also the one that shipped Vince Carter out of Canada.  Air Canada was “to Canada what Michael Jordan was to the Bulls,” said Donyell Marshall at the time.

That was over 7 years ago.

Today the problem seems to only be getting worse.  Superstars are forcing the hand of their teams, with many trying to dictate where they land.  It’s becoming sickening and exciting as a sports fan to watch; sickening, because well, no one seems happy playing for 25 of the NBA’s Washington Generals teams anymore and exciting because these super teams are fascinating to watch.

No matter what side of the fence you’re on, it has made the NBA almost more interesting off the court then it is on the court.  But small market teams are reeling as their home-grown stars flee for greener pastures in bigger cities.

Of course there are two sides to every story, so I’m not 100% sympathetic to owners either:

Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom, who were critical pieces in Los Angeles’ rise back to greatness, were merely pawns in L.A.’s offer to get Paul.  Andrew Bynum, who the Lakers have been dangling for years, could be next if it nets them almighty Dwight Howard.  The point being that loyalty is a two way street.  Some players are extremely loyal, and so are some owners.  But at the end of the day it’s a business and money talks.  And money is a real loudmouth.

So we’re left to ask ourselves: whose side do you take?  Do you take one at all?  You have to remember: owners sign players, then market them, profit off of their jersey sales, ticket sales, etc.  Basically they use each other.  And sports is one of the few professions where as a player you can’t just leave any time you want to work for another team/company.  If I’m a copywriter at a Minneapolis ad agency and I decide that I’d like a change of scenery, some nicer weather, and maybe some more seasoned team members to work with, I can try to find a job in Los Angeles or Miami or wherever. No one can stop me.

In the NBA you have free agency.  When you hit free agency you’re free to do whatever.  Under contract you’re a team’s property.  So I see both sides.  I see the rich players who get tired of an unstable or uncomfortable situation and decide they want to move.  I see the fans of these small market teams and how it breaks their heart to see their heroes defect for brighter lights and bigger cities.

The argument I don’t get is the attention one.  Look, if Dwight Howard wants to go to Los Angeles or Brooklyn, then so be it.  But if his reasoning is that he can be a bigger star there than he ever could in Orlando, I don’t buy it.  Superman is a household name to just about every casual sports fan, and if you asked a non-NBA fan to name a few current NBA players, besides Kobe, Wade, and LeBron, you’d have to think Dwight would be right up there.  If he wants to live in a bigger city, where you can actually experience seasons, get more opportunities to be in the public spotlight (aka: TMZ), and maybe do some acting or whatever, then I can understand the L.A. or Brooklyn argument.

It’s a sticky wicket.  We see these players as millionaires doing something many of us would do for free, and our first reaction is to tell them to quit complaining, enjoy their absurdly high paying job, and shut the heck up.  But when you look beyond money there’s an argument for both sides.

2. When everyone becomes the Washington Generals, you find yourself staring at something close to resembling a monopoly. That’s a scary thought for the NBA and it should be.

We hear the line all the time in pro sports: big markets equal big bucks.  It’s why FOX jumps for joy when the Yankees or Red Sox make it to the World Series.  It’s why ABC cringes when a team like the Spurs (small market by sports standards, not by city standards, cause that city is huge) gets to the NBA Finals.  Football is unique in that we will always watch the Super Bowl and even the playoffs, no matter who’s in it, because football is as much a star driven sport as it is a team one.

So back to the NBA:  What do you do when the rich keep getting richer, and the small market teams keep getting more irrelevant.?

Bosh’s trade to the Heat effectively ended any relevance in the U.S. that Toronto ‘s NBA team had.  Quick, name 3 Raptors starters.

LeBron’s defection to the Heat led to a 25 game losing streak for Cleveland last year and the eventual number 1 pick, which who knows, could lead to another star in Kyrie Irving who, defects after 7 years himself.

The Nuggets had to appease Carmelo Anthony in an awkward 4 month circus, before they finally dealt him to the Big Apple, a trade he basically forced upon them, because he wouldn’t go to New Jersey.

And now you have Paul, telling New Orleans I’m leaving (though I can’t blame him given the disarray that team is in) and Howard telling the Magic that he’s got one foot out the door too.  Utah knew they weren’t going to be able to resign Deron Williams so they dealt him to the Nets last year.

It’s a mess, and it only figures to get worse as players try to form their own super-star laden teams, while the talent pool runs dry for everyone else.

The NBA lockout was supposed to address these issues, but really the issue is pretty much out of their control.  Besides blocking trades, the NBA can’t wrap electric wire around the Staples Center or Madison Square so that future stars can’t get in.  Players will sign where they want to sign, but a league of 5 haves and 25 have nots can’t possibly be good for business.  Even if the haves are in attractive locales like New York, Chicago, Miami, and Los Angeles.

3. When the better team gets the better player, the better situation, and somehow ends up in better financial position than they were previously, putting them in play to became a rockstar super-team, and the league owns the team that’s letting it happen, how can they go through with it?

Gilbert also wrote this:

I cannot remember ever seeing a trade where a team got by far the best player in the trade and saved over $40 million in the process. And it doesn’t appear that they would give up any draft picks, which might allow to later make a trade for Dwight Howard. (They would also get a large trade exception that would help them improve their team and/or eventually trade for Howard.)

This is a dicey situation for the league.  For Stern to regulate a trade and say this is fair and this isn’t, well, it totally undermines general managers around the league to do their job.

And what does the NBA want exactly?  If you don’t want a player under contract to dictate his destination, fine him if he demands a trade.  Suspend him.  Put some kind of system in place that destroys these situations before they ever occur. Because once you start making judgement calls on player transactions than your credibility takes a massive hit.

One thing the NBA should have addressed is its buy-out policy.  These empty contracts that teams trade for are ridiculous.  You want to blame big market teams, fine.  But the small market ones didn’t help this problem by trading away stars for expiring deals.  That said, the NBA needs to understand the impact of its actions and if this was about “basketball,” as they so claim, and not competitive balance or the rich getting richer, than how did the Pau Gasol trade, which years ago looked like the greatest fleecing in sports history get approved at the time?  The NBA doesn’t want to go down this path, just like the NHL doesn’t want to own the Coyotes beyond this year.  Owning one of your league’s teams is a giant contradiction and the NBA needs to find a solution to the New Orleans situation and fast.

Gilbert’s in a rough spot. His team is in rebuilding mode post-LeBron and he sees that places like Cleveland don’t attract big-time stars.  He probably fears that any star the Cavs can groom, will eventually want out too for a more glamorous destination.

But unless we put every team in a massive market or warm weather climate, there’s going to be some imbalance.  The NBA’s problem is not just monetary.  The Hornets would sign Chris Paul to a long term max deal in a minute; same with Orlando and Dwight Howard. But if those guys don’t want to be there, there’s little you can do about it, except get the best value for them possible before they bolt.

Super-teams are both good and bad.  Look at it like this: the Big 12 usually has a few really good teams at the top each year in college football and a lot of middle-tier teams and bottom feeders; though the Big 12 is usually in the BCS title game picture every year, its overall strength from top to bottom changes drastically as you move down the ladder.  Then you have the Big East, which this year was a free for all because every team was so mediocre.  The Big East was much more balanced, but far less interesting.

Now back to the NBA, which seems to want both competitive balance and super-teams.  The NBA wants what the NFL has: that chance for your team to improve drastically overnight and into a contender.  Every NFL team goes into each season with the belief that they can make the playoffs.  And with the exception of Buffalo and Detroit, new teams each year usually do.  But super-teams means super ratings, and more interest in the league than a bunch of mediocre squads playing bumper cars with each other.

Super-teams are far more likely to capture the interest of your casual fan than two ho-hum equal teams duking it out.

The NBA wants both, but I’m not sure in this economic climate that it’s feasible.

You’re either going to get teams like the Heat with LeBron, Bosh, and Wade or you’re going to get a bunch of teams like the Nuggets (good teams with quality players, but none who stands out).  The owners don’t want super-teams if they’re the ones who can’t attract ‘em.  But guys like Mickey Arison and Jerry Buss can’t be blamed because they have the resources to put these squads together.

In sports, just like life you can’t please everybody.  Right now, the NBA doesn’t seem like it’s able to please anybody.

Photo: AP

Popularity: 4% [?]