Yesterday, while working out, I heard that the Los Angeles Lakers had pulled off yet another blockbuster deal. According to reports, they had agreed in principle to acquire the rights of Chris Paul in a three team trade. Supposedly, they traded Pau Gasol to the Houston Rockets and Lamar Odom to the New Orleans Hornets. The trade included other players as well, but those three were the biggest names involved. The trade seemed to be really fair to each respective team. Some people were upset because they hate the Lakers. I, on the other hand, am not a Laker fan, nor a Laker naysayer. I am a fan of basketball and I recognize that Kobe Bryant is a top ten all time basketball player. During his career, he has never played with a true, dominant point guard. This was true partially because the triangle offense does not require a “true” point guard. Now, Kobe is at a different stage of his career and his athletic ability is not as jaw dropping as it once was. As such, it would be very interesting to see how a player like Chris Paul could make his life a lot easier and bring even more excitement to the NBA. Just as quickly as I called my dad, and talked to a few of my closest friends about the trade, I received word that the trade had been retracted.
At first, I called David Stern a “hater” and a few other choice words. Then I thought about my quick conclusion and decided to take a closer look at the issues. As much as I disagree with his decision, he was within his right to veto the trade. Every NBA trade is subject to the approval of the NBA or David Stern. I have watched the NBA for a number of years, and I have never heard of a trade being vetoed by the Commissioner. So, that begs the question: what made this trade so different? For starters, the New Orleans Hornets are owned by the NBA. This is atypical, as I believe the other NBA franchises are owned by private individuals or groups of investors. With the NBA owning the Hornets, it allowed Stern to have even more control over the deal. As Commissioner, and owner of the Hornets, he has an obligation to make decisions in the best interest of the Hornets, and ultimately the NBA. David Stern wants the New Orleans Hornets franchise to have as much value as possible so that when it is sold, the NBA will reap the financial benefits. With a franchise player like Chris Paul on the team, the franchise has a higher value and more individuals would likely purchase the team. However, without a franchise player, the value of the team plummets. No matter what David Stern wants, it is unfair to have what he wants at the expense of another individual’s right to freely change teams.
Some owners such as, Dan Gilbert, have contested the idea of allowing players to control their own destinies. This is pretty funny considering he never had an issue with player movement so long as Lebron James played for the Cleveland Cavaliers. Now, his fortunes have changed and he is adamantly against player movement. I cannot respect a man who loves the system when it benefits him, and then hates the very same system when it does not work in his favor. Oscar Robertson fought hard during the 1970’s for players’ free agency rights and their general ability to switch teams. Also, by way of contract law, citizens are allowed to freely contract so long as the contract does not violate public policy. I seriously doubt the Lakers trade violated any public policy. I understand the small market team owners are nervous that superstars will not come to their cities or that they will not sign long term contract extensions. As they say, “that is part of the price of doing business.” The United States prides itself on being a land ripe with opportunities and ability to participate in the free market. To that end, small market owners must rely on the NBA draft, free agency and good luck to get superstar talent.
There have been times when small market teams landed great players who stayed with their respective teams for long periods of time. The San Antonio Spurs drafted Tim Duncan and the Minnesota Timberwolves landed Kevin Garnett. Both players signed at least one contract extension with their respective team. Most recently, people were upset about Lebron James and Chris Bosh signing contracts to join the Miami Heat as free agents. Also, many people have likened that situation with the current Los Angeles Lakers failed trade attempt. That situation is different than the move the Lakers attempted to make. Chris Paul is not a free agent and he technically could not make his team trade him. He still has contractual obligations, whereas Lebron James and Chris Bosh did not. This situation is closer to the Carmelo Anthony trade that occurred last year. Carmelo let it be known that he would not re sign with the Denver Nuggets once he became a free agent, so it was in their best interest to trade him and receive some value for his services. During negotiations, I believe that is called leverage and it should be used to accomplish the goal at hand. The small market owners need to get over the notion that they can stop players from going where they want to go. That is not in the best interest of the NBA. I guess they fear an NBA with four or five “super teams,’ such as the 1980s with the Lakers, Pistons and Celtics. Sure, some of the parody may be missing, to a certain extent. However, what is lost in terms of parody would be gained in showmanship and overall interest in the NBA. Either way, players are free to make moves that are in their best interests, and owners should not be allowed to interfere.
Peace
No comments:
Post a Comment