Author: Rob Mahoney

Dallas Mavericks v Los Angeles Lakers - Game Two

With rumors abound, Lakers near a franchise crossroads


Though the formalization of the new CBA proceeds at a slow churn, the NBA rumor mill is already in mid-season form. Chris Paul and Dwight Howard — both in the final year of their respective contracts — are suddenly ready to be shipped every which way, and media outlets of every form are examining the possibility of certain teams landing the big fish of next year’s free agent class.

The most popular rumored destinations are, shockingly, a pair of usual suspects: the New York Knicks and the Los Angeles Lakers. Clearly the new collective bargaining agreement has rocked basketball sensibilities to their very core.

The Knicks are a particularly odd case because they seem to be included in the discussion without regard for practical considerations. I’m sure Chris Paul would love to play alongside Amar’e Stoudemire and Carmelo Anthony…just as I’m sure he’d love to play alongside LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh. Desire alone won’t will Paul to New York any more than it’ll get him to Miami, as the Knicks lack the cap space to sign him outright next summer and no longer have the assets to sell the Hornets on a trade. The financial pieces just don’t seem to add up to link Paul to the Knicks, but then again: stranger things have happened.

The Lakers’ position in such rumors is slightly more believable, if only because Los Angeles is inching toward a franchise crossroads, and actually has the pieces necessary to facilitate some kind of deal. The underlying truth that drives the Lakers involvement is the fact that their core is unstable in the long-term; the salary commitments to Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, and Andrew Bynum are only set to get more and more ridiculous as time goes on, eventually reaching a critical point by the third season of the new collective bargaining agreement. It may be too early to panic in anticipation of a development a few years down the line, but realistically, the Lakers should begin planning for their future — both in terms of that particular season and life after Kobe in general — as soon as possible.

As remarkable of a player as Bryant is, things don’t typically bode all that well for 33-year-old wing players staring down the twilight of their careers. His ridiculous work ethic will no doubt keep him productive for a long while, but the days of Bryant anchoring a team with his ridiculous output are numbered, if not already flittering away. Yet Kobe will be paid $25 million this season, $28 million next year, and $31 million in 2012-2013 — just in time to take up nearly half the room under the newly fortified luxury tax line. Oh, and Los Angeles only has to find room for Pau Gasol’s salary of around $19 million for each of the next three seasons, the two years remaining and $31 million remaining on Andrew Bynum’s deal (and a likely extension beyond that point), a new contract or replacement for Lamar Odom, and a roster full of competent role players alongside that enormous financial commitment to Bryant.

If Jerry Buss is willing to cut the check for an unprecedented luxury tax bill, then the Lakers have a shot at preserving their current core. But even then, there is no guarantee that the trio of Bryant, Gasol, and Bynum will be able to score L.A. another championship. This isn’t really the kind of situation that a general manager and owner can just stew on; something’s gotta give, as the Lakers will likely either start to feel their on-court performance become stale over time, or be saddled with three giant contracts that prevent the construction of an adequate supporting cast.

The Lakers may never make a serious run at Howard or Paul, but considering where they stand, they’ll certainly entertain the notion. It’s difficult to say exactly what Los Angeles would be willing to surrender in the process — or the resolve with which they’ll explore those superstar options — but the potential and mechanics of a possible deal are there, as are some very real motivations for the Lakers to rework their roster on the fly.

On the skews of the NBA’s new scheduling formula

Rockets Hornets Basketball
Leave a comment

We still have yet to see the NBA’s official schedule (or have approval of the tentative collective bargaining framework from the NBA’s players and owners, but who’s letting that stop them from moving on?) for the coming season, but thanks to a release from, we have a basic idea of how the distribution of games should look for every team. Matt Moore dug into the particulars over the weekend, including the unusual back-to-back-to-backs we’ll see in the coming season and the revenue loss of the unfortunate teams who won’t get a visit from the Lakers or Heat.

But if we read between the lines of the scheduling notes, a bit of an imbalance begins to take shape. Teams are currently scheduled for 48 in-conference and 18 inter-conference games — an arrangement that on the surface, should greatly favor those in the East. This is nothing new; under normal circumstances, NBA teams have more games against conference opponents than non-conference ones, so one side or the other inevitably gets the short end of the stick.

Yet by reducing the total number of games, each of those specific matchups matters more than usual. Decreasing the sample size of a season from 82 games to 66 increases the chance of a fluke regular season result, but it also gives every game additional value. A single victory will be worth more this season than in one of standard length, for the simple reason that there are fewer total games to go around.

So the fact that Western Conference teams will play nearly three-fourths of their games against in-conference opponents seems rather noteworthy. The West was by far the deeper of the two conferences last season, with 11 teams winning 39 games or more to the East’s seven. That glut of contention and competence will have to battle it out on a tight schedule with a big impact, which could lead to a bit of an insane scramble for the West’s lower playoff seeds.

Additionally, divisional schedules will matter more than ever this year, as each NBA team will play the full four-game slate against only six different opponents — four of which are presumably divisional foes. The rest of the matchups will be three, two, or one-game affairs, meaning that those situated in the most competitive divisions are saddled with more games against difficult opponents. Again, that in itself is nothing new, but the fewer total number of games coupled with the new breakdown of the various season series’ makes such variables even more important than usual.

That could spell bad news for the Houston Rockets, a team forever stuck on the playoff fringe. For all of their efforts last season — the Rockets won 43 games, just three short of the eighth seed — Houston still managed to rank dead last in the very competitive Southwest division. Part of the reason for that: a 5-11 record against the four other teams in the Southwest, which filled a chunk of the Rockets’ schedule with dropped games against tough competition. In theory, Houston seems likely to have as tough of a road as anyone next season, as they’ll face that same competitive group of divisional opponents (Dallas, San Antonio, Memphis, New Orleans) in a greater percentage of their overall games. As a team likely to fall again on the playoff cusp, the margin for error is already painfully small; the Rockets will somehow have to make the most of their more difficult schedule, lest they end another year in the lottery.

These factors alone won’t decide the fate of the Rockets or any other team, but the length of the season has slightly magnified the importance of the schedule’s typical quirks.

Bluffing or not, David Stern gets his deadline

NBA And Player's Association Meet To Negotiate CBA

For all of the emphasis on David Stern’s recent ultimatum to the members of the National Basketball Players Association, this is hardly the first time he’s issued a deadline threat against the union. The lockout has been laced with cancellation dates, each with the accompanying acknowledgement from Stern that the league’s offers would reflect the damage of games lost. That doesn’t seem to have been the case thus far, as the league’s stance has remained more or less the same. If anything, the offers have become more favorable for the players in recent weeks.

With all of that in mind, it’s natural to wonder if — as Henry Abbott discussed earlier this week on TrueHoop — Stern and the owners will actually follow through with their most recent threat: a reset to a 47-53 proposal that the union would likely never agree to. Stern’s threat record speaks pretty clearly, but there’s always the chance that this is where Stern and the owners legitimately draw the line. There’s a chance that for whatever reason, they’ve picked today, an otherwise nondescript November 9th, as the day when the fate of the basketball universe will be decided.

For all of the rhetoric about the union “calling Stern’s bluff,” this ultimatum has created a sense of urgency. The players may not have accepted the deal the NBA put on the table, but they’re still granting the ultimatum its gravity by rushing to scrap together a last-ditch attempt to negotiate out some system-related kinks.

Late Sunday night, Howard Beck of the New York Times wrote:

The union regards the deadline as artificial and believes the N.B.A. will return to the table.

If the players truly believe that, their actions betray their belief. The NBPA has responded to the NBA’s arbitrary deadline by formally meeting with the entire body of player representatives to discuss their options, and by returning to the table to discuss the league’s latest offer in an attempt to get the owners to move from their positions on a few holdout issues. The players have done a terrific job of flipping the lockout narrative in the process, but they’ve also made the deadline anything but artificial. Stern aimed to make today a critical point in the negotiations when he made his ultimatum, and it has become just that. At this point, no one can say how this otherwise nondescript November 9th will actually turn out, but a threat — legitimate or not — has pushed both parties back into the negotiating room to stave off an “artificial” deadline. Here’s hoping that we’ll never learn the substance of that now infamous ultimatum.