The magnetic nature of markets and why we need a weighted lottery

5 Comments

Over at TrueHoop, Kevin Arnovitz is the latest in a long stream of really thoughtful people to start trotting down a path that is hyper-supportive of the free market and very skeptical of the value of any handouts. The topic in this particular instance is the draft, and how if the 2011-2012 season is lost in totality, perhaps the NBA should abandon the draft. The concept is to allow players to just enter as free agents and let the chips fall where they may. Its foundation is based on a conversation between Malcolm Gladwell and Bill Simmons (because if I’m searching for practical solutions to real-life problems, THAT’s exactly where I’m starting) about how the real answer to contention is free agency, not the draft, and because it’s illogical to reward losing, every team should have an equal shot in the lottery. Arnovitz takes it a few steps further. It’s the NBA deregulation equivalent of saying “really, that toxic spill is the ducks’ problem.” But Arnovitz makes a good case as he always does:

If you wanted to extend Gladwell’s idea even further, why not eliminate the draft altogether in 2012 in the event of a lost season? Declare every eligible incoming player a free agent and allow the market (and the restraints of the salary cap) to dictate where they land.

We often assume that small-market teams would get the shaft, but are we absolutely certain that Harrison Barnes would agree to take a minimum salary (for the sake of this exercise, let’s say there’s a “rookie minimum exception” of $2 million for teams with zero cap room) from the Lakers when Sacramento could back up the truck for his services and guarantee him the starting small forward position for years to come? Would a Jared Sullinger or Anthony Davis be willing to play out of position as a fourth option in Miami for millions less than he could earn in Indiana?

We don’t know, but for a league that’s grappling for a new financial model and examining issues like revenue sharing and competitive balance, it would be useful to find out. In a draft-less world, rookies would be paid at market value and teams that have been frugal would have an advantage over those who have spent lavishly. Most incoming players would have to balance factors like dollars, touches and the allure of a marquee market.

via What a canceled season could mean for the draft – TrueHoop Blog – ESPN.

Couple of thoughts here, and because I’m not a good enough writer after forty-nine days of lockout brain damage, I’m going to use bullets. That’s right. Bullets.

  • As a starting point, let’s take a quick review of contending teams in the NBA. The Spurs were the top seed in the league, and have won four championships in twelve years. Plus they’re a small market. It’s a good thing that they’ve negotiated free agency so well to get Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Gino… oh, no. Well, hold on. Oklahoma City has all that cap space, and they were within range of the Finals, everyone says they’re going to be champions at some point with this core. I remember when they made that offer to Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook in… no. Well, hey, the Celtics did completely build their core around the guys they brought in in 2007. Not like they drafted Paul Pierce and then used younger players they drafted to pull in Garnett and Ray All… whoops. I’ve run the joke dry, so, Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Derrick Rose, Joakim Noah, Luol Deng, Dwyane Wade all drafted. Can you win with free agency? Yeah, pretty sure the Heat prove that theory, but it’s a combination of both.
  • Next, there’s this prevailing concept that there is no reason to try and weight things against small markets, that the open market will take care of itself. Getting beyond the absurdity that is the fact the Lakers have been in 31 of 63 Finals and both Boston and Los Angeles have more combined championships than the Steelers, Cowboys, Patriots, Broncos, Raiders, 49ers, Packers, and Dolphins, a quick trip down memory lane brings up a few fun ones. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar sticking Milwaukee and heading to LA for his prime, Shaq abandoning Orlando for the same, Dennis Johnson’s career in whole, Bill Walton all the same, Carmelo Anthony, LeBron James, Amar’e Stoudemire, Pau Gasol, we’re not really lacking for examples of the cream rising to the largely populated top. But let’s just take those as outliers, rare random exceptions in a sea of small market success. In fact, let’s get past the whole impact of markets in general.
  • The real problem isn’t even necessarily markets. It’s the perception that winning is success and that success is any sort of indicator year by year of whether the team is run well. That sounds moronic, right? How can it be wrong to determine how good a team is by looking at their success? The answer is that these things go in cycles. Let’s take Jared Sullinger for example. Let’s say Jared enters the big ol’ open market and the Spurs are interested for a lower price and the Hornets are interested for a slightly higher value. Arnovitz is correct that Sullinger will weigh the fact that if he goes to San Antonio he’ll be sitting behind Tim Duncan and if he goes to New Orleans he takes David West’s spot. But Sullinger’s going to look at the two choices and examine which has a better chance of winning a title. Because while players love money, in their youth there’s also the idea that they can earn the money later. Win now, and your market value goes up immediately. But in reality, he wouldn’t sign with San Antonio. Or New Orleans. He’d probably sign with the Lakers. Why? Because when Pau Gasol is gone, he’s the Lakers’ power forward. Then he gets paid. So he gets to compete for a title now, take over when Gasol is gone and get the money, and on top of it? These are kids. Young men. And young men care about how cool something is. Brandon Jennings is a Buck and is happy enough about it. But he wanted to be a Knick because that’s cool. And that factor, which is exaggerated by the success of larger markets, is self-propelling.
  • The real harm in a system without the draft isn’t to small market teams like New Orleans, or San Antonio. It’s to places like Minnesota, Milwaukee, Indiana, and Cleveland. Places that have terrible weather in the winter, no big reputation for being awesome, aren’t mentioned in songs, and are the kinds of places people on the coasts don’t care about. That’s a huge part in all this.
  • You know what’s really frustrating? Back before the internet was really booming, when you needed an immediate weather update on a huge deadly storm in the Midwest, you went to the Weather Channel. Your local stations couldn’t afford updates in the middle of the day on a Saturday, so you went to the Weather Channel to find out if your house was going to be blown away. Unfortunately, the only updates you could get would be on how the weather was in Long Beach (GUESS WHAT, IT IS SUNNY AND 75 AGAIN TODAY!) or Long Island (mild rain showers, be sure to get those umbrellas, New York!). The results is that while houses are being blown away, the Weather Channel is focused on places that don’t have bad weather. That’s kind of the same deal here. Milwaukee’s ownership hasn’t been flawless, but they haven’t been cheap. They haven’t drafted exceptionally well, but they haven’t been terrible. But trying to compete in a free agency only system would drive them into nothingness. Which a lot of people are fine with because that means they end up getting contracted. Most of these people live on coasts and root for teams with great chances of winning a title next year.
  • In reality, it’s good for the league to have some sort of idea that anyone can win a title, that the rest of the teams aren’t just around to be Washington Generals. I can definitely buy into the concept that we shouldn’t reward bad ownership (yet we do under the current pro-big-market system by letting Donald Sterling make a profit), and that this isn’t about helping out those who can’t help themselves. But creating change is good. Having a fanbase go from good to bad makes it more interesting when they have a revival. It lets them ease up on costs for a while as they rebuild, and re-evaluate. And having teams go from bad to good is essential in growing the fanbase of the entire league.
  • Now, again, Arnovitz’ central idea is that it’s worth seeing if an open market would result in Sullinger signing with Milwaukee, or Charlotte, or Brooklyn with the decision weighted on what’s best for the player. But the risk is too great of some teams never being able to sign any young players, constantly over-paying for marginal veterans and staying in the range of terrible-to-barely-mediocre. Proof of that lies with the Bobcats of the past several years. They weren’t denied draft picks, they just traded or sold them. The Bobcats tried to rely on veterans, they used the trade market as their free agency counter. The result was a disaster it will take years to dig out of.
  • Maybe it’s possible that all markets really are equal and that these 18 and 19 year-olds will follow the advice of their agents and make the best overall decision considering all factors. Maybe we’ll see equality throughout the land and it will serve only to further punish those teams who aren’t ran well. But it’s just as likely that teams that are run well but not exceptionally so in places that don’t have metro systems will find themselves tumbling down the wheel of disaster, with no way to slow their momentum or recover from a free agency departure or a bad injury. The bad get worse, and the worse get even worse, unless they’re metropolitan, in which case they lean on legacy and endorsements and they’re fine. At some point, we’ve got to decide whether we as fans want a league of teams or to seek out the elimination of those teams who aren’t doing well at this particular moment in time.

Doc Rivers seemingly blames Steve Ballmer for Clippers losing Joe Ingles

Gene Sweeney Jr/Getty Images
1 Comment

Entering the 2014-15 season, the Clippers had to waive someone to meet the regular-season roster maximum. Their choice came down to Joe Ingles and Jared Cunningham, neither of whom had guaranteed salaries.

L.A. kept Cunningham and waived Ingles. Cunningham never made a significant NBA impact. The Jazz claimed Ingles on waivers, and he became a quality starter in Utah.

Clippers coach Doc Rivers was also team president at that time.

Mike Sorensen of the Deseret News:

When asked Wednesday if he regrets that decision, Rivers answered, “all the time.”

“I said it the day we released him that this was a bad decision and that we’re going to regret it,” he said. “Unfortunately I was working for someone who said we couldn’t eat a contract. We were begging to eat one contract and they said that will never happen and we had to let him go.”

Did Rivers confuse the timeline and think he was blaming Donald Sterling, the former Clippers owner who was notoriously cheap? Current owner Steve Ballmer bought the team and was announced as the owner before the start of the 2014-15 season, when Ingles was signed for camp and released. Ballmer has talked big about spending, and is Rivers’ boss right now. It’d be strange for Rivers to criticize Ballmer like this, but I also can’t figure out whom else he’d be referring to besides the owner. As team president, Rivers had no other oversight within basketball operations.

Maybe Rivers wanted to keep both Ingles and Cunningham and waive someone with a guaranteed salary – likely Hedo Turkoglu, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Ekpe Udoh or Glen Davis. But, in hindsight, the obviously right call would have been waiving whichever of those players was necessary to keep Ingles.

The frequent criticism of the Clippers about Ingles is somewhat unfair. They brought Ingles to training camp when other teams didn’t. The only reason they were positioned to waive him is because they were ahead of the curve on him.

But they also had the unique opportunity to evaluate him up close and still decided he wasn’t worth a roster spot.

How did that decision get made? Rivers passing the buck only adds confusion. It seemed as if it were his decision.

Luka Doncic becomes second NBA teenager to record triple-double, Bucks rout Mavs anyway

Associated Press
1 Comment

Is Luka Doncic an All-Star?

He’s not a starter (in my vote, anyway) but in what is an exhibition designed to give the fans what they want, why not have Doncic in the game? He is what the fans want. I’m not convinced he’ll make the cut — at least in the ridiculously deep West, in the East he probably would — but it’s a legitimate conversation. The kid can flat-out ball.

Case in point, he dropped a triple-double on the Bucks on MLK Day, becoming only the second teenager to record an NBA triple-double. (The other was Markelle Fultz, who was 10-days younger when he got his, also against Milwaukee.) Doncic finished the game with 18 points, 11 rebounds, and 10 assists.

Doncic’s play was not enough to keep the Bucks from racking up their fifth straight win, and doing it pretty easily (although Dallas made an 11-0 fourth-quarter run to make it a little interesting). Giannis Antetokounmpo had 31 points and 15 rebounds, while Eric Bledsoe had 21 points, and Brook Lopez finished with 16 points, 10 rebounds, and five blocks (that was Lopez’s first double-double with the Bucks).

Reports: Houston trades Carmelo Anthony to Chicago, who will waive him

Associated Press
11 Comments

Carmelo Anthony‘s sabbatical is over. Sort of.

Anthony, who has been on the Houston roster but not with the team after that experiment crashed and burned 10 games into the season, will be traded to the Chicago Bulls. Adrian Wojnarowski of ESPN broke the story (and other reports have since confirmed it). However, he’s not going to be putting on a Bulls’ jersey.

He may not be waived until after the Feb. 7 deadline, in case the Bulls find a way to use his salary in a one-for-one trade (his salary cannot be combined with others in a deal because he was just traded). If/when he is waived, at that point there will be more roster shuffling around the league and a landing spot for ‘Melo may open up.

Houston’s trade is much like the trade from Oklahoma City to Atlanta last summer that moved Anthony off the Thunder roster. The Hawks waived him and Anthony signed with the Rockets. For the Rockets, this is about saving money.

The Bulls also make a little under a million in this deal. If another team signs Anthony, it would be a benefit for the Hawks.

It’s unclear where Anthony’s ultimate landing spot will be, although his agent has said there are options.

After his struggles in Houston — where the future Hall of Famer thought he deserved more than a bench role due to his stature, even though because of his declining offensive skills and defense that’s all he warranted — it’s hard to imagine another contender or even playoff team picking him up. Maybe a franchise going all in on the Zion Williamson chase but wants a bump at the gate from the name recognition Anthony brings him in? Although for teams trying to develop young talent why take the ball out of those young guys’ hands to let Anthony jack up contested twos? Most likely it will be a team battling injuries and looking for help.

In 10 games for the Rockets this season coming off the bench, Anthony averaged 13.4 points and 5.4 rebounds a game, shot just 40.5 percent overall and 32.8 percent from three. The Rockets’ defense was 10.4 points per 100 possessions better when Anthony sat.

 

Report: Wizards look uninterested in trading Otto Porter for cap flexibility, future assets

Rob Carr/Getty Images
Leave a comment

Wizards owner Ted Leonsis said, “We will never, ever tank.” Washington also put out word it wasn’t looking to trade Otto Porter.

As much as all that sounded like lip service, it appears the Wizards are also conveying similar messages to potential trade partners.

Zach Lowe of ESPN:

the Wizards have shown little appetite for dealing Otto Porter anywhere for a return heavy on future assets and cap flexibility, sources say

John Wall‘s massive contract looked barely movable even before he underwent season-ending surgery. Washington seems unwilling to take a step back by trading star Bradley Beal.

So, that leaves unloading Porter – who’s earning $26,011,913 this year and due $55,739,815 over the next two seasons – as the obvious way to create cap flexibility and accumulate future assets. If the Wizards are unwilling to do that, it speaks volumes to their plan.

They don’t want to rebuild. They want to win now. Porter can help them do that.

In many ways, it’s noble Washington is so committed to winning, even at great expense. That’s generally what we want from teams. We don’t want them to give up or cut costs just because they’re a couple games out of playoff position midway through the season.

But the Wizards’ spending has been… uneven. Leonsis greenlit a payroll well into the luxury tax and is apparently willing to keep Porter, which likely keeps that payroll high. Yet, Washington is also holding as many roster spots vacant as allowed, offering small savings rather than adding depth amid multiple injuries.

Maybe the Wizards just don’t believe they could sign minimum-salary players who’d actually help. But insurance never hurts on the court.

So, Washington is left looking content holding its few major contracts, nickeling-and-diming down the roster, winning a barely moderate amount and not gaining better position for the future. I’m unconvinced that’s a worthy vision, but if that’s what the Wizards want, keeping Porter helps stay that course.