I consume a lot of NBA related media. Podcasts, articles, TV.
There’s not much I don’t take in, probably to the detriment of my personal and professional life – but I digress.
Amongst the overwhelming crush of NBA-related media (which I’m aware I’m presently trying to contribute to – the irony!) it can be difficult to discern nuance.
It has been said that while NFL is appointment viewing, the sporting equivalent of a feature film, the NBA being more frequent is like a television series.
Given that it’s on virtually every day for 6-7 months, it is sensible to draw equivalence with the nightly news.
And just like with the nightly news, once upon a time at least, people settle in with a drink and their dinner and let the events of the day wash over them, their interest piquing only when something especially tragic or interesting occurs.
With traditional network television nightly news, there are a variety of habitual phrases and language usage that is supposed to subtly signal certain things to the viewer.
Not all of these things are deliberate or nefarious but rather learned patterns of speaking about certain topics that the viewer unconsciously codes in their own mind.
Over time then we simply don’t question the use of something as innocuous as the term ‘mainstream’. If I said ‘mainstream’ in relation to political thought, you’d have a pretty good idea of the types of political values that I’m referring to.
Sure enough, there’s a way of looking at that term that superficially simply says mainstream = what the majority of people think. But we also know that the term is connoted with a positive inflection.
Mainstream = safe and with the crowd, it equals protection and security – ‘I’m not weird, everyone agrees with this!’
On the flip side, any term that refers to something outside the mainstream connotes something unusual. Something radical or risky. By definition then anything that doesn’t fit neatly with the accepted consensus jars and we are conditioned to feel uncomfortable.
So, what’s this got to do with the NBA?
How many times have you heard a contract referred to as ‘bad’? Do you ever stop to consider what that means? Who is it ‘bad’ for exactly?
Superficially it means that the player is paid more than the consensus deems them to be worth. Players who for whatever reason were given a large contract and then through injury or form didn’t perform to the level that was expected or hoped.
But if we dig a little deeper we can unpack something more detrimental. The idea that the contract is ‘bad’ therefore imposes some sort of blame on the player. They become a point of ridicule.
Players in this category become scapegoats for an entire team’s fortunes because they are either not adding value in terms of performance or their monetary value is hard to trade/move and this hamstrings executive’s ability to bring in other players that might make the team more successful or more flexible.
Calling the contract bad implies the player is bad and that word can end up meaning more than just ‘underperforming’. Bad encompasses a range of negative attributes that relate to the player’s athletic and personal attributes.
God forbid a player who is deemed to be overpaid also espouses an opinion publicly that comes across as self-centred or flippant. That player will soon see themselves become a pariah.
So, why does this even matter?
Well in this age of ‘player empowerment’ it is a genuine concern of mine that those empowered are actually only at the top of the economic food chain.
LeBron James is often said to have ushered in the era of player empowerment, normalising shorter contracts and player movement that might once have been considered selfish or disloyal.
But this new perspective is only afforded to the LeBron’s and Kevin Durant’s (and even these players deal with a certain type of backlash).
In this sense, I would not even consider LeBron to be representative of players per se. LeBron is far more akin to an executive or team owner than he is to the average NBA player. So when LeBron wields his influence who is it really benefitting?
Los Angeles Lakers’ LeBron James (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez, File)
Take for example the recent debacle regarding the potential trade of Anthony Davis. LeBron James on social media and in interviews reiterated a common line from owners and executives – ‘this is a business’.
Right, well to some extent. It’s a business for Magic Johnson. For Jeanie Buss, James Dolan, Gail Benson… for LeBron James. But what about the D League player earning 30k a year?
I know players are well paid overall but most players are not building empires. Most players are praying they don’t blow out their knees so they can do the thing they’re good at for the longest amount of time.
And how long does that last even if it goes well? Imagine coming out of school as an accountant and being told:
“Look, you’re great at this, you balance books like a real pro – we’re going to pay you really well but even if it goes as well as we hope by the time you’re 30 you won’t be able to do this anymore – so have a back-up plan, but also give us 100 per cent of everything you have in that ten year time frame to the detriment of virtually everything else in your life.”
“Oh and by the way if we get bored with you or think there’s a better accountant out there we might just fire you, or send you across the country. Oh and did I also mention that millions of people will scrutinise and talk about the way you do your job? But the money’s good so suck it up’.
This is why I bristle at the term ‘bad contract’ and as an extension why I think the term ‘player empowerment’ is misused.
There’s not that much different in the NBA today than there was at any other time in this regard – the people with the money still call the shots. And it’s not simply that they call the shots – it’s that in most cases their wealth insulates them against legitimate consequences.
Anthony Davis is on his way out of the New Orleans Pelicans. (Keith Allison / Wikimedia Commons)
‘Player Empowerment’
Let me dive into ‘player empowerment’ before coming back to contract language. The Lakers-Pelicans drama reflects a common technique employed by the powerful to engender subservience from the masses.
‘It’s a business’ – there’s a lot in this phrase. It reflects the notion that your personal well-being is irrelevant.
I’m sorry we replaced your job at the stamping plant with a giant robot – but… it’s a business after all, and where would we be if the company didn’t make a billion dollars?’ Read: ‘I’m sorry I made public my desire to ship half this team across the country for AD – but it’s a business and your feelings don’t matter. Your life does not matter’.
So who is really ‘empowered’ in this dynamic? I’m not sure that Kyle Kuzma feels terribly empowered right now or any other member of the team.
What I want to know is how is it any different if LeBron lobbies to undermine your livelihood in preference of another player that if a team owner does it?
To me, it’s no different at all. The things we call ‘player empowerment’ are just reflections of the way the powerful and moneyed interests that control the NBA have subsumed certain high profile players into their fold.
If Goodyear Tyres in LeBron James hometown of Akron laid off 100 staff – would he dismiss that as ‘just business’? Perhaps he would, but I think that lacks compassion and understanding. I think it sounds a lot like the way very rich people talk when they want to justify a selfish act that is good for them but comes at the expense of others.
Los Angeles Lakers forward LeBron James (23) talks to Golden State Warriors forward Kevin Durant during the second half of an NBA basketball game Tuesday, Dec. 25, 2018, in Oakland, Calif. The Lakers won 127-101. (AP Photo/Tony Avelar)
And so it is with the accepted notion of a ‘bad contract’. We utilise language that places blame and burden on the player themselves. Why don’t we re-direct the canon at the people who actually made the decision?
I know we want our teams to win and so if we see a player not assisting in that cause we tend to respond negatively towards them. But the truth is we as fans have a lot more in common with the player’s busting their asses than the guys running the show.
If we see a player getting ten minutes a night and making 20 million a year I sincerely believe we should applaud. Good for them.
Would we otherwise expect them to give that money back? ‘Sorry guys I haven’t lived up to this contract, have ten million back’. I’m sure for many people this sounds pedantic, but it is meaningful.
Dismissing the good fortune of NBA player as ‘bad’ in any way is to undermine their hard earned income. More than this it defers responsibility from the people who actually granted that fortune in the first place, if we object to the contract, object to the person who decided to offer it in the first place.
I propose a couple of things:
Avoid calling any contract ‘bad’ – there are only big and small contracts and the players who have the big one’s deserve our admiration
Turn our disappointment and anger towards the people making these calls – Chandler Parsons (sorry Chandler I needed an example) seems to be a much greater source of ridicule than Chris Wallace (12 years in the job and counting) or Robert Pera (8 years in the job with a net wealth of 7.2 billion).
These are the people who face no consequence whatsoever but who are the ones making decisions that affect the fate of your team
Think about who is really empowered in this NBA and what that means for most players. What does it really mean for the typical player/employee when anyone, star player or executive, refers to their job security as ‘just business’?
Joshua Cole
Roar Rookie
Although it is just semantics, I interpreted that as your point, and I like that you've created the conversation. I'm not worried that you didn't try to solve the world's problems immediately. Yes, in the NBA, we're talking millionaires against billionaires, which does make some people feel like they'll be OK with our criticism. But we're also talking about race disparity: a mostly old, white male class of inherited wealth or lucky tech fortune VS young, mostly black, kids who are newly surrounded with wealth. When "bad contracts" are discussed, as trade assets, we are dehumanising the employees and putting blame on the employees rather than the GMs that signed the risky contacts. The contacts are considered bad in retrospect because the risks came true -- exacerbated injuries (Parsons, Wall, and Amare Stoudamire before that), plateaued talent (Wall again, and Wiggins), and that crazy one-time cap increase (Dellie). Only Tim Hardaway Jr's contact the Knicks offered might be a glaringly bad decision at the time -- by the Knicks, because who would go to a potential boss and say, "Nah, I'm not worth that much money"? I also interpreted you alluding to the class disparity within the players: the veteran superstars VS everybody else. In the latest collective bargaining, the veterans voted for the Super Max while still keeping the rookie salary low. In the NFL, which has a hard salary cap, there is an even wider disparity as teams don't recognise the value of players above replacement level, and there are only two classes of players: superstar position players and those on rookie contacts -- there is no middle class of solid, dependable veterans. The NBA hasn't yet gone to this extreme, but, as you discussed, power is extremely concentrated between the Super Duper Stars and everybody else.
Nick Croker
Roar Guru
Look you’ve outlasted me - I don’t have the time or wherewithal to go through all the ways I disagree. I do still think you’ve missed my point a little. Only to say that in any situation if a player (or any employee) is granted a greater portion of the salary cap and the over allocation of resources is harmful to the success of the team my point is only that I feel the language used to describe these situations imputes blame onto the player. That’s what I object to - the terminology I think denigrates the player and for me that’s unfair. The people who should be held to account here are primarily executives and ownership and I think the way we talk about contracts helps that class to skate through quietly while players cop the brunt of public scrutiny. But you disagree. Thats ok. Glad you engaged even if you didn’t love the read.
Nick Croker
Roar Guru
Ok fair enough - I mean i don't want to belabor it more because I'm sure you're over it. BUT I just get irritated - you often hear that small market teams 'HAD to offer that money'. But they didn't have to - I reckon anyone clued into the team might have had an idea that Wall wasn't a good leader prior to this season. He's untouchable at least partly because he makes so so much. If his contract was even 10% cheaper over it's life they could've traded him by now. In fact a team like the Lakers, LeBron seemingly prefers veteran players, and Wall at his best could be a good secondary playmaker next to LeBron - they would've taken him for sure. Prior to the injury anyway. But there's a lot in that so I don't mean to re-litigate. Do you support a particular team?
mushi
Roar Guru
On a side note - whilst you disagree that under your social beliefs that “player empowerment” should be allowed to be applied to the total power experienced by the group you do acknowledge that it is consistent with how other areas of life are viewed, and hence I don’t think it’s that misleading for people living under that social construct to referring to the same context. If we think about it as the ability for individual players to utilise their talents as leverage in negotiation (which is how people seem to be using it) then empowerment has occurred. Now power in a negotiation (under most legal systems anyway) will never be absolute, that doesn’t mean it can’t exist and it is undoubtable that it has improved for the players as an unintended consequence of the last CBA round. The utility of this power is naturally concentrated with those that have more useable talent and the curve on win contribution is incredibly skewed. This is skewed even further by Good Contracts. But the whilst journeymen don’t have that leverage on an individual basis – they have to an extent exercised it on an group basis with the advent of Max contracts. As, all else being equal, Max Contracts benefit mid-level players under the salary. There is also now potential leverage for players not yet in that position if their situation improves, this creates option value and thus has increased, to varying degrees, empowerment for every player vis a vis ownership.
mushi
Roar Guru
“I wasn’t really proposing to have the solution.” Well you asked us to stop using it the term/s. So either you were implying an alternative or suggesting that we just stop communicating about basketball because the vast abundancy of terms. Without an alternative suggestion this is just a garrulous exercise in literary vanity. But I can understand why you didn’t: “Just avoid calling a contract bad – you could just as easily say ‘big contract’ and it doesn’t connote value one way or the other.” I think you fundamentally don’t understand why the term exists. You can’t easily just say “big contract” and lack the connotation around value because the entire point it to address the value of that contract to the team under the restrictions of the salary cap. It exists because people want to discuss the availability of resources under the salary cap, and the contracts of players. Your suggestion is effectively to ban, or limit to the point immateriality, any discourse amongst the media or fans regarding the salary cap. “You think the phrase ‘bad contract’ is semantic. I disagree. I think the subtle nature of linguistic customs reveals a lot about accepted social and political paradigms. “ No I think your issue is semantics because you are literally engaging in lexical semantics. You are delving into the precise nature of each word and then trying to apply it as a base standard to modern sports journalism. In the process you are ignoring the accepted paradigm like the scholar of a dead language. Does it say a lot about the paradigm? Yes it does, but it’s hardly subtle. It is terribly overt that the obvious connotation is the value to the team, under the restrictions of the salary cap, because the vast majority of the consumers are fans of teams and therefore will absorb information from that perspective. That is the general paradigm of sports consumption and the reason why the economic benefit for the players in dribbling a basketball. These guys aren’t oppressed miners in a coal mine, their economic construct only exists because of the quirks of this paradigm. If the connotation is obvious, and any ill meaning needs to be constructed through semantics and a corruption of the paradigm, then there is no reason to change that aspect. It isn’t false and misleading, unless you are ignorant of the context. “I’d say you are more or less right in terms of how you characterized my positions and perhaps my ‘strawmen’ are not the best way to make a thorough argument. But you haven’t really disagreed or made a persuasive argument in opposition to my position.” You are the one putting forward a recommendation sweeping change the accepted nomenclature, which stops short oddly enough of actually recommending a change, the onus is on yourself to be persuasive. But, I did disagree with the strawmen. Such as: “The last thing you say where you say ‘bad contracts are the go to source for GM denigration’ – you’re missing the point. Calling it ‘bad’ preferences a certain power dynamic.” It was your strawman, if your strawman was pointless then I agree. It was pointless and eroded your position as it was inaccurate. “a) Calling a contract ‘bad’ values the contract through the lens of ownership, not the player. You don’t even seem to disagree you just think it’s not important” Couldn’t agree more. It is important. It isn’t just important it is fundamental to how the term is used, without that overt context we’d actually be stuck in the world you’ve imagined. The salary cap is the overarching constrained resource for roster construction. Being able to discuss the merits of a player’s contract with regards to this is fundamental to being able to discuss the sport on an ongoing basis. So it’s not just important that the connotation is understood, it is imperative. “b) Trying to be clear and accurate about the balance of player empowerment sounds a bit clunky to you. A bit too much effort. Better to spit out something inaccurate, false or misleading as long as you can tweet it out quickly.” “The fact that you point out that it can be difficult to convey all of these things accurately in a tweet is exactly the point. The media discourse around these types of things is brief and reactionary. I think that’s bad – you seem to say ‘well that’s just the way it is, plus you have no alternative so who cares’” These kind of go together. Bit of a false projection, I don’t use twitter, don’t like everything being condensed into 140 odd characters. But it would be incredibly naïve, or even more condescending, to attack the nomenclature of the NBA without considering how media is consumed. Again for someone who purports to consume so much NBA media your disregard of those media channels is perplexing. As to it being false and misleading, not really. If the context is so widely assumed then it isn’t. And it is only inaccurate if you separate it from the context and engage in lexical semantics. What it comes down to is you disagree with how capitalist societies view it, and hence disagree with the Harvard (and well just about every other business school which uses text books) interpretation on things like buyer and supplier power. As to not caring, I care. I responded. But if you’re going to subject us to that disjointed literary peacocks tail then at least give us some hint towards what you think is a workable solution. “And I was pretty clear about what would appease me – stop referring to those contracts as bad….” It isn’t clear, because you don’t really say what the alternative is so that leaves ambiguity as to whether you want all contract discussion to cease, in a salary cap league with published contracts, or what the alternative is. Now you did clear it up in this response that you effectively want to end all meaningful discourse on roster construction. “But if everyone at your workplace was like ‘yeh mushi is on a bad contract’ – do you think that would have any sort of long term impact on you personally? On the culture of your workplace? On the way other people viewed you? And what if you said ‘but hey they offered me the money I just took it?’ Would you feel a little aggrieved that no one seemed bothered by the incompetence of the person who actually made the decision to give you that contract?” False equivalence (like your accounting rambling). First it’s not everyone at their workplace, it is commentators and clients. I actually see players, their actual colleagues, being quite supportive of each other’s big contracts. Just take the recent MLB free agency rhetoric for an example. It’s also trying to overlay a typical workplace environment on an atypical situation. NBA players are more like small companies, in which case yes people will comment about contract fairness all the time. It also ignores that context around the finite resource of the salary cap versus a more variable resource of nominal salary that can be affected more directly by production. The closest equivalence I could think of was the Lehmann’s and Bear Stearns’ bankers/traders that got guaranteed bonuses from other shops post collapse only to have that taken out of the bonus pool of their broader teams. People not on the gaurantees were reasoanbly vocal about the "badness" of those contracts.
astro
Roar Rookie
Completely agree that the Davis non-trade has been fascinating for many reasons...And I think it has been an interesting example of the current state of NBA-dialogue for sure. I'm not sure the term 'player empowerment' has ever been correctly defined, so its not surprising to see it used in various ways, and sometimes as a negative. But we'll have to agree to disagree on Wall. You analogy to your boss offering you silly money is missing one thing...You're boss wouldn't be expecting you to turn into a star, because you'd already be one. He or she would be expecting you'd continue with your good performances. Wall was a top 10 player...now he's untouchable, and that's not the organisations fault. His contract is 'bad' mostly by his own doing.
Nick Croker
Roar Guru
I mean sure - I didn't pose an alternative. I wasn't really proposing to have the solution. You think the phrase 'bad contract' is semantic. I disagree. I think the subtle nature of linguistic customs reveals a lot about accepted social and political paradigms. I don't really have the time to unpack a good example but there are numerous examples. Bad contract as you say is a term that designates value from the owners perspective i.e. it reinforces top-down power dynamics. I don't disagree that part of the reason these terms are used is expediency but that doesn't mean that the alternative has to be such a mouthful. Just avoid calling a contract bad - you could just as easily say 'big contract' and it doesn't connote value one way or the other. The fact that you point out that it can be difficult to convey all of these things accurately in a tweet is exactly the point. The media discourse around these types of things is brief and reactionary. I think that's bad - you seem to say 'well that's just the way it is, plus you have no alternative so who cares' I'd say you are more or less right in terms of how you characterized my positions and perhaps my 'strawmen' are not the best way to make a thorough argument. But you haven't really disagreed or made a persuasive argument in opposition to my position. Ironically you seem to want to debate the semantics at the periphery - (I used Kuzma as an off cuff example, no one is expecting them to give their money back etc.) The essential point is a) Calling a contract 'bad' values the contract through the lens of ownership, not the player. You don't even seem to disagree you just think it's not important b) Trying to be clear and accurate about the balance of player empowerment sounds a bit clunky to you. A bit too much effort. Better to spit out something inaccurate, false or misleading as long as you can tweet it out quickly. The last thing you say where you say 'bad contracts are the go to source for GM denigration' - you're missing the point. Calling it 'bad' preferences a certain power dynamic. What you call 'a misguided lesson in semantics' is not semantic at all. If you were paid obscenely over market rate for whatever job you do mushi would you think the contract was 'bad' - I reckon you'd think the contract was pretty good. But if everyone at your workplace was like 'yeh mushi is on a bad contract' - do you think that would have any sort of long term impact on you personally? On the culture of your workplace? On the way other people viewed you? And what if you said 'but hey they offered me the money I just took it?' Would you feel a little aggrieved that no one seemed bothered by the incompetence of the person who actually made the decision to give you that contract? And I was pretty clear about what would appease me - stop referring to those contracts as bad....
Nick Croker
Roar Guru
On John Wall - I just think you're characterizing his situation as getting his money and giving up and that seems to imply fault on his end. I completely agree with you, with what it seems we know about him and that team, that he's not perhaps doing everything in his power to maximize his abilities and help his team win. I suppose I just think that accountability needs to start with management. His contract was always deemed to be pretty over the top. Just seems to me that giving him that sort of money was reckless and to then have the narrative be 'greedy, lazy John Wall taking the cash and running' gives the person who decided to hinge the entire teams future on a borderline All-Star a free pass. And you're probably right - in the scheme of 'all society' you'd be hard pressed to find any NBA players joining the IWW. Their problems to the extent there are any - are obviously first word and perhaps in my drawing real world comparisons I have implied their situations are equivalent to 'everyday people'. At the end of the day my article came about mostly in response to listening to and reading a lot of NBA coverage and especially the stuff around the potential Davis trade. And I just felt that the blithe references to 'bad contracts' and 'player empowerment' gives the impression that the players can do whatever they please, they're all spoiled millionaires anyway and guys who make more than their production warrants are somehow responsible for being paid a lot. To me they are mostly just employees. Well paid employees no doubt but employees nonetheless. So when it comes to being paid 'overs' so to speak I just can't help but think if my boss offered me silly money what would you expect me to do? I'd take the money obviously and if I never turned into the star they expected I just honestly believe that's on them for being reckless with their money. It seems to me that with athletes somehow we hold them to a higher standard or perceive them to have greater agency than a typical employee. To that end i sort of don't blame the likes of John Wall for falling in a heap - I would find it pretty hard to stay motivated if I new I was guaranteed that type of money.
mushi
Roar Guru
Am I right in summarising that your two issues are: 1. The use of “bad contract” because it’s demeaning for the person on the other side 2. Player power is concentrated only in the upper echelon of players and hence is an inaccurate term If so this comes from the straw man that we are all incapable of understanding these two terms mean more than just a literal combination of the definition of the two words. And yet by the end of the article all you say is we should stop using these nasty terms… but don’t actually give us a term to sue that would meet your criteria I’ll address it in your fashion with Player power first. If it is correct that it seems you don’t like this because the power is concentrated at the top rather than a universal point of leverage then: First I think you need to look at it as relative, the shift from last decade to now has increased towards the players as a group. Yes that shift has been at the top of the group’s playing capabilities but that was the group most disadvantaged previously. Typically the most inequitable reward for performance contracts were the max contract as it vastly underpays an elite player both in terms of commercial and in game production. So the shift is perhaps just balancing some of that aspect which has seemingly come at the expense of teams rather than the other players (who lacked power before as well). Expecting pundits to trot out “equalising the people who will substantially outperform their maximum contract with on court results, free agent gravity and commercial appeal power” seems counterproductive in the saturated world of information and unlikely to take hold given it’s longer than 140 characters. Second that the power is concentrated is just similar to most markets. Porter’s old 5 forces model used the terms Buyer and Supplier power to describe situations where the concentration of this power was higher in the buyers/suppliers than in your own industry. It is the separation of certain player’s contributions from replacement level that actually create the power. I think most find this an obvious connotation of the term, so a new 27 word term to make sure we don’t think that this extends to Kyle Kuzma seems unnecessary. On part 1. Bad contracts. This seems semantics. It’s clearly from the team’s perspective and in the context of the salary cap. There is clearly an element of the zero sum game in these bilateral agreements that makes a “bad contract” designation clearly referring to a particular party’s experience or decision making (unless we’re talking about the legal drafting of the contract which I don’t think we need to entertain as a possibility here) No one is expecting them to give the money back. That is a terrible strawman position that for someone that consumes NBA media as you say you do. Why? Because you can’t from a cap point of view, which is all the fans care about. Does it create a bit of a burden of expectations, sure but that would exist in any business. As for deferring responsibility for those that awarded them I see this as another poor straw man that is odd from an NBA junkie. Bad contracts are the go to source of denigration for GM’s (or active owners) decision making. And by the end we’re still left with just a misguided lesson in semantics and no way forward that would appease you.
astro
Roar Rookie
OK, I get your point now and I agree that the term 'player empowerment' is extended to all players, but in reality, only a few have true 'power'. But I don't necessarily see this as a problem in the NBA. In the broader social sense, and using your comparison to capitalism, I completely agree that the gap between the 'rich' and 'poor' is extremely problematic and undesirable, but I'd argue there isn't really a 'poor' class in the NBA...Just the rich and the richer. I still think 'player empowerment' even if it only applies to the top 10 or so players in the league, has had an overall positive impact on the other players in the league. With those top players realising and leveraging their 'power', we've seen the NBPA become increasingly powerful, and while some of their negotiations have been self-serving, you can't deny that at the last CBA they ensured that salaries for all levels of players increased, and with the inclusion of 'two-way' players and healthcare packages for retired players, they improved the standard for the 'non-powerful'. I'm not sure all that happens without guys like Chris Paul exercising their 'power'. Two final things - One, I think the example of Lebron, is unique. Lebron's interests in Clutch Sports mean he is often discussed as being the driving force behind trades, and not the team itself. The other top players aren't viewed in this way...No one blamed James Harden when the Rockets traded half their team and young assets for Chris Paul. I'm not defending Lebron...just saying his situation is unique because of Clutch. And finally, John Wall is only 26yrs old...He's not in any kind of "natural decline". He grabbed his cash, and his leadership and production quickly decreased.
Nick Croker
Roar Guru
I take your point that there is a degree of responsibility on the player to perform, but short of out and out negligence I'm always going to side with the player on these type of issues. Wall for example isn't that much different from what he was at his peak. The interpersonal stuff would not even rate a mention if he was still explosive. You could argue he hasn't kept himself in shape but I think he's just entered a natural decline which has been punctuated by the fact that his teammates don't like him. Any team offering someone a deal that will be worth close to 50 million in his final season only has themselves to blame as far as I'm concerned. To be fair I concede that my two points are a bit disjointed. I really only meant to focus on the notion of a 'bad contract' but got a bit carried away. Your view re: Kuzma (just a random example you could pick any non superstar I think) is true in the absolute sense. Relative to every day people Kuz is going just fine. But I am talking specifically about the power dynamics within his industry and the fact is if Kuzma rolled into Magic Johnson's office and said 'I need LBJ outta here and I want Anthony Davis instead' - he'd be laughed out of the room. Undermining his livelihood is obviously not true in the sense that one solitary season in the NBA will organise a normal person's livelihood for some time if they manage their money with any sort of care. But these player's only have a small window to make that serious money and the idea that Kuzma is equally as empowered to do that, in the way he wants, as LeBron - is fundamentally not true. The salient point that I am making here in relation to 'player empowerment' is that the traditional power dynamic i.e. the richest are in control and the rest are dictated to - is still true. The only difference is that some of the best paid players are now absorbed into that ruling class with owners and executives. Honestly this argument mirrors that of capitalism in society more broadly. In capitalist countries - especially where capitalism has recently been introduced - the average standard of living often rises. However the disparity between the high and low often gets exacerbated and more than that it often doesn't bring a meaningful change, in fact often the opposite is true, in terms of who control the levers of power, production and capital. So your point is along the lines of 'well everyone is richer than ever on average, so they should all be happy. But that doesn't really speak to the dynamics of power and control. So Kuzma makes good money. Better than if he'd been born in any other time, sure. But how do you contend that he's equal to LeBron in terms of control over the destiny of his career? He simply is not. LeBron can lobby to have him moved across the country Kuz can't do the same to LeBron. I think you're falling into the trap that the media has also - there is an absent minded acceptance of the term 'player empowerment' as though it applies equally and across the board. It simply does not and for you to assume that player's are empowered because they get paid more reveals a misunderstanding of the concept altogether. I would love for you to provide an example of 'player empowerment' for a non superstar player. Using that catchphrase uncritically because you've heard it in the media a bit is um.... a bit clumsy.
astro
Roar Rookie
I really think we need to look at each contract (ie in terms of good vs bad) in isolation and in the context of the team. Contracts can be 'bad'...sometimes because of poor decision making on behalf of the GM/Owner but sometimes because the player hasn't delivered to the promise that comes with the contract, and sometimes its both. For example... Andrew Wiggins - Not his fault. Why the Wolves felt the need to pay him $146.6 million through 2023, when he cant shoot, is a pretty ordinary defender and will never be an All-Star, is beyond me. Its a 'bad' contract, but was the Wolves management's fault. John Wall - His fault. At the time, the Wiz were paying for a young, multiple time All-Star and face of the franchise, and leader of a regular playoff team. They over-paid, but the Wiz are a team without a lot of historical evidence that they can sign big name free-agents. But Wall has been terrible. He's showed up to seasons out of shape and is now injured. He's told his coach to F off. His teammates dislike him intensely. And now the franchise is stuck... Chris Paul - Both at fault. Signing a often injured, older star to a massive long term contract was always a risk for the Rockets...but it was clearly done to help push them over the line, and it almost worked last year. For his part, Paul has played well when healthy and been a strong team leader. His contract is now 'bad' because no one wants to pay a 36yr old Paul $44mil, but both sides knew what they were doing, and so both shoulder the 'blame' for this one... Finally, I'm not really sure how the discussion around bad contracts links to player-empowerment. Teams have been handing out bad contracts for decades. Today's league is as good for the players as its ever been. The 'average' NBA salary is $6.2mil, so hardly an issue. The players association is very powerful and influential. The G-League players may struggle, but there was no G League at all a while ago, and Adam Silver was recently interviewed at Sloan saying the G League will get more support, going forward, so their pay should improve. I strongly disagree with your take on Lebron and example of Kuzma...What Lebron and co have done for the league has helped himself for sure, but also greatly improved the conditions for others in the league. The 'average' NBA player have a lot more 'power' than the average employee in most companies, and certainly more than at any other time in the past. The question of 'does Kyle Kuzma feel empowered?' is crazy...He's a 23yr old millionaire, playing for the most famous franchise in basketball, alongside one of the top players of all time. Once his rookie deals expires, he'll earn upwards of $15-$20mil a year for his career. Lebron, nor the Lakers, are "undermining his livelihood"...if anything, they want Kuzma to improve and increase his trade value!! Comparing his situation to a company laying off poorly-paid and over-worked staff, is clumsy.
Tony H
Roar Pro
So if the accountant hired to balance the books on exorbitant salary suddenly stopped doing it well, after he had previously been excellent at it, is it the fault of the person who signed his contract?
Nick Croker
Roar Guru
I actually heard recently that consulting economists for the NBA also believe that replacing the draft with a sort of junior free agency wouldn't hurt competitive balance either. I'm skeptical about this to some degree - intuitively I feel like the draft gives under performing teams hope and optimism and improves competitive balance but I'd listen to arguments to the contrary. There certainly seems to be some poorly run teams in the NBA and it feels wrong to continually reward those teams by giving them elite young talent. I wonder for example what someone like DeAndre Ayton would look like if he'd been drafted to San Antonio instead of Phoenix
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
The biggest problem for players in the NBA is the players who get cut early , because basketball doesn't have a lot of well paid leagues and teams for them to go to. They further compound this by having the draft so all the younger players are underpaid compared to the older players. That ends up with all the eggs going into the old players basket as they get the big money. As old players can get injured more often and it has a bigger effect on them then the gamble is multiplied. If you got rid of the draft it would reward smart talent identification versus gambling on older players not being injured.