No, they're not too powerful.
Are hedge fund managers too powerful? Starchitects? Brain surgeons?
They're all at the top of their professions.
Marc Stein, OTOH...;)
4
Players should have the power — they should have 10x the power of the owners.
Glad to see that, after all these years of white owners bossing around African American players — the true talent — the balance has shifted.
They have “too much” power for their white, would-be overseers. Good for them. More power to them.
5
Superstars in the NBA are essentially the ultimate "mercenaries" in which at various times in their career they will dictate the terms and conditions of where and when they wish to provide their services and unlike any other team sport, these exceptional players can often single handily determine the success or failure of a team on which they wish to play.
When Toronto's President and GM Masai Ujiri made the trade with San Antonio for Kawhi Leonard, they were under no illusion that, regardless of the seasons outcome, there was a significant possibility that he would still want to go back to SoCal after the season was over so, in many respects the Raptors and Leonard essentially "used" each other to attain their ultimate goals. The Raptors highly regarded sports science team nursed Leonard back to health and into top condition where he was a significant factor in the team winning their first championship and he won his second MVP award. "One and done".
Ultimately, I do not believe fans have an issue with players free agency rights. As Marc Stein accurately points out, though, is NOW when is a contract a contract? If a player and team agree to commit to a multi-year arrangement, yet, as George and others have done, during the contract and in his case only after ONE year can state "In am not happy I want to be traded AND to the team of my choosing", clearly , it isn't worth the paper it is written on. Perhaps management should now claim that same right.
6
It's good that Leonard and George have gone to the Clippers! If Kawhi had gone to the Lakers, it would have concentrated way too much power in a single team. This way instead we can look forward to an exciting season with superstars spread over several teams. Clippers-Lakers will be cracking games, and I'm looking forward to seeing a rejuvenated Nets fight it out with the best.
4
I think it’s fair to say the whole thing comes down to the market. If fans are going to keep filling arenas and screens and supporting teams regardless while this type of team building is going on then it will continue. You would think sooner or later the current system will implode but until that happens the players, owners, league, media, etc. will keep taking advantage.
4
The NBA is a pickup-game league, literally so with the All Star Game, but figuratively so for a much longer period, dating at least to James's Southbeach show but you can find the roots of this mess in the way that Gary Payton and Karl Malone tried to game the 2003-2004 season by joining the Lakers. That should have been a lesson for cities everywhere not to pony up with the expectation of loyalty by owners or players. I stopped watching a years ago, and the Warriors had been my favorite team since Wilt Chamberlain's last year with the team. The NBA has other problems as well. Between the marathon-like and meaningless regular season, and the no-call five-step traveling rules, everything is prelude to the playoffs. Why should a fan of The Game care about this league, let alone--and this is the thing that really counts for the people warping the NBA--want to plunk down money for a ticket or a TV channel or a jersey? The fix is in.
8
I say good for those players who use their star power to influence other players and land deals that will pay them the big bucks. For too many years the owners have manipulated the system, taking advantage of their power to amass millions of dollars at the expense of the players who put their bodies on the line every night. This could be the beginning of a new business model for the NBA where the players have more say in how the franchise operates, maybe even creating a new revenue sharing structure that will reward the players who are the engine of the corporation.
5
@Reuven Taff
Then perhaps to solve the issue of players wanting to break contracts in the middle of their tenure, that the NBA and players agree to a system of ONE YEAR only agreements in which both the player and team can decide after each season whether or not they wish to continue or move on elsewhere. This would solve all problems related to forced trades and other unforeseen issues.
I don't think most people have a problem with free agency. The issue is when players and management agree to make contractual commitments, they actually honor them.
2
A-distinction needs to be made between afree agents who absolutely has the right to leave his team and choose his preferred team and then signs a contract. Anyone with that opportunity should be able to exercise it. I find the far bigger issue is the player under contact like Paul George who signed a contact with full knowledge of the commitment he was making. The team has the obligation to pay him for the duration of that contact even if he losses his game or is injured and can’t perform. But he suddenly he decided after meddling by Kawai he didn’t want to play there anymore. Then the team is faced with the risk of having a malcontent player who could undermine the team chemistry and create a toxic environment This is the real question will this undermine the fan support of the team’s in the league if the opt out at any time for any reason impacts teams ability to have any continuity. This will kill any willingness to do trades or sign long term contracts if they are so one sided as to bind the team but not the player. The result could be a league with only one year contacts and then its back to the school yard contruct where every game you pick your team Also worth mentioning any professional can leave their job for another UNLESS they sign a contract then they are restricted depending on the laws of that jurisdiction and also don’t forget the right to leave one company doesn’t automatically give that former employee the right to raid the company for other employees.
8
Who watches this anyway? 7’ men who played a sport their whole lives missing shots, can’t show any enthusiasm and run down court, arenas where affordable seats you need to watch the game on the scoreboard... Totally unwatchable. Next!
12
What is wrong with players who want to play together on the same team? There is a perfectly good system in place that allows the players to choose where to sign after their draft contract comes to an end. The game is the product people are buying.
After 7 years in the league, LeBron was tired of losing. He wanted to play with his friends and he made that happen. Then, after four trips to the finals and two championships, he wanted to go back to his home town. Why is that bad?
1
@rlschles
I don't believe anyone has a problem with a players FA and in LeBron's case(and your example) that is what he was and so was Chris Bosh, they both had the right to go wherever they wanted to. Of course, Dwayne Wade was already playing for the Heat and already had won a championship.
The issue is with multi-year contracts with a player like George in which for whatever reasons, he can unilaterally decided to break that contract, demand a trade AND to the team of his choosing. Clearly then, the contract is not worth the paper it is written on and not a reliable way of a team trying to improve for now and into the future.
4
Of course they are. All celebrities are too powerful, as are their owners.
1
Since there was no mention of what NBA Owner's and the League as whole generate this article smacks of slight racism. The author complains about the players and their "unorthodox maneuvering" or "machinations". It insinuates that god forbid, elite players, talking to each other is a bad thing.
The NBA loves and wants Big market teams to thrive. If they did not they wouldn't make such a big deal about where free agents go. The league & ownership get together, plan and talk about that. Why shouldn't the players be able to figure where they would like to play?
3
Kyrie Irving is a selfish player the the others are not.
3
Steve Ballmer paid Leonard and George with Microsoft money, and gave Doc Rivers a competitive roster. That's not so different than George Steinbrenner leveraging the Yankees heritage and brand when he landed all his free agents.
Good teams with good cultures get the good players now. The salary cap makes the salaries for top players all about the same.
However, most of the good teams are in coastal cities. That makes for an unbalanced league. Most of the teams in flyover land are the equivalent of the Red Klotz and the Washington Generals.
The Phoenix Suns, highly competitive for years under Jerry Colangelo, are now the Phoenix Solar Nondescripts. Why? They don't have a basketball man to get a Tom Chambers, or to force a trade for a discontented near-free agent like Charles Barkley. You need a culture.
However, apoplexy over these free agent signings is premature. A lot of NBA free agents don't pan out - a player for the ages like LeBron being a big exception.
Kyrie Irving, although he did hit the winner versus Golden State, has had every injury in the book. Also, he could not subserve his talent to LeBron, and can be temperamental.
For Boston to get a consistent make-his-own-shot gunner like Kemba Walker in place of Irving, that's both an addition, and addition by subtraction.
2
@Wordsworth from Wadsworth
I'm with you. I have no trouble with free agency other than the creation of multiple Washington General squads. Re: Kyrie. Great talent. But me and other Boston fans would have cleared out his locker for him.
Not that he cares!
1
@Wordsworth from Wadsworth Kyrie; Jimmy Butler; etc. A league of multi-millionaire malcontents. Boy oh boy,can't get enough of THAT. As for the Midwest, big test coming up when we see if Giannis elects to remain in Milwaukee. He seems like a terrific human being and says all the right things, so......be prepared for Kawhi redux.
2
The NBA money is insane. There is a disconnect between passionate fans filling the streets of Toronto begging Kawhi to take their $150 million and the players' collective indifference to that passion. I suppose that the people who can afford a ticket to actually sit in the arena for an NBA game play by the same grab-all-you-can rules in their lives. But all those Toronto fans in the street were the ones who can't, and don't. As fans like them wise up, it can't be good for the health of the game. I'm someone who loves basketball but I get along just fine without the NBA 365 days a year, or 359 in the case of 2019. The best story on the Raptors was Fred VanVleet, not drafted, not even D-Leagued, who exercised his passion for a piddling $9 million per year.
9
@highway
Actually $190 MILLION(US).
Not mentioned in all this is the tax-payer who gets to publically fund stadium construction while max contract Kawhi and billionaire Balmer plot their next million. I'm a sports fan like most here, but the millionaires and billionaires should fund their own profit generator mechanisms instead of the working class (and we have all seen graphz painting their economic misfortunes). Let public monies be used for roads and sewers, not to build the latest owner palace.
13
@Tim The new Warriors stadium in San Francisco has been built with 100% private money.
@Tim -- Well said.
By any measure, the NBA's truly elite superstars are underpaid given their impact on the worldwide game. However, it typically takes 2.5 to 3 stars on any given team to bring home a championship, along with the right owner, the right coach, the right system, the right teammates, and a healthy dose of good luck. As a Warrior's fan, I'm glad we had Durant for the time he was here. But I totally understand his desire to try to achieve the only thing missing from his resume - to be the main man in an organization that hasn't tasted success.
3
Companies renegotiate contracts all the time. This is no different.
The salary cap is ostensibly about ensuring small market teams can remain competitive. But it also serves to limit player salaries. It is not a free market. So the idea of player empowerment is relatively strong in comparison to the past. But what is really empowering is what they would make without a salary cap.
1
The easy solution to this is a hard cap for teams with no max salaries for individual players. There would be no way for teams to pay for multiple stars once their salaries rose to the true market price.
1
@Guan Mingde
In most any pro sport, the superstars will always get their money, the issue is with the rest of those that fill out the roster.
From the draft forward, professional athletes in team sports are not able to maximize their earning potential. They have little choice where to initially live and limits on what they can be paid. The leagues are run by the owner.
Until an exceptional athlete like Zion Williamson can choose where he wants to play and is paid however much he can get the system still favors the owners. Go players!
2
Have Tom Brady, John Elway or Peyton Manning ever been accused of being "too powerful"?
19
@DN Poor analogy. Football teams have more players and many more moving parts, and no single player has had quite the same impact on an NFL team--at least since the days of Jim Brown--as many basketball players now have over a game that only musters five guys onto a court. If you still don't believe me, ask Brady how effective he'd be without a really strong o-line.
2
@DN
None of these players would have had much success without someone to hand the ball off to or throw to.
The NBA is different from any other sport in which there are far fewer players on the roster that have to be paid and there are very few superstars in the league whom as individual players can make a significant difference to the success or failure for the team which they play.
2
I am an Aztec fan and a Kawhi fan but I can't help but feel that he "did" the Lakers. According to Chase Tapley and others he never had any intention of playing for them, he basically used them. Tey waited for this guy while free agents signed elsewhere. This cost Anthony Davis $4 million dollars, who was basically performing an altruistic act for the team and for him. Bad karma. He seems to have manipulated them expertly but I don't think it is honest or ethical behavior.
3
Real power has the ability to change our society for better or worse. These guys are making a few sniveling executives grovel a bit. These executives care only about their personal monetary compensation and thus care not that they must grovel. It's a pretty standard MO for many people to grovel in many industries. Sniveling and groveling before the one percent is a very good gig, money wise.
3
NBA is a clown show where the soap opera eclipses the game. So the question “are they too powerful”? No! they are the lead actors in the drama.
2
Kawri wins a championshipand leaves.Next year close to 40 million Canadians will be pulling for the Lakers or Warriors to beat the Clippers in the playoffs.
3
@richard addleman
You should be grateful he brought a championship to a city that hasn't won anything since 1993.
@richard addleman Most of those 40 million Canadians will be rightfully watching a better, more team-oriented sport: hockey.
4
Professional sports has become America's end-all be-all. Athletes in their arenas provide the masses with spectacle and diversion from our nation's far more important issues - as the gladiators of Rome did. We the masses wear their shirts, hats, shoes and purchase a medley of sports paraphernalia - read the NYTimes Sports pages for the latest, place TV's in every bar and many restaurants to provide constant connection. The engineers, scientists, technicians pass through life comparatively unseen. Yes, by all means pay the women the same as the men. But somewhere along the line we need to ask ourselves if we as a people are best served by aiding and abetting teams that play city against city and state against state for the largest tax breaks, if we as a society hold athletic entertainment as a higher priority than good government and higher education, that we as parents inculcate in our children a love of STEM and academic achievement instead of the fallacy that pro sports will win the lottery for you someday. Koyaanisqatsi - life out of balance.
13
@Ed Smith -- Bravo for that post.
Next up: a cohort of hoops superstars form their own league and marginalize the NBA even further.
The players are the product.
2
Quiet people are too often underestimated. Kudos to Kwahi Leonard. Best buzzard beater ever. And I am a Warriors fan...
3
The Spurs traded Kawhi to Toronto _without his permission_. While he was there, he played at an incredibly high level and was instrumental in their championship. He made no secret that he intended to be a free agent on July 1 2019 and that he was not committed to staying in Toronto. The Raptors took a chance that he would bring a championship and stay; he brought a championship. I think the Raptors think they got a reasonable deal.
As for Oklahoma City: they are lucky. Before this trade they had lost in the first round of the playoffs, they were way over the luxury tax limit, and they had no way to get better. Now they have enormous resources to re-build.
This was a win for everyone.
5
@WZ "Without his permission..." That is one way to put it. He would not talk to them or even show up for playoff games or at practice facility. That is not an exaggeration. He was trying to orchestrate a trade despite time left on contract the same as AD, Jimmy Butler and perhaps PG (we don't really know.)
It was only a win for Toronto because they got that championship it was not a win for the spurs as they were denied a year they could have competed (maybe two, it is pretty clear his team used his "health" and the way the Spurs handled as a ruse to get out of San Antonio.)
I am not complaining, this is just the present and the future, right or wrong. Maybe everyone should be on 1-yr contracts.
3
Who has a right to wield power, the greatest players in the game or the white owners? Basketball is corporate, run by a handful of people surrounding the owner, same as GM and Facebook, with one difference—LeBron and Kawhi aren’t toiling on the assembly line or cubicle. I’m a Warriors fan, but their Silicon Valley owners are part of the gentrification of the Bay Area and destruction of local neighborhoods. The NBA’s winner-takes-all culture filters down to kid’s leagues, undermining sportsmanship, fairness, and team bonding win or lose, skilled or unskilled. But as long as basketball is capitalist, cheer the superstars defying the owners.
4
Since Bron took his talents to South Beach, Superteams have won 4 of 9 titles (Miami twice and Golden State with KD twice). Compare to the 80's, when Lakers/Celtics won 8 of 9, or the Bad Boy/Bulls run, when Detroit/Chicago/and the Rockets won 10 in a row. Point being, maybe the players should play, and executives should run the teams. The KD/Kyrie/Kawhi crowd may be surprised at the results . . .
3
The team trading George agreed to the transfer and from what the article itself states they were compensated greatly and have possibly rebuilt their franchise. Where did the contract not matter? This article makes no sense.
1
If there is one thing I learned in 30+ years in the business world, it is that a contract is useless unless both parties benefit by adhering to it.
I guess this reality has finally gotten to the NBA, where, apparently, players are no longer property.
I guess jungle capitalism is preferable to indentured servitude. Too bad, however, that there is no better alternative.
5
I like the idea of star players going their own way, and choosing where to play. And it is NOT just about who pays the most; it is about the chances of winning a championship and about respecting the players. The players are going to in some senses choose who they want as coaches and general managers.
None of this is bad. It is just new. That could be a big improvement in all sports leagues.
As far as I am concerned the coaching in the NFL is atrocious, in general, being conservative and misguided. The thing is, as I see it, that the more power that the various stars have the better the management has to be to attract and keep the best players.
4
Good for the players for no longer being property or chattel being moved around like chess pieces. Kawhi was inscrutable in his silence and Machiavellian in making the future he wanted. He even waited until a perfect time to make his decision known, late on a Friday.
He had a good year in Toronto. He was treated with respect and allowed to come back from being injured. In return he not only led the team to a championship, but created thousands if not millions of basketball fans with the Raptors' run to the championship, not just in Toronto, but from coast to coast to coast, including me.
We wanted so badly for him to stay and that victory parade in downtown Toronto was unlike anything we have ever seen. I am sure that the ownership and management of the Raptors tried mightily. In the end, he wanted to go home and was the architect of a deal that would get him there with a teammate he wanted.
I wish him well but cannot help but feeling seduced and abandoned.
11
As a Canadian that fell in love with the Raptors and basketball this year, I still want to cry that he left. I saw him as the Gretzky of Basketball....changing the sport in this country.
5
@Lisa
Note to the forgetful - Gretsky left Edmonton to play for the LA Kings. So what's your point?
@rlschles
Gretzky was traded because the Oilers owner ran out of money, Kawhi left of his own volition
3
These arrangements put together by the players can only be done by the incipient partners working together. No team has the insight or influence to concoct these marriages of talent. Why would the League try to block these moves? They invariably raise the talent levels of individual teams and force their competition to meet the challenge. The league overall becomes more interesting and stronger.
2
They're not too powerful, but one wonders about the teams that are re-building and can't attract super star talent.
It seems like the super stars want to win now and are willing to shop for a team that looks like a likely contender.
But what about everyone else? How quickly we forget that the Warriors draft for Steph, Clay and Drammond did not on paper look like a championship roster.
Don't get me wrong, they were and are great players, but not at the level of Lebron, Michael or Kobe.
At the end of the day even great players need patience to let a team develop around them.
3
Hm. So far, they aren't buying our elected officials, unlike say, the Kochs or Big Pharma lobby.
7
The NBA has the best product because of its players. They are visible (not hidden under masks, hats or uniforms) and sometimes outspoken personalities who are bigger than life. There are very limited number of 7ft-tall, coordinated, and smart humans on the planet. And if you are lucky enough to be one of them, more power to you.
5
I'm not sure why no one mentions it, but isn't the max contract a big reason why the top 5 guys have so much power? For instance, if there were no cap on individual player salaries, then Kawhi or LeBron or AD wouldn't have so much "surplus" value and teams wouldn't bend over backward to accommodate. If Kawhi made $60M and PG made $40M, for instance, then Clips wouldn't gut their team for them since they'd need to find surplus value elsewhere... So, ironically, owners have sort of given more power to the superstars by capping individual salaries... If LBJ is worth $100M in his prime but can only be paid $35M (and knows this), then he is going to use this as leverage, and understandably so...
Feels like this should be mentioned in any discussion/complaint about player power.
4
The Paul George case is alarming because he had just signed a contract with OKC and made all the public pronouncements to excite the fans. So I guess that's not tampering on the part of Kawhi Leonard? What if an "owner" or chairman/woman or whatever they will be called did that, or a GM? They'd probably be fined a lot of money.
Irving, Durant, and Leonard himself were free agents, so that entitles them to do whatever they want. It does seem like at least since LeBron did his thing with Miami it has become a signature move of an elite player to do this - to organize their own team. It's hard to say whether that's an ok or dangerous direction for the NBA. Seems ok so far, although I can see how the teams' leaderships would feel threatened since that's been their perogative alone in most sports.
4
@DaffyDave
In all the cases of the players going to teams they want, the competition in the league seems stable. In the East, the 76ers, the Bucks, the Celtics, the Pacers all seem competitive. In the West, the Lakers, the Clippers, the Warriors, the Nuggets, the Spurs, the Blazers, the Jazz, the Rockets and maybe even the Davis-less Pelicans will all be good.
There seem to be plenty of good players to go around. So where is the problem?
A simple answer: No.
The players are out there every single night, performing. They should be driving decisions.
5
@JL
No they are not. Hear of “work load management?” It’s the only sport that in modern times these pampered prima donnas who are making millions decide they need to rest rather than play a 2 hour game. Do you think Russell, MJ, or Laimbeer would skip games? Leonard may be the worst offender, look at San Antonio..
2
@J Anderson The name of the game is to win. If that means resting your players part of the time, what's wrong with that?
@J Anderson
Last I checked, the point is to win championships. Toronto won. Why are you criticizing Leonard?
Can you please plan to rerun this story next June if (when) someone other than the Lakers, Clippers or Nets wins the title?
5
It will be interesting to see how many teams fold in the next ten years. Fans aren’t stupid. No reason to pay big bucks to watch the hometown team get pummeled. This is no knock on the players, we all have views on where we prefer to live and work. The league is lucky it has so many billionaire owners who can absorb losses. At some point, some will tire of losing and shut their teams down.
4
@Robert Billionaires don't own sports teams to make money. They do it to distract people from real life. It's escapism pure and simple. It's akin to the roman emperors offering up entertainment for the citizens of Rome. It also makes people somewhat loyal to a place, making sure that the serfs don't tire of their lot in life and move elsewhere.
2
@Robert
A lot of lousy teams that have been terrible for decades are still around. You might even say the Nets and Clippers are two of them. Look where they are now.
The real issue is not their power but that it’s only being used to move to one of a half-dozen franchises, causing franchise inequality with the majority on the losing end. The solution is simple: limit each team’s extreme deviations from the median contract. Each time could have no more than, say, 5 contracts that are more than 2 standard deviations from the median (up or down), and 5 that are between 1 and 2. By default, it will become difficult to create rosters dominated by max and min contracts.
5
Are KL, KD and LJ too powerful? No. They're intelligent players who know their worth. They've figured ways to excel the right way on the court and in the boardroom.
They're leading the next generation to be more than just players. The next step is ownership and partnerships. They can then start their own leagues that can eventually create real change in the underdeveloped neighborhoods most of the players come from. If team owners and their families can make lots of $ so can the stars people are paying to see.
7
How can fans think this is good?? There is no loyalty to team/city/fans who support and pay their way. Why have contracts? Just let rich players run the game. A joke.
7
@Mark Paskal. Consider the fact that the S.A. Spurs pushed Kwahi to play injured thru-out the '17-'18 NBA season and playoffs, despite the danger of long term risk to his career. Then there's Durant who is said to believe that the G.S. Warrior's medical staff withheld information about his injury during the playoffs which directly led to the Achilles tendon tear he suffered. Not saying these Team Orgs. are bad, they're looking out for their Org. Just as the Players and their reps have to look out for the Player. Dis-Loyalty? No. Smart business, they'd say.
1
@Stoneicon1 I think there are more sides to both the Spurs and Warriors stories with regard to the injuries. Other than Durant's friends and media allies, no one has formally accused the Warriors of anything you accuse them of doing. If anything, what I've read in the media sounds like it was a "collaborative" decision, as it's been put, about whether to play him. In other words, Durant and has people were fully involved in the decision.
3
@DaffyDave. I beg to differ. If Durant had another 4 years on his contract, it would have been part of the decision. Since it was pretty obvious he was leaving, it had to have an impact on what the Warrior were willing to risk. Nothing to lose.
Who are these people and whom really cares? The NBA along with the NFL and MLB are mere distractions and circuses of people being paid way too much to play a game.
10
@Nature Voter
Sports are not mere distractions. You can like sports and also participate in meaningful political and social activity. And BTW, they're not being paid too much to play a game. They are sharing revenue in a business, the same way investors in any industry participate in the profits of the business.
1
@rlschles way overpaid for a game. Educators, physicians, and first responders should be receiving subsidies from the sport largess instead of overpaying owners and athletes.
1
When I clicked to read the article, I took headline to mean, are these players too dominating, and so was looking forward to a good chuckle at a ludicrous column.
Oh, I see what you mean now. You mean the conversion of that athletic power into power over the sport and/or entire teams.
Now that's what I call a distinction without a difference!
And of course, the League will respond and try to parry this power of the great players. And so that game goes, no?
I believe as fans we think we really know the players. They are like everyone else in the world, complicated and multilayered. Additionally, we would all want to have this much influence in our workplace. For all those who think NBA players are selfish and lack loyalty, I have two words: DeMarr Derozan.
6
This Warriors fan is not happy that they are now the fifth or sixth best team in the West on paper, but at least these employees have some control over their world. Of course, I don’t necessarily feel sorry for them given they make a lot of money. I would like to see the lower classes in America have some control over their lives.
4
I find many of the news stories about Kawhi disturbing. Writers keep saying they are surprised by his actions and how effective he was in getting the Clippers to make space for Paul George and in convincing George to move. Why the surprise? This is a person who has honed his skills relentlessly; forced his way out of a respected organization because he felt his professional judgement was questioned; chose a temporary landing spot (Toronto) with underrated and highly complementary talent; assessed precisely what help he will need to keep winning; then convinced Paul George and Doc Rivers of his vision. The writers were surprised because he doesn't give many interviews-- but maybe that's part of his strategy too. Don't waste time and don't give away anything. This guy reminds me of Bill Belichick-- relentless at winning and two steps ahead at all times. Stop being surprised! The best combination of player talent and basketball savvy since Bill Russell. Enjoy it!
27
@Cal Prof He's a mastermind on and off the court. It's refreshing to see a star athlete show the world better that he can tell us.
6
@Cal Prof Well put. I think you are right that it's time to view Leonard in just such a light. When his playing days are over, he should become a GM himself.
4
I have yet to hear the following are “too powerful” - Buffett, Bezos, Koch brothers, Walton family, the multitude of hedge fund billionaires, etc. what’s the point of this article?
28
@FirstThingsFirst
Spot on. Why is it that "employee power", even when the employees are the product, is still seen as somehow wrong. Why is this? Where is it written employers are entitled to the power? Because (most of them) were born with a silver spoon in their mouths? It makes perfect sense when the employees are the reason for the customers, whether it be art, music, sports, etc. that the labor "naturally" should have more power than capital.
18
@FirstThingsFirst Great point. These players have figured out that they can be competitive during the game and still unite for greater causes after the final whistle blows. Wealthy people do it all the time with hardly a mention.
7
@FirstThingsFirst . Agreed. Perhaps there is a racial aspect to it too. The employees getting too uppity.
5
The Thunder could have done what the Pelicans did with Anthony Davis. Davis could not play anywhere unless the Pelicans were willing to trade him. It was an ugly affair. Davis had to ride the bench the 2nd half of the year. The Pelicans and the Lakers suffered.
No player or owner is “too powerful”. All of them agreed to every single transaction that took place. OKC and TOR knew PG and Kawhi didn’t want to play in those cities. Yet they traded for them anyway. THEY chose to risk losing them after a year.
As for PG asking for a trade, that was in OKC’s control as well. They agreed to the trade because the Clippers made them an offer they couldn’t refuse. The bottom line is Presti still had to pull the trigger.
If one wants to blame PG for asking out, why shouldn’t OKC be blamed for trading for PG in the first place? PG clearly told All the NBA teams he wanted to be a Laker. Yet, Indiana still traded him to OKC. So, Presti shouldn’t feel jilted or sad that PG forces a trade out of OKC... because Presti forced PG to play in OKC in the first place!
Player and owners are neither too powerful or too weak. They wield exactly as much power as they have leverage. Kawhi and his camp clearly knew what they were doing and maximized their leverage.
Ultimately, no one should feel bad for Presti/OKC. Frankly this is a great opportunity for Presti to start w/ a clean slate as clearly their team was not even a 2nd round playoff team much less a conference final or NBA finals team. Presti can now deal away Westbrook w/o backlash or criticism. Westbrook could never be the cornerstone of a championship team. Presti can now rebuild with a massive number of 1st round draft picks and salary cap space.
5
@Y
The problem is, who wants to play in Oklahoma City? It's impossible to lure front-line talent to play there for more than a couple of years.
1
@rlschles for a few million dollars I’d say a few hundred thousand high school, college, and foreign players!
1
"A case can likewise be made that the league, at least this summer, has benefited from the players’ machinations. Although each star acted with his own intent, the N.B.A. may be more competitive than it has been for years..."
At their very worst, the players have proven themselves more adept at running the NBA than the owners. Jeanie Buss? James Dolan? Regarding the Knicks, two days ago the Times itself incautiously observed, "The blame for not bringing in the stars is landing largely on the team’s owner, James L. Dolan, a cantankerous sort reviled by fans weary of all the losing..."
The Lakers and Knicks lost out because everyone knows that their management programs are a joke. LeBron's Hollywood fantasies notwithstanding, nobody who has a choice wants to play for them.
The players not only made the league more competitive, but the way they did it puts pressure on the rich clowns in LA and New York to get their acts together. The Knicks are now guaranteed to be awful until Dolan departs.
6
Let me get this straight -- the writer here is questioning whether three black men who rose from humble beginnings, through sheer hard work and perseverance, to become the best players of their time are "too powerful". Can someone please send me an equivalent article in the NY Times asking whether any coterie of three or so white men in a sport (or otherwise) are too powerful? No? Didn't think so. Can you say 'racism'?
38
@Christopher P.
My sentiments exactly....
4
@Christopher P.
Why limit it to sports?
Though, to be sure, there is a debate afoot as to whether Bezos and Zuckerberg have grown too powerful...
@rlschles I said "a sport, or otherwise" -- in other words, I didn't limit it to sports
Say what you will but the proof in the pudding will come when they tip it up in the fall. Love or hate what's happening, next season will be very fun to watch. Can't remember the last time I was as energized for the next season to begin.
1
Bravo to the players! They need to maximize their economic clout while they can! They are one injury away for being brushed aside. Good for them!
9
I do not really understand the point of this article. Durant and Leonard were free agents and had every right to sign with any team they wanted to. OKC willingly traded George. They did not have to trade him, could have enforced the contract and kept him playing in OKC for the remaining two years. I suppose George could have sulked for two years but that would have only diminished his market value when he became a free agent. If anything I see weak kneed team owners who are willing to pay huge dollars to sign players to long term contracts and are then afraid to enforce the contracts when the player decides he would like greener pastures. The owners really have nothing to complain about. If this is an issue, it is an issue that they create and that they can solve by insisting that players who are under contract live up to that contract.
7
We wouldn't be hearing a peep out of Marc Stein if the big free-agent stars had converged on the Knicks.
Kawhi and George wanted to go home. It's that simple. Ditto for several others. Just like LeBron's return to Akron to play for the Cavs, which was universally hailed.
All of this started with Durant's injury in the Finals. The Warriors' decision to encourage Durant to play in the Finals was the single most immoral act by management I've seen. Pro basketball players are instinctive competitors, and management's job -- their most important job -- is to protect the injured athletes from themselves, as Jalen Rose succinctly pointed out.
9
NBA stars play 100 games, travel cross-country numerous times. Hotels, bus rides, practices. If you're one of the best and have some power to choose with whom you're going to spend all that time . . . good for you.
33
@CD And don't forget, Leonard never voluntarily agreed to play in San Antonio. He was drafted (then traded) to S.A. where he had no freedom to go anywhere else. In fact, when he was traded, he never mentioned a desire to go to Toronto. This is Leonard's, in his eighth year in the league, first voluntary choice on where he will play. Why is that not the story? That players toil for years under owner friendly rules and yet we focus on the narrow window when players--due to contractual freedom--can chose (within boundaries) where they would like to work and for whom. What a novel concept.
15
The primary reason why the "free agent" (they are far from 'free' to the new team) dance is so critical to the NBA as compared to other pro sports is that, with only 5 players on the court, one or perhaps two players can drastically change the fate of a team (see Cleveland/Le Bron). At least the cap system in the NBA forces teams to redistribute the talent on their teams. Baseball (8 field players and several pitchers), and football (22 field players) are such that one player doesn't affect the outcome as much. Not even an outstanding pitcher. Hockey is closest, but they change lines so often that the one player effect is diluted.
@BigFootMN
Maybe - but in the last 10 years, 7 different teams have won a championship. So your point doesn't really prove anything.
I am glad they are powerful. You can’t own these men. I love that they are looking out for their happiness, career, finances and future. I am a Warriors fan and so enjoyed watching KD play and will still enjoy watching him play. Let’s shake things up.
13
I think there is a far more to consider here. Despite this being referred to as player empowerment, this is superstar empowerment. Forget the commissioner, franchise holders, or team executives, I think when mid level veterans start to tire of being constantly shuffled around (and perhaps make waves with the NBAPA) due to the whims of a select few teammates who act as a second de facto management group is when this story really get interesting.
4
STOP THE PRESSES........
......the millionaire field hands are controlling their own destiny.
......making decisions for and amongst themselves.....
......without the control of billionaire owners........
.........WOW.......
(stop blaming Dolan.....yes his defense is weak.....he can't shoot a three......but he hasn't lace em up in awhile)
5
I don't know why OKC is crying, George forced his way out of Indy. And he probably understood later why KD left OKC.
1
@EJ 'Nati OKC should not even have a franchise so, no, OKC fans will never have a right to cry (well, until the team moves back to Seattle).
1
The headline is both racist and moronic. Ballmer paid two BILLION for the team and is worth 50 billion. Kawhi decides who he wants to work for, and that’s threatening? When did the NYT become such a stooge for the oligarchy? You’re telling me I shouldn’t have the right to choose who I work with or for? Yep. A black man making 40 million is such a danger to our nation.
When he gets in his car, let’s have him pulled over by a cop.
83
This article is merely the latest example of the intense scrutiny NBA players have historically faced, from owner driven lock-outs, to forcing stellar high school athletes from to attend a year of college before playing professionally. Athletes in other professional sports are largely shielded from these sorts of critiques (I wonder why?)
More to the point, the NBA is more competitive today than it's ever been in my lifetime. This is where player movement and the supposed era of "super-teams" has lead. More power to the players.
13
@Bilal Give it a little time and you will see the death of many teams and then fewer jobs for the players. No star will want to play for teams in the heartland for cultural or business reasons. These teams will become permanently non-competitive, their fan base will wither away and then the team will fold due to non-attendance and total loss of income. Their billionaire "owners" will tire of losing money and shut them down. We will soon see a league of 6 to 8 teams in California and the northeast. Remember the Rochester Royals, the Syracuse Nationals and the Fort Wayne Pistons?
2
@Emil Oh Kawhi me a river. That is nonsense. If no one wants to go to OKC (and why is there a team in OKC to begin with? Oh yeah, some rich white guy wanted it that way) well, they will go somewhere else. If "cultural" (read bigotry) reason hurt some of these franchises, so be it. Maybe its time for middle-America to change instead of whining all the time about change.
5
@Emil
That's nonsense. The owners are not losing money. As long as the TV contracts continue to have huge value, they'll be fine. Secondly, OKC is a bad example because it's true that it is not much of a destination. But Denver, Houston, Dallas, Minneapolis, Chicago, Miami, Memphis, NOLA, Portland, Atlanta, these are all places players will continue to want to live and work in.
This year is done . . . I would be curious to learn from those who know what players are coming up for free agency next year and where they might go and who they might influence to go with them
2
OKC whining about another city stealing a player is a bit rich, coming barely a decade after OKC stole a whole team from Seattle.
As much as I disliked that move, I have to admit that I was excited by the young superstar that came together over the next few years, with Durant, Harden, and Westbrook.
Of course, that didn't last, and the pain keeps coming for the Thunder.
Karma?
10
There are no jerseys with the owners name on them. The players are the game, no matter what you say.
8
I guess a "contract" isn't really a contract anymore? Doesn't your word - whether a handshake or a signature - mean something anymore?!
Once an NBA player has played enough time in the league and earned free agency status, then whatever that player does is up to him.
HOWEVER, tampering with players under contract to other teams, scheming to have them demand a trade so they can play together is simply wrong.
4
@JOHNNY CANUCK - Give me a break. How about owners who sign players to contracts then trades those players at the owner’s whim?
There’s nothing indicating PG or Kawhi reneged on their contracts. They were both traded to places they didn’t want to play, yet they kept their end of the deal by playing hard for those teams.
If OKC wanted to, they could’ve NOT agreed to the PG trade. It’s just that the Clippers made them such a great offer they couldn’t refuse.
I don’t get where you’re coming from when you imply these players aren’t keeping their word. After all, didn’t Kawhi fully live up to his contract and actually won a NBA championship for the Raptors? I’d say he fully honored that contract... or did you expect that Kawhi would be bound to stay with the Raptors without any contract once his last contract expired? They have a word for that - it’s slavery or indentured servitude.
7
@JOHNNY CANUCK
"Tampering"? So owners can talk among each others but players can't?
If you are referring to Paul George wanting out of his 4-year contract with OKC, relax. A year ago George could just have easily gone to the Lakers, where he had earlier stated he wanted to play, and OKC would get zero out of it. One year later he's still going to LA, but for his efforts and signing with OKC, the Thunder get a TON of picks and some good young players -- more than enough compensation for letting him go.
2
Kevin Durant, Kwahi Leonard and Lebron James are the NBA hired help. So were Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal, Earvin Johnson and Larry Bird.
Indentured servants for the really powerful and privileged aka NBA team owners and sports networks and sports product makers.
2
There are different things going on here.
Kawhi or KD want to leave after his contract is up? Great.
ADavis or Paul George want to walk out on their contract with multiple years remaining. Horrible. Stipulating the few teams you will go to? Horrible.
Lebron actively recruiting a player under contract. Horrible.
5
@MTS
Again: Both teams left behind in the Davis/George situations ended up better off than before. That's what good management is supposed to navigate for its team.
1
Maybe the Pelicans are better today than a month ago.
But the fact they basically sacrificed last season was probably not that great for the fans, other players, coaches etc.
And while OKC got a lot for PG and made the best of the situation, I bet they would have preferred to have a motivated PG and Russ working together in a leveled West.
Doesn't bother me very much. The team owners often deal, willy-nilly - often to the detriment of fans. Everyone remember the Kristaps Porzingis giveaway? Or the monumentally stupid deal to bring Carmelo Anthony to the Knicks? From what I recall, Dauphin Dolan didn't put either trade to the Knicks faithful before pulling the trigger.
Good for the players.
4
I definitely think Durant has an "attitude" problem. I used to think he was such a "good" guy. benevolent, not arrogant, etc.
But now I understand why so many Thunder fans are angry at him, and I think the way he treated Curry (who he is supposed to be friends w) about leaving the Warriors, was despicable.
All of his arrogance and animosity will catch up w him.
6
There are multiple ways to see every scenario.
I shuddered from a future Clipper resource POV when I heard the details of the Paul George trade. Paul George is better than Gallinari & Gilgeous-Alexander, but he ain't five #1 picks and two swaps of #1 picks better than than two of them - and most of those Clipper picks (and swaps of picks) will come once Leonard and George have begun to physically break down. And given both George's and Leonard injury history, that time could come sooner rather than later. I hope the few moments of glory are worth it to Steve Balmer.
As for Durant signing on with Brooklyn, if I were Jim Dolan, I wouldn't have been willing to pay Durant four years of a super-max salary for perhaps three years of performance, with the hope that Durant can regain most of his pre-injury mobility before the inevitable ravages of NBA old age set in, in order to pair him with a problematic talent like Irving.
The Nets were a nice story last season, but I'm not sure that Irving is even much of an upgrade at this point over the player that they had previously. Durant is an upgrade - if he can regain most of his previous form, and retain it for the full length of his super max contract. But that's a very big IF.
5
There is another dimension to the power dynamics Silver is bound to be asked about: In a league in which three-quarters of the players are black, some have pushed back on the very term “owner” as outdated, offensive and feeding a tone of servitude.
Anyone know where Stein was going with this weirdly placed paragraph about a topic totally unrelated to the rest of the piece?
@LR
Oh, geez.
If I pay $2,000,000,000 to purchase a team -- the Clippers, say -- I would hope that gives me the right to be referred to as the owner.
Never mind the hundreds of millions of dollars in checks that I write to pay my players -- excuse me, the players on my team.
3
Long term this heightened player movement is bad for the NBA.
NBA and its players make the vast majority of money by 1) getting people to watch 3-hour games on TV and 2) getting people to pay $100+ to go see a game in person. All the Woj/tweeting/headlines don't make players or the league much money.
To do #1 and #2, you need to foster long-term relationships with fans. To borrow an analogy, I'm a long-term Seattle Mariners fan, even though they've been terrible for years now, because I grew up watching Ken Griffey Jr. year after year. I loved him and that team. I'm just an ingrained fan.
When players move all the time, and teams become mere landing spots for player whims every few years, you lose those relationships. Over the long-term, that's bad for the league.
I'm not saying players shouldn't have some choice. But when you get this much player movement it will hurt fans, the NBA, and players over the long term. My $0.02.
17
This article is so prerecorded. Can we get the non owner/governor take on free agency a far way down the road as well?
People should be free to work where they want to work. You have to wonder if the word ‘powerful’ in the title of this article was meant to be ‘uppity’
3
I think you missed the concept of the multiyear contracts some of them freely signed. If they just signed one-year deals, your point would be valid.
1
Tell Durant, Isaiah Thomas, Charles Oakley, Porzingis and others that players have all the power.
Teams can "rebuild" at will, but players can't jockey to their advantage (BTW, loved how Jabbar got all the coaching opportunities he wanted and deserved...and who from the pre-Pierce Celtic glory years got the head office jobs? Bird and Ainge? any African American players?)?
The "mentality" that speaks to, is not a pretty one.
3
Imagine that..workers controlling their future, their money, and their work environment, while their bosses do not......
Imagine that...
7
NYT prides itself on diversity and racial,justice. Then three of the best African American athletes work to build the kind of teams they want to play on and he wonders if they have too much power. Tone deaf to say the least. When a new CEO hires all of his formers colleagues does Sten wonder if that CEO has too much power?
5
The NBA wouldn't exist without its players, particularly its star players.
I love these players taking control of their destinies and using their leverage to get what they want.
8
I admire Russell Westbrook's dedication to OKC. I think he must be hard to get along with though. But if I were him, and maybe he's thinking about it, I would put my ego in check and be on the phone with LeBron.
3
No. No one complained when the Lakers year after year assembled stars. No one complained when Boston acquired Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. Players should all be free agents coming out of college - free to sign with any team. Kawhi proved as LeBron proved, he is a genius. Durant though is not even in the same league - player movement-wise or talent-wise.
1
A sad day in any sport when players run the league as we see happening in the NBA. Wouldn't want to be a kid today knowing that a player I idolize playing for my team decides that a championship with any team is more important than a loyal fan base. And the only kids that get to see a professional game anyways in any sport are the children of the wealthy. Not a healthy time for kids to be growing up.
2
@charles macelis
Aside from going to an NBA playoff game, which is a fantastic emotional and visceral experience, attending your average NBA regular season game is pretty underwhelming.
The reality is it's much more comfortable and less expensive to watch a game in the comfort of your own home.
1
The biggest edge pro basketball players enjoy over players in the other major pro sports is the greater/magnified importance that a single player can have on five person basketball team as well as the small size of the team vs the size of team income.
It's an example of 1%s in another context...
2
Wow, what a headline. Talk about a blast from the past. This same headline question, just change the names, has been posited since the earliest days of professional sports.
Back it the late 60s, when Jim Brown, Muhammad Ali, Lew Alcindor and others joined together to prevent themselves from being overly exploited by the owners, this question was asked.
In the 70s and 80s, when Julius Erving and Magic Johnson lead their teams and managed to persuade the team to change head coaches, it was asked.
In the 90s, when Jordan and the Bulls were dominate, it was asked by the media if he was too powerful.
In the early 2000s, when Shaq and Kobe's Lakers dominated the NBA, it was asked whether they were too powerful in setting the team's direction.
In 2010, when LeBron decided to take his talents to South Beach and create his super team, it was certainly asked, and stated, that he had too much power.
Recently, it was asked about Golden State, when it was the players decided who they wanted to play with, not play for, whether or not the players were too powerful.
So, please, stop with the decades old question of individual athletes' power to control the league. Team owners have made, and continue to make, billions of dollars, while only a handful of top-tier players make only a fraction of what owners make.
It sounds a bit too condescending and has too many racial undertones and whispers for this question to be posed so boldly in 2019...
32
To me, this is not much different than the sort of scheming that happens on the sideline at playgrounds all over the country as the one who’s got “next” angles to “run” with the best five he or she can, asking the best players on the sideline to join, including craftily holding some spaces in order to pick the best players from the losing team—even if it means saying, “I’ve got my five” to someone less talented who wants to play next. True, it’s happening on a national scale, and there are millions of dollars at stake, and loyal fans get their hearts broken instead of eager but not-as-good players who want to get on the court, but essentially the impulse is the same: players should get a say, even an out-sized say, in who they play with. The league might be bothered, but it would be foolish to try and stop it. The reality is this: you either have free agency or you don’t. If the NBA has free agency, players will move: that's the "free" in "free agency." And if the free agent can convince someone under contract to move with them—and the GM of that targeted team goes along with it and makes the trade?—then more power to them. Literally.
5
I'm all for players having their autonomy but the recent trend in the NBA puts many (most?) cities and fan bases at a disadvantage since players prefer to live in select cities like LA, NY, Miami... Only the Knicks have such horrendous ownership/management to drive away talent. The rest of the league has to rely on luck (Toronto), the lottery (New Orleans), or elite management (San Antonio) to be contenders.
3
@T Montoya
Don't draft limelight stars. Tim Duncan stayed in SA. Karl Malone and John Stockton stayed in Utah. Reggie Miller stayed in Indiana. Larry Bird stayed in Boston. KG almost didn't want to leave Minnesota. MJ stayed in Chicago. Iverson stayed in DC. Lilard is staying in Oregon.
At one point in time, OKC had Durant, Harden, and Westbrook.
3
@Anti-Marx
Dirk stayed in Dallas. Just don't draft players with marketing contracts or clothing labels they want to promote.
1
I don't care about the equity or fairness element. I'm just a basketball fan. I don't like to see players teaming up like this. The NBA and the game it presents are shells of what they used to be. The players show great athleticism but mostly what they do is heave three-pointer after three-pointer. That's not basketball. Fundamentals, defense, passing, and teamwork are largely things of the past. This stuff with millionaire superstars constantly moving around and setting up their own teams together is bogus and just makes things worse. If the league doesn't care about what this does to its product, then I'll watch even less.
9
@Buck Thorn The players did not change the rules to permit the 3-point-shot; the league did this. And if you think fundamentals, defense, passing and teamwork are largely things of the past you have not compared the most recent championship series with those of the past -- even the great Celtics-Lakers series.
It is one thing for the best players to have the autonomy to make their own deals and to cooperate with each other in choosing teams where, together, they might win a championship.
But they can't and shouldn't pretend that these manipulated conglomerates are "teams" in the traditional sense of the word. Neither should basketball fans who watch the exhibitions.
The media is complicit in promoting the myth by writing sentences like, "LeBron James won a championship with Cleveland...." With what team will he be remembered representing, having already been on three such entities? Same goes with this year's superstars who picked up and went. Was Toronto really the winner of the finals, or was it mostly just Leonard, also about to seek "his" third title in a third locale. Was Durant, formerly in Oklahoma City and about to be in Brooklyn, ever really a Warrior in the same sense Curry, who has spent his career at Golden State, was and is? Journeymen players often end up working in five or six places before retiring.
Imagine the real satisfaction Toronto team followers would have felt, for example, if Leonard had grown up in Canada and chose to play in Toronto for his entire career.
The NBA is a business, and a term like "home team" a myth. Cancel the parades for the stars who are victors. They and most of their teammates have nothing to do with their worksites where they generally, wisely rent their homes, on short leases.
7
@gary abramson
Well said - and your observation brings to light what we've been seeing over the last 25 years in college basketball...One and Done. That mentality of that young superstar who wants to bring other superstar AAU players together at an elite college for a single year has carried over into the NBA.
The whole system is outdated. The old days where players went to college for four years and then some were drafted is gone. The NBA should adopt the same rules for buying and selling players as it is done in world football. No more trading. Just buy and sell who you need. NBA teams should have "reserve" teams playing in Europe so they can sign sixteen year olds and let them play on their reserve team until they are ready for the NBA.
2
@Sirlar
Without a salary cap, all of the best players team up on the players with the highest revenues.
The Lakers and Knicks could thrive again (and all medium size cities would never get even mediocre free agents). Just think about English soccer, with relegation being the primary focus of most premiere league teams.
1
@Sirlar
But soccer players drive their movements even more than NBA players do. Once a star says they're done in a location, it doesn't matter if they're under contract, it's time to sell.
1
@Peter M
The NBA has a soft salary cap. Teams that go over the cap have to pay a luxury tax.
I think it encourages teams to work harder to keeping franchise players and maintain an atmosphere that treats its employees as humans and not strictly on economic means to the team. Competitive sports is one of the few industries where the employee is force to consider the employee before self and family.... Tell that to 95% of the world
1
As long as there is a permanent barrier to a new teams entry, the NBA owners will continue to make billions, while the players make millions. It's simple math. Don't begrudge these guys their money, or for whom they want to play with. If you don't like it, don't watch. I stopped going to NBA games when the cheap seats topped $100. I gave up pro football years ago, and it's not only healthier, but a great time saver. In the meantime, If you like it, enjoy the show: it's entertainment; well, and maybe legalized gambling too, if Mr. Silver gets his wish.
4
I don't like the "tampering" (attempting to influence players already under contract), but at least OKC get a record haul of draft picks-- which may be doing the Thunder a favor in the long term.
I am far more opposed to multiple players colluding to accept lower salaries while attempting to win a championship.
What I find most interesting about this year's NBA free agency is that both LA teams have two big stars and too little money or too few picks to build around those stars.
1
@Peter M Why? How is this collusion? That's when people conspire to cheat OTHERS out of money, not themselves. And so what if they did agree to take smaller salaries in order to win more championships? Isn't that supposedly putting team success above individual success? Isn't that what we teach as a virtue? Who cares anyway? About any of this?
@Peter M The Clippers traded the future, not the present. They still have most of last year's team intact.
Do the players have too much power relative the league and team owners? Short answer, no. They are the show. They are the essential component of the entertainment product that is the NBA. All the other stuff is easily replaced. As such, the players should and do have a fair bit of power. In effect, it should be their league and they should be hiring the folks paid to run the teams, negotiate the contracts with media and sponsors, dealing with venues, etc. The primary reasons they do not have this level of control related to history and the length of their careers. With and perhaps due to these impediments, NBA players get about 50% of the leagues reported total revenue. This is right in line with other professional sports where the players face the same problems in asserting their power.
If you want to look at places where the power in sports is not fairly distributed, consider two sports, US professional women's soccer and the WNBA. In both cases, the revenues shared with the players skewed against the athletes. The wnba shares less than 25% of its revenue with its players and the USSF's differential treatment of its female players is well documented.
6
@oldcolonial85 they are the show, but they should officially own 50% of the league so they can share the hit when they behave like carpetbaggers and run franchises into the ground. Not only that, they’ve created a lap dog culture among players who are not among the chosen few as selected by a LeBron James and Co. Try being a fan sitting through a season of snivelling, overpaid players who spend their time trying to whine their way off of a team, on your dime.
3
@Timothy It was not the Knicks' _players_ who were tanking all season for a high draft ranking.
It's just a game for pete's sake. Nothing more than a game. People, businesses, everyone need to keep that in perspective. The game sells shoes, clothes and entertainment. These star players deserve their credit for their skills, but they should not manipulate the system. If these star players recruit one another and the team doesn't perform well - its the owner who is at a loss, not these scheming players. Let these scheming players put some "skin in the game" and their salaries to insure a winning team, not just their big mouthes.
1
Leonard's injury while in the playoffs for SA led to his missing a season. He moved to Toronto where his well-being was managed by an expert who allowed him to recover. The Raptors were 17-5 when Leonard was resting. Will the Clippers be content to let him rest until the playoffs?
6
@Harpo
Will the Clippers manage their stars' loads during the season? Are you kidding? Leonard himself said that without load management he wouldn't be there (in the Finals).
"Load management" -- another innovation by Gregg Popovich. He would just cite "too old" as the reason for not playing his stars. Popovich got a lot of static from the league about it at the time. Now, especially after the Durant debacle, every team with a franchise player will be closely managing their court time.
Players have the same right to exercise leverage as the owners. There is no such thing too powerful. Steve Ballmer had a choice. Trade for the best player in the league or not. Kawhi or Lebron any player or employee has the right to exercise as much leverage with their employer as they can. No such question has ever been asked of owners.
31
In the "old" NBA days, Wilt Chamberlain was the forerunner of all of these player power moves. He got himself traded out of San Francisco to the 76ers, and then later in his career forced a trade to the Lakers. Wilt always had the owners in a vise because he was the most famous and prolific player of his time -- and he had a keen business acumen. Be cautious when predicting dynasties, though -- Wilt got only a single title in Philly and one in LA.
1
@gcinnamon true and Wilt was also there when the popularity of the NBA almost withered and died.
1
We have men who are too powerful for their sport and women (World Cup soccer team) that are too powerless. Wow. I have just summarized the history (and problem) of civilization.
14
@Michael I think that while this is true, we need to stop and consider that the ultimate power to rectify that particular issue lies with the fans. If folks want more money to flow to the women's team (a justifiable position), they should go online and buy a Rapinoe jersey or a USWNT championship t-shirt.
1
Paul George was not requesting a trade before being contacted by Kawhi. This is a clear case of tampering. Will Kawhi & the Clippers be held accountable??
3
@Rob Hengel
I believe that the current tampering rules may only apply to teams or players linked to teams, and not to free agents.
(I could be wrong.)
4
@Rob Hengel Players are allowed to tamper.
The only way to change this is to get rid of the salary cap. The owners created this. No salary cap, no teaming up.
@Jim
That would make the situation so, so much worse. Major markets could easily afford four or five star player, so the only limiting factor would be where stars want to play.
A much better step would be getting rid of max contracts. If a team wants to pay a player 80 million a year, then let them.
2
@Jim
Without a salary cap, all of the best players team up on the players with the highest revenues.
The Lakers and Knicks could thrive again (and all medium size cities would never get even mediocre free agents). Just think about English soccer, with relegation being the primary focus of most premiere league teams.
1
Remove the player max salary cap not the team cap - players could demand more cash and you’d see the stars spread across the league with less maneuvering to line up three max contract players
1
This is the era of the league where the front office game is as much a part of the product as the on-court game.
For at least a decade, players have been "assets" instead of people under contract. They are traded to cities they never asked to go, to relocate their families, to work with new people, etc... all without getting a say in it. Players are given away for draft picks, in order to clear cap space for the next big signing. We refer to [Insert Name's] Expiring Contract as the asset without reference to [Insert Name] as the person on the other end of the contract.
So, good on the few players have the ability to control "the asset" and capitalize on it.
14
For what they do, they are vastly underpaid. How much was it worth for Cleveland to win their NBA championship or Toronto, as I recall the people were literally dancing in the streets. The pure joy and everlasting memories of a team winning a championship cannot be calculated in terms of anything as prosaic as dollar bills. In the NBA where one man can literally win you a championship, players with the game-changing skill sets are well worth anything they ask for, a team owes that to the fans.
In the other sports no one player can so dominate the game the way a great NBA player can dominate on both sides of the ball. Even Tom Brady, one of the greats in the history of his sport only plays offense. NBA players like Lebron and Leonard change the game on both sides of the court. Put a few good pieces around them and then get them to the playoffs and let them take over.
I still recall watching those great Yankee world series games with my dad, high-fiving him, talking to him about the games, thrilling together, everything so heightened because it was the championship, and that's when sports creates the magic that can unite an entire city, bringing strangers and family together. What wonderful memories, my dad is gone but I cherish all those wonderful sport memories...how can you put a price tag on that?
14
A star hedge fund manager can quit and form his own firm. A star banker can leave for a firm with better prospects. No one questions if they are too powerful or not. Like any other profession, it's up to the employer's job to keep star employees happy and motivated. No, they are not too powerful, they are just taking ownership of their careers.
129
@Tyler Amen to that, Tyler. Empower the employees and watch your company grow.
2
@Tyler Absolutely...these questions only arise when certain people begin using their leverage.
13
@Tyler Except they are under contract ... you kind of skipped over that massive point. If the star hedge manager becomes disabled or fails to perform well, he is is not guaranteed to be paid $40m or anything else the next two years unless he/she is under contract. The real issue is exactly the point the Mayor brought up in his first tweet -- PG, Kwahi (with SA) and Anthony Davis all orchestrated trades while under Contract by creating an untenable situation for their teams. What Kawahi did this year and Lebron last year was exercising their free choice.
4
While it is the players, not the team, coordinating these maneuvers, the risk is that the NBA becomes like soccer (EPL, Serie A, La Liga, etc) where only major cities with dominant teams can attract and afford superstars.
Everyone else just prays that theirs is the surprise team to win once in a blue moon (e.g., Leicester City, Raptors).
Toronto is a large enough market to compete (with a strong organization and (maybe) great coach), except no one apparently wants to play here.
1
@Stan Low Do the Raptors have any flexibility to go after Westbrook? Clearly it's a platform set up to succeed with just one superstar; I'd be surprised if they didn't try something.
1
@Michael they have the assets but Westbrook would refuse to go. Stephen A Smith, during the playoffs, nearly lost his mind over the indignity of having to go through customs and immigration to get to Toronto. Vince Carter’s inability to get his favourite grits here was nearly a dealbreaker in contract negotiations. We have snow here; we don’t mind snow in NYC or a Chicago but that Canadian snow is really awful Steve Francis, when he was drafted by Vancouver was on the verge of threatening to hold his breath until they traded him. So, no I don’t think Westbrook would let it happen.
2
@Timothy Masai Ujiri was apparently offered a package of Westbrook and George. he wanted PG, but not RW. Westbrook is owed a huge sum on money over next four years, some of which are likely to be in decline. In addition, he has something of a toxic reputation (deserved or not).
Something not being discussed nearly enough is the impact this has on, for lack of a better term, geographic parity. The league is undoubtedly more interesting and competitive than it was a week ago, but only from the perspective of teams and not regions.
The Nuggets, OKC and Indianapolis, for example, are all terrific franchises with plenty of talent but none of them are ever in contention for signing star players. The cycle has become draft well, hang on to the stars you draft for as long as you can and then watch in futility as a team on either coast takes your players away.
Toronto just experienced the very end of this cycle. The Bucks are at the (much more fun) front end of it. But if you're a fan of a team in the Midwest, Northwest or Southeast (minus Miami) the same script is going to play out eventually.
That said, I'm not sure what the solution is. I'd never expect players to play anywhere they don't want to be, and I won't pretend like Toronto or Indianapolis can (for most people) compete with LA. It's worth trying to find a solution, though, because the NBA as a regional sport just isn't as interesting as the NBA of past.
2
@Matt
True to a large extent. The Knicks, however, are a bug in your major markets/coasts argument. They can't attract franchise players for neither love nor money.
2
@Taz as long as Dolan owns the team, they will fail.
3
@Matt And LeBron went back to Cleveland to win a championship. I've been a loyal Warriors fan for over 50 years, but a big part of me was happy for Cleveland, and will always honor LeBron as a man who remembered his roots. Back to business for now, but he still supports his community.
In a sport like basketball, with 5 on a side, playing offense and defense, stars shine almost to the same extent as individuals as prizefighters. I'm glad they have fought their way into position as partners rather than as employees or property.
1
OMG...someone, somewhere, employees have leverage to significantly influence the conditions of their employment, and to make it more likely that they can collaborate successfully.
The world must be about to stop on its very axis.
One unintended consequence of having a salary cap in place is that it pretty much eliminates compensation variation for the best players as a factor in choosing your employer. So, you focus on other things that make your life better at work. Like, getting the best possible teammates and increasing your chances of winning a championship.
The new blueprint for how to build a better team is, build a better team. And more better teams = more competitive league = more successful league.
Side note - As a sadly dormant Knicks fan, they are destined for permanent doormat status until Dolan realizes that he is making things continually worse, not better. It's obvious to everyone but him, apparently.
69
@Brian On your side note, let's see how history judges the acquisition of Irving (a ballhog who has trouble getting along with teammates and a decent injury history) and post-Achilles tear KD, as he gets on into his 30s. I have a feeling that long term they are better off whiffing on those two guys, even if it obviously would have been great in the short term. Remember how everyone was courting Melo a few years ago? I'm sure all the teams that missed on him are extremely glad that they did. That's the one thing not mentioned by Stein in his article - the window in which these guys possess the top level talent that gives them this bargaining power is incredibly short. All the more reason to let them wield it for the few short years in which they hold it.
17
@Michael
I'm actually ok with no KD/Kyrie to NYK. It's the underlying reason - the systematic alienation of Porzingis, then trading him for everything but at least replacement talent.
There is no substitute for talent and teamwork if the Knicks are ever going to return to even the muddy middle of NBA teams, much less the top echelon.
I thought Melo was a bad move at the time - one dimensional, fairly selfish player who never elevated his team's play. Paying the outsized ransom they did for him was dumb, and cemented the team's progress on its current trip to the toilet.
3
@Brian But there are differences. The players have a union and a very strong one. They have agreed to the free agent rules that were negotiated. So I think it tis completely fair for free agents to get together and decide to play together or join whichever team they choose. It is the forcing of trades when one is under contract, that seems problematic.
1
I think the amount of power the players have in the NBA is certainly greater than in other leagues, but it is simply a function of the fact that a single player in the NBA has a much, much greater impact on the team than a single player in any other sport. Adding Mike Trout doesn't make or break a MLB team. But adding a player like Kawhi or KD or LeBron can take a cellar dweller to at least the playoffs if not all the way to the Finals.
In a way, the players are like oligopolists, with a small number having cornered the market on championship level talent and wielding that power as they wish. But in this case I don't think anyone really suffers, and there are already are a lot of checks and balances in the NBA that constrain their abilities to team up.
The NBA is great, the owners are reaping record profits, and the fans are eating it up. Any feeling by the owners that they are losing control is perhaps real, but should be given zero weight in structuring the player-owner relationship. Silver's mettle will be tested, but hopefully he can calm the owners down and get them to see the greater reality - that the star movement puts more teams in contention year in and year out, stokes fan interest, and is good for the league and the value of the owners' franchises. You bought an NBA team; this is what you bought. Just calm down and let the cash roll in.
53
OKC did not have to agree to trade George to the Clippers and could have made him stay for his 2yrs or purse better offers. Durant opted out of his $31m contract with the Warriors to be come a free agent and go to the Nets which was consistent with the contract the team signed. OKC has had enough talent over the last 10yrs to be successful and have not been able to deliver a championship. They had Harden, Ibaka, Durant and Westbrook before they got Paul George. Maybe a better coach could have gotten them to the trophy but it is hard to simply blame the megastars decisions for small market teams like OKC's failure to win a title.
8
@EPMD
Harden and Westbrook are not championship (read: team) players. In other words, they are not coachable.
The closest Harden's team got to the Finals was when Chris Paul carried that team to up 3-2 on the Warriors before Paul's injury.
The short answer to this question? No.
I love what these players are doing. Professional sports franchises rarely (if ever) have their player's best interests at heart -- why should the players care about the owner's?
44
A lengthy text without a particularly clear point or motivation.
Yes, the players talk and make 'clandestine' plans and so on and so forth but in the end the business and money decides. OKC could have shrugged trade request - they decided getting that many draft picks is a valid trade. IND is by no means a poorer team after trading George 2 years ago. NO got numerous players in exchange for Davis. In no situation one team was 'devastated' by the forced departure of a star. TOR may appear an exception but Leonard was free not to chose to have monuments erected in Canada.
NBA is healthy, interesting, and competitive, and overall is doing very well. Next season will center on LA which is excellent after 5 years of GSW domination.
The only problem that there is the perennial struggle of small markets team for relevance. But that problem exists in every aspect of economy (or life) and with the exception of SA it is extremely hard to find or expect a small market team to win it all.
2
This is more complex than this short term analysis suggests. Clearly with the way the salary caps work, there are some limits on what players can do and it cost them (Durant and Leonard left over $40 million on the table with their moves). Also with the draft picks OKC got for this trade there is a chance the next super star will be one of those picks and later on put today's superstars into retirement. In the long run what is good is the incredible talent being attracted and the level of competition for the fans. In those lights we should be careful about drawing big conclusions on this year's moves.
1
Before the Curt Flood decision in baseball, the players were virtually indentured servants, playing at the pleasure of the owners. They could not be traded without master's permission and had to accept whatever pay the club offered.
This went on for decades. Now, it seems in basketball, definitely, that the power has swung back to the talent. Because basketball has only 13 players, and 5 starters, a superstar or two or three can alter the entire league. This would be very difficult in football or baseball, because of the amount of players a team carries.
Personally, I am against the power that either the owners or players have, since the leagues become less competitive.
A possible solution may be that a player under contract who wishes to break it would be under a non-compete clause for a certain period of time. What superstar would bolt if they knew that they would be idle, and maybe lose some skills if they broke their contract? Businesses do this all the time, and prevent employees form competing in the same field for a certain period of time.
11
@alanore The superstars are not 'bolting' ... if they leave it is by trade or by free agency. Your suggestion would amount to a reserve clause which the players would never agree to ... nor should they.
Why do you think the league is less competitive? Suddenly there are many teams with legitimate title aspirations. If Thompson and Durant had not been injured and stayed with Golden State, they would be overwhelming favorites for at least 2-3 more years.
@WZ
Paul George definitely "bolted". He had a contract for more years, but Presti knew that having a disgruntled star would not be in OKC's interest.
Yeah, you're from LA, and now have two excellent teams, as well as the fans who will pay through the nose to attend games.
Speaking only for myself, I would rather a smart GM or coach build teams from draft picks and trades that all parties are happy with. I find all these power shifts to be non-competitive.
@alanore Would you claim that OKC "welched" on it's contract if they traded George had he been content in OKC? Why is it always the players who get the short end of the stick with the public?
No one asks if a brilliant lawyer, doctor, engineer, or other professional is "too powerful" to leverage his or her unique skills for better opportunities. There is a hint of racism about asking the question regarding professional athletes, most of whom are African-Americans.
Professional sports teams with players under contract can enforce those contracts but that they do not under certain circumstances says more about the ownership of those teams than it does about the players.
If fans of teams who capitulate to player demands want someone to blame, it is not fair to blame only one of the two parties to team/player contracts.
94
@Didier I was about to write something similar. Re-read the article and put the race of every person in parentheses. I don't mean to suggest that Marc Stein is intentionally being racist, but adding race to the picture certainly makes it apparent that mostly white owners and commissioners are complaining about the additional power of mostly black players. Given the racial history of the country and the league, this angle should not be ignored.
21
@Didier
Is it possible for a white person to criticize the action of a high-profile African-American athlete without being accused of racism? The league is becoming an absurd game of musical chairs, fans loyalty strained by rooting for a new cast each year. And those of us who have honored contracts we don’t like because our word means something can be troubled by players forcing a trade, regardless of race.
8
@Didier That's right. There is no reason for a player to be denied the opportunity to play in a city where they wish to live and thrive in their profession. The problem is that most of the players will opt for a "major media market"... where they can become more famous and internationally celebrated for their accomplishments. Basketball is played all around the World and becoming more popular than ever. Where will Giannis end up?
3