Saturday, March 6, 2010

This Week in Say What?!

Among the many NBA trade deadline transactions is the release of veteran players who seek to play for title teams. Spurs veteran Michael Finley was one of the players granted his release, and promptly signed with the Celtics. This transaction was not interesting by itself; Finley was not playing in San Antonio, supplanted by younger, better players, and Boston has no such players populating its bench.

What was bizarre were the quotes that flowed from the story.

Henry Thomas, Finley’s agent: “I think the Spurs understood at the time not really being in the mix for the first time in his 15-year career," Thomas said. “They were very understanding of his situation and the fact he felt he still could contribute. [Not playing] was a difficult thing for him to handle.”


Even granting Thomas huge “agent-speak” leeway, this sentence is incomprehensible. San Antonio sits five games out from second place in the Western Conference, yet somehow the season is over? And at 31.7% shooting for the year, the only thing Finley will be contributing in Boston is money into his new teammates’ pockets, after losing game after game of HORSE after practice.

Thomas: “Unlike guys his age, normally it’s sort of a gradual thing, they move into the reality of being on teams and not being part of the mix. That wasn’t his experience.’’


One more thing: Isn’t Thomas supposed to be grateful that the Spurs granting Finley’s release, since it was technically a courtesy? What’s with all the passive-aggressive comments about the decline of the Spurs? It may be true, but since when is it ok for anyone other than Charles Barkley to speak the truth. In my mind, I had already read “Michael thanks the Spurs for the their professionalism, and looks forward to playing against them in the NBA Finals" before double-taking to Thomas' actual quote.

Gregg Popovich, Spurs coach: “I was very surprised, but we granted his request,” Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich said before the Spurs faced the Hornets in New Orleans last night. “That’s for other teams to decide if they think he can be useful. But we did grant him his release before the deadline so he would have the opportunity to play some place in the playoffs if he so desired.”


Popovich has a stronger reputation for bluntness, but his word choice still seems harsh, and equally passive-aggressive (Can Finley play? Well we couldn’t afford to play his washed-up ass and be competitive, but feel free to try your voodoo on him.) Given the timing of the two articles, I can imagine the Spurs’ brass was less than pleased to hear from Thomas that they were eliminated from the playoffs sometime last month.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

NBA Deals and Acquisitions 101: Not your Daddy’s stock-in-trade

This NBA trading season made me excited, yet fearful. Every year, I cringe at the “Great trade! Who'd we get!” mentality of sports talk radio and webboards. This seems especially true in the NBA, where boom-bust cycles for teams are shorter than in the NFL and MLB, making for impatient fan bases. However, in light the realities of the NBA salary and talent development structures, I put forward an example of wheeling-and-dealing that required several years to marinate and come up to temperature.

The NBA’s closed system

As I mentioned, team building and management is a challenge in the NBA. Team brass are presented with a complicated payroll structure, involving salary floors, a “soft” salary cap, and a harder, but still malleable luxury tax. If this wasn’t enough, all of these flourishes of accounting finesse were designed in a much more prosperous era, when Stern & Co. only knew one direction for team revenues and player salary inflation. Add in grandfathered salaries from superstars of previous collective bargaining agreements, like those of Kevin Garnett and Shaquille O’Neal, and you have a superstar elite eligible for wages equal to 30-40% of a team’s total cap space, and not a penny less.

What you end up with is an largely incoherent system unable to properly value players that hit the open market, making trades less about achieving present equity than future flexibility. Clever GMs have taken huge PR hits for trading massive talents (with equally massive contracts) for players stashed abroad, rookies and draft picks. The de-facto swap of Pau Gasol for Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph has garnered significant attention as an example is this “BOOOOOOOOOOO…HURRAH!!!” paradigm, I think a more distant example shows the nuance involved in evaluating an NBA trade.

How “Seven Seconds” became several more years.

In the summer of 2005, Joe Johnson was not a happy camper. He felt low-balled by a Suns team he had helped put back on the map, and chafed in a role outside the limelight. Whether or not his anger would have been soothed by superstar money is debatable, but both sides eventually declared the marriage untenable. What ensued is often considered the beginning of “cheapskate” ownership tactics by Suns’ boss Robert Sarver: Johnson was traded for unproven vet Boris Diaw and two future first round picks.

In retrospect, this move helped the Suns prolong the Seven Seconds or Less era for several years to follow. Had the Suns retained Johnson at Atlanta’s offer (5 years, 70 million, with a “poison pill” in the form of a $20 million signing bonus up front), they would have likely filled out the roster around Johnson, Steve Nash, Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire with minimum salaried players, since Stoudemire had just inked a max deal, and Marion and Nash had been taken off the market by near-max deals in previous summers.

Instead, acquiring Diaw under a rookie contract gave the Suns some wiggle room. They signed Raja Bell to the full mid-level exception that summer, something they would not have done with a re-upped Johnson. Both he and Diaw were fine fits in the Suns up-tempo system. Bell provided defensive toughness and shooting without wasting many possessions, and Diaw gave the Suns a versatile forward option, especially when Stoudemire was sidelined with knee injuries. In 2009, as the Suns’ run in the Western Conference was clearly over, Diaw and Bell were flipped for Jason Richardson and Jared Dudley, younger alternatives at starting 2-guard and rotation forward who have flourished in the desert. When added to the bounty of the two draft picks – cap relief from Brian Grant’s guaranteed contract and cash considerations in 2006, and emerging center prospect Robin Lopez in 2008) – it looks as though critics of the current Suns administration need to look elsewhere for examples of managerial futility.

Final Thoughts

Of course, the extended transaction method of evaluation is rarely this clean. The main point here is that the NBA team building and management system has been forced by current conditions to be much more fluid and open than its professional sports brethren. Trades in basketball are rarely even swaps, or even today’s stars for tomorrow’s prospects. Instead, trades are made for flexibility, or by teams that have acquired flexibility. It is a system altered by upcoming negotiations between owners and players, but for now, makes for an interesting study in managerial behavior under artificial constraints.

*Don’t even get me started on largely failed developmental system – teams clearly don’t trust the D-League with their young players – that isn’t even as good as the model it replaced (the other CBA). Finally, at the beginning of this dysfunctional system is a draft which locks first-round picks into guaranteed contracts that teams on the edge of cap-imposed restrictions are loathe to accept.