Monday, December 12, 2011

Real Hoops - What the Hell is David Stern Thinking?

David Stern has presided over the NBA for more than a quarter century and rarely, if ever, has he endured the type of criticism aimed at him this week after he made one of his most unconscionable moves ever by vetoing a three-team trade that would have landed Chris Paul with the Lakers, citing "basketball reasons."  And it was totally deserved.

After months of talk of BRI and the forever looping video of players and league officials walking into Manhattan office buildings, the NBA was back with a vengeance benefiting from the same compressed free agent frenzy that so effectively jump started interest in the NFL after its protracted labor woes.  Players were signing left and right and everyone's favorite overrated team, the Knicks, seems poised to sign a player who's not good enough to qualify at the coveted third "superstar" (just like the Heat!!) but just good enough to convince their delusional fans that they're finals-worthy.  Better yet, the key figures of the coveted 2012 Free Agency Class - Paul, Howard and Williams - were making their intentions known.  The  League may not covet the attention its players get in that regard but it certainly benefits from the incredible interest it draws.  After Paul, in his normally quiet and classy manner, made it known he had no plans to re-up for another term in the bayou, the Hornets resolved to avoid the type of season-crushing drama that Denver suffered through last season by trading him before the opening of training camps.  When the trade was finally announced, the shock of seeing the one of the seven best players on the planet traded to one of the league's premier franchises gave way to the sober realization that, despite giving up said player and being desperate to extract some value before he walks away, the Hornets actually made a good deal.

Despite not getting the first (or second) best player in the deal, by getting the star-starved Rockets involved, New Orleans managed to completely remake their rotation with two of the more efficient offensive players in the league (Kevin Martin and Luis Scola), a versatile playoff-tested big with a TV show(Odom), a young point with potential (Goran Dragic) and a first round pick.  Houston finally moved its depth for the star it craved (Gasol, a Top 15, championship player almost seemed overlooked) while the Lakers took a huge gamble on a guard with a bad knee and a center (Bynum) with a bad attitude.  It was the type of deal every league should crave, one that spread the risk and reward evenly.  So, of course, David Stern (or in this instance, the League) did the wrong thing and vetoed the move.  So he's to blame, but the type of blame he deserves depends on if you believe his explanation.

To explain the farce, Stern gave some weak line about "basketball reasons" and the Hornets being better off with Chris on their roster at this point in time.  Ostensibly, he claimed the decision was made in his position as the "owner" of Hornets (we'll leave the discussion of that conflict-ridden relationship for another time).  If you choose not to believe his explanation, than you think he made the decision as Commissioner and that the league vetoed the trade under some amorphous concept of competitive balance or, better yet, protecting small market teams.  The strange part about that is that Stern has always been about utter and absolute control over his league and its owners.  He's a man who's overseen four lockouts (two which resulted in the loss of games) and unilaterally imposed a dress code because he didn't like Allen Iverson's fashion sense.  So to believe he's lying is to accept the notion that he's ceded control over a legitimate basketball transaction to a bunch of whiny, bitchy owners and turned the NBA into your fantasy league.



Most fantasy leagues have a a trade system that allows owners to veto moves that are unfair.  Theoretically it works as a way to keep teams from screwing up the whole league out of spite or stupidity but, more often, it ends with team voting against moves they feel put them at a competitive disadvantage.  Perhaps that's what happened Thursday when Dan Gilbert bitched and moaned his way into the news by speaking on behalf of the small markets in urging the league to not allow a trade so beneficial to the Lakers.

(Note to Dan Gilbert:  Not only does your reaction to the trade serve to highlight your utter lack of basketball acumen but also shows that your hatred of the "big market" teams is misplaced.  It was a fair trade and, ironically, had Paul been traded to your team (the Cavs) or some other place he would have not wanted to stay after the season with that team giving up all its trade assets, that move would have made infinitely less basketball sense and been more appropriately the subject of a veto.  So you can't complain that he was traded somewhere he wanted to go.  It's way too late to take back free agency so players will always have some control over where they want to play and are well within their rights to not agree to sign an extension anywhere but their ideal spot.  So a team hoping to get back assets has to make some concessions.  Those are the rules of the game.

While you can never stop players from wanting to play in big cities, you can do your job better and make your franchise a place players can come to win.  While the bright lights are nice, rings are better.  Just ask Tim Duncan.)

logical it is, contraction just isn't an option.    In that desperation, Stern sees Paul as the lure needed to find a buyer.   So, instead of letting the the front office chart the course of the team's post-Paul future, Stern's decision to hold out for different, theoretically more attractive assets or simply place enough barriers in the way to keep Paul in town until a sale can be consummated.  It's that type of short-term thinking that could effectively destroy the franchise.  Everyone knows Paul's not staying so nobody in their right mind is going to plot down a few hundred million dollars to buy a middling franchise with no fans about to lose it's best player.  What they might want to purchase, however, is a franchise with a bunch of good players, cap flexibility and a future.  One that could ignite fan interest by winning with a group of players who might stay, guys they could get attached to.

Now that the trade is officially dead, unless some teams ups the ante from where it was before, the Hornets seem to have missed their last, best chance to rebuild on the fly.  Odds are that Paul ends of playing out the season, they'll make the playoffs and miss a shot at a lottery pick and he'll walk for nothing, leaving the Hornets barren.  On the bright side, at least they don't play in Cleveland.

No comments:

Post a Comment