Does blockbuster trade impact Celtics?

TJ,

Interesting insights. I guess one could say the NBA has done a good job of reducing maximum contracts by downgrading the maximum from obscene to outrageous Why blame owners for signing crazy contracts when supply and demand forces them to do so in order to survive?

I read your post and understand your various points (although I disagree with some of them—but that's not really important now). What I'm missing is your conclusion, which somehow takes account of all the factoids you mentioned and answers my question:

• Is the NBA better off with free agency than it was without free agency?

• And a corollary question (which is actually more important in my opinion) is: What are the criteria on which you base your opinion?

Maybe it's an unanswerable question, or perhaps everyone except me feels the answer is so obvious that they'd be patronizing me if they explained their viewpoints.

Sam

Sam,

I don't remember not having free agency in all of the sports as I am 42 years old.

I think Expansion has been much more of a problem for the NBA then free agency has. The NBA has expanded into cities that aren't a draw for top players. (Toronto, Vancouver/Memphis, Charlotte, New Orleans, Minnesota).

I am 100% for free agency after a certain amount of years.
LeBron didn't owe anything else to the city of Cleveland other then a more thought out and considerate way of breaking the news to the city and owner.

The top players in MLB usually want to play for the larger market teams which means Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Oakland, Tampa, etc have a hard time drawing free agents. With baseball it's even more unbalanced because the Yankees, Angels, Red Sox, Cubs, etc can pay millions or tens of millions more then what the small market teams can pay.

The big difference between MLB and the NBA is that the NBA is thriving and MLB isn't. Of course, much of that is due to fewer kids playing baseball on a pick up level then we did as kids.

I recognize that I view sports/competitive balance among teams/luxury tax/assisting other teams financially (baseball welfare) different from most people as I have been a huge Lakers and Yankees fan since I was 7 years old. Many Boston fans are a priviledged sports fan like I am because they have had great success from their tems (Celtics/Patriots/Red Sox).

To touch on your point about supply and demand, nobody forced Houston to grossly overpay Asik $15.5m in year 3 of his contract. Would any other team offer Jeff Green 4 years at $36m like Boston allegedly has? We don't know that answer but my point is the owners over pay and then want the CBA to protect themselves from themselves. I don't blame the players for trying to get the most money they can. But they don't always go for the money. I am more familiar with the Lakers roster and I know that Nash, Jamison, Ebanks, and Meeks took less money to sign with LA. LeBron, Wade and Bosh all took less money to sign with Miami to try to win championships.

You are more then welcome to tell me where you disagree with my points especially with free agency because my sports history only goes back to the late 1970's.

I can think of a couple of ways that free agency poses a detriment to the fans.

The first one comes from having been witness to a dynasty. One of the things that made the Russell/Cousy Celtics so successful was that they played together for so long. They knew each other's tendencies inside out. They had that small unit, in-the-trenches-together mentality that provides that extra boost when you're tired and hurting and don't know how you can keep going. They didn't just do it for pride, they did it for each other. That attitude or perspective isn't gone from the game, but it's sorely lacking.

The other thing corelative of that is team chemistry. The Celtics this year have a huge turnover, and yet an imposing core from last year, and some of the new guys have opted into the mystique body and soul (a tatoo - wonder what Red would think?), anyway chemistry shouldn't be an issue, should be a positive.

That isn't to say that you have to have chemistry to win a championship. Miami won on the sheer willpower of a basketball freak on a mission last season - thanks to Paul and KG who are never going to live down having woken up the king after a long slumber. We can only hope that, satiated, he goes back to sleep. Next season, chemistry may be an issue for Miami: it doesn't seem plausible, but DWade assumed a supporting role in the playoffs and it used to be his team.

Chemistry is a beautiful thing when you see a team possessed by it. It can make the game of basketball into an art form, unlike so many sports. It isn't dead but it's dormant. It exists on many teams between a few players. And free agency makes it a major issue that mostly flies under the radar.

TJ,

Sometimes I wish I were younger. But I would never, never, never for an instant forego the adventures and exposures I’ve had over this lifetime. So I’m content having had the experiences of a 75-year-old but feeling as though I’m 30 (recently evolved from feeling like I’m 25).

You raise a good point. Sometimes I think that, on some of these issues in which different eras play some kind of role, we should subdivide the board by ages of posters. It’s obviously unfair to expect people who didn’t experience something to comment on what they never experienced.

You should understand that my question was not occasioned by a desire to assign blame and fault. I really couldn’t care less about what percentage of the NBA’s financial situation or pressures has been caused by agents, players, owners, the public, or whomever. For those who didn’t experience pro basketball without free agency, maybe I should revise my proposition as follows:

1. Is free agency a good thing for pro basketball or isn’t it a good thing for pro basketball?

2. What’s the basis or context for a given opinion on this question?

As I indicated earlier, the answer to #1 may not be as important as the answers to #2.

You say that you are “100% for free agency after a certain amount of years.” That still doesn’t tell me whether it’s a good thing for pro basketball, although it may be a good thing for veteran players.

What I’m really after (and I’m beginning to feel I’m asking for something that doesn’t exist) are opinions about what enriches and detracts from the welfare of pro basketball, and I’m particularly interested in how people define “the welfare of basketball.”

I’m not disagreeing with your points, simply asking a somewhat different question from what I think you have addressed. Spike (who had an opportunity to witness pre-free-agency pro basketball) rather clearly indicated that, in his view, the quality of the product from the fan’s perspective is a major context for his definition of “the welfare of basketball.” Others may agree or may have other contexts or may be bored by the entire discussion. Perhaps, by your responses, you’re suggesting your context is that “the welfare of pro basketball” is synonymous with whatever benefits/rewards the players. If so, fine; I’m just not clear on exactly what context(s) you’re operating from.

As for supply and demand, very often in business, outlandish offers are made to preempt a lot of negotiation or (to put it another way) to preempt the possibility of any higher bids. (I think that—to their everlasting regret—the Red Sox did this in the battle to win the bidding rights for Matsuzaka.) Competitive intelligence is not usually so finely tuned that the winning bid is just a couple of bucks more than other bids. We’ve all been talking about the fact that there’s not a large supply of good big players on the market; and (if a team can afford it in terms of the cap, luxury tax, etc.), the Houston owners might very well have deemed it good business to make a preemptive bid in order to fulfill the demand the team had.

Sam

sam wrote:TJ,

Sometimes I wish I were younger. But I would never, never, never for an instant forego the adventures and exposures I’ve had over this lifetime. So I’m content having had the experiences of a 75-year-old but feeling as though I’m 30 (recently evolved from feeling like I’m 25).

You raise a good point. Sometimes I think that, on some of these issues in which different eras play some kind of role, we should subdivide the board by ages of posters. It’s obviously unfair to expect people who didn’t experience something to comment on what they never experienced.

You should understand that my question was not occasioned by a desire to assign blame and fault. I really couldn’t care less about what percentage of the NBA’s financial situation or pressures has been caused by agents, players, owners, the public, or whomever. For those who didn’t experience pro basketball without free agency, maybe I should revise my proposition as follows:

1. Is free agency a good thing for pro basketball or isn’t it a good thing for pro basketball?

2. What’s the basis or context for a given opinion on this question?

As I indicated earlier, the answer to #1 may not be as important as the answers to #2.

You say that you are “100% for free agency after a certain amount of years.” That still doesn’t tell me whether it’s a good thing for pro basketball, although it may be a good thing for veteran players.

What I’m really after (and I’m beginning to feel I’m asking for something that doesn’t exist) are opinions about what enriches and detracts from the welfare of pro basketball, and I’m particularly interested in how people define “the welfare of basketball.”

I’m not disagreeing with your points, simply asking a somewhat different question from what I think you have addressed. Spike (who had an opportunity to witness pre-free-agency pro basketball) rather clearly indicated that, in his view, the quality of the product from the fan’s perspective is a major context for his definition of “the welfare of basketball.” Others may agree or may have other contexts or may be bored by the entire discussion. Perhaps, by your responses, you’re suggesting your context is that “the welfare of pro basketball” is synonymous with whatever benefits/rewards the players. If so, fine; I’m just not clear on exactly what context(s) you’re operating from.

As for supply and demand, very often in business, outlandish offers are made to preempt a lot of negotiation or (to put it another way) to preempt the possibility of any higher bids. (I think that—to their everlasting regret—the Red Sox did this in the battle to win the bidding rights for Matsuzaka.) Competitive intelligence is not usually so finely tuned that the winning bid is just a couple of bucks more than other bids. We’ve all been talking about the fact that there’s not a large supply of good big players on the market; and (if a team can afford it in terms of the cap, luxury tax, etc.), the Houston owners might very well have deemed it good business to make a preemptive bid in order to fulfill the demand the team had.

Sam

sam,

You're 75? It seems like you were 72 only a couple of years ago.

bob


.

Bob,

Yeah, I know. In some ways, it's a bitch. But I feel super-energized—vastly more so than any of my co-workers at the local Chamber of Commerce. And I'm not exaggerating when I say that my perspective on life (right down to the lingo and excepting only rap "music") is that of someone no older than 30. My friends are almost all in their 30s or 40s, and I know very few people who remotely approach my age.

And my memory is still scarily photographic. Before she died four years ago, I regaled my mother by giving a graphic description of the kitchen in our first home—right down to the indoor elasticized clothesline that, when not in use, snapped back into a green box on the wall to the right of where I used to sit on the floor. We moved out of that apartment just as I turned age one.

I also urge one and all to scrutinize all your twenty dollar bills because, when I was a checkout guy for a First National Store in 1952-1955, we were told to be on the watch for counterfeit twenties with the serial number A28505780A.

I know I'll croak some day. But I told my doctor that, whatever kills me is going to know it has been in one hellacious fight.

Sam

Oh Sam, you me the $20 with George M. Humphrey's signature on it as Secretary of the Treasury? Yes, I saw that $20 when I was six years old. My dad tried to use it to buy a used car, but when refused instead had to turn it into the US Secret Service.