NBA SELLING OUT?
February 24, 2009 by R.C. Cola
Increasingly, money is all that matters in the NBA. Recent deals made near or at the end of the trade deadline last week illustrated more than ever that basketball is a business before anything else.
I’m not some doe-eyed idealistic fan. I know the NBA is a huge business. Players make tens of millions of dollars each year, and each franchise is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. With the recession clamping down on extraneous expenses, it’s not a surprise that the various franchises around the league are also tightening their belts. In December, I wrote about how the league has made the game less accessible in exchange for more lucrative network contracts. Now it appears individual teams are following that same route.
But owning a team means certain responsibilities to the community it represents that go beyond profits. Basketball teams don’t just generate revenue; they lift up the spirits of their fans when little else is going right; they rally citizens that find themselves with little else in common with each other; and they inspire a new generation to take up the sport. By hamstringing a team with trades that make a lot of financial sense - and not much else - owners impressing about basketball fans that it’s okay to lose, as long as you make a profit doing it.
Perhaps the most obscene example is Donald Sterling and the Los Angeles Clippers. Since the move to Los Angeles in 1984, Sterling’s penny pinching ways has led to countless mediocre squads and potential franchise players who couldn’t wait to flee. It was only until recent years that Sterling began committing to signing big-name players, but the team remains one of the worst franchises in the league. Still, the Clippers were fabulously profitable.
It appears as if Sterling was just ahead of the game. Recently, the New Orleans Hornets attempted to unload Tyson Chandler and contract, in which he is owed a guaranteed $11.9 million next year. In exchange, they would have gotten Joe Smith and Chris Wilcox, who had a combined salary of $11.5 million that are due to expire this summer. Even Coach Byron Scott and leader Chris Paul has expressed disappointment in the deal, which eventually fell apart because Chandler failed his physical.
The Los Angeles Lakers, which have shown a willingness to spend to win in the past, trimmed its expenses as well. It got rid of Chris Mihm and $2.5 million in luxury taxes. What did the Lakers get in exchange? It had to pay the Memphis Grizzlies an unspecified amount of money, and got a conditional draft pick that it will likely never see. This follows the Lakers’ dumping of Vladimir Radmanovic in a trade to the Charlotte Bobcats.
“In these economic times, I think it’s important for teams to try to reach what their goals are, and we have a goal to economically be feasible as an organization. We ran a little bit heavy and deep, and now we’re cutting back,” Lakers Coach Phil Jackson told the Los Angeles Times.
I understand the need to trade up for better players, or even for lesser players that might hold the potential to become great players one day. But the Lakers essentially gave parts away for free. The Hornets wanted an improved post game, but were willing to give up their best big man. Make sense? Not really.
The odd part was most mainstream press lauded the moves. One columnist claimed the Lakers were among the winner because it improved its financial flexibility. Why aren’t more fans protesting? Sure, the Lakers remain dominant, but the Hornets are just clinging to a playoff position.
Sure, we can all understand the need to save money. But most NBA franchises are still in relatively solid position. Even the smallest franchise, the Milwaukee Bucks, is worth $278 million, while the New York Knicks are the most valuable at $613 million, according to Forbes. The Chicago Bulls, despite being a middle-of-the-pack team, generated more than $55 million in operating profit, the best in the league, last year. Nine of the 30 teams did lose money last year, including the Denver Nuggets, which posted an operating loss of $26.3 million.
The Hornets, for the record, were the third lowest valued franchise at $284 million, but posted an operating profit of $3.2 million last year, according to Forbes. The Lakers are the second most valuable franchise at $584 million and generated nearly $48 million.
Sure, the costs for running a team are high. But the payoffs are even higher. And given what an NBA team means to its fans and the city that supports it, aren’t those costs worth enduring even in these tough times?
Comments
Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!