I am just waking up at 2:19am the day after Christmas...man I have learned the age old lesson of not mixing creativity with some really good food. Remember that television I was trying to hook up? Well, I fell asleep...literally knocked out while working on it. However, while in my seafood induced coma, I had come up with some thoughts about the Celtics-Lakers rivalry and asked myself whether these two teams will be in line for a return engagement in the 2009 NBA Finals. I ask this question within the backdrop of a vastly underrated paradigm shift of competitiveness in the National Basketball Association. David Stern should be proud in light of the fact that after years and years of Western Conference dominance and Eastern Conference incompetence, there is certifiable competitive balance prevalent in the league that has not been seen for a long time. Currently, there are more NBA Title contenders than I can count on one hand which is an anomaly.
Throughout my younger years, an NBA fan can look forward to 1 to 3, maybe 4 at most really good teams that can be called true contenders; now we have at least 10 squads that have the depth, coaching and star power to get hot and make a serious sprint towards holding that Larry O'Brien Memorial Trophy in June. In the successive eras of Magic, Bird, Thomas, Jordan, Olajuwon and Shaq and Duncan NBA fans witnessed the pinnacle of the superstar player surrounded by a wealth of talent whether it was upstart superstars or established veterans who basically ran roughshod over the entire league with little to no resistance. If we look at the number of NBA champions going back to 1980, we will see over the years, there are only 8 teams that have won NBA titles...let me clarify that in better terms...in the last 28 years, there have only been 8 organizations who have had the privilege of celebrating a title in June. In no major American professional sport do we see this type of statistic. However, when looking at the statistic, it tells me that winning in the NBA is formulaic and very few organizations have positioned themselves to construct the formula and fined tuned it to be able to withstand the regular season grind and post-season marathon.
The institution of a salary cap, beginning in the 1984-85 season (yep, it goes back that far) was made in order to engender competitive balance and parity within the league. Looking at the title winners before then, one will see the landscape dominated by the Celtics and Lakers, so the league felt showcasing more teams with winning spread among the entire league will lead to increased revenues and expand the brand among a wider demographic. However, the fact that there are so few amounts of different NBA Champions tells me that winning teams are doing things differently whether it be cost effective spending, trading volume for a player who will get them 'over the top' so to speak, drafting better and willing to let good players develop into great ones. I firmly believe if Michael Jordan was born later and drafted into the NBA in the 1990's he would have been traded around more than Chris Gatling. People seldom remember Jordan's first few years in the league were marred with injury, losing and the ability to carry bad teams. How many players suffered through that in the 1990's and were traded?
The losing end of the NBA culture is littered with bust first round picks, fired coaches, unstable ownership and reliance on one player to turn around the fortunes of the team. The current era has seen a wider number of organizations making a commitment to winning on par with NBA Title winners of the past; this is the reason why there are so many good teams right now. Organizations are not only drafting better, they are recognizing their centerpiece player(s) and rather than centralizing everything around them (despite the opposite shown in NBA related merchandising), they surrounding them with a mix of capable veterans and young players that fulfill specific roles on offense and defense. I know it sounds obvious, but that is what those 8 eight winning organizations since 1980 (Celtics, Lakers, Spurs, Heat, Pistons, 76ers, Rockets and Bulls) have done, except now it is being done on wider basis. So when I see players like Dwight Howard, Lebron James, Chris Paul and Deron Williams I know that the league is in good hands. These players are supported by organizations who do not expect them to win by themselves and also are willing to spend to place a group of players around them that will extract the best from it's superstar investment. Ultimately, I believe the influx of such multi-faceted and talented players will lead to more teams winning titles in the NBA over the next 10-15 seasons. This of course could change if the teams they currently are on mismanage finances and field poor supporting casts; of course this will lead to some the young superstars jumping ship to a traditional contender, ala Shaq leaving Orlando for L.A.
With the recent resurgence of the Boston Celtics to the forefront of the NBA landscape, it is easy to look at the acquisitions of Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen adding these future Hall of Fame players to a roster featuring another potential HOF'er Paul Pierce and overlook the development of future star, Rajon Rondo. The Celtics have done a great job of drafting over the past few seasons and with a young roster, notably excepting the aforementioned players, they are quietly building group of battle tested players that could potentially bridge them into a successful future of the organization. In the 1980's, 90's and going into the current century, teams were content to spend their way to a title (never worked, ask Timberwolves, Hornets, Knicks and Suns); or just purposely thrown really crappy teams on the floor with hopes of drafting the future superstar that could change their fortunes. Sometimes
it works (Cavaliers in 2003 is the most modern sabotage example) and sometimes it doesn't (Clippers in 1998, Celtics in 1997 and 2007).The rise in the salary cap underscores how critical teams must manage their finances and since the contracts are guaranteed, if a player is signed to a mega-deal and does not pan out, the team is stuck with the contract. The teams are then forced to trade the contract (not the player as much) to get it off their salary cap and be able to spend freely again. To the left you will see a diagram of the growth of the NBA salary cap over the years. It has grown with the economy as we can see. *Shout out to wikimedia for the image.
The salary cap is not a hindrance to keeping teams together, but it can be if the organization commits itself to spending freely without the right mix of personalities, poor coaching or a lack of an organizational commitment to a firm plan of where the team will be in the short and long term. It is easy to draft a player with superstar potential, but if he is placed in a situation where he or the coaching staff is not able to maximize his talents, the team will not succeed (Carmelo Anthony, Denver Nuggets). It costs far more to rebuild past mistakes than it is recognize trends and adjust on the fly. As we can see, with the recent spate of coaches being fired, the teams are obviously concerned with winning and putting people in the seats. However, if a team drafted a player, signed free agents and made trades with the coach's system in mind, what happens when he is fired? For one, the coach is paid the balance of his contract and then the team has to pay an interim coach. Who knows if his new system or method will maximize the ability of the roster? If not, the players get disgruntled, tune him out and before ownership knows it, they have to sell off the assets to begin anew. In other words, a team that does this (listening Clippers and 76ers?) will continue to be in the NBA Draft Lottery and stay in 'rebuilding mode' while the teams that are committed to a players and have a plan of competing with them in mind will add to the list of NBA titlist teams in the future.
To wrap this up, I am excited for the NBA for the first time in quite a while; I cannot predict who will be the champion this year as there are so many upstart teams that can get hot and go on a run towards the NBA Finals. Here is my first annual 'Look to the Future but It Can Be Now' list (4):
Cleveland Cavaliers
Atlanta Hawks
Portland Trailblazers
Orlando Magic
*All of them have this in common: 6 years ago, they all were very bad teams. Unstable ownership, behavioral issues among the players and rosters constantly being turnover. These teams drafted well (not to hard to do when you are always in the top 3), recognized their franchise player, hired coaches with winning pedigrees (African American head coaches, NCAA athletic directors out there who may be reading this) and planned future drafts, trades and free agent additions with an eye towards making the franchise player(s) better. We will see what happens with these teams over the next few years but it is encouraging to see parody (well, relative to what we are used to seeing) in the NBA.
*By the way, the television still doesn't work.
No comments:
Post a Comment