Player Empowerment For The Select Few

User avatar
RealGM Articles
Analyst
Posts: 3,492
And1: 31
Joined: Mar 20, 2013

Player Empowerment For The Select Few 

Post#1 » by RealGM Articles » Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:41 pm

Power is an amorphous thing, a seemingly abstract concept with real world weight and consequences. It’s not easily won, and the accrual and wielding of it is a constant negotiation. Despite these difficulties, power has subtly, though definitely, been won by NBA players in a number of ways in recent years. They are not working through the courts as the likes of Curt Flood and Oscar Robertson did several decades ago, but through their newfound ability to engage directly with the fans, who are almost always going to take their side over that of a coach or a faceless executive.


On the morning of October 8th, 1969, Curt Flood received a phone call from a sports writer at 4 AM telling him that he was being traded to the Philadelphia Phillies from the St. Louis Cardinals, with whom he had played the last 12 seasons of his career, winning two World Series and seven Gold Gloves while with the team. However, Flood refused to report to the Phillies, frustrated with his complete lack of control over his own destiny and career after 14 seasons as a professional baseball player.


MLB commissioner Bowie Kuhn refused Flood’s request to become a free agent, leading Flood to sue Major League Baseball in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Flood eventually lost the case, and would only play 13 more games in his career, but his lawsuit helped set the stage for free agency that would follow in the years to come.


Concurrent to Flood’s lawsuit was a suit filed by the National Basketball Players Association that sought to block a merger of the NBA and ABA as it would prevent players from being able to choose which league and which team they wanted to play for. The leagues had initially planned to merge in 1970, but the suit, which would come to be known as the Oscar Robertson Suit, blocked the merger for six years until the Players Association and NBA settled, again opening up the doors for free agency. 


Players of the current era have become acutely aware of the fact that they are the show, the reason the fans show up or tune in, the reason the league has a product to sell. Of course the tricky part is that the players are both the reason the product exists as well as the product itself. Nevertheless, stars have accrued a leverage that is, if not more profound than in years past, at least more pronounced. To name just two examples, there are endless jokes about LeBron being the real GM of whatever team he plays on, and in every battle between a star player and a head coach, the coach is going to lose essentially every time. Perhaps most pointedly, though, we see it in players determining where they want to play. Despite the fact that their current team can offer the most money and a longer contract than any other, players want to go to a team that is more suited for them, whether that means a warmer climate, better teammates, more competent management, or just a change of scenery. 


Over just the past few years, we’ve seen Kawhi Leonard work his way out of San Antonio, Jimmy Butler leave Minnesota, DeMarcus Cousins finally get out of Sacramento, Paul George leave Indiana for Oklahoma City, and Kyrie Irving manage to leave LeBron’s shadow in Cleveland. Now, when a team signs a superstar to a long contract, it doubles as a countdown, a blade hanging over management’s head. And honestly I think this is mostly fine.


But for all this talk of player empowerment, what’s missed in these conversations is how few players this actually applies to. Yes, front offices and owners will bend backwards for LeBron James, and try to placate other stars in order to get them to re-sign, but there’s a lot of collateral damage that goes unnoticed.


Think of all the rumored trade offers for Anthony Davis that leaked to the public over the last few weeks and what Brandon Ingram, Kyle Kuzma, Lonzo Ball, Josh Hart, and Solomon Hill must make of all the talk about how empowered players are right now. It seems to me that by focusing on the power at star players’ disposal, we’ve missed the fact that most players are rotation pieces who will never play in an All-Star Game or make an All-NBA team, and are pawns in a larger game that is beyond their control. In addition to these players whose names were merely floated as potential trade pieces, there were a number of moves made this deadline by owners and general managers desperate to get under the luxury tax, or at least lessen their tax bill. When traded for that reason, players are no longer players, but impediments to the owner maximizing their investment. I get why it happens, and it makes a certain amount of sense, but that doesn’t make me feel any better about it either.


When we talk about the NBA being a players’ league, a league where the players appear to have more power than ever before, we need to be more conscientious of firstly, just how limited that power is relative to ownership and secondly, how few players we’re talking about when we talk about the leverage they possess. There is no easy fix to any of this, and it’s unlikely that many of these problems will be able to be solved, or even potentially addressed, until the negotiations for the next Collective Bargaining Agreement. Just this week, though, Jaylen Brown, Malcolm Brogdon, and Bismack Biyombo were named vice presidents on the Executive Committee of the National Basketball Players Association, replacing Carmelo Anthony, Stephen Curry, and Andre Iguodala. Perhaps these three, who are all decidedly non-stars compared to the players they’re replacing, will be able to work toward finding ways to empower players who shine less brightly than the faces of the league, ensuring that player power is at least a bit more evenly distributed than before.

pandrade83
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,851
And1: 482
Joined: Jun 07, 2017
     

Re: Player Empowerment For The Select Few 

Post#2 » by pandrade83 » Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:18 pm

I'm not quite sure I get the point here.

-"Player Empowerment" comes from leverage.
-Basketball is the most top heavy sport (with the possible exception of Football Quarterbacks) where one player can impact the outcome more than any one player in any other sport consistently.
-The Top stars are going to have leverage; whereas ~85% of the league will not.

That kind of seems logical. I'm also not sure I feel for the plight of the middle 75% either tbh. Set aside the fact that they're making millions. Because there's a cap on how much the top players can make, that money has to "chase" the middle class player and the middle class player is oftentimes paid more than what they would make in a setting where there were no upper bound on the salaries for stars.
arasu
Senior
Posts: 682
And1: 70
Joined: Dec 08, 2012

Re: Player Empowerment For The Select Few 

Post#3 » by arasu » Sat Feb 23, 2019 4:05 am

The old ABA paid a handful of stars more money than they could afford, because without those stars there would be no league. Power comes from ability. It only makes sense that the most powerful people in the NBA have the most ability. Whether that ability is skill, athleticism, and charisma in the case of players, or the ability to make money moves like the owners, or the ability to manage personalities and tactics in the case of coaches, it's ability from which the power flows.

Return to Articles Discussion