Fiscal Concerns Guide GMs at NBA Deadline

For the first time I can remember, what made the headlines after the NBA trade deadline this year wasn’t what had actually happened, but what didn’t.

In the details that have surfaced since Feb. 19, we have learned that many current and former All-Stars, such as Amar’e Stoudemire and Vince Carter, were being offered on the trading block for little to nothing in return. In exchange for players who can get you 20 and 20 points every night, teams asked for nothing but expiring contracts. But no trades transpired. The only teams that got deals done were the ones that bribed other teams to take on more money. My own Toronto Raptors parted with a first-round pick and useful role player Jamario Moon just for the privilege of not having to pay Jermaine O’Neal in 2010.

Not since the ’70s have teams in the NBA been so financially strapped and so afraid to spend money. No potential contender this season added a veteran to get over the hump. Conversely, quite a few of them got worse by dumping salaries. The Detroit Pistons deep-sixed any realistic chance at a title this season by dropping Chauncey Billups for Allen Iverson’s expiring contract. The Los Angeles Lakers traded valuable player Vladimir Radmanovic for spectacular draft bust Adam Morrison. While it would be untrue to say that what matters most to teams is no longer wins and losses, it would be fair to suggest that cash and the stars that generate it are almost as important.

This predicament can be blamed partly on the NBA itself. Over the past few years, the league has moved teams from larger to smaller markets, driven by the promise of new stadiums and an energized fanbase. This plan has backfired for many teams, as small markets labor to keep an NBA franchise afloat. Despite early excitement, the most important factor to basketball’s survival in Memphis may be the fact that the Grizzlies’ lease lasts well into the new decade. While Hurricane Katrina’s effects on the city of New Orleans were undoubtedly severe and unforeseeable, the city was never a big market in the first place. That fact has become painfully obvious to the Hornets this year.

It is tragic that the league has become so financially vulnerable at a time when it is putting out its best product in more than a decade. The new talent that has flowed into the league since the 2003 draft class of LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, and Dwayne Wade has provided the NBA with its highest level of play since the Jordan years. While “Be Like LeBron” doesn’t quite roll off the tongue like MJ’s slogan does, James’s efforts with the Cavaliers are as noteworthy as Jordan’s in his early years. But do veteran teams like the old Pistons stand in the young star’s way? The 2009 Celtics and Spurs are at your service. Combine this storyline with other marketable faces such as Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard, and Chris Paul, and it’s hard to see what else the league could do from a product standpoint.

This renaissance has come at a time when many other leagues are unable to expand their reach. The NFL remains the king of sports and may always retain that title, but the MLB continues to be dogged by steroids and competitive balance issues. The NHL looks like it may shrink back to regional relevance. The cultural chasm between NASCAR and non-core audiences may be too great to be bridged, and tennis has steadily lost relevance since the retirement of Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi.

The uncertainty now facing the sports world clouds hopes for the NBA to rise in prominence. As teams dump salary, likable teams and high-quality play may go with it. If teams start having to bounce from city to city, fanbases will be destroyed. While pro basketball has money in the bank from its assured place on national television, will league offices want to know how many people are in front of those screens?

Charles Young is a senior in the School of Engineering and Applied Science majoring in applied math. Sports@columbiaspectator.com">Sports@columbiaspectator.com