Malcolm Gladwell on how to fix the NBA's player movement issue (audio)

[Rembrandt Brown]

https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=a...1vU3hWaGlNMnlqeEE&hl=en&ep=6&at=1568956982190

01:25:45-01:30:00

"Owners need to give equity stakes in their franchise to their star players"

His hypothetical with the Cavs is interesting. (As is the Donald Sterling discussion that follows and the Sandra Bland discussion at the beginning-- I'm going to check out his new book.)

 

[Rembrandt Brown]

• See also: As some imagine a pro basketball league without owners, the ramifications for the U.S. economy could be enormous

 

[xxxbishopxxx]

• See also: As some imagine a pro basketball league without owners, the ramifications for the U.S. economy could be enormous

That will be interesting. Jordan gave up his equity with the Wizards, so he could play. Personally, I think the salary cap is bullshit. I wouldn't mind seeing that go in ALL sports.

 

[Rembrandt Brown]

That will be interesting. Jordan gave up his equity with the Wizards, so he could play. Personally, I think the salary cap is bullshit. I wouldn't mind seeing that go in ALL sports.

I agree philosophically but it would be bad for competitive balance. It's already fucked up how much of an edge the wealthiest owners and biggest markets have. Everybody can't be a Laker. I think as long as the players get a fixed percentage of income it can be fair, it's just a matter of what that percentage is.

But I love the Gladwell equity proposal. Under that system, conservatively (acquiring 1-2% per year), a player like LeBron could easily acquire a double digit percentage of a team before retiring. That's worth maybe three seasons of max salary without even factoring in how much it would appreciate after his playing days.

How many players would be able to demand that remains to be seen. I don't think a team would make such an offer to five players as Gladwell suggests. But, years ago, nobody would have imagined the number of players earning near-max or max salaries as do today. It's a way around the cap and if a guy like Steve Ballmer really wants to win, he's giving Kawhi a stake in the team without thinking. Players would be acquiring ownership equity every year and it could really diversify the ownership class. I think it's a realistic proposal that could be the biggest blow ever to the "$40 million slave" system.

 

[xxxbishopxxx]

I agree philosophically but it would be bad for competitive balance. It's already fucked up how much of an edge the wealthiest owners and biggest markets have. Everybody can't be a Laker. I think as long as the players get a fixed percentage of income it can be fair, it's just a matter of what that percentage is.

But I love the Gladwell equity proposal. Under that system, conservatively (acquiring 1-2% per year), a player like LeBron could easily acquire a double digit percentage of a team before retiring. That's worth maybe three seasons of max salary without even factoring in how much it would appreciate after his playing days.

How many players would be able to demand that remains to be seen. I don't think a team would make such an offer to five players as Gladwell suggests. But, years ago, nobody would have imagined the number of players earning near-max or max salaries as do today. It's a way around the cap and if a guy like Steve Ballmer really wants to win, he's giving Kawhi a stake in the team without thinking. Players would be acquiring ownership equity every year and it could really diversify the ownership class. I think it's a realistic proposal that could be the biggest blow ever to the "$40 million slave" system.

Two things:

1. I feel if an owner is too "broke" to stay competitive then sell the team to someone that can "afford" to keep up with the big boys. As they say with us black folk, ownership is a privilege, not a right. BTW, one of the best teams in football (The Patriots) is also known to be one of the cheapest. If you want to stick with basketball, the Spurs (which I call the Patriots of basketball), was always in contention and not because they were overstacked with popular talent.

2. Can't see ownership being that willing to give the "slaves" that kind of power (look at how the Cavs owner treated Lebron the first time he left the team). Truth be told, you have several teams that are okay with losing as long as they are making a profit. I will guess that the majority of owners are not trying to make the slaves into owners. If you think about it, the fact that the league seems to have a long standing rule about owners can't be players says a lot.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that it is a great concept. However, this would end up being the professional version of the NCAA paying athletes. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

 

[Amajorfucup]

Horrible idea.

 

[kesq]

I doubt owners would go all the way to equity but profit sharing while on the team might work.

 

[xfactor]

The current system is already based on profit sharing.

I doubt owners would go all the way to equity but profit sharing while on the team might work.

 

[Rembrandt Brown]

I doubt owners would go all the way to equity but profit sharing while on the team might work.

The current system is already based on profit sharing.

Yeah, that's what I was wondering, too.

I was referencing that here:

I think as long as the players get a fixed percentage of income it can be fair, it's just a matter of what that percentage is.

They've been hovering around 50% for a long time.

From 2016: The new deal will keep in place the existing “band” of the players' share of Basketball Related Income between 49 and 51 percent.

The "easiest" gain the players union could make is driving that up to 55 or 60%.

However, owners can keep these teams for their entire lives and the players don't share at all in the inflated values of franchises. This is why I would like to see them push for some franchise equity as well. It wouldn't benefit all players in the short-term, only the elites. But I think diversifying ownership and allowing players to become a part of the ownership class does benefit all future players.

 

[Rembrandt Brown]

Horrible idea.

Because...?

 

[Rembrandt Brown]

Two things:

1. I feel if an owner is too "broke" to stay competitive then sell the team to someone that can "afford" to keep up with the big boys. As they say with us black folk, ownership is a privilege, not a right. BTW, one of the best teams in football (The Patriots) is also known to be one of the cheapest. If you want to stick with basketball, the Spurs (which I call the Patriots of basketball), was always in contention and not because they were overstacked with popular talent.

2. Can't see ownership being that willing to give the "slaves" that kind of power (look at how the Cavs owner treated Lebron the first time he left the team). Truth be told, you have several teams that are okay with losing as long as they are making a profit. I will guess that the majority of owners are not trying to make the slaves into owners. If you think about it, the fact that the league seems to have a long standing rule about owners can't be players says a lot.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that it is a great concept. However, this would end up being the professional version of the NCAA paying athletes. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

Re: #1-- It isn't so much about owners being too broke or even being cheap but there's a world of difference between Steve Ballmer or Mikhail Prokhorov versus the Michael Jordans of the world. They're all unconscionably rich but there's just too much disparity in resources to treat them all the same. If they all cared about winning and were willing to do whatever, NBA capitalism would be nearly as bad as real world capitalism-- easily 50-75% of teams simply could not keep up. If we think about this with ex-players-turned-owners in mind, they'd never be able to compete with the existing ownership class under a free-for-all structure. I used to be opposed to a salary cap but over the years I've come to see it as a way to ensure fairness when done right.

Re: #2-- I think LeBron is the best example to focus on. Regardless of what ownership wants, you don't think Dan Gilbert would have been willing to give LeBron a 1% annual stake in 2010 to stay with the team? In 2018, James leaving for the L.A. Lakers resulted in the Cavs' franchise value dropping $50 million, from $1.325 billion to $1.275 billion, according to Forbes, from 15th in the league to #25. That's 3% of the franchise's value. Not to mention the impact on the surrounding community. And that 3% drop dramatically understates his value because the value has increased by 148% from Forbes' projection of $515 million in 2014, about five months before James returned. He alone takes them from the bottom to the middle.

I think this only applies to maybe ten players-- The Draymonds and even the Klay Thompsons of the world probably would never be given equity. But I think, out of their own self-interest, owners would give it to the Stephs and KDs if the union was able to negotiate a system that allowed it.

 

[kesq]

The current system is already based on profit sharing.

But that is part of the CBA. I'm referring to tying it to a particular team to provide an incentive for players to stay put. An additional income stream, not a replacement or renaming of the existing agreement.

 

[Amajorfucup]

Because...?

Doesnt account for legitimate human response. Such a move would breed resentment across the board and effect both the work environment and consumer attitude. Owners would resent giving the help footing and power, lesser players would resent colleagues ownership stake, fans would resent players/employees new perceived position of power and influence. It also wouldnt solve the issue of player movement as it would only apply to a very small percentage of players to begin with. Further, it addresses a problem that really isnt a problem by ignoring the true source of the matter. Incompetent management and ownership.

 

[kesq]

Doesnt account for legitimate human response. Such a move would breed resentment across the board and effect both the work environment and consumer attitude. Owners would resent giving the help footing and power, lesser players would resent colleagues ownership stake, fans would resent players/employees new perceived position of power and influence. It also wouldnt solve the issue of player movement as it would only apply to a very small percentage of players to begin with. Further, it addresses a problem that really isnt a problem by ignoring the true source of the matter. Incompetent management and ownership.

I agree that any decision or non-decision will have some negative impact in some manner, but i think you are ignoring the fact that the problematic issues only apply to the very small percentage of elite players that have leverage. Journeyman movement is not really a problem. I don't like referring to elite athletes as "journeymen" but you catch my drift.

 

[Amajorfucup]

I agree that any decision or non-decision will have some negative impact in some manner, but i think you are ignoring the fact that the problematic issues only apply to the very small percentage of elite players that have leverage. Journeyman movement is not really a problem. I don't like referring to elite athletes as "journeymen" but you catch my drift.

But i dont think any of it is a problem. Its framed as some sports epidemic but the truth is that its really a non issue.

Here are the top 10ish players of the last decade or so.. Bron, Wade, KD, Steph, Russ, Harden, AD, Kawhi, Blake, CP3

Of the 10, five would have remained with their drafted team had it been up to them (Wade, Steph, Russ, Harden, Blake). Three left due to incompetent management after giving 6+ seasons of service (Bron, AD, Cp3). And the remaining two left for personal reasons (KD, Kawhi), but only after 6+ years of service. So even the so called problematic cases involve players who were stationary for 6+ years in a industry where the average career lasts less than 5 years.

There is no player movement epidemic. And certainly not in the "prisoners running the asylum" context thats being implied by critics. The real issue no one really honestly addresses is incompetent execs and management.