Let's get it over with, once the Athletics leave for Las Vegas to join the Raiders, and with the departure of the Warriors back to their original home in San Francisco, the City of Oakland will be without a professional sports team. Understandably, East Bay sports fans will turn their allegiances to the Warriors and the Giants. I can't see Raider fans ever becoming 49er fans. Vegas is not that costly to fly to occasionally to see their once beloved black and white uniforms. There is a pretty good chance I'm hearing that Las Vegas will soon have an NBA team. For Oakland and Berkeley folks, pro sports teams leaving might not be such a bad thing. The property where the A's and Warriors stadium and arena stand is seriously valuable. Perhaps it's time to spend county money on the people of the county. Just saying.
Reading over the new NBA CBA rules is eyes-glazing-over boring for me, but a few things struck me: First, I get the leagues' efforts to level the playing fields between the owners able and willing to spend over the tax threshold and those owners (small market??) that can't or won't, not that some of them aren't as rich as the owners of the Warriors. (No one is as rich as Clips' owner, CEO of Microsoft Steve Ballmer, so we don't count him.) . I get it. So, the way I read it, there are going to be two tax boundaries beyond which ownership can not go without paying an additional and punitive luxury tax, over and above the one that is in existence now that has been the crux of the League's dyspepsia and a new one "called an apron" after which the tax punishment will make the word luxury a synonym for reasonable. This sky-high tax will also include further punishment that will deprive said spendthrifts access to mid-level exemptions and certain other player acquisitions. There is nothing wrong with trying to create an even playing field so that all owners play by the same rules. But it does seems to me that there is a disingenuousness going on when the obvious target is the ownership of the Golden State Warriors. (Forget Ballmer. The league could triple the tax and he could still afford to do get any player he wants.)
What's missing here is defining what small market teams are we talking about that are suffering from the Warriors signing players to contracts they deserve for winning four championships in eight years. It might be worth reminding readers that these small market owners did not buy their NBA franchise because they planned on losing money. An NBA franchise is a very sound investment these days. (Check out tax benefits of owning a sports franchise. Pretty interesting stuff.) And, please don't tell me you didn't know owners borrowed most of the money they needed to buy a franchise. So, in terms of investment, what teams help to make NBA ownership such a sound investment? The Golden State Warriors for one, the Clippers for another. Just so you know, the Warriors' owners bought the Warriors for approx 400 million and the franchise is now worth over 800 million. Ballmer bought the Clips for 2.5 billion and the franchise is worth today 9 billion. Holy $! Such rise in value drives up the values of ALL the teams. I think it is also fair to say that it is the so-called small market teams that share in the luxury taxes paid by the over-spending "naughty boys"
So, who are we really talking about suffering. Is it the game suffering? Are it the fans suffering? Loading up star players work in some cases and not in others. Take the Clips for example, not much luck there spending big bucks for two great players who can't be on the court at the same time because of injuries. I'm not sure if the Suns will be successful getting into the luxury tax with KD, Ayton, Booker and Paul.
There is a lot that is missing when we talk about creating an equal spending playing field. Let's finally not forget that in 2005 the NBA becomes significantly richer, like big-time richer with the new TV contract and at that time the NBA has significantly increased the cap. Believe me, the star players are going to demand contracts that reflect this rise in dollars.
I wonder if the NBA is trying to create a league in which a team can only afford to pay two star players max contracts and if they pay a third? What happens? The league boot drops like Draymond's foot on Sabonis' chest? With no ability to sign roll players? Could this be it? Steph and Klay, and G League guys or Steph and Wigs? Embid and Harden? Joker and Murry? Brown and Tatum? So, maybe, maybe a team can figure out how to pay three supers contracts they and their agents are satisfied with. But I'm predicting it is really going to get messy trying to put together a bunch of solid compatible veteran players on one team that can compete for a championship. The affordable players are guys in their rookie contracts and we know how long it take to whip these youngster, no matter how gifted they are, into real NBA shape. Raise you hand Houston Rockets.
And finally, let's not forget the fans. Will this even the playing fields enough that they can say they have a chance to look forward to a steady diet of playoffs? I think not. I'm sure I'm missing some nuance, but my gut tells me punishing teams with an additional luxury tax for spending to get good players will not work. There just has to be a better way to create a level playing field.
I've been thinking a lot sadly about the recent Republicans' efforts to create a climate of fear in our country and the spate of shootings that have lead to the needless deaths of so many young people of color. It makes me wonder if America will ever get free of the death grip of the NRA. Here's a poem that has to do with what's going on. It is heartbreaking.
HOODIE
from rain, from the New England cold.
as his head sinks into the half-dark
quiet suburb with its unlocked doors,
on our street in the empire of blocks.
traveling the back roads between boy and man.
into the wet pavement. Will he take his shot
orange rim to take a chance on him? I sing
from this borrowed body into the next
for anything but good.
