By: hemlock09

hemlock09 — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:08:37 +0000

One thing that’s worth noting is that some superstars, LeBron James for example, are worth far more than whatever an NBA team can pay them. LeBron took advantage of the surplus value he represents to choose where he wants to play. If he were to make what he’s worth to a team, he could get maybe $30m? Maybe $40m? He’s leaving $20m on the table each season. Dan Gilbert has no right to complain. He was getting $30-$40m worth of value every year for $10m or whatever he was paying him. If you cant figure out how to effectively capitalize and retain an asset that’s worth 3-4x what you’re paying for it, you’ve got bigger problems.
Chris Paul also fits in this category. It’s not clear that the same is true for Melo or even Joe Johnson or Amare. Trade demands are the output of surplus value. We’re seeing it perfectly in the cases of Chris Paul vs Melo. Immediately Denver told Melo’s camp that he lost any leverage to stipulate trading partners or the deal itself. Melo’s OK with it because he doesn’t represent a significant enough surplus value to say otherwise. Chris Paul does, however, and gets treated very differently.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:37:06 +0000

I am all for teams being able to designate one player with a “franchise” tag. Sort of a permanent restricted free agent (that is, the team can match offers and retain the player–the player therefore will not move).
As you mentioned, New Orleans (as well as Kansas City, Cleveland, Detroit, Memphis, etc.) all deserve to be able to have a mega star, not just “glamor” teams.
As Michael Corleone says…remember, it’s just business.

Comments on: Pro Basketball Crosstalk: Rights, wrongs, and trade demands

By: hemlock09

By: Nick