I don’t like the Lakers. Rooting for them is like rooting for Wall Street, or the Yankees. The Lakers — along with the Celtics — own more NBA rings than the rest of the league combined.
So, when I say that the league’s decision to nix the Chris Paul deal is bad for basketball, you can believe that I mean it was bad for basketball.
You can look at this a number of ways, but no through no lens can this be said to make sense.
Chris Paul is a Hornet and a pending free agent. He can walk away form New Orleans at season’s end with the Hornets getting nothing in return. And he is going to do just that. His preference would be a big-market team like the Knicks or Lakers. This deal would have netted the Hornets several good players, including the multidimensional Lamar Odom. The Rockets, who would send two players to New Orleans, would get Pau Gasol and the Lakers would be able to pair Kobe Bryant with Paul in a superstar backcourt.
Does that make the Lakers the de facto champions? They still have to play the games. And it’s not like the Lakers were to get Paul for nothing.
So, if the trade was not nixed because of a lack of balance, why nix it? The only reason, it seems, is that Paul would be heading to the glamor squad and, as Dave Zirin points out in his blog at The Nation and Michael Wibon points out on ESPN, this was about control.
“What eats at many NBA owners is this,” Wilbon writes is
They aren’t NFL owners. They don’t share a big enough cut of the revenues. They don’t have an unending stream of television money. Their arenas aren’t at about 95 percent capacity. They aren’t a national obsession. And their small-market teams aren’t flush, in most cases, like the Packers or Steelers are. They can’t just cut players and get rid of their salaries, which aren’t guaranteed in the NFL. They want control, big control, like the NFL teams have and they don’t. They don’t want the LeBrons and D-Wades hooking up on their own terms.
Zirin was even more blunt about it. The owners, he says, have a stake in defining players and their talents not as labor, but the product of labor. The players, in this definition, means that they are incidental and have no control.
This is why players, always to media outrage, turn at times to the metaphor of slavery and a plantation to explain their predicament. Not because they are comparing themselves to those who suffered under bondage but because owners constantly contest whether they are in fact the masters of their own talents. For players, it’s unclear if they are the occupier of their own gifts and hard work or whether they are the occupied. The NBA’s decision to nix the Chris Paul deal shows that they have perfect clarity on the question. They own the talent and by definition can assert the right of occupation.
In the end, this is going to doom the league to future labor strife and an increasingly poisonous relationship that could ultimately damage the always fragile connection between the fans and the teams for which they root.
- Send me an e-mail.
- Read poetry at The Subterranean.
- Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
- Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.