MONEY TALKS

Almost exactly a year ago while fans were revving up for the 2012-13 season, excited about the young Thunder team who had eclipsed the expectations of many by going all the way finals and taking Lebron's Heat down to the wire in four games, the Thunder traded away their freewheeling guard James Harden to the Houston Rockets. It was a move that shook many analysts and fans alike and will probably continue to do so for many years to come whether we know it or not. Harden was traded in return for what appeared as options, a scorer in Kevin Martin who could hopefully offer 15 pts a game, Jeremy Lamb who was a rookie out of UCONN at the time, and Toronto's 2013 lottery pick (since turned into New Zealander Steven Adams). Kevin Martin has since fled to Minnesota after one season, providing a 14 point average of the bench, a stopgap in every sense of the word. It may be too early to determine how Jeremy Lamb will pan out as he played in only 23 games last year, averaging just over 6 minutes and 3 points per. There is optimism for Steven Adams, but nothing substantial to be seen as of yet. The whole reason for such a transaction? Money. Harden was looking for the maximum deal Oklahoma could offer, four years for $60 million, which was fair market value. Oklahoma offered him $54 million for four years and Houston made it clear they were willing to offer a five year deal worth $80. The Thunder hedged their bets thinking they would develop Lamb, acquire through drafts as they had before and utilize Martin to the best of his abilities, shipping Harden off to Houston quickly breaking up what many had thought would be a core that would be contending for years to come.

Rewind to a few years prior, Oklahoma City was one of the funnest teams to watch in the league. Rather than the grim faced Kendrick Perkins they had young forward Jeff Green, fifth overall pick in the 2007 draft as well as 2007's second overall pick Kevin Durant. In the next two drafts the Thunder would pull Russell Westbrook, Serge Ibaka and James Harden, while also trading for Eric Maynor and Thabo Sefolosha. A young team with so much energy and exuberance, a group of guys who seemed like best friends that had decided to play basketball together. Their enthusiasm and camaraderie was contagious, their charisma and fast paced style of play attracted everyone.  on the trade deadline in 2011 they traded away Green to Boston for Kendrick Perkins in hopes of adding some toughness to their front line. While it may have seemed necessary in the big west at the time, that was the first sign of the Oklahoma management's willingness to break up the band. 

The move seemed to work out as the Thunder pushed all the way to the Western Conference Finals in 2011. Although they lost to eventual champs Dallas, it seemed a necessary part in this teams maturation. You must have your heart broken before you can fully appreciate it. The same team would come up short the following year as well, this time in the NBA finals, playing against the best for right to be the best. It was still progress, and with such a young roster there seemed to be a long promising future on the horizon. James Harden would be entering into the final season of his rookie contract (making $5.8 million in 2012-2013, his final year) and both sides were ready to lock up negotiations prior to the season starting. 

As a small market team Oklahoma felt it was necessary for players to take a cut in pay in order to keep the team together which is a very valid argument. Harden, with a max deal on the table from Houston, called the bluff and the deal was made. Most people will look at the current C.B.A which has a $58.67 million salary cap and a $71.74 luxury tax line set in place for the upcoming season the reason for a small market team like Oklahoma not wanting to take on three max contracts (with Durant and Westbrook being the other two). With the taxes rising this year for every five million over the luxury tax teams are and stiffer penalties starting next year for repeat offenders this is certainly a sound argument. To understand the rules and ramifications of the C.B.A please refer to the very detailed manuel created by Larry Coon on his blog, specifically question 21.

These luxury tax penalties were put in place during the last C.B.A negotiations which caused the lockout at the beginning of the 2011 season. They were enacted to supposedly level the playing field between small market teams, New Orleans, Charlotte, etc.. and the deep pockets of teams like the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls and so forth. How is it then that some teams are still able to maintain loaded rosters while others struggle to field playoff contenders all within the same parameters? They don't. The luxury tax is merely a "suggestion" if you will, for owners to maintain control over ever increasing player salaries, a facade of order to ensure maximum profitability. Forbes projects the average value of an NBA franchise to be at $509 million (the Knicks and Lakers both valued at over $1 billion dollars), which is an astonishing increase of 30% in just one year! With team revenues averaging right around $123 million for the 2012-2013 season people may wonder how Brooklyn Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov is able to afford his upcoming $80-$85 million luxury tax on top of his teams already bloated nearly $104 million team salary.

The answer is that he doesn't care. Prokhorov has stated that winning is his goal. With a revenue last year of only $84 million dollars (that hurts to type) it would seem Prokhorov and the Nets could project to lose $100,000,000 million this season, and the title is never assured. But Prokhorov is a business man, he knows this is a business man. Sure he's a rabid basketball fan hell bent of owning the best team out there, but he also knows that while netting only $84 million in revenue last year the Nets value raised by 48% with their movie from New Jersey to Brooklyn, into the billion dollar Barclay's center. He knows that he may be paying upwards of $180 million to field his team this season, but he also knows he's in a brand new state of the art facility with floor level luxury boxes, he knows that the NBA's revenue for 2013 was $503 billion dollars, he knows that putting a contender on the floor is better business than simply existing in mediocrity.

While Prokhorov's Nets are not even favorites at this time to come out of the Eastern Conference the team they've assembled is certainly exciting. The strongest starting five any of the players have been a part of with a bench that could probably handle half the league's starting squads pretty handily, there is a very high ceiling for this Nets team. If they do happen to win it all, which I don't find as unlikely as most, many will decry the title was bought and they will labeled as the NBA's Yankees. But is that really a bad thing? If you're a fan of a small market team like Milwaukee or Minnesota or your team has prospered only through ardent managing and development a la Indiana or San Antonio, sure! No NBA fan wants that dark cloud hanging over them every season, but if you're a russian billionaire do you really care? The whole point is that any of the 30 NBA majority owners are financially secure business men. Clay Bennett is not hoping things work out so he can pay his rent next month. While Prokhorov probably does not care about any negative image his deep pockets have attained him, it seems like misplaced aggression to hate him for simply acknowledging how good business is and spending accordingly.

It would however seem appropriate to question the owners who insist on trying to win without spending money. Sure certain teams have not had the opportunity to draft franchise changing players and/or are not free agent friendly destinations, but there are teams that have been in a great position and refused to surround their stars with adequate support, we saw how that worked out for Cleveland. Letting James Harden, arguably a top-ten player himself, leave to Houston made it that much harder for Kevin Durant, one of the league's premiere talents, and Russell Westbrook to carve out their teams spot in history. Not only is that showing your hand to those stars, making them question how long they may want to spend there, but it is also a telling thing for a fan base. Oklahoma is still plenty exciting to watch, but how many more years will people want to watch Durant and Westbrook fall short, just the two of them. Think about how this offseason completely re-energized the Nets franchise and helped to develop them upon moving into the biggest market in the country, which they share with the wealthiest team in the league. 

With soaring revenues across the league it seems unfair to see teams refuse to give their own players what they are clearly worth on the open market. With 2014 expected to be a huge year for free agency hopefully teams take this into consideration. There are those older players who will probably sign their last contract but still have a lot to offer their team both on the court and in regards to legacy, players such as Kobe, Tim Duncan and Dirk. There are the blue chip players who will be obvious necessities for moving forward; Lebron, Melo, Tony Parker, Dwayne Wade. But then there are the role players, just as essential to any team hoping to contend but often undervalued and seen as replaceable, guys that feel essential to the make-up of a teams chemistry; Luol Deng and Jimmy Butler in Chicago, Kawhi Leonard with the Spurs, Klay Thompson of the Warriors, even Ricky Rubio could be put in this category. Hopefully teams learn from Oklahoma making one of the staggering trades of the last twenty years. Sure it's expensive to run an NBA team but you've got the money or else you wouldn't be in the game. If you don't want to play sell to someone who does, you'll get the money you seemed so sore for and hopefully they'll look to win, because that's what it's always been about.