Making Sense of a Changing NBA

Before I delve into this, allow me to apologize to our loyal readers (do I flatter myself my pluralizing reader?) for the general lack of posting over the past couple weeks. Work has been very busy lately, so expect two weekend posts until work slows down.

With that being said, the NBA trade deadline has come and gone. Two blockbusters took place in which two of the 15 best players in the NBA were traded (Carmelo Anthony and Deron Williams). Not because they were underachieving or not playing well, but rather because the writing was on the wall that they were fleeing their respective teams to play with other superstars in larger markets upon hitting free agency.

There has been much hand wringing in the media and in small market NBA cities about these deals. Neither Denver nor Utah had shown an unwillingness to spend. Denver traded for Allen Iverson (a move destined to fail because neither Melo or Iverson like to share) and then turned Iverson into Chauncey Billups. They surrounded those guys with good role players (JR Smith, the Birdman, Nene), ultimately losing in the '09 Conference Finals in 6 games. But 'Melo never really embraced Denver as a city (crazy that anyone would fail to embrace Denver) and he was going to move on. Denver waited too long to trade him, and Melo made clear that he was only re-signing with the Knicks, leading the Nuggets to get a package of decent NBA players and draft picks destined for the 20s (Raymond Felton, Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari, Timofey Mozgov, a number 1 in 2014 and two second round picks).

Compare that to Deron Williams, traded with a year and a half left on his deal, and a mere week after the resignation of long time coach Jerry Sloan. Utah, again, is not a dysfunctional organization. They had a strong supporting cast built around Deron's strengths. After failing to re-sign Carlos Boozer, they managed a trade for Al Jefferson, a decent Boozer replacement. And again, Utah was a playoff staple. But Deron did not want to stay in Utah. Utah made a smart decision, taking a large offer from New Jersey, adding a promising young power forward in Derrick Favors, a decent point guard in Devin Harris, and draft picks (Nets in 2011 and Golden State in 2012 - both could be lottery picks). Utah can build off of that.

So what does all this mean for the NBA? In the NBA, you need a top 5 guy to win a title. With only five players on the floor, and only one basketball, the importance of a star takes on a whole new level of importance. But here's the thing, the contenders this year, from the East: Miami, Boston, Chicago and Orlando and from the West: San Antonio, Dallas, the Lakers and Oklahoma City all built their foundations through the draft. Miami drafted Wade. Without Wade in Miami, Lebron and Bosh go somewhere else. Boston drafted Paul Pierce and Rajon Rondo (Rondo was the 21st pick) while trading for Garnett and Ray Allen. The Bulls drafted Rose and Noah. Orlando drafted Dwight Howard. San Antonio drafted Duncan, Parker and Ginobli. Dallas drafted Nowitzki. The Lakers drafted Kobe. Oklahoma City drafted Durant and Westbrook. The foundation for all those teams came through the draft. And that will not change in free agency. The Knicks are the only team in the league that is building exclusively through free agency. And anyone that thinks that the Knicks are a contender this year with Amare Stoudamire and Carmelo Anthony is kidding themselves. And eventually, the Knicks will run out of players they can add in free agency and free agency will regress to the mean.

Now compare all those contenders to a struggling small market team like the Pacers. Since the year 2000, the Pacers have not drafted higher than 10th and have not made the playoffs since 2006. They hit a homerun with Danny Granger at number 17. Granger is a lot of things, but at best he is a fringe All-Star. If he is your best player, you are trying to squeak into the playoffs every year. Small market teams need to pick up impact players through the draft. And you need to draft in the top 10 (probably top 5) to make that happen.

What's the point? The point is that the NBA isn't any different than Major League Baseball. Free agents want to play for winners in big markets (like the Yankees or the Heat). The formula for small markets is more difficult. Like Oklahoma City (or the Tampa Bay Rays), you need to hit a homerun in the draft (Durant at number 2 in 2007) and then surround the star with young talent (Westbrook at 4 in '08, Jeff Green at 5 in '07, James Harden at 3 in '09 and Serge Ibaka at 24 in '08).

And the call for greater parity in the NBA is absurd. Why would you want the quality of play to go down? Has any team in the NBA ever won a title without 2 top 15 players? In the last 20 years, the Bulls won 6 with Jordan and Pippen. The Rockets won 2 with Olajuwon and Drexler. The Spurs won 4 with Duncan and a supporting cast of David Robinson or Tony Parker and Manu Ginobli (depending on which Duncan team won). The Lakers won 5 with Kobe/Shaq or Kobe/Gasol/Odom. The Celtics won once with Pierce/Rondo/KG/Allen. The Heat won with Wade/Shaq. The only champ without a true star was the '04 Pistons (Billups, Hamilton, Prince and the Wallaces - 5 very above average players but no stars). 19 out of the past 20 champions had two stars.

The lack of parity means the playoffs in the East this year are going to be absurd. The Knicks will play one of the top 4 in the first round. In the second round, we are looking at some combination of Miami, Orlando, the Bulls and Boston. The playoffs are going to be amazing because there is not parity.

Deron Williams, Carmelo Anthony, Lebron James and Chris Bosh have not changed the formula. The big market cities still have a decided advantage when it comes to luring free agents (as they always have) and the small markets still need to hit it big in the draft to win.