Flawed NBA Logic: The Mid-Market Dilemma

There are only a handful of elite, championship level players in the NBA at any given point (This is Kobe, LeBron, Dwight, Duncan, Paul - the top 10-15 players of the league). Those players usually find their first team through the draft, and then have a decision to make after their rookie contracts up about whether they will stay loyal to the draft city or "take their talents" somewhere else.

Cities like Milwaukee, Cleveland, Toronto and others really only have one way to acquire this elite talent - through the draft. This is because teams don't usually trade the elite level players. This is because the franchises with the elite players can pair that player with a decent supporting group and the franchise has a realistic shot at a title every year. Very rarely will a team w/ Dwight Howard or Tim Duncan lose 50 games (unless the rare circumstances of injuries like David Robinson in '96 and Dwayne Wade in '07).

So the small market dilemma begins because teams don't want to trade the elite players and elite players don't want to go to small market franchises through free agency. Sacramento had enough money to pay a max free agent, but did anybody even suggest James, Wade, Bosh, or even some of the lesser stars could end up there? The Kings were filtered out of the conversation before it even started just because they are the Kings.

Now we have small market teams w/ limited options in acquiring talent. They can't OVERPAY in free agency because the elite players are worth every penny of a max contract, and that's even if a mid-market could convince a elite player to come to their city. They can give a star (not a superstar) a max contract, eating up their cap space, but they can't lure a superstar to their city. The draft is basically the ONLY real option.

This creates the situation where teams are tanking seasons. Teams want to better their chances of landing elite talent and the only way to do that is to get more ping pong balls. In a sense, the NBA is rewarding teams for losing by giving them an unequal chance of landing top picks based on how bad they do. Do you think teams would tank seasons if a team that just missed the playoffs had the same odds as the teams with the worst records? No, teams would be fighting for wins, not draft odds.

With teams tanking for top picks, the gap between the good teams and the bad teams is widening, especially when, in some cases, the bad teams are not even trying to win or get better. They are hoping to get the draft pick of all draft picks (LeBron, Duncan, Wall, Rose) that makes inept managing decisions not as much of a factor. When teams land the pick, they are almost certain to compete at a high level through the duration of the superstars rookie contract and any extensions he is willing to sign. So the bad teams are perpetually bad, actually fighting to stay bad so they have a chance at the lottery sweepstakes.

Then we have the mediocre teams that get stuck because their options are limited. The Atlanta Hawks inked Joe Johnson to massive deal this summer. They were a team in league contention, but not necessarily a title contending team. They throw max money at Johnson, restricting future player movement just to keep the same team intact that wasn't really in contention anyway. What are there other options? Under bidding on Johnson, letting another team poach him away? Then they are back to rebuilding and going through the same scenario when Josh Smith and Al Horford come to the end of their contracts. The Hawks need an elite player to get over the hump. However, they are too good to draft one, and none of the teams w/ elite players are in rush to deal theirs.

Then there is the lottery within the lottery. Not all lotteries are equal, Ask Toronto. Bargnani is not a terrible player but it was just a watered down draft. There was no Rose, Duncan or LeBron that can turn a franchise around without much help. So teams aren't only competing for draft odds, there making an even more concerted effort when the draft prize is larger.

So this is the flawed logic of the way the NBA is set up. Good teams need to be super efficient and penny wise to become great without rebuilding, great teams are often great due to uncontrollable circumstances (a lucky ping pong bounce, injuries derailing an entire season, cities being a desirable location for free agents, etc.), and bad teams are fighting hard to stay bad - so a ping pong ball can make them good or great.

Obviously the NBA can't make every team equal in market size or city desirability. But they can put a system in place that doesn't encourage losing. In my opinion, it all starts with the lottery. This needs to change.