The glitter may still sparkle just a little in the aftermath of the All-Star Weekend, in Vegas no less, with such memorable events as Kobe Bryant?s masterful All-Star performance and the famed Bavetta/Barkley race. It was a nice break for most players, coaches and executives from the grind of the league, and it?ll hopefully energize them for the remainder of the season.
The excitement is coming back down but there?s soon to be more ahead with the trade deadline approaching. Names like Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Pau Gasol may escape the lips of calculating executives and trembling fans more than ever before, with the annual hysteria creeping up to its highest level. February?s just a fun time to be involved with the NBA, even if it?s just through a TV screen.
As fun as it is to hypothesize countless permutations of who could end up where, though, the motives teams have for moving (or not moving) players have to be considered. Is a sad-sack team itching for Greg Oden going to make a run for Garnett? Is a contender going to mortgage its present for a future that could come down to the bounce of a ball that isn?t even used on the court? Furthermore, aren?t some of these big names attached to less than savoury contracts?
There are three main factors when approaching a player?s trade value, which is paramount at this point in the season. They are largely based off of what we?ll call attributes (age, contract, talent, ability to fit into a system). First, how do that player?s attributes figure into whatever his current team is trying to do? Second, how do they figure into what a prospective buyer would want to do? Third, what is the opportunity cost of acquiring the player? Once these are considered, the appeal of a trade can plummet.
Factor #1: Devaluing and Depreciation of the Asset
The first factor is a prime motivator for low-ball trade offers and can present a serious problem for any general manager looking to strike a deal. As a general rule, when a player is playing well, the team won?t want to move him and when he isn?t playing well, no one will want to take him. This presents the fundamental conundrum that undermines many blockbuster proposals; the exact reasons that motivate teams to move players are also the reason teams won?t take them. When you factor in contracts than pay out up to eight figures each year, it?s understandable that a lot of executives are gun-shy.
A recent example of that strange balance is when the Raptors were trying to unload Jalen Rose, who was making $16 million per year despite languishing on the bench. Had he been playing up to what many perceived as his abilities on the court, there would have been far less of a reason to trade him (and he could have perhaps been the second option in the Raptors? offence). However, since his poor play had put the Raptors in a position where they wanted to trade him, interest in him was minimal. The result, albeit one that worked for the Raptors, was pathetic when you consider that they had to give a pick for no other incentive than to part with a star nearing the end of his prime.
Factor #2: Desperation from the Buyer
The second factor is what makes the deals that happen work. While there tends to be a certain lack of returns for any team openly trying to deal an important player, teams still need them. There?s almost a sort of symbiosis between the sellers and the buyers, which is what prevents teams from systematically fleecing each other. Furthermore, since many teams that thought they would be good often flag because of injuries or fatigue as the season progresses, there are a lot of desperate GMs scrambling to add what could be that final piece.
This phenomenon looks like it would lead to a slew of rip-offs in the other direction but here?s the part that?s bound to anger Kevin McHale and Jerry West: it doesn?t. All it guarantees is that there will be a market for a player as long as he can give a team what it needs, not that the market will be in any way satisfactory. This is why teams that deal their stars at the deadline are rarely if ever happy with the result. Look no farther than when Sacramento dealt Chris Webber to Philadelphia; they got a couple solid contributors out of it and many experts thought that removing Webber?s frenetic attitude from the locker room was a positive sign but the team hasn?t really done much since. It?s quite arguable and perhaps even probable that the sputtering Sixers were the more desperate team going into that trade, yet the neither team can feel like it was an enormous success.
Factor #3: Opportunity Cost and Relinquishment of the Traded Party
The third factor throws another wrench into the mix that can scare teams to death. Trading for one player often precludes the acquisition of another, and what if the guy you didn?t get was better? Other than that, it?s a given that any trade will stop you from using any player you?ve included. They aren?t reversible and they?re often very high-risk for what?s commonly seen as a lower potential for reward.
Sometimes, a team will trade a player only to find that the departed player?s skill set (or that of a third player) is exactly what?s missing from the team. For instance, Milwaukee?s controversial decision to ship Ray Allen to the Sonics for Gary Payton (who, for all his clout, essentially functioned as an expiring contract) and Desmond Mason can be viewed as one of the causes of their perennial struggle ever since. Although Michael Redd has stepped up as an outside shooter, Ray Allen?s all-around game combined with leadership capabilities and scoring prowess from the off-guard position is something the Bucks haven?t had from any position since. The cap room they gained from the deal basically resulted in Bobby Simmons, and Mason has effectively turned into Earl Boykins. Also, the Bucks could have landed quite a bit in other scenarios for Allen, who was viewed as a highly touted commodity. Situations like this one are bound to make teams a little warier before parting with a player who might not be the easiest in the world to replace.
The Final Step: The Trigger Can?t Be Pulled
With convincing cases for a team to hold onto an asset no matter how pitiful it appears and that also make potential buyers afraid to give too much (or the right amount but the wrong pieces), it?s easy to see why so many deadlines pass with only a few small ripples in the pool of NBA talent. A non-trade can always be atoned for later (especially with the draft providing so many opportunities) but when a move has been made, it?s been made. One ?yes? during a phone call, even though it could result in getting a bargain for a top-level player, could just as easily destroy years of hand work and potentially result in some very highly paid people getting fired.
Think really hard about your favorite team then. Dreaming of Garnett or Pierce-led dominance is fun for everyone but it?s not very fun when your other four starters are call-ups from the D-League. Even a less earth-shaking acquisition could turn into an albatross contract or could come at the cost of a valued prospect or draft pick. General managers are often too hesitant to make major trades (even seemingly obviously good ones) but at the same time, with all the risks they entail and with the possibly catastrophic effects of signing off on the wrong idea, who can blame them? An added superstar or complement can be as enticing as anything but sometimes, the price of glory is too great to be paid.