Wednesday, August 12th, 2009...8:46 am
Falling Down an Elevator Shaft and Landing in a Pool of Mermaids
I subscribe to the theory that most things are more complicated than we assume. But the complexity of the 2009 offseason finds a simple solution in Peter Holt. He’s the string to follow if one wants a snapshot of the league. Peter Holt is the NBA’s poster boy for the summer of 2009.
By most accounts this summer was dominated by three themes. Peter Holt is a central character in each of those story lines.
Financial Worry
Just prior to the draft, the Spurs raced their car straight through Peter Holt’s big green spending light. The Spurs’ trade for Richard Jefferson jump-started a summer that would see several contenders steam full speed into the deep waters of luxury taxes. The buzz word was opportunity. All-Star quality players were available as struggling teams sought to shed payroll. In an effort to take advantage of market deals (Jefferson, Carter, Shaq, Marion) or to simply keep pace with the Lakers (Wallace, McDyess, Bass/Gortat), a handful of contenders bucked against the current economy. Holt led that charge. He strapped himself to the spending mast and gleeful shouts of “I’m sailing, I’m sailing” could be heard as the ship left harbor.
The typically spend-conscious Spurs went counter-intuitive in a bad economy-they loaded up on the contracts other teams were resolved to avoid or shed. Holt bet a couple years of taxes against the hope of more championships. His actions encouraged the on-going high stakes gamble between a tiny band of supercontenders. When the Spurs traded for Richard Jefferson, the language at the table was unmistakable. Holt was saying “We’re going to see the Lakers’ bet. We’re going all in.” In their different ways, the Magic, Celtics, Cavs, and Mavericks followed course. The Lakers themselves saw what was happening and added Ron Artest, throwing yet another All-Star into their championship mix.
The supercontenders commitment to winning is an argument that it’s impossible to succeed in today’s NBA without accepting the burden of luxury tax. Perhaps the Denver Nuggets or Portland Trailblazers will prove them foolish, but I doubt it.
The Rise of Supercontenders
Peter Holt’s charge into the messy fray of tax-heavy contention created a divide that splits much differently than the NFL’s much celebrated parity. The NBA hosts a handful of supercontenders, with the rest of the league simply stuck in the recycle rut of future building. There are a couple teams that could outperform expectation and surprise the pundits, such as the Mavericks, Nuggets, Hornets and Trailblazers. But the NBA’s supercontenders-Lakers, Spurs, Celtics, Magic, and Cavs-lord it over everyone else.
For as long as I’ve watched the NBA, the recipe for championships amounted to three stars and a cast of complimentary players-the sort of role players that would run through a wall to see the team succeed. If you could pull that mix together, your chances at a championship were strong. This was the pattern of the Jordan-Bulls and each of the Spurs’ 4 championship squads. There are always exceptions, of course. The Shaq-Kobe Lakers and the Larry Brown Pistons figured out a different route, but it wasn’t radically different.
The three star formula is dead. The Celtics and Lakers crushed it with a simple mathematical adjustment. They created a four star formula that operates in the same way, but with increased fire power. For the Celtics this meant Garnett-Allen-Pierce-Rondo surrounded on all sides by quality role players such as James Posey, Glen Davis and Kendrick Perkins. For the Lakers, this has meant growing a pageantry of riches into a parade of obscene wealth. The Lakers matched the Celtics four star formula with Bryant-Odom-Bynum-Gasol, and the entire project has morphed into a monster now that Los Angeles boasts a fifth star in Ron Artest.
Whether the Spurs put things in these terms is impossible to know, but with the addition of Richard Jefferson they’ve at least anted-up to the four star model. Peter Holt saw the price of sitting at the table, and he paid the fee. Meanwhile the Magic and Cavs are close, and the Mavericks are making an attempt, albeit with a less obvious cast of players.
In order to compete in today’s NBA, an owner must pull a Peter Holt and bankroll a supercontender.
Forging a Different Path Forward
The supercontender era will be short-lived. It will mark the winter years of the current CBA-an agreement that is showing an inability to withstand the rigors of a harsh economy. If the CBA doesn’t die peacefully, league owners are certain to smother it with a big pillow. The end is near.
Oddly enough, Peter Holt is the owner at the center of the pillow wielding pack. The same owner who gladly acquiesced to the supercontention game back in June, is the one who chairs an ownership subcommittee that will negotiate the next CBA. When you follow this summer’s salient strings into their knotted nexus, you’ll find Peter Holt buried in the clump.
In most businesses, payroll is the single most controllable expenditure. In order to increase profits, league owners must find a way to reign in payroll. Or, from a different perspective, the owners need to reduce the amount of guaranteed revenue that goes to players. In a recent article, David Aldridge suggested this could be done by creating a hard cap, introducing a 2 for 1 supertax, or shrinking the gap between cap and the tax line. Whatever course this takes, team salaries are certain to come down.
Aldridge goes on to offer a case study of the Spurs, with Peter Holt sitting atop the sub-committee that is charged with negotiating with the player’s union. Holt leads a group that includes Jeannie Buss (Lakers), Dan Gilbert (Cavs), and Wyc Grousbeck (Celtics). Those aren’t the only names on the ownership sub-committee, but it’s striking that 4 of 10 of those teams at the negotiating table represent supercontenders that blew past the borders of careful spending and are now frolicking in the fields tax land. Holt finds himself in the unusual position of re-inventing the owner-player revenue share at precisely the moment he resigned himself to visit all of its untoward places.
Sloppy analysis of Holt’s current agendas might suggest an apparent contradiction between his recent Spurs spending spree and the assumed message he’ll communicate to the player’s union. The apparent contradiction of making the pay to play concession on one hand while trying to limit it with the other. But it’s not a contradiction at all. It’s a complication. It’s a picture of needed reform. Holt perfectly represents the difficulties of the NBA’s current business model.
That Pool of Mermaids
Hunter S. Thompson once described the beginnings of Gonzo as “falling down an elevator shaft and landing in a pool of mermaids.” Peter Holt is making a bet that that pool of mermaids does exist. As Graydon Gordian recently pointed out, Holt is relatively poor in comparison to other owners. His fortunes are not unaffected by the current economy. Accepting steep taxes is akin to a dive into the elevator shaft. Holt’s hope is that his dive ends with a splash.
Peter Holt recently conceded that his ownership group is willing to take a short-term hit because their financial house is in order. The ownership group has consistently chosen to invest their profits in the team, leaving them with little debt. In other words, his willingness to pay the luxury tax coincides with an ability to pay it. That ability is not shared by the majority of the NBA.
But there is another elevator shaft in this story. It’s the current CBA. In the case of that shaft, the league owners insist that the floor is strictly concrete. Peter Holt is tasked with the challenge of convincing representatives of the player’s union-including Spurs Roger Mason Jr. and Theo Ratliff-that mermaids don’t exist. The go-for-it-now spirit Peter Holt’s exhibits as the Spurs’ owner is held in tension against the build-for-a-better-tomorrow wisdom he must convey to the player’s union. It’s a tension that currently defines the NBA.
38 Comments
August 12th, 2009 at 9:00 am
very well written. i’m interested to see how well holt does- and also how much credit he gets for doing it down the road.
August 12th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Peter Holt has done everything that he can to give us, as fans, the most entertainment and success on the court possible. Now, it is up to us to make sure that he doesn’t go broke from doing so. Spurs fans are the ones that determine how much money the team makes, evidenced by the fact that after the first round loss to the Mavs, season ticket renewals were down. Let’s not be band-wagon fans. If the Spurs win, let’s support them. If the Spurs hit a rough patch and lose a couple of games in a row or a playoff round, LET’S SUPPORT THEM. The Spurs don’t make money directly from winning games. However, the Spurs do make money indirectly from winning games because we will pay a lot of money to sit in the AT&T Center and watch them win in person.
We have been blessed over the past decade to have the greatest franchise of any sport, with the best win percentage to boot! We are blessed with some of the most talented players in the NBA. We are blessed to have a wonderful coach that can convince an international superstar to come off the bench and play 30 minutes a game. We are blessed to have a front office, led by Holt and Buford, that has created our beloved Spurs.
Our job, as fans, is to show the organization how much we appreciate them. Attend a game in person, buy a jersey of your favorite Spur, do anything to financially support OUR TEAM!
Thank you Spurs for creating such a valuable commodity. We will repay you with continued support, through the thick or thin.
August 12th, 2009 at 10:00 am
well said andrew, we need to encourage this type of attitude, among friends, and give back to the spurs org.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I have a lot of respect for Peter Holt’s willingness to take a big financial risk to really go for a championship these next few years. It’s a huge show of gratitude for what Tim Duncan has done for our franchise. If we can contribute in any way we can afford I think we owe it to the organization. Well stated guys.
This season it looks like we’ll only have a handful of superteams, along with a bunch of non-contenders. Thankfully the Spurs look to be one of those superteams, thanks to their ability to take advantage of salary dumps and willingness to pay the luxury tax.
However, as a general fan of the sport I am not happy with how the economy has affected the league. I would prefer to see more parity among teams. Although salary dumps like Jefferson help the team I support, (and obviously take place even in good economic times) it’s sad to see the disparity between the contenders and non-contenders get so dramatic. Hopefully things will improve as the economy does.
As a basketball fan I hope Tim is right that the era of super-contenders is short lived. Let’s just hope it waits a few years for Duncan to retire.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
What I would like to know is how we can support the spurs org if we are out of state fans?
August 12th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
That’s a good question Andres. I myself am a Spurs fan currently living in Spokane, WA (I was born in San Antonio so that’s where a chunk of my allegiance comes from). Andres-I would follow the advice Andrew so eloquently stated above: buy Spurs merchandise. Go to Spurs.com and buy Spurs stuff. Perhaps, if the opportunity arises, go to a Spurs game! It’s hard to be a part of the action when one lives so far from San Antonio but that’s why I always watch Spurs games when they’re televised and why I sit at the computer for hours reading up on the latest Spurs news. That’s dedication ladies and gentlemen! GO SPURS GO!
August 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Well the owners know something that we don’t and that’s if during negotiations if they don’t get exactly what they want then their will be a lockout. With a lockout it will not matter what any teams payroll is for the 10-11 season b/c a portion of it won’t be paid.
August 12th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
very very well written
August 12th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Holt is showing the same sort of front office acumen that led the Spurs to be among the first in scouting and draftin unknown Euro players like Tony Parker and Manu Ginobilli.
The Spurs simply are great at spotting opportunities and trends. When everyone else finds the opportunity or trend, they move on to something else.
August 12th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Great article Tim!
the Spurs is the real model franchise in the NBA.
Peter Holt again shows his dedication and commitment to winning. (And specially in this current economic situation that trait takes alot of guts… but i think it makes him more admirable…)
August 12th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Andrew Bynum is a star…..?
Andrews got 16 ppg 11 Reb RPG 2 BPG type potential. But until he can produce that type of line consistently, he will be Kareems chronically injured big man project…..
August 12th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I agree with Alamobro.
Andrew has potential (just like Ian M. does), but he needs to go a whole season with a major injury, prove he can play and prove his coach has faith in him. In this years western conference playoffs it seemed like Phil had little faith in Bynum.
If Bynum ever does become an all-star I think it will be from lack of competition, not his own greatness. With Yao being injured again, Al Jefferson having injury issues last season, Oden is still a big question mark, who else is there for better than average centers in the west? By that I mean players who will be listed as centers on the ballot, not guys like Duncan who might play center a lot, but are still listed as power forwards.
August 12th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Well put, Alamobro, last year’s playoffs proved that Bynum is no star. He spent important minutes warming the bench. If anything I would call last years Lakers team a three-star team along the same lines as the Spurs.
August 12th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Duane,
I couldn’t agree more. Ian has potential, just like Bynum - but until one of them starts to reach that potential, I just don’t buy it. Let’s hope it’s Ian.
August 12th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
While Andrew Bynum is not a star (although he will be paid like one), the current Lakers lineup pose alot of matchup problems for opposing teams because of their 3 long limb bigmen (Gasol-Odom-Bynum btw his PER last season is 20 i believe) in effect it makes them more potent on defense and offense (because of mismatches). The problem with Bynum as most of you mentioned is that he haven’t played consistently on a high-level in part because of injuries.
If we have to point out star power (allstar caliber players) the lakers currently have (superstar) Kobe, Odom, Gasol and Artest surrounded by solid rotation players in Bynum, Fisher, Walton, Farmar, Vujacic and Brown.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
It’s seems like an unpopular sentiment, but I’ll stand by the inclusion of Bynum as a star. Allow this qualifier, though. He’s clearly a 4th wheel kind of star. But he’s 21, has been sidelined by difficult injuries and plays on a loaded team. Still, he averages 14 points, 8 boards and nearly 2 blocks a game. His PER is 2o+. If Ian Mahinmi averaged 7, 4 and 1 with a PER around 15 I’d be thrilled. Put differently, imagine a Spurs team where their 5th best player was a center averaging 14 and 8.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Tim,
if Bynum can perform and stay healthy this upcoming season he’s really a star… as i also mention his PER last season was 20. currently, i see him as an additional threat for the Lakers because of his size, lenght and ability to defend the basket. It is also worth mentioning, that pre-injury, Bynum is one of the best performing Centers of the league… The only reason i don’t consider him a star yet is because he haven’t been able to stay healthy… and i agree with your assessment of Ian. Cheers! Go! Spurs Go!
August 12th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Comparing Andrew Bynum and Ian M. is ridiculous. Name 5 centers that are better than Bynum.
1. Dwight Howard
2. Yao
3. Shaq
4. Al Jefferson
5.?
So that means that the Lakers have top 5ish talent at SG, SF, PF, and Center which would back up the 4 star statement. Especially in a League where size is valued over everything, 3 of the 4 are either 7ft or close to it. That Gasol trade still angers me, even more so now that the Grizzlies have traded for Zach Randolph who is a worse player at the same position but makes the same amount of money. It makes no sense whatsoever.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Regarding Andrew Bynum:
If you’re judging the guy based on last year’s playoffs then you’re making a mistake. Bynum returned with only 4 games left in the regular season prior to the playoffs. He was very rusty and playing injured -not to mention that this was his first real playoff experience. It is like if i were to judge Manu based on his performance in the 08 playoffs against the Lakers. He was injured -it would be unfair for me to judge Manu based on this performance.
Andrew Bynum is not just potential -he has already shown that when he stays healthy, he is definitely all-star caliber. On the offensive end he is one of the most efficient scorers in the entire NBA. His true-shooting percentage was 66% in 08 and 60% in 09. This is for a 21 year old kid now!
With Bynum, it all depends on health. If he can stay healthy, then Bynum has already shown that he can be one of the best big men in the entire NBA as he matures going forward. If he can not stay healthy…well, if Michael Jordan couldn’t stay healthy then he would have been crap. This is the truth for everyone -if you can’t stay healthy then you are not going to be a good NBA player. The question is will Bynum be able to stay healthy? I don’t know.
Here is what Hollinger wrote up about Bynum from ESPN’s website. It is after the 08 season and preceding the 09 season, I believe:
————
2007-08 season: Can you imagine how badly they’d be skewered if they’d gone ahead and traded him for Jason Kidd? Bynum was in the midst of a huge breakout year at just 20 years old before a knee injury ended his season after just 35 games; nonetheless, he was so good prior to being hurt that it seems nearly certain that he’ll be one of the game’s top centers within a couple years.
Pre-injury, Bynum was among the best centers in basketball in nearly every category, but the lead item is how accurate a shooter he was from close range. Bynum shot 62.6 percent overall and 64.3 percent on inside shots (see chart); both figures were good for second in the league. And thanks to his sweet touch and solid foul shooting, he led the league in true shooting percentage at a sizzling 65.9.
Best TS%, 2007-08
Player Team TS%
Andrew Bynum LAL 65.9
Amare Stoudemire Phx 65.6
Brent Barry SA 65.5
Josh Childress Atl 64.7
Erick Dampier GS 64.5
Source: NBA.com/hotspots. Min. 100 shots
In addition, he ranked in the top 10 at his position in both blocks per minute and rebound rate; and he was a good enough passer to finish 12th among centers in pure point rating. About the only quibble was his low usage rate, which is another way of saying that he probably needs to get the ball more.
Scouting report: Bynum is a huge center with soft hands and a nice touch around the basket, and that combo is a killer in the post. He likes to set up on the left block and shoot a short jump hook with his right hand, and with his size he’s able to get deep position easily. What makes it even more devastating is that he’s a skilled and willing passer out of double teams who should only get better with more experience against doubles.
As a defender, Bynum is great around the basket because of his size — he can block shots, controls the defensive glass and is difficult to post up against, though one would like to see him throw his weight around a bit more. However, he struggles to defend the screen-and-roll and opponents typically seek to attack him that way.
But the biggest concern going forward is with his knee and general conditioning. Bynum is listed at 275 pounds and is almost certainly much heavier in real life; it would help both his game and his knee if he was able to shed some of that baby fat. As for the knee, it was supposed to be a minor injury at first but kept him out of action for half a year, though he’s reportedly back to full strength heading into training camp.
2008-09 outlook: If Bynum is healthy and in shape watch out, because those appear to be the only two things that can keep him from becoming an All-Star center. He’ll have to figure out how to share space down low with Pau Gasol and he may see fewer touches than a year ago, but his rare size-skill combination will inevitably make him a tantalizing option in half-court settings.
August 12th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
All you Spurs fans make me laugh. The franchise’s championship days are over. In case you missed how badly they played in the playoffs last year, Richard Jefferson isn’t going to help a bunch of geriatric former stars!
August 12th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I agree with Kaveh on the Bynum assessment… i mentioned some of the things he pointed out in great detail. Its really a matter of Him being healthy.
Cory Clay, i think Tim didn’t compare Ian with Bynum. He simply explained how important is the (possible) contribution of these players to their respective teams.
In addition, i think the most logical explanation why Bynum is “overlooked” is that he is in a team that has an embarassment of riches (Kobe, Gasol, Odom and Artest).
On the contrary, Bynum is more effective in this roster because as i have mentioned earlier with the 3 long limbed big men it creates more matchup problems for opposing teams further boosting Bynums impact and effective with the Lakers.
August 12th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
*effectiveness i mean
August 12th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Jason,
You can laugh all you want, yes we have an early playoffs exit last season mainly because of the following reasons:
1. Age (although is sounds a broken record)
2. Health (Injuries to Manu, Tim and Parker at a
lesser extent)
3. Lack of athlethicism.
This offseason overhaul address those needs we have added:
1. Youth (Blair/Mahinmi (finally healthy)/Hill he’s
1 yr. experience can only help)
2. Tim and Manu will benefit from the extended
rest and should be healthy for the upcoming
season.
3. Atlethicism in adding RJ and Haislip.
we also added solid veterans in Dice and Ratliff…
it would be interesting to see how these new pieces fit in. And I believe that this lineup can seriously compete for the championship…
August 12th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Jason - As always, a good roster needs to find a balance between athleticism and experience - of the five guys over 30 on the Spurs, they share 8 championships, and probably as much postseason experience as anyone not named Kobe Bryant or Derek Fisher.
Average age of the ’08 Celtics Big Three - 31.3 yrs.
(3 Championships, 4 Finals appearances)
Average age of the ’10 Spurs Big Four - 30.25 yrs.
(10 Championships, 11 Finals appearances)
It could be an issue, we’ve had injuries before. We’ll have to see how it plays out. But geriatric has-beens is a bit of a stretch.
August 12th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Sorry, one too many finals appearances for the Celtics up there!
August 12th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Good piece, Timothy - you don’t usually get any perspective on/coverage of the owners, and if you do it’s often bad news. When you have a guy that’s committed to the community, to the team, and particularly to his management, you’ve got to recognize that you’re a lucky fan.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Off topic but in case you guys are interested, here is what Roger Mason Jr.,Manuand Richard Jefferson doing this offseason….
August 13th, 2009 at 5:07 am
I think it’s been that way for the past two years. I don’t think Rondo was a star when the Celtics won, either, but he was a tremendous fourth wheel star that is certainly on his way now. Now, you can probably consider Bynum a 5th wheel star, but I agree with everyone else that the potential is there for much more.
I feel bad for those teams who aren’t in the supercontenders league because, as you mentioned, not many outside them have a shot at the title. But the fact that the Spurs are in it makes this season that much more exciting; I can’t wait for them to take on the Lakers and C’s.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:55 am
The Spurs have created a championship team but really is attacked due to age and potential injuries. Any player in the NBA can have a season-ending injury at any moment, but the Spurs are on the chopping block because of past events.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:04 am
[...] about Falling Down an Elevator Shaft and Landing in a Pool of Mermaids [...]
August 13th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Robby,
I’m aware that Tim didn’t compare Bynum and Ian, I was commenting on some of the posters that did, such as Duaneofly and Rikiddo.
In fact in my post I stated that I agreed with the inclusion of Bynum in the 4 Star Model. So if you’re going to reference a post, make sure you read it fully.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
My bad Cory… got your point.
August 14th, 2009 at 6:36 am
About Bynum: I think he can be a star and showed that he was on the verge of it for some long stretches last season, before breaking down. But although he’s a first-rate talent and LA is well known for developing players, it still remains to be seen whether he can convert those flashes into consistent stellar production over a period of years. And for a young player he has had a lot of injury problems already. But the real point is that LA essentially won the title without him. Technically he was on the roster but he certainly wasn’t playing at a star level. So LA in 2009 still fits the 3-star model, from my point of view.
If you’d like a good example of champions that didn’t follow that model, I think you either have to look at Houston in the 90s (Olajuwon, Drexler, and co.) and possibly Detroit’s back-to-back teams (Dumars, Thomas, and co.), or go all the way back to the West Coast champs of the 70s (GS, Portland, and Seattle). Portland fans will argue that Lucas was a true star but he certainly wasn’t a big one. It was really just Walton & Luke plus a bunch of future coaches and GMs, all led by Dr. Jack. Seattle had a great pair of guards (Johnson and Williams) plus another bunch of future coaches and GMs, all led by Lenny Wilkens. Golden State? Well, there were guys on the roster other than Rick Barry who were stars-but not really during that year. (Jamaal Wilkes is a good example. He was not yet at that star level.)
The interesting point about all of this is that the only teams that I can think of that didn’t follow the 3-star model, going back more than 45 years, either had a truly dominant defensive center (Russell, Walton, Olajuwon) or did it with a legendary backcourt duo. And those backcourt-dominated champions each had two guys who could pass AND score AND defend either position, at elite levels. As rare as those guys are, though, it’s probably easier to get two of them than a great defensive center. Everybody likes to scorn the “combo guard” but just think about how many great teams have been built around them! It would be interesting to see how a team with Dwyane Wade and Chris Paul, surrounded by a deep roster of quality role-players and an excellent coach, would fare today (just to take one example). The Spurs might want to try it in a couple of years by pairing Parker with someone like Derrick Rose or John Wall…
August 14th, 2009 at 7:31 am
[...] a recent post, I made a couple suggestions that are regarded with suspicion by some of our readers. First, some [...]
August 14th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
No problem Robby.
August 16th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Timothy, I was the first person on this post to disagree that Andrew Bynum is a star.
While i stand by that, I admit i wouldnt exactly mind if Andrew was the starting center for the Spurs….
If hes healthy next season, the scaling of Mount Los Angeles will be significantly more difficult.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:29 am
[...] me try to give you guys a closer look at what I think (or most people think?) are the top teams (or the ‘Super contenders’ as Tim Varner of 48MoH puts it) that will compete for the NBA crown this coming [...]
November 15th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
[...] the offseason, I suggested that the Lakers had begun a movement of super-contenders by changing the model for winning an NBA championship from 3 stars and a bunch of role players to a [...]
Leave a Reply