Last week, Jason Kidd topped the headlines for all the wrong reasons. It wasn't for a triple double, or leading his team to an improbable victory. It was for missing practice because of a migraine. Or was it?
Multiple media outlets reported Kidd was holding a one-day strike, protesting the current status of his team, and demanding a trade. Kidd denied it. But should we believe him?
It's becoming a common scenario these days. Star athlete signs max deal, star athlete's team can no longer afford to sign marquee free agents, star athlete's team begins to decline, star athlete gets bitter and downtrodden toward his team.
Over the past couple of years, some of the game's best have followed this trend. Vince Carter was Toronto's franchise player, and planned to keep him there throughout his career. The Raptors signed Carter to a superstar contract, breaking their budget and preventing Toronto's management to sign the necessary parts to stay competitive in the East. Carter demanded a trade, and mailed in games until the trade was done. Luckily for the Raptors, their demise lasted only a year before current head coach Sam Mitchell was able to turn the franchise back into a playoff contender.
The same story can be traced to Tracy McGrady and Paul Pierce, although Pierce got lucky and instead of trading the Celtics' franchise player, Boston went out and brought two other franchise players in, an unheard of ploy that seems to have worked out for all sides.
Other players have been just as selfish, but for other reasons. Shawn Marion and Andrei Kirilenko felt disrespected by trade talks, and asked to be traded. And Kobe Bryant, well, we all know his story.
How has the NBA got to this point?
When Major League Baseball player Curt Flood won the landmark case making players available for free agency and in turn giving all professional athletes the freedom to make their own deals and rise from underneath the owners' stranglehold on salaries, I doubt this is what the courts and Flood had in mind.
Most current players have never heard of Flood, and probably don't understand why that case was so important. It wasn't so players like Carter or McGrady could leave a team in the lurch. Teams pay these superstars amounts of cash that players in the '80s and '90s could only dream of. The Flood case gave players the right to earn what they deserved and not let owners treat players like slaves.
Instead, the state of players' egos are so magnanimous they feel they deserve the world. If a player is discussed in trade rumors, players automatically believe it's a sign of disrespect and must be traded.
Instead, players want to leave sub-par teams for playoff contenders. No matter what type of loyalty that team has shown the player.
What players fail to realize in the latter scenario, it doesn't work.
In the history of the NBA, there has never been one single person win the title. It's always been a team.
In the '50s and '60s, Boston was the personification of the team game. Every player recognized his role and did not deviate from that task to the tune of eight championships in a row.
Even Wilt Chamberlain, regarded as one of the most selfish players in pro basketball, sacrificed for the sake of a championship. In the 1966-67 season, Chamberlain failed to lead the league in scoring for the first time in her career, instead looking to get others involved. The Big Dipper averaged almost 8 assists per game and finished with over 200 more than his previous high. He would finish the year with 24 points, 24 rebounds, and 8 assists per game. The 76ers took home the championship.
In the '80s, Boston and Los Angeles played team basketball. Many view the 1986 Celtics as the best team ever. The Celtics did have Larry Bird, but even Bird sometimes deferred to Kevin McHale or Dennis Johnson or Robert Parrish. That was the best part of that team. Every player could have been the dagger. With the Lakers, Magic Johnson always said he might be the man, but this was Kareem's team. Where's the ego? Ego may make you money, but humility wins you championships.
I could go on and on about championship teams to show you regardless of who was on that team, they were teams first, and it took more than just one year to guarantee a championship. Detroit, Chicago, Houston, San Antonio, the early-2000s Lakers, they were all teams, superstars playing collectively for a common goal.
That's what makes the Spurs so good right now. San Antonio is a throwback, they don't do anything special, they just win. They have a superstar, Tim Duncan, and a bunch of other good players that contribute to the success. Tony Parker won the Finals MVP last year. Did he hold out for more money? Manu Ginobli could start for every team in the NBA, but he has no problems coming off the bench for the world champions. In a world were C.R.E.A.M (Cash Rules Everything Around Me) runs supreme, the Spurs are successful because the team concept comes before individual success.
Last year's playoffs were the perfect example of that. In the middle of the season, Allen Iverson was traded to Denver to team up with Carmelo Anthony to create the most potent one-two scoring punch in the NBA. The Nuggets were the hottest team heading into the playoffs. In the first round, Denver was bounced in five.
In the ultra-competitive, egomaniacal NBA, it's either get the most money, or get the most rings. Most don't realize that the odds of you doing both are slim to none. Besides Michael Jordan, I can't think of another player who was able to do both during his time, and Jordan was one-of-a-kind. Duncan has figured it out, so have the rest of the Spurs.
The only dissent from this may be the current Celtics. Danny Ainge was forced to sign some big names after his franchise player wanted out. Ainge went out and got Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. It looks right now as though all three have sacrificed their own particular games for the betterment of the team. All three players' numbers are down, but they are winning. That's the key, sacrificing.
What Bryant, Kidd, and the rest of the future trade hawkers don't realize is the pain might subside in the beginning, but they will fail to accomplish what they set out to do with the trade in the first place. History proves this.
In the NBA, demanding a trade or trading for superstars is now becoming common. What players and owners alike must realize is the only thing trade demands do is guarantee failure.
Leave a Comment