Latest news with #JohnHollinger
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Sport
- Yahoo
Former NBA Exec Reveals 'Most Amazing Thing' About LeBron James
Former NBA Exec Reveals 'Most Amazing Thing' About LeBron James originally appeared on Athlon Sports. Los Angeles Lakers star LeBron James has a player option worth $52.6 million for next season. The leading scorer in NBA history turns 41 in December. He's the oldest active player in the league. Advertisement James played in 70 games for the Lakers this season, averaging 24.4 points, 7.8 rebounds, 8.2 assists, 1.0 steals and 0.6 blocks per game. He made the All-NBA Second Team, becoming the oldest player in NBA history to accomplish that feat. The Lakers were the third seed in the West this season but lost to the Minnesota Timberwolves in the first round of the playoffs in five games. James averaged 25.4 points, 9.0 rebounds, 5.6 assists, 2.0 steals and 1.8 blocks per game in the five-game series. He suffered a Grade 2 MCL sprain in his left knee in Game 5. It's unknown if James will choose his 2025-26 player option with the Lakers or decline it and become a free agent. The four-time MVP is not expected to leave Los Angeles since his son, Bronny James, and five-time All-Star Luka Doncic are on the Lakers. Los Angeles Lakers star LeBron James made the All-NBA Second Team this season. Trevor Ruszkowski-Imagn Images Former NBA executive John Hollinger, who now writes for The Athletic, created the player efficiency rating stat in the late '90s. He has a new stat called BORD$ (Big Ol' Rating Dollar). Advertisement BORD$ is designed to answer one question: How much value can a player deliver for next season? Hollinger bases this on two variables: the expected quality of the players' minutes and the minutes we'd expect the player to play on an average team. "The most amazing thing about James is that, at 40, he is still good enough and durable enough that BORD$ projects him as one of only 14 players in the entire league who are worth at least $52 million for the coming season, a figure that nears the 35 percent 'supermax' of $54.1 million," Hollinger wrote. There has never been a player to put up the numbers James did this season at 40 years of age. After seeing how he played this season, many believe James will put up elite numbers again in 2025-26. Related: Source Close to LeBron James Reveals Why New Lakers Owner Could Be 'Valuable Resource' This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jun 20, 2025, where it first appeared.
New York Times
13-06-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
NBA mock draft, chaos edition: A Cooper Flagg-Dylan Harper swap? Let's get weird
There aren't many things I love in June more than a mock draft. I enjoy learning about prospects before the NBA Draft Lottery determines the order, but once we know that order and start moving toward that first announcement that a team is on the clock, I start poring over everything Sam Vecenie and John Hollinger are putting out there with a fine-tooth comb. Advertisement One thing is often missing from their analysis, though: Chaos. Remember draft night in 2013? We were wondering if Victor Oladipo or Nerlens Noel would be the top pick, then David Stern shocked the world by announcing the Cleveland Cavaliers were selecting Anthony Bennett with the No. 1 pick. We rarely get that level of mayhem in the NBA Draft, but we do get quite a few surprises. I wanted to join in on the mock draft madness by throwing some potential chaos into the mix, while sharing some thoughts on team situations and prospects throughout. I want the havoc to be somewhat believable, though, so you won't see something like VJ Edgecombe or Kon Knueppel going No. 1 overall. Let's dive in on Round 1. Of course, it's Flagg! He was always going to be the No. 1 pick, and not even Nico Harrison would pick anybody except him with the top selection, especially after the year Harrison has endured (self-inflicted, of course). Flagg is clearly the top prospect in this draft and the most ready to play. He'll fit in right away on defense, as I think he'll be able to defend multiple positions. But I think he's going to be in a logjam with the rest of the Mavs' frontcourt. Dereck Lively II, Anthony Davis, Daniel Gafford, P.J. Washington and Flagg? Not to mention Naji Marshall, whose best position is small forward. That's a great frontcourt, but you're asking Flagg to play out of position for now. Maybe you could talk yourself into Ace Bailey here for a little chaos, but Harper is the definite second pick. He has to go here, even with Stephon Castle and De'Aaron Fox already on the roster. The Spurs grab the best player available and figure it out later. The easy part of drafting Harper here is that he's a big guard. You can play him next to Castle and Fox to give you a really dynamic playmaking trio on the perimeter, and with Victor Wembanyama backing them up, they can be very aggressive defensively. We have a trade to announce: The Dallas Mavericks are trading the draft rights to Cooper Flagg, P.J. Washington and Caleb Martin to the San Antonio Spurs in exchange for the draft rights to Dylan Harper, the No. 14 pick in this draft, the Spurs' 2026 first-round pick, a lottery protected 2028 first-round pick and Keldon Johnson. Film noir! That's right. Harrison couldn't help himself, and after getting skewered for not getting enough for Luka Dončić, he's getting a lot of draft capital in return in this deal. Let's break down why the trade would happen for both teams: The Spurs pair Flagg and Wemby together while still having Castle and Fox as a playmaking, dynamic backcourt. That's an incredible barbershop quartet on both ends of the floor. It needs a little more shooting, but all four guys can eventually become good enough shooters, and they have guys on the roster to fill it out. Defensively, Flagg and Wemby together could be truly devastating. I'd say Flagg projects as a Shawn Marion-esque difference-maker on that end. He's active, athletic and has great instincts on the ball. With a rim protector like Wemby behind him, it would allow him to be even more aggressive. Advertisement You may be asking yourself, 'Why would the Mavericks actually do this?' But what part of any Harrison trade would actually shock you at this point? I went from completely trusting him as an executive to thinking that anything good or bad is possible with his decision-making. Grabbing Harper as the guard of the future and someone who can learn from Kyrie Irving is massive. It also helps them in the interim as Irving works his way back from the ACL tear and puts less pressure on him to get back quickly. A couple of reasons for this pick could, in theory, make sense, even as outlandish as it appears to be. Yes, Maluach is a center, and Joel Embiid is a center, and you're not going to employ two franchise centers at the same time. That is, if you believe Maluach has the potential to become a franchise center. But we know Embiid is 31, his body simply doesn't hold up, and the Sixers have to start wondering how much longer they can afford to roll with this process. Bringing in Maluach gives some clarity on what that succession plan looks like, and hopefully, he learns heavily from Embiid on a daily basis. Maybe VJ Edgecombe can't fall past the top four, but I kind of like the idea of just going with a super scorer here. Johnson is a guy who could possibly end up averaging 25 points per game in a season someday. He can shoot the ball, he doesn't turn it over, and he really gets those shots up. He might be a perfect complement on offense to LaMelo Ball and Brandon Miller, if they can stay healthy. This Hornets team has yet to show it can be competent, so at least be fun. Offense is fun. Yes, I know what I'm doing here. Yes, you know what I'm doing here. No, I don't feel bad going for the low-hanging fruit. With that said, I'm not big on Knueppel, despite his skill set. He can really shoot, and he's a good passer. But when I've watched him, it feels like he plays a lot smaller than his size. Maybe that changes at the NBA level, where he has to play up to his height, if not bigger. His wingspan won't help, but maybe he's a better version of Luke Kennard. Edgecombe falls to the Wizards here, and it could be a lot of fun. They still don't have the guy to build around in this scenario. Maybe if Johnson falls there, you could talk yourself into him as a scorer. But now you're talking about a young core of Alex Sarr, Bub Carrington, Bilal Coulibaly, Kyshawn George and Edgecombe. If you can't sell fans on tapping in to watching them develop on the court, you simply can't sell. Edgecombe is a ridiculous athlete; he can shoot the ball, and he's a solid playmaker. Advertisement Joe Dumars has taken over the Pelicans. There is an undersized big man — who might not be able to stretch the floor at the NBA level — with a lot of skill to entice you. Ideally, you'd play him next to a proper center and watch them grow together. Instead, it looks like the Pelicans would be playing him next to Zion Williamson for now. I can't think of a more Dumars way for him to put his stamp on the start of this era. Queen is good. He just wouldn't be the fit I'm looking for here. The Nets need some potential stars, and they miss out a bit here by landing at No. 8. While some may assume Jeremiah Fears could be the guy for them because of his lead guard and scoring abilities, they should swing for the fences with Newell. Maybe he's still available at No. 19 when they pick again (they have four picks in the first round), but I'd gamble here. He has the potential to defend, and he's high energy. He's a bit of a development project, but there's a lot to mine. I love this pick for a few reasons. 1) You could maybe see it moved in a play for Giannis Antetokounmpo if Masai Ujiri were so bold. 2) It could also make him the lead guard of the future if Immanuel Quickley is part of the package moved in a potential Giannis deal. 3) I think it's good to have Fears to push Quickley in general. Yes, Quickley has a massive contract, but he's also a bit injury-prone, and I think it's good to have a young player to spark some competition with more established veterans. You can also play them together against smaller lineups. Fears is a tremendous scorer and weapon. I'll fully admit I was not a Reed Sheppard guy at Kentucky and didn't understand the hype of him being a third pick in last year's draft. Maybe I'll be proven wrong about that, and he will find a way to make an impact. This Rockets team could use his shooting. I'll keep that string going here by choosing another guard I'm not sold on. Jakučionis is a big lead guard with a lot of skills, but he could really struggle to get separation to show those skills in the NBA. It is a bit of a stretch to take Beringer this high, but I think he's a perfect fit for what the Blazers could need. We've seen Chauncey Billups get through to this group defensively, and Portland had success on that end of the floor throughout the second half of the season. Beringer has a 7-foot-3 wingspan, he's super athletic and has great hands around the basket on both ends. He'd be a good change of pace to throw in the mix with Donovan Clingan, and I'd love to see him work with Scoot Henderson in the pick-and-roll. You were probably wondering whether I forgot about Bailey. Absolutely not! There are some draft nights in which a player falls for odd reasons, and it invites some very intriguing chaos. We saw it with Cam Whitmore falling to the Rockets at No. 20 in 2023. I'm wondering if Bailey measuring at 6-7 1/2 without shoes after everybody thought he was 6-10 at Rutgers is going to impact his draft stock. It very well could. Enough to fall all the way down here? That seems dramatic, but I could see him taking a bit of a dive if a team like the Sixers isn't sold on him helping it win now, or if Charlotte or Washington believe he doesn't fit with their wings. He projects now as a wing rather than a 6-10 scoring forward. It doesn't sound like a huge difference, but it could be. One of the bigger mysteries in this draft is Bryant, whom I've heard plenty of people be torn on. Some think he could be one of the gems of the late lottery. Some think his NBA future is entirely dependent on where he ends up for his development. He might be able to shoot at the NBA level. He might be able to playmake. Regardless, he should be good at defending. This feels like a Hawks player for Quin Snyder and his group to work on. Advertisement Essengue doesn't have a great wingspan (6-11), but he's still a forward with good size and the potential to stretch the floor. Remember, in this scenario, the pick is headed to Dallas as part of the Cooper Flagg trade. Maybe you forgot about it as you scrolled down, and this just made you mad all over again. I understand, but such is life. Essengue is a project, and Dallas could really benefit from him down the road if he develops. The rich just keep getting richer. Murray-Boyles projects as a potential top-10 pick, but in this mock, he's falling to OKC. He's the perfect guy for the Thunder to develop. Murray-Boyles is a dynamite defender, and we know the Thunder don't really have guys who can't excel on that end of the floor. He's a good playmaker and a fantastic rebounder. I would imagine the Thunder's magic development will get him an outside shot, and we'll continue to wonder how they keep stockpiling these players. A tall guard who can't shoot? He'll fit right in with the Magic! Orlando gets to keep its love of size on the perimeter moving ahead, and Demin does have a tremendous feel for the game. His passing ability is the best in this class. He's just not a good shot maker from the outside. The Magic will need to develop that, but he can see over most defenders, deliver the ball to Paolo Banchero and likely fit in with the team's defensive concept because of his size. The Wolves' frontcourt could change, since both Julius Randle and Naz Reid have player options this summer. We don't know what either will do, but Reid picking up his $15 million option for next season seems unlikely. He can make so much more on the open market as an unrestricted free agent. Sorber gives the Wolves a replacement for either if they become too expensive to retain. He also gives Minnesota a more modern Rudy Gobert replacement at center, thanks to his 7-6 wingspan. Sorber falling out of the lottery would be ridiculous, but that's mostly where he's projected right now. There's been quite a bit of buzz around Traoré and his pro prospects, thanks to France continuing to be a factory for NBA players. A year or two ago, it felt like Traoré might have been a lock as a top-10 prospect, but things have cooled off. He'd be a really good project for the Wizards to help fill some of the void at the lead guard position for the future. He would add to an already exciting young core of the Wizards. Part of me just wants to see Clifford and Cam Thomas exist on the same team. Clifford is a great scorer who could lead the second unit for the Nets right away. He's already 23, so he has more than enough seasoning to step in and play now. He has good size, he can pass and he's a good enough shooter from the outside. He might even get very comfortable shooting from the outside. Coward measured so intriguingly at the combine with his athleticism and wingspan that he decided to forego his transfer to Duke and stay in the draft. He has a 7-2 wingspan, which means he's going to disrupt a ton at the NBA level. A shoulder injury ended his season at Washington State after just six games. He shot the ball well from 3-point range (38.6 percent on 166 attempts) the previous two seasons at Eastern Washington. He seems like the perfect type of Heat player to grab and put on the wing, but I do wonder if he'll fall to the 20s. McNeeley is a very interesting prospect. He was a five-star recruit on that loaded Montverde Academy team with Flagg, Queen and Newell. McNeeley should be able to shoot at the NBA level, and as Vecenie has noted, McNeeley was good on catch-and-shoot 3-pointers. He'll be a good secondary playmaker, and he'll be great out in the open floor. I think McNeeley fits in perfectly in Utah. Advertisement I was not sold on Wolf as an NBA guy at any point during Michigan's season. He's skilled. He can pass the ball. He might be able to stretch the floor a little bit. He's a good rebounder. But I don't see him as anything other than a backup big man in the NBA. That's fine, by the way! Some view him as a fringe lottery guy. Wolf could be a really nice role player off the bench in Quin Snyder's system. The Pacers need to re-sign Myles Turner, and the rest of their centers are going to be free agents. Grabbing a big man with a solid skill set and great rim protection would be smart. They've been so desperate for this at times during the postseason that they've given minutes to Thomas Bryant and Tony Bradley. They could still bring back Turner and Isaiah Jackson while having Kalkbrenner in emergencies. Riley is one of my favorite prospects in this draft and a big-time sleeper. He's probably more of a second-round pick, but I could see a team like OKC grabbing him and turning him into a monster in the second unit. He needs to develop a consistent jump shot, especially off the dribble from outside. He's another guy who can be very disruptive, even without a plus wingspan. The biggest problem here is that the Thunder may have to take an overseas guy to stash with their roster situation. But we don't factor that in too much when hoping for chaos. The Magic need a guy who can come in right away and make shots in the backcourt. Clayton fits that bill. He can playmake a little bit, but mostly he's a big-time shot maker. He could play next to Jalen Suggs, Anthony Black or even Demin (we drafted him to Orlando earlier in the first round). I love Clayton as a prospect, and he might even be starter material. Scouts love Gonzalez as an active athlete, and he could really develop into a wrecking ball going to the basket. He has to develop some on-ball skills, so he's a bit of a project. But this is the Nets' third pick of the first round, with one more to go. They can afford to take their swings on an international prospect or two. He'll be an instant fan favorite, though. Speaking of taking some swings, we're giving another one to the Nets here with Penda. He can do a little bit of everything, and if he comes over right away, he should carve out some minutes in the second unit, depending on how aggressive Brooklyn is with its cap space this summer. We'll see if he can defend multiple positions in the NBA. Fleming is a perfect role player for a Celtics team that will need a role player who can be on the court right away. We know Boston is going to cut costs this summer. Assuming his jump in 3-point shooting in his junior year is legitimate, Fleming will be exactly what the Celtics want. He has a 7-5 wingspan, so he's going to disrupt on defense. Boston having him on an end-of-the-first-round contract for the next four years would be huge for the bottom line. Advertisement Richardson falling to No. 29 doesn't seem likely, although the sudden realization that he's 6-1 instead of the 6-3 he was listed at as a Spartan does affect the way he's viewed for his NBA positioning. He's barely lead-guard size, but his 6-6 wingspan does help recover some of that defensively. He'll have to create, create for others and knock down 3-pointers. Whether he falls all the way down here or the Suns trade up to get him, we know Mat Ishbia's Michigan State obsession means they'll probably target Richardson, no matter what. Spartan up or whatever they say. We saw in their series against the Denver Nuggets that the lack of backup size for the Clippers was an issue. Drew Eubanks and Ben Simmons were their backup center options behind Ivica Zubac. Broome isn't a massive big man to throw in there, but he's a physical guy and a big defender. He's ancient by draft prospect standards, but that means he can play right away and be a very cost-effective option for a Clippers team very aware of its salary-cap situation. (Illustration: Demetrius Robinson / The Athletic; top photos: Candice Ward, Patrick Smith / Getty Images)
New York Times
08-04-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
Michael Malone firing and more beg the question: What's up with the NBA lately?
— By John Hollinger, Fred Katz, David Aldridge and Mike Vorkunov In the past few months, the NBA has seen perhaps the most shocking trade (Luka Dončić to the Los Angeles Lakers) in league history, the record-breaking sale of one of its most recognizable franchises (the Boston Celtics) and two respected coaches (Taylor Jenkins and Michael Malone) fired with less than 10 games left in the regular season. Advertisement As the dust settles after the most recent head-scratcher — the Denver Nuggets firing Malone — The Athletic NBA staff got a few writers together to discuss: Are these unusual occurrences part of new trends or just a weird season? Hollinger: How about 'both?' The Dončić trade, for instance, was almost certainly a once-a-generation thunderclap. That said, there is another trend dragging us toward superstar trades: Midseason is becoming the new offseason. We're used to iconic stars changing teams in late June and early July, not after we get home from the arena on a Saturday night in February. However, that's not really possible anymore; there is little star movement in free agency thanks to more generous extension rules that keep players under contract. Thus, drafting stars or trading for them is the primary means of acquisition now. Go back and look: Even teams that weren't in the title hunt made significant moves to set up their 2025-26 rosters. Katz: If we're referencing Dončić-level trades — the type when an organization sends out a 25-year-old, MVP-caliber performer — then no, this won't be a trend. Teams generally prefer to hold onto young, elite talent, especially when the system is rigged in their favor. The Dallas Mavericks could have offered Dončić more money in his next contract than any other organization. But they chose against that. They could have scoured the league (or at least entered extended negotiations with more than one franchise) to maximize the trade return for him. But they chose against that. Superstars changing teams isn't new. Trade requests happen. MVPs dart elsewhere in free agency. But giving up great players when they aren't trying to leave and when they are months removed from carrying a team to the NBA Finals will never become the go-to strategy. Advertisement Aldridge: All of this — seismic trades, franchise revaluations (notice how close 'revaluation' is to 'revolution?'), late-season firings — are part of a piece. And that piece is the acceleration of impatience that comes with sports teams increasingly being bought by billionaires and/or billion-dollar corporations. I'm not even talking about the mom-and-pop days, when Bill Davidson or Franklin Mieuli or Abe Pollin owned teams that won championships on shoestring budgets. A guy like Ed Snider, who became the chair of Comcast Spectacor in Philadelphia, who was a major business and philanthropic player in the city and who was worth more than $2 billion when he died in 2016, could never own the 76ers and Flyers, as he did during different stretches from the 1970s through the early 2000s — or run the day-to-day operations of the NFL's Philadelphia Eagles, as he did in the mid-1960s. The corporate world has different standards for success and is far less willing to accept sustained non-contending status. The Dončić trade was still a stunner because of its timing and how secret the discussions remained, but we must still come to grips with the fact that the team's new owners did not think it was worth spending a little less than $70 million a season to keep one of the NBA's five or so best players long term. I don't think this is the last time an owner/ownership group is going to make a decision like this about players of Dončić's caliber. From the outside, that seems absurd. On the inside, it will seem … efficient. Or, a logical use of optimization for the most cost-effective outcome. You know, like 3>2. Vorkunov: The Dončić trade will remain a total black swan event for so many reasons, least of all is that it has gone so poorly so far for the Mavericks that the result may preempt any team that even thinks of something so similarly seismic. But I can see teams continuing to trade players in the next strata of stardom. That isn't unique to this role and place. Different teams can find different evaluations of players and values for them. The most recent collective bargaining agreement may help move things along, too, as it tries to push teams to live in that area between the cap and the first-apron threshold, and a franchise can only fit so many stars on that plane of financial existence. Hollinger: My answer is the same here. I don't think teams will be firing championship-winning coaches in the final week of the season on the regular, but there's a through line of impulsiveness that connects a lot of these events. Most sports franchise owners are not by nature patient people, and recently, that has been exacerbated by the younger cohort of owners who bought in. Advertisement Orthodoxy is that most in-season coaching changes come early, while there is still time to right the ship. Instead, we've seen two playoff teams evaluate everything else and then move on to the coaching situation. I'm waiting now for another team to one-up the Denver Nuggets and Memphis Grizzlies by changing generals after losing Game 2 in the conference semifinals. (Also: What if the Grizzlies hire Michael Malone and the Nuggets hire Taylor Jenkins this summer?) Of course, the Malone situation in Denver was complicated by the Nuggets also replacing GM Calvin Booth at the same time. These shocking events always have their unique situational twists. But it's fair to ask if increased impulsiveness and impatience at the top levels of franchise hierarchies were catalyzing ingredients. Katz: I'll go out on the limb mere hours after Malone's ousting: This could become a trend. The Jenkins firing may have shocked everyone outside of Memphis, but it's not like the Grizzlies woke up one morning and, without thought, pushed out the man who had led their bench for the previous six seasons. Bad energy was building; the Grizzlies were losing and in the summer of 2024 had paid a seven-figure buyout to hire an assistant coach, Tuomas Iisalo, who is now the interim. Memphis hadn't beaten a winning team in nearly two months. And once management lost faith in this season's team, it figured, why wait? On one hand, it seemed the Grizzlies threw away their season. They owned the fourth-best record in the Western Conference at the time they fired Jenkins, just as the Nuggets did when they fired Malone. Entering April basketball with a new head coach is a risk. On the other hand, the Grizzlies didn't believe there was much to throw away. Firing Jenkins when they did gives them a look at Iisalo heading into the offseason. It hands him playoff experience, which could help next year. I doubt we'll see every organization handle its head-coaching situations this way. People are risk-averse — and lead executives, such as Memphis' Zach Kleiman, need job security to make calls like the one the Grizzlies did. But a postseason-bound team firing a coach with this little time remaining in the regular season is no longer unprecedented, which means other front offices may not be as scared to do it now. And I could see other people justifying firings with the same logic the Grizzlies used. Aldridge: Maybe the NBA is just catching up to the NHL. Lou Lamoriello, the longtime GM of the New Jersey Devils, Toronto Maple Leafs and New York Islanders, has made a cottage industry out of late-season cashierings of coaches, hasn't he? (Yes, he has!) What's different here isn't a late-season firing, but a late-season firing of very good coaches from very good/borderline great teams. I don't know that we'll see a lot of these going forward; the circumstances that led to Jenkins and Malone getting fired seem unique. I still think most teams will see if their coaches can pull their squads out of whatever perceived nosedives they're in on the eve of postseasons before yanking the plug — if, for no other reason, to save themselves a few hundred thousand dollars they'd otherwise have to spend to bump up the interim coach(es) to the head coach job for the last couple of weeks of the regular season and postseason. Advertisement Vorkunov: This will remain an outlier! Let us not turn two unrelated events into a trend. There was a reason this happens so infrequently. The upside for these moves are low. The potential for embarrassment is high. It takes a certain kind of general manager or owner to pull a move like this. What the firings of Jenkins and Malone really reinforce is how little job security winning buys you. Jenkins had a very good run in Memphis, and Malone won a title. But now, three of the last five title-winning head coaches have been fired within two years of winning a ring. Hollinger: It's a trend until potential buyers get their next 401(k) statement. No, seriously: The thread of impulsiveness above ties into this. Teams are more likely to change hands when the owners aren't locally connected, and we're well past the era when local industrial scions operated a major league franchise on the side for half a century as part of their civic duty. Yes, there are still a few places where something like that is happening (New Orleans and Utah, for instance), but for the most part, NBA ownership is a much different game now. Seeing even a storied franchise like the Boston Celtics go on the market certainly underscores that point. Katz: The NBA's economy — player salaries, especially — is growing faster than the world's. And a crash of the markets won't help sales of multibillion-dollar businesses. At some point, stars making nine figures annually, which isn't too far away, could scare off potential buyers. But it doesn't seem the league is there yet. Ratings can trend in the wrong direction, but an 11-year, $76 billion national TV deal, which kicks in next season, provides steady revenue. The hyper-wealthy will seek out teams sometimes as toys as much as moneymakers. Steve Ballmer did not buy the LA Clippers to enrich himself; he bought them to be in the NBA. Yet, the Clippers' franchise valuation has risen well above the $2 billion he originally paid. The demand for teams could grow as the world's economy manufactures more and more billionaires. The price of an investment matters on only two days: the day you buy it and the day you sell it. And if the latter is continuously higher, buyers will usually emerge, as long as governors can incur the expenses in between. Advertisement Aldridge: As NBA teams increase in value, the potential massive tax implications for ownership families will only get more complicated. So I suspect you'll see more, not fewer, franchises go up for sale in the next few years. If the Grousbecks didn't see a way out that would allow them to keep the Celtics in the family, that does not portend well for less well-heeled and less successful teams. The NBA's tiptoeing around allowing Saudi and/or United Arab Emirates wealth to buy controlling stakes of franchises seems like delaying the inevitable. In many cases, their owners are engaging in sportswashing. But with no limits to the amount of money those owners appear willing to invest in a team or a league, it's just a matter of time before someone crosses the Rubicon and allows a full-fledged international ownership group to buy its way in. Vorkunov: Umm, hello? Have you not been paying attention to the last few years? OK, I take it back. The Celtics' sale price was so high it even surprised some savvy sports financiers, who had priced it in the $5 billion to $5.5 billion range. Still, that just tells you the bidding war for NBA teams right now. They are a mix of trophy assets and a fast-appreciating multi-billion dollar company uncorrelated to the rest of the market. Experts expect franchise prices to keep going up, though at a slower rate. But that growth hasn't slowed down yet. Eventually, the NBA may run out of super-duper rich folks (technical term: high net worth individuals) who can buy teams, but that's also why they've started allowing private equity and sovereign wealth funds to buy minority stakes. The question is whom will they let into the club to keep those valuations climbing when the people who bought in at strong valuations during the last few years decide they want their exit. (Top photo of Luka Dončić and Michael Malone: AAron Ontiveroz / MediaNews Group / The Denver Post via Getty Images)
New York Times
31-01-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
Why Thunder, Rockets and Grizzlies are in enviable positions at NBA trade deadline
With over half of the 2024-25 regular season complete and the Feb. 6 trade deadline inching closer, the NBA — and the Western Conference in particular — has separated itself into tiers. At the top, the Oklahoma City Thunder (37-9) reign supreme and have their eyes set on playing well into June. But for as much success as the Thunder have achieved, there's no clear path out of the West to an NBA Finals, not if the Houston Rockets (32-15) and Memphis Grizzlies (32-16) have anything to say about it. Advertisement What's more, the top three teams in the West are still young squads with large asset pools from which to make their next move, whenever that may be. Meanwhile, older, 'chips-in' teams are eating their dust. It's perhaps a bit of a lesson, too, that the Thunder, Rockets and Grizzlies should be a little careful before firing draft picks into the sun to bring in expensive players. The talent fit has to be right. But when is the right time to starting pushing in those chips? Do Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and Oklahoma City need an additional ballhandler and creator? Can Houston survive a playoff round or two without the requisite shooting? How can Memphis consolidate its depth to bring in a legitimate upgrade on the perimeter — if the Grizzlies even need it? And most importantly, how have these three teams managed to separate themselves in a conference that's always jam-packed? NBA writer Kelly Iko and senior NBA analyst for former front-office executive John Hollinger answer those questions and more. Iko: Over the next week or so, as NBA front offices increase their communication, the question of standing pat versus making a roster move will arise. Several teams in the upper echelon of the West — the Thunder, Rockets and Grizzlies — are debating whether to push all their chips in. John, you've been in positions where this question was at the forefront for you. A team like the Thunder seemingly has been leading the pack from day one and looks destined for an NBA Finals run, barring additional injuries. If you're in Oklahoma City's front office, are you working the phones for a tertiary creator outside of Gilgeous-Alexander and Jalen Williams? Or do you view Chet Holmgren's return (around the All-Star break) as the best in-season acquisition possible? What's the benefit of keeping their roster untouched? Advertisement John Hollinger: I think the Thunder will have the lessons from last year at the front of mind. First, the series against the Dallas Mavericks showed them their needs were slightly different from what they thought, and that secondary creators and passers were more important than finding a Charles Oakley-type masher on the glass. Second, however, they learned from the Gordon Hayward experience that they don't want to mess up what they already have by trying to bring in a 'big name' unless it's somebody who can surpass Williams and Holmgren as potential second options. The other thing with Oklahoma City is that it is still finding out what it has in its own guys. Williams and Holmgren are only in their third seasons, and the rest of the core is very young as well. Because of that, it's a bit harder for the Thunder to definitively say 'We're good at X and need Y' than it is for most elite teams, where the players are older and the roles and style are more established. Between that and the relative paucity of available star-caliber talent that fits, I'm not sure if there's an obvious move here. Cam Johnson, maybe? Oklahoma City has enough future draft-pick assets to chase whatever player it wants, but if the equation were that simple, the Phoenix Suns would be dominating the league. Iko: Do the Grizzlies and Rockets have any similar luxuries? I look at Memphis' deep roster (GG Jackson II recently returned), and on one hand, you're comfortable with heading into the postseason as is. But then you look at games like Monday's blowout defeat to the New York Knicks and can't help but wonder if more perimeter juice is needed, especially if a deep playoff run entails meeting similar-level competition. Desmond Bane hasn't looked the same all season, Jaylen Wells isn't exactly that type of player and the Luke Kennards of the world have a clear ceiling on their offensive impact. In the other corner, Houston is riding momentum, having beaten the East's top two seeds over the past week, but Amen Thompson hype aside, this isn't a great shooting team, and the Rockets still struggle in the half court. The Rockets don't seem to be interested in blowing things up to chase the likes of Jimmy Butler or De'Aaron Fox — but should they? And does their ever-improving record change that calculus? Jabari Smith Jr. is getting closer to a return, but does that even count as an addition? Hollinger: Memphis has a lot of that same still-figuring-out-who-we-are vibe — the Grizzlies start two rookies! — plus Marcus Smart has hardly played. However, the Grizzlies have seen their half-court offense exposed in the playoffs twice before, and they have to be cognizant that their shooting and shot-creation might not pass muster this time around either. Again, Cam Johnson becomes a tasty morsel in theory, but the Grizzlies already have two power forwards playing fantastic basketball. Can Johnson play some small forward? Can Jaren Jackson Jr. close at center every night? If not, Johnson might be an expensive, clunky fit. Advertisement As for Houston, I'm slightly more surprised the Rockets aren't pursuing Fox given the Rockets' shot-creation woes in the half court and the fact he'd offer a potential solution for the team's biggest problem. Fred VanVleet is an obvious salary match, too, and thus adding Fox wouldn't get in the way of potentially paying the likes of Thompson and Smith once their rookie deals expire. I have to presume they're either concerned about Fox's signability in 2026 or think Thompson might eventually play point guard. Again, that's where finding out about your own team is important before you start trying to pay for outside players. Iko: 'Finding about your own team' speaks to development, right? And that in turn goes together with drafting, which is related to tanking. I find it fascinating how each of these teams got to this point. The Thunder pulled the trigger on a young Gilgeous-Alexander and scouted smartly over the years with Williams and Cason Wallace (I don't view taking Holmgren at No. 2 as 'savvy'), all while making shrewd offseason moves like signing Isaiah Joe and Isaiah Hartenstein in free agency. Wells, GG Jackson and Vince Williams Jr. highlight a strong Grizzlies scouting department (Morant and Jaren Jackson Jr. were top-five picks, I don't count those), and the Rockets' strategic tanking is well-documented. Zooming out a bit, there's a bigger conversation about the do's and don'ts of organizational building. There's never a one-size-fits-all approach, but how have you viewed how these three teams have separated themselves from the rest of the pack in the West? And in hindsight, are there things you would have done differently in each instance — that other teams could adopt down the line? GO DEEPER NBA trade deadline: What every team should do before the buzzer sounds Hollinger: The first rule is that, if you trade a star too early rather than too late, you can get so much in return that it becomes rocket fuel for the rebuild. Once the Thunder had run their course with Paul George and Russell Westbrook, they had a mid-tier playoff team that was light on assets and deep in the tax. Flipping that in the George trade to get Gilgeous-Alexander and the pick that became Williams, and ending up with a team bad enough to get Holmgren in the lottery … I mean, that was 90 percent of the job, right? Kudos for finding guys at the margins like Joe, Aaron Wiggins and Ajay Mitchell, but how you dismantle the last empire often dictates how well you can do with the next one. But the other key piece of this is that all three teams have rebuilt from within, as opposed to relying on trades and free agency. Even though they've added pieces in free agency — VanVleet and Hartenstein, for instance — these were to complement the existing core pieces. Houston is where it is first and foremost because it drafted Şengün, Thompson, Jalen Green and Smith, right? Same for Memphis with Morant, Jaren Jackson and Bane, and the Thunder with Williams, Holmgren, Wiggins and Wallace. Even Gilgeous-Alexander was almost like a draft pick, as he'd only played one season when the Thunder acquired him. I'm not saying that's a golden rule — the Boston Celtics traded brilliantly to build their champions — but it does serve as something of a cautionary tale. In today's NBA, when virtually every good player extends his contract at least once (if not twice) with his existing team, the way to get stars is by drafting them. I think that's why none of these teams have been itching to do splashy, 'all-in' type trades for big-name stars. Fewer difference-making players are becoming available, and when it happens, they're later in their careers. Advertisement Iko: Given where all three of these teams are currently, how do you forecast the next two to three seasons? Have they built sustainable models that can withstand the rest of the West? And, perhaps more importantly, do any of these teams have enough to go all the way? I only say this because perception is everything, and from the outside looking in, the Grizzlies and Rockets are having great seasons (you could argue Houston is ahead of schedule), but most folks aren't putting either in the NBA Finals, at least not this season. But the Thunder are almost expected to emerge from the West, and given Gilgeous-Alexander's age, should be in the mix for years to come. Lastly, which team outside this core three is best positioned to join and why? Hollinger: I agree with you that the Thunder are the ones best positioned for a half decade of title contention. They have the best centerpiece player in Gilgeous-Alexander, they have the biggest treasure chest of assets and draft picks, and they still have another year with Holmgren and Williams on their rookie deals, which makes the rest of the cap puzzle so much easier. Memphis and Houston both still have some proving to do when it comes to the postseason especially. Depth and defense have been a big part of the formula for each, but they lack the singular offensive star who can win playoff games by himself, and for each, the overall half-court offense and shooting is also suspect. When the games slow down in the postseason, that could end up being a critical problem. That's why the team outside this core that's best positioned is Dallas. The Mavericks have already shown it when they beat the Thunder (and Minnesota Timberwolves and LA Clippers) a year ago. The Mavs have a young superstar to run the show when things slow down, frontcourt players who can finish what Luka Dončić starts and a complementary second star in Kyrie Irving. They haven't been at full strength this year and could end up with a tough playoff draw, but if I were one of the top three teams in the West, they'd scare me even more than the Denver Nuggets if I saw them in my playoff bracket. (Top photo of Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and Luguentz Dort: Joshua Gateley / Getty Images)
