Putting The NBA Buyout Market In Context

Much as expected, when former Cleveland Cavaliers center, and former All-Star, Andre Drummond signed with the Los Angeles Lakers much was made about the buyout market and it’s growing effect on the NBA. In the linked article, Sports Illustrated’s Howard Beck spoke to a general manager at a small-market team who made the argument that “the rich get richer” under the current structure.

That’s true, but only to an extent.

Context matters

There is a reason Drummond was available on the buyout market. While his statline of 17.5 points and 13.5 rebounds is outstanding, the Cavaliers couldn’t squeeze as much as a second-rounder out of 29 teams for someone to take him.

In part, that’s due to Drummond often disengaging on the court and also in part due to teams not having the contracts to send out. The few that did were not on a trajectory towards the NBA Finals, and those that were simply had better players occupying those contracts.

The situations were even worse in Detroit and San Antonio, where Blake Griffin and LaMarcus Aldridge, respectively, were bought out only to join the Brooklyn Nets.

Griffin had another year left on his deal after this season and was likely the most untradeable contract in the NBA despite the length of his contract not being significant. The Pistons could have taken on a longer-term contract in theory, but no team with any such contract were willing to fork over draft compensation in order to materialize such a scenario.

The Pistons could have attached their first-round pick to get out of Griffin’s contract, but no rebuilding team would do that, as it would go directly against their primary objective: To build through the draft.

As for Aldridge, his $24 million was expiring, but much like the Drummond situation, no contender had the contracts to really make it work, and the Spurs wouldn’t have sent Aldridge to a bad team, given that their reputation would have suffered dramatically.

Reputation & Trust

Don’t underestimate how much it means for players and agents to have open lines of communications with their teams, in particular during trade talks.

Look no further than the Kyle Lowry situation at this year’s Trade Deadline. While he and the Raptors didn’t find a trade, they worked together to give Lowry the best chance of going to where he wanted to go. Ultimately, no deal was found, but the attempt at doing right by Lowry surely won’t go unnoticed.

Taking care of your players has become an increased priority in recent years for teams, as doing do makes you more attractive to free agents. In fact, not being player friendly will outright risk your team of becoming ignored.

By doing right by especially older players, you also appease the NBPA (National Basketball Players Association) which isn’t without its future potential benefits.

As such, the realities of the situation create a system wherein certain teams stand to benefit, and yes those teams usually play in a big market or are close to winning a championship.

Market size & popularity

If anything, market is where this debate could end up becoming interesting. There is a certain fascination for players in playing in Los Angeles and wearing “Lakers” across their chests for example.

That’s no fault of the Lakers who have spent decades building a brand deeply rooted in championships, starpower, glitz and glamor. California also has great weather, and the connection to Hollywood is obvious and close by.

That’s not the Lakers bending the system to their will, necessarily. That’s the Lakers using the advantages they’ve built over 61 years to get better. If they hadn’t won 12 titles in Tinseltown, while cycling through more stars than the Hollywood Walk of Fame, they likely wouldn’t be as attractive a destination as they are now.

That said, the NBA is a league of parity. At least, that’s the perception. The draft and free agency exist to create a system that’s balanced and, well, fair. That’s a nice thought, but it’s impossible to include all external factors when creating such a set of rules.

Warm weather destinations will for example always have a certain sway that colder destinations won’t have, and that’s unlikely to ever change regardless of whichever set of rules could be implemented to underline the parity portion of the league.

So what to do?

Teams could sit on the players they have under contract and take a unified stance on not buying them out of their contracts to go chasing for a ring. After all, agents can’t keep all their clients away from 25 teams.

But that only works in theory. Every team is actively trying to gain an advantage, and if that means breaking from protocol and stabbing everyone else in the back to get a top-tier superstar, you better believe that’s going to happen.

Besides, you need to get all parties on the same page to fundamentally change the system, and that’s a tough sell for the NBPA which supports player movement.

At the end of the day, these benefits come with the territory. If you are elite, you are likely going to get even better via the buyout market every single year. But what’s crucial to remember is that the players in question are finding themselves on that market for a reason.