Kobe Bryant: Are Hometown Deals a Bad Thing?
By Bryce Olin
Kobe Bryant didn’t take a “Hometown Deal” with the Los Angeles Lakers, and he doesn’t think any other player should either. Do you agree?
While in Dallas for a game on Nov. 22, Kobe Bryant opened up to Tim MacMahon of ESPNDallas.com about the “hometown deal,” the situation in which NBA players taking less money in salary to help ownership build a better team around them.
More from Hoops Habit
- The 5 most dominant NBA players who never won a championship
- 7 Players the Miami Heat might replace Herro with by the trade deadline
- Meet Cooper Flagg: The best American prospect since LeBron James
- Are the Miami Heat laying the groundwork for their next super team?
- Sophomore Jump: 5 second-year NBA players bound to breakout
In recent years, LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Dirk Nowitzki, and San Antonio Spurs’ stars Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili have taken less money to ensure the team had enough money to spend on other players, which would ultimately lead to the team having a better chance to win a championship.
Bryant has been criticized by fans and media alike after he signed a two-year contract extension worth $48.5 million. Even with all the criticism, Bryant wouldn’t do anything differently. Here’s a snippet of what Bryant told MacMahon:
"“The player takes less, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I think it’s a big coup for the owners to put players in situations where public perception puts pressure on them to take less money. Because if you don’t, then you get criticized for it."
Bryant is right, at least on this part of the issue. The owners, if they’re able, really have nothing to lose when it comes to trying to convince a player to play for less money than they’re worth. Most teams don’t have players begging to play for their teams like the Miami Heat did when they had James, Wade, and Bosh. The owners have to be able to flash money at other talented players, if the goal is winning a championship.
In a vacuum, it’s all about building a team that can win a championship. That’s the lie all these owners spew to the fans, and we, as fans, eat that up because we want to believe it’s “championship or bust” every season.
The goal for some owners is winning a championship, but at least two-thirds of the league, 20 owners, know they aren’t winning a championship before the season even starts. The goal for those 20 owners is making money. Duh!
So, what good does that do for a player who is now making less money and still isn’t competing for a championship?
The best example of this disparity between ownership and a player is the Oklahoma City Thunder and James Harden situation. I know the Harden trade has been broken down millions of times, but I think it applies in this situation.
If you remember, the Oklahoma City Thunder were fresh off a loss in the NBA Finals to the Miami Heat after reeling off four straight wins against the San Antonio Spurs to win the Western Conference. The Thunder had truly arrived as a mainstay at the top of the West for what would be years as they were constructed. The only problem was Harden was a free agent.
| Season | Age | G | MP | FG | FGA | FG% | 3P% | TRB | AST | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011-12 | 22 | 62 | 31.4 | 5.0 | 10.1 | .491 | .390 | 4.1 | 3.7 | 16.8 |
| Career | 389 | 31.6 | 5.4 | 12.2 | .443 | .367 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 18.3 |
Provided by Basketball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/4/2014.
After excelling as the Sixth Man in OKC, Harden deserved more than the four-year, $55 million contract offered by the Thunder, although it would have made him the highest-paid Sixth Man in NBA history. What the Thunder failed to realize, however, was Harden was much more than a Sixth Man; he was one of the top 15 players in the league.
Why would Harden take $25 million less than what he was ultimately worth just to play for the Thunder, a team that didn’t think he deserved to be paid what he was worth?
As you know, the Thunder traded Harden to the Houston Rockets, and Harden signed a five-year, $80 million contract extension with the Rockets.
While OKC could have found a way to keep Harden and give him the money he was worth (BY AMNESTYING KENDRICK PERKINS!), Thunder General Manager Sam Presti traded Harden to avoid the luxury tax. Here’s what Rob Mahoney of SI.com wrote about the trade a year later:
"In that, the deal for Harden didn’t just offer assets, but the mechanisms necessary for Presti to navigate the next few seasons while steering clear of the luxury tax altogether — a crucial consideration with tax penalties growing ever more severe."
After the lockout-shortened 2011-12 season, in which the Thunder went to the NBA Finals, also known as Harden’s last season in OKC, OKC made a $25 million profit, according to Jon Hamm– not the actor– of Newsok.com. $25 MILLION! They also made $33 million in 2012-13 and $29 million in 2013-14.
When the owners and shareholders are making that much money in profit, no player should ever take a pay cut.
The situation is different for all players, however. Harden was a young player who hadn’t been paid at the time. He was still on his rookie contract. Typically, the players taking hometown deals are on their last legs and want another shot at a title before they’re done like Nowitzki, Parker, Duncan, and Ginobili.
Here’s what Nowitzki told MacMahon about taking less money with the Mavs:
"“I wanted to compete my last couple of years at the highest level. Ever since after the championship, we had a couple of rough years. We missed the playoffs one year, were the eighth seed twice I think, so that was really the main decision.“I wanted to play at a high level my last couple years, and it kind of worked out with getting Parsons, with getting Tyson back here. We feel like we’ve got a good group, and hopefully we can make it work."
I can’t, with any certainty, say hometown deals are a bad thing for the league, at least as they are used now. We aren’t seeing a ton of younger players taking dramatically less than what they’d be worth on the open market to stay with their teams.
Derrick Rose, the youngest MVP in NBA history and playing in his hometown of Chicago, didn’t take a pay cut. Carmelo Anthony took $5 million less TOTAL, not per year, than he could have in free agency this summer. That’s not a pay cut. LeBron James didn’t take a pay cut to return to Cleveland; he makes $21 million per season, although he’s probably worth much more than that. Chris Bosh didn’t take a slight pay cut and sign with Houston. He stayed in Miami and signed for the max, a five-year, $118 million deal.
In a perfect world, sure, every player is going to take exactly what they’re worth, no more, no less.
Of course, that’s never ever going to happen. Players are signed on potential, for what they’ve done in the past, and their value with the franchise. Bryant sees that, and he’s sees how much money the Lakers make off of him in marketing, retail sales, and ticket sales. Without Bryant, the Lakers are below nothing; they’re negative.
Bryant is worth every penny, and probably more, of his Lakers’ contract for everything he’s done for the team AND for everything he means to the team.
Ultimately, each player has to choose what’s best for them, but there’s nothing wrong with getting paid, although that seems to be an unpopular opinion.