if i were a betting man, i'd guess that sarver doesn't go anywhere and that this doesn't boil over into real pressure.
i'm not one.

Don't bet against billionaires.

There's no solidarity like plutocrat class solidarity, that's for sure.

I agree this is unlikely to result in Sarver's ouster, but I don't think it's impossible. I think the only way it happens is if the players (and NBA media, who seem pretty in line with player outrage) make it an untenable public black eye for the league that it chose to back a racist and sexist owner.

It's also interesting to think about this in the context of the upcoming CBA negotiations, which are already clearly going to be a negotiation of how much power players have vs owners. So far that has been around the player empowerment and trade requests, and ownership is clearly going to hold a hard line there, but it will be equally interesting to see if the NBAPA chooses to push on owner accountability.

Suns are probably good enough to forfeit a few games and not risk missing the playoffs. If Paul, Booker, Bridges, and Ayton collectively refuse to play home games, that'll hit the pocketbook pretty quickly. Each game that all four sit probably cuts the win probablity by something like 50% (e.g. from 80% to 30%). Last year, they could have done that for half the season and still been in the mix for the #1 seed.

Visiting stars like LeBron, Steph, etc could also schedule load management days when their teams go to Phoenix, which doubles the pressure.

I don't love player protests dramatically influencing game outcomes like that, but they have more at stake in all ways than I do, so I am likely OK with whatever they do.

There's zero chance that stars will sit out 50% of the season.

I would set the over under at one regular season game.

Interesting discussion. I agree that "forcing Sarver out" would be unlikely, but in today's NBA and today's megamedia environment, I do not see it as an impossibility.

same error as you all thinking players can force trades when they cant. there is real money at stake here and big boys with big boy lawyers. If Sarver wants to sell he'll sell; if he doesn't he won't. Some guys would rather just take their 1 billion and slip back into obscurity rather than have the media talk every night about what a racist they are; some guys get their rocks off giving the world the double bird. that dictates the outcome, not some sort of magical thinking legal theory of how the owners are going to change the rules ex post to create a pretext to strip Sarver of his team and stare down the barrel of a gazillion dollars in legal liability for forcing Sarver into a fire sale.*

ATEOTD, the players are just talent and fungible and don't really have much power at all to dictate who owns teams, unless they want to buy a team, in which case, save LeBron, they better start investing.


*also, franchise values are materially affected if the league can force you to fire sale based on political whim. and that indirectly affects every owners pocket because it affects resale value. thats why they have a robust filter up front when you buy in, because the idea is that you need certainty that once you get past that filter and you put up $X hundred million of capital, you are good unless you have a Edwin Edwards dead girl live boy situation.

same error as you all thinking players can force trades when they cant.

It's not an "error." Everybody knew that Durant was under contact legally and BKN ownership could tell him to shove it and play ball, as they appear to have done. But the key here is that guys like James and Durant, as well as the media machine, have other sorts of power that can be used for a simple reason: fans and sponsors mostly don't give a shitt who the owner is anymore than they give a shitt who the refs are (unless the owner deeply sucks in his/her role in team building). There are not pix of Tsai and Sarver on the new NBA 2k23 and no one sells replicas of what Sarver wears, but they do sell Chris Paul jerseys.

Your "error" is not realizing that owners, are, in a way, 100% "fungible" in pro sports. Silver can find some other billionaire to buy the Suns if something happens with Sarver or if Sarver becomes enough of a PR liability that Silver decides to try to mess with him.

That said, I agree with Der-K: it will probably blow over once the games start, because fans watch the Suns to see Paul and Booker, not Sarver.

I don't think the Sarver situation is particularly similar to Durant's trade request.

I don't think the Sarver situation is particularly similar to Durant's trade request.

If this is directed at me, then you're missing the point of what I said. I referenced the Durant situation because that is what zop was talking about. zop is correct ofc that the owners have legal power over what they own and that contacts are binding; this system is known as "capitalism." But there are other types of power in play that NBA stars/sponsors/league officials have that owners don't. NBA stars aren't guys stocking shelves at a Wal-Mart. So to assume that a guy like Sarver can just easily say, \"#### you, I'm the owner" is not an accurate reading of the power dynamics that are in play. Donald Sterling would be a good guy to ask; while that was going on, there were a few guys who jumped on to this thread saying that Sterling was not going anywhere.

The players definitely have power. The NBA knows one big reason it is so successful is the really good relationship they have with the players. I don't think the rest of the owners would be willing to wreck that relationship for the sake of one owner. But I also don't think the Sarver situation is enough to ruin that relationship. It is not great though, which is why Sarver got the penalty he did. The NBA is trying to walk a middle ground. It will probably work.

Can we ban Kyrie Irving for life too?

Robin, if you're ever confused, I'm not disagreeing with you. I promise I will start with saying, "I disagree with Robin."

I was pushing back on 'zop's suggestion that it is the same error in thinking players can force trades.

That said:

Your "error" is not realizing that owners, are, in a way, 100% "fungible" in pro sports. Silver can find some other billionaire to buy the Suns if something happens with Sarver or if Sarver becomes enough of a PR liability that Silver decides to try to mess with him.

I disagree a little bit with this. I think the wild run-up in franchise prices have led to owners being more valuable than perhaps they used to be. It's hard to find people with a couple billion in liquid assets who want to buy a team, and are going to get along with the old boys club.

I disagree a little bit with this. I think the wild run-up in franchise prices have led to owners being more valuable than perhaps they used to be. It's hard to find people with a couple billion in liquid assets who want to buy a team, and are going to get along with the old boys club.

You may be right, but I will say that I am skeptical. I guess the test would be to put the Sacramento Kings up for sale, which IMO is probably the least desirable among the 30 franchises from an owner POV, and see what happens. But I think between the ego aspect and franchise values appreciating, they can always find owners. I do not think that there will be a shortage of people who want to own expansion franchises when the league expands.

Can we ban Kyrie Irving for life too?

There's a nontrivial chance that Irving's current contract is the last one he gets the NBA and that next year he's playing in China or Europe, ala Stephon Marbury. (Granted that on a per game basis Irving is a significantly better player than Marbury was at this point in his career.)

I think both things can be true! There are probably fewer billionaires looking to get into the business, but the owners are still significantly more fungible than the players.

Your "error" is not realizing that owners, are, in a way, 100% "fungible" in pro sports. Silver can find some other billionaire to buy the Suns if something happens with Sarver or if Sarver becomes enough of a PR liability that Silver decides to try to mess with him.

This is wrong! The issue is that while there are plenty of billion dollar people/entities who want to buy sports teams, every encumbrance you put on owning a sports team reduces its value. So while there are other Sarvers willing to buy the Suns, they wont pay the same price if they can be forced to fire sale the team based on political environment / dislike for the owner. You actually already see that effect in that European franchises trade at higher multiples than comparable US franchises. (European leagues have much looser rules about who can buy in - they permit all sorts of financial buyers that are not allowed in the US.) Put differently, strict rules against defenestrating owners for misconduct benefit all the other owners in the league almost as much as they benefit the guy who people want to defenestrate.

You can always find another owner - but at what price. Anything that shrinks the pool of interested buyers ultimately lowers franchise values. So in that sense, owners are never fungible, because each potential owner drives up the price by an incremental amount.

The players definitely have power. The NBA knows one big reason it is so successful is the really good relationship they have with the players.

Yes and no. The players have little power - but to be successful the NBA needs to create the illusion of player power so it isn't so obviously a weird black labor/white capital dynamic. So the NBA is invested in making it look like the players are partners. Plus, a big reason the NBA owners are NBA owners and not NFL/MLB owners is that they tend to run more progressive / blue state: its politically and socially awkward in the owners' peer groups to transparently exploit the players. A lot of these guys buy the teams partly as an investment and partly as a toy - looking like a racist ####### undermines the thesis for buying in.

Yes and no. The players have little power - but to be successful the NBA needs to create the illusion of player power so it isn't so obviously a weird black labor/white capital dynamic.

Oh wow, I really disagree with this. LeBron James is probably the single most powerful actor in the NBA.

Yes and no. The players have little power - but to be successful the NBA needs to create the illusion of player power so it isn't so obviously a weird black labor/white capital dynamic. So the NBA is invested in making it look like the players are partners

it wasn't too long ago that david stern tried to go scorched earth against the players during a lockout, to the point that the players association was openly considering forming their own league. stern retired very shortly after that lockout.


"player empowerment" is not some act of largesse granted to them by their "owners". it's something they won through collective action, and maintain by the ongoing threat that they can (as a nuclear option) cut the owners out and start their own league.

Oh wow, I really disagree with this. LeBron James is probably the single most powerful actor in the NBA.

In what sense? So long as he generates revenue in excess of his max salary, he makes some owner money, but other guys do that too. It's also cool to be able to introduce your friends and business partners to LeBron. He's also probably gotten so rich now that he does have real power by dint of being a true billionaire who can buy a team - in the same way Jordan is. But like, no one really gives a #### what LeBron says - the world's most famous player is still just that. If LeBron hangs it up tomorrow, how much do league revenues decline next year: 0.1%?

But like, no one really gives a #### what LeBron says - the world's most famous player is still just that. If LeBron hangs it up tomorrow, how much do league revenues decline next year: 0.1%?

That's an odd criterion. Is there anyone in the NBA, owner or player, whose death would affect revenues drastically? And yet we can't conclude that nobody has any power.

it wasn't too long ago that david stern tried to go scorched earth against the players during a lockout, to the point that the players association was openly considering forming their own league. stern retired very shortly after that lockout

David Stern won that lockout categorically. He retired because he was old and in ill health. Stern's whole schtick - and it was a wildly successful schtick - was to MARKET the players and create the appearance of a player-focused league while keeping as high a share of the revenues as possible. Sleeves off your vest - who cares if the players get marketed as the center of the league so long as you keep the money? The ###### up part of the NFL is that the owners can't even get out of the way of their own d*cks - they need not just to make money off the players, but to make it publicly clear that the players are whaleshit. Its the difference between sophisticated ownership and a bunch of third gen families run by mediocrities.

"player empowerment" is not some act of largesse granted to them by their "owners". it's something they won through collective action, and by the ongoing threat that they can cut the owners out by starting their own league.

That threat is basically empty. The startup costs are massive, and the venues for such a league and TV partners are limited. LIV literally needs sovereign-level support and the jury is still out if it will work. That threat keeps ownership from keeping for itself an obscene percentage of the profit; instead they merely keep a disgusting percentage. Either way, the players are ######.

That's an odd criterion. Is there anyone in the NBA, owner or player, whose death would affect revenues drastically? And yet we can't conclude that nobody has any power.

The league is set up explicitly in that manner - to ensure that no one person has the power to make changes that would harm the investments of the owners. It's designed to have a lot of inertia and to require consensus for changes, to not be nimble. To the extent anyone in the league has power, its probably the collection of 10 or so gold-plated franchises that could theoretically force the small markets to accept worse terms in order to be permitted to continue to share a league with the big boys who generate 2x the revenue. But even that power is sort of hidden, because to do that, the gold-plated franchises would have to accept enormous - borderline intolerable - political fallout and short/medium term loss of revenues. (See the SuperLeague they tried to form in Europe; compare the conference realignment in CFB.)

The narrative driven, this person has power that person has less, way of describing the league is a media-created myth. Stories need characters, arc, drama; stories sell papers. The reality - that it's a bunch of very smart, very rich men, negotiating and strategizing to become even richer men and hopefully vaguely famous men - is not particularly interesting and not a particularly good way to market a league.

In what sense?

I think informing 3 different teams, including the most valuable team in the league*, that he was going to play with them, and then forcing through a variety of personnel changes probably qualifies one as powerful in a very real sense.

(*EDIT: I might have screwed this up, the Knicks seem to be slightly more valuable by various estimates. For basketball reasons, presumably.)

You actually already see that effect in that European franchises trade at higher multiples than comparable US franchises. (European leagues have much looser rules about who can buy in - they permit all sorts of financial buyers that are not allowed in the US.

The most recent team sale in the Premier League, by far the most valuable European league, was Newcastle last year to the public investment fund of Saudi Arabia, for $400 million and change. I'm not sure that would get you even a third of the Orlando Magic.

Obviously Barcelona and Madrid and United are on a different level, but still well, well behind the Cowboys (and several other NFL teams) or Yankees or even Knicks in value. (The Spanish teams also aren't strictly buyable and sellable so it's a little hard to compare.)

EDIT: Chelsea! Duh, just sold recently. I have a cold my brain isn't working, didn't ignore them on purpose. Now we're getting a little closer- $3+ billion, but that's still not getting you one of the most valuable American teams.

That threat is basically empty. The startup costs are massive, and the venues for such a league and TV partners are limited. LIV literally needs sovereign-level support and the jury is still out if it will work. That threat keeps ownership from keeping for itself an obscene percentage of the profit; instead they merely keep a disgusting percentage. Either way, the players are ######.

the threat isn't empty at all. the startup costs are easily offset by early investors (oh btw, players like durant, curry, lebron and CP3 have those people on speed dial), and TV deals.

and the NBPA already has a proof of concept: it's called the "big3".


they don't need to run an 82 game season. they only need to run one arena per week to get that TV money flowing in.

It's probably fundamentally unknowable but I think I'm with zop on the breakaway threat being unrealistic, I think fans are way too tied to the history and laundry for that to ever work.

As to the Sarver thing, I don't think he's the owner of the Suns in one year (feel free to remind me of this if I turn out to be wrong!). I don't know if that will prove anyone right or wrong about player power, I think there will probably be a lot of people involved in this one.

I will say that the minority owner (and jersey sponsor) coming out against Sarver was unexpected to me and my confidence that Sarver will ride this out has significantly lowered.

The most recent team sale in the Premier League, by far the most valuable European league, was Newcastle last year to the public investment fund of Saudi Arabia, for $400 million and change. I'm not sure that would get you even a third of the Orlando Magic.

Obviously Barcelona and Madrid and United are on a different level, but still well, well behind the Cowboys (and several other NFL teams) or Yankees or even Knicks in value. (The Spanish teams also aren't strictly buyable and sellable so it's a little hard to compare.)

EDIT: Chelsea! Duh, just sold recently. I have a cold my brain isn't working, didn't ignore them on purpose. Now we're getting a little closer- $3+ billion, but that's still not getting you one of the most valuable American teams.

You are looking at absolute values, not multiples of financial metrics. That's the wrong comparison. The soccer teams make less money for the owners compared to US franchises but sell at higher multiples to those earnings/cashflow.

The soccer teams make less money for the owners compared to US franchises but sell at higher multiples to those earnings/cashflow.

As far as I can tell this is incorrect, the highest value soccer teams produce greater annual revenue and sell for smaller amounts.

You are confusing revenue with earnings or free cash flow.

Really good discussion on this topic on latest Lowe Post btw.

Cliff's Notes version of the podcast:

1. Silver conflated being forced to sell with being banned in a way that is not 100% true. Silver has the power to ban Sarver from NBA arenas for life at basically his own discretion.
2. The actions described in the report were problematic from a legal standpoint, but statute of limitations prevent legal action.
3. The report tried to use animus as a way to differentiate Sterling's conduct from Sarver. Animus is not legally relevant.
4. The lack of an audio or video recording is the big difference between Sterling's conduct and Sarver's in Lowe's mind.
5. Lowe implies that instead of talking about Sarver being forced to sell the team, we should think instead about whether Silver will be pressured to ban Sarver.

Cosign the Lowe Post podcast, great examination of the legal details of all of this.

Listening also sort of codified for me that I think the framing of this as owner vs player power isn't correct. It's owner power to do whatever they like with their teams vs public opinion and by extension the money of the league. In theory the owners control the teams and do what they like; it is completely true that Chris Paul and LeBron James have no individual power to force Sarver out (and the distinction Lowe focused on between forcing a sale and banning is crucial as one requires a united supermajority of owners and the other simply the commissioner), but it is also true that the NBA exists as it does because the public pays money to consume it and because sponsors pay money to have their names associated. How much bad PR and economic pressure will it take for Silver to decide Sarver is a liability he can't afford? How much more for the rest of the owners to agree? Those feel like the questions that will decide how this all plays out, and feel completely in the air right now.

You are confusing revenue with earnings or free cash flow.

No it's just much easier to find. Way too much back and forth on this already but there's just not anything out there to support your claim, which was my point.

No it's just much easier to find. Way too much back and forth on this already but there's just not anything out there to support your claim, which was my point.

'zop is correct on this point.

Here's a comparison of revenue vs. wages.

This % is fixed in the NBA as 51% of BRI. In association football, Man City, for instance sends 62% of their revenue to wages. Chelsea is even higher, at 76%.

While profitability is not public, 'zop's basic point is true and not particularly controversial.

The players have little power - but to be successful the NBA needs to create the illusion of player power so it isn't so obviously a weird black labor/white capital dynamic.

I disagree with this. I think employees have power, and employees like NBA stars - wealthy and with endless opportunities to put their case before the world - have real power, especially with an easy villain like a racist billionaire. At worst they can hurt the NBA bottom line a great deal. Obviously, the players don't want to do that - the genius of revenue sharing - but the league wants to make sure the players continue to not want to do that.

Soft power is still power.

The issue is that while there are plenty of billion dollar people/entities who want to buy sports teams, every encumbrance you put on owning a sports team reduces its value

According to a quick search and using Forbes, Sarver bought the Suns for 404m and they were worth 1.88B as of 2021. If the league messing with him means that they sell for a little less, then I would surmise that might mean more possible buyers, not fewer.

As to power, I work in leadership at my college, and there are different kinds: financial, legal, optical, personal, political. There is power in individuals and power in groups. If, say, Chris Paul announced that he will not shake Sarver's hand when he sees him, will not do promotional events for the team as long as Sarver owns it, and will not appear in public at any event where Sarver is, that is using a form of power. Sure, Sarver could throw a fit and order Paul to do these things, or order him to be traded, but how does that look for a guy who has had the findings of that type of investigation sustained against him?

And that ofc does not include the fact that Silver, not Sarver, runs the NBA, as shipman points out.

NBA players are not fungible assets. Keeping your stars and convincing other stars to join your team is important. Torpedoing your ability to do that is a bad long-term plan to improve the value of your team.

The issue is that while there are plenty of billion dollar people/entities who want to buy sports teams, every encumbrance you put on owning a sports team reduces its value

According to a quick search and using Forbes, Sarver bought the Suns for 404m and they were worth 1.88B as of 2021. If the league messing with him means that they sell for a little less, then I would surmise that might mean more possible buyers, not fewer.

As to power, I work in leadership at my college, and there are different kinds: financial, legal, optical, personal, political. There is power in individuals and power in groups. If, say, Chris Paul announced that he will not shake Sarver's hand when he sees him, will not do promotional events for the team as long as Sarver owns it, and will not appear in public at any event where Sarver is, that is using a form of power. Sure, Sarver could throw a fit and order Paul to do these things, or order him to be traded, but how does that look for a guy who has had the findings of that type of investigation sustained against him?

And that ofc does not include the fact that Silver, not Sarver, runs the NBA, as shipman points out.

Sorry for double post.

Sorry for double post.

Read through the page a few times now.
I gotta be honest… Robin definitely got this wrong. I don’t need to explain why. Y’all read the page and decide for yourself. I said it before and I’m gonna say it again, there is no place in this thread for that kind of behavior. I love this thread and I deeply respect our leadership. But this isn’t right. There is no place for double posting in any BBTF thread. Don’t matter if you started the thread or just post in the thread. We hold our NBA discussion up as an example of our values and this aint it.

Sorry for double post.

Read through the page a few times now.
I gotta be honest… Robin definitely got this wrong. I don’t need to explain why. Y’all read the page and decide for yourself. I said it before and I’m gonna say it again, there is no place in this thread for that kind of behavior. I love this thread and I deeply respect our leadership. But this isn’t right. There is no place for double posting in any BBTF thread. Don’t matter if you started the thread or just post in the thread. We hold our NBA discussion up as an example of our values and this aint it.

Edit: sorry for double post.

You know who else has power in the NBA?

Advertisers. Advertisers have power (and advertisers often have ties with players).

Today, PayPal CEO and President Dan Schulman released the following statement regarding the status of PayPal’s sponsorship with the Phoenix Suns:

"PayPal is a values-driven company and has a strong record of combatting racism, sexism, and all forms of discrimination. We have reviewed the report of the NBA league's independent investigation into Phoenix Suns owner Robert Sarver and have found his conduct unacceptable and in conflict with our values. PayPal’s sponsorship with the Suns is set to expire at the end of the current season. In light of the findings of the NBA's investigation, we will not renew our sponsorship should Robert Sarver remain involved with the Suns organization, after serving his suspension.

"While we strongly reject the conduct of Robert Sarver, we remain supportive of the team, its players, and the experienced and diverse talent now leading the organization, including: Head Coach Monty Williams, General Manager James Jones, Assistant General Manager Morgan Cato, and Senior Vice President of People and Culture Kim Corbitt."

Good post Mouse (not sarcastic).

And if anyone knows about values, it's Peter Thiel (sarcastic).

Other actions that do not reflect shipman's values:

Marc Stein
@TheSteinLine
Dennis Schroder has agreed to a one-year deal to return to the Lakers,
@PrioritySports
CEO Mark Bartelstein tells
@TheSteinLine
.

The Lakers have Russ, Schroder and PatBev who are probably 3 of my 5 least favorite players in the league. Absolutely brutal. At least they didn't trade for Kyrie.

The Captain Obvious rumor is that bringing Schroder back means that Westbrook will finally be gone, be it via trade, buyout, or just cutting him and eating the money. We will know soon enough, I think.

I don't much like Beverley either from an emotional standpoint, but I do think that he will help this year's Lakers team.

ESPN Los Angeles
@ESPNLosAngeles
·
5h
Dennis Schröder: “I’m coming back to the biggest organization to make sh***t right!” (via ds17_fg/IG) #LakeShow

I think my new handle will be "rr is coming back to make sh***t right!"

This % is fixed in the NBA as 51% of BRI. In association football, Man City, for instance sends 62% of their revenue to wages. Chelsea is even higher, at 76%.

While profitability is not public, 'zop's basic point is true and not particularly controversial.

I'm ready to believe that it's true that EPL franchises sell for higher multiples than US sports franchises, but personally I think it's a pretty big stretch to think that that's because US sports franchises are more encumbered.

Mainly, I think that it just reflects that EPL teams are more attractive to more rich entities (Middle Eastern sovereign wealth, random Asian billionaires, random US billionaires and their PE backers). I think for the first two entities, respectively value EPL teams because they are way more popular globally and therefore a more effective sports washing play and because they just like the EPL more and it's a more attractive luxury good.

Also, to the extent that NBA franchises are "encumbered," those encumberances are primarily driven by the owners (via their paid representative, the commissioner) for the benefit of owners. It primarily prevents undercapitalized groups from buying in and not investing in the product and every once in a while it prevents rogue owners from lowering the value of the collective entity with their jackassery. I agree that in this case player empowerment is a red herring -- it's just one component. It's bad for business to piss off the talent, to piss off sponsors, to piss off the fans who ultimately pay for everything.

Yeah, maybe Sarver is the type of guy who wants to flip the double bird and is willing to destroy millions of enterprise value to own the libs, but the rest of the owners own a big piece of his revenue through revenue sharing and I'm sure are not excited to subsidize these antics.

Thus, as on Arrakis, the power to destroy something is the absolute control over it. One source of power players and other entities (fans?) have is to destroy some degree of their team or NBA's revenues. So whatever influence you think players have over fan (read: revenue) behavior is how much power they have. I think it's a meaningful amount.

I'm ready to believe that it's true that EPL franchises sell for higher multiples than US sports franchises, but personally I think it's a pretty big stretch to think that that's because US sports franchises are more encumbered.

Mainly, I think that it just reflects that EPL teams are more attractive to more rich entities (Middle Eastern sovereign wealth, random Asian billionaires, random US billionaires and their PE backers). I think for the first two entities, respectively value EPL teams because they are way more popular globally and therefore a more effective sports washing play and because they just like the EPL more and it's a more attractive luxury good.

Man City wasn't more popular globally in 2008 than a number of US sports teams. The Golden State Warriors sold for 450 million in 2010. It's unclear what City's sale price was in 2008, but it seems like it was less than that since revenue was just 100mm pounds. PSG was purchased in 2011 for 100mm GBP, to give a similar sense of scale.

What made City attractive from a sportwashing sense was that there were no limits on salaries, and it was relatively straight-forward to take a random PL team and make them an all-star team basically overnight. This is not feasible in US sports. Further, there are practically no encumbrances on ownership decisions. PSG wants to have Visit Qatar as their shirt sponsor? sure. You want to sign half of Europe? Ok.

In addition, they are able to target teams that desperately need to sell due to debt. In the US, teams are practically constrained in the amount of debt they can take on. The Rockets are probably the team most in debt, and they wouldn't crack the EPL's top 5. Fulham, a team I have barely heard of, is 232 million pounds in debt. The team itself is estimated to be worth 132 million pounds. This level of absolutely ###### is not possible in US sports. It enables the various sheiks to come in with offers that cannot be refused.

Yeah, but it's the upside of becoming a champion in the biggest league in the biggest sport that's attractive. The encumberences of the NBA prevent there from being distressed assets, which again primarily benefit existing owners.

So yeah those encumberances make US pro sports franchises less appealing as sports washing targets or PE cash extraction plays a la Manchester United. As a luxury good an NBA franchise also primarily appeals to US rich people vs most other global rich people.

My main point is to the extent that the cartel setup of the NBA might boot Sarver out it's because the existing owners want it that way, and that higher valuation multiples for soccer teams have almost nothing to do with it.

My main point is to the extent that the cartel setup of the NBA might boot Sarver out it's because the existing owners want it that way, and that higher valuation multiples for soccer teams have almost nothing to do with it.

On this we agree. I disagree with 'zop's overall argument (indeed, with his entire worldview), but I was trying to narrowly address the issues of:

1. Do European soccer teams sell for more than we would expect based on their earnings?--I think this is an unambiguous yes.
2. Does the ownership structure of American vs. European sports leagues contribute to that?--I think this is less clear since there are valid cultural explanations, but I think on balance, the answer is probably yes.

Sorry if I was confusing.

Oh for sure, as usual we're generally in agreement.

Former Spurs assistant coach Becky Hammon won the WNBA title today as the head coach of the Las Vegas Aces. She really unlocked their potential after they were, IMO, held back by Bill Laimbeer's style.

Yeah - excited about this. I became a bit of an Aces fan this year with Hammon and their attractive style of basketball.

Didn't catch nearly as much of the WNBA playoffs as I'd have liked, but the Seattle Storm played them very, very tough.

In other basketball news, Eurobasket concludes with Spain winning yet again, behind 27 points from their star, Juancho Hernangomez.

as on Arrakis

Nice pull.

The quality of play overall in the W is so, so much better than even 5 years ago IMO.

The Aces are an incredible team. Chelsea Gray shot 54 percent from three and 65 percent from two on 15 shots a game (and these are 40 minute games) these playoffs. That's outrageous.

73% TS from a guard on 26% USG is unimaginable. One of the most ridiculous playoff runs I've ever seen.

Also, to the extent that NBA franchises are "encumbered," those encumberances are primarily driven by the owners (via their paid representative, the commissioner) for the benefit of owners. It primarily prevents undercapitalized groups from buying in and not investing in the product and every once in a while it prevents rogue owners from lowering the value of the collective entity with their jackassery. I agree that in this case player empowerment is a red herring -- it's just one component. It's bad for business to piss off the talent, to piss off sponsors, to piss off the fans who ultimately pay for everything.

Sure, but the number of fans who this pisses off enough to keep them from coming to games is really low - in a state like Arizona, I'd guesstimate the percentage of the target market identifying as progressive is <20%. The talent doesn't care - checks from a bigot cash just as quickly as checks from Enlightened Owner. It may, on the margins, make Phoenix an unattractive destination for supermax talent, but Phoenix was already an unattractive destination for supermax talent: Giannis wasn't walking through that door. And vis-a-vis sponsors, the playbook recommended by crisis PR specialists is to a make a public fuss about how outraged you are, then business as usual a few months later. There are exceptions: the Washington Commanders lost 3 sponsors, one of which (Anheuser-Busch) was material to their revenues and not easy to replace.

Yeah, maybe Sarver is the type of guy who wants to flip the double bird and is willing to destroy millions of enterprise value to own the libs, but the rest of the owners own a big piece of his revenue through revenue sharing and I'm sure are not excited to subsidize these antics.

That's true, but that's reflected in the governance documents. Big picture, what owners want is a strong filter at the buy-in stage, to keep out people whose conduct could harm league revenues, and then a very high bar to take ownership away, because once people have put in equity they don't want to be separated from their investment based on the political winds / other-owner skullduggery. As an owner, you take the risk of tolerating a Sarver because first they came for Sarver, and I said nothing, and then they said ownership should be 25% minority and they're looking at my team as a target.

What made City attractive from a sportwashing sense was that there were no limits on salaries, and it was relatively straight-forward to take a random PL team and make them an all-star team basically overnight. This is not feasible in US sports. Further, there are practically no encumbrances on ownership decisions. PSG wants to have Visit Qatar as their shirt sponsor? sure. You want to sign half of Europe? Ok.

This is a part of it, but a small part of it. It's not why so many "alternative investment funds" (read: PE sponsors and hedge funds) have bought European soccer teams, either openly or as minority investors. Financial buyers want that cash flow.

In addition, they are able to target teams that desperately need to sell due to debt. In the US, teams are practically constrained in the amount of debt they can take on. The Rockets are probably the team most in debt, and they wouldn't crack the EPL's top 5. Fulham, a team I have barely heard of, is 232 million pounds in debt. The team itself is estimated to be worth 132 million pounds. This level of absolutely ###### is not possible in US sports. It enables the various sheiks to come in with offers that cannot be refused.

This is not right - and here I'm speaking from personal experience. You're correct that US franchises are precluded from incurring the same level of debt as European clubs. But there have been plenty of desperate-to-sell US franchises due to financial stress - you just don't hear about it because it's kept under wraps, in part because US franchise revenue streams exists not just at the franchise entity but at other related parties (RSNs, SPEs for other financed revenue streams, etc). There is a lot of financial maneuvering to maximize leverage and that necessarily creates big pockets of distress. In Europe, the franchises also bankrupt themselves, but there are very competitive sales processes between the sheiks and financial buyers (because unlike the US, financial buyers are allowed), so its not like the distressed sales go for undermarket values. What does happen in Europe is that the financial buyers are allowed to participate in the auctions, they're allowed to lever up the franchises with PE-style leverage to juice the returns which allows them to pay higher prices than they would for US franchises (if they were even allowed to bid, which they are not), and at the end of the day its just a much less distorted market that is more geared to optimizing franchise value at the expense of periodic insolvencies. US leagues, with out relegation and with their robust protections against defenestration of franchises/owners, cannot afford to have franchise insolvencies and so have higher leverage limits (which means you can't maximize the value of the revenue stream) and strongly prefer ownership by individuals or well-capitalized corporations.

I know this sort of #### is anathema to the thread, but it is actually how it works, as unsavory as it may seem. To be clear I don't support it, but I think it's important to consider the world as it is, not as we wish it were.

Shams Charania @ShamsCharania
Sources: NBA and NBPA in serious talks on new items for potential Collective Bargaining Agreement:
- Draft age eligibility from 19 to 18, return of high school-to-NBA

For the 2024 draft. (I assume the actual rule will just allow high school to draft jumps and not actually cut off the decent chunk of high school grads who aren't yet 18 by draft day.)

Sure, but the number of fans who this pisses off enough to keep them from coming to games is really low

This may be true, but the NBA makes its money from television and merchandising ahead of gate revenue. The risk to the league, and also the source of most of the player soft power some of us are referencing, is public approbation and player protest affecting viewership trends and merchandise purchases. LeBron and Chris Paul can't get Sarver kicked out, but can Nike? Can TNT? How much of a PR black eye around this is tenable?

I'm not particularly knowledgable about the financial side of sports leagues and ownership pretty intentionally, as it's an area of neither expertise nor interest to me, so I'll gladly defer to the more informed there. It's obviously the case that owners are reticent to oust Sarver exactly because they don't want to set any precedent that could be turned against them down the line (especially after Sterling). But I continue to think that any analysis that stops there is missing the broader picture here, which is that the NBA is an entertainment product and as such must be responsive to its sponsors, corporate and broadcast, and also to viewership itself. The optics around the Sarver non-ban have been awful and they have been loud.

This is currently a crisis for Adam Silver and the NBA, though I don't think it's knowable how large a crisis, certainly not to those of us not privy to private info. But that's also why it's so interesting. Do the NBA owners have the power to circle their wagons and weather the storm of player, media, and fan disapproval of their choice to protect a sexist, racist rich guy from the consequences anyone else would face for his actions? Maybe, maybe not. If the NBA were a private venture that didn't need tv and advertisement money, it surely would, but it isn't, so we shall see.

but can Nike? Can TNT? How much of a PR black eye around this is tenable?

Nike and Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (parent company of TNT) are public companies. They can't "get Sarver kicked out" except insofar as his conduct affects their bottom line (which it doesn't - at least materially), and they also need to take into consideration the cost of picking a fight with the other 29 owners. That Sarver's conduct is unsavory is basically irrelevant to how they respond. Republicans buy stock too.

If ratings collapsed, then sure. But that is a really unlikely scenario.

disapproval of their choice to protect a sexist, racist rich guy from the consequences anyone else would face for his actions? Maybe, maybe not. If the NBA were a private venture that didn't need tv and advertisement money, it surely would, but it isn't, so we shall see.

Paradoxically I think its the other way around. If the stakeholders here weren't mostly big public companies - or in the case of the NBA itself, bound by governance rules put in place long before modern political mores - then it would be easier to kick out Sarver because people think he's a racist/sexist. But as it stands, you have fiduciaries who are bound to act in their stockholders' economic interest, you have officers who aren't going to willfully breach bylaws and what have you unless the exigency of doing so outweighs the potential liability. If this were the NCAA Sarver would've been gone months ago, if Sarver was an at-will employee he would've been gone months ago. But here you have a case where the target has a legitimate property interest and no one has a mandate to say "damn the torpedoes, lets kick this guy out and deal with the litigation later". So he sticks around.

Shams Charania @ShamsCharania
Sources: NBA and NBPA in serious talks on new items for potential Collective Bargaining Agreement:
- Draft age eligibility from 19 to 18, return of high school-to-NBA

this is not a good thing for the NBA, imo.

NCAA players are finally getting paid real, actual money, over the table, and yet, THIS is the moment you decide to rip this band aid off? i know this was a priority for the NBPA for as long as lebron has been pushing their priorities from the inside, but there's no good reason to do this before the NIL stuff plays out for a few years.

I should add - you might see this resolved with a Snyder-esque solution, where Sarver keeps his "bare economic interest" in the team and has to delegate a representative - in Snyder's case, he picked his wife - with management authority to run the team on his behalf.

There we're agreed, and it's part of why I was so interested in the forced sale/banned distinction the Baxter Holmes episode of the Lowe Post highlighted. I think, given how this doesn't seem like it is just going to go away like the NBA hoped it would, the most likely outcome may well be Sarver being banned by Silver without being forced to sell, so that owners aren't forced to make an owner sell but the NBA also is able to say it held a hard line against Sarver. (Second-most likely, I think, is no change but a lot of noise. Least likely is a forced sale.)

I wonder how much a functional G League factors into the reduction in draft age.

the most likely outcome may well be Sarver being banned by Silver without being forced to sell, so that owners aren't forced to make an owner sell but the NBA also is able to say it held a hard line against Sarver

that's unlikely because it would probably force Sarver to litigate the question of whether Silver can do that under the bylaws, which is litigation the other owners don't want. More likely is a consensual agreement that Sarver will step away from management of the team in lieu of his wife/older son, with an understanding that what they really want is for him to disappear out of the public eye

NCAA players are finally getting paid real, actual money, over the table, and yet, THIS is the moment you decide to rip this band aid off? i know this was a priority for the NBPA for as long as lebron has been pushing their priorities from the inside, but there's no good reason to do this before the NIL stuff plays out for a few years.

I wonder how much a functional G League factors into the reduction in draft age.

I think the NBA is making its move to try and have the G league compete with the NCAA. And I think that's the right move. If they wait too long, and it turns out the top players can make decent coin being the face of Duke for a couple of years, then the G league will never compete. But if the NBA moves now, the G league could be seen as a viable minor league product, or even a 2nd tier league like soccer has. There's a lot of things the G league can offer that the college experience can't.

I think the NBA is making its move to try and have the G league compete with the NCAA. And I think that's the right move. If they wait too long, and it turns out the top players can make decent coin being the face of Duke for a couple of years, then the G league will never compete. But if the NBA moves now, the G league could be seen as a viable minor league product, or even a 2nd tier league like soccer has. There's a lot of things the G league can offer that the college experience can't.

i don't think the NBA cares.

the age limit has always been a negotiation chip that the league dangles in front the players when the CBA comes up, daring them to grab it at the expense of some other minor detail that would let the owners keep more money.

the players have never taken it because the cost to them would have been too high, but now that lebron james is nearing retirement age, he might not care so much about what it costs the players in the long term.

NBA fans are trapped. This game sucks, and gets worse every year, but it’s the only game in town. 2K have them, the NBA has them, and so long as they do, this game will keep offering as little as it can get away with, while trying to extract the most money it can get away with. With no competition to worry about, and a fanbase dulled by a decade of shakedown, the system in which the 2K series is operating was designed just for this moment.
[...]
If you’re happy with the shakedown, or are happy paying full price for the half a game that’s unaffected, then by all means keep buying it. But if you’re tired of this game’s preoccupation with hustling you, and you want something to change, you’re going to need to stop buying it, and you’re going to need lots of other people to stop buying it along with you.

That’s naïve, overly-simplistic advice, maybe, but we’re a decade into this series’ slide straight into hell and nothing else seems to be working, so it’s worth a shot.

NBA 2K23: The Kotaku Review

Rich Hoffman @rich_hofmann
Sixers training camp is one week away. This week, I'm going to kick off the season preview by going over 15 questions that I'm looking forward to seeing answered over the season. First one: Is this the year the Sixers finally get to a top-five offense? https://t.co/UGHHseVNLQ pic.twitter.com/8APqX2UQDp

Keith Pompey @PompeyOnSixers
Top or bottom? pic.twitter.com/mGouWLuv0E

that's unlikely because it would probably force Sarver to litigate the question of whether Silver can do that under the bylaws, which is litigation the other owners don't want. More likely is a consensual agreement that Sarver will step away from management of the team in lieu of his wife/older son, with an understanding that what they really want is for him to disappear out of the public eye

Nate Duncan touched on this issue, and thinks it's a non-starter. Silver has basically unlimited discretion to suspend people and fine up to the limit. These were all things that Sarver agreed to in the bylaws when he became an owner. The league would probably *prefer* not to get involved in litigation, but Duncan's read on the issue (and he is a lawyer, albeit not one that practices sports law) is that it would never even get to discovery (less than a 10% chance).

Now, there is a real question of whether the other owners would accept Silver suspending Sarver, but that's separate from the legal issue.

Interestingly, if players actually boycott, then that actually enhances Silver's ability to take action, per Duncan.

Interestingly, if players actually boycott, then that actually enhances Silver's ability to take action, per Duncan.

if you really want to make an impact, you show up for tip off and then walk off the floor.


that's some absolute scum tactics, but if you want to make your point as loudly and as painfully as possible, that's how it's done.

A lot of these guys probably have skeletons in their closet. I mean hell, we all do, but billionaire old white people who probably stepped on a lot of people on the way to get where they are especially so.

Shams Charania @ShamsCharania
Sources: NBA and NBPA in serious talks on new items for potential Collective Bargaining Agreement:
- Draft age eligibility from 19 to 18, return of high school-to-NBA

In classic NBA twitter fashion, Woj is throwing hot water on this, and says if it does happen it won't be for a while:

If one-and-done is changed, it’s expected the starting date would be several years into the future; in part because of commitments already made by teams to trade future draft picks under the current framework of the 19-and-over system.

There have clearly been cases of owners being banned by the league and, implicitly, the rest of the owners, because of their conduct. Donald Sterling, Dan Snyder, even going back to Marge Schott. So we know it's possible. Schott sold the team shortly thereafter. Snyder retains his ownership interest. Sterling sold as well, but technically he wasn't forced to by the league. But indirectly at least both Schott and Sterling sold. So yeah, it's hard to say that owners don't at least in some cases end up selling as a consequence of their actions, even if it's indirect vs. direct.

Will Sarver be banned by the league? I think it's likely at this point.

The talent doesn't care - checks from a bigot cash just as quickly as checks from Enlightened Owner.

This is demonstratably not true. I don't remember the exact fact pattern leading up to Sterling's ban, but I remember a big part of it was Chris Paul, Doc Rivers and the rest of the players bringing attention to it by IIRC refusing to play a game, causing a postponement, and wearing their warmups backwards, which caused a lot of discussion of the issue on national TV. Sarver is lucky that this is happening during the offseason -- his one hope is that players, coaches and fans forget about this by the time the season starts.

you have fiduciaries who are bound to act in their stockholders' economic interest, you have officers who aren't going to willfully breach bylaws and what have you unless the exigency of doing so outweighs the potential liability.

I don't think this is a material factor. I doubt that Paypal's plan is to threaten to cancel their sponsorship, but eventually not actually follow through if Sarver comes because because they are worried about breaching their fiduciary duty. I'm not sure there's any reason to not just take their statements at face value. I didn't know this until just now, but apparently Paypal has been taking progressive stances for years, again clearly without any reprecussions. There's more than enough latitude to cover businesses (like Nike, who have publicly sponsored Colin Kaepernick or TNT) to advocate for Sarver's removal if they think he's bad for business.

My belief is that the other owners would be more concerned about hurting their business in the actual present day vs. a hypothetical future precedent they are setting. The Sterling case shows that they are clearly willing to sanction a ban, the only question is whether they choose to in this case, which I think depends on how uncomfortable the players are willing to make this. Maybe they aren't/won't be as pissed because there's no smoking gun audio, I don't know, but this is hardly a slam dunk that he gets away with a slap on the wrist.


An actual minority owner (IIRC one of the largest) is already publicly agitating for Sarver's ouster, so it's not hard to imagine a ban as an endgame.

Would a ban result in a sale? Again, setting aside the specific motivations and machinations, Sterling sold. Schott sold. Snyder didn't sell. So it's hardly an impossibility.

I think it comes down to how much visible protest there is when the season starts.

Worrying:

Boston Celtics center Robert Williams is undergoing arthroscopic procedure on his left knee and is expected to need 4-to-6 weeks for recovery, sources tell ESPN. Williams had meniscus surgery in March and played through the playoffs

Not great that there was visible discomfort and then a follow-up surgery.

Not great that there was visible discomfort and then a follow-up surgery.

Yeah, this is either an unfortunate but necessary cleanup following his meniscus surgery that sets him up for the season or a harbinger of further issues to come. Given his injury history it's hard to bet on the former, but I can hope.

Along similar but more depressing lines, has there been any news on where things are with Lonzo Ball's knee? I haven't seen anything, but that situation was a real bummer last season and I'll be worried until he plays again.

So much for the unbesmirchable Ant Edwards.

Anthony Edwards @theantedwards_
9 days ago
What I said was immature, hurtful, and disrespectful, and I’m incredibly sorry. It’s unacceptable for me or anyone to use that language in such a hurtful way, there’s no excuse for it, at all. I was raised better than that!

Jon Krawczynski @JonKrawczynski
8 days ago
Timberwolves issue a statement on Anthony Edwards’ remarks. pic.twitter.com/jV8TTlm2H4

Dane Moore @DaneMooreNBA
about 8 hours ago
The NBA says they have fined Anthony Edwards $40,000 for using "offensive and derogatory" language in the video he posted to his Instagram on September 10th.

He took a video of a group of people on the street minding their own business, said what he said, and posted it. He and the NBA and ESPN (and other headlines) focusing on just the "language" part seems a little off to me?

Along similar but more depressing lines, has there been any news on where things are with Lonzo Ball's knee? I haven't seen anything, but that situation was a real bummer last season and I'll be worried until he plays again.

Sometimes he feels fine, sometimes the knee hurts. The worry is the bone bruise lingers as long as Kendrick Nunn's, but nobody knows.

Thought it was interesting that Chris Paul spoke about his aspirations to own a team someday. LeBron has also talked about wanting to own a team, and it's not hard to see the players' public responses to the Sarver punishment as part of a broader long-term strategy to try to shape the future of ownership in the NBA.

Sometimes he feels fine, sometimes the knee hurts. The worry is the bone bruise lingers as long as Kendrick Nunn's, but nobody knows.

Every time he's tried to start ramping up, the pain has come back and "rest" seems to be the plan. We're now 9 months out from a surgery that was supposed to have a 6-8 weeks recovery timeframe.

Training camp starts in less than a week, and it seems like the Jazz still have a lot up in the air. Conley, Bogdanovic, Clarkson, and Rudy Gay are still on the roster. They have seventeen guaranteed contracts--two more than they can carry into the season. I'm really interested to see what happens next in the rebuild.

I tried putting myself in Danny Ainge's shoes and came up with a plan for the Jazz going forward. Mostly it entails dealing their vets for near-term pick swaps from middling teams like the Kings and for far-off swaps from aging contenders like the Clippers, using their recently-acquired picks to their advantage:

The Jazz have a unique opportunity. Thanks to the Rudy Gobert, Donovan Mitchell, and Royce O’Neale trades, Utah already has a large collection of picks from other teams that are expected to land toward the bottom of the first round, and those picks can be swapped just as easily as Utah’s own first rounders.

The Jazz can therefore generate some significant expected value by obtaining the option to swap picks in 2023, 2025, 2027, or 2029--all years when they have 3 first round picks at their disposal. Those swaps would be far more likely than most to land “in the money” and be worth exercising.

While one or two of those swaps may amount to nothing, I think the Jazz would be wise to prioritize lightly-protected pick swaps over heavily-protected or otherwise very late first rounders (i.e., what trading a good role player typically gets you) given their situation.

Here are a few possibilities I came up with along those lines:
(1) Clarkson and Bolmaro to the Kings for Richaun Holmes plus 2023/2025 pick swaps
(2) Bogdanovic to the Knicks for Evan Fournier, a 2nd rounder, and 2023/2025 pick swaps
(3) Conley and Rudy Gay to the Clippers for Marcus Morris, Reggie Jackson, and 2027/2029 pick swaps

I think Utah needs to just deal those guys even for 2nds. As is often said, the best value you get from tanking is your own pick(s).

They can't afford to be too competent early in a draft this strong, and I'd say their team is reasonably competent right now.

I think Utah needs to just deal those guys even for 2nds. As is often said, the best value you get from tanking is your own pick(s).

as someone who would love to dump a tharris and acquire a bogdonavic, i wholeheartedly endorse this sentiment.

Shams Charania @ShamsCharania ·18m

Phoenix Suns and Mercury owner Robert Sarver announces that he has started the process to sell both franchises.

Fast, but not surprising.

Seems a lot more rational than fighting over it. And now he has the time to sell at his own pace.

surprised it happened this soon; did not think it was a foregone conclusion.
would love to know more about sarver's thought process here.
---
i don't understand the clarkson/holmes idea for either team?

I think CP3 and a minority owner coming out against Sarver did not help. Agreed that it still wasn't a foregone conclusion, though.

188: I already did this, on the last page. It is fun. My ideas:

(1) Clarkson + Bojan to CHA for GH + Kai Jones + 2024 1st
(2) Conley to NOP for DeVonte' + Jaxson Hayes
(3) Gay to BOS for 2023 2nd

I like those returns for UTA better, and all make sense for the receiving team. That does leave the 17 guys issue to deal with still (4 coming, 4 going). I guess cut Stanley Johnson and Jared Butler if no further deals. I don't hate Butler, I'd try to keep him on a two-way at least.

With the roster as is, it's not an issue: Johnson gets cut, Gay gets traded into some contender's TPE.

Been quite the last couple of weeks between Sarver, Kyrie, and Ant.

Ant took me by surprise. I mean, we knew Sarver was a jackass and Kyrie was a few cans short of a six-pack...but Ant? That was disappointing.

As usual, Kareem has a good take:

"It would be easy to dismiss Edwards’ immaturity-he’s only 21-if not for the fact that we’ve seen so many cases of famous athletes and owners in the news spouting racism, misogyny, and anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments. This damages sports in general and their teams specifically, and revives the old stereotype of the dumb, bullying jock. But more important, it perpetuates prejudice against a group, and that prejudice often leads to restricting rights and to violence."

i don't understand the clarkson/holmes idea for either team?

The Kings have been rumored to be very interested in Clarkson. They played both Sabonis and Holmes exclusively at center last year, which only left 12-15 mpg for Holmes after the trade. He seems to be on the block. Those 12-15 minutes can be filled by any combination of Chimezie Metu, Alex Len, Trey Lyles, and Neemias Queta. They may also be swayed by the fact that Clarkson put up 45 points against them in March.

The Jazz want the chance at mid- to late lotto picks. They can probably deal Clarkson to the Grizzlies for Danny Green and a late 1st, but swapping their Sixers/Nets pick for Sacramento's pick would likely be more valuable to them if the Kings fall short of the playoffs as expected. Holmes can replace Gobert as their starting center until either some other team has a need for him and makes them a good offer or they decide to start one of the young guys instead.

Two more deals, that solve the 17 player issue:

(4) Beasley to DAL for Bertans + 2025 1st
(5) GH + Bertans + 2023 1st (the O'Neale pick) to LAL for Westbrook

From Utah's POV, that's 5 guys going out, 4 coming back (3 if Westbrook bought out). If the Lakers aren't willing to pay Indy's price for Turner/Hield, this is another possibility. They add needed shooting, and get a 1st, which is face-saving for both the team and for Russ.

Ant took me by surprise. I mean, we knew Sarver was a jackass and Kyrie was a few cans short of a six-pack...but Ant? That was disappointing.

I wish I was surprised. We still have a long way to go as a society, but it was nice to see the pushback against the utterly unacceptable language. He is only 21 and has plenty of time to mature and learn from his mistake. It is a black mark, but not more than that. He needs to do the outreach and show it was a one-time thing though.

Doesn't darken my basketball hopes for the franchise, but it is a reminder that these are just athletes, not heroes.

I wish that at least some of the pushback on Ant included a message of "social media destroys your brain...get off it"