Why Superstar Movement Is No Longer a Dream

There’s a snappy piece in The New York Times about just how unlikely All-Stars are to change teams. In a nutshell:↵↵⇥Since the summer of [Shaquille] O’Neal’s defection, 58 players have been named to an all-N.B.A. first, second or third team. Of that group, only 12 changed teams as free agents while in their prime. That amounts to 20 percent, which sounds significant.↵⇥
↵⇥
↵⇥But the list is filled with asterisks that further diminishes any notion of superstar free agency in the N.B.A. Here are the 12 stars who changed teams: Penny Hardaway, Grant Hill, Steve Nash, Tracy McGrady, Ben Wallace, Peja Stojakovic, Antonio McDyess, Chauncey Billups, Gilbert Arenas, Carlos Boozer, Brand and Davis.↵↵If you need an explanation of why these players would make the 20 percent figure misleading, the article’s got it. What I want to talk about, though, is why, given this historical trend, 2010 is such a big deal. The explanation is simple: The mini-max contract. When a player commits not to a long-term deal, but to putting pressure on a team to improve, there’s certainly the strong implication there that he might leave. Teams have less room to screw around and take him for granted. Even if none of them end up leaving, Bron, Wade, and Bosh have contracts that suggest they’re looking to buck history.↵
↵
↵

And it’s not just rhetoric. Because of the mini-max contracts, players are more vocal about their discontent, like with Chris Bosh. Or just imagined to be so, even if they’re doing the usual superstar-on-a-sinking-ship griping. Teams, thinking that this time, the All-Star really means business and could readily leave the them with nothing soon, take the situation more seriously. That’s why the Bosh rumor gained some traction earlier this week: Because it’s not implausible, given all that the big man’s contract stands for.↵
↵
↵I can’t help but also think that this demand for team accountability (no Obama, please) has spread to other 2010 free agents, or at least the perception of their actions. What’s weird is that, instead of hearing about players petulantly demanding trades, the Class of 2010 are reasonable actors who might decide it’s not in their best interest to stick around, thus forcing their team to trade them. I’m not sure if that’s fair, but it’s certainly great PR.↵