The upshot from the no-show NBA: If you're healthy, you had better suit up. But if your team isn't healthy, that's another story.
That has Commissioner Adam Silver addressing only half the issue when it comes to his memo imploring owners to get more involved with the sitting of stars during the NBA's signature moments.
It has not been a good look during recent weeks as the NBA attempted to build a "Saturday Showcase" franchise, with the Cleveland Cavaliers, Golden State Warriors or San Antonio Spurs sitting out their signature pieces.
But there also has been another, unaddressed dynamic, teams sitting perfectly healthy, well-rested players in order to tank for the lottery, in some cases games that can impact the playoff races as much as the rest-ive approaches of the Cavs, Warriors and Spurs.
No, the Suns, Lakers, Knicks and other bottom feeders are not going to the playoffs, but teams they play remain in contention.
Yet have you seen Luol Deng, Eric Bledsoe or full-time Carmelo Anthony lately?
So let's get this straight: It is a punishable offense to rest the weary? But it is perfectly acceptable to tell able-bodied contributors their services no longer are needed in order to skew the competitive balance?
It's enough to make Herm Edwards' head explode.
"You play to win the game!"
Unless your players are tired, or you're hopelessly out of the playoff race, or your lottery odds are at stake.
The motivation in the NFL has long been the lack of guaranteed money. You play for pay.
Imagine if LeBron James didn't actually get his $378,000 per game if he decided to take the night off.
Or imagine if Luol Deng's $220,000 per game wasn't assured as he willingly plays along with the Lakers' lottery deceit (if their pick isn't among the first three, it goes to the Philadelphia 76ers).
This is about more than threats of fines from Silver, particularly in a league where owners willingly operate at losses in the name of championship aspirations.
Now, take a Roger Goodell-like stance with draft threats (perhaps slotted down X-number of slots for egregious violations) and the absences might diminish.
And find a way to eliminate lottery incentives (banning "protected" picks might be a place to start), and late-season winning wouldn't be so burdensome for the likes of the Lakers or Sacramento Kings.
More to the point, get to a schedule that makes sense (and still makes dollars).
Much of the recent consternation has been about absences of prime-time players from nationally televised games. It is those national-television contracts that are at the heart of the NBA's economics.
So even if you shorten the schedule to as few as 60 games per team, you still could have as many nationally televised games (and weigh the schedule with more of those marquee games, just as the NFL crafts more difficult schedules for its winningest teams).
With fewer overall games, there would be less competition against those nationally televised games. In other words, ABC/ESPN and Turner still can realize the same bang for their buck with the nine-year, $24 billion agreement signed in 2014 in a schedule that still features ample marquee matchups, as well as the ongoing two-month playoff schedule.
In a week, the Board of Governors will meet to debate Silver's concerns about players taking rest days. But with lottery teams impacting the playoff race with their indifference, that element of the equation also needs to be discussed.
Because if the players can't be bothered making it to the court, and if every team isn't playing to win, you're incrementally moving from competition to charade.
About the Author
