In a Stunning Turn of Events, Bill Doesn't Understand How Stuff Works

James Harden will be a restricted free agent next summer.  The Thunder have said that they don't want to give him the max deal he could most certainly obtain on the open market, because that put them in luxury tax territory.  It's possible that this is just posturing on their part and that they fully intend to pay Harden max money when the times comes, or entice him into taking a team-friendly extension before he can hit the RFA market.  It's also possible that they simply do not want to pay the tax under any circumstances and that they'd let him walk after this season.  After Bill lays out the basics of the situation, explains why he thinks Harden is such an important player for OKC, and aggressively shoehorns in a 600 word aside about the relationship between Sam Jone and Bill Russell, he puts on his "I know nothing about this subject but I'm going to use big words and hope no one notices what a fool I am" hat and starts to talk sports business. And that's when I start to want to throw my laptop at my TV.

If Harden leaves eight figures on the table to re-sign with the Thunder, he's a loyal sap. If he does it without securing a no-trade clause — especially on the heels of the Celtics rope-a-doping Rajon Rondo into a discount $55 million extension (well below his market value), then trying to trade him for Chris Paul one year later — his agent should be disbarred.

But even then ... why take anything less? Why should James Harden care if Oklahoma City loses money?

If he likes playing in OKC with Durant and Westbrook? It's funny, the Jones/Russell aside I mentioned was tangentially related to the subject at hand; basically, according to Russell, Jones never wanted to be the leading man, preferring to play a supplementary rule, which is why he never pushed himself as much as Russell did. And Harden is the same way; he came right out and told Sam Presti to draft him because he wanted to play third fiddle, not be expected to become his new team's leading guy. You might think Bill would be able to put his own pieces together and realize that Harden might take sub-max money to stay in OKC rather than take max money to go to a team that expects him to take 20 shots a night, but if you thought that, you would be counting out the always powerful presence of cognitive dissonance.

Here's a better question: Why should Harden even believe them?

Because the team releases audited financials to the league, which in turn makes certain data from those financials public, and it turns out that adding Harden at max money and paying both him and the tax would cause their costs to exceed their revenues?

Didn't we just come off an acrimonious lockout in which the league cried poverty for months and months, and then, as soon as the lockout ended, they had a slew of billionaires lined up to purchase their teams?

Yes. Because sports teams are a great investment in the long run, skyrocketing in value during the past couple of decades and a pretty safe bet to continue to do so in the future. But that value increase isn't realized until one sells the team, and in the meantime, many of them operate at a loss on a year-by-year basis. Some owners are cool with that, in some cases because they can net their team-related losses against profits made in other ventures and cut their tax bills. Others are not, in some cases because they don't have other significant business ventures and in some cases simply because they hate the idea of losing millions of dollars every year, even if they expect to recoup those millions and then some whenever they sell. I don't know which of those describe's OKC's ownership (or if they even actually feel that way; there's a good chance they're just bluffing to try to knock down Harden's price), nor do I care. This is not a difficult concept to understand. But watch out, here comes BIG BRAIN BILL, ready to point out that HEY WAIT A MINUTE SPORTS TEAMS ARE WORTH LOTZ OF DOLLARZ SO WHY SHOULD WE EVER BELIEVE AN OWNER.

Quick aside about OKC's ownership--if I were writing for Grantland, I'd footnote it, but then again if I were writing for Grantland there's also a good chance I'd be a talentless navel-gazing hack, so I'm cool with things as they are. Anyways, hey Seattle: (/Larry B makes "smallest violin" finger motions) GET THE FUCK OVER IT. Yes, sports owners are horrible people. Yes, Howard Schultz and Clay Bennett are among that group of horrible people. No, you are not the only city to ever lose a beloved team. Climb down off your crosses, dry your fucking tears, and enjoy your NFL and MLB teams. At least you're not Quebec City or Hartford (or Sacramento in 2014 or so). Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. Enough with the Sonics pity party. If was fine for the first year or two. Now it's time to shut your cakeholes.

We're in the middle of an NBA renaissance that mirrors what happened from 1984 to 1993: marketable (and likable) stars, genuine rivalries, contenders in big markets, a transcendent superstar leading the way ... really, we're about to run back the most successful 10-year stretch in the history of the league.

Yes, and yet, the luxury tax is still a real thing that costs real money if a team's payroll exceeds a certain threshold. I'm not saying every team should avoid paying it in all circumstances. I'm not saying I think the Thunder should definitely let Harden go. I'm just saying, it's incredibly dumb and simple-minded for some clod like Bill to say DURRRR HARDEN IZ GOOD SO DEY SHOULD PAY WUTEVER IT KOSTS TO KEEP HIM. Look, here's one of Bill's own footnotes from elsewhere in this very article:

3. That number jumps to $38 million the following season. And remember, the luxury-tax penalties become more punitive a year from now. For the 2012-13 season, the NBA's cap is $58.3 and the luxury tax threshold is $70.3 million — numbers that could curve up if the league continues to thrive. The following summer, steeper tax penalties will mean that any tax team pays $1.50 for every dollar over the tax — and also, they'd be more restricted with their free agent exceptions. "repeater" tax penalties that make it hairier for the repeat offenders. Ken Berger and Zach Lowe explained the gory details last summer.

SHAME ON YOU, SAM PRESTI, FOR ACTING LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING WORTH CONSIDERING WITH REGARD TO HARDEN'S NEXT CONTRACT.

So listening to Oklahoma City's brain trust whine about "the bottom line" like they're some mom-and-pop hardware store in East Shartsquatch ... I mean, it just doesn't add up, especially when you factor in their profits from this season and the previous four.

Look, I don't want to sound like I'm some kind of shill for greedy sports owners here. I hate them and I hate the Thunder and I hate their fanbase and I hate all of you who are reading. But the fact that franchises are businesses can't be swept under the rug here. DAW WHATEVER DEY IS MAKIN MUNEY NO MATTER WUT SO ALL DER ARGUMENTS IS AUTO-WRONG isn't going to cut it.

Clay Bennett's group paid $350 million for the Sonics. If you don't think they could sell a franchise that features Harden, Westbrook and Kevin Effing Durant for $500 million in about 2.3 seconds, you're eating bath salts again. Billionaires overpay for sports franchises all the time. It's the ultimate ego purchase. It's like buying a 700-foot yacht. You get to walk around with your chest puffed out, give humblebrag nterviews, sit courtside and swing your genitals like a lasso, basically.

But if you're losing money every year you hold the franchise, and don't have a way to balance out those losses, at some point your only choice will be to sell. And if you really like owning the team, you don't want to sell. Therefore: you might not want to run your team at a loss.

You know why we'll never find out if some billionaire would severely overpay for a lovable contender starring Kevin Durant that's going to win 60 games and make the Conference Finals AT WORST every year for the next decade?

Any team that lets Westbrook take 25 shots a game is always at risk of being upset in a 7 game series. And I hope it happens to OKC this season. And next season. And the one after that.  Forever.  Grrrrrrr

Because there's a better chance of Clay Bennett buying a summer house in Seattle then selling the Thunder right now.

So again, why should he happily plunge payroll deep into the luxury tax zone to pay his team's third best player?

Maybe you didn't notice, but the Thunder became Young America's Team last season. Attend one of their road games this season and glance around at the crowd. You know what you'll see? Dozens and dozens of kids wearing Thunder jerseys. You know why?

Little kids are front-runners!

He only mentioned this 1,000 times during the NHL playoffs last spring. It's just as unclever an observation now as it was then.

It's the same reason so many people in my age group became Cowboys, Steelers and Yankee fans. It's the same reason I took my son to his first Clippers game last spring, and by halftime, he was demanding a GRIFFIN jersey. If you were a little front-runner and your hometown team sucked, who'd grab your fancy? Probably Durant and Westbrook and that dude with the crazy beard, right?

Probably the Lakers or Heat, but yeah, I'll allow that the Thunder are climbing that list. Doesn't put money in the pockets of the Thunder, though.

In 2012, you can follow any NBA team you want, whenever you want, however you want. You can watch them on your laptop, your iPad, your iPhone or your giant TV. Really, it doesn't matter where the Thunder play — they could play every home game in Pyongyang and have the same relevance.

Money from League Pass subscriptions is split evenly among all teams. So is most money derived from sales of apparel.

Throw in revenue sharing, the league's savvy digital presence, the real potential of staggering fees for the league's next television deal (up in 2016), and the Thunder's success with season ticket sales (they're fifth in the league this season) and I'm pretty sure the Thunder's owners won't be panhandling on the streets of Oklahoma City after paying James Harden.

/Larry B hangs head in exasperation

And since we're here, shouldn't we mention how well the NBA is doing right now? How does that NOT play into this Harden dilemma?

It does, you horse's ass, it's just not the end of the discussion. Holy fucking shitballs.

Unlike the NFL, the NBA doesn't have concussions hanging over it like a black cloud. Unlike baseball, the NBA actually appeals to people under 25. Unlike hockey, the NBA is a white-collar sport that can charge white-collar prices.

Those first two statements are true (if not nearly as significant as Bill thinks they are). The third one could not be more false.

Of the four major sports, it's the only one that will unquestionably be sitting in a better place five years from now.

The odds that the concussion thing do anything to put football in a worse place in five years than it is now are incredibly long. Baseball will be fine too. Hockey is the sport that might be in worse shape in 2017 than it is now, and here's why they're in their second nasty lockout in the last seven years: BECAUSE A BUNCH OF ITS FRANCHISES ARE OPERATING AT A LOSS ON A YEAR-BY-YEAR BASIS AND THEY DON'T LIKE DOING THAT, EVEN IF THEY ARE ALSO INCREASING IN VALUE AS THAT HAPPENS.

So even if Oklahoma City loves to break out the small-market violin when it suits them, the facts say differently — if anything, they're one of the three or four most "global" NBA teams right now.

GRRRRRRRR SOME DUDE IN GERMANY BUYING A LEAGUE PASS SUBSCRIPTION AND A DURANT JERSEY DOES NOT HELP THE THUNDER PAY THEIR PLAYERS IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY.

Forbes evaluated the Thunder to be worth just $348 million, a remarkably dumb number. If any billionaire called up Clay Bennett and offered him $348 million for the Thunder, Bennett would laugh and hang up. You aren't even getting his attention unless it's a number that starts with "5." And even then, he's probably hanging up.

We're just going in circles at this point. Let's can most of the rest of Bill the Finance Genius's ignorant fist-pounding analysis and wrap things up.

Really, it's no different than the Thunder's dilemma with Harden: On paper, he isn't actually a "max" player, just like Oklahoma City isn't actually worth $500 million. But saying what something should be worth ignores the concept of value itself: Value is determined by the market for that value, not what we believe that value should be.

Thank you, page two of an "Fundamentals of Microeconomics" textbook.

If Oklahoma City's owners don't want to pay full price for Harden, then they're really saying, We moved an NBA team from a booming city in the Pacific Northwest to a much smaller city that generates much less revenue and compromises our ability to win championships, but the fans here are so grateful that they won't hold it against us that we just tossed away a puncher's chance at a dynasty. If that's true, they're taking advantage of the goodwill of Oklahoma City's fans — really, they should be flipping their asset, cashing out and selling to an egomaniac billionaire who won't worry about losing a few bucks, just about owning one of the NBA's hottest franchises and getting shown on nationally televised games 20 to 25 times per year.

Ladies and gentlemen, your future Minnesota Timberwolves and/or Milwaukee Bucks VP of Common Sense.

1. Important note for this season: I'm giving up my four-year vow to avoid typing the word "Thunder" in an NBA column after the Sonics were hijacked from Seattle with the implicit consent of the NBA's commissioner, David Stern. It's just too much of a pain in the ass to keep the "Zombies" thing going, and more important, Chris Hansen is definitely bringing the Sonics back to Seattle. That's happening. Let's start looking forward instead of backward.

And try to forget about this horrible joke that you crammed down our throats for four years.

ESPN has SOME shame? Oh wait, no, ESPN has zero shame

The title is a quote from Chris W, uttered when I linked him to this story. It wasn't that big a deal on its own, nor is event that is the subject of this post, but if you put all these little puzzle pieces together they form a giant mosaic of questionable decisions that contains the phrase WE ARE A BUNCH OF CHODES when you step back and look at it.

There's a great quote from Those Guys Have All the Fun that I literally spent 25 minutes trying to find tonight. For the life of me I couldn't. It's from one of ESPN's top executives, perhaps John Skinner, and the essence of it is "We absolutely do not let our business relationships color our editorial and reporting decisions. No way. The two sides of the network are completely separate from one another." Again, I'm not quoting exactly, but the phrasing is somewhat similar; it's got a "methinks the lady doth protest too much" tinge to it.

Obviously the above link is a nice little anecdotal rebuttal to the exec's claim. An even better anecdote comes from an editorial decision ESPN made last week. If you frequently read internet weblogs on the world wide web you've already heard about it, but I had to make my own post on it so I could use that terrible and unclever mosaic metaphor in the first paragraph. If you somehow hadn't heard about it yet, here's the gist: every late December Sportscenter does a big "year in review" episode. Among the items in said episode is a tribute to those in sports who have passed away in the previous 12 months. Pretty standard stuff. This year, however, ESPN didn't include any hockey players. None.

Now granted the list of people they did include is reasonably short and has some legendary figures like Joe Frazier. But there are also some not-that-famous names on the list. Hideki Irabu? Walt Hazzard? Both guys who left a mark on their sport but were not marquee names. Derek Boogaard didn't have a very long or storied career but his death was sensational and brought some pretty troubling sport-wide issues to light. A couple other active players died, and some dudes who are in the HOF. Meanwhile, the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash was about as devastating and brutal as sports-related deaths get. Not a single peep from the Four Letter. Hmmmm. Could it have anything to do with this? Five will get you ten that it did. Of course, by the time the Stanley Cup Finals roll around and WNBA highlights are leading SportsCenter, it'll be a distant memory.

Embarrassing

ESPN employs a few legal analysts whose job is ostensibly to explain complicated judge-y court-y crime-y stuff to viewers/readers. It's a practice that makes sense in theory, but is utterly worthless in reality if they're going to let lawyer/writers like Lester Munson run wild with editorial commentary that's full of total horseshit. That's what happened here. I have no idea who Munson's dog in this fight is; could be federal investigator Jeff Novitsky, could be someone on the prosecution team, or maybe he just hates the judge who oversaw the trial and sentencing. In any case, I don't have much time to break it down but if you want to read the whole thing, just know that it reads like something a government PR rep might write in the aftermath of an expensive and relatively fruitless investigation/prosecution.

Q: Isn't a sentence of 30 days of home confinement a sign that the agents and the prosecutors failed in their pursuit of Bonds?

A: No. His sentence is not the result of any failures by federal agents and prosecutors.

Wrong.

There is no doubt that Bonds used steroids, and there is no doubt that he lied to the grand jury about his use. The problem that led to the conviction on only one count and a deadlocked jury on three counts of perjury was not the quality of the work of the agents and prosecutors.

Some of the work they did was quality. Much of it was shitty. If you're looking for some light reading that might make you think that the investigation was perhaps I suppose not handled quite as professionally as it could have been I guess, try this.

The problem was the refusal of Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, to testify against him.

If you can't close a case against someone without a key adverse witness's testimony, and you fail to get that testimony, you have fucked the dog. You did not conduct a quality prosecution. This is like saying "We didn't lose to the other team, they just scored more points than us."

For reasons that are not yet known, Anderson went to jail twice instead of offering evidence against Bonds.

Here's a theory for you, Columbo: maybe Anderson's refusal to testify has something to do with money changing hands between him and Bonds (and the fact that the two of them are buddies, sure). Anderson didn't feel comfortable perjuring himself in front of the grand jury so he figured he'd just do his time for contempt of court instead. I'm sure he sleeps soundly at night, and I'm sure Bonds made sure he was taken care of financially during, between, and after his two stints in prison.

Anderson's refusal to testify prevented the prosecutors from connecting Bonds to positive drug tests and other compelling evidence of Bonds' use of steroids. If Anderson had testified, Bonds would have been convicted quickly on all four charges.

But don't follow Occam's Razor on this one, people Munson desperately wants to fool: this is absolutely not the fault of the investigators and prosecutors involved.

In the face of Anderson's conduct, the prosecutors -- who occasionally stumbled --

Yeah.

rallied brilliantly

Brilliantly?

at the conclusion of the Bonds trial and obtained the conviction for obstruction of justice

Which is just as good as a conviction for perjury, as long as you don't care about establishing that Bonds actually lied under oath.

and were one vote shy of a conviction for perjury.

Put that one on your resume, prosecutors involved.

This outcome, even with the light sentence, is a triumph for investigative agent Jeff Novitzky and prosecutors Jeff Nedrow and Matt Parrella.

Jesus Christ. This sounds like a North Korean newspaper reporting on its soccer team's performance in the 2010 World Cup.

The government will not be asking a higher court to change this outcome.

No fucking shit, you fucking spin artist. They already have the option to retry Bonds on the perjury charges the jury deadlocked on. Bonds hasn't been let off the hook for those yet, so there's no need for the government to appeal. Not that they'd be able to buttfuck their way to a conviction the second time around anyways (should they get the chance). If the outcome of the trial was "guilty on obstruction of justice, but not guilty on perjury," you can bet your sweet bippy they'd be appealing along with Bonds.

It is Bonds who will be filing the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The fact that he's appealing a relatively insignificant charge to avoid spending 30 days under house arrest because he has the money to do it is, again, not something over which the feds should be high-fiving each other. Read the rest if you want. It's fucking bizarre. And sad.

Bill Simmons: deuche who doesn't understand money

From his magazine article listing reasons he loves sports:

Reason No. 949: Gary Bettman
I thought about buying the NHL Package on DirecTV last week so I could have breakup sex with the Bruins for a year.

Right, that or so you could watch them play because you enjoy "seeing their uniforms so much."

Just admit that you're shamelessly jumping back on the bandwagon already and stop with the slow, inevitable march to the "I'M BACK, BABY!" column.

The cost? $169! Really, Gary? That's how you treat your "mostly blue-collar fans who can't afford good seats for games anymore," the ones you've already insulted 300 times over?

So much idiocy going on here:

1. Blue Collar fans can't afford good seats at most professional sports stadiums.

2. This package is cheaper than MLB Extra Innings ($199), NFL Sunday Ticket ($289), and the combination of FSC and Setanta ($300 annually) if you're down with European Footy.

3. If good tickets were available at the "affordable" rate of lets say $20 a person, it would cost a family of four $160 (not including transit and food) to see all of 2 games in person. Meanwhile, they could pay $9 extra and watch literally every fucking hockey game that year.

4. To use a Simmons-y type anecdote/analogy: remember when you were in college and and for the first two years, the local beer distributor had that really awesome price for 30's of Busch Light? Then a month into your junior year, they raised the price by $1 per case. You and all your friends said you were going to boycott the place out of spite, only to go back their that weekend to buy 50 cases for your Halloween party.

The $69 difference between $100 (the price for the NASCAR package) and $169 isn't going to stop a true hockey fan. Real fans are like substance addicts, they'll pay whatever price to watch their team play, regardless of whether or not they enjoy the uniforms. Somehow this fact eludes superfan Bill Simmons, who's probably paid over $169 on Laguna Beach and The Hills DVDs.