Choosing Players II: Keeping Franchise Players Happy

Thunder Superstar, Kevin Durant

For the first article of this series, click HERE

In the NBA, every elite team seems to have at least one "superstar" that serves as the face of the franchise.  Names such as Carmelo Anthony of the Knicks, Dirk Nowitzki of the Mavericks, and Kevin Durant and Russel Westbrook of the Thunder are just a few that come to mind.  In fact, when looking back at the championship teams of the past few years. all seem to have one thing in common: a dominant player.  It was LeBron James for the Heat, Dirk for the Mavericks, Kobe Bryant for the Lakers, and Paul Pierce for the Celtics.  In the NBA today, perhaps the biggest discrepancy among NBA teams is the presence, or lack thereof, of these superstars.  It seems that the main decision a team must make, after weighing costs and cap space, is either compiling a "supporting cast" for one or more superstars or choosing instead to develop a well-rounded squad without a star player.
Looking at the New York Knicks: their appearances in Madison Square Garden, controversial front office decisions, and bi-polar season records could merit them as one of the most interesting teams in the league.  In 2010, the Knicks traded for Amar'e Stoudamire, looking to begin a new, and hopefully more successful, era of Knicks basketball.  In February 2011, they traded for Carmelo Anthony. After injuries to Stoudamire and Carmelo's "superstar" aura, it seemed that the Knicks could currently be considered "Carmelo's team."

Following the model of looking to build a successful team around a superstar player, it seems the Knicks began to make moves within the organization that built the team up around Anthony.  It also seems, though, that these moves favored Carmelo over others players on the team.  For example, in December 2011, the Knicks were involved in a trade that brought Tyson Chandler to New York. The Knicks saw Chandler as a defensive presence and another big man to have down low, clearly an asset to Carmelo.  But throughout the year, it does not appear that Amar'e Stoudamire has benefited much from his presence.  In fact, while Carmelo had no problem getting off around 25-30 shots a game with Chandler, Stoudamire's offense seemed to be negatively affected.  He averaged 17.5 points a game in 47 games last season, down nearly four points from his career average.

After a mediocre start to the 2011-2012 season, Knicks coach Mike D'antoni resigned midway through the season.  He and Carmelo Anthony were clashing at the time, and Carmelo was rather open in expressing his preference for Mike Woodson, the Knicks current coach.  Towards the end of that same season, Jeremy Lin and "Linsanity" rocked New York Knicks basketball.  I hope that we don't need a refresher on Linsanity, as Lin burst onto the scene helping the Knicks win several games and the whole world was made aware of the events.  Interestingly enough, the Knicks, who had initially planned to match any offer up to $1 billion for Lin in the 2012 off-season, made no move after the Rockets presented Lin with a deal.  Instead, they signed Raymond Felton, bringing him back to the Knicks after stints with Denver and Portland.  After these events transpired, talks surfaced that Carmelo did not necessarily want Lin back on the team.  Perhaps Carmelo felt threatened by Linsanity, and the Knicks front office, as in all three of the events listed above, was acting to keep their beloved superstar happy.

A team that serves as perhaps a contrast to the Knicks is the Orlando Magic.  Last season, the Magic faced some internal discord as superstar Dwight Howard expressed his displeasure with playing in Orlando.  He was definitely not a fan of head coach Stan Van Gundy, and he did not seem content with the direction of the team.  But rather than fire Van Gundy to keep Howard happy, or close out deals (such as one with Chris Paul) to make Howard more optimistic about the team and his teammates, the Magic let Howard leave.

Howard may have left Orlando regardless of what they did to try to keep him there, or perhaps they had made moves but Howard was still not interested in staying.  While the Knicks have taken many measures to seemingly keep Carmelo Anthony happy and keep the Knicks as "his team." the Magic did not do the same for Dwight Howard.  Unlike the Knicks, who seemed to make moves to keep Carmelo Anthony happy, the Magic traded Howard away to the Los Angeles Lakers. It appears the Magic are either waiting for another superstar to bring to the team, or are in fact content with a team composed of role players like Glen Davis, JJ Redick, and Aron Afflalo.

Teams with superstars on their rosters undoubtedly reap the benefits of these players' performance on the court and image off the court. Superstars consistently put up big numbers in games, and advertisements and promotions featuring these players can help the financial well-being of their respective teams.  However, as a superstar serves as one of the focal points of an organization, it seems that they can often sway some front office decisions.  It is ultimately up to the organization to decide just how far, if at all, they are willing to allow this influence to go.

Choosing Players: Fresh Starts Versus Complacency

Well, a fresh start certainly worked out for Green Bay

In the coming weeks, I will aim to explain some underlying reasons for why teams in each major sport decide to either stick with their current players or look to depend on new ones. Choosing certain players for certain positions can often make the difference between a champion and an underachiever, and it can even impact the future of a franchise. Obviously, one of the main factors in determining which player an organization chooses depends on how successful it believes a player will be. But as the actions of major teams in major sports have shown, there may in fact be other motives behind choosing some players while letting others go.

In the NFL, no position is more important than quarterback. A good QB can efficiently and effectively control an entire offense, while a bad one may create problems that even the best running game or defense cannot solve. Finding a good quarterback, however, is not as easy as it may seem. College studs often turn into pro duds and many first round draft picks and former starters are now merely backups or even out of the league completely. Some quarterbacks can reach the playoffs one year but fail to compile a .500 record for the rest of their careers, while still others can go from failure to success out of nowhere. So when it comes to choosing a quarterback, what factors does a team consider?

When Brett Favre was coming out of one of his many retirements in 2008, he hoped to return to the place he had called home for many years: Green Bay. The Packers, however, had different plans. They stuck with their previously established commitment to Aaron Rodgers, Favre's former backup, and Favre was forced to continue his career somewhere else. In the 2009 season, Favre proved he could still sling it, as he threw for over 4,200 yards and 33 touchdowns to only seven interceptions, leading the Minnesota Vikings to the NFC championship. Many cheese heads may have been quite angry at Packers management for having let Favre go, seeing as he clearly still had some gas left in the tank. Luckily, Rodgers has proven to be one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, even leading the Packers to a Super Bowl victory in 2010.

So, did the Packers base their decision to stick with Rodgers solely on their confidence in his potential?

Perhaps.

But there were perhaps a few other motivating factors as well. Quite simply, the Packers may have been willing to forfeit a few seasons in exchange for a much brighter future in sticking with Rodgers. Favre might have served as a better quarterback for the Packers than Rodgers did his first few seasons as a starter. But had the Packers chosen to go with Favre, Rodgers may have shipped his talents somewhere else, and the quarterback of the 2012 Packers might be an area of weakness, as opposed to being one of the strongest positions of any team in the league. Also, Favre had been Green Bay's quarterback for 16 seasons. His career there was one for the ages, yet he only led the team to one Super Bowl championship. While a veteran quarterback who has played for the same team for many years is often indispensable, teams that undertake a "fresh start" seem to adopt a new mentality that often gives them the edge they have been missing. Green Bay may have been looking for a new face to serve as their franchise quarterback to give them this fresh outlook, so they went with Rodgers.

This concept of a "fresh start" is an interesting idea in the world of sports. Many fan bases in many sports demand success every year; coaches and players that win championships one year but have losing seasons the next can lose their jobs just like that. With failure as the most recent memory of a player, one who has not yet let the fans down may seem like the better choice, even when overall he may not be.

The Indianapolis Colts chose to take Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck with the first pick overall in the 2012 NFL draft. This decision signified the Colts' lack of interest in Peyton Manning, a future Hall-of-Famer who was returning to the NFL after a serious neck injury. Was Luck a once in a generation talent the Colts didn't want to pass up? Or was the threat of injury with Peyton too big of a risk? Again, either of these motives are more than plausible. But perhaps the Colts also felt "starting over" with Luck as opposed to "reverting" back to Manning would give the team a new mindset. With a new quarterback, there is no record of failure. Fans of the Colts could note Manning's loss to the Saints in the Super Bowl or his many losses to Tom Brady and the Patriots in the AFC playoffs. But Luck, before the start of the 2012 season, had never thrown an interception or lost a game for the Colts. Essentially, a new quarterback is spotless until he proves otherwise, and thus the future of the team seems a whole lot brighter.

Interestingly enough, through the first 8 weeks of this year's NFL season, Luck and the Colts are averaging 19.4 points a game (24th in the league) while Manning and the Denver Broncos are averaging 29.1 (4th best). Rodgers has proved his worth with the Packers, but was picking Luck and choosing a fresh start the best decision for the Colts?

As is often the case in sports, time will tell.