Every generation of the NBA has its own defining characteristics. This one will be forever known as the 3-point era, where shots flew at a spectacular rate from greater and greater distances. However, it also has one other extraordinary trait, and one that's being tested this summer.
This is the era of player agency.
Never have NBA stars had quite as much power as they do right now. The amount of money invested in superstars has pushed teams to contort themselves to bend to the will of their number one players. At the same time, a system designed to both force and punish extravagant spending is bringing things to a head.
Three of the biggest names in the game are about to see their agency tested, and the repercussions will put the league in an interesting place. With Bradley Beal's monster extension and no-trade clause signed, Kevin Durant’s trade request at the beginning of a four-year extension, and the Russell Westbrook situation falling apart after just one season of the LeBron James-led push to acquire him, the league’s biggest stars are seeing their biggest flexes fall apart. The question now is whether teams will continue to let superstars exert their influence, or whether some line will be drawn in the sand.
Player agency has grown over the years, and rightly so. Players and teams sign contracts with one another, but circumstances can change over the life of that deal. If a team has the right to trade a player, then the player should reasonably have the right to request a trade himself.
But the boundaries continue to be tested. Take the case of Beal, who may well simply enjoy living and playing basketball in the Washington, DC area. Or, he took the $251 million super-max extension, which came with a no-trade clause, and will figure it out later.
The “figure it out later” part is what’s really intriguing. With the system designed to give guys massive chunks of a growing salary cap, and for home teams to overpay to keep their stars, taking the money now and maneuvering later is a savvy business move. But the contracts they sign tend to immediately become terrible deals.
Beal is 29 years old, and his peak is just starting to crest. Meanwhile, his deal eats up a massive part of the salary cap, leaving the team less room to wriggle out of a bad situation, making it harder to find the right pieces around Beal to assemble a contending team. The no-trade clause puts Beal squarely in control of any scenario where he’s moved, to the point of even dictating the terms of the trade because he can veto any move, even to his preferred destination, if it includes players he wants to play with.
It will be an interesting test of a player choosing to stay with his team, but taking full control of his future like this. Where is the line between player agency and teams being allowed to build properly for their fans?
The situation in Brooklyn tests another aspect of player agency: the trade request.
Durant and Kyrie Irving conspired to leave their teams and go to the Brooklyn Nets in the summer of 2019. They used their agency to also bring with them their friend DeAndre Jordan, who inexplicably received a four-year, $40-million deal. He was later traded in a salary dump, but not before his presence led to the firing of coach Kenny Atkinson, who was let go, in part, because the two superstars were not on board with his rotations and starting Jarrett Allen ahead of their friend Jordan.
They used their agency to get a new coach, who they immediately undercut by saying of the hiring of Steve Nash, “I think it’s also going to change the way we see coaches. I don’t really see us having a head coach. You know what I mean? KD could be a head coach. I could be a head coach.”
After a first-round sweep by Boston, Irving then promoted himself to an upstairs role.
“When I say I’m here with Kevin, I think that it really entails us managing this franchise together alongside (Nets owner) Joe (Tsai) and (General Manager) Sean (Marks),” Irving said.
“So it’s not just about me and Kev, I don’t want to make it just about that,” he continued. “We are cornerstones here, but we have a few other guys that are on contract. And I think we just got to make some moves this offseason, really talk about it, really be intentional about what we’re building, have some fun with it, and make it enjoyable.”
The team bristled at that, especially after Irving’s audacity to claim control of a franchise for which he’s played 103 regular season games over three years, mostly by choice. They refused to give him a maximum contract extension, which led to internal turmoil, permission for Irving to explore sign-and-trade options (there were no takers), and eventually a trade request by Durant.
Irving opted into his deal, making a trade for him a bit easier, but Durant is only just beginning the first year of a four-year contract extension. The trade request at this stage is highly unusual, and will test the limits of player agency and team control.
The playbook for a star making a trade request is to make the situation so untenable at home that the team has to capitulate. James Harden has perfected the quit-and-sulk trade scenario, but Durant is seen as someone who couldn't bring himself to that point.
Also, Durant is about to turn 34, and he can’t afford much time messing around. He wants to play basketball. The Nets, meanwhile, aren’t under similar pressure as other trade demand situations because there's no risk of Durant simply walking away for nothing. He’s under contract for a long time, so the Nets can dig in and simply say “no, we’re not trading you.”
Irving is the catalyst for this whole mess, but it’s Durant’s power being tested at the moment. Marks, Tsai, and the Nets have dug in their heels on Irving’s situation. Will they do the same with Durant? Will they take pennies on the dollar to send Durant where he wants to go because they want to curry favor with agents, or will they play hardball and hold Durant’s contract over him?
It's a test of the power of the front office, but what if the superstar is pushing the buttons there?
The Los Angeles Lakers and LeBron are pushing some boundaries in La La Land. A shocking draft night trade two seasons ago brought Westbrook to town after a first-round loss to the Phoenix Suns. James wanted more star power next to him, so he and Anthony Davis pushed to acquire Westbrook.
That has been a flop. Westbrook is a terrible fit and, at nearly 34 years old, in a steep decline. Worse, the Lakers are simply out of tools to make their team better. They used their mid-level exception to bring in Lonnie Walker IV, which made them a little younger, which helps. They’ve brought in some other younger legs to alleviate the limitations of what was easily the oldest team in the league. But they are otherwise stuck, and trading Westbrook is the only path out (unless he suddenly changes his entire style of play). Irving is actually the most logical target for the Lakers, and James has a championship history with him that makes that kind of deal enticing, but the Nets can simply play hardball with the Lakers since LA has no way to acquire Irving otherwise, even if he leaves this summer as a free agent.
LeBron has always maintained some level of plausible deniability when it comes to front office moves, but those in the know, know he’s pulling all of the strings. This maneuvering has put the Lakers in a complete bind with basically no way out. LeBron the front-office meddler, along with the Lakers’ fear of losing him, has created a situation with no escape. If Westbrook remains on the team, the almost 38-year-old James will watch another year roll by without a serious chance at a title.
All three of these situations are tests of the line between players exercising power that counterbalances team control, and stars overstepping their field of expertise and throwing off the balance of how teams work.
Water will always find its level, and this may be the summer where teams take back some of the power ceded to superstar players. At the same time, the soon-to-be restarted collective bargaining negotiations will certainly bring up some of these points as potential future shifts in how the league does business.
For example, will the new CBA change how Beal’s contract might count against the cap and tax. Teams like Washington, which aren’t really glamor markets, are basically forced to pony up max deals to keep the stars they finally find in the draft. Meanwhile, the escalating tax system is built to tear teams apart. It was put in place to encourage stars to enter the market more often, giving smaller markets chances to sign them, but it’s also shrinking the windows in those smaller markets where big tax bills are destructive. There have been whispers and suggestions about changing how supermax deals are calculated for tax purposes, but will that rise to the level of contractual codification?
The same goes for trade requests for superstars. Will the new CBA change any of the salary-matching requirements to change how these contracts can be moved? Some have suggested that players who demand trades have to return a portion of their salary, which would be a sort of reverse trade-kicker. Many stars have a 15% kicker in their deals that gives them even more money if a team decides to trade them. If player agency has leveled the trade playing field, then wouldn’t a reverse-kicker make some sense as well?
Players have more power than ever. It’s been earned, and they deserve some level of control over their own futures that matches or counterbalances what front offices can do. They deserve a two-way street.
This summer, their power is being put to the test, and because of the impending contract negotiations, that test could end up changing how business is done in the NBA.