The NBA supermax and the price of loyalty
Zach LoweESPN Senior Writer
原文鏈接：http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/24191536/zach-lowe-jimmy-butler-blake-griffin-nba-supermax
Jimmy Butlerin June 2017 fell right into the nebulous region where debating a maximum ornew supermaximum contract becomes especially fraught for teams.
2017年6月，吉米-巴特勒陷入了一個怪圈：爭取頂薪或者新出現的超級頂薪對他的球隊來說變得十分困惑。
With another All-NBA berth the nextseason (2017-18), Butler would qualify for a five-year, $220 million supermax-- vaulting to a salary equivalent to 35 percent of the salary cap, 5percentage points more than normal for a player at his experience level. Thedifference would amount to $25 million or more over the full deal. Add annual 8percent raises that might outpace growth in the cap, and such a deal could soakup 40 percent of a team's cap space on the back end. It is as large acommitment as exists in the NBA.
NBA新賽季（2017-18），巴特勒有資格獲得一份2億2千萬的超級頂薪合同。薪資漲到工資帽的35%，比他同樣球齡的其他球員高5%。超級頂薪和頂薪的差距大概在2500萬美元，或者更多。每年增長8%可能會超過工資帽，這筆合同可能會佔據球隊工資帽的40%，可能會成為NBA歷史上最大的合同之一。
Butler was the only star on a mediocreteam. Without finding a second, and perhaps a third, the Bulls would go nowhereinteresting during the length of Butler's supermax. The sheer size of his dealcould make luring those stars harder.
巴特勒是一支平庸球隊的唯一球星。如果找不到第二個或者第三個超級球星，公牛將不會對巴特勒的超級頂薪感興趣的。這筆合同的簽署可能會讓其他球星的加盟更加困難。
Butler was about to turn 28. Dependingon your taste, he at that point was somewhere between the eighth- and 12th-bestplayer in the league. You do the supermax for a healthy top-five-ish guy inthat age range without thinking; supermaxes for James Hardenand StephenCurry are no-brainers. Ditto for the deals with which Milwaukee and NewOrleans hope to eventually retain GiannisAntetokounmpo and Anthony Davis,respectively. You shouldn't do it for the 20th-best player. In between? That'swhere it gets hard.
巴特勒馬上28了。在你的印象中，他可能是聯盟第8或者第12位之間的最好球員。你會毫不猶豫的給這個年紀的一個聯盟前五的健康球員超級頂薪。給哈登和庫裡超級頂薪是傻子都會做的操作。密爾沃基想要留住字母哥，新奧爾良想要留住濃眉哥也是一樣的道理。而你不應該為一個聯盟前20的球員做這樣的事兒。折中之法，這就是困難所在。
Butler carried Tom Thibodeau miles onhis knees. A five-year deal would take Butler into the downslope of his career.Everyone knows a five-year max for a 33-year-old is probably going to endbadly. The Rockets coaxed Chris Paul, 33,into a shorter four-year deal, and must still fear the projectedbang-for-the-buck in Years 3 and 4.
巴特勒揹負著湯姆-錫伯杜太久太久了。巴特勒將簽下一份五年合約，那時他將正式開始走下坡路。所有人都知道，給一個33歲球員一份5年的頂薪合同通常不會有什麼好結果。火箭說服33歲的保羅簽下了一份4年的合同，但仍然必須得擔心3到4年內預算暴漲。，
But what about for a 28-year-old?
但是對於一個28歲的球員來說呢？
Chicago bailed out, and dealt Butler --plus the 16th pick in the 2017 draft -- for three unproven players and thechance to bottom out for a high pick in the 2018 draft. It was icy in itsrationality. It is unclear if it will pay off -- if Chicago'snext half-decade-plus with Kris Dunn, Zach LaVine, Lauri Markkanen, WendellCarter Jr., Jabari Parker, and perhaps another high pick in 2019 willproduce more wins, and a better chance at title contention, than the sameperiod with Butler, NikolaMirotic, a few mid-first-round picks and some cap space.
芝加哥交易了巴特勒--加上一個2017年16順位的選秀權，換來了三名尚未證明自己的球員以及一個很可能是2018年首輪樂透末端的選秀權。我們不確定這筆交易是否合理。因為不知道交易來的球員能否兌現他們的價值--如果芝加哥的未來十多年是以克里斯-鄧恩、扎克-拉文、洛裡-馬坎寧、小文德爾-卡特、賈巴里-帕克以及可能的另外一個高順位選秀權，在2019年可能會獲得更多勝利，並且在總冠軍爭奪中比同時期的巴特勒，尼古拉斯-米羅蒂奇一些首輪中段的選秀權，和一些薪資空間更有優勢。
It is the kind of intentional step backmore teams seem comfortable making -- and one a majority of executives aroundthe league consider appropriate, if painful.
很多球隊更傾向於做出一種退步，如果痛苦的話，大多數球隊都覺得這種做法是妥當的。
Reducing the length of contracts in thelast two collective bargaining agreements has accelerated the timing of thosedecisions. Stars reach their third contracts, the pivot point which testscommitment between player and team, earlier than they used to -- before theyeven turn 30.
減少合同年限可能會加速做決定的時間。球星們完成了他們的第三個合同的時候，也就到了檢驗球員和球隊之間承諾的轉折點。這個轉折點會比之前來的更早一些，甚至是在他們30歲之前。
Chicago cut bait on the Butler era. TheKings wanted no part of a supermax for DeMarcusCousins. Some within the Pacers had qualms about a supermax for Paul George,sources say -- a dilemma that never came to pass, since George did not make anAll-NBA team in 2017 before Indiana traded him.
芝加哥結束了巴特勒時代。國王不想給德馬庫斯-考辛斯超級頂薪。而步行者也在為保羅-喬治的超級頂薪焦慮不安。消息源稱在喬治被交易之前，由於他沒能進入最佳陣容，雙方陷入了進退兩難的境地。
The Clippers re-signed Blake Griffin,then 28 and their first homegrown star in decades, to a regular 30 percent max-- and traded him at the first opportunity for Tobias Harris,Avery Bradley on an expiring contract and a pick at the back of the lottery. Wehailed it as a victory for LA.
快船續約了布雷克-格里芬，28歲的格里芬是快船十多年來第一個土生土長的球星，達到了工資帽的30%，然後一有機會他們就把他交易掉，換來了托比亞斯-哈里斯，艾弗裡-布拉德利的到期合同還有一個樂透後的選秀權。我們都說這是洛杉磯的勝利。
John Wall (27)and RussellWestbrook (29) will earn almost $50 million toward the end of theirsupermax deals. Both have multiple knee surgeries in the rearview. There is areal chance that one or both of those contracts become of the sort of albatrossthat hangs on a team for years. Some teams, even those short on star talent,would not trade their best assets (or anything close, in some cases) foreither.
約翰-沃爾（27歲）和拉塞爾-維斯布魯克（29歲）將會獲得將近5千萬美元的超級頂薪。他們倆都經歷過多次膝關節鏡手術。他們倆，或者至少其中一個的合同真的有可能會成為球隊多年來的負擔。有些球隊，儘管沒有什麼天賦，也不願意交易他們的好資產（或者某種程度上很接近的資產）。
Golden State will face similar thornychoices over the next two years with Klay Thompsonand DraymondGreen (both 28).
Shifting this calculus backward on theage curve onto players in their late 20s makes me feel a little icky. Theickiness started to set in when the Bulls dealt Butler.
在未來兩年金州勇士將會面對同樣棘手的抉擇，留下克雷-湯普森還是德雷蒙德-格林。（都是28歲）。把年齡這項數據計算到20多歲的球員身上讓我覺得有點過分。當公牛處理巴特勒時這種問題就開始出現了。
Several executives around the leaguechuckled at my discomfort, suggesting I was naïve. These choices were just aproduct of teams getting smarter about injuries, aging, probabilities, and whatit takes to win championships, they said. If you are going to re-sign Butler ona supermax, they told me, you have to know you will have enough championshipequity (if that is a team's measuring stick -- a crucial and evolving factor)on the front end of the deal to justify the pain coming on the back end. Chicagodidn't. They started the cycle over instead of delaying a rebuild.
聯盟中幾個經理嘲笑我的不適，認為我太幼稚。他們說，這些選擇是球隊關於傷病，年齡，各種事情的概率和奪冠的因素更明智的選擇。他們告訴我，如果你想要以超級頂薪續約巴特勒，你必須在交易前確認這樣是有奪冠的可能的，這樣才能為交易後的痛苦辯解。（如果那就是球隊的標杆--一個決定性和進步的因素）芝加哥沒有這樣，他們重新開始了這個循環，而不是推遲重建。
I get it. I called theGriffin trade a win for the Clippers, and too much of a risk forDetroit. Griffin has had knee issues, and isn't as explosive as he was three orfour years ago. I've labeled Wall's deal borderline untradable, though that isan exaggeration; a few teams hungry for stars would bite on it for the right(discounted) price if they were to miss out in free agency over the next twosummers. Wall and Westbrook are minus shooters who rely on speed andathleticism; they profile as players who might age poorly compared to otherstars.
我知道的。把格里芬的交易稱為快船的勝利，底特律的大冒險。格里芬也有過膝蓋問題，他也不像三四年前那麼爆炸了。雖然我認為沃爾是不可交易的，但是其實是有點誇張了。一些球隊很渴望擁有球星，因此如果他們錯過了接下來兩個夏天的自由球員市場，他們會以合適的價格（已打折）接受這筆交易。沃爾和韋斯特布魯克是更依賴速度和運動能力而不是投射的球員，在年齡這一項上考慮，他們可能會比其他球星吃虧。
Since the cap spike of 2016, max dealscarry a new sticker shock, even if they take up the same proportion of the capas they always have. Some owners didn't pay even $200 million for their teams.Now one player wants more than that?
由於2016年的工資帽調整，即使他們使用了和往年一樣的工資帽比率，頂薪合同的簽署也會包含一個新的附加條款。有些球隊老闆不能再給他的球隊花2億了。現在球員想要的更多了？
The league office would likely point outthat Wall and Westbrook got paid -- that the supermax did not scare their teamsaway, even though those teams weren't close to title contention upon offeringthose deals. (One of them -- the Thunder -- also agreed to terms with George ona 30 percent max-level contract.) The Clippers found an eager taker for Griffin.That does not change anything about the dramatic downside risk awaiting.
聯盟辦公室可能指出沃爾和威少得到了他們的薪水--超級頂薪並未嚇走他們的球隊，儘管球隊在續約他們之後並未增加他們奪冠的幾率。（他們中的一個，比如雷霆，還同意了喬治佔工資帽30%的合同）快船為格里芬找到了一個趨之若鶩的買家。那也不能對期待中的戲劇性價值下跌有任何改變。
Something about this is uncomfortable.The Bulls should want Butler on theirteam from ages 28 to 31. They drafted him, and he made himself into a star star(if an ornery one during the Fred Hoiberg era) in Chicago.
關於這些有點讓人不舒服。公牛應該讓巴特勒在28歲到31歲之間的時候才效力他們的。但是他們是在選秀大會上選了他，然後在芝加哥把他培養成了全明星球員（如果是在福瑞德-霍伊博格時代的一個難對付的傢伙）。
It should be an unabashed organizationaltriumph for the Wizards to pick Wall No. 1, develop him, and do enough toretain him through his prime.
對於奇才來說，用狀元籤選中沃爾，培養他並且做足夠的努力讓他在整個職業生涯都保持好狀態絕對是一件毫無疑問的團隊勝利。
The Clippers on at least some level shouldwant Griffin to be a Clipper for life -- the story they sold him in theirfree-agency pitch two summers ago, when they built what was essentially apop-up museum exhibition in his honor and then staged a fakejersey retirement for him.
至少在某種層面上來說，快船是希望格里芬一直是一個快船球員的--兩年前，格里芬成為自由球員時的故事，他們為他辦了一個基礎展覽並設置了一個假的球衣退役儀式。
A lot of fans in those markets wantthose things, too. They love homegrown stars.
很多球迷可能也記得這些事情。他們喜歡家鄉球星。
But financial realities can run counterto fan service. Ditching a star -- even a borderline top-10 player -- can bethe correct call. I want players to get every dime to which they are entitled.This is their league. But shouldn't there be a way for them to get that throughtheir primes -- their primes! -- without presenting as much downside risk forteams?
但是財務現實與球迷服務背道而馳。發掘一個球星--即使是一個前十邊緣的球員--也能成為一次正確的操作。我希望球員能獲得他們應得的每一分錢。這是他們的聯盟。但是難道不應該有一種讓他們在巔峰期拿到他們贏得的薪水的方法嗎？--那是他們的巔峰啊！--同時球隊又不需要承擔過多的交易價值下降的風險。
Maybe there is nothing wrong with any ofthis. If there is something wrong, there are no easy answers. The supermaxexists in large part as a reaction to Kevin Durant bolting Oklahoma City for Golden State. Teams craved a more powerful hammer tokeep their own players -- a contract so huge, no player could turn it down.
也許這一切都沒有什麼錯。如果有什麼不對的，其實是沒有輕鬆的答案的。超級頂薪的存在很大程度上是由於凱文-杜蘭特逃離俄克拉荷馬奔赴金州。球隊們使用了更強力的手段試圖留住他們自己的球員。--一個如此巨大的合同，沒有人能夠拒絕的。
But those financial commitments turnedout to be so big that some teams preemptively turned them down. Thecombination of these calculated steps back, shorter player contracts, andsuperstars leveraging their impending free agency to pick new teams has createdan unprecedented level of player turnover; as Tom Haberstroh of Bleacher Reportpointed out, half of the players in the 2017 All-Star Game have already changedteams.
但是大多數財政報告顯示這些合同實在太大了，以至於很多球隊主動終止了這些合同。這些計算方式結合起來又回到了過去，縮短球員合同年限，超級球星們利用自己即將到來的自由球員身份挑選球隊，從而造成了前所未有的自由球員市場。BR的湯姆-哈博斯特羅指出，在2017年全明星期間有一般的球員已經更換了球隊。
As for the max-deal dilemma, maybe it ison teams to negotiate harder for a middle ground between giving a player onButler's level everything or flipping him -- or create the conditions wheresuch a middle ground might develop almost organically. No one forced Washingtonto lavish Wall with a supermax. Toronto leveraged Kyle Lowry and DeMar DeRozan,both a little lower on the totem pole than Butler, into sub-max deals. TheHawks let AlHorford walk to Boston instead of offering him the full five-year max.
至於工資帽的困境，可能對於球隊來說，按照巴特勒的水準給球員合同或者交易他們之間談判變得越來越困難。--或者創造一個這樣的條件，讓這樣的折中的情況正常的發展。沒有人強迫華盛頓過於慷慨的給沃爾奉上頂薪。多倫多用低於頂薪的合同續約了凱爾-洛瑞和德瑪爾-德羅贊，他們兩個人似乎都沒有巴特勒的影響力那麼大。老鷹放棄了給艾爾-霍福德5年的頂薪合同，於是放他去波士頓。
Golden State nudged stars into takingless, and may try to do so again with Thompson and Green. San Antonio did thesame for years. There can be both something wrong with a system in whichplayers feel pressure to take less, and something right about a team culturethat makes them feel comfortable doing so.
金州敦促他們的球星少拿點錢，並且想在湯普森和格林身上再做一次這樣的事情。聖安東尼奧多年來一直在做相同的事情。可能有兩個錯誤同時存在，球員感覺到薪資少了的壓力，而球隊文化又讓他們覺得這樣做是正確的。
But it's easier said than done. If thesupermax is available, most players will want it. That is natural. It becomes apoint of status and pride. The best player on each team usually demands a maxcontract, even though there aren't 30 players worth such a large portion of thesalary cap.
說起來容易做起來難。如果超級頂薪是可取的，大多數球員會爭取它。這很正常。那已經變成了一種地位和驕傲的展示。各支球隊的最好球員通常都會要求一個頂薪合同，儘管一個30歲的球員並不應該在工資帽中佔據如此大的比例。
If strained negotiations push a playerout the door, teams over the cap have no method of replacing that lostproduction. They have to choose between re-signing that guy at a huge number,via Bird rights, or trawling the bargain bin. (The combination of a hard cap andunlimited -- up to that cap -- individual maximum salaries would warp all ofthis, but it wouldcreate a lot of other ripple effects.)
如果過於緊張的談判會把球員拒之門外，超過工資帽的球隊沒有任何辦法替代損失的財產。他們必須在以鉅額合同重籤該球員也就是使用鳥權，或者繼續討價還價。（最大工資帽和不受限的區別--取決於工資帽--一個最大頂薪就會讓這一切變得困難，但是也會創造出一些其他的連鎖反應。）
Still: If more teams held the line withtheir own free agents, the precedent that every top-25 guy should not expect amax contract might ripple across the league -- and reorient the market for suchplayers.
Some other potential tweaks that came upin chats with executives around the league:
• What about a rule that any 35percent-level max contract connected to a player that has played for only oneteam -- the one that drafted him -- does not count against the luxury tax, orcounts as half (or something like that) for tax purposes? A couple ofhigh-powered team executives have pitched the similar idea of a "legacycontract" over the years.
而且：如果更多的球隊選擇和他們的自由球員續約，那麼每個前25的球員不應該追求一份超級頂薪合同的先例可能會波及整個聯盟--然後為這些球員重新定義市場。
在聯盟高管的談話中有一些其他潛在的變動浮現出來：
·任何一個只為他母隊效力過的球員，他的佔總工資35%的合同都不計入奢侈稅範圍，或者只計入一半（或者什麼其他類似的情況）？這幾年一些位高權重的球隊管理層一直在提出關於“遺產合同”這樣類似的問題。
This proposal is almost purely economic.It saves owners money. It does not give capped- and taxed-out teams anymeaningful new way to add players, and build around an albatross contract.
這個建議幾乎是純經濟上的考慮。它能夠為老闆們省錢。沒有給球隊工資帽的限制，或者以徵稅的方式限制球隊任何有意義的球員補強，或者迫使球隊圍繞一個巨大的合同來建隊。
It also could complicate trades: Dolegacy benefits carry over to a new team? Do all legacy players receive ano-trade clause?
• What about a once-every-15-yearsamnesty provision teams can use only on 35 percent-level max players theydrafted and kept for their entire careers to that point? The player still getsall his money, and the team escapes a purgatory that became the price ofloyalty.
這也可能會造成交易複雜化：遺產的特權收益是否延續到新球隊？是否所有的遺產球員都有交易否決權？
·有每15年一次的特別條款的球隊，能夠為他們選擇的，整個生涯一直效力他們球隊的球員只能使用35%的頂薪，這樣如何？這名球員仍然會拿到錢，而球隊則避免了清洗球員，這就成為了忠誠的代價。
This introduces moral hazard. It is aget-out-of-jail-free card. If teams make suboptimal decisions, even with 28-and 29-year-old players, they should pay for them, several executives told me.It was not hard to envision that a supermax for Wall could cripple the Wizardsin 2022. (To be clear: Wall is really good -- I've voted him to multipleAll-NBA teams over the years -- and his deal is fine for now, recentphotographic evidence notwithstanding.) If that comes to pass, the Wizardsshould have to live with it, the thinking goes.
這就引入了道德風險。這就像是一張越獄卡。如果球隊有備選決定，甚至是對於那些28、29歲的球員，球隊應該為他們付錢，一些高管們是這樣告訴我的。很容易預見到的是奇才可能會在2022年由於沃爾的超級頂薪合同而變得非常困難。（需要講清楚的是：沃爾真的很棒--這麼些年我不止一次選他進NBA最佳陣容了--而且根據近期的依據來看，他的合同暫時來看還好）如果這一切成真，那奇才就不得不接受他，並保持思考。
Any easy path to instant cap space widensthe gap between richer markets and everyone else. The Lakers, Warriors, Knicks,and other teams can afford to pay players to go away, and splurge on betterones with the resulting cap space. The smallest markets can't.
任何創造薪金空間的捷徑都將加大市場上有錢人和其他人之間的差距。像湖人，勇士，尼克斯和其他球隊，他們能承擔起支付球員們的薪水放走他們，並且把錢花在更好的人身上並創造薪金空間。那些小市場的球隊卻無法做到。
The league and players union have alsoalready mitigated the purgatory problem by reducing contract lengths andintroducing the stretch provision -- which allows teams to waive players, and"stretch" the salary hit over several seasons. Shouldn't that beenough?
聯盟和球員工會也早已經通過減少合同長度和引入彈性條款減輕了清洗的問題--這讓球隊能夠裁掉企業，同時順延薪水到之後的幾個賽季。這難道還不夠嗎？
• Perhaps any team who signs a player itdrafted to a 35 percent max could receive a special midlevel exception forone-time-only use -- a way to attract a player they would otherwise not havethe cap flexibility to sign. But is that fair? Does any benefit to drafting asuperstar, even one a decade down the line, make tanking a teensy bit morelucrative?
·可能任何一支球隊簽下了一個35%頂薪球員可以得到一個只能使用一次的中產特例。--一種吸引那些可能沒有靈活的薪資空間去簽下的球員加盟。但是這公平嗎？對那些選擇了超級球星的球隊來說有什麼好處嗎？即使是十年，擺爛有一點點好處嗎？
• Related: Why don't max contracts riseand fall with the cap, so that a player on a 35 percent max earns precisely 35percent of the cap every season? Right now, if the cap creeps up slowly, thosecontracts eat up more than 35 percent as raises pile up. If the cap spikesagain, 35 percent-level guys might suddenly earn less than an actual 35percent.
相關：為什麼頂薪合同沒有隨著工資帽起起伏伏，那樣一個35%頂薪的球員就能每個賽季精確的得到工資帽35%的工資了呢？如今，如果工資帽緩慢提高，這些合同慢慢增長將超過工資帽的35%。如果工資帽再次飆升，這些35%級別的球員可能會突然比實際的35%要賺的少一些。
• The league and union could do awaywith a seniority-based wage scale, so that pay would more accurately reflectproduction. The league has broached tweaks in past collective bargainingcycles, sources say, but it has been a non-starter. The union will obviouslynot accept a system in which max contracts decline as players age.
聯盟和工會可能會取消以年齡為基礎的工資標準，這樣工資會更準確的反應在實際產出。消息源稱：聯盟在過去的勞資談判中對於此事一直很苦惱，但是一直沒有一個正式的開始。工會肯定不會接受一份頂薪合同隨著球員年齡遞減的方案的。
But why not make all players eligiblefor the 35 percent max as soon as their rookie deals expire? This was the pointof the supermax -- to grant guys in their eighth and ninth seasons access tothe 35 percent max normally reserved for players who have logged at least 10years. Why not go further? Why shouldn't Karl-AnthonyTowns earn the same portion of the cap in his mid-20s as Paul will earn inhis mid-30s? (If you want to do away with the rookie scale, and maybe even thedraft, that's a much bigger discussion that requires reimagining the entireleague.)
但是為什麼不讓所有符合35%頂薪標準的球員，新秀合同一結束就簽下頂薪呢？這就和超級頂薪有關了--這通常是專門給那些生涯第八、第九年達到35%頂薪合同的球員和至少打了十年的球員預定的。為什麼不更進一步呢？為什麼卡爾-安東尼-唐斯不能在他的20多歲賺到和保羅30多歲一樣的薪水呢？（如果你想徹底放棄新秀合同，或者甚至是選秀，那這個討論就太大了，需要整個聯盟的重新思考。）
This could put even more of a premium ondrafting well. Teams would have a tougher time opening enough space to signyounger (and restricted) free agents away from rivals. Restraining playermovement even further might in turn encourage more tanking. On the flip side,the fatter cap hit might also make it harder to build good teams around thoseplayers in their primes.
這可能會早場更多的溢價合同。球隊可能要度過一段更難獲得薪金空間從競爭者手中籤下年輕的自由球員（以及受限制自由球員）。而進一步限制球員的活動可能會導致更多的擺爛。另一方面，更沉重的工資帽負擔可能會讓球隊更難以在那些球員的巔峰期組建球隊。
Maybe there is nothing to fix. Maybeturning Butler, a borderline top-10 player carrying a one-star team, into abunch of lottery tickets increased Chicago's long-term championship chances. Alot of this depends on team goals. Chicago with Butler would have been at leastsolid. Over the past decade or so, fewer owners seem satisfied with solid. The Joe JohnsonHawks are more punchline than aspiration.
可能沒有什麼需要調整的。可能對於巴特勒來說，一個前十邊緣的球員獨自帶隊，換成一堆樂透選秀權對於芝加哥來說更能增加總冠軍爭奪的幾率。很多情況下，這都取決於球隊的目標。芝加哥在擁有巴特勒的情況下，至少是一支強隊。不管是在過去的十年，還是什麼時候，很少有球隊老闆僅僅滿足於強隊的標準。老鷹的喬-約翰遜更像是一個笑話而不是激動人心的事情。
Hovering all of this is the relativelack of randomness in the NBA -- how hard it is to win four seven-game serieswithout one or two of the best 10 players in the league. Change the playoffstructure in a way that gives more teams a chance to go far, and you change thecalculus of these Butler-level decisions.
回憶整個NBA相似的事情都不是隨機的--在沒有一個或者兩個聯盟前十球員的情況下贏下四輪搶七大戰有多麼困難。改變季後賽結構在某種程度上來說給更多球隊一些機會去走的更遠，同時你會重新考慮關於那些類似巴特勒級別的球員的決定。
That isn't happening. But the kind ofamorphous, future championship equity Chicago chased in the Butler dealguarantees nothing. Unless you get a top-five player, a true superstar, youcould get trapped in this cycle forever: draft a Jimmy Butler, get pretty good,blow it up, find a new Jimmy Butler -- or a few interesting young players --and blow it up again before you have to pay them. (Avoiding this cycle was thewhole point of the Process in Philly.)
那是不會發生的。但是不一定，因為巴特勒的合同在未來無法給芝加哥追逐總冠軍提供任何的保證。除非你得到一個聯盟前五的球員，一個真正的超級明星，你會永遠的陷在那個循環裡：選擇了吉米·巴特勒，感覺還不錯，搞砸了，找一個新的吉米·巴特勒--或者一些有趣的年輕球員--然後在你不得不為他們花錢之前再次搞砸。（避免這個循環是費城工作的全部內容）
Obviously, there are alternative pathsalong the way. Chicago can turn its post-Butler assets into better assets, andturn those into something that moves the needle. That is what Boston andHouston have done, in different ways, over the past 10 years.
很明顯，一直都有兩條路可以選擇。芝加哥可以可以把他們的巴特勒資產變成其他更好的資產，然後把這些變成可以做出一些改變的東西。這就是波士頓和休斯頓在過去十年中以不同的方式曾經做到的事情。
But eventually you have to commit tosomething, and someone.
但是到最後你不得不承認一些事情，或者認同某個人。
閱讀更多 老王談球 的文章
