Compare NBA players to actors, talk show hosts and rock stars. Clooney and Seinfeld. Oprah and Letterman. Madonna and Bono. The incomes of these celebrities dwarf those of the greatest pros, and their careers are considerably longer.

The only reason player salaries are in the same arena is the free market. In this country, people earn what they're worth, or at least what they're perceived to be worth. We don't begrudge Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or Steve Jobs the chance to capitalize on capitalism. Why should we treat basketball players any differently? Sure, they want their contracts to be guaranteed - at any moment, an injury or a coach's whim could end their careers.

After that, Tellem resorts to rote populism to drive his point home:

Instead of railing against player salaries, outraged fans would be wise to train their anger on investment bankers, the folks who nearly scuttled the economy only to be bailed out by us taxpayers. Exactly what talent is required to make multi-million dollar bonuses while millions of unemployed citizens are losing their homes? A gift for cooking the books, perhaps, or for screwing their investors and the American people. Save your fury for those fat cats.

So fans should allow unfettered markets to dictate compensation for artists, movie stars and power forwards, but damn financial professionals who used unregulated financial instruments to nearly bankrupt the economy?

Whether you agree or disagree with a hard cap in the next collective bargaining agreement, the notion that regulation is somehow crucial to the health of one sector, but inimical to the well-being of another is a direct contradiction.

Tellem has traditionally been an elegant advocate for his positions. Conflating two opposing principles to pander to "outraged fans" doesn't serve his arguments well.