Lockout update: The Obama solution?

By Chris Sheridan

President Barack Obama is a huge NBA fan, and it is fair to say he holds some sway over the National Labor Relations Board, which spent the summer investigating complaints by both sides (the players filed a complaint first, then the owners filed one of their own) alleging unfair negotiating tactics.

Let’s just imagine Mr.President had Nov. 1 circled on his calendar (Bulls at Mavericks), and the commander-in-chief was dismayed as everyone else when negotiations broke down Monday night and commissioner David Stern canceled the first two weeks of the season.

Would it be beyond the realm of possibility for Obama to have someone on his staff put a little pressure on the NLRB to issue a ruling sooner rather than later? It might be the only thing that would push the sides toward a compromise agreement that could save a full 82-game season. (If the season started 2-3 weeks late, the postponed games could be made up over the course of the season, the playoffs could be pushed back 1-2 weeks and the champion could be determined in late-June instead of mid-June).

I asked President Obama that question this morning via Twitter, and hopefully he responds in his next tweet, which will be his 2,000th.

In the meantime, let’s have a look around the Web at what some of the best NBA writers are saying:

Ian Thomsen, SI.com: “On and on it will go, with both sides looking back to the salvation of the ’99 lockout. That resolution a dozen years ago may have influenced these extended talks that failed Monday night in New York. As much anxiety as both sides were feeling to reach an agreement this week, they weren’t experiencing the ultimate pressure that will be felt later this winter when the entire season is at risk. “The problem,” said a former league official who was involved in the negotiations that shortened the 1998-99 season to 50 games, “is that people tend to look at early January as the drop-dead date.” He was worrying that the absolute final offer from either side may not emerge for another 12 weeks. Not until the final days of this calendar year will the owners fully understand the consequences of losing a full season during a recession, while more than 400 players find themselves confronted with the likelihood of a full year without an NBA paycheck.

Adrian Wojnarowski, Yahoo Sports: “Stern’s always wanted the glory of the commissioner’s seat, but never the light that comes with his failings. This labor fight is the championship series of Stern’s career. He’s overseeing the ultimate owners’ hustle to shut down the sport because they think they can squeeze far more money than they need to simply stabilize financial losses and bring the league better competitive balance. The owners want it all, and Stern’s forever been the man to bully people to their knees. This is a mission to make his richest owners even richer, ultimately allowing him to reap the bonuses and rewards that come to a union-breaking CEO. Yes, Stern and the hardliners shut down the NBA season Monday, and still Stern didn’t have the stomach to stand with the NBA logo in the background. The most sanctioned, most scripted event of his life, and he still couldn’t own it. As much as anything Stern wants his professional shame in the shadows, narrowing the scope, the coverage. For Stern, the strategy is simple: Step out of the way, and let the players impale themselves in the public eye. Two weeks of the regular season are gone, more promise to be wiped away, and Stern will feed that public desire to tear apart his star players and feed into all the worst stereotypes. Only, this lockout will eventually end, and he’ll need to repair those images to make the NBA thrive again.”

Harvey Araton, New York Times: “By Monday, faced with the pending reality of canceled games and irretrievable paychecks, the players were back in the familiar role of a brooding breed collectively sent to its room by mean old daddy David. “Let us play” became the Twitter mantra for the union masses, as if some child-protection agency was going to stumble upon the plea and rush to their rescue. Silly is how they came across, even if the players’ stated intention was to remind the general public that the N.B.A. shutdown was the result of a lockout and not a strike. Not that the public generally appreciates the difference, or cares about a battle of megamillionaires versus multimillionaires in a country that is polarized on the issue of providing basic health care for almost 50 million uninsured. … “My father used to tell me, ‘You are never going to win the public over, and the sooner you realize it, the better off you are,’ “ said Marc Fleisher, son of Larry, who was the N.B.A.’s first major union power broker in the 1960s. “He used to say, ‘This is about one thing, and that thing is leverage.’ “

Ken Berger, CBSSports.com: “It would appear the only thing we’re “on the road” to is the road to more double-talk, more linguistic loop-de-loops and rope-a-dopes. And so here are my questions: Were we duped into thinking the economic gap had been all but bridged, and that the system — luxury-tax thresholds, contract lengths, tightening of exceptions, and other mundane topics — would all fall into place once the two sides solved the economic part? Did the two sides prioritize the wrong problem, wasting precious days and weeks on BRI when they should have been tackling the system instead? Or, more startling, this: Were we duped again Monday night into believing that it was really the system and not the money that killed any chance of an agreement that would’ve saved the first two weeks of the regular season? Hasn’t it really always been both? After both sides achieved a negotiating goal of sorts by proving they are willing to miss games, does everything shift back to the money now that the system did its job of distracting everyone?