I alluded to this in this morning’s post about nuclear winter, and I’ll expound on it in two more ways here: in print, and via audio.
You can bet your bottom dollar that David Stern wanted to have a full, 82-game season, or a fallback 72-game season if it netted him an extra $800 million, which it did. And you can double that bet on the notion that he never knew it would come to this back on June 30 when negotiations broke off and the commissioner predicted some degree of unpredictable collateral damage.
Stern had been bracing for this fight, he wanted to clean Billy Hunter’s clock because he knew this would be the last negotiation (of three) that they would do together, and he undoubtedly considers himself the better lawyer. He set himself up to win big, and that was what he was doing. When you are up $3 billion, you have to know when to pick up your chips, walk away from the table and go celebrate like Don MFing Johnson.
But Stern and his deputy, Adam Silver, screwed up. They made the monumental miscalculation that there would not be a mutiny from within the player/agent ranks if they pushed it too far, yet they pushed it too far late last week during the last round of negotiations, refusing to make enough concessions on system changes to win Billy Hunter’s endorsement.
Just think, if Stern had said “OK, Billy, I’ll let you have sign-and-trades for taxpaying teams, and I’ll give you a fourth year on the mini-midlevel,” we might be in a whole different place than we are today.
Stern already had his $3 billion giveback over 10 years, but he didn’t have Hunter.
He could have sprinkled enough crumbs here and there when the sides were meeting at the Helmsley on 42nd Street to get Hunter’s endorsement. But he acted like Leona and didn’t. He blew it, which is what I discussed with Lee “Hacksaw” Hamilton on XX1090 Sports Radio & ESPN 1700 in San Diego. Click here to listen.
If I’m a player, I take that deal 10 times out of 10. And thank the good lord that it was offered.
The players are doing the noble thing by fighting for future players? LOL. According to who? Their agents?
The NBA is not the NFL. There is no guarantee that it will continue to grow or even sustain it’s popularity. Just look at the apathy from the public right now. Who knows what the state of the NBA will be in 10 years. And so who knows what the terms of the next CBA will be at that time. But you can bet that it will reflect the economic reality.
Fighting for some precedent in the CBA is misguided because the league could fall on hard times in the future. At which point it could need a reboot like the NHL. With so many small market teams in trouble right now, the future is already dubious to me. That’s what the owner’s have taken into consideration. That’s why they’re holding out for system changes.
The players should take this deal because they will never get a better one. Why? Because there will be major problems ahead. Last year was an aberration, a storm of interest created by Lebron James. When that passes, basketball will continue to fail in cities like Sacramento and New Orleans. And it will get even worse when all the stars abandon their small markets and get together in their cities of choice. So barring a move to another city, we’re probably going to see some franchises disappear and the league contract.
There was a time when free agents like Michael, Magic and Larry showed loyalty to their teams and thus maintained the stability of the league. That was the whole point of previous CBAs, to give the home teams an economic advantage. It is their right to go where they want but this whole end around created by Lebron James and his friends to gather together and play in the cities of their choice like some AAU league has compromised the integrity of the NBA and could potentially ruin the league.
Maybe one day we will go back to the age of the Celtic dynasties when there were only 8 teams in the league. That’s the future of the NBA without correction. That means a lot less players in the NBA. But at least then you couldn’t call it a sham. That would reflect reality.
As for right now, let’s see, I have a choice of 5 million dollars for 4 months of work or nothing. Hmmm. Let me think about it.
The future of the league isn’t inside the United States it is outside. They want to become the premier league of basketball.
“free agents like Michael, Magic and Larry showed loyalty to their teams and thus maintained the stability of the league”
Rofl… Yeah, maintained the stability of big market teams dominating the rest of the league worse than any other time in league history. Must be nice to be drafted in the big markets.
4 different champions in the 80s.
4 different champions in the 90s.
Now: 6 of the last 8 years has been a different team winning it all.
I agree with you 90%. The players will regret not taking the league’s need for restructuring a little more seriously from the start. They could have negotiated differently and perhaps not missed any paychecks.
I differ somewhat on the Bird, Magic, Jordan comments. Those guys drew new fans to the game while their big market teams won championships. If they were playing today, fans would be in an uproar at the prospect of a canceled season. I’m a diehard Bulls fan. I’m sad that Rose and Noah will miss a year. But I would be outraged if Michael and Scottie missed a year as a result of a labor impasse.
This is what today’s star players do not realize, they won’t be missed that much.
I think what is lost on most people here is that the Owners failed to recognize the Players as a business partner and not just a commodity. They expected businessmen (accept it most of them run their image like a business) to accept what is offered to them all under the guise that the owners were losing moving monumental amounts of money.
In addition to that the deal that was proposed would have still favored the owners. The same owners who never make a shot or put their bodies on the line. These new owners were sold an idea that having a NBA team guaranteed cash. However most of these owners use their team as personal measuring sticks. They were still looking to recoup a dollar figure on a 50/50 BRI split?!?! How is that fair?
To some it seems as though the players are being greedy. However most of America seems to forget that our unions (for the most part are here) to represent and protect the rights of employees. Although I am a huge fan of the NBA I don’t think it would have been fair to the future of the league if the players took a deal just to play. Especially when they have backed of their proposal time and time again without any give backs.
I have always felt that David Stern is a self serving, arrogant jerk who understands very little about the game and always sought to stamp his legacy upon it. I am sort of happy to see the stain this will leave upon that legacy…sort of.
Chris- Has the union not filed the paperwork yet? If they have, they cannot negotiate with Stern. All reports are saying they have already filed the disclaimer of interest, can you provide us with more information on whether this actually occurred?
I had read that Stern was told by other owners that he shouldn’t concede anything else to the players since they were crumbling. he actually did make a couple of small concessions but I believe it was his tone that got the players pumped up. There was no need for ultimatums. The deal was within reach and he blew it.
“I believe it was his tone that got the players pumped up.” Perhaps the silliest comment I have read yet.
Pumped up to give up a 5 million dollar annual contract, 40 million a year toward a player annuity program, luxury hotel stays, private chartered travel and marketing from the league that helps secure endorsement deals.
As I have said, I feel bad for many of the players that just gave up perhaps the best financial deal they will see in their life.
I meant to say a 5 million dollar average annual contract per player. Add in the fact that guranteed contracts would still extend several years regardless of player performance.
Chris hit the nail on the head! True, most owners felt Stern/Silver went to far but you have to know when to call the hounds off and win graciously which THEY DIDN’T! If you want to play as much as they say they want too then do the right thing and allow the other party to sell the deal to their side…again THEY DIDN’T, and the arrogance and stauchness of league owners pushed to hard and the players came back with a round house that can blow the ship to the moon. We shouldn’t even be discussing the disbanding of the union, but I would be so inclinded to give a big ups to Stren bc he knows better. He’s been doing this longer then most hardline owners. So thank you for Mr.Stern for all the strong arm tactics that may blow up in your face.
Chris: why do people continue to call the owners proposal a 50-50 deal when the owners offered the following (in addition to 50-50).
Player Benefits
• New benefits pool to be funded with 1% of BRI for post-career player
annuity and welfare benefits.
As much as I dislike Stern, I don’t think it’s his fault. I think he just followed orders. Remember that a large faction of the owners didn’t even like the deal on the table.
totally agree. stern is getting ripped everywhere, while people are forgetting that he works for the owners, and almost half the owners didn;t even like this deal. they are the greedy greed greeds. did sterns ego play a role? sure, why not. but i feel as if he gave them the best deal he could have had pasted by the owners. i really think billy hunter dropped a big ball. did anyone actually watch his press confrences? he seemed like he had been sleeping through every “negotionation.” my question is…what if this is really what stern wanted. if stern wanted to burry hunter, doesn’t it seem like he probably just did? the players took away most of his power, and the only reason it wasn’t all of it is because it is too late to try. i wish they would have made a counter proposal. something to at least try to keep this going. it seems like hunter just kicked a field goal with 3 seconds left while down by 7. so dumb.
Stern’s problem is that he was doing two separate negotiations. One was about helping recover the owners “losses.” That is what I thought the negotiations were about. That is what Stern and all the owners were crying about; they supposedly were losing tons of money. The players gave them every penny of their losses back in financial concessions.
But then Stern made the negotiation about the competitive structure of the league, which is an unfair negotiation tactic — you can’t say the negotiation is about one thing, get concessions from the other side, and then say the negotiation is about something else and ask for more concessions. That is the definition of negotiating in bad faith. The players finally showed some nerve and stood up for themselves. I have nothing in common with these players, and thought they would cave as soon as their first paycheck was in danger, but they surprised me. I thought they would sell out future players to keep their checks coming in, but they did the opposite. I’m impressed.
Good write up..I’m impressed too!
They didn’t change what they were asking for after they got concessions on the league losses. From the start they stated their two intentions were on economics and structure to create parity. You may not agree with the argument or how they approached it but it’s inaccurate to suggest they changed their stance.
We must have heard different things. What I heard is that teams were losing money, and that’s why the owners locked out the players. I didn’t hear that the owners locked out the players so that the Charlotte Bobcats could be more competitive. You know why? Because that argument is garbage. The reason Charlotte stinks is because they sign guys like Tyrus Thomas to huge deals and let guys like Ray Felton and Gerald Wallace go for nothing (ie, because they are idiots). Small market teams like San Antonio and OKC, which manage the cap, don’t make bad signings, and hire good coaches, do just fine. And my Knicks, who spend millions, stink.
But the bad small market owners want to be saved from themselves. They want to make bad decisions and still make money. So they forced this “competitive structure” BS into the negotiations. Bad faith.
I don’t agree. I think its odd how many reporters have simply ignored the fact bad contracts are usually given out in 2 situations. Either by a big market that can afford to overpay and doesn’t mind a deal or two not working out or more frequently by small markets that have to overpay to keep talent. Agents know it, players know it and they use the leverage of bigger deals from large markets to drive prices up. Then they complain collectively that it isn’t a system problem but poor decisions from owners.
The whole money doesn’t correlate with wins argument is also suspect. Sure there are 2-3 teams that spent way too much and didn’t win (NYC and ORL) but that is the exception. The reality is that most of the successful teams in the league spent to get there. But wait the critics say, what about Chicago and OKC, conveniently ignoring the fact that they have superstars and young guys on rookie deals and that if they have any chance of retaining them, they will join the higher paying teams. So, you just have to draft well right?. Yeah, and it helps that both of those teams beat the odds to get a chance at Rose and Durrant.
I don’t know that the system changes they proposed will really matter but the fact is they can’t hurt.