Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Miami Wins Opener Over Boston, 93-79

SB Nation NBA The Hook

At Long Last, The NBA Lockout Spurs Players' Revolution

This NBA lockout is nothing like the last one. This time, the rank-and-file are bloody rich, the stars are ready for revolution and David Stern is about to get a taste of his own medicine.

Nov 17, 2011 - When David Stern and his henchmen Michael Jordan, Paul Allen, Peter Holt and Dan Gilbert backed the players into a corner last week, giving them one last chance to take the bad deal before the beatings started again, they expected broke athletes to cower and beg for mercy. They still expect that later, maybe in January, maybe next September. They expect these NBA players to do what the NBA players of 1998 and 1999 did: fracture, fall apart and decide that life with the big bully wasn't so bad. They want players to go experience life in the lower levels of Europe and in China and remember the clear air and lack of lit flares at Madison Square Garden. The bullies want the money to dry up and the beaten players to admit final defeat. They have always wanted to break the players, and now they'll get their chance, as solidarity becomes even more important to the athletes just as it becomes most difficult.

But David Stern and his henchmen will hopefully soon realize that these aren't the NBA players of 1998 and 1999. These players are different in so many ways, from off-court pursuits to their ability to communicate directly with fans. But there is one incredibly important way in which these players are different than the previous incarnations that matters more than all else.

They are really fricking rich.


Full NBA Lockout Coverage from SBNation.com

You'll see it noted in every pro-owner opinion piece that David Stern possessed the genius that made the NBA what it is today, a league capable of paying even average players $5 million a year. He grew the league to its monstrous size, he ushered in the superstar paradigm and resultant mammoth TV deals. Well, if he did all of that, he also created the conditions under which LeBron James did not give a flying fig what anyone thought of his move to Miami. He also created the conditions under which Carmelo Anthony could invoke the spirit of Kareem and pick his destination. (Melo, mind you, wasn't exactly a serial MVP like Kareem. Melo is roughly the 20th-best player in the NBA. And he has this pull.)

Money is the ultimate weapon, and players now have more of it than ever before. Consider this: Patrick Ewing, the superstar near the end of his rope during the 1998-99, one with enough money to last two dozen lifetimes? By 1998, he'd made $80 million over 11 seasons while missing just two All-Star Games. Amar'e Stoudemire, who has six All-Star Games in nine years? He's already there, over $80 million. And he has four years left on his current contract stretching up toward $20 million annually. And he has a clothing line you can purchase at your local Macy's. 

NBA players in 1998 were rich, but a good portion had no clue what to do with wealth. Exhibits A through ZZ are references to Kenny Anderson. But today's stars are different. LeBron James sips tea with Warren Buffet and owns a stake in the Liverpool Football Club. The NBA is a day job for guys like LeBron, Melo and Amar'e. You know how owning an NBA team is a hobby to most of these billionaires, it's just a fun side gig? For the great majority of players, the NBA is the day job, the moneymaker, the lifeblood. The stars? They need it, but they won't shrivel up and die without it. Does anyone think LeBron is in any danger whatsoever of going broke? 

That's why you see the mid-rung guys primarily moving overseas to take any jobs that open up. There are exactly two All-Stars playing overseas during the lockout: the trendsetting Deron Williams, and Tony Parker, who is playing for a team he runs in France. Everyone else is either foreign-born or is a true mid-rung player who needs a paycheck during his prime, and who might be in Europe even if there weren't a lockout. Players like Kobe Bryant and Kevin Durant don't need the paycheck; they'll be content to appear at one-off exhibitions if the reward matches the risk while otherwise enjoying their time off. Don't get me wrong: Kobe and KD want back on the court, both because they are in love with the game and because they have unfinished business on the court. But they don't need the NBA and its owners to survive. Neither does Steve Blake or Serge Ibaka. Steve Blake, who has started only about half of his NBA games and averages less than 25 minutes a night, has made $20 million over eight years. (By comparison, John Starks -- who made an All-Star team in '94 -- had made half as much as Blake by this point in his career.) Steve Blake might be clamoring to get back on the court, but that's only because he wants to add to his wealth, not because he sees it slipping away.

In 1999, David Stern and his owners wanted to cap the amount stars could make. They wanted to take power from the biggest and baddest players, to wrest it back and line their own pockets. In doing so, they either ignored or didn't see the consequences: the redistribution of wealth from a select few at the top to the bulk of the player base. The owners' greed in 1999 made Steve Blake's $20 million (and counting) career possible. When the NBA decided it wouldn't allow teams like Cleveland to pay whatever it wanted to keep a player like LeBron, it laid the path for The Decision. And now David Stern and the owners don't like what they see. They don't like the concentration of talent. They don't like the concentration of power. They don't like the players to wrest any sort of control over the process of team creation, over progress of league reform. They don't like seeing the players take any bit of power.

And now, in the vacuum of the NBA's own creation, there exists the opportunity for the players to take ultimate power by waiting these lawsuits out. By holding the owners themselves hostage. By forcing Jerry Buss to watch the value of his prized possession, the Lakers, eat itself away slowly. By forcing David Stern to see his legacy lose its luster, inch by inch. By forcing Peter Holt to watch Tim Duncan's wrinkles form, by forcing to watch Wyc Grousbeck see his championship core turn gray, by forcing Donald Sterling to think about his golden idol risk his health in pick-up games in empty gyms. In 1999, because of the lack of sophistication most players had about wealth and how to handle it, time was on the owners' side. Things are different now. Robert Sarver and the Maloofs and Joe Lacob have a helluva lot of skin in this game to watch their investments get chewed up by Father Time. They all need and deeply desire a new system. But what good is a new system without a league to employ it in?

Make no mistake: with this week's moves by the players, the scales have evened. The players are no longer content to negotiate from the corner David Stern put them in. They looked Stern and MJ and Paul Allen and Dan Gilbert right in their gold-specked eyes and they waved a middle finger and they said, "No mas." That's what David Stern has to deal with now, if this ever gets back to the negotiating table: a collection of players that have had enough. And if it doesn't get back to the table, and the players continue to hold strong -- certainly not a given, but much more plausible because of the new money standards -- then the owners' fates will be decided by judges. Billionaires aren't used to being told what to do, so it'll be a nice new perspective on what the players have been through the last five months, should the courts go the athletes' way. 

Let's see if the owners have the stomach to accept their own medicine.

Star-divide

The Hook runs Monday through Friday. See the archives.

Do you like this post?

Ziller_medium

Tom Ziller

NBA Editor

I write about the NBA for SBNation.com and the Kings for Sactown Royalty. I live in Sacramento, love freedom and wish that taco truck would just get here already.


Comments

Display:

As rich as the players are, the owners are by magnitudes even richer

Sure the owners want income from a functioning league, but if you don’t think they have reservoirs of wealth and haven’t figured out the tax advantages of non-functioning clubs, etc., you have severely underestimate the owners. None of the owners have all their wealth invested in their NBA clubs, except for the All-Stars you’ve named, most of the NBA players depend on the NBA for the great majority of their income. The owners continue to have the advantage.

Don't pay attention to anything I just wrote. It's total bullshit.

by Slum C on Nov 17, 2011 11:34 AM EST reply actions   3 recs

Marginal Owners

If a year long lockout forces the marginal owners like the Maloofs out of the league because they can’t handle the losses then all the better.

On the other hand, the marginal owners might be the ones celebrating a lost season. Better to break even by not playing than lose $20M or $50M by playing.

by DW19 on Nov 17, 2011 12:12 PM EST reply actions  

Not quite sure I would call it a revolution

but 2 to 3 years is a long long fight. Personally, I think it’s a joke to say NBA teams don’t collude with each other but it would take some serious stones to see this through because the owners are going to bring out the unlimited checkbook.

by wallywagon11 on Nov 17, 2011 12:35 PM EST reply actions  

By the way

if the agents get their way (and no it’s not leverage for 50% and no system changes, it’s a lot lot more than that and they will argue it’s a bad deal) basically this turns into who can screw the lower half of the nba players the fastest.

by wallywagon11 on Nov 17, 2011 1:08 PM EST up reply actions  

I couldn't read past...

“giving them one last chance to take the bad deal before the beatings started again” Blady, blady, bla…

Really? That’s impartial objectivity? That’s like asking if someone still beats their wife. It’s the kind of thing you say when you just want something or someone to look bad.

Not sure if I blame you too much though, I think this whole thing is like we are relatives watching a valued family member self destruct. It’s hard to watch the destructive behavior and not be able to do anything about it. You want to take sides. This isn’t fair! That’s not fair! But I think we know we can’t do anything for them. Isn’t taking the players side kind of like saying ‘the arms and legs are being bullied, they should have some say in about what happens to them.’ Or to take the owners side might be like saying, ‘The brain put up the money and sweat so he should just go on without the rest of the body.’ None of that makes sense.

The best we can do is to be there and hope that they come to their senses and stop the damage before someone dies.

by signal_lost on Nov 17, 2011 12:38 PM EST reply actions  

I'd like to see this piece written after the players miss another paycheck or two.

There won’t be cracks – there will be safety glass spiderwebs.

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower

by lietothegirls on Nov 17, 2011 2:34 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

" just lost a million dollars - for What again?"

tick, tick, tick . . .

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower

by lietothegirls on Nov 17, 2011 3:30 PM EST up reply actions  

But it's too late...

… the players can’t revolt now. They can’t bumrush Billy Hunter’s office and demand to vote in favor of a deal with an expired ultimatum. The union is dissolved and it’s in the hands of the courts. Any player who wants to break ranks is in the same boat as Micky Arison, they can complain about it on Twitter and then sit around and play the waiting game.

by Kevin Conroy on Nov 18, 2011 1:25 AM EST up reply actions  

I hope you're right Ziller.

Solely because I want basketball.

"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!

by caseycheesecake on Nov 17, 2011 2:38 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

Actually LeBron is in jeporady of going borke.

Any player is in jeporady. The examples are too long to list. Tim Hardaway, Spreewell, etc. The dums shit these guys do with their money is incredible. But with all that being said “Fuck David Stern!”

by Albino Garcia on Nov 17, 2011 3:48 PM EST reply actions  

Are people really that shortsighted/ignorant? I love commenters who say "They should feel lucky if they played for $500,000! Those players are so greedy! I'd play for free!"

1) You’re shitting on the players(millionaires) for being greedy and holding out for money while the owners(billionaires) are the ones who initiated this lockout. Am I the only one who sees the short-circuit in this logic? How are people defending the right of billionaires to get their money while simultaneously raging that the millionaires should be happy with their money? Y’all are like crabs in a barrel: Just Keep Pulling Each Other Down.

2) If you were basically the reason people paid into a multi-billion dollar industry, you wouldn’t want your cut? You’d be okay with saying “I’m making you hundreds of millions of dollars, but yeah half a mil a year sounds good!” You must not be married.

3)Yeah you’d play for free. Because nobody would pay to watch you on the court. These are the best players in the world. 450 out of 7 billion people are good enough to play in this league. That’s a scarcity of talent right there, and it might sound ridiculous that people value NBA players in the millions while teachers and soldiers make magnitudes less, but that’s not something you can blame the players for. Blame the people who make up the society that pays them if you have a need to point the finger.

Fish Fingers give me a break.

by GAx on Nov 17, 2011 5:31 PM EST reply actions   3 recs

Well said.

No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

"This is about new owners vs. old owners. And the new owners want what the old owners have." --- Otis29

by pookeyguru on Nov 17, 2011 7:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Honestly, if they stay out more than a season, it may be over for them

from the fan perspective. It is also interesting that the author believes that it will be more painful for the owners to watch their players miss a season than it will be for the players to lose a season of their careers. Do guys like Garnett, Pierce, Kobe and Nash even have 2 seasons left in them? If they miss this season, their legacy will be how badly they aged during the lockout year and how pitiful it was to see them try and put in one more year.

I kind of wish that Stern would have come out and said, take this last offer, or we’re cancelling the whole season. The league and teams are losing money from arenas and TV deals. There comes a point after which it doesn’t make sense for us to try and have a season. We have to make payments on these arenas whether there is a season or not and we can’t hold these dates anymore. Also the arena workers would like to get paid, so we need to open the schedule up and bring in other options. Season’s over. Good luck in court.

by tyrantking on Nov 17, 2011 6:38 PM EST reply actions  

I think Stern hinted at that (take it or forget the season)

I forget when/where but he did say it wasn’t a point to playing a half season or a 50-gm season and I assume the players know this already.

Now re: older players… I think Pierce will definitely get “fat”. If they miss a season he’ll come into camp about 245+lbs. I think a year off will be no problem for Kobe, he’s been playing hurt for how many years now? He’ll probably spend half the lockout in a cryogenic chamber, freezing his aging process. Nash and KG will probably be fine, they’ll stay active and when they come back they have the basketball IQ to contribute.

by Kevin Conroy on Nov 18, 2011 1:31 AM EST up reply actions  

This article is 100% spot on

regarding the duel between players and owners.

However it’s sad that most of the writings out there completely ignore the most important part of this issue, which is the FANS.

I understand that the rich owners and players don’t give a damn about us and only care about their pocket, but I would appreciate support from the writers. (Almost) Everyone ignores the simple fact that basketball is a public good, a public spectacle. It exists to serve the people, to entertain, to provide an escape from the daily mundane life.

Of course the players are right, that’s a given. But this is only a short-sighted view. You simply CANNOT leave the fans outside of this topic. Just because the masses cannot negotiate or play an active part in these ridiculous talks, it doesn’t mean that they are the heart of the NBA. What would the NBA with empty seats? Nothing.

I totally appreciate Ziller’s crystal clear view on the 2-sided subject, and it was great to read these kind of reports during the summer. But now, we have reached a point where as simple fans we just don’t give a dime about who’s right or wrong. All we want is basketball and I wouldn’t mind if the BRI between the two sides was 90-10.

Bleeding Black and Purple 6710 miles South East of Sacramento.

by ZenBaller on Nov 17, 2011 7:50 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

Not sure if serious

Some of the teams are probably doing better without shelling out for the players’ salaries right now even with salaries for team staff left over. You can go see Sesame Street Live or the circus poodles at your arena. Good times.

Practice facilities and unscheduled arenas on ex game nights are nice and quiet.

If the players got what they really wanted on BRI split there would be contractions within a couple of years. Get rid of 6 to 8 teams and the financial ship probably runs smooth for awhile again. 90 to 120 player jobs lost though. This should be guaranteed contracts or higher BRI…make a choice.

If the players got what they wanted on system issues some of us fans that want a more restrictions on tax paying teams would be ticked. My team is a tax paying team and I’m still for this. I think it will be good for the league. Nothing can make teams evenly competitive but there’s nothing wrong with giving teams under the tax and cap a better chance of signing players with the MLE.

If agents get what they want (no CBA at all) the bottom 80% of the players get screwed, Lebron near doubles his money and we end up with 5 super teams and a whole freaking lot of useless games. Add massive contraction to that as well.

Revenue sharing can only do so much. High BRI split for players still likely results in contraction even with decent revenue sharing. You’d have to trim the teams that are neither competitive nor profitable to insure better health for the league.

by poorwebguy on Nov 18, 2011 5:30 AM EST reply actions  

Using that logic
Some of the teams are probably doing better without shelling out for the players’ salaries right now even with salaries for team staff left over. You can go see Sesame Street Live or the circus poodles at your arena. Good times.

Practice facilities and unscheduled arenas on ex game nights are nice and quiet.

Why would the teams ever want basketball back in their arenas?

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 18, 2011 7:23 AM EST up reply actions  

Why indeed?

Possibly because many of them have 250 million+ tied up in the purchase of the team.

Not really the point though. How else would this have ended? Less teams could possibly bring things back in balance even with the old BRI split but it would cost players’ jobs. So the players want more money (avg salary goes up not down – just as it always has + no contract rollbacks), guaranteed contracts, soft cap, less restrictions for free agents and keep all their jobs as well?

Sounds a lot like the deal that was on the table. Owners even made new exceptions for compromise on the MLE/tax thing.

by poorwebguy on Nov 18, 2011 11:10 AM EST up reply actions  

So in the owners most recent offer
(avg salary goes up not down – just as it always has + no contract rollbacks)

Yet you think “some” owners are doing better without actually having basketball games in their arenas. Color me confused.

So do you think the players should accept the most recent offer on the table, or do you think the owners should pull that offer and attempt to get even more?

"If you can’t make a profit, you should sell your team." - Michael Jordan (Owner, Charlotte Bobcats)

by otis29 on Nov 18, 2011 11:52 AM EST up reply actions  

Some owners were losing over 40 million per year

That some could actually be closer to profitable without playing games is just math.

I think they should have accepted the deal on the table after asking for a couple more small concessions as a final attempt. Fisher/Hunter could have showed massive leadership by actually making the players properly aware of the terms, letting them know it’s fair and the best they’re going to get + they can opt out in 6 years if it isn’t working out and getting one or two minor concessions to save face.

This also should have happened before the season started dying a slow death.

The new amnesty would let owners get out of some bad contracts cap/tax wise, keep more of BRI to pay bills (even as revenue rises along with players salaries – despite the cut in BRI) and give teams under the cap and under the tax thresh hold a bit of an advantage in signing mid level talent.

In ways this CBA may turn out even better for the players. The amnesty clause and it’s pseudo partner (the one that lets owners spread the cap hit out) may put owners even further into the hole than they’ve ever been. There’s a good chance that more players than ever will get checks from multiple teams at once. Player movement should increase on just these two additions because teams will have more cap room even after signing the wrong players to guaranteed contracts.

by poorwebguy on Nov 18, 2011 2:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Who are these teams that are losing $40 million a year? If it's even actual losses as opposed to creative accounting.

Dollars to donuts if such a team actually does exist, it’s one of the poorly managed ones.

Fish Fingers give me a break.

by GAx on Nov 18, 2011 4:45 PM EST up reply actions  

There are some poorly managed teams obviously

but the ex NBPA hasn’t argued the NBA’s losses for awhile now. They got their look at the numbers already. No reason for me to argue that here.

My main points still stand. People insist on finding ways to make one side or the other completely evil and cry about the current CBA proposal being a “bad deal”. Billionaire owners are greedy buggers? Sure they are. Same as the players.

There was a decent deal on the table that some of each side didn’t like. It is my opinion that the proposal would have moved the league as a whole (including players) forward. It was time to find a way to make it work…not blow it up.

by poorwebguy on Nov 18, 2011 6:38 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm convinced

That most of the more recent owners paid so much for their franchises, and are carrying so much debt, that they literally are going to go under if they don’t get these salary rollbacks.

For years, NBA franchises experienced a radical appreciation in value. Therefore, owners didn’t really need to make a profit year to year, because they could always sell for a hundred million more than they bought for.

Now that the value of NBA franchises is up over $400 million dollars, there’s just not that many people that can come up with that kind of money – and, if they can’t sell the thing for $600 million down the road (and all indications are that they can’t) they’re stuck with a very expensive franchise and once they factor in the debt they pay, they literally can’t possibly make a profit even if they sell out their arena every night. So guys like Jordan and Sarver are desperately trying to get more concessions from the players, and Stern and the rest of the league are behind them, because if those franchises go into bankruptcy, the value of everyone’s franchise dips, and that will make more of them impossible to sell, which leads to the collapse of the whole damn thing.

But it’s not the players fault – so why should they bail out these owners that paid too much for a franchise? The NBA loves to impose rules and regulations on its players but doesn’t like regulating the use of franchises as inflating commodities. And as a result, I think, they’re on the verge of collapse.

The thing is – if the players don’t give in, and the league collapses, someone will organize games and pay these guys to play. But no one’s going to pay Robert Sarver anything because he’s an idiot that lost at a game of financial musical chairs.

That’s why Stern is so pissed off.

Get The Frickin' Rebound

by fuhry on Nov 18, 2011 4:24 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed

60 updates with 188 comments

Like to see major updates on this story in Facebook.

526 updates with 1102 comments

Like to see major updates on this story in Facebook.

May 29; Newark, NJ, USA; New Jersey Devils goalie Martin Brodeur (30) during media day for the 2012 Stanley Cup Finals at the Prudential Center. Mandatory Credit: Ed Mulholland-US PRESSWIRE

Martin Brodeur Looms Large For Devils Young And Old

BATON ROUGE, LA - NOVEMBER 25:  Head coach Les Miles of the LSU Tigers leads his team out onto the field before taking on the Arkansas Razorbacks at Tiger Stadium on November 25, 2011 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  (Photo by Chris Graythen/Getty Images)

Things To Look Forward To: Les Miles And John L. Smith, Just Crazyin' Up The Place

May 11, 2012; St. Louis, MO, USA; St. Louis Rams head coach Jeff Fisher looks on during mini camp at ContinuityX Training Center. Mandatory Credit: Jeff Curry-US PRESSWIRE

Worst-To-First: Which NFL Team Can Make The Jump In 2012?