As NBA lockout drama continues, David Stern again sets an unreasonable demand that has no purpose but to make everyone anger and sets the talks aflame.
Nov 6, 2011 - These NBA lockout negotiations really have resembled something every parent deals with on a regular basis when their kids are young, and David Stern looks a lot like the two-year-old and the dad at wit's end. With his steadfast refusal to actually negotiate in a civil manner (pounding his fists and feet on the ground), his toothless ultimatums ("no dinner, I don't care if you starve!") and his insistence that he is certainly, without question, absolutely right, Stern has managed to make himself look tyrannical from every angle.
But under every tussle during the terrible twos, there's legitimate love and caring, and there's also the fact that two-year-olds have no idea what they are doing. It's a learning process, something that shapes babies into people who can make reasonable requests, occasionally take "no" for an answer and effectively negotiate their positions without resorting to a tantrum or empty threats.
Apparently, David Stern missed those lessons.
More accurately, he unlearned them as the reigning dictator of the NBA, where he's never met a foe he couldn't shove into place. Anyone who has ever laid down for Stern has enabled this nonsense, this sense that he is above all reason. We have created a monster.
He's a bully, plain and simple. How else should we take the threats he has no intention of keeping? After Saturday night's blow-up, Stern told reporters that the 50-50 revenue split offer will be on the table until Wednesday, and then the proposal from the NBA will get worse. That would actually mean something if he hadn't been saying that the league's offers would start getting worse if the players didn't cave repeatedly since June. Remember Stern's "enormous consequences"? Remember how he'd have to account for missed games in the owners' next offer? Remember how just last week he acted as if he were doing the players a favor by offering 50-50, considering that some owners wanted to go back to 47-53? Stern has been pushing the same threat constantly. Meanwhile, shockingly, the league's offer continues to get better.
To make progressively better offers while shouting about how offers are going to get worse if this one isn't accepted is the work of a lunatic, or at least a tyrant. Meanwhile, Stern continually sets deadlines that end up meaning nothing. In early October, he set a date to save the first two weeks of the season. Talks broke off. He cancelled games. Three weeks later, with talks back on, Stern told the entire world that they would fit as many games as possible in -- 82, even -- if a deal was struck. When it wasn't, almost a month after his original deadline, he finally said that there was no chance for an 82-game season.
So I guess by that math 50-50 will actually come off of the table in December.
What do y'all think would have a better chance of achieving the league's 50-50 deal by Wednesday: a Stern ultimatum on Saturday, or legit negotiation with a lack of do-or-die, "enormous consequences" fire-breathing over the next few days? If you are reasonable, you pick the latter. Ultimatums haven't solved a thing for Stern to date, not in this negotiation. As I wrote last month, he's become a parody of himself. He has negotiated in the public as James Van Der Beek would if you assigned James Van Der Beek to portray Stern in the lockout blockbuster Disaster On 34th Street.
Saturday's ultimatum is something a first-year film school student could write. And Stern had to know what effect it would have, especially after having fought with union lawyer Jeffrey Kessler for decades. The ultimatum looks like it has galvanized the players. They are not necessarily galvanized behind Derek Fisher or Billy Hunter or Paul Pierce. But they are galvanized against David Stern. That's not good for anyone who wants to see pro basketball this season, and we've got one man to blame.
The NBA, where nothing but bulls--t happens.
The Hook typically runs Monday through Friday. See the archives.
25 comments
5
Nov 28
3
Nov 27
Comments
I think it's about time one of the two sides decided to put their balls into a proposal
and the NBA did that.
Is it an ultimatum? Yes, for the luxury tax and the system where exceptions are really necessities. Is it really from Stern? Probably not, given that most owners either didn’t want to give 50% under any circumstances, and at least some other owners wanted the hard cap and are very angry at Stern because they backed out of that position.
This deal and the lack of it plays well to both sides of owners, though it makes the other sides of owners angry.
1. The deal on the table plays to the Micky Arison/Jerry Buss camp because they get to play soon. LeBron gets to dominated the headlines again. Paul, KG, and Ray get one more shot to win one more ring. The Mavs try to show that they aren’t one hit wonders. The Michael Jordans and the Maloof family will be pissed and resigned to the fact that this system will probably not be enough to make them profitable, and in the short term, they’d lose more money than they are now. They will probably vote against the deal if the players accepted anyway. The Ted Leonsis/Kroneke/Maple Leaf type guys will be pissed that there is still no true team cap, and no measures to make their large market teams popular destinations over NY, LA, and Chicago, even though the revenue split is probably rather moot to them, if they can make their teams competitive. These guys may vote for the deal, but they also would be resigned to the fact that the teams who were still good before are still going to be good after this deal.
2. If the players don’t accept the deal, the MJ’s and Maloofs out there will be happy because they will be losing less money until they get an economic system that favors them truly and 47 is probably as far as they’d go anyway. The NHL owners (minus MSG) would be happy there’s a top cap limit (and likely a top player limit). Arison and MSG would be pissed because they don’t get to play and they’d think that the small team owners and the NHL group and the large market sucky team owners are keeping this lockout on in spite of them. The players union would also likely try to decertify because the Union leadership knows that most of the average players would vote to play now in any circumstance. The thing is that the union leadership is made up of mostly average players, so are they doing this for the NBPA’s interest, or are they doing this just to keep power?
by thewiz06 on Nov 6, 2011 10:31 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
I'm so glad I wasn't expecting the talks yesterday to produce anything.
I can’t be disappointed by an outcome full of churlish brats who are masquerading as rulers of their kingdom.
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.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 6, 2011 10:45 AM EST reply actions
Erf I fucked up the last line.
I can’t be disappointed by an outcome dictated that is filled with churlish brats who are masquerading as rulers of their kingdom.
Note to self: Only Wallwagon is allowed this many errors in a day.
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.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 6, 2011 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Stern has to answer to the owners
We get to villanize the guy for assumed wrongs but he probably can’t get the votes for anything over 50%. In a way, his back is to the wall as much as Fisher/Hunter on the NBAPA side of things.
While the NBAPA screamed nothing under 53% Stern has been calling for nothing more than 50%/50%. The bullying is just trying to get the job done by exploiting the cracks in the NBAPA resolve.
by poorwebguy on Nov 6, 2011 11:54 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
They are darn close now which is good. And I get trying to keep the fire near the player's feet
but if they do in fact actually seriously drop down to 47% … pure BS (although funny because technically that would mean the threat itself isn’t BS). Either way, the players need to realize they are debating between 50% and decertification.
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 6, 2011 1:31 PM EST reply actions
Pretty much.
But if they decertify, I don’t see the union getting any better of a deal than 50/50.
by thewiz06 on Nov 6, 2011 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
For sure. Take the damn deal. This shit is beyond pointless!
by BringBackBarkley17 on Nov 6, 2011 3:46 PM EST up reply actions
Wasn't talking about after decertification.
was talking about as a response to the threat of decertification which is very different.
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 6, 2011 5:36 PM EST up reply actions
Does it really matter what Stern is going to say or do,mister Ziller?
You’re going to bash Stern no matter what anyway… SMH
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 6, 2011 6:36 PM EST reply actions
You make a compelling argument that his point of view is incorrect
by otis29 on Nov 6, 2011 6:58 PM EST up reply actions
So?
I never understand these types of comments but maybe it’s just because I am a weirdo
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 6, 2011 8:28 PM EST up reply actions
Dutch is pro owner.
Pretty much gives you what you need to know.
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.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 6, 2011 9:07 PM EST up reply actions
Oh no it's not the view point I don't get
I would just expect a “this is why I see it different in this instance x, y, and z” is all. Nothing wrong at all with disagreement.
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 6, 2011 10:31 PM EST up reply actions
Well yeah I get that. But....
….a logical argument doesn’t have anything to do with arguments not rooted in logic. Oil & Water as you know.
Apparently Tom Ziller has become a pro player synchophant who will grovel at their feet anytime he wishes so he could torch that all important ambassador of the game David Stern while Stern is literally saving the NBA from the black players, the stupid owners who can’t run their teams properly and expect the NBA players to be as powerless as employees making 40K a year and doing all of this while making sure that small markets interests (like those poor downtrodden Washington DC Wizards—such a small market they are cough horseshit like the day is long horseshit cough) are protected on the court with a financial document.
I smell total horseshit myself. I have yet to see how a CBA creates or destroys competitive balance in the NBA (or how this new CBA radically changes the NBA as we know it but then again it’s mostly nonsense that’s taking over on this point), but then again rhetoric isn’t rooted in logic either. So much of the pro owner viewpoint is the misguided fan belief that this CBA will cure all the ill’s with the NBA. There are those of us who think this viewpoint is rooted in complete absurdity, and think that David Stern has used his heavy handed tactics to nearly nuke a season provided that calmer heads don’t prevail.
No CBA will save a league from itself. No CBA will ever save idiots from making maddening and franchise damning decisions. They happen in any financial environment regardless of economies. Bad luck happens too. If you don’t like any of that, simply don’t play. I don’t gamble because I don’t wish to lose money gambling. Since I know the odds are not high that I will when gambling, I simply don’t gamble. There is no law that requires me to gamble, and thus I don’t gamble. Now when there is a law that requires me to gamble…..I’m in trouble. Apparently the NBA ownership never learned that lesson so that when they get in trouble with their “toy”, they stamp their feet until life literally hums around their particular universe again.
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.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 7, 2011 12:07 AM EST up reply actions
No, I am not pro owners, I'm pro parity and no D.C. ain't a small market (6th biggest metro area in the U.S. from what I heard)
We can debate whether or not a hardcap helps competitive balance of course but the reason why I made that comment is that I feel that Tom Ziller is always attacking the person Stern no matter what he says.
but hey, what am I complaining about. If I don’t like it I should just stop reading his articles ;-)
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 7, 2011 2:40 AM EST up reply actions
Or you could specify how he's incorrect
Maybe he’s “always attacking” the commissioner for good reason. Can you dispute any of his actual points?
by otis29 on Nov 7, 2011 7:25 AM EST up reply actions
My beef with Ziller's article's is not so much that I agree or dissagree with what he is saying, it's the one-sided, biased and demonizing tone
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 7, 2011 8:54 AM EST up reply actions
This is exactly what I was referring to
for instance, totally understand why Stern would make this threat and unlike a 2 year old Stern knows exactly what he is doing. Who cares if he is a bully, both sides want to bully each other and both will try as much as they can.
Now if the owners truly do pull away from 50% and actually when it comes down to it they will not accept 50% that’s different.
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 7, 2011 11:22 AM EST up reply actions
It seems to me that many people view this lockout as classic Corporate Management vs. Labor dispute
and naturally side with ‘Labor’ since they are the weaker more vulnerable party. Quite frankly, it’s not. It’s about Billionaires vs. Millionaires. Both parties are “right” to try to get the best deal they can get but in the end, I don’t have sympathy either.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 7, 2011 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
*don’t have sympathy for either
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Nov 7, 2011 1:01 PM EST up reply actions
The market jab was not really at you Dutch.
I’ve seen JA Adande and Mark Heisler say that. That said, I think expecting a CBA to create parity is something that just isn’t realistic. I know you’ll disagree which is fine. But much of what I’ve seen you say on here, and at BF, seems exceptionally pro owner. Which in of itself there is nothing wrong with, but I don’t see how anyone expects the owners to look out for anyone but themselves (which is what they are doing coincidentally).
As far as attacking David Stern taking heat, that’s one of the descriptors of being a commish. He can always quit.
Hopefully we can agree on this: The NBA needs to come back.
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.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 7, 2011 8:18 PM EST up reply actions
attacking Stern & Stern taking heat^
(Wally you’re infecting me.)
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.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 7, 2011 8:19 PM EST up reply actions
I am guessing you meant a "new CBA" with the rumored new requirements (or the ones fans really want)
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Nov 7, 2011 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah.
But not all the way I suppose. It’s not as simple as a lot of people want to believe it is.
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.....
by pookeyguru on Nov 7, 2011 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
i'm confused
i thought the owners were losing money if they play games (under the old cba), but now they are losing money if they don’t play. if they lose money either way i think we should just abolish professional basketball in the usa. that way nobody loses money and only a few weirdos lose their favorite sport (but since nobody cares about some random weirdos i guess that’s ok)
by jolly_roger on Nov 7, 2011 2:50 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed