David Stern has single-handedly turned the NBA lockout into an acidic, personal war against union representatives. Kudos, boss. Also in The Hook: a political awakening for a couple unlikely players and a breakdown of the actual names of teams.
Aug 3, 2011 - I understand that the NBA lockout sprung from a labor stalemate, and that given the circumstances, the league had few other options than to press pause and try to work out a deal under some dense tension. I understand why the NBA lockout was necessary, and maybe unavoidable. I understand that this is a legal fight with money as the root and solution, and fans hardly come into play at all.
I don't understand why David Stern leaped to make the lockout personal and acidic this week.
The league and its media caddies will argue that it's long been personal, ever since the National Basketball Players Association filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, or since the union earned approval from the players to decertify during the 2010-11 season. But this is a different brand of personal, a flavor only Stern -- among all sports personalities, only Stern -- can pull off.
On Monday, Stern told the media that he felt the union was not negotiating in bad faith. On Tuesday, the NBA filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block decertification and an NLRB complaint alleging bad faith by the union. But Stern didn't stop there.
On SportsCenter, Stern went after Jeffrey Kessler, the longtime legal counsel for the NBPA and someone who, according to the NBA's lawsuit, has flirted with decertification and anti-trust suit in every previous labor impasse. Kessler led the NFLPA's legal strategy over the last few months. The NFLPA successfully used decertification and got a great deal, all things told. So take this passage from Stern on SportsCenter as you will.
NBA Commissioner David Stern, in a live interview on ESPN, also called out union lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, who helped the NFL players settle their lockout, as "distracting" the union with decertification talk "and keeping them from making a deal."
I mean ... how is anyone supposed to take this seriously? Keeping them from making a deal? The NBA has asked the union to give up hundreds of millions of dollars of salary. That's keeping the players from making a deal. Decertification is a path to putting pressure on the NBA to deal; whether it's legal or not is for the court to decide. In that sense, the federal lawsuit is justified.
But the federal lawsuit also includes a threat of questionable legal verisimilitude.
In the alternative, the NBA requests a declaration that, if the NBPA's disclaimer were not deemed invalid by the NLRB, and the collective bargaining relationship between the parties were not otherwise to continue, all existing contracts between NBA players and NBA teams ... would be void unenforceable.
In other words: if the NLRB doesn't agree with us, please declare that we can void all NBA player contracts.
This is a ridiculous threat, plain and simple. It's funny, because it's included as the surprise twist in a lawsuit that complains about the union's ridiculous threat. It's like fighting silly string with a blowtorch. Only it's a gag blowtorch that shoots confetti. Because the NBA will never set a real blowtorch to all existing contracts. Never.
And if they do, in the course of this fight? Then we will be writing books titled How David Stern Killed The NBA. That decision, should it ever be made, will set the league back decades. Stern will be longing for the days of Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady and Allen Iverson. Or Wes Unseld, Gus Williams and Maurice Lucas. Or George Mikan and Jack Twyman. Stone age, man.
Why? Because these players aren't going to mess around with that. Kobe Bryant loves money and loves fame, but he's also a pretty proud, easily angered fellow. Mark Heisler reminded us last week that he was one of only three NBA players to vote against the 1999 labor deal. (He was a 20-year-old rising star -- but not Kobe -- at the time.) Kobe Bryant has more than $75 million left on his L.A. Lakers contract. If that gets voided, Kobe will make someone pay. Maybe Jerry Buss, maybe David Stern. But someone will pay.
The same will go for any number of veterans who have made tons of loot already. (Think Kevin Garnett and the Celtics' core; think some of the Mavericks' more loquacious players.) Voiding player contracts -- the most sanctified part of the player experience, for better or worse -- would cause more problems for the NBA that it would solve. 1999 would look like Heaven compared to the outcome.
So it's an empty threat, or at least an absurd one. But one that Stern and the league cling to in that lawsuit, and one that Stern will parrot with a straight face on cable TV as he alleges that the players are too distracted to make a deal. Nah, man. Players aren't too distracted to make a deal under these conditions. They're too smart to. Don't get it twisted. You're the one distracted by the legal bulls--t. You're the one getting caught up in a pissing match with the opponent. You're the one taking this from labor impasse to labor war. Don't expect anyone to believe otherwise.
Spencer Hawes, who once boasted that he had a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on his Lexus, has magically found his pro-union soul, as Trey and Eric have noted. I don't know Nick Collison's specific ideology, but he certainly doesn't fit the standard image of an NBA player -- at least not the one the haters want you to envision. And there he is, responding to one of Stern's most egregious quotes on Tuesday.
Here's Stern talking about the threat of NBA players going overseas:
"And in fact it threatens to do two things. It threatens to split the union because only the high-paying stars, only the superstars, will be able to get any significant number of dollars, and those dollars are so small compared to what they're leaving on the table in the U.S. that it just means they're going to be making a few more dollars than the non-superstars, and I think it's going to split the union."
Here's the very non-star Nick Collison on Twitter (cleaned up a bit):
If Kobe, Farmar and Dooling make money overseas it will not divide the union as Stern's tactic suggests. What unifies the NBPA is the owners' stance that a long, momentum-crushing lockout is the best way to break the union, and guarantee themselves profit win or lose.
Who are you gonna believe? Now re-read the name actually signing deals overseas: Deron Williams, yes, but Nicolas Batum and Darius Songaila and Sasha Vujacic. Hard to find a fracture along those lines.
When the NBA sued its players on Tuesday, it's 30 teams were, of course, also listed as plaintiffs. Well, those 30 teams' holding companies were. And in many cases, those holding companies -- at least as listed by the NBA's lawyers -- have interesting names.
Here is a classification, taken right from Page 1 of the lawsuit.
NOTHING TO SEE HERE
Atlanta Hawks, LP
Bobcats Basketball, LLC
Golden State Warriors, LLC
Pacers Basketball, LLC
Miami Heat Limited Partnership
Milwaukee Bucks, Inc.
Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball Limited Partnership
Orlando Magic, Ltd.
Philadelphia 76ers, L.P.
Trail Blazers, Inc.
San Antonio Spurs, L.L.C.
NO MASCOTS ALLOWED
Chicago Professional Sports Limited Partnership
Dallas Basketball Limited
New Jersey Basketball, LLC (ha!)
DEPARTMENT OF REDUNDANCY DEPARTMENT
Sacramento Kings Limited Partnership, LP (No, seriously.)
THESAURUS CHAMPIONS
Cavaliers Operating Company, LLC
Detroit Pistons Basketball Company
Suns Legacy Partners, LLC
Jazz Basketball Investors, Inc.
OHIO STATE, Y'ALL
The Denver Nuggets Limited Partnership
The Los Angeles Lakers, Inc.
EXTRA LETTERS COST MONEY
LAC Basketball Club, Inc. (Sounds swanky, though.)
COOL NEW SPORT
Rocket Ball, Ltd.
CORPORATE STEPSISTERS
Madison Square Garden, L.P.
Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment, Ltd.
SWAG OUTTA CONTROL
Banner Seventeen LLC (This is the Celtics' official company name. This is real.)
Hoops, L.P. (Your Memphis Grizzlies!)
The Professional Basketball Club, LLC (They are mad creative in Oklahoma City.)
JUST SAD
New Orleans Hornets NBA Limited Partnership
And finally, NEVER FORGET
Washington Bullets, L.P.
The Hook is a daily NBA column written by Tom Ziller that runs on SBNation.com Monday through Friday. See the archives.
20 comments
5
Nov 28
3
Nov 27
Comments
Seriously? Come on now, you know why.
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 Aug 3, 2011 11:29 AM EDT reply actions
Well ...
I like to think the best of people, I guess. Someone’s making it really difficult.
by Tom Ziller on Aug 3, 2011 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
We'll be lucky to see a season this year. Not trying to be a downer but it is what it is.
All of this talk from Stern about “good faith”, the filings in the 2nd District, it’s all part of the game. They are just moving the football one inch at a time, pure litigation tactics and they are going to throw the kitchen sink at the player’s union. They are going to make every and all arguements they can no matter how nasty it looks like to outsiders, it’s the way the beast works. I know the term “collective bargaining” sounds nice and all but the truth is this is an adversarial process (which Kessler of all people completely understands) and the owners brought a gun to a knife fight. Might not work in the end given antitrust litigation depends sooooooo much on what judge you draw up but that’s the road they are going down and they picked a very favorable court to wage the battle in.
In terms of just thinking strickly about this season, the fans only hope is for a favorable ruling for the players in court or the player’s folding in late December or early January. The owners absolutely intend to break the union and there are no signs that they aren’t willing to take the season with them. Sure they will negotiate on things like the age limit (highly doubt it gets bumped up to 2 years) but that is just window dressing to try and give the players something to save face on during future negotiations. They want their golden egg back and the players better have not jumped into this offseason thinking this was just a normal negotiation where both sides would meet in the middle. If so, they better really really really hope for a favorable court ruling.
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 Aug 3, 2011 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Well assuming the owners were 100% right on their numbers
and then a court ruling goes totally for the players, we will likely see many teams fold in the process.
If the owners were truly making money (minus teams like Sacramento and Indy) and then the same thing happens, then the new CBA would likely perpetuate the inequalities that already exist in the NBA.
by thewiz06 on Aug 4, 2011 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I heard this...
…and I went: “Well, that’s just more posturing. I wonder how long this will go on before both sides get serious.”
Really that’s the issue here. Stern can say whatever he wants, but it’s all about PR at this point. The players aren’t divided really; it’s the players who are. Anyone who understands what this fight is about understands that.
And that’s just the point I’m making: It’s people who understand less (than they think they do anyway) about the way the NBA business works. The owners are trying to convince these people that if they get their way a more competitive and watchable league.
Those of us who understand basketball know that’s not the case. But, I guess delusions are all we have in time of crisis. Just ask David Stern and the owners.
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 Aug 4, 2011 10:26 PM EDT reply actions
owners who are divided^
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 Aug 4, 2011 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
It is posteruing but they still are going to try and break the union and there likely won't be serious negotaitions until real games are missed
and that divide amongst the owners, although it does exist, it’s not necessarily a divide that will make them collapse on this labor impasse.
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 Aug 5, 2011 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions
No doubt.
But even if the owners break the union, it still won’t change the competitive balance of the NBA.
That’s why alot of the idea that a hard cap will competitive balance is hooey. You know that; I’ve seen you directly state as much.
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 Aug 5, 2011 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
the hardcap idea is so goofy to me
I think the owners though are just fixated on getting salaries at a very much reduced percentage. With the current soft cap the league was well within the CBA salary percentage guidelines. They are fighting more for the pay cut.
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 Aug 5, 2011 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
What they are fighting for is the perception that the NBA is profitable due to their finanical structure.
This is about raising franchise value so that, in some cases, they can resell it. A number of owners badly overestimated the value of franchises and bought them for ridiculous prices (Robert Sarver especially).
That’s what I think is really driving this if anything.
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 Aug 5, 2011 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions
At it's core, yes it is about keeping franchise value up
which might (well probably should) seem counterintuative for most given the sale of the Nets and Warriors but I would completely agree. That being said, their fear will likely lead them to think the huge paycut is necessarily which leads to a situation where they aren’t going to be so open to what is perceived as reasonable.
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 Aug 5, 2011 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Yep. No doubt.
I’ve always thought it would take the high revenue owners to back the hard line owners off their stance in that some revenue is better than none. By that I mean, agreeing to a reasonable revenue sharing to bridge the gap rather than asking the players to share all that burden. After all, some revenue (and it’s quite possible the high revenue owners make similar amounts after revenue sharing) is better than none. Hell, I wrote that last week on EC.
If you listen to the Steinmetz podcast with Amick, he says the same thing only with actual details to support the point. (It’s about 20 mins into the thing, but the whole podcast is terrific IMO.)
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 Aug 5, 2011 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
It's going to be really hard to create a wedge there though between the high revenue owners and the hard line owners.
You have a weird mix of high revenue vs. low revenue vs. new high revenue owners are with different interests but really hard to tease them out in a way that would save next season.
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 Aug 5, 2011 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
How so?
If revenue sharing bridges that gap, what difference does it make to low revenue owners?
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 Aug 5, 2011 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
oh I bet they specifically would love it
I think the new owners, particularly in good markets, and the established ones in good markets themselves have little interest in it. Basically, it will take games being burned away for the established high revenue owners to start considering an olive branch on that and have no idea if it would take more than that or not.
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 Aug 5, 2011 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions
basically, don't see the high revenue established owners caving in easily on that issue, it's a big deal for them too.
at the very least they are going to push it to the brink.
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 Aug 5, 2011 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the issue here is "what date that the brink before owners give in" is our difference of opinion.....
Basically, I think the high revenue owners will kick it up in late August early September and get the framework of a deal done by late September.
Or that’s the optimist in me. If the high revenue owners think they are getting away from this without revenue sharing, I just am speechless. They are just as unrealistic as the low revenue owners who want a 60% of the gross BRI pie.
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 Aug 5, 2011 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions
we'll see
I really don’t think they are going to get serious though until late October and early November and personally would expect talks to break down and pick up again sometime around December.
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 Aug 6, 2011 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Question: Isn't that on the table now?
I mean isn’t games being lost pretty much a possibility by mid-September without even a hint of a framework of a new deal being finished?
Doesn’t more games = more revenue for high revenue owners?
Color me confused on your argument.
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 Aug 5, 2011 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Well yeah they lose revenue
but they will likely be more than willing to burn revenue for a chunk of a year to try and grab an extra 15 to 20 to 25% of the pie. Not only that but it bumps up their franchise values. I’m telling you, they are going to be burning into games unless a court ruling throws a curve ball.
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 Aug 6, 2011 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed