If the NBA lockout has reached its Tupac moment, it's because David Stern is making crazy threats while dancing around without a shirt on. Or, uh ...
Want The Hook delivered to your Facebook News Feed daily? Like SB Nation NBA.
Sep 29, 2011 - Depending on whether you believe the reports and as such buy into David Stern's words, the NBA lockout could cost us the entire season as of next week. Reports from both Marc Stein and Sam Amick suggest that when Stern, the NBA commissioner, said following Wednesday's talks that not reaching a deal this weekend would carry "enormous consequences," he meant it. We'll see. I'll understand if you're skeptical.
The great J.A. Adande had a surprisingly defeatist view of the development, saying that this is the time when players know they are going to lose.
One of the sticking points is that the owners want the players to roll back their salaries. Well, if games are missed and salaries are reduced on a pro-rated basis, what does that effectively constitute? A rollback.
Players will be missing out on money one way or another. So now the question becomes the same one Tupac once asked: How do you want it?
This is an interesting conceit. The league has theoretically already taken some money away from players; a report last week suggested that by cancelling 43 preseason games, teams have cut a combined $50 million in payroll. One might assume, based on the light TV broadcast action on preseason games and even more sparse attendance, that the lost revenue for those games is a smaller figure, but the owners have already come up.
There's one big elephant in the room when you start talking about this type of "rollback," one that comes in the form of a shortened season. That's the national TV contract, which pays out $900 million whether there's a season or not. In the NFL lockout, players tried to get that revoked from the league. The NBA's players' union hasn't made any similar move.
So teams will start getting their $30 million share from the national deals with ESPN, TNT and ABC in the near future. Forget that team owners are typically invested in other businesses, that $30 million per team itself is a nice buffer between the owners and pain. Chunks do get taken out of it, though Most teams are continuing to pay their coaches, front office staff and sales teams and most teams have big fat interest payments to make on account of financing the purchase or operation of their franchises. So the buffer is not great, but it exists.
That's why Stern's implicit threat carries so much steam: the league is offering a deal with a reported 5 percent 2012 rollback, 7.5 percent 2013 rollback and 10 percent 2014 rollback. If the union doesn't take it, the players will receive a 100 percent 2012 rollback. The league is trying to incite panic and uncertainty regarding the leadership of the union. Let me tell you: the union is not going to accept rollbacks right now. Accepting them by being strong and resisting the demands of Stern -- and losing game checks as a result -- is so much more politically acceptable for Derek Fisher and Billy Hunter than conceding on rollbacks in the next two weeks that it's not even worth discussing. Agents are already agitating that the union leadership has given up too much. If they include rollbacks of contracts already signed, it's over.
But the players aren't out of options.
It's been made clear that, as opposed to the 1998 version, fans are going to hold Stern responsible if games are missed. His owners have more invested in this league -- not the game, the league -- than any players. If a lockout costs regular season games, fan are going to be pissed. Pissed at Stern, pissed at the teams, pissed at there not being pro basketball to watch.
We don't know how much of the 1999, 2000, 2001 malaise had to do with sore feelings over the lockout vs. the end of the Bulls' reign and MJ's career. But I'm guessing the commissioner doesn't want to place that bet. He's not exactly a dice-roller. He calculates, he assesses ... he does get caught up in heated battles and loses his pitch, sure. In that way, he's actually a lot like Tupac. He's got the broader vision and understands what needs to be done ... but sometimes it's more important to lay down "Hit 'Em Up" and let everyone know who holds the gavel. (Not remotely safe for work.)
That's the Tupac moment from Wednesday: Stern pushing the other voices out of the way and telling the players to come at him.
It isn't the first time Stern escalated the fight, but this is the hottest that the fire's gotten. Let's pray for rain.
The Hook runs Monday through Friday. See the archives.
15 comments
5
Nov 28
3
Nov 27
Comments
So nów you say the interest payments are real costs???
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Sep 29, 2011 9:42 AM EDT reply actions
First off, that is without question "The" song of the ganster rap generation X era
and second, if talks go to a halt right here just you wait until Stern or somebody else speaking for him starts talking about how the league showed they were willing to negotiate and the player’s union is the problem given the league just dropped the hard cap demands … which in reality where never demands in the first place.
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 Sep 29, 2011 10:56 AM EDT reply actions
These guys spent half the summer doing nothing,
going weeks without any talks whatsover. This has all been orchestrated from the beginning. Stern has set the stage for his new hit song and I think we fans should hit the EXITS.
Sorr, Stern. I’ve got other things I can do.
/s
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Sep 29, 2011 12:06 PM EDT reply actions
What am I missing?
Rollbacks do nothing for the owners. The BRI split is the BRI split… if you rollback existing contracts, you just have to spend that money on other contracts. If we’re talking about across the board rollbacks, it’s not even redistribution of wealth from rich to poor – it’s redistribution from older, longer term contracts to newer contracts. Why fight that battle, when it’s going to work itself through as contracts expire?
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Sep 29, 2011 12:11 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
This is a great point.
by Tom Ziller on Sep 29, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
It leaves room for free agent signings over the next few years
allowing the ‘hit’ from a new BRI split to be shared by all players, not just the free agents.
For example, under the old system, if 2011-12 BRI was projected to be $3.965 billion, 57% would be $2.260 billion for the players. Subtract $140 million for benefits and $1.7 billion for current contract commitments, and there’s ‘room’ for $420 million in free agent signings before escrow would start taking money away from players permanently.
But if the new designated % is 50% for the players, that same $3.965 billion would only provide $1.983 billion for the players. Subtract $140 million for benefits and $1.7 billion for current contract commitments, and there’s only ‘room’ for $143 million in free agent signings before escrow would take money away permanently. So which players take the ‘hit’? The free agents – and there’s plenty of them that would be voting on any proposal.
So if current commitments were decreased by 5%, that would provide approximately $85 million more for free agents this year. Sharing the ‘hit’ just a bit, if you will by taking the amount of free agent money from 1/3 of what it would have been under the old system to 1/2. It still hits this year’s free agents the hardest, just not as hard.
by Storyteller on Sep 29, 2011 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I get that
I get that, but isn’t that the player’s issue? We’re not in the room, but if the owners are treating this like a big issue to them, then I’m really confused. If the free agents want to get some of that money back from the guys with long term deals, let the NBAPA figure out how to handle rollbacks, but it ain’t the owners’ issue.
In general though this feels like too bad time. Kobe didn’t vote to ratify the CBA in 1999 cuz it included a max and he didn’t get KG money. Too bad. KG didn’t roll back. Same thing will happen this time. Still too bad. You sign your contract under the CBA in effect, and then you get paid based on that.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Sep 29, 2011 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
A couple of things
First, the rollbacks have been a feature of pretty much all of the offers made by the owners. This much less aggressive than the initial 20-30% rollbacks, and marginally better than the 8% starting point in the last one. If you’ll recall, one of the signs of “optimism” a couple weeks ago was that they might have reached an agreement that obviated the need for rollbacks. That all fell apart though.
But this isn’t something that was substituted after the hard cap was dropped.
While I mostly think this is “leftover” issue from the hard cap discussion that the owners haven’t quite, but probably will, let go of, but there are some practical concerns here on a team-by-team basis. Next year, it could affect
- available cap space
- potential tax position and penalties
Theoretically, both those things could be aided by the amnesty we all assume will come, but the amnesty doesn’t save any actual dollars (other than perhaps luxury tax) for an individual team. Meanwhile, a rollback of 5% next year would save a team like the Lakers $5mm in payroll, and $5mm (or more) in taxes. It’s important to remember that this proviso is still reportedly attached to something that averages 46% over the life of the deal. That big of a decline would probably need some kind of rollback mechanism.
This actually becomes potentially more useful in the second and third year, particularly if the deal has a declining BRI – as seems to be implied by the reporting. The existing contracts have 8-10.5% raises built in. By 2014, the Heat have $57mm tied up in James/Wade/Bosh, and the Lakers have almost $50mm tied up in Kobe & Pau. With those rising, but a possibly static or even declining cap and tax threshold(s), they could become problematic.
The BRI guarantee is only predictive at a macro level – on both sides. Its effects can be more readily understood and projected on the player side, due to Max/Min, MLE, and rookie scale deals. These are all likely to move relatively proportionally with the BRI change.
Teams are less sure. For example, accepting the players’ offer at around 54% could realistically mean no savings for teams like the Lakers or the Mavs, as well as no real reduction in the long-term cost for fielding a deep contender. A rollback has a one-to-one correlation with each team, that they can’t count on from the BRI split reduction.
Again, there’s a point where the owners will let go of this, and I think it will probably be this weekend.
by count55 on Sep 29, 2011 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, It's me
Tim Donahue…not that you particularly care. I just always forget this has a screen name.
by count55 on Sep 29, 2011 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Good points...
I think we’re probably in agreement that it’s a “leftover” issue… it hardly seems to be something to go to the wall for. For instance, your examples points out that the issue affects some teams more than others – teams with relatively little money locked up in huge, long term deals have nothing to gain here. And how many of the other owners are going to be adamant about a provision that is most helpful to the likes of the Lakers and the Heat?
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Sep 29, 2011 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Depends
On whether said owner might leverage something like this in the revenue sharing debate.
But, all-in-all, you’re right. This concept won’t be a deal breaker for the owners.
by count55 on Sep 29, 2011 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions
nice work here
by thewiz06 on Sep 30, 2011 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Re TV money
The catch of course is that if the teams get it this yr for no games,they don’t get paid NEXT yr.
Add in season ticket refunds,and cancellations for next yr if a season is lost,Corporate sponsorship money drying up and the question has to be asked,if the season is lost,who’s going to be more desperate next summer to get a deal?
by Tisbee on Sep 29, 2011 12:20 PM EDT reply actions
Fan response and player unity...
I’m wondering what fans can really do in all of this. I don’t think Stern cares about threats from sportswriters/bloggers saying the fans will bolt. Is there something in place to give the fans a voice? I know, it sounds like I’m trying to get a grassroots movement to legalize pot or something. But seriously, is there any way to voice our displeasure other than commenting in posts?
Also, how far-fetched is it to imagine the players uniting on a team by team basis and playing elsewhere? What would happen if DWill’s teammates went to Turkey with him? If the players could show that kind of unity, and do it en masse, wouldn’t that send a louder message? The owners know the players want to be in the US (which is part of the leverage in all of this – better to be paid slightly less and have democracy/freedom/safety than travel abroad and risk your life making a point). BUt if whole teams took off, it would be remarkable. And so far, there has been nothing remarkable about the player’s efforts in this.
by KevinH75 on Sep 29, 2011 4:42 PM EDT reply actions
I think most casual fans just want to see basketball and they'r happy with any deal.
hard core fans want to see a good deal that will benefit their favorite teams and their favorite players the most.
by thewiz06 on Sep 30, 2011 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed