The Official NBA Collective Bargaining Thread vol Phased in Hard Cap

[lawdog1]

^^^ Are the Clippers run poorly or do they just operate under a different business model than everyone else? Sure, they don't win much, but Donald Sterling makes money off the team year in and year out. So, maybe he's not as much of a dumb *** as everyone things. If you're only in the NBA for the money, then Sterling runs the team well by generally keeping payroll down and not committing to big, long-term contracts. (I don't really believe this -- just playing Devil's advocate).

 

[duba169]

I haven't heard anyone call sterling dumb. Racist cheapskate yes, but not dumb

I agree the PA has been laughably bad in the PR department. Teeeeeeerrible

 

[duba169]

I haven't heard anyone call sterling dumb. Racist cheapskate yes, but not dumb

I agree the PA has been laughably bad in the PR department. Teeeeeeerrible

 

[duba169]

Stern on espn saying it isn't so much a financial problem it's that there isn't competitive balance

Yet 3 minutes later he's talking about the giant price it costs to take a chartered flight

Starts "defending" the union against these big bad agents

I seriously hate this @%%+@@# guy. Speaks out of both sides of his mouth and nobody questions him

 

[duba169]

Stern on espn saying it isn't so much a financial problem it's that there isn't competitive balance

Yet 3 minutes later he's talking about the giant price it costs to take a chartered flight

Starts "defending" the union against these big bad agents

I seriously hate this @%%+@@# guy. Speaks out of both sides of his mouth and nobody questions him

 

[pmatic]

Draft implications of a lost season

NBA owners and representatives from the National Basketball Players Association met last week and failed to make significant headway on a new collective bargaining agreement.

The good news is that both sides are still talking. The bad news is that they seem to be at a tough impasse on the question of a hard salary cap. The owners are still pushing for it and the players are uniformly against it.

There is some optimism among both players and owners that an agreement can be reached soon. However, there are several league sources -- among both ownership and the players -- who continue to maintain that if a deal isn't reached soon, there's a good possibility that the entire season could be lost.

If the lockout takes away the entire season, it will undoubtedly have a number of devastating ramifications. One that I'm asked about on a daily basis is: What happens to the 2012 NBA draft if there is no season? Can there still be a draft? Who would get the No. 1 pick?

There are no clear answers to that question. League spokesman Tim Frank told ESPN.com that the 2012 NBA draft is "not something that is even a focus right now. All efforts are being put towards reaching a deal."

That's the public, on-the-record response. But privately, league sources say it's accurate. As of right now, the league does not have a 2012 NBA draft contingency plan in place should the NBA season be canceled.

To make matters even more complicated, any change in the date, current draft system or order would have to be negotiated with the union. We all know how well that's going. One league source said that if things progress to the point that the season is canceled, there's a chance the draft could be lost, too.

Why would the NBA have to cancel the draft?

Currently the league has very strict protocols in place banning NBA personnel from talking to or interacting with players. That protocol affects the draft as well. While NBA scouts and personnel always have been banned from speaking with college players until they officially enter the draft, the league has taken more stringent measures to prevent contact. As long as the lockout is in force, NBA scouts are banned from attending college practices this year -- they can only go to games. And it could get worse.

"I can't really see a scenario where the league would let us do stuff like the pre-draft camp, individual workouts or interviews if the lockout is still under way," one prominent GM told ESPN Insider. "I think the ban of contacting NBA players would probably spread to future NBA players as well. Unless we worked something out with the union specifically, it will be a giant mess."

Of course, contact isn't the only issue. Even if the league were to allow GMs and scouts to contact college players, conduct workouts, etc., a number of GMs are chewing on an equally thorny problem -- if there is no season, how do you determine the draft order?

While the league has yet to take up this issue, it hasn't stopped GMs and prominent agents from chiming in with their solutions to the problem. Their solutions range from the status quo to a radical restructuring of the draft.

Here are three scenarios that could happen if the league loses the season, but decides to go ahead with the draft.

1. Just redo the lottery

Several GMs say the easiest and fairest thing to do is to just redo the 2012 lottery with the same odds that decided the 2011 lottery.

"The draft is there for the worst teams to improve," another GM said. "The teams that were in the lottery in 2011 are still the worst teams in the league. It makes sense that they'd have the best odds of landing the best players in the draft."

But not everyone agrees.

"That would be totally unfair to a number of teams," a GM from a Western Conference team counters. "Most of the worst teams in the league would improve with the players they collected in the 2011 draft. Also, with a whole season lost, a number of teams will be left with a pretty depleted roster. Why should teams be rewarded twice for mediocrity? Most of the teams that are in the lottery are the ones that are also going to be responsible for us losing the season. The most poorly run franchises are the ones that need the hard cap. They're the same ones that need revenue sharing. Should we just give them extra draft picks, too?"

2. Have a league-wide lottery

Other GMs (most notably from traditional non-lottery teams) have another idea. Why doesn't the NBA just throw 30 pingpong balls into the hopper -- one for every team? Every team would have a 1-in-30 shot of winning the lottery.

"It's simple. It's fair and no one team is given an advantage because of the lockout. I also think it would make for great TV and drama for the league," another GM said.

A few agents I spoke with also love the idea.

"I always feel like bad teams win the lottery, but good players lose it," one prominent agent said. "Why do the best players in college basketball have to go to the most messed-up franchises where they spend years squandering their careers? I've never had an elite client who really wants to play for the Minnesota Timberwolves or Memphis Grizzlies. They want to win, and they want to be with a quality team."

As you can imagine, GMs of current lottery teams don't love that idea.

"How is it fair that teams like the Lakers or Mavericks or Heat have an equal shot of winning the lottery?" another GM said. "You're saying LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh need the No. 1 pick the same way a depleted team like the Cleveland Cavaliers do? I don't think so."

3. Meet halfway

Among the more level-headed GMs, a different sort of mantra emerges.

"I don't think either system is totally fair. I'm not sure any system will make everyone happy. But I think if the league took a five-year average for each team and then seeded them that way, you'd do the most good. Sure, [Cavaliers owner] Dan Gilbert would scream, but I think most GMs would feel it's fair. So would the fans."

Here's the idea: The league would aggregate team records for the past five years and then give teams draft picks based off those aggregate records. The team with the worst record in the past five years would draft first. The team with the best would draft last.

No, it doesn't address every need. Up-and-coming teams like the Oklahoma City Thunder would draft too high, and recently down-on-their-luck franchises like the Pistons would draft too low.

But at least it would be some attempt at parity.

Regardless of the solution, every GM will be watching this year's college basketball season closely.

"With no NBA season to conduct and follow, all of us will be turning our energy to scouting for new players," one GM said. "The players in this year's draft will be under the most scrutiny of any players ever if we lose the season."
Link

 

[pmatic]

Draft implications of a lost season

NBA owners and representatives from the National Basketball Players Association met last week and failed to make significant headway on a new collective bargaining agreement.

The good news is that both sides are still talking. The bad news is that they seem to be at a tough impasse on the question of a hard salary cap. The owners are still pushing for it and the players are uniformly against it.

There is some optimism among both players and owners that an agreement can be reached soon. However, there are several league sources -- among both ownership and the players -- who continue to maintain that if a deal isn't reached soon, there's a good possibility that the entire season could be lost.

If the lockout takes away the entire season, it will undoubtedly have a number of devastating ramifications. One that I'm asked about on a daily basis is: What happens to the 2012 NBA draft if there is no season? Can there still be a draft? Who would get the No. 1 pick?

There are no clear answers to that question. League spokesman Tim Frank told ESPN.com that the 2012 NBA draft is "not something that is even a focus right now. All efforts are being put towards reaching a deal."

That's the public, on-the-record response. But privately, league sources say it's accurate. As of right now, the league does not have a 2012 NBA draft contingency plan in place should the NBA season be canceled.

To make matters even more complicated, any change in the date, current draft system or order would have to be negotiated with the union. We all know how well that's going. One league source said that if things progress to the point that the season is canceled, there's a chance the draft could be lost, too.

Why would the NBA have to cancel the draft?

Currently the league has very strict protocols in place banning NBA personnel from talking to or interacting with players. That protocol affects the draft as well. While NBA scouts and personnel always have been banned from speaking with college players until they officially enter the draft, the league has taken more stringent measures to prevent contact. As long as the lockout is in force, NBA scouts are banned from attending college practices this year -- they can only go to games. And it could get worse.

"I can't really see a scenario where the league would let us do stuff like the pre-draft camp, individual workouts or interviews if the lockout is still under way," one prominent GM told ESPN Insider. "I think the ban of contacting NBA players would probably spread to future NBA players as well. Unless we worked something out with the union specifically, it will be a giant mess."

Of course, contact isn't the only issue. Even if the league were to allow GMs and scouts to contact college players, conduct workouts, etc., a number of GMs are chewing on an equally thorny problem -- if there is no season, how do you determine the draft order?

While the league has yet to take up this issue, it hasn't stopped GMs and prominent agents from chiming in with their solutions to the problem. Their solutions range from the status quo to a radical restructuring of the draft.

Here are three scenarios that could happen if the league loses the season, but decides to go ahead with the draft.

1. Just redo the lottery

Several GMs say the easiest and fairest thing to do is to just redo the 2012 lottery with the same odds that decided the 2011 lottery.

"The draft is there for the worst teams to improve," another GM said. "The teams that were in the lottery in 2011 are still the worst teams in the league. It makes sense that they'd have the best odds of landing the best players in the draft."

But not everyone agrees.

"That would be totally unfair to a number of teams," a GM from a Western Conference team counters. "Most of the worst teams in the league would improve with the players they collected in the 2011 draft. Also, with a whole season lost, a number of teams will be left with a pretty depleted roster. Why should teams be rewarded twice for mediocrity? Most of the teams that are in the lottery are the ones that are also going to be responsible for us losing the season. The most poorly run franchises are the ones that need the hard cap. They're the same ones that need revenue sharing. Should we just give them extra draft picks, too?"

2. Have a league-wide lottery

Other GMs (most notably from traditional non-lottery teams) have another idea. Why doesn't the NBA just throw 30 pingpong balls into the hopper -- one for every team? Every team would have a 1-in-30 shot of winning the lottery.

"It's simple. It's fair and no one team is given an advantage because of the lockout. I also think it would make for great TV and drama for the league," another GM said.

A few agents I spoke with also love the idea.

"I always feel like bad teams win the lottery, but good players lose it," one prominent agent said. "Why do the best players in college basketball have to go to the most messed-up franchises where they spend years squandering their careers? I've never had an elite client who really wants to play for the Minnesota Timberwolves or Memphis Grizzlies. They want to win, and they want to be with a quality team."

As you can imagine, GMs of current lottery teams don't love that idea.

"How is it fair that teams like the Lakers or Mavericks or Heat have an equal shot of winning the lottery?" another GM said. "You're saying LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh need the No. 1 pick the same way a depleted team like the Cleveland Cavaliers do? I don't think so."

3. Meet halfway

Among the more level-headed GMs, a different sort of mantra emerges.

"I don't think either system is totally fair. I'm not sure any system will make everyone happy. But I think if the league took a five-year average for each team and then seeded them that way, you'd do the most good. Sure, [Cavaliers owner] Dan Gilbert would scream, but I think most GMs would feel it's fair. So would the fans."

Here's the idea: The league would aggregate team records for the past five years and then give teams draft picks based off those aggregate records. The team with the worst record in the past five years would draft first. The team with the best would draft last.

No, it doesn't address every need. Up-and-coming teams like the Oklahoma City Thunder would draft too high, and recently down-on-their-luck franchises like the Pistons would draft too low.

But at least it would be some attempt at parity.

Regardless of the solution, every GM will be watching this year's college basketball season closely.

"With no NBA season to conduct and follow, all of us will be turning our energy to scouting for new players," one GM said. "The players in this year's draft will be under the most scrutiny of any players ever if we lose the season."
Link

 

[duba169]

People keep brining up how new York has so much more money than the rest of the league to spend and it's just not fair

You would think we won ten %%#%*@$ chips

 

[duba169]

People keep brining up how new York has so much more money than the rest of the league to spend and it's just not fair

You would think we won ten %%#%*@$ chips

 

[CP1708]

^ Word, I'm getting irritated with that #$%& too. The Blazers had the highest payroll for YEARS, but we'll ignore that. The Clips and Knicks have the 2 biggest markets, very little success, ignore that....... I mean, damn. What other excuses do we need? The Red Sox spend a TON of money, big market, but the Celtics don't. Why might that be? An owner that isn't Paul Allen rich perhaps? Hell, who does own the Celts anyways, never hear that persons name?

 

[CP1708]

^ Word, I'm getting irritated with that #$%& too. The Blazers had the highest payroll for YEARS, but we'll ignore that. The Clips and Knicks have the 2 biggest markets, very little success, ignore that....... I mean, damn. What other excuses do we need? The Red Sox spend a TON of money, big market, but the Celtics don't. Why might that be? An owner that isn't Paul Allen rich perhaps? Hell, who does own the Celts anyways, never hear that persons name?

 

[mr kuter]

Originally Posted by MyJaysGetRocked

Originally Posted by EB4President

A couple of thoughts...



First - I think people need to get a clear definition of a small market. I am not 100% clear on the definition but I think a lot of it has to do with city population (ie TV contracts). So they're major markets, mid major, and small markets. It's hard to identify which teams fall into the buckets.



Second- PTI mentioned the can the players start there own league. I actually think that would be very unsuccessful. While its a players leagues. fans still root and support players because as a whole they represent a city. A lot of people disagree with this statement but I like players who come to my team, sure there are those superstars who I like, but as a whole i support my team.



Lastly, if the league wants to survive, owners need to realize this isnt the nfl. They need the players, so they better pay up, give players the majority of the money, just put a hard cap on how much money that is.

The players can't start their own league, I mean they can in a literal sense but it will go nowhere. All these tv contracts, endorsements etc are with the NBA. Lebron Kobe,Melo,Wade would make NO WHERE near their salary with the NBA. Also, what about the other 300 nba players? I'm pretty sure the owners are laughing at the notion of another league. When you really think about it, it's quite hysterical. 
One of the most important factors of a negotiation is leverage, and the players have NONE. Without the NBA, 95% of players have nothing to fall back on.They don't have another job, their income stream is either 0 or something significantly lower than their NBA salary.  The owners on the other hand, have already accumulated a level of wealth in which they can live very comfortably. 

I thought the same at first, but while I was driving to work I brainstormed it. If the players started their own league would ESPN not go out of their way to air it. And if not them, would FOX or NBC or CBS run out and make a quick deal? Would Nike not sign on to give these teams jersey's and shoes, ESPECIALLY if the players could get a TV deal done. I know its crazy and won't happen. I just dont think its as laughable as I first thought IMHO.

 

[mr kuter]

Originally Posted by MyJaysGetRocked

Originally Posted by EB4President

A couple of thoughts...



First - I think people need to get a clear definition of a small market. I am not 100% clear on the definition but I think a lot of it has to do with city population (ie TV contracts). So they're major markets, mid major, and small markets. It's hard to identify which teams fall into the buckets.



Second- PTI mentioned the can the players start there own league. I actually think that would be very unsuccessful. While its a players leagues. fans still root and support players because as a whole they represent a city. A lot of people disagree with this statement but I like players who come to my team, sure there are those superstars who I like, but as a whole i support my team.



Lastly, if the league wants to survive, owners need to realize this isnt the nfl. They need the players, so they better pay up, give players the majority of the money, just put a hard cap on how much money that is.

The players can't start their own league, I mean they can in a literal sense but it will go nowhere. All these tv contracts, endorsements etc are with the NBA. Lebron Kobe,Melo,Wade would make NO WHERE near their salary with the NBA. Also, what about the other 300 nba players? I'm pretty sure the owners are laughing at the notion of another league. When you really think about it, it's quite hysterical. 
One of the most important factors of a negotiation is leverage, and the players have NONE. Without the NBA, 95% of players have nothing to fall back on.They don't have another job, their income stream is either 0 or something significantly lower than their NBA salary.  The owners on the other hand, have already accumulated a level of wealth in which they can live very comfortably. 

I thought the same at first, but while I was driving to work I brainstormed it. If the players started their own league would ESPN not go out of their way to air it. And if not them, would FOX or NBC or CBS run out and make a quick deal? Would Nike not sign on to give these teams jersey's and shoes, ESPECIALLY if the players could get a TV deal done. I know its crazy and won't happen. I just dont think its as laughable as I first thought IMHO.

 

[statis22]

Are we still debating for th players because I mean they are the ones still holding out at this point?

Whether folks choose to believe Stern or not he is the one giving out details. That owners have pretty much ceded the hard cap & the hard luxury tax and the union is still playing the victim. I mean do they even take responsibility in splitting their share of the BRI when Stern has said that at the end of the day the players will get the same amount?

I even read that some of the stars are getting paid now which can be a further ploy for them not to negotiate. I seen somebody say Fisher & Hunter need to start talking and I absolutely agree with that but getting with Demaurice Smith? Nah because we see how that worked out for NFL players lol.

 

[statis22]

Are we still debating for th players because I mean they are the ones still holding out at this point?

Whether folks choose to believe Stern or not he is the one giving out details. That owners have pretty much ceded the hard cap & the hard luxury tax and the union is still playing the victim. I mean do they even take responsibility in splitting their share of the BRI when Stern has said that at the end of the day the players will get the same amount?

I even read that some of the stars are getting paid now which can be a further ploy for them not to negotiate. I seen somebody say Fisher & Hunter need to start talking and I absolutely agree with that but getting with Demaurice Smith? Nah because we see how that worked out for NFL players lol.

 

[me no pass]

another good read

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/10/14/2486332/david-stern-nba-lockout-2011

[h1][/h1]

[h1]David Stern Is Not Telling The Truth[/h1]

By Andrew Sharp - Featured Contributor

The NBA lockout has already dragged on for months, and with both sides deeply divided, it could last much longer. But through it all, one thing's never changed: David Stern isn't telling the truth.

Follow @sbnation on Twitter, and Like SBNation.com on Facebook.

Oct 14, 2011 - David Stern is really, really good at not telling the truth. Not lying, exactly. But not telling the truth. For instance, if he was president in 2004 and you asked him about weapons of mass destruction, he'd answer.

Only he wouldn't.

He'd point to a British Intelligence report, he'd cite the tragedy 9/11, and he'd emphasize the importance of fighting terrorists abroad instead of at home. And it would all be true, and true enough to cover up the lie.

---

Follow @sbnation on Twitter | Like SB Nation on Facebook | Sign up for our Newsletter
​

---

If he was President in 1997 and you asked him whether he ever had sex with Monica Lewinsky, he'd smile, tilt his head, and offer a curt no comment. If pressed, maybe he'd offer a soliloquy on the values of the executive office. He'd tilt his head again, offer an exaggerated sigh, and lament that we were even having such a frivolous discussion. Maybe he'd even publicly acknowledge his critics--"What's the name again? Ms. Tripp?"--and wonder about their motivations.

If he was a baseball player facing congress and you asked whether he's ever taken performance enhancing drugs, he would nod and tell you that he takes performance enhancing drugs every single day. "But to the best of my knowledge," he'd add with a smirk, "Centrum's Multi-Vitamins are still legal." Next question please.

There would be no lies, because there never are. But no truth, either.

No, if you want to find a drop of sincerity in the oceans of rhetoric surrounding the NBA lockout, you gotta go back to the day it all began. When David Stern held a press conference to announce the NBA lockout and explained the situation like so: "Our owners are at bottom running a business that they want to make certain modifications to."

That's what the NBA lockout is all about. Not a battle of billionaires vs. millionaires that symbolizes the worst elements of human greed. Not a necessary evil to protect the future of the league. It's pretty simple:

• NBA owners are at bottom running a business.
• They want to modify that business to make more money.
• The NBA lockout is how they're going to do it.

The NBA players are the cattle, the lockout is the cattle prod. And then there's David Stern, the man standing in front of a slaughterhouse feigning dismay. Maybe he's not lying when he says he hates to see it happen, but he's not telling the truth when he acts like the cattle left him no choice.



Whether it's latent racism or blatant jealousy, a large portion of fans refuse to root for the players. That's what makes Stern's treatment of the players so frustrating. Don't get me wrong; the worst case scenario for NBA players is still the best case scenario for just about anyone else on earth, and nobody's actually being slaughtered here. But even if they're not really victims, it's insane how quickly the players become villains.

Someone like Bill Plaschke is hardly a representation of how NBA media has covered the lockout, but this sure seems like how the mainstream sees it, and Stern's partly to blame.

"The NBA players need to do the math, listen to the yawns, and look in the mirror," he wrote in a column last week. "Take a pay cut and go back to work in a sport that will be healthier because of it. ... What happens if the players take that horrible pay cut? They will still be the highest-paid team athletes in American pro sports. Some of them will still make millions to spend their lives on a bench."

Calling basketball players the "highest-paid team athletes in American pro sports" completely overlooks the basic reality that there the number of NBA players is roughly 25% of NFL players, so it's expected they'd net a higher average salary. There's no need to pick apart his reasoning, though; what's more important is his reasoning for writing it at all.

What Plaschke does is just good business. He's pandering to a built-in audience full of readers who already resent athletes for being so wealthy in the first place. The column writes itself. RAWR! NBA PLAYERS ALREADY MAKE MILLIONS! CAN'T THEY MAKE LESS MILLIONS?

It speaks to a kneejerk reaction among mainstream fans that essentially penalizes NBA players for being lucky. They should be grateful to be playing at all, goes the reasoning. They make millions to put a leather ball through a hoop. It begs an obvious question, though: If we're handicapping NBA players for their prosperity, then how does everyone ignore the owners?

It all comes back to David Stern.

We never hear Stern talk about men like Robert Sarver, the Suns owner who needed $140 million in taxpayer dollars to bail out his bank's reckless investments. Nor do we hear about Dan Gilbert, the man who built his fortune on the same subprime mortgage model that sunk Sarver's bank.

So while Gilbert and Sarver push for a better deal in a back room somewhere, David Stern's front and center on any network that'll have him, citing talking points like "competitive balance" and the "struggling economy"--the same economy that men like Sarver and Gilbert helped destroy.

Nobody can blame Stern for downplaying his owners as individuals, but what makes it worse is that he actively feeds and exploits the idea that NBA players are greedy and unreasonable. Like back in August, when he said, "The reality is that the way those dollars get made is from the sweat of 5,000 other people as well as the players, and the players are telling the owners and those people, well, you should be allowed to break even. That's not going to cut it."

Of course, if owners break even and the league continues to grow, they'll profit whenever they sell their team, and neither the players nor the "5,000 other people" Stern mentions will get a share. In the meantime, owning an NBA basketball team opens up 5,000 other revenue streams to help keep their coffers full. Stern's not lying when he leaves those details out, but... Well, you know. 

That's a big reason why Stern's gone from making $3 million in 1990 to anywhere between $15 and $23 million today--he's really, really good at marketing his own version of the truth. A glorified version of Bill Plaschke, basically. And it's good business, even if it makes villains out of the same players who continue to make the league bigger than ever. Just like Stern's salary.

The lockout is a game unto itself. That's what resentful fans don't understand when they complain about arrogant, ungrateful players refusing bad deals. It's not about playing basketball for the next few months; at this point, playing basketball means the players lost.

As an NBA fan, this sucks. On the same day we ran a piece giving 100 reasons the NBA would have been fantastic this year, Stern warned that the lockout could last past Christmas. Threats like that have become a hallmark of Stern's rhetoric lately, but it's hard to imagine he's wrong.

But there's a difference between missing basketball and resenting this lockout. They are two different stories, about two different games. Stern's an easy villain for anyone who misses basketball, but that's not what this is about. It's how he's handled this lockout that deserves scorn.

When you parse the particulars of the bargaining process, a prolonged stoppage just makes no sense. The players have already offered significant concessions to help change a system that needs changing. Teams may have lost money under the current system, but the players have recognized that, and have offered to sacrifice $160 million dollars per season. Asking the players to shoulder any more responsibility for the NBA's losses is insulting.

If NBA owners are "at bottom running a business", then they should act like businessmen and take responsibility for their inexplicable business decisions that brought the NBA to this point. If these are truly serious businessmen, they should recognize the hidden and explicit value to owning a piece of a league that's grown steadily for 60 years. Instead, the players are supposed to guarantee them profit opportunities every single year. Who's being greedy and ungrateful? 

As the lockout gets nastier and Stern grows more desperate to sell the public on a narrative that makes no sense, the stain this leaves on his legacy will be harder and harder to ignore. There's a difference between not telling the truth and outright lying, but if everyone eventually realizes you were full of crap all along... Does the difference even matter?

All the twisted rhetoric and half-truths don't change what's really happening here. The owners are using this lockout to increase profits and eliminate any risk, and they're willing to sacrifice a season to make it happen. It'd be one thing for Stern to go along for the ride, but he's driving this more than anyone. Now, while Stern and the owners refuse to compromise, for the second time in just over a decade, the NBA Commissioner is doing his damnedest to turn America against NBA players.

"How many times does it pay to keep meeting?" Stern asked Thursday. "And have the same things thrown back at you? We’re ready to sit down and make a deal, and I don’t think the union is."

Right.

So we're really blaming the cattle, huh?

 

[me no pass]

another good read

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/10/14/2486332/david-stern-nba-lockout-2011

[h1][/h1]

[h1]David Stern Is Not Telling The Truth[/h1]

By Andrew Sharp - Featured Contributor

The NBA lockout has already dragged on for months, and with both sides deeply divided, it could last much longer. But through it all, one thing's never changed: David Stern isn't telling the truth.

Follow @sbnation on Twitter, and Like SBNation.com on Facebook.

Oct 14, 2011 - David Stern is really, really good at not telling the truth. Not lying, exactly. But not telling the truth. For instance, if he was president in 2004 and you asked him about weapons of mass destruction, he'd answer.

Only he wouldn't.

He'd point to a British Intelligence report, he'd cite the tragedy 9/11, and he'd emphasize the importance of fighting terrorists abroad instead of at home. And it would all be true, and true enough to cover up the lie.

---

Follow @sbnation on Twitter | Like SB Nation on Facebook | Sign up for our Newsletter
​

---

If he was President in 1997 and you asked him whether he ever had sex with Monica Lewinsky, he'd smile, tilt his head, and offer a curt no comment. If pressed, maybe he'd offer a soliloquy on the values of the executive office. He'd tilt his head again, offer an exaggerated sigh, and lament that we were even having such a frivolous discussion. Maybe he'd even publicly acknowledge his critics--"What's the name again? Ms. Tripp?"--and wonder about their motivations.

If he was a baseball player facing congress and you asked whether he's ever taken performance enhancing drugs, he would nod and tell you that he takes performance enhancing drugs every single day. "But to the best of my knowledge," he'd add with a smirk, "Centrum's Multi-Vitamins are still legal." Next question please.

There would be no lies, because there never are. But no truth, either.

No, if you want to find a drop of sincerity in the oceans of rhetoric surrounding the NBA lockout, you gotta go back to the day it all began. When David Stern held a press conference to announce the NBA lockout and explained the situation like so: "Our owners are at bottom running a business that they want to make certain modifications to."

That's what the NBA lockout is all about. Not a battle of billionaires vs. millionaires that symbolizes the worst elements of human greed. Not a necessary evil to protect the future of the league. It's pretty simple:

• NBA owners are at bottom running a business.
• They want to modify that business to make more money.
• The NBA lockout is how they're going to do it.

The NBA players are the cattle, the lockout is the cattle prod. And then there's David Stern, the man standing in front of a slaughterhouse feigning dismay. Maybe he's not lying when he says he hates to see it happen, but he's not telling the truth when he acts like the cattle left him no choice.



Whether it's latent racism or blatant jealousy, a large portion of fans refuse to root for the players. That's what makes Stern's treatment of the players so frustrating. Don't get me wrong; the worst case scenario for NBA players is still the best case scenario for just about anyone else on earth, and nobody's actually being slaughtered here. But even if they're not really victims, it's insane how quickly the players become villains.

Someone like Bill Plaschke is hardly a representation of how NBA media has covered the lockout, but this sure seems like how the mainstream sees it, and Stern's partly to blame.

"The NBA players need to do the math, listen to the yawns, and look in the mirror," he wrote in a column last week. "Take a pay cut and go back to work in a sport that will be healthier because of it. ... What happens if the players take that horrible pay cut? They will still be the highest-paid team athletes in American pro sports. Some of them will still make millions to spend their lives on a bench."

Calling basketball players the "highest-paid team athletes in American pro sports" completely overlooks the basic reality that there the number of NBA players is roughly 25% of NFL players, so it's expected they'd net a higher average salary. There's no need to pick apart his reasoning, though; what's more important is his reasoning for writing it at all.

What Plaschke does is just good business. He's pandering to a built-in audience full of readers who already resent athletes for being so wealthy in the first place. The column writes itself. RAWR! NBA PLAYERS ALREADY MAKE MILLIONS! CAN'T THEY MAKE LESS MILLIONS?

It speaks to a kneejerk reaction among mainstream fans that essentially penalizes NBA players for being lucky. They should be grateful to be playing at all, goes the reasoning. They make millions to put a leather ball through a hoop. It begs an obvious question, though: If we're handicapping NBA players for their prosperity, then how does everyone ignore the owners?

It all comes back to David Stern.

We never hear Stern talk about men like Robert Sarver, the Suns owner who needed $140 million in taxpayer dollars to bail out his bank's reckless investments. Nor do we hear about Dan Gilbert, the man who built his fortune on the same subprime mortgage model that sunk Sarver's bank.

So while Gilbert and Sarver push for a better deal in a back room somewhere, David Stern's front and center on any network that'll have him, citing talking points like "competitive balance" and the "struggling economy"--the same economy that men like Sarver and Gilbert helped destroy.

Nobody can blame Stern for downplaying his owners as individuals, but what makes it worse is that he actively feeds and exploits the idea that NBA players are greedy and unreasonable. Like back in August, when he said, "The reality is that the way those dollars get made is from the sweat of 5,000 other people as well as the players, and the players are telling the owners and those people, well, you should be allowed to break even. That's not going to cut it."

Of course, if owners break even and the league continues to grow, they'll profit whenever they sell their team, and neither the players nor the "5,000 other people" Stern mentions will get a share. In the meantime, owning an NBA basketball team opens up 5,000 other revenue streams to help keep their coffers full. Stern's not lying when he leaves those details out, but... Well, you know. 

That's a big reason why Stern's gone from making $3 million in 1990 to anywhere between $15 and $23 million today--he's really, really good at marketing his own version of the truth. A glorified version of Bill Plaschke, basically. And it's good business, even if it makes villains out of the same players who continue to make the league bigger than ever. Just like Stern's salary.

The lockout is a game unto itself. That's what resentful fans don't understand when they complain about arrogant, ungrateful players refusing bad deals. It's not about playing basketball for the next few months; at this point, playing basketball means the players lost.

As an NBA fan, this sucks. On the same day we ran a piece giving 100 reasons the NBA would have been fantastic this year, Stern warned that the lockout could last past Christmas. Threats like that have become a hallmark of Stern's rhetoric lately, but it's hard to imagine he's wrong.

But there's a difference between missing basketball and resenting this lockout. They are two different stories, about two different games. Stern's an easy villain for anyone who misses basketball, but that's not what this is about. It's how he's handled this lockout that deserves scorn.

When you parse the particulars of the bargaining process, a prolonged stoppage just makes no sense. The players have already offered significant concessions to help change a system that needs changing. Teams may have lost money under the current system, but the players have recognized that, and have offered to sacrifice $160 million dollars per season. Asking the players to shoulder any more responsibility for the NBA's losses is insulting.

If NBA owners are "at bottom running a business", then they should act like businessmen and take responsibility for their inexplicable business decisions that brought the NBA to this point. If these are truly serious businessmen, they should recognize the hidden and explicit value to owning a piece of a league that's grown steadily for 60 years. Instead, the players are supposed to guarantee them profit opportunities every single year. Who's being greedy and ungrateful? 

As the lockout gets nastier and Stern grows more desperate to sell the public on a narrative that makes no sense, the stain this leaves on his legacy will be harder and harder to ignore. There's a difference between not telling the truth and outright lying, but if everyone eventually realizes you were full of crap all along... Does the difference even matter?

All the twisted rhetoric and half-truths don't change what's really happening here. The owners are using this lockout to increase profits and eliminate any risk, and they're willing to sacrifice a season to make it happen. It'd be one thing for Stern to go along for the ride, but he's driving this more than anyone. Now, while Stern and the owners refuse to compromise, for the second time in just over a decade, the NBA Commissioner is doing his damnedest to turn America against NBA players.

"How many times does it pay to keep meeting?" Stern asked Thursday. "And have the same things thrown back at you? We’re ready to sit down and make a deal, and I don’t think the union is."

Right.

So we're really blaming the cattle, huh?

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Statis22

Are we still debating for th players because I mean they are the ones still holding out at this point?

Whether folks choose to believe Stern or not he is the one giving out details. That owners have pretty much ceded the hard cap & the hard luxury tax and the union is still playing the victim. I mean do they even take responsibility in splitting their share of the BRI when Stern has said that at the end of the day the players will get the same amount?

You mean after the owners take the 300 mil off the top or what are you saying?  Did that part change and I missed it? 

at Stern giving out the details.  Of course he is.  He's known about them for....what it say last page, 3 years now? 

  But you'll just take everything he says at face value huh? 

  

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Statis22

Are we still debating for th players because I mean they are the ones still holding out at this point?

Whether folks choose to believe Stern or not he is the one giving out details. That owners have pretty much ceded the hard cap & the hard luxury tax and the union is still playing the victim. I mean do they even take responsibility in splitting their share of the BRI when Stern has said that at the end of the day the players will get the same amount?

You mean after the owners take the 300 mil off the top or what are you saying?  Did that part change and I missed it? 

at Stern giving out the details.  Of course he is.  He's known about them for....what it say last page, 3 years now? 

  But you'll just take everything he says at face value huh? 

  

 

[CP1708]

David Stern is the obvious Gus Fring: charming, great at handling the media, and utterly ruthless and uncompromising. Every time I see him feed reporters a line about how much money the league is losing (the most egregious of which being his claim Monday night that the owners have made “concession after concession,

 

[CP1708]

David Stern is the obvious Gus Fring: charming, great at handling the media, and utterly ruthless and uncompromising. Every time I see him feed reporters a line about how much money the league is losing (the most egregious of which being his claim Monday night that the owners have made “concession after concession,

 

[everysingletime]

I don't really see what's wrong with the owners taking 300 mill off the top and then splitting the money 50/50.

I can't think of a single industry where owners would truly split money 50/50 with their employees.  So why should the NBA be different? 

 

[everysingletime]

I don't really see what's wrong with the owners taking 300 mill off the top and then splitting the money 50/50.

I can't think of a single industry where owners would truly split money 50/50 with their employees.  So why should the NBA be different? 

 

[duba169]

Can't think of many industries that get public funded stadiums through tax payer money

A sports franchise isn't a normal business.

 

[duba169]

Can't think of many industries that get public funded stadiums through tax payer money

A sports franchise isn't a normal business.