Nov 15 2011
It seems increasingly likely that the 2011-12 NBA schedule will go the way of the dinosaurs, the 1994-95 NHL season and the 1995 World Series. The players have taken steps to renounce their collective bargaining rights and take the league to court. David Stern and the owners haven't blinked. The most powerful player agents continue to push their own agenda.
I've been fairly optimistic throughout this process, because it's very clear there's a deal to be made if both sides are willing to give a little. They aren't. So instead, we've got a battle between CEOs, professional athletes and trial lawyers - probably the three most competitive breeds on the planet. And I vastly underestimated their collective willingness to put winning ahead of making a deal that benefits all parties.
I won't make that mistake again.
Today is November 15th. I should be writing about a playing-time battle between Toney Douglas, Landry Fields and Iman Shumpert... or how Paul Silas is finding ways to play undersized guards Kemba Walker and D.J. Augustin in the same backcourt... or about Enes Kanter getting re-acclimated to competitive hoops after a full year in limbo.
Instead, I'm looking at the bleak possibility of a long winter with no NBA. And I'm looking for someone to blame. There's plenty to go around.
Blaming David Stern and the Owners:
It's easy to portray the owners as the bad guys in all this. After all, they're billionaires who spend their time swimming in piles of coin a la Scrooge McDuck. But that's an awfully simplistic view of what's going on. I think it's more than fair to say that the collective bargaining agreement that expired in June was tilted entirely too far in the players' favor. And while some of their losses have probably been exaggerated by clever accounting, it seems equally clear that several teams are having serious problems. And while David Stern has taken a great deal of criticism for continually citing the payroll disparity between the Lakers and Kings - doesn't it seem that a system that has a salary cap but allows one team to spend three times as much on players as another is at least a little bit broken?
That said... there's a certain virtue in quitting while you're ahead, but that seems lost on the owners. They could have locked up a deal with a 50-50 split of basketball related income weeks ago, but continued to insist on draconian changes to the luxury tax and free agent rules, essentially creating a hard salary cap in disguise. They had a 20-point lead in the final minute, but they kept shooting three-pointers.
Blaming Billy Hunter and the NBPA:
In the overly simplistic view of the negotiations, the players are the victims. The league claims $300 million in losses? Well the NBPA, out of the collective goodness of its heart, has offered to take a $350 million pay cut. That should make everything right, right?
A couple of problems with that argument. The players made that concession very early in the process... and then became passive. It seemed the union was content to let the owners make proposal after proposal - letting David Stern set the agenda for all discussions - only to cry foul whenever the league attempted to reduce the payroll disparity between the Knicks/Mavs/Lakers/Celtics and the Hornets/Kings/Pacers. The union's bargaining position seems to be, "How about we give back some money and keep everything else the way it was?"
Followed by, "But wait. We offered to give back some money. How about we keep everything else the way it was?"
It has been clear for months that the union didn't have much leverage, and that their only real play was to consider decertification and the threat of an anti-trust lawsuit. But even with that, the NBPA let David Stern take the lead. The NBA filed a pre-emptive lawsuit asking a federal judge to block any decertification as a negotiating ploy. That move could render yesterday's move moot, but it had an added benefit; it set New York as the venue for future litigation, and the New York courts are seen as far more friendly to management than other districts. The union finally did move to disband... but waited until mid-November to do so, all but insuring that a large chunk of the season would be cancelled.
I'm not a labor law expert, but I have trouble seeing the union's disclaimer of interest as anything but a negotiating ploy - and therefore, a "sham". But even if it does stand up in court, why wait so long to go this route? And what can you gain? Anything you recoup - a percentage point or so of BRI or a little more flexibility in player movement - will almost certainly be cancelled out by the game checks you'll lose by not getting the season started.
Blaming the Agents:
While they theoretically represent the best interests of their clients, it's hard not to see NBA player agents as a third faction in this dispute, motivated by very different interests.
In simple dollars-and-cents, it makes sense for the players to get back to work as soon as possible. NBA careers are relatively short. Losing a month's worth of game checks is far more damaging to most players than getting an additional half-percent of BRI will be over the life of the next CBA.
The agents, on the other hand, can afford to take a much longer view. They can make back this season's losses over time; they'll still be in business when most of today's players are retired. It's hard not to see that as a motive when they push for the most aggressive stance in negotiations.
Blaming LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony and Chris Paul:
Wondering why the owners are so eager to place restrictions on player movement - particularly among superstars? James and Anthony are exhibits A and B. To recap:
- James' pending free agency was the primary motivation for every personnel move made by the Cleveland franchise for years. James then took his talents to South Beach - a move many believe was planned two or three seasons in advance. The Cavaliers franchise lost about half its market value in the process.
- Anthony used the Larry Bird exception to the salary cap - a clause put in place to help teams retain their own top players - as a means to force a trade to a team of his choosing.
Let's be clear - both players were well within their rights. But James' Decision and Anthony's Melo-drama showed exactly how much power the players could exert over their teams' when given the opportunity. It's not hard to see why the owners are seeking a more restrictive system.
Blaming Gilbert Arenas and Eddy Curry:
Meanwhile, Arenas and Curry have become cautionary tales, living examples of the evils of long-term guaranteed contracts.
- Arenas signed a massive contract, ruined his knees, and then brought a handgun to the Wizards' locker room. But the only way Washington could be rid of him involved taking on a rapidly-fading Rashard Lewis - who still has two years and $45 million remaining on his deal.
- Curry, on the other hand, basically ate his way out of the league, appearing in ten games total during his last three seasons with the Knicks.
If you're looking for reasons why the owners want an amnesty provision in the next CBA and a way to waive bad contracts without destroying a team's salary cap, look no further.
Blaming Isiah Thomas:
The mid-level exception was intended as a way for teams over the salary cap to add key players, as the Pistons did in 2002 by signing Chauncey Billups. But as Newsday's Alan Hahn points out, for every Billups deal there are five examples of the MLE being wasted on an end-of-bench guy. Thomas is responsible for two of the most notorious examples: Jerome James and Jared Jeffries.
Several of the "system issues" that still separate the players and owners involve the mid-level exception and whether or not teams should be allowed to use it when over the luxury tax threshold. You can thank Zeke for that.
