
Photo from nathangibbs via Flickr
Owners and players initially found reason for optimism during Tuesday’s meetings. Commissioner David Stern and Peter Holt, the head of the owners’ executive committee, felt that the players’ proposal to take 52 or 53 percent of basketball-related income, compared to 57 under the previous agreement, was basically fair, sources said.
Owners were seriously considering coming off of their demand for a salary freeze and would allow players’ future earnings to be tied into the league’s revenue growth, a critical point for players. The owners also were willing to allow the players to maintain their current salaries, without rollbacks, sources said.
But when the owners left the players to meet among themselves for around three hours, Cleveland’s Dan Gilbert and Phoenix’s Robert Sarver expressed their dissatisfaction with many of the points, sources said. The sources said that the Knicks’ James Dolan and the Lakers’ Jerry Buss were visibly annoyed by the hardline demands of Gilbert and Sarver.
via NBA lockout — Derek Fisher of Los Angeles Lakers emails players, says owners have rift – ESPN Los Angeles.
So much for the owners being more united than anything ever.
Ever since cautious optimism and way too many “How u” jokes were quickly put out by an unproductive labor agreement in New York on Tuesday, details have been slowly trickling as to why the NBA’s owners and players still can’t bang out a deal that would bring basketball back to our arenas and TV sets. Among those details, we’ve been hearing of increasingly problematic rifts in both the owner and player camps. The latest on the former, courtesy of ESPN Los Angeles’s Dave McMenamin, appears in blockquote form in front of your very eyes, and it is annoying, to say the least.
It’s annoying because the owners of the NBA’s 30 teams have had at least 2 years to get their heads wrapped around what the hell they want, anyway, and yet they still have too many issues in their own house to get us out of this hellhole of a nothingness that the NBA has regressed to. It’s annoying because of the the two owners in question: the guy who sold away Steve Nash’s prime, and the guy who enabled LeBron James into what may just be the greatest sense of entitlement among the planet’s athletes, then played martyr when that same hubris-inflated superstar exercised his contractual right to change his terms of employment. It’s annoying because, dammit, we want basketball already.
However, behind all the incessant rage and the twitter outburst that I am partially proud and partially ashamed of, here are some thoughts on what this and other lockout things actually mean from a blogger who is currently a volatile mix of rage, incoherence, and exhaustion:
Sarver and Gilbert can’t block everything alone
Scapegoats are always convenient escape pods for all anger management issues, but it’s important to note that it is virtually impossible for 2 owners to single-handedly block a 30 (technically 29+David Stern in the name of the Hornets) owner vote. Either Sarver and Gilbert are just the most vocal of leaders among a substantial group of owners whose demands were still far from met; or the NBA as a whole isn’t as close to agreeing to terms as stated; or, they really are the only two owners who have remained unsatisfied, but the league is confident it has enough time to bring those two over to the side of good sense. If all that’s left for a deal to be made is 30 names on a dotted line and all the NBA can muster is 28, things will go through. We’re just not there yet.
This is actually pretty good news
Original reports from Tuesday were obviously on the doomsday side of affairs, as public rhetoric dictates. However, we now learn that matters are much brighter. Suddenly, giving up on the hard cap “blood issue” is being seriously considered. Suddenly, we have owners admitting, even behind closed doors, that missing games is not something that we’re interested in. After hearing Billy Hunter say that we may lose up to half a season, the wind is back in the negotiation sails, if ever so slightly.
This is a market thing
The main culprits here are Sarver and Gilbert, owners of two supposedly small market teams. The two owners mentioned as the most annoyed with this split of idealism among owners were Dolan and Buss, the two biggest market owners of all big markets. While this does come right on the heels of the news that Buss is all in favor of revenue sharing, a hard cap, and other small-market agendas, this is still a pretty clean split down the middle, even if we only know of 4 opinions out of 29. The market war of the NBA was in the making for quite a long time, much longer than this current labor stoppage; whether it gets solved this round or next, it’s an issue that will remain present for the NBA until either a solution is presented or small markets are absolved completely. It’s sad, but it’s out there.
Another note which is completely irrelevant to recent developments but has to be made:
The hard cap will not guarantee competitive balance
Many a word was written on the ideals of hard caps as restorers of parity. I see many problems with this approach. Tom Ziller addresses one of them (a hard salary ceiling also, in essence, necessitates a hard salary floor, thus handicapping financially strapped teams into sending they can’t afford) here; and Henry Abbott has been wondering aloud if parity is even achievable for quite a while.
My main issue with a hard cap, though, ties in to what has been brought up by Zach Lowe quite a while back. A hard cap virtually guarantees the division of NBA players into 3 key groups: superstars, who will always be paid either the maximum possible or something close to it, as their value as far as merchandising and marketing goes far beyond the restraints of a contract; rookies, tied to whatever the rookie scale looks like; and everybody else, who will be fighting for the scraps left under an ominous ceiling of a number.
Basically, the mid-level salary range will be all but gone. We’ll have max guys, and minimum guys. Minimum guys whose deals won’t be guaranteed – can’t clog up that cap, right? – and who will gun for their own numbers so they can get another, slightly larger unguaranteed deal next summer.
But even worse, in creating an artificial upper limit to the mid-level player’s salary, you’re effectively writing out 25 of 30 teams in the race for his signature. You thought Ron Artest was happy to take a discount for the Lakers by taking 30 million? Just wait for the summer of 2012, when free agent Kirk Hinrich can choose between re-signing in Atlanta for an unguaranteed 2 year, 4 million deal and signing in Miami for a guaranteed minimum deal of 2 years, 2.5 million. Sure, a hard cap kills your salary dump Gasol deals, and it stops the Lakers from doubling the Kings in payroll; but it also opens the door to even more contender discounts, even more market considerations (those Florida tax advantages are looking pretty good now, I’d venture). Big markets will pay the same amount of small markets, but willing players and willing agents will make sure they still get twice the value. How’s that for competitive balance?
And besides: what, exactly, will make sure that these max deals alloted to supposed superstars won’t be just as damaging as current max deals? How does a hard cap convince the Hawks that Joe Johnson isn’t, in fact, a superstar? How does a hard cap prevent a team from signing a shooting guard in a point guard’s body who’s just coming off major surgery to a max deal just because he was awesome the year before he blew his knee? You think the Brandon Roy deal doesn’t happen under a hard cap? Nonsense. Teams will always go all in for guys they think are superstars, whether there is any semblance of rational or not. A better system won’t save bad owners from bad ownership.
The bottom line, of course, is that none of this really matters. As I type this, I continue to curse the meddling likes of Sarver and Gilbert while (somehow, incredibly) rooting for the Buss-Dolan tandem that I otherwise despise with every fiber of my being. But we don’t really know what’s going on behind closed doors. All we know is that we want basketball back, and if 2 franchises who had their fair share of blown chances are annoyed with the terms in which we get it, that’s their problem. Just fix this mess already, because writing these articles about finances instead of grown men throwing an orange ball in colorful jerseys is really depressing.