khandor’s sports blog

NBA Lockout Ends and Players Get Played

I understand that, but it didn’t have to be this way. This deal is just all so very pre-Occupy Wall Street. I wish more players had spoken out and not let David Stern’s PR machine define them as “greedy millionaires, insensitive to the public’s suffering in these hard economic times.” I wish more had directly raised the issues of Occupy Wall Street, like 11 year veteran Etan Thomas who wrote, “While the issues raised by the Wall Street occupiers differ from the issues of this lockout, aren’t there obvious parallels in power imbalance? Who is in the same position of power as the 1 percent ? Who wants a bailout for their own mismanagement decisions? Who is more closely aligned with the corporate interests from which the Wall Street occupiers are looking to reclaim the country?”

I wish they had taken their fight out of the boardroom and into the public sphere. Make no mistake, I’m an NBA junkie and I’m thrilled to be watching ball sooner rather than later. But with every game of this warped, bastardized 66 game season, I’ll remember that we had a lockout where the rich got richer, the players got played and the fans didn’t get a damn thing.

Since the Magna Carta, the concepts of “habeus corpus” and “innocent until proven guilty” have been fundamental aspects of the Rule of Law. Unfortunately, in today’s paparazzi-driven world, all too frequently, it gets thrown completely out the window by over-zealous people who prioritize values other than basic human fairness to all, regardless of their personal circumstances in life.

Former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky proclaims innocence in NBC interview 

Whether or not Mr. Sandusky is eventually proven to be guilty, under the Rule of Law, kudos to him for respectfully asserting his hard-earned basic human rights in this highly sensitive situation.

Untangling Monday’s NBA lockout web

What do the players mean when they say they will “disclaim” their union status and file antitrust litigation?

The word “disclaim” is important. It is a new word in this context since we went through the NFL lockout earlier this year, and it is the first step in a new process that the players hope will expedite their antitrust litigation and give them some negotiating leverage they do not now have. When the NBA players “disclaim” their union rights, it is different from the “decertification” of union rights that the NFL players did when they were locked out by NFL owners.

What difference will the change of words and procedures make?

The players have obviously learned from what happened when the NFL players decertified: They were unable to stop the NFL owners’ lockout with an injunction. It is not a big surprise that they learned from that experience. The same lawyers who decertified the NFL union are now disclaiming the NBA union — Jeffrey Kessler and David Feher. But there is some doubt that the disclaimer will eliminate the owners’ legal position. The owners will argue that the move is a sham, but the players will have a more persuasive response to that claim. They will tell the judge that the union is no longer bargaining and that the only possible bargaining after disclaimer can be with plaintiffs (players) who file the antitrust lawsuit. Instead of delaying the antitrust case for months, I believe the owners’ claim of a sham will be quickly ended in a ruling for the players.

Among the rhetoric being exchanged on Monday was this from David Stern about the union’s move to disclaim: “It’s just a big charade and it’s really irresponsible given the timing of it.” Is the commissioner right or wrong?

He is wrong. Stern may wish the players’ action was a charade, but it is a serious legal action against an obvious monopoly that is using its total control of the market to take money and benefits from players. Stern and the owners have been worried about this since they began their lockout. The timing shows only that the players patiently negotiated until they realized the owners were asking for too much.

Breaking sports news video. MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL highlights and more.

What will the players do next?

So what is likely to happen?

From a strict business standpoint, the players’ best move is to offer a counterproposal, and to be prepared to accept the league’s proposal if their counterproposal is rejected. Perhaps one more bargaining session can be scheduled to hammer out an acceptable compromise.

But the players aren’t operating from a strict business standpoint. They’re angry. They feel that they haven’t gotten a fair deal from the owners, and the only way to ensure a fair deal is to take the league to court. They are tired of making all the concessions. They are tired of being backed into the corner. They are tired of ultimatums. They’re prepared to suffer the consequences of a canceled season.

It all comes down to Fisher, and how he intends to describe the league’s proposal to the player representatives. If he describes it as the best deal the players are going to get and says the alternatives are too costly to consider, then the representatives — and the players at large — will follow his lead. If his description begins, “Here are the reasons this is still a bad deal,” then the players will say “no,” the owners’ proposal will reset, and the union will likely decertify — with a small window of opportunity to negotiate before the decertification becomes official.

So that’s where we are now. The players have a number of options, but they really boil down to just two: They can accept the owners’ proposal (or something close to it) and save the season or they can say “no,” decertify their union, and likely kill it.

By delivering an ultimatum, Stern has put the season in the hands of the players — and he’s ensured a mid-November verdict. It’s now up to the players to decide which is the lesser of two evils.

A first time for the National Hockey League …