[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Peter Vecsey: 16 Days Till Doom
[New York Post]
SPORTS
16 DAYS 'TIL DOOM
By PETER VECSEY
------------------------------------------------------
MAY I be among the first hundred thousand to notify
union boss Billy Hunter of the drop dead date he has
been begging NBA commissioner David Stern to
disclose. Either there's a Collective Bargaining
Agreement in place by Jan. 7 - when the Board of
Governors is scheduled to convene in New York two
weeks from today - or the league office will
recommend what remains of the 1989-99 season be
canceled.
At last, the pressure truly is on to reach a fair
settlement. For months many people on both sides of
the issues have maintained only a threatened deadline
would break the deadlock. Now we'll find out whether
it will serve a useful purpose, or merely go down in
league history as its defining day of infamy and
irrationality, a time for all professional sports to
study judiciously and do everything in their power to
avoid repeating.
I'd be a tad more optimistic than I am regarding
negotiations if I weren't so acquainted with the
assemblage. Think about this and weep: Here we have
one group who can't save themselves from themselves
asking the only other group on the planet who can't
save themselves from themselves to bail them out. *IN
case everyone wasn't clear on what it'll take to
satisfy the downtrodden owners, Stern put his
proposal to paper a week ago and mailed to every
player and media member before relocating to his
winter wonderland in Aspen, Col., for Christmas.
In order to make a deal, the league, in no uncertain
terms, must get a high-end limit on salaries and the
ability for teams to hold on indefinitely to their
rookies without getting killed financially, or
helplessly watch them defect.
"Our objective is not to wind up like baseball where
only eight-to-10 teams have any chance from the first
moment of spring training to compete for a
championship," Stern declares.
An amusing outlook, I submit, considering the Bulls
have devoured the competition in six of the last
eight seasons, and would be on an eight title roll
had not Michael Jordan vacated the premises for 11/3
quarter seasons.
The most important difference between the NBA and
Major League Baseball - something Hunter and his
bargaining committee either don't grasp or choose to
keep buried - is simply this:
The majority of NBA owners want to win in the worst
way, meaning they've overspent for talent in the past
and will continue to do so in the future no matter
what system is in place. In fact, you can be certain
they're already looking for loopholes to circumvent
the rules being discussed, all in the name of
fielding a champion.
Meanwhile, Hunter has procrastinated long and loud on
the side of protecting the high-end players whom, I
assume, bankrolled full page ads in Wednesday's
editions of USA Today and the Los Angeles Times
(roughly 100G a piece) in a pathetic plea for
sympathy from the fans.
Only recently did Hunter make an attempt to upgrade
the wages of the majority of players (middle and
minimum class) by offering to hard cap salaries of
players with zero-to-six years experience at $10
million and players with seven-to-nine at $15M.
Surely there's more compromise on the horizon (from
both parties) where that came from. Then again, some
of the issues aren't the big deal Hunter swears the
league is making out of them, while others, still,
already have been resolved. Hopefully Hunter plans to
inform his membership about them before the season is
canceled.
So much for leaders who practice such risky business.
This is what happens when David Falk, the agent of
mass destruction, is allowed to stack the negotiating
deck with his All-Star clients who've intimidated all
but a few union members from speaking out. EXCEPT for
an occasional outburst from the likes of perishable
Tim Legler, pillow head Karl Malone and Kevin Willis,
players have been forced to resort to anonymity if
they wanted to air their concerns and convictions.
Like the smart fax dropped on me yesterday by a
veteran starter. His thoughts (and responses by
league and team officials) are a must read for anyone
with any vested interest.
Dear Peter,
The problems I have with the NBA's proposal are not
big money issues, but more to do with personal
freedom for players, and flexibility for general
mangers. As I have told you all along, I totally
understand where the NBA is coming from economically.
I think players' expectations have gotten out of
control and the players should help owners control
their costs. But in return for that help, I think we
deserve more freedom and opportunity from the league.
Remember that giving them the high-end guys is a huge
concession and we deserve something significant in
return. Here's what would make it a good deal, in my
completely ignored, irrelevant opinion.
l. The league has proposed a maximum salary of 25
percent of the cap for a player in his first six
years in the league. But what if he's the best player
in the league (Tim Duncan?) in his third year? I say
make a player eligible for 30 or 35 percent of the
cap if he makes either the All-Star team or All-NBA
twice during those six years.
Answer: It's not a crazy idea. Maybe each team should
be permitted to designate a youngster as its
franchise player until he's not on the team. However,
an evenhanded system would need to be devised to
substitute that youngster with a 10-year vet. The
problem is, if you can't prove the cost is equal, the
owners are convinced they've done all they can do and
anything else would be too much.
2. Give us two exceptions to the cap (Maybe a $1M
exception to go along with an average salary
exception). Our main worry as a union (supposedly) is
the decline of the middle class. It's safe to assume
that most teams will eventually pay three players the
maximum salary. With only one exception to the cap
and a scaled rookie or two, most teams will still
have six or seven guys making minimum. I realize the
minimum will increase, but as a player it's important
have options and flexibility. It's also good for GMs
to have the ability to make moves. Fans want their
teams to be able to improve themselves during the
offseason and exceptions allow them to do that.
Answer: Giving the players another $1M exception that
capped teams could spend might not be that costly,
thus might not be that hard to agree on.
3. The minimums (especially 250G for first- and
second-year players) should be bumped a bit higher.
Not much, but there certainly shouldn't be a $450,000
difference between years 9 and 10. I also think
anyone who signs for the minimum should be able to
extend out to at least two, maybe three years. Again,
it would give players security and it would give GMs
something to work with. And it wouldn't cost that
much, either.
Answer: Again, it's not crazy. We now realize some
second-year players would have to take a pay cut and
that shouldn't happen.
4. The group licensing deal has to stay the same. We
have a deal through 2003 that guarantees the union a
minimum of $25M a year. The NBA, in light of recent
declines in revenue from licensed products, is
proposing that we no longer should be guaranteed the
money. In other words, it would only have to pay us
that much if revenues stayed at a certain level.
After getting screwed for so many years we finally
have a deal in place that really helps us (estimated
$40G per year). There's no reason to give it up.
Answer: This is a very big point for the league. Even
if we didn't have a lockout, sports licensing revenue
is off drastically. We're prepared to give the
players 50 percent of what's left after expenses, but
are not willing to give them their old guarantee. It
might be a separate deal from the collective
bargaining agreement, but dollars are dollars and
we're not going to give guarantees when we don't have
any.
5. Player opt-outs should not be eliminated, as the
league insists. If a player signs a multi-year deal
he should have every right to negotiate an opt-out
clause if he has the leverage. That is a personal
freedom that gives a player security on one hand, but
flexibility on the other. GMs can use it as an
enticement as well. It's an important issue for the
players, but not a huge expense for the owners.
Answer: This is something else we're adamant about.
This isn't about freedom it's about league rules. If
a player signs a 6-year deal, he's under contract for
six years. If he signs for two years, he's bound for
two years. Salaries already are stratospheric. We're
not going to have players opting out and going into
the next category before their time. When a contract
is signed both sides are obligated for the duration
or don't sign it.
6. Sign and trades should be allowed as well,
contrary to league demands. Last year Mark
Bartelstein convinced Pat Riley he needed Duane
Causewell (Who says Riley is a genius?) Miami was
over the cap. So Bartelstein convinced the Kings to
sign Causwell and trade him to Miami for a couple
guys whose salaries matched Causewell's. Sign and
trades are good for everyone - GMs (it allows them to
get rid of their mistakes), players and agents.
Answer: This is not a big issue. We've already told
them we can work this out to their satisfaction.
7. Finally, a player should retain his Bird rights if
he is traded. A player needs three years with the
same team to qualify for Bird, but the NBA is
proposing he lose those rights if traded. That's
unfair.
Answer: He's right. The union already has been
advised this is no longer an issue.
Don't forget that with an escrow system in place, the
NBA has the cost certainty it so desperately wants.
So adding any exceptions or provisions to the cap
that would help the players wouldn't hurt the owners
at all. Whether the owners spend 50,60 or 70 percent
of the revenue on salaries they will get back from
the players anything over the threshold, which is
still being negotiated. so why should the league care
if there is another exception in the deal?
But you know what I want most? I want to have my
hotel room paid for! NBA teams are only required to
pay for a double room for players. So if players want
their own rooms they have to pay the difference out
of their own pockets. It's about 5 or 6 thousand a
year. Something tells me that's the only thing Stern
is going to give in on!
<snip>