[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Peter Vecsey On Billy Hunter
[New York Post]
SPORTS
HUNTER, NOT HUNTED
By PETER VECSEY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT'S easy to knock Billy Hunter for his time- and cash-consuming method of negotiation.
Don't think we're not appreciative of his lack of effort to reach a settlement and the
opportunities he's given us to rip, mock and unravel him.
At the very least, Hunter's slow-down tactics will cost fans the '98 portion of the
'98-'99 season, players 50 percent of their salaries and owners a chance to inordinately
bid up the price of marginal All-Stars.
Yet, given the NBA's take-it-or-leave it "final offer" I'm shocked to find myself
unwilling to fault the union's executive director for not accepting it. Excuse Hunter for
not jumping through a hoop simply because David Stern, on owners' command, suddenly
states there'll be no more bargaining, that the league has made its last offer.
What makes anyone think Hunter is going to blink? It's way too soon. The commissioner's
doomsday date, Jan. 7, remains eight days away. There's still plenty of time to change
one's mind should the union exhaust its options.
It's imperative to understand that Hunter got hired for one reason and one reason only:
He stood up when interviewed three years ago and pledged, "I'll kick Stern's ass."
The players' committee ate it up. And the membership, for the most part, still seems to
be caught up in the emotion of its leader refusing to back down or back up to someone
whom everyone judges as having outsmarted, outmaneuvered and overwhelmed the union in the
past.
Had Hunter compromised three months ago, underlines one player, "he would've been
perceived as being weak. Even if the deal was fair. The dynamics just weren't right for
us to reach a speedy settlement. So, here we are today, very unified and very poor."
Meanwhile, Hunter's premeditated indecisiveness may very well have gained the union
advantages it wouldn't have gotten otherwise. I'm almost tempted to say Hunter, because
of his declared avenue of obstinacy, has out-negotiated Stern. The only thing preventing
such heresy is, in the long run, will those gains outweigh the $500M in lost players
wages?
What Hunter's banking on, of course, is Stern's reputation; he's in the business of
making billions of dollars for the players and owners, not canceling seasons. As
inexperienced as Hunter is in the art of making a deal, surely even he understands Stern
will reposition himself within reason and upgrade his "final offer' to some degree;
increasing middle-class exceptions.
But not unless - hopefully, for everyone's sake - Hunter comprehends the union must
counter with requisite concessions (!!!) regarding limits on high-end salaries and a
decrease in the percentage (from its current plateau of 56 to 53 or 54 in years 3, 4 and
5 of the new deal) of basketball-related income.
In the meantime, Hunter's strength swells the longer there's a standoff, despite growing
friction within the ranks. During Monday's negotiating committee conference call, Mike
Mitchell suggested the deal be put to a secret vote. According to one source, that
angered Alonzo Mourning, whose machismo cost the Heat a chance to beat the Knicks in last
May's playoffs. "Let's have a public vote instead," he fumed. "I'll sit in the front of
the room and each player will be invited to come up and let us know where he stands."
When agents, most of whom publicly continue to support Hunter, do dare to voice an
opposite viewpoint, they, too, meet intimidation. When Steven Woods spoke out at a Las
Vegas union meeting he was escorted out of the room and the association refused to
validate his parking.
Yesterday, Norman Blass, a pioneer in the sordid business, was threatened with
decertification, says one source, because the crusty 70-year-old New York lawyer had the
audacity to express his opinion in print. Within the last 48 hours, he sent a letter to
each union member, imploring a secret vote and acceptance of a deal that unquestionably
benefits the majority.
While I remain convinced Hunter will do what's right for that majority when the time is
ripe, let's not forget David Falk's threat to have him fired should he give up the
high-end players. You can't help but worry about how Hunter will react to such coercion.
On the other hand, accentuates one observer, "I sure hope Billy doesn't think he's
keeping his job if he gives up the season." *ALLOW me to help The New York Times in
trying to figure out whether Falk is pulling Hunter's strings. Before last week's
"secret" negotiation in Leonard Armato's L.A. office could so much as get under way,
reveals a source close to Shaquille O'Neal's agent, Hunter was compelled to spend 1 hours
on the phone with Falk and Patrick Union. The union should have ended the sham long ago
and just invited Falk into the room to participate in the talks. Maybe then The Times
would be able to conclude the extent of Lex Luther's involvement.
European sources tell me that teams over there, in anticipation of a settlement, have
stopped talking to U.S. agents about their free-agent clients. Bologna, once interested
in Vlade Divac and Rik Smits, now has turned its attention on Thurl Bailey. ... It
torments me to think what L.A.'s beautiful people must have to do these days, and where
they must have to go, in order to be seen.
A number of middle-class players are incensed at the commonly held perception that
Patrick Union has sacrificed the most (one third of his $18.5 million salary thus far)
for the good of the Players' Association. "Patrick Ewing is already set for life," hissed
a fringe starter. "This is our life."
If Phil Jackson were as smart as we all think, he would've realized the lockout was going
to last this long and agreed to coach the Bulls for $6M this season. ... If the season is
canceled, Falk and his players already have designated their next charity game for
billionaire balloonists.