Dear David Stern,

by haildablazer on Feb 8, 2010 8:58 AM PST

Dear David,

I hope this letter finds that you are well, as it was hard to tell when you made your announcement regarding the NBA's new Collective Bargaining Agreement. You looked just as pale and sunken as the day I first saw you. Once again, though, your ego was as consistent as Kevin Costner's acting.

Very tough stuff, for you guys to try and pare back those contracts (that the other owners all offered, and you, yourself, signed off on every one) from those greedy athletes. They just all make too much money nowadays. I mean, that was one amazing paper bag of flaming dog doots that you just left on the Player's Association's doorstep. Like, Fred Meyer shopping bag size at least.

Your own sport's biggest event till the playoffs, the All-Star Game, is just around the corner. Now, instead of being the nice buildup of hype and then a few fun days of basketball, pretty much every batch of questions from the media will have it's share of ones about the proposed CBA. Is Tiger Woods the head of your PR department or something?

I worry about you, David. I've seen the signs of megalomania before, and it's never pretty. You and Bud Selig over at MLB should talk seriously about that nice house on the waterfront you always wanted, on that island, way, way, way out there. Then you two could walk the beaches and happily make contracts with the crabs and wild boar, then gleefuly re-negotiate them every three to five years, till the end of your days.

Sncerely,

Haildablazer

Poll

Is the proposed CBA going to be an issue come the All-Star Break?

Yes

49 votes

No

39 votes

Maybe

18 votes

Players Riot

15 votes

121 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

think it's the owners pushing this

The Leeroy Rule: being insistent >>>> being correct

by leeroyjenkins on Feb 8, 2010 9:41 AM PST reply actions

I think you're right.

As much as there is to blast Stern on, I don’t think this is one of those situations. The owners are putting Stern in this spot. That said, from a market-based worldview, I don’t necessarily disagree with the tact they are taking. This is their scheduled opportunity to get whatever leverage can be gained. The same with the players’ union. That outside conditions are favoring one side will balance out in the long run. I’m not saying that’s the best worldview, but at least it’s fair in it both sides trying to screw the other.

πεντήκοντα δύο

Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by T Darkstar on Feb 8, 2010 9:58 AM PST up reply actions

Exactly

Both sides benefit from having the starting point of the negotiations as close to an unrealistic solution that they favor as possible. If the owners start at an extreme position, they can give up a lot and still end up with something that’s acceptable to them, and then perception will be that the owners have made a ton of “concessions” to the NBPA because they don’t get to have max salaries at $5 million/yr like they originally wanted.

Same with the players. If they start off saying they want to eliminate the salary cap, then it seems like they’re making a lot of concession by agreeing to small cuts rather than huge ones.

Of course, whichever side has more leverage (the owners here, clearly) will determine which proposal the final deal will be closer to, but this has almost nothing to do with David Stern and basically everything to do with owners wanting to play hardball and get as much as possible.

#52

by Royster on Feb 8, 2010 10:12 AM PST up reply actions

My expereince in negotiations is that the end result will pretty much be the same no matter where you start.

One of my biggest peeves as a negotiator is when some sub genius tells me – “hey the Union asked for 5% and got for 4%, next time start at 10% and you’ll get 8%”. Uh. No.

What the starting point does affect is the nature of the long term relationship the parties are going to have.

One of the other things I’ve learned is that you’d expect rich and powerful corporations and governments who can hire the best consultants and lawyers to make good decisions about bargaining and to be able to bargain effectively. Uh. No. Too many egos, too many people who already think they know everything.

by raoulduke on Feb 8, 2010 11:13 AM PST up reply actions

In general negotiations I agree

but in such a public negotiation where every move is negotiated upon and the long-term result of the negotiation is probably largely affected by the public perception of each side, I think there’s value to it. If the public sees the owners completely overreaching and absolutely screwing the players in a resultant deal or the players getting paid an unreasonable amount, that will affect the long-term marketability of the product and the future stability of a deal. Plus, if a deal is seen as “fair” by the public, there will be more long-term interest and greater total revenues for all since the system is perceived as “working”.

Hence why I said “as close to an unreasonable solution as possible”. If the owners come in and say that they’re offering a flat salary cap at $30 million with no guaranteed contracts as their initial offer, that helps no one, because that’s completely unreasonable on its face, just like if the players come in and demand 75% of all basketball-related revenues. However, if terms of the debate are shifted to one side or another, the public frustration and anger will build towards the other side and pressure will be greater on them to make concessions because the other side is perceived to have a “fairer” proposal on the table.

Obviously nothing would be forcing the owners or players to accept any deal they want, but it still remains in the league as a whole’s (owners and players) for the final proposal to be seen as “fair” by the public so you don’t have people tuning it out to due to the appearance of either free-loading players or profiteering owners. Plus, while some owners/players may be steadfast in their resolve, a few months of media ripping on one group of them to quit insisting on a lopsided deal will probably test that resolve.

I completely agree in other negotiations it doesn’t make much sense, but very few negotiations play out so publicly and with such scrutiny. It’s far more akin to a political negotiation in my eyes than a standard labor negotiation, in that way.

#52

by Royster on Feb 8, 2010 11:39 AM PST up reply actions

i dont care who wins in the bargaining agreement

as long as prices dont continue to climb the way they have over the years for tickets…i dont care. hopefully beer wont cross the 10 dollar mark in the next 5 years and tickets can still be purchased with 1 hrs of work i’ll be fine.

I'm going on a Dave boycott until AK1984 is brought back.

"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
"At first glance, I saw a fairly unremarkable penis." ~Sophia on Greg Oden

by Philthyanimal on Feb 8, 2010 10:22 AM PST reply actions

...the NBA product is indeed over-priced...

Went to the Blazer/Laker game the other night. Took my dad for his birthday. He hasn’t been watching them all year. I’ve been having a great time watching this year – ON COMCAST – and going to occasional game via heavily discounted tix (friends, craigs list, etc…). At discounted prices, it’s been fun to see the occasional live game. However, I bought the Laker game tix a couple months back to guarantee I could get in for pop’s B-day.

Bottom line: absolutely TERRIBLE game…embarrassing in fact…

First of all, this was easily one of the worst overall efforts I’ve seen from the Blazers this year. It was pathetic on multiple levels. Aside from a 1st quarter effort by Howard & an angry 4th quarter scoring flurry by Bayless, no one else even showed up for this game.

From a "product" perspective, it was totally wasted money. BRoy didn’t play (mostly expected). Kobe didn’t play (unexpected). He waited til a last minute press conference to let that out. Scalpers collectively thanked Kobe for that fact. If I’d have known he wasn’t playing, I might have sold both my $180 tickets outside the Rose Garden.

Roy vs. Kobe is worth the $360 price tag. Bayless vs. Farmar/Brown is NOT. You could hear a collective sigh of frustration from Blazer fans. I love to hate Kobe. Watching the Lakers without him just wasn’t the same. The RG felt deflated even before they began embarrassing us for our lack of a post presence in the second half.

If the Blazers as a team had shown up at all, then it would have made up for this lack of a marquee matchup. As loyal fans, that is our hope every night. Unfortunately, the lack of effort/hustle/defensive intensity from players like LaMarcus Aldridge is wearing thin & adds to an already long list of problems this team has. With these types of injuries we can’t afford players with his talent to be loafing up and down the court and disappearing in the 3rd/4th quarters.

David Stern’s got problems. With an inconsistent quality, over priced product in a relatively GOOD market like Portland where we generally support our only professional sports team, I can’t imagine how bad it must be in towns like Atlanta or Indiana or New Jersey or Philly or a dozen others. No wonder it looks like a ghost town at most of the Blazer away games…who can afford to go to these games? Who wants to?

If I thought this deal would have an effect on lowering ticket prices I’d be all for it. But the best we can hope for is that it might slow ticket price increases over the next few years.

by mjswoosh on Feb 8, 2010 10:40 AM PST up reply actions

prepare to be disappointed

"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare

by douglast on Feb 8, 2010 10:40 AM PST up reply actions

What do you mean? Disappointed at the prices? The negotiation process?

by Natsthecat on Feb 8, 2010 1:17 PM PST up reply actions

it was a reply to Philthy, who wrote:

as long as prices dont continue to climb the way they have over the years for tickets…i dont care

hence, my response…

"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare

by douglast on Feb 8, 2010 1:23 PM PST up reply actions

i am prepared

just like in politics…the middle class gets screwed.

I'm going on a Dave boycott until AK1984 is brought back.

"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
"At first glance, I saw a fairly unremarkable penis." ~Sophia on Greg Oden

by Philthyanimal on Feb 8, 2010 10:28 PM PST up reply actions

P.S. Mr. Stern

The Rose Garden is already 15 years old. When/where will the Blazers go?
(And I do understand you don’t like to talk about a arena where tax payers only provided 35/262 of the cost.)

I like the Blazers
http://www.volatilelyle.wordpress.com

by almost awesome on Feb 8, 2010 7:49 PM PST reply actions