i should have probably done this "Posted by Ben Golliver. National Basketball Players Association Derek Fisher is under attack. And it's only getting worse by the day. After recent reports questioned his loyalty, his relationship with NBPA executive director Billy Hunter, and his leadership abilities, Fisher responded by sending a letter to the NBPA in an effort to mend fences on Monday and threatening to sue one media outlet on Tuesday for reporting that he might have been co-opted by NBA commissioner David Stern. Those aggressive counterpunches appear to have done little to stem the criticism. On Wednesday, 16-year NBA veteran Jerry Stackhouse, who most recently had a cup of coffee with the Miami Heat in 2010-2011, torched Fisher in a ESPN radio interview, delivering arguably the harshest critique of the union president to date. "Not to say anything against Derek Fisher, it's not that I don't think he's a great guy," Stackhouse said, "But I don't want him negotiating my contract. I want an agent who knows the lingo negotiating my contract. Derek Fisher, he doesn't negotiate his own contract. He has an agent. So why would I want him negotiating something even bigger than his contract? This [Collective Bargaining Agreement] is something more important to everybody." If that wasn't clear enough for you, Stackhouse went on to leave no doubt that he feels Fisher is outmatched in the current negotiation. "David Stern, he's made this league what it is," Stackhouse said. "He's one of the greatest commissioners in sports. He's got that title, he's got the NBA at the place where it is because he's a shrewd businessman and knows how to work his way, play the media, play things up to get what he wants. We don't do that. Players are emotional. Players get emotional. So no, I don't necessarily, particularly want Derek Fisher or any of the executive committee negotiating a contract for me." While Stackhouse sounded reluctant to outright accuse Fisher of disloyalty to his members, he clearly left the possibility open. "I don't know [if Derek met with the NBA]," Stackhouse said. "I would hope not. I don't think Derek is that kind of guy from what I've seen. But at the same time, he does have aspirations to possibly be a G.M. one day. If he can be the guy to bring the sides together in whatever way, maybe there would be an oppportunity for him to be a G.M. I'm not saying that he has an ulterior motive but the possibility lies there." If there was a silver lining for Fisher, it was that Stackhouse's frustration with the NBPA pre-dated Fisher's tenure as president, which began in 2006. "Over the course of my career, the last 16 years, it seems like the executive committee is always making concessions," Stackhouse said. "More concessions, more concessions in each Collective Bargaining Agreement and this is no different. I don't think there's ever been a case where it seems like we have any leverage... We need to have more people who are capable of going toe to toe with David Stern and I just don't think players who spend most of their time playing basketball and Billy Hunter are geared to do that." Despite airing all of that frustration, Stackhouse said he didn't give much credence to reports that there is a developing rift between Fisher and Hunter. "I don't think they are necessarily at odds. But I think they are obviously are each feeling different pressures. I can imagine their voicemails are full all the time, text messages all the time about different items, from different players and different representatives... Obviously you're going to butt heads from time to time but I think for the most part both of those guys want to get a deal done." But unity among the union's leadership isn't enough to convince Stackhouse the NBPA will deliver a good deal for its members. "I'm not sure they are going about it the right way, of actually getting a good deal done for the players," he said."
And now the finger pointing begins. Players can blame Fisher and try to save face for agreeing to 50/50.
man, that's a lot of complaining without offering a solution. Hey Jerry, who do think should do the negotiations? There is something I keep thinking about: the owners have a rift between big market and small market. I wonder if there is something similar between rookie scale players and aging veterans. The vets would be like the small market owners in that they are most concerned with losing money and will agree to a deal. Rookie scale players who will double/triple their salaries soon wouldn't be as concerned with losing a month or two. They would more want to protect their future worth over losing some rookie scale month. Big market owners are not that concerned with 2%, and have stake in maintaining the status quo (a competitive divide between big and small). But here's the difference as I see it: Stackhouse sounds like Small Market Owners in that he wants to play hardball for more BRI. Yet, he'll be concerned with losing money now, so (in theory) he might crack; although, it doesn't sound that way in that article at all. Sounds like it's because this is a moral issue with not wanting to give anymore concessions. Rookie scale players who can get huge raises (relatively speaking to their current contracts), should be able to hold out longer for more BRI, to protect their future contracts. The money now is not as important as their future earnings. So they can recoup missed paychecks moreso than vets. However, they probably don't have as much bad blood with owners that Stackhouse and other vets seems to have -- so have less moral reasons to hold out. So they might concede, even though financially, they should arguably hold out longer; and maybe their agents are telling them this. Big market owners, relatively speaking to others, don't seem to care as much about the BRI split and are ready to sign something. So, financially, aging vets should be aligning with Small Market to make a deal. But they seem to be the hardliners and don't want to concede anything more. Financially, rookie scales could hold out longer for a deal with a better future, but young Union members typically aren't the hardliners. bottomline: Both aging vets and Big market owners have a vested interest in maintaining status quo and would sign with each other. Rookie scales and their agents should be able to hold out longer. Will the aging vets crack to save money? Is this all going to come down to the resolve of the Small Market Teams to get everything they want.
It's about saving money. Unless you mean the face on the front of currency. Billy Hunter is fighting for the players. It's his job, Stern.
Stack had some correct points that he did not need to air at this time. You had some good points but I disagree with the idea of rooks v vets. I believe the divide is they who are MLE-esque and they who are stars. It's guys fighting for big paydays above their value more so than the stars' megacontracts often below their value where the players' divide collides.
Understand, my "idea" is just that -- an idea of why it seems the players are not operating on financial logic. My idea is to show a scenario of why you might hold out passed the break even point -- for business reasons. You know how people say each 1% BRI is worth X and each month lost costs Y; then, they use that to say the players are foolish after Z amount of lost days. That formula is about the Union as a whole, not individual players. My point is not every player is the same. You have players at the front end of making their career salary and those at the tail end...and those in the middle. Early career, Rookie Scale players (who have made a career spot for themselves) are facing significant raises. These could be a low 1st rounder/2nd rounder getting double/triple raises just via an MLE. They aren't necessarily stars. Just guys looking for a Lowry-esque raise. This is the whole set of players facing significant raises -- young stars, starters AND solid bench players. Middle career have largely flat-lined in value Ending career are receding. #1 can stand to lose more games to protect the future contracts #2 might be more concerned with exceptions #3 can't withstand as many lost games before the break even point is reached on lost games vs increase BRI share. So, I question if it is stars vs MLEs or #1 vs #3. Now note: #3 players like Stack and Garnett don't seem to care about the lost games; they don't want to concede anymore on moral grounds. What if the #1 group and the #3 group are aligned -- one for financial reasons and one for moral reasons? That's a solid majority, no?
Yeah, all problems with no solutions. The NBPA must have a player representative, and who do you want leading the charge.... Joey Dorsey??? -Actually I would want Shane Battier myself, but in all regards Derrick Fisher, to this point, hasn't done anything to question his loyalty to 95% of the players in this league and the leagues superstars most of the time. Fisher's main concern is saving the season and keeping this deal from going to the courts. Has he had side conversations with Adam Silver and Stern... of course he has. It might seem unfair to the union but there is every indication that Billy Hunter (while he gets paid hourly for his services FYI) doesn't have the motivation to get a deal done in a timely manner. So I dont blame Fisher for wanting to wheel and deal to hold together relations with the NBA and keep this out of the courts. *FYI, as a side note, this is actually a big day today in the lockout timeline, because if the Union decides to decertify and go the courts, you can kiss the season goodbye. They should have gone this route this summer. This is a 4 month long process and will lead to the cancelation of the season. Just watch.
I don't know if I would say Stackhouse's motivation is on moral grounds. It sounds to me more like ego -- 'we're not going to let the league push us around.' Honestly, if Stackhouse doesn't have a feel for why it is that the owners have gotten more leverage on the players over time and why the players are always the ones making concessions, then he's probably in a worse position to say who should be negotaiting than Fisher does doing the actual negotiating. He doesn't have an understanding of the problem, so I can't much count his ideas on the solution.
I'm not nit-picking a fight with you. I have felt - all along - a big problem is the large cache of middling players who cash in with contracts they never earn. The anti-Mario Elie type players. The union must have 400+ players with many different agendas, and many different agents' agendas. Billy Hunter may have some ability but how does the man get a concensus created to do a deal. Big point IMHO: James Dolan comes off as a voice of reason. The owners' divide is real and the commish does have ability but how does even David Stern effect a concensus created to do a deal? Answer: binding arbitration. (As blinking if.)
OK, not "moral grounds," but they don't want to concede based on principle. Early career players can make a case that they can hold out past the break even point of the Union (as a whole), based purely on a financial argument. Late career players who are tired of conceding can hold out based on principle -- forever, maybe. Together, they have a Union majority. Again, this is just an idea as to why they seem to be hitting the boundary of business sense, while still no real public display of crossing the picket-line, yet.
Seems like he has a consensus, and so does Stern. One is at 52.5 and the other is at 50, no? Do you mean a consensus to concede? As you say, the owners clearly have a minority side and majority side. We can assume the players do, too. My posts were about explaining a scenario of the minority/majority makeup of the Union. To reach a deal, enough members in the current majority of one side or the other has to concede and align with their respective minority -- to change the balance of power. Then again, they could just agree to meet half way at 51.25? Or some type of range based on each year's profit.
To me, this is why it really is just best for everyone if we had a hard cap and no rules under it. Under the current CBA, you have too many divides. You have players on the rookie salary scale. The minimum guys. The Max guys. The MLE guys(or players about to get MLE type contracts). It's like there's a caste system in place. And players in different castes will have different agendas. Make it no rules and everyone will be paid according to market value. And under any CBA they'd just have to talk about BRI. And when BRI% changes, everyone's salary gets adjusted according to their market value.
No, salaries do not get adjusted. What gets adjusted is the revenue target which the owners must reach before the players start getting their escrow money back. This year they got it all back, because the owner's profit hit their BRI target. Anything below the BRI target is kept by the owners. So that is the BRI war. A certain % of money is withhold from players paychecks. How much is returned, depends on league revenue and the owners BRI %. So, it controls risk for the owners, but on good years, the players get all their money.
Since it is one vote per man, the guys at the middle to end of the bench will hold the most sway, if they want to take the 50/50 deal it will happen. DD
You are assuming those players act as a single voice; that they align based on pay scale. In my scenario, it could be based on where you are in your career; that is, how much future earnings are important to you vs present earnings. And also, how much your vote is based on principle versus financials. In my scenario, low income players, young players with significant future earnings potential relative to their current salary (which can actually span the entire bench), could be in alignment with franchise and/or aging players who might be voting based on principle. Example, 2nd rounders being paid minimum who have become solid role players or simply *think* they can be, could be facing a 5x increase in salary (or think they deserve it) ... so why would they care about losing a few months now under minimum wage, versus holding out to protect their next contract at 5x more than minimum?
Until there is something to vote on there is no vote; there will be no 'formal' vote on 52-48, 50-50 or 51-49. Therefore, Hunter and Stern have to agree on something and then sell it to their sides as 'best possible'. It smells er sounds to me as if Stern could cave on the 52 in exchange for concessions on the remaining unsettled pieces and clobber the players further.
