Is Stephen A. Smith right about the NBA players?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

And this pertains specifically about the "star" NBA players.

I've been listening to the Stephen A. Smith show in the evenings out of ESPN 1050 in New York the past couple of weeks. He makes interesting points about the NBA lockout and the involvement of the superstar players in these talks.

( NOTE: tunein.com, a site in which you can listen to most of the major radio stations in the U.S. and around the world, is one of my favorite sites these days. )

Stephen A's position is this . . when you're negotiating a deal like this, you need your superstar players across the table for the owners, in order to make it seem like this is a real serious issue. He cites that back in the day, you had guys like Patrick Ewing, Jordan, Magic, and David Robinson all representing the players in these negotiations. This gave the players the necessary star power at those talks in order to secure the kind of deals that the players want.

But in 2011, these are some the guys who the owners sees at these meetings.

- Derek Fisher

- Mo Evans

- Etan Thomas

- Matt Bonner

- Kenyon Dooling

- Roger Mason Jr

Now granted, these may be the "smart guys" amongst the NBA players, but the owners are by no means affected by the presence these guys bring to the table. LOL @ two Hawk scrubs negotiating a CBA for the entire league.

Stephen A., over the past couple of weeks, has stated that if guys like Kobe, D-Wade, Lebron, Howard, and Dirk aren't directly involved in these talks, the owners aren't going to budge on their demands. From our perspective, you can even add Joe Johnson to that list of people who probably should be negotiating directly with the owners.

Stephen A. also firmly believes that either the season will start on time, or the entire season will be cancelled. He believes that in this economy, the owners may be willing to do just like the NHL did, cancel the entire season, and stack their money. The question then will be, can the mid and lower tier players survive an entire season being lost, only to be forced to come back to a system almost identical to the NHL.

I still side with the players in all of this. But they may not have a choice but to accept a deal that they don't want.

And after the owners get what they want, the question then becomes . . do they significantly lower ticket prices, or do they expect fans to pay the same ticket price, while they pay the product on the floor less money?

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure Magic Johnson was not negotiating for the players back in 1999. In 1994, Magic became a minority owner of the Lakers. I also doubt Jordan was involved in the labor negotiations in 1999 mainly because he was retired then.

Sounds like Stephen A. Smith is just making things up. It just so happened that Ewing and Robinson were stars and very smart individuals. Too bad our stars these days are also mo-rons but you don't just throw up pretty faces in a negotiation. Could you imagine having Lebron get up there and make comments about how these negotiations are racist? That guy is certifiably ignorant.

And after the owners get what they want, the question then becomes . . do they significantly lower ticket prices, or do they expect fans to pay the same ticket price, while they pay the product on the floor less money?

All of the research I have seen about how labor disputes affect sports demand is that the affect is insignificantly different from 0. I don't think we will see a big affect on demand, certainly there will be the die-hard fans that will be upset but they do not make up a large portion of sports fans.

[Diesel]

I actually see both sides...

Stephen A. is wrong in his memory. I remember Avery Johnson, Al Henderson, and other guys representing the Union along with Robinson and Ewing. I don't remember Jordan being there.

However, his point is true. The owners have to see their stars. But will that do anything to turn the negotiations?

The other thing that nobody has mentioned is that this is not just about Players Union vs. Owners....

What about the refs?

What about coaches and trainers?

I think these guys will be effected far more harshly than most players if the season is missed.

[Vol4ever]

Joe public looks at the NBA mess and shakes his head. Joe public makes around 40k a year and can barely afford to live much less spend $70 bucks for a single game.

The NBA is messing up on both sides. The NBA is not the NFL and MLB and never will be. I for one am getting tired of the bs in the NBA.....

Joe Public may be thinking the same....

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I'm pretty sure Magic Johnson was not negotiating for the players back in 1999. In 1994, Magic became a minority owner of the Lakers. I also doubt Jordan was involved in the labor negotiations in 1999 mainly because he was retired then.

Sounds like Stephen A. Smith is just making things up. It just so happened that Ewing and Robinson were stars and very smart individuals. Too bad our stars these days are also mo-rons but you don't just throw up pretty faces in a negotiation. Could you imagine having Lebron get up there and make comments about how these negotiations are racist? That guy is certifiably ignorant.

All of the research I have seen about how labor disputes affect sports demand is that the affect is insignificantly different from 0. I don't think we will see a big affect on demand, certainly there will be the die-hard fans that will be upset but they do not make up a large portion of sports fans.

You keep talking about 1999, like the NBA hasn't had negotiations between players and owners before then that DIDN'T lead to a strike or a lockout. For example, in 1995, the owners were seriously thinking about a lockout, and actually imposed one after the 1995 Finals when the players didn't ratify a deal struck between the owners and the upper level representatives from the Players union.

Ewing, Jordan and a few more big name players were trying to rally the players to de-certify the players union. They were concerned about restrictions on player movement, thus, leading to them not ratifying the deal and wanting to de-certify the union so they could possibly sue under anti-trust laws. The players as a whole voted not to de-certify, but that did lead to a new deal being struck, in which the players and owners agreed to before the start of the 1995 season.

And I'll ask the question again . . .

If the owners get what they want as far as significantly reducing player salaries and eliminating guaranteed contracts, will we then see a significant reduction in ticket prices?

If you don't think ( or if research shows ) that labor strife doesn't necessarily impact the demand for the product, that means that they're not going to reduce the ticket prices, right?

[AHF]

I agree with hawksfanatic that it is not necessary for the stars to participate on the committee in negotiations. If a star is respected and intelligent enough then that is great but a guy like Derek Fisher is a MUCH better representative than someone like Lebron. Bear in mind as well that the guys on the committee have to be willing to sacrifice a LOT of hours to get this done. David Robinson might have been willing to do that but there are a lot of athletes that have zero interest in sitting through all those meetings.

I doubt Stephen A. Smith has any real insight into collective bargaining.

[Guest]

You keep talking about 1999, like the NBA hasn't had negotiations between players and owners before then that DIDN'T lead to a strike or a lockout. For example, in 1995, the owners were seriously thinking about a lockout, and actually imposed one after the 1995 Finals when the players didn't ratify a deal struck between the owners and the upper level representatives from the Players union.

Ewing, Jordan and a few more big name players were trying to rally the players to de-certify the players union. They were concerned about restrictions on player movement, thus, leading to them not ratifying the deal and wanting to de-certify the union so they could possibly sue under anti-trust laws. The players as a whole voted not to de-certify, but that did lead to a new deal being struck, in which the players and owners agreed to before the start of the 1995 season.

And I'll ask the question again . . .

If the owners get what they want as far as significantly reducing player salaries and eliminating guaranteed contracts, will we then see a significant reduction in ticket prices?

If you don't think ( or if research shows ) that labor strife doesn't necessarily impact the demand for the product, that means that they're not going to reduce the ticket prices, right?

Jordan wasn't in the league in 1995 IIRC, I don't ever recall him as being a major centerpiece in negotiations. Ewing was definitely there, but the players lucked out that he was a star and smart. I think Screaming A is just sensationalizing and banking off the short term memory of his listeners.

And yes, I wouldn't expect prices to be lowered as a whole for the NBA in relation to the strike. There was a mention of "Joe Public" but is "Joe Public" the typical person who attends a basketball game? I don't see that, or at least its not as simple as that example. If "Joe Public" is attending games now, its likely he will continue to attend even after a strike. "Joe" would be someone who greatly enjoys basketball as evidence that he spends a great share of his income on basketball. People who enjoy basketball typically enjoy watching and are indifferent to restrictions on players. Would my enjoyment of watching the Hawks change if JJ was paid $5 million more or less per year? I consider myself in the upper percentage of CBA knowledge and it wouldn't affect my viewing enjoyment since JJ's salary doesn't have a noticeable impact on the quality of play and that is what I care about. If doubt people with less CBA knowledge are adversely impacted on these petty restrictions because its the quality of play that matters.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Jordan wasn't in the league in 1995 IIRC, I don't ever recall him as being a major centerpiece in negotiations. Ewing was definitely there, but the players lucked out that he was a star and smart. I think Screaming A is just sensationalizing and banking off the short term memory of his listeners.

You sure?

http://www.basketbal...1/gamelog/1995/

http://www.chron.com...ion-decert.html

And yes, I wouldn't expect prices to be lowered as a whole for the NBA in relation to the strike. There was a mention of "Joe Public" but is "Joe Public" the typical person who attends a basketball game? I don't see that, or at least its not as simple as that example. If "Joe Public" is attending games now, its likely he will continue to attend even after a strike. "Joe" would be someone who greatly enjoys basketball as evidence that he spends a great share of his income on basketball. People who enjoy basketball typically enjoy watching and are indifferent to restrictions on players.

What about our crowd in Atlanta? You maybe have about 8,000 die hards or "Joe Publics" that enjoy watching the Hawks unconditionally, while the other 6,000 - 10,000 that might show up to Hawk games are simply casual basketball fans that might not even be there to watch the Hawks. They may be there to watch the other team.

One of the reasons cited for the 2 year decline in attendance for the Hawks, has been the economy. So if the economy is still bad, and the owners want to retain a little more money to make a profit, how can they make a profit if fans may feel that ticket prices are just too high to watch the Hawks ( unless they're playing against a marquee team with a superstar? ). Is simply cutting team expenditures the goal here, and not increasing the revenue taken in at the ticket gate and concessions?

I'm personally wondering how a team like the Hawks ( who supposedly was one of the 23 teams that lost money in the NBA ) is going to turn a profit, even if a hard cap is implemented? The same issues that keep fans away ( especially during weekday games ) isn't just going to go away. And if the economy is still bad, will "Joe Public" keep paying $60 a pop to see the Hawks? Or if not "joe public" . . will "Casual Chris" attend more Hawks games, even though he only goes to a few games a year?

A lockout right now could do significant damage to us, as far as attendance goes. And God forbid we lose the entire season. The LA crowd may come back, but will the Atlanta crowd come back?

One thing is for sure. A hard cap probably means that Josh Smith will not be re-signed, even if the Hawks wanted to. Either him or Teague would be the casualty in 2013.

Would my enjoyment of watching the Hawks change if JJ was paid $5 million more or less per year? I consider myself in the upper percentage of CBA knowledge and it wouldn't affect my viewing enjoyment since JJ's salary doesn't have a noticeable impact on the quality of play and that is what I care about. If doubt people with less CBA knowledge are adversely impacted on these petty restrictions because its the quality of play that matters.

I agree with the first part. What JJ makes in salary does not deter me from watching the Hawks. It's all about the quality of the product on the floor.

But the question is, are we typical fan in that regard, or are we the exception? Because the fact is that a lot of fans do care what these players make. And their disdain for the players and their astronomical salaries ( and the owners for that matter ) keep them away from the arena. A lot of fans rationalize that they would rather watch their team on TV, than to go to the arena and give the "millionaires" their money.

LOL . . how many times have we seen people rail against the ASG out of frustration, even suggesting boycotting Hawk games to hurt the ASG's bottom line, so that they would be forced to sell the team? I guess that "strategy" worked, seeing how attendance fell for a 2nd straight year, and the ASG finally gave up the team.

Edited September 15, 2011 by northcyde

[AHF]

As the players talk more and more about decertification, I would keep press clippings like this one that show (consistent with the NBA's law suit alleging the same) that decertification is a bad faith sham by the players. You saw the NFL "decert" where the Union still issued statements on behalf of the players and then bargained on their behalf to put a new contract in place. The Union would still continue to operate in the NBA if they "decertified." Statement like this just make it more transparent:

"I asked Billy one time, I said, 'What are the negatives of decertification? 'If two months from now, four months from now, we had no deal done, would it be a negative to decertify but you still talk to [the owners]?' " said Dudley, whose agent, Mark Bartelstein, is known to favor decertification. "It was kind of iffy on the answers. That's something I'll bring up to him [on Thursday]. He's very open to discuss that, and he needs to discuss that. He's our leader."

Read more: http://sportsillustr...l#ixzz1Y2XfJ900

The players should like decertification the way the NFL did it. The players keep their Union representatives for all practical purposes but nominally do away with the Union so individuals can file anti-trust actions that represent a significant legal threat to the league. It is a sham.

Interestingly, the NFL retirees just filed suit against the Union claiming that the Union did not represent their interests during negotiations because of their decertification move. That puts another wrinkle in the equation but doesn't outweigh the value of sham decert, IMO.

Edited September 15, 2011 by AHF

[Trueblood]

FWIW, Jordan came back at the end of the '94-'95 season and was David Falk's top client during the mini lockout of '95. As was briefly touched on above, there was actually a deal prior to the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. Falk and Jeffrey Kessler didn't like the deal and said that they would decertify the union if they couldn't come up with something better.

They went back to the bargaining table and negotiated a deal on August 8th. Falk and his boys still didn't like the deal but said that they would let the players vote on it. Their choice was to either decertify the union or not decertify the union. Not decertifying was the equivalent of accepting the deal that the union negotiated. They overwhelmingly voted to not decertify and the season started on time.

The one problem was that the owners had a 3 year out clause so after Shaq and KG signed humongous deals, the owners decided to opt out and we were back to a lockout, only this time it would take up almost half the season.

Jordan was actually not retired yet and he played a major role in the negotiating. There were times when the bargaining sessions consisted of just Stern and Jordan.

The owners won, Jordan retired and the rest is history up until now.

[AHF]

There were times when the bargaining sessions consisted of just Stern and Jordan.

Can you give a link on that? I've never heard of that. The owners might be willing to gamble on Stern but giving Jordan the power to unilaterally negotiate on behalf of the players is just hard for me to believe. I could see Stern and Jordan having discussions but not actual bargaining sessions.

[DJlaysitup]

Granted it will be tough for the owners to take Mo's "Helium voice" very seriously...but don't sell Etan short. I bet he's got a trick or two up his sleeve

[dlpin]

I think that the idea that owners get starstruck is silly. These aren't amateurs out there.