Stern Courts the Best, Brightest

Just what’s up with David Stern, anyway?

The NBA commissioner can usually fake being gracious, even if he doesn’t feel that way, so that job he did on the union Monday, after it delivered what seemed a reasonable offer, was curious.

According to several sources, this isn’t the old, peace-loving commish anymore, but one who is willing to ride this thing over the falls.

NBA brass has been discussing a doomsday scenario for weeks, in which they cancel the season, start over next fall, let David Falk set up his new league and then crush it, like a grape under a steamroller.

Stern believes the most attractive young stars would stay aboard. Indeed, Shaquille O’Neal and his agent, Leonard Armato, are NBA loyalists with a keen appreciation for what the NBA marketing machine has done for Shaq-fu, the Diesel, etc. Grant Hill and Tim Duncan have distanced themselves from union activities so deliberately, Karl Malone, the group’s self-appointed enforcer, recently railed at them. Even Kobe Bryant, represented by Falk’s ally, Arn Tellem, would probably stick. Kobe loves Jerry West and the Lakers and, besides, he wants to be the next Michael Jordan and you can’t get there in a satellite league.

Who would that leave among Falk’s free agents to jump? Allen Iverson? Stephon Marbury? Goodbye and good luck. By now, Stern is probably ready to let some other commish--hopefully, Falk, himself--deal with Iverson’s parole officer.

Jordan?

Jordan would make a new league, all by himself, but recently signaled his distaste for flimsy enterprises, including his agent’s, refusing to make even a cameo appearance at Falk’s Atlantic City game. Falk without Jordan isn’t quite the same. You can bet Stern would love to saw off that limb Falk is out on, for the sheer thrill of watching him bounce.

Jordan’s fade from the campaign has increased speculation he’s not just going, he’s already gone. His buddy, Charles Barkley, back from a week of playing golf with Jordan, predicted he’ll retire.

It was one more thing to think about for Stern, long beset by problems--years of stagnant merchandising sales even before the lockout; the embarrassing misadventures of Iverson, Latrell Sprewell, J.R. Rider, et al.; the undeclared war with the union even before the lockout started--prompting the commissioner to design a whole “new paradigm,” starting with this labor deal. Or in the event he can’t get one he likes, without this union.

Personally, I’ve spent the ‘90s lamenting the passing of the ‘80s and I accept the argument this league has lost the sense of partnership and harmony that made it so different, if so briefly. If Stern is willing to go to the wall to recapture that spirit, restore small markets’ ability to compete, hold players accountable to a code of conduct while keeping them the highest paid in sports, who can argue with that?

Unfortunately, if that’s what Stern has had on his mind, he neglected to mention it.

Instead of trying to sell that vision, he presented this dispute purely in terms of economic woe, trotting out his 48-52-57 rationale like a mantra.(The players agreed to take 48% of revenues, gave the owners a re-opener at 52 and, by the time the owners took them up on it, were at 57.).

The bleak landscape Stern described was based on last season’s numbers, before the new TV contract boosted teams from $9 million a year to $22 million. And there may be more where that came from.

The NBA thinks of itself as a “mature” business, which is close to maxing out its “revenue streams” and cannot further tax the “end users” (i.e., charge the fans even more for tickets; I love it when they talk that way.)

Stern pushed that line through the ‘90s, but it overlooks the fact the networks have a “new paradigm” too.

The arrival of an aggressive fourth bidder--Fox--has kicked prices to new levels. The NBA is one of the few sports properties that has held or increased its ratings (with Jordan around, it did, anyway). It delivers the young viewers advertisers prize, so, in an era in which even the once-shunned NHL can count on network exposure, the NBA can expect another nice raise when the NBC/Turner contracts expire in 2002 (with two or three years left on this labor contract.) And everyone should make out like bandits.

Not that Stern is much into “should,” any more.

He started out, looking for an NFL-style hard cap but came off it when it was obvious the union would never go for it. (Too bad David couldn’t have the NFLPA’s Gene Upshaw run the basketball players union too.)

Stern then asked for limits on the Larry Bird exception--and, lo and behold, the union walked in and handed him most of what he wanted this week.

Billy Hunter went to 55-56-57% on the revenue split, to Stern’s 53-53 1/2-54, and drew within a similar distance on the high-end caps. Nevertheless, Stern claimed it was nothing new, giving the union no credit for what it had done: namely, turn itself inside out trying to get a deal.

Now, maybe the NBA really does run under some new, arcane math but in the rest of the world, a dispute in which one party is at 53 and the other at 55 is usually settled at 54. And a deal that’s acceptable at 53 isn’t usually a joke at 54.

Stern’s show of contempt wasn’t credible, suggesting it was an act and he’s just trying to shake a few more millions out of the union. Or that he’s still toying with doomsday.

Today, the players who assemble here will probably back their leadership (although probably without getting a secret ballot; afterward, union leaders will announce, “No one wanted one.”)

Then you can expect a last-ditch round of talks and, I’d guess, an agreement, after all. However intrigued Stern may be at the thought of booting the malcontents, after missing a season, he’d be launching his new paradigm into some stormy seas.

At least, this mess should be resolved soon, if, perhaps, not by “drop-dead” Thursday. It’s quite common for such dates to come and go, without anyone dropping dead. Instead, the parties embark on negotiations and everyone moves off their “final” or “last” offers.

Labor Truth, like the New NBA Math, isn’t all bull, but it’s close. We’re sure going to miss it (not.)