NBA LOCKOUT PART II: IS A GUARANTEED END IN SIGHT?
The NBPA "is convinced" that the implementation of a
hard salary cap or the loss of the Larry Bird Exception
"will lead to the loss of guaranteed contracts," according
to David Moore of the DALLAS MORNING NEWS. NBPA Exec Dir
Billy Hunter: "No question about it. That is one of our
principle arguments. We believe a hard cap would eliminate
90 percent of guaranteed contracts." NBA Deputy Commissioner
Russ Granik, on the possible loss of guaranteed contracts:
"That's always what the other side likes to say to scare the
players. But it wasn't true the last time, and we don't see
why it would be true this time" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 7/5).
REAX: On ESPN SportsZone, Frank Hughes wrote, "Get Rid
Of The Guaranteed Contract. What good is it, other than to
give a bunch of players not deserving of a lot of money a
lot of money" (ESPN SportsZone, 7/6). A DESERET NEWS
editorial said that a "hard cap is the answer" to the labor
dispute (DESERET NEWS, 7/6). In Philadelphia, John
Smallwood writes that the labor problem "isn't the Bird
Rule. It's whom the current system has forced the owners to
use it on." Smallwood: "The players already have given
indications that they could be persuaded to extend the
rookie contract scale from three to five years. If they
were equally agreeable to giving teams the right of first
refusal after that initial contract expires, this lockout
doesn't have to threaten the NBA's golden goose"
(PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS, 7/7). In Chicago, Terry Armour
wrote that the NBA lockout "could be a lengthy one." Armour
reported that neither side "has shown any willingness to
budge, and the players union is more unified" than it was
during the '94 lockout, while the owners "are equally
resolute. So there is serous talk of this going well into
November, which would result in the NBA missing games for
the first time in its history" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 7/5). On
Long Island, Shaun Powell wrote that neither side in the
dispute "is pounding their fists on the bargaining table and
negotiating for the only people who truly count," the fans
(NEWSDAY, 7/5). A CINCINNATI POST editorial said that both
sides "will claim the fans are the real winners. If enough
fans actually believe this, the players and owners have won
themselves another regular season" (CINCINNATI POST, 7/3).
STERN WORDS: David Stern does not want to be the first
NBA Commissioner to lose a game to a labor disruption, which
"would sully his own image as well as that of the game,"
according to Anthony Bianco of BUSINESS WEEK. Bianco: "On
the other hand, he is, above all, a business builder, whose
battle with the union has become personal in the sense that
he sees his life's work threatened." Stern: "Either we work
with the players to restore the financial model on which the
league's growth and success was based or NBA basketball
becomes, I'm afraid, a bad investment" (BUSINESS WEEK,7/13).
UNION V. OWNERS: In Akron, Terry Pluto wrote that, "In
the end, the owners will cave," because most "are wimps and
Commissioner David Stern doesn't want a lockout/strike to
destroy his reputation." Pluto: "So the players will win,
it's only a question of when -- and whether the league will
be ruined in the process" (AKRON BEACON JOURNAL, 7/5). In
N.Y., Harvey Araton wrote that the "old-school union
thinking" is that "only the superstars, with their rising
salaries, can set the table for everyone else." Araton:
"Basketball has always been a star and ego-driven sport, but
the N.B.A. marketers went too far in exploiting this theme
while expanding and diluting their league" (N.Y. TIMES,
7/3). In S.F., Glenn Dickey wrote, "I would like to see the
[NBPA] acknowledge the team aspect and negotiate for the
great majority of their members. But it is the superstars
like the militant [NBPA President Patrick] Ewing and their
agents who are calling the shots, so these negotiations will
get as nasty as baseball's" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 7/3).
|
