David Stern- Titanic Tool of a Tyrant

Things I love: the National Basketball Association and alliteration. Things I despise: hypocrites, liars and David Stern.

As I am sure most are aware, the NBA (read: David Stern) vetoed a trade the would've sent Chris Paul to the Lakers, Pau Gasol to the Houston Rockets and Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Lamar Odom, Goran Dragic and a 2012 First Round Draft Pick to the NoLA Hornets. NBA analysts and commenters found, universally, that this was an eminently fair trade with many saying that Dell Demps, GM of the Hornets, did a fantastic job of getting a respectable haul back for Paul. Despite this, Stern and the NBA owners, with Dan Gilbert of the Cleveland Cavs being the most vocal, decided to kill the trade for "basketball reasons" thinking that the Hornets were better served by retaining CP3 in a Hornets jersey.

There have been a lot of articles (some much better than this post) covering this, but the basic gist of all of them is that this is a load of horse shit. Other owners who have spoken out get closer to the truth; after the lockout recently ending, the NBA didn't want another NBA star to force his way out of a small market team to a team like the Lakers. Whiny school boy biatches like Gilbert threw a fit (again) and Stern, in his determined effort to destroy any legacy he might have, caved to their whims. This has created problems for every team involved with the trade and led to disgruntled players. The problem is that there is really nothing the NBA can do about preventing players from trying to dictate where they liked to play. Chris Paul has made it perfectly clear that there is absolutely no chance that he re-signs with the Hornets. Therefore, the teams options are they trade Paul for the best mix of established players and you building blocks for the future, which they accomplished in this trade, or lose him for absolutely nothing in free agency. Sure Paul's options would be limited in free agency and determined by who has enough cap room; but his options were limited in this situation. His expressed first choice, the New York Knicks, had nowhere near enough trade prospects to try and get Paul. He, therefore, was settling for the Lakers, who were taking a tremendous risk by trading a lot of size to create the best back court in the league. The trade, and the discussion regarding possible trades before it was consummated, also re-generated interest in the NBA immediately after the agony of the lockout. Just as people were forgetting about it, however, Stern reminded everyone by giving the Demps, the Lakers and the fans a giant middle finger. Additionally, he and the owners are exhibiting an epic conflict of interest as the Hornets are owned by the 29 NBA owner's collectively. I don't know about casual fans, but I'm incredibly offended by this abuse of power (and this comes from a self-avowed Laker-hater who was pissed to see them get CP3).

I do not know how Stern plans to next destroy his legacy but I'm looking forward to see what he pulls out of his ass in the way that people wait excitedly for a car accident once they hear the screeching of brakes. I fully expect, however, to see Stern walking back from this decision after some superficial changes are made to the trade. It is almost shocking to see a once prescient commish, who seemed to be 5 moves ahead at all times, become completely reactionary... but that's where we're at.

Eff you David Stern.

Image from Google Images (and probably a collection of pictures of people who look even douchier with beards. I call dibs on the rights to make that coffee table book...)

David Stern Decides to Lock Up his Legacy

There is a lot of talk today, after this past weekend's deal ending the NBA lockout, about the motivations of both the players and the owners in hashing the deal out now. Charles Pierce over at Grantland has a piece today that mirrors many of my thoughts. I absolutely agree with him that the lockout was never just about, or even primarily about, splitting up basketball related income. In the same vein, I don't think that this weekend's deal getting done was primarily about either the players or the owners. It was about that smug bastard above. As I told my buddy upon hearing the news, I'd bet dollar to donuts that Stern read/saw all of the negative coverage, heard about how big of a threat this was to his legacy, especially after the Seattle fiasco, and, after some contemplation in his office that has many leather-bound books and smells of rich mahogany, decided that the lockout needed to end now. He's the only one who could corral both sides and convince them that this was the best for everyone involved. He could tell the players the owners were robber baron dbags and the owners how much they actually won in the deal and how much they stood to lose by losing a season. And then he could convince the owners to do what they should've done in the first place anyway... make some minor concessions so the players could save face and wrap this deal up. The worst part, for me anyway, is that people will probably forget, again, that he is the Darth Vader to the owner's collective Palpatine. People think that he's power but he's, basically, a tool the owners use to get what they want. I love the NBA and I'm psyched that its back, but it makes me a little sick that Stern will get to continue on with his whole shtick without a moments pause. Ugh. Well I won't forget... eff you Stern.

(Image: one of the more condescending Stern images I came across. Though it would probably be easy enough to start a Stern condescending glare gallery.)

Speaking of Nonsensical... 'Sup NBA Lockout

As a big NBA fan, I have been toying with the idea of a lockout post for a little while. Today, however, I came across a post in Grantland, Bill Simmons' new offshoot of ESPN, that tackled the issue better than I could.

Money shot of sensibility comes from the following quote:

Labor deals, LeBron, the Zombie-Sonics, these things show us that in the subsidized world of sports, we have supported owners rather than supporting sports. Although the subsidization seems completely unnecessary, if we are going to subsidize, we need to subsidize the sport, not the owners. And like all good subsidies, if we give the money, we get to attach strings, meaning we get to set rules so that there are no work stoppages, and so that the sport is fair to the fans, since we ultimately spend the money that makes the owners and players rich (the contempt they show for fans is another subject).  (Emphasis added).

I feel like this point is not emphasized, either in the previous NFL collective bargaining agreement fiasco or now with the NBA, nearly enough. There is tons of coverage of whether the owners or the players are greedy/getting screwed/et al. and coverage about how the fans are getting the short end of the stick because the are not games, but not nearly enough on the fact that these sports are, in nearly all cases, subsidized by the tax payer. The fans should have part ownership of the direction of these leagues because, as the author of the letter notes, "[...] like all good subsidies, if we give the money, we get to attach the strings [...]." 

Well, 'cept on Wall Street. Because Wall Street needs to be internally regulated. Imagine what could happen if they had regulations...