November 14, 2011

The NBA Players Association (NBAPA) is set to reject the latest deal offered by David Stern and the owners, and they appear to be set to de-certify the union in order to file an antitrust case against the league.

And while this latest offer appears to be a compromise on the surface -- a band that could allow the players to make up to 51% of BRI -- it would likely leave the players to, at best, make 50.2% of BRI, which they have, more or less, already rejected.

And that doesn’t even go into items like a flex salary cap, adjustments to the mid level exception or higher luxury taxes that would strongly discourage teams from giving players ridiculously long and overpaid contracts.

Now David Stern is using regressive labor negotiations, a dicey way of discussing a contract, and warning that if the players don’t accept this offer, the next one will be much worse.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

These “negotiations” -- or these who can puff their chests out the most contest -- are getting mired in legal jargon and are becoming a complete waste of time. The only way to really solve this would be to take each issue of contention; bring it to a group of arbitrators, who, like in baseball contract arbitration, would look at each side and pick a winner -- ie: if the NBAPA presented 54% of BRI and the owners offered 47%, the arbitrators would pick either 54% or 47%; and move on, forgetting about who “won” and who “lost.”

No one is man enough to be seen as having lost in the negotiations.

This is bad, bad, BAD timing. Two reasons, one purely basketball related and one having nothing to do with basketball.

(1) This has been the best NBA product since the Magic/Bird era blended into the Jordan era. People who are casual NBA fans have rooting interests in games -- even during the regular season. No one wants the Heat to win. (The Heat going to the finals, then losing, was the best thing for the NBA. We got maximum entertainment out of our desire for them to lose). Everyone loves Blake Griffin and the Clippers or Kevin Durant and the Thunder, exciting players with exciting teams around them. The Bulls were relevant again, there was the “Melo-drama” that gave the Knicks two-thirds of a big three. And the Celtics and Lakers, despite their age, were still relevant until each getting blasted out of the playoffs.

And Mark Cuban won a championship. Can’t get much more fun. But right when anticipation and excitement was at it’s highest, it all came to a sharp stop that everyone knew was coming, but was still dissapointing.

(2) Not a good time for millionaire athletes and billionaire owners to be arguing over who is getting a bad deal. Sorry, maybe I’m a class warrior, but the average income dropped, again, recently to just over $26,000 a year while the number of millionaires rose. Not taking a political stance, but how can either side gain public support when they are part of that upper tier who is prospering despite a recession. Don’t cry poor from your mansion or yacht when vendors, restaurant owners and ushers are feeling this lockout in a very, very real way.

Bad for the Celtics, too.

It’s obviously bad from an entertainment perspective. But some of the conventional wisdom has been that a shortened season would be good for the Celtics, given their age.

This isn’t the case. If this plays out like the last lockout in the ‘98-’99 season, where 50 games were crammed into 3 months, it will be harder on older teams, like the Celtics. This schedule would average out to 4 games a week and some back to back to back games. For a team that struggled in the second game of back to backs last season, could they really be successful with such a compressed schedule?

The Celtics would likely be just as out of gas as they were last season by the end due to a much more hectic schedule, despite it being shortened.

And for the 2011/2012 Celtics a lot will rest on what happens to the salary cap in the CBA negotiations. With a stricter salary cap, it will be more difficult for the Celtics to acquire the complementary pieces necessary with this group of veteran players.

Assuming Rondo regains some confidence and stays healthy, the starting line-up will again be elite. But Garnett, 35, Pierce, 34, and Allen, 36, will need to have their minutes reduced -- especially in a shortened, compressed season -- if they are to stay fresh for a deep run into the playoffs.

And that is absolutely still the goal. This team is still a year away from entering rebuilding mode, when Garnett’s $21M and Allen’s $10M salaries come off the books. The Celtics are committed to giving this group one last run with the core in place now.

Would Ainge consider using the rumored amnesty clause on a fairly disapointing Jermaine O’Neal? Probably not, given that his $6M salary wouldn’t do much to help with cap space.

What about Garnett? Again, Ainge seems committed to keeping this core intact for one more season before moving the team in a new direction. For a team that is in a huge market, like the Celtics, cutting $21M from the team doesn’t really matter, unless it will make the team better on the court. There isn’t anyone out there who can really replace Garnett, at least not for this season.

So despite what changes come about with the negotiations, the Celtics will look very much the same on the court this year with several new faces on the bench supporting the veterans’ last go at a championship as the “Big Three.”

Of course, this is all assuming a deal gets done in time to have a season this year.

So ... is it too soon to look at the 2012 season?

---

You can follow Chris Covey on Twitter at @BostonC_Covey. He can also be reached for questions and comments via email at BostonCCovey@gmail.com.