Dwyane Wade Goes Off On David Stern During Friday's NBA Labor Negotiations
by thewiz06 on Oct 1, 2011 12:31 PM EDT
Email
PrintAs you know, the National Basketball Association and the National Basketball Players Association convened yesterday to negotiate in an effort to create a new collective bargaining agreement, with the regular season start expected to be a month away.
There were tense moments in the discussions obviously, and there was one very contentious moment which could have totally ended all talks. David Stern, the NBA Commissioner made a comment and pointed his finger at Miami Heat star, Dwyane Wade, who took offense to it. Wade then yelled back and had to be restrained in the process.
There are numerous reports, from Yahoo! Sports' Adrian Wojnarowski and Marc J. Spears, who state that Wade referred to Stern as "David" during his tirade. Apparently, Stern was lecturing the players about some type of issue, and Wade must have been called out as an example. Numerous sources, from the New York Post to even NBA.com's Sekou Smith state that Wade initially yelled and said "Don't point your finger at me! I'm not a child!"
That has to be a huge rallying cry for the players. Though I have been more sympathetic toward the NBA than the NBPA, I am not a huge fan of the David Stern behind closed doors, even though I think he looks like a great businessman with all the poise in the world in the public eye, and for the most part he is a great businessman given the NBA's growth worldwide. Well, what did Stern say?
Whenever a juicy event like this happens, someone is likely going to leak it out, anywhere. According to gossip site MediaTakeout.com, Stern, I mean David claimed that the owners' insistence for a hard salary cap was because of the way Dwyane assembled last year's Miami Heat team. In the process, he didn't just point fingers at Wade, he pointed a finger at Wade's chest and actually touched him in the process. I'm not the biggest fan of MediaTakeout, but if this actually what happened, I can understand Wade's reaction, and if I were him, I'd do the same thing.
At the same time, Stern's comment isn't baseless, at least when you're a fan of an NBA team that has no chance of being manufactured like the Heat was last year or quickly assembled like the Celtics in the summer of 2007. I guess on one hand, there are folks who think it is in Stern's interest to see the few "have" teams be as stacked as possible, but at the same time, if this were the case, why not just contract half of the NBA's teams, and the teams that would be contract are those who have no realistic chance of being a "have" team?
***
Well, the owners and players are continuing to negotiate today, at least as of the last time I checked Twitter and Google searches, and it's safe to say that there may still be more drama to come in these sessions, regardless of whether "a deal" is reached or not. So fellow Wizards fans, what are your takes on yesterday's showdown moment between the Commish and one of the NBA's best?
This represents the view of the user who wrote the FanPost, and not the entire Bullets Forever community. We're a place of many opinions, not just one.
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I cant imagine that Stern touched his chest like that, no way.
Love that Wade lit into Stern, he is a dinosaur that needs to move on IMHO.
Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but Wade, Lebron, and Bosh were all drafted the same year….so what the hell is wrong with the fact they all have options at the same time? If a crop of guys are superstars out of the same draft class, they are all going to be RFAs and FAs at the same time….owners shouldnt whine about that
Stern
is a Gnomesaurus They live off media.
by hambonejackson on Oct 1, 2011 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
With Stern on this-----
Sorta.
Something needs to be done to spread the talent among the smaller markets.
About half of the teams are just cannon fodder.
Boston, LA, Miami, Bulls, will always have $$‘s to spend.
T’wolves & Bobcats not so much.
Soon the smaller markets can dry up and then it will get worse for the middling teams.
Parity ain’t a bad thing for the NBA or NBPA.
Maintaining status quo will really hurt the game.
San Antonio is a small market team
but they drafted the Admiral and TimVP….that’s the advantage bad teams will always have. Cleveland drafted Lebron and went to the Finals, won most games in the league once or twice….isnt the draft a pretty big equalizer?
draft + good coaching + good role players around the best draft picks
is the best weapon for small market teams. The Spurs had all three elements for the Admiral and Timmy D.
And speaking about the Admiral, Navy is still losing to Air Force 28-17 with most of the 4th quarter left, but Navy could still pull it off.
Its Norton I believe
Since the last update it tries to uninstall Chrome or something.
I’m on chrome, and can still post. (no Norton)
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 1, 2011 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I have to reload Windows
on to my computer a few times and Nortons is the first program I uninstall.
by hambonejackson on Oct 1, 2011 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I've been using Chrome for the past 10 months and haven't had a problem posting .
TNT should've treated Lebron's return to Cleveland game like 2k11 and cut the game off after the Cavs were down by 30. lol
I think Stern should be happy
it wasn’t Javaris Crittenton. Which makes me wonder how many metal detectors are set up when all these players start arriving. What bothers me about these negotiations is how the owners begin with unresolved issues between them and they only thing seem to agree on is solving their issues by screwing the players.
If i were a Union representative, I would point out the the owners don’t want to share revenue to help other team in the red and this is dragging contracts down. So the no 1 problem are teams losing money. They seem to be every ones headache. They are the reason there is no Basketball. I think blaming Wade for the hard cap is disingenuous. In the name of parity, why do the Lakers and Celtics have so many banners hanging from their rafters?
The problem with revenue sharing is this
The total losses are supposedly greater than the total profits. So even if with complete revenue sharing, the league is still losing money.
Stern said, and I agree with that, let’s first make sure the league as a whole is healthy and then let the owners work it out amongst themselves how to share the revenue.
I also do not think that every team should make a profit by default. Well managed teams should always benefit from that, it aint the Russian 60’s you know.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 1, 2011 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Lakers had been receiving $30 million per year … Their new deal will pay them around $200 Million per year for local television rights. Wait… let me repeat that
The Celtics are re-negotiating their existing deal that will triple (or more) their existing $20 Million per year – in addition to giving them a stake of the Regional Sports Network.
The Knicks have a sweet TV deal – as do the Bulls….
NONE OF THAT MONEY is listed in Basketball Related Income – In other words, the players get NONE of that money…. and I’d bet real money that the Local TV Revenues are not counted when the League says 22 teams are losing money and that the League as a whole lost $300 Million….
Hell – the Lakers new deal , along with the Celtics new deal could completely wipe out the League’s losses, all by themselves.
Again – the Owners crying that they’re broke is falling on my deaf ears.
Boo hoo – you can’t make a profit owning a Basketball team? SELL IT !!!!!
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
Or about 5 teams losing money
Someone got a hold of New Orleans books and by using them a group of accountants and economists were able estimate the real revenue flow of teams and they listed each team and 4 or 5 were in the red, So they could do revenue sharing, they just don’t want to. Stern isn’t thinking about those 26 or 27 teams making money. He wants salary roll backs for those 4 or 5 teams losing money. Which means, eliminate 4 teams and the league as a whole is better off.
by hambonejackson on Oct 1, 2011 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Contraction is the solution to everything!!
It cuts costs, deepens the talent pool and with a few additional adjustments it would be great for the competitive balance. I should make a fan post out of this!
Wait….
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 1, 2011 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I can see Hunter telling union members
that they are all better off if we fire about 60 of you.
by hambonejackson on Oct 1, 2011 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
bingo
they all cry poor but very few are looking to sell. Why is that? Ted bough the team LAST YEAR…..what could he possibly have not known then which makes him believe it’s worth missing a season now? The answer is: nothing. He didnt by the team knowing he’d lose money but taking the risk they’d be able to negotiate a better deal for the owners. He bough the team knowing it would turn a profit and hoping get an nhl style agreement in place to turn an even larger profit.
I’m not faulting him for being a money maker.
But for these guys to cry poorhouse is absolute nonsense.
he's owned nearly half the team for over 10 years.
so he definitely knows what the Wizards’ financial situation is which I believe has been decent overall. In fact his purchase process was very quick because he was vetted a long time ago when he first joined Abe’s team. Meanwhile other guys like Gores and Meruelo are going through that for the first time and aren’t necessarily aware of everything previous ownership went through.
He is using the Capitals 2004-2005 lack of a season as a big rationale to make things better for him with the NBA no doubt.
Hockey players were getting 66% before their lockout
What will be the players’ share of League-wide revenues?
The players’ share will be 54% to the extent League revenues in any year are below $2.2 billion; 55% when League revenues are between $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion; 56% when League revenues are between $2.4 billion and $2.7 billion, and 57% when League revenues in any year exceed $2.7 billion.NHL PLAYERS’ SHARE OF LEAGUE REVENUES
The current NHL split looks a lot like what the NBPA has agreed to for the new CBA.
whether he touched him or not
Stern was out of line. I doubt he knows the intricacies of what happened and I also believe that wade can’t control two grown men. If decided that they were willing to take a salary cut to play together than blame them too. To me, if they didn’t do it someone was going to. The blueprint was there once Boston won their championship. Given the salary cap that they have set up there was nothing done wrong. Clearly putting 3 stars together is no guarantee for championship.
by ThePGPhenomenon on Oct 1, 2011 4:16 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
The players are not on their home court for this one
I think its really not constructive to be all ‘attitude’.
I read stuff that really rubbed me the wrong way. Like Lebron being a drama queen after Stern said he wanted the players to move down to 46% and calling for the players to storm out of the room in protest. And after a break, when Fisher returned to the negotiating room with only the star players. Then those players stood the whole time, kinda starring down the owners and Stern….. I mean.. come on. This aint a playground in your hood, this is a corporate negotiating setting boys.
Plus, Stern and the owners didn’t move on any of their points so to me, this charade only made things worse for the NBAPA.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 1, 2011 4:28 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
On the other hand....
Piss off LeBron, D-Wade, Carmello, Durant, Kobe etc…… and the League could suffer. Stern cannot afford to piss off the star players… those players ARE the League.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
If im stern i tell those stars that im willing to pay the stars up to $40million
And everyone else will get a whole lot less.
We will see how upset the stars are then.
by jmpalomo on Oct 2, 2011 11:35 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
do they get 5 votes each when it comes time for the Union to decide?
are all those guys callous enough to completely disregard the positions of the role players they spend every day with? I’m not sure they are…..imho they look at mlb and honestly believe there is no reason they should settle for anything less.
Wich is exactly what a hardcap would do for them
Under a hardcap teams really have to make sure they throw the money at the right player (s).
The total ammount of money being paid to the players would still be the same as in a softcap situation (BRI split) but teams are forced to be more carefull who the spend it on.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 2, 2011 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
or would it?
Hard cap wont change the fact that teams make big mistakes. DWade could head into FA with only Toronto, Minny, and Indiana (for instance) having the BIG money available that year. The league’s elite are accustomed to picking and choosing where they want to go and how much they’ll be paid….I’m not saying it should stay that way, but to them not giving owners the option to splurge is a step back
From what I understud from Wiz06
The NHL is making very view mistakes (injuries not included I).
The system as is practically forces a gm to get into bidding wars which leads to rediculously stupid signings. Tháts the problem and a hard cap fixes that.
Its not a way to be cheap as some think because one way or the other, the BRI split the players get is going to be paid out (escrow if nescesarry). If anything the money is going to the rightfull owners, the ones that put buts in seats and make jersey’s sell: the stars.
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 2, 2011 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I think a hard cap is a bad idea plain and simple
I’ve already explained it in a few other threads, so I’m not going to again.
Formerly know as iNFamous SWaGG
the NHL went to a hard cap because they were actually broke.
they had a small growth spurt due to ill-advised expansion into warm weather places like arizona and florida…once the novelty of these new teams wore off, people in those hot climates stopped paying attention to the teams. Meanwhile players had signed enormous nba style contracts based on the view that hockey may one day supplant basketball etc etc. Reality hit and the league went broke.
NBA owners are pretending they are losing money, big difference
Well at least some teams are losing $ for sure which is hurting their possible existence
but if falls into Dutch’s argument for contraction. I’d rather see the revenue sharing at a minimum first, before being favor for it. The hard team caps make it better as well.
The thing about hard caps is that GMs must have an “ideal salary” for players they are interested in bringing and sticking to that limit. For example, if the Predators GM want to pay more for a player than the Devils GM, the Devils GM should walk away and let the Predators take him. The only exception to this would be the first tier star players where it’s obvious that they’re getting close to 20% of the hard cap of the first year they sign the deal, but even then, very few, if any NHL players make a true max salary anyway.
Bid wars will continue, but teams will be more conscious on when to stop. In the NBA, the bidding wars stop in the current near max levels which stifle cap flexibility.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bullets Forever
Related FanShots on Bullets Forever
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
