Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Troubled Yankees Join Troubled Red Sox In Last Place

Off-Topic Theater: David Stern, Dune And Principles Of Leadership

"Give as few orders as possible," his father had told him once long ago. "Once you've given orders on a subject, you must always give orders on that subject."

Frank Herbert's Dune via Good Reads

Precedents are everything when delineating areas of responsibility. Anyone who has ever raised a child knows; if you break a rule you set for their children; aggrieved injustice is mere seconds away. In my case, I learned the phrase 'double standard' when I was five years old and it was all downhill from there. Once you break a rule, it stays broken. Especially when it comes to matters of import.

The league's utter failure to address anything approaching parity was put on glaring display when David Stern blocked the NO-HOU-LA trade for "basketball reasons". (What basketball reasons?) The consequence of breaking a good faith agreement to allow Hornets' GM Dell Demps to do his job? The trade market for a small market superstar has been frozen and now it is far more possible New Orleans won't even get the indignity of a traded player exception.

Back to the original quote, now that the precedent of David Stern's interference in Chris Paul's future has been established, every GM in the league thinking of trading for him has to consider that as well. Just like when a rumored agent decertification coup threatened to undercut Billy Hunter's negotiating authority with the league during the lockout, Dell Demps' ability to negotiate has likewise been all but negated. Who will talk to him? Here's an anonymous exec's take on it:

"We were all told by the league he was a trade-able player, and now they're saying that Dell doesn't have the authority to make the trade?" said an NBA executive who had periodic talks with New Orleans throughout the process. "Now, they're saying that Dell is an idiot, that he can't do it his job. [Expletive] this whole thing. David's drunk on power, and he doesn't give a [expletive] about the players, and he doesn't give a [expletive] about the hundreds of hours the teams put into make that deal."

Woj via Ziller

In the word's of Toy Story's Slinky, 'Golly-bob-howdy!'

Star-divide

"She asked me to tell her what it is to rule," Paul said. "And I said that one commands. And she said I had some unlearning to do."

Dune via Google Books

Consistency with respect to maintaining those areas of responsibility is key. Let's fast-forward to adulthood. You are overseeing a group of employees to whom you have delegated objectives with specific limitations on how they can achieve them. Those limitations are your control and also a good faith agreement.

In exchange for those limitations, you give your employees the creative freedom to pursue their objective in whatever manner they deem fit. Violate that pact and you destabilize your relationship with your workforce by effectively stepping into their kitchen and changing their recipe.

What's the logical result of this action? You have hamstrung your employee's ability to achieve their objective by inhibiting their innovation, made it exponentially more difficult to achieve based on the complexity of the task they are set. But it's worse than that, because we're focusing on precedent.

Any time the league owns a team with a superstar on an expiring contract, this ploy is fair game. What happens when the Commisioner's Office essentially hijacks a franchise's decision-making process on perhaps the most crucial personnel decision of perhaps its entire history and the franchise loses its marquee player for nothing? Game over, man. Game over.

Did the David Stern really think the Rockets would also surrender Kyle Lowry to get Pau Gasol? As if surrendering Luis Scola and Kevin Martin wasn't overpaying already? Or that the Clippers would really surrender Eric Gordon, Eric Bledsoe, Al-Farouq Aminu, Chris Kaman and an unprotected first...from the Timberwolves? Does Chris Paul represent the kind of upgrade from Chauncey Billups that would justify losing a star, young talent, cap relief, and a high pick in a loaded draft after screwing up the Baron Davis trade? Was Billups picked up at auction to sweeten the pot and perhaps retain Eric Bledsoe?

"But the important thing is to consider all the Houses that depend on CHOAM profits. And think of the enormous proportion of those profits dependent upon a single product-the spice. Imagine what would happen if something should reduce spice production?"

Frank Herbert's Dune

It is truly amusing to watch David Stern employ the "all it takes is one team to overpay" philosophy. Who knows what the Clippers will do? Superstars are indeed the spice of the NBA and an enormous proportion of postseason success depends on those players. David Stern has control of one, but it's the following quote that comes to mind:

"What is money," Kynes asked, "if it won't buy the services you need?"

Frank Herbert's Dune

In the end the spice, the superstar, may trump all other factors and we can chalk one more on the wall for the "all it takes is one team to overpay" trope, and some of you may disagree about what is or is not overpaying for Chris Paul. But if the trade with the Clippers doesn't get a shot of life and no other suitor steps forward, it isn't difficult to imagine the storyline.

David Stern hijacked Dell Demps' authority and the other GMs froze him out for his temerity. Reminds me of the HBO movie, "Too Big to Fail" when the CEO of Lehman Brothers, Dick Fuld, interrupts a confab between his company and the Koreans, causing the deal to fall apart and the company to fall into ruin. As the Koreans packed up to leave with Fuld's jaw on the floor, the head negotiator Min laid it out clear and simple:

It is not about the price. It is about how you have handled these negotiations.

Too Big To Fail

By sticking the Commissioner's Office in the middle of this, Stern made it that much more difficult to find a trading partner while establishing a dangerous precedent. Every NBA-owned team's GM in the future is going to have limited autonomy and will have a more difficult time finding trade partners. Worse, the franchise may be forced to execute team issues with an eye towards executing a league agenda. This is not a position the NBA wants to be in.

If no trade is made, Stern will have set the Hornets back years, and practically by fiat. Should that happen, the conversation will probably go one of three ways. Either the GM and crew have absolute autonomy or it swings back to the root cause of the NBA having to buy the Hornets in the first place and contraction makes its way into the discussion. Of course, George Shinn's horrendous stewardship of the Hornets is at fault, but if Chris Paul walks for nothing, I won't expect a particularly reasonable debate. The third way? A major component of the next CBA might center around limiting the role of the Commissioner himself. Egregious abuse of authority is only tolerated for so long.

Comment 35 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

This episode has been interesting and revealing

I have a slightly different take than most on the league’s actions. As the owner of the Hornets, they have the same right as every other owner to nix a trade proposed by its GM. Sometimes an owner does that for good basketball reasons, sometimes for good business reasons, sometimes for sentimental reasons, and sometimes due to stupidity or timidity. So that part I don’t find problematic.

But an owner then should be able to articulate to its GM what the parameters of a deal should be, and as you point out, then allow that GM to do his job. That’s where things start to go wrong here. Why? A couple possibilities:

- David Stern’s a know-it-all who thinks he is a better GM than Dell Demps.
- Stern has motives that he cannot communicate to Demps, because they are improper. One example: The NBA is not going to allow ANOTHER star to leave a smaller city to form a superteam at a marquee franchise or in a big city.
- Stern just likes bullying people during negotiations, and now that the labor agreement has wrapped up, he needs a fix.

Note that all the options point to Stern. He is pushing for an incredibly lopsided deal which, again, I don’t have a problem with. Why shouldn’t the Hornets try for that? It would boost the franchise’s resale value. But why can’t Demps push for an incredibly lopsided deal? Something is amiss here.

by disgrunted on Dec 13, 2011 8:31 AM EST reply actions  

I can see that point of view

Thinking maybe Demps can’t push for that deal because it makes no sense to sign an extension now?

by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 13, 2011 10:28 AM EST up reply actions  

I was thinking more of Brave New World...

Which ends with the one man in a structured, somatized society who knows who his parents are hangs himself, and is left twisting slowly in the wind….

The question is who is hanging in the wind here?

I cannot imagine that Stern vetoed the first deal without the support of a substantial majority of the NBA’s owners, who are also, alas, co-owners of the Hornets. People can dump on him all they want, but he ain’t in this alone and this is why he is paid the big bucks.

The subsequent Laker salary dump of Odom suggests strongly that one of the alleged cornerstones of the original three-way deal is not all that highly valued. Odom is a name player, a wonderful personality and a versatile 6th man, but at 32 how many years does he have left? Sure he has value for the Mavs, but this value is absolutely finite and New Orleans’ needs are much longer term.

Don’t forget, the NBA expects to make a tidy profit from dealing the Hornets to the next Russian millionaire who comes down the pike. and that team is way less attractive to buyers when its key pieces are not Chris Paul and David West, but Lamar Odom, Luis Scola, Kevin Martin and the Wolves’ lottery pick who (a) could flop and (b) even if he succeeds will not likely have Paul’s charisma.

Now come the Clippers. Does anyone honestly care whether Donald Sterling succeeds here? He may be the only owner in all of American professional sport less admired than Daniel Snyder. His deal for Paul could STILL fly, but only if it includes Eric Gordon (a very good player, who would then receive some major NBA-funded packaging in the Crescent City), the Wolves’ lottery pick and probably one or two more of the Clippers own first rounders (the other two players are interesting but irrelevant). Eric Bledsoe can unpack his bags. The point is that this deal, at this writing, ain’t dead yet.

I cannot imagine that Chris Paul is going to be damaged in this. If he does not go to the Clippers or some other legitimate contender this year, he can make his own deal next year.

So are Dell Demps and Monty Williams left twisting? They did a great job with the Hornets last year, but good God, they surely must be quite aware of who pays their paychecks and calls their tune. They (particularly Demps, who really did get jobbed a bit in the three-way deal) will suffer in the short run, but they are company men and they will not be left out to dry.

New Orleans fans? No one put a gun to their head to pony up for all those season tickets. Hopefully they will wind up with a decent owner and an interesting team. The NBA owes them that after having parked the odious Mr Shinn there in the first damn place.

The rest of us? We are “witnessing” a restructuring in the NBA that is no more or less than a microcosm of the restructuring of the economic reality we once knew and assumed would last forever.

So I guess no one is left twisting in the wind here… Or everyone is.

by khrabb on Dec 13, 2011 8:39 AM EST reply actions  

David Stern only knows one way to negotiate

.
“These are my terms, take it or leave it”…..

We saw the exact same tactics during the CBA negotiations…. But in those negotiations, he was dealing from a position of strength. In the Chris Paul situation, the League (read: David Stern) is dealing from a position of weakness…..

The League’s General Managers know exactly what Chris Paul is worth. They are not stupid. They know the Hornets MUST deal Paul, or risk seeing him walk in Free Agency. So the Lakers said “screw you; you are asking too much” when Stern nixed the deal and told them to rework it with more young assets and draft picks….

The Clippers said the same thing when Stern insisted that the Clippers give up all 5 of their major trade chips to get Paul (A near All-Star Shooting Guard, a large expiring contract, an up and coming PG, a SF drafted 8th in a strong draft a year ago, and possibly the number one pick in the deepest draft in recent memory)?!!!? And then the League had the audacity to ask for ANOTHER first round pick?!!?? Are you f***ing kidding me? I mean Chris Paul is a Super Star player, but PLEASE !

Stern needs to back off – and let the Hornets Management do their job.

I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.

by Rook6980 on Dec 13, 2011 8:51 AM EST reply actions  

Sort of agreeing with Rook here —

I think the League’s crime was NOT that it nixed the NO-HOU-LA Lakers trade — Paul was dictating where he wanted to go, and LA was getting unfair benefit as a result — but not knowing when to back off. That is, there was reporting that LA was sweetening the deal; but Stern screwed that, too. Then there was the very fair NO-LA Clips trade; but Stern screwed that one under all the media attention.

As a result, Stern has probably prevented the result that was originally intended: in extreme cases, the League may invoke the “good for the League” clause to veto a trade; but as a result of subsequent events, any similar action in the future will be interpreted as heavy-handed.

by Tbonebullets on Dec 13, 2011 9:03 AM EST up reply actions  

The thing is, though

I think the Lakers lose that trade anyway. It’s all about perception. The league sees Chris Paul trying to leverage his way out of town, which is something they were trying to stop. The basic public sees Chris Paul teaming up with Kobe with a ridiculous (and yet, talked about, endlessly, as if it were doable) possibility of bringing Howard on board as well. Almost none of the blow back had anything to do with basketball, itself. The Lakers would have lost their two best and most versatile frontcourt players for a true PG. Something Kobe has never played with. So they kill their biggest strength on the HUGE risk that Kobe and Paul mesh and Bynum, somehow, manages to make it through most of the season. I used to think that Stern knew what he was doing. Now, I think he’s just given up fighting the new owners. he’s gotta knwo he’s not long for that chair anymore.

by imperialme on Dec 13, 2011 9:53 AM EST up reply actions  

That has largely been overlooked
So they kill their biggest strength on the HUGE risk that Kobe and Paul mesh and Bynum, somehow, manages to make it through most of the season.

Exactly, seemed like a ridiculous risk for the Lakers to take.

by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 13, 2011 10:26 AM EST up reply actions  

It was almost a move

Looking past the Kobe era. And it was most likely with a ton of confidence they were going to get Dwight too.

Still risky though, I definitely agree.

I'm a Wizards fan. We've been trying to tell you about Lebron for years. Hated the man before it was cool.

by returnofswagger on Dec 13, 2011 11:28 AM EST up reply actions  

I thought it's interesting that more than one NBA team exec thinks

that the Clippers might have been given some inside info by the League on what to bid to get Billups in order to make giving up the requested assets more palatable. If I’m the Clips, there’s no way I give up Gordon AND the 2012 1st pick from Minny, regardless of having Billups. You get either one but not both.

Stern seems to have painted himself into a corner in this whole saga and it’ll be interesting to see how he gets himself out. If Paul is allowed to leave the Hornets next summer with no compensation for N.O. or if the package they ultimately settle for is inferior (i.e., a sign-and-trade deal), then Stern gets full blame (although we know his slimy a** will spin, spin, spin).

by Bassanova on Dec 13, 2011 10:23 AM EST reply actions  

Why does anybody think this is Stern who is vetoing the trades?

While he is loathable, how can anybody possibly think Stern is making these decisions. Stern is just a mouthpiece for the owners. First of all he is approaching senility and has no clue what is equal value is. If you’d ask Stern what equal value is he would likely say the only way I trade Chris Paul is if the Lakers give up Magic.

Stern still pines for the days when owners like Abe let him run the league as his personal fiefdom. Those days are long over. Stern is not Vince McMahon. No I’d say he is more like Bernie Lomax from Weekend at Bernie’s. The owners wheel Stern’s corpse out when they need a scapegoat to make these announcements. Make no mistake Stern is not running the league anymore and he is certainly not vetoing these trades.

by izaballa on Dec 13, 2011 11:00 AM EST reply actions  

Stern said the Owners had no impact on his decision....

Even if that was false…. If you want to be perceived as the big shot running the League – you have to take the blame when you screw up too….

I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.

by Rook6980 on Dec 13, 2011 9:23 PM EST up reply actions  

"Drunk on power."

This is pretty telling. And never seemed more true.

Also, when the commissioner of any league becomes as (in)famous and disliked as Stern has recently, especially within a year of his league’s rejuvenation of popularity and best championship storyline in a decade, then that commissioner is obviously doing something very wrong. A commissioner should not be as well known as this guy in the media. And there is no way he should even be in the position to be the (ugly) face of the league like he is.

Disappear into the shadows David Stern, because that’s where a good commissioner should be. And just maybe save face for yourself and for your league.

I'm a Wizards fan. We've been trying to tell you about Lebron for years. Hated the man before it was cool.

by returnofswagger on Dec 13, 2011 11:11 AM EST reply actions  

you sir are a well-read man

wonderful piece. thanks

"Through your existence, become wealthy, knowledge is king"- Nasir Jones

"When you play for the Wizards, [Gilbert Arenas] is like Michael Jackson. He's playin with a lot of Tito Jacksons." - Charles Barkley

by XAGMNINETY on Dec 13, 2011 1:19 PM EST reply actions  

Consistency with respect to maintaining those areas of responsibility is key. Let’s fast-forward to adulthood. You are overseeing a group of employees to whom you have delegated objectives with specific limitations on how they can achieve them. Those limitations are your control and also a good faith agreement.

In exchange for those limitations, you give your employees the creative freedom to pursue their objective in whatever manner they deem fit. Violate that pact and you destabilize your relationship with your workforce by effectively stepping into their kitchen and changing their recipe.

This trumps just about anything I’ve read about organizational management in college. Bravo!

Who won? Who lost? Who cares?! The NBA is Back! - David Aldridge

What seems to be the officer, problem? - Randy Marsh

by Dutch Hoopfan on Dec 13, 2011 4:48 PM EST reply actions  

I guess I'm the only one who thinks this was a good move.

And believe me, nobody here dislikes Stern more than I do.

by MR on Dec 13, 2011 5:21 PM EST reply actions  

Why do you think it was a good move specifically?

Who won? Who lost? Who cares?! The NBA is Back! - David Aldridge

What seems to be the officer, problem? - Randy Marsh

by Dutch Hoopfan on Dec 13, 2011 7:15 PM EST up reply actions  

It's a good move?

When the Commissioner of a League can arbitrarily undermine the efforts of THREE General Managers and their team’s Owner’s wishes?

It’s a good move to nix a trade AFTER all the parties have been bandied about in the media, causing harsh feelings when those same players have to return to the team that was trying to trade them?

It’s a good move to put a General Manager in charge of the Team the League owns – to make sure there is no hint of impropriety or conflict of interest – but then undermine that same GM the first trade he tries to make to better the team?

It’s a good move to put the kibosh on a trade, not for team reasons, but purely for League reasons?

How was canceling that trade a “good move”?

I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.

by Rook6980 on Dec 13, 2011 9:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Well for starters it would have left NO with over $57million in salaries this year with only 9 guys under contract. Next year it would be around $56million with only 7 guys under contract. With 4 good but not great players, none of them likely all stars. A cap strangled lottery team. Would you want to buy that team?

In my mind that would make them the worst franchise in the league.

That’s not even getting into the LA superteam issue.

by MR on Dec 14, 2011 12:08 AM EST reply actions  

Playoff hell team in the East, lottery in the West, sure

But all those players can show trade value if nothing else, that can bring in the cap relief and young players David Stern has in mind with the potential Clippers trade. And Demps wouldn’t have had to work with a gun to his head. The Stern move essentially destroyed Lamar Odom’s trade value, as well. I HATE the Lakers, but that is incredibly screwed up. Seguing into the superteam issue…Chris Paul, Kobe Bryant, and Andrew Bynum all have red flags with their knees, no depth in the frontcourt…extremely risky move.

by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 14, 2011 8:58 AM EST up reply actions  

If I were in the market to buy an NBA team

I would be extremely unhappy with the post-Paul/Lakers trade. Here are two scenarios I would prefer:

• a team without Chris Paul but filled with players on one year contracts so I had a ton of cap space with which to build my own team from scratch.

• a team with Chris Paul so that at least I have a chance as a new owner to try to convince him to stay. If he leaves at least I have a blank slate instead of a team filled with overpaid aging players on long term contracts.

IMO Martin is badly overpaid, Scola is somewhat overpaid (at the age of 33 he’ll still have 2 years and $22 million on that contract), and Odom is mostly valuable as a trade chip, but far less of a trade chip than Paul at the deadline.

by MR on Dec 14, 2011 12:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Also

has anyone considered that there might be someone who is close to a deal to buy the team and THAT person nixed the trade through Stern?

by MR on Dec 14, 2011 12:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Well
  • To scenario one, you’re talking about a team of scrubs and expirings, so in a trade you’re looking for cap relief, young players, and draft picks. The problem is that the League/Hornets want cap relief, young players, draft picks, and established players/and All-Star. The Hornets could probably have scenario one, but the League won’t accept it.
  • To scenario two…I can’t see the timing working out. Even if the sale of the team were completed by season’s end, there’s no telling how Chris feels about staying at this point. He may go to a big-market team in FA simply to spite David Stern. There’s no loyalty factor, and what could a new owner possibly do to convince him? It’s not like the Hornets are in the running for Dwight Howard, are located in New York, or will have a shiny new arena/mecca.

by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 14, 2011 1:40 PM EST up reply actions  

At the end of the year a deep pocketed owner could offer more money than any other team and offer a team with some cap space so Paul could draw in his own FAs.

Probably wouldn’t happen, but I’d rather give it a shot than take the trade as offered. The trade that was rejected was exactly the kind of trade you DON’T want to make. Old players with long contracts and middling draft picks.

by MR on Dec 14, 2011 1:57 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm not familiar with the potential buyers for the Hornets...

any Mark Cubans or Mikhail Prohorovs?

Agree that those players would have to be flipped relatively quickly, but figure Demps would have pulled the trigger on the trade machine quick as he could work it. All those players bring something to the table no matter what team they’re on provided there’s no young superstar ahead of them. Ernie got JC and Singleton for Kirk Hinrich, what might Demps get with three chances at such a result, especially in this year’s draft?

by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 14, 2011 2:49 PM EST up reply actions  

So are you suggesting that flipping Martin, Scola and Odom would be easier than flipping Paul? If so I disagree.

What’s the rush to dump Chris Paul? Why couldn’t they look for deals at the deadline?

Here is some info on potential buyers of the Hornets (from October):

Jac Sperling, who was appointed by the NBA as the Hornets’ team governor sat down with Jimmy Smith of The Times-Picayune to talk about where things stood with the franchise including the possible sale of the team to a private owner. “We’ve started having conversations with potential owners already,” revealed Sperling. "The number of potential owners has grown. I think the commissioner mentioned there were four or five, and I think the number has increased a little bit. "There are some potential owners who live in New Orleans and some who live outside of New Orleans. But all of them understand that they would be buying a team that would have a long-term lease here. And that’s the goal — to extend the lease to a long-term arrangement with the state as part of finding a new owner. “[The sale conversations are] moving along now. Conversations, as I mentioned, have started. We’re trying to move the process along so that once the labor situation is clarified; we’ll be able to act quickly.”

New Orleans Times-Picayune

by MR on Dec 14, 2011 3:28 PM EST up reply actions  

The only reason I could conceive of for doing the deal now

Is to attempt to field a playoff team with a semi-stable player future with an eye for flipping players as opportunities arose. I find a Clippers scenario with Eric Gordon and an army of youth coming vastly more palatable, but the issue is mostly that the Clippers would be nuts to give up that much. And if no team will give that much up, then wouldn’t it be easier to flip Martin, Scola, and Odom down the line?

As far as the rush…I suppose the distraction factor with a guy that’s supposed to be your floor general coupled with the worry that the offers will only get worse.

by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 14, 2011 3:52 PM EST up reply actions  

I understand the discomfort of having Paul be a distraction for a few months. But that doesn’t seem like a good reason to go into a long term bad deal. As for the offers getting worse, again I’d take no deal over the Lakers deal if I were the owner.

by MR on Dec 14, 2011 4:17 PM EST up reply actions  

I think it's something a good to excellent GM can work with

but there’s no guarantee the market would cooperate, can’t really disagree with you…life sucks for Hornets’ fans

by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 14, 2011 5:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Washington Wizards.

Editor-In-Chief

Headshot_small Mike Prada

Associate Editor

Small Vanilla Gorilla

248225_small Sean Fagan

Ghanaouturuguaytrough_small M. Katz

Small Jeff Newman

Small jkahn15

Contributors

Jakesbshot_small Jake Whitacre

Mriggs_cartoon_2__small Rook6980

Addingmachine_small bwoodsxyz

402135_2504659589329_1638181922_1758918_1004201176_n_small Bullet Nation in Exile