NBA Rumors: Is David Stern Crazy Enough to Push Jeremy Lin out of New York?
It didn't take long for NBA commissioner David Stern to take exception to arbitrator Kenneth Dam's ruling that players waived by their original team should retain their Bird Rights upon signing on with a new organization.
The New York Post's Marc Berman is reporting that Stern plans on appealing the decision:
According to a league official, Stern’s plan to appeal the union’s victory in the Jeremy Lin/Steve Novak Bird rights war may carry over into the July 1 start of free agency. That would delay the Knicks’ ability to negotiate for any free agent and create a public-relations nightmare for Stern, whose office is in midtown.
If the increasingly detested commissioner is successful, it could throw a wrench in the New York Knicks' ability to retain breakout star Jeremy Lin—at least at a price that suits the organization in an ideal world.
Lin is a restricted free agent, so New York is entitled to match whatever offers he receives on the open market, and the franchise unsurprisingly plans to do so. While NYC may be prepared to retain the instantly iconic point guard by any means necessary, it would be easier—and likely cheaper—to ink him to a new deal before other suitors have the chance to pursue him.
That won't happen if Stern has his way, and it could make Lin's price tag nearly prohibitive (via ESPN New York's Ian Begley):
But there is yet another wrinkle to consider: Teams under the salary cap can offer Lin more than $5 million per season in the third and fourth years of a contract offer, as long as the average annual value of the deal does not exceed the salary cap.
If the Knicks were to match such a back-loaded offer, it may put them above the luxury tax in the third and fourth years of Lin's contract and prohibit them from using their mid-level exception.
In other words, dollars alone wouldn't be the only expense attributable to Lin. Long-term roster flexibility may become a problem as well, and that's the last thing this organization wants to hear. Amar'e Stoudemire is already on the books for three more years and over $63 million.
Drew Hallowell/Getty Images
Mid-level exceptions are the difference between adding needed talent and trotting out an aging and overpaid core of stars.
Whether those drawbacks would make the Knicks think twice about sealing a deal remains a theoretically open question, but Stern should certainly hope it doesn't come to that. His unpopularity has soared at a trajectory not unlike Lin's celebrity.
The better half of Southern California despises Stern on account of his decision to veto a trade that would have sent Chris Paul to the Los Angeles Lakers. And while Bostonians may not see eye-to-eye with America's heartland on much, they're similarly reeling over officiating that seemingly handed the Miami Heat series against the Celtics and Thunder.
The only thing that looked more rigged than the NBA postseason was the draft lottery that awarded the league-owned New Orleans Hornets the first overall selection in June 28th's draft—an improbable outcome given that New Orleans had only the fourth-best odds of landing the top spot.
Oh, and there was that bitter lockout that trimmed 16 games off the season. Stern didn't emerge from that dispute with a shred of sympathy attached to his name.
Amidst a catastrophic legitimacy crisis and questions about conspiracy, Stern responded during an NBA Finals halftime interview , "It makes for good copy, it makes for good questions, and...uh, you know...bring it on."
Well, if that isn't reassuring.
There's a reason this guy's corporatized and often conflicting interests make for a good story. Fans aren't happy with the results, and they don't perceive the league as the beacon of integrity and transparency Stern delusively paints it to be.
This might not sound like the time to add NYC to his growing list of detractors, but don't put it past Stern. He's either out of touch, or simply out of reach—either way, there's no stopping whatever this league has become.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?