David Stern—There Are Four Fingers Pointing Back at You

David Stern tried yesterday to finger Billy Hunter for all the blame in the NBA Players union's decision to dissolve. When I was young, I learned the expression that whenever you point the finger at someone, there are four pointing back at you. David Stern apparently skipped this lesson in life. 

In fact, Stern's pointed remarks ignored that if there is a single person to blame for the tragic turn in the NBA negotiations, it is he, not Hunter, who is at fault. To understand, why you have to skip past the "millionaires vs. billionaires" kind of rhetoric that gets repeated and look at the actual details of why the lockout happened. 

Stern pointed to the amount of money the average player would be making; more than many of us will make in our lifetimes. The motive behind the argument appearing to be that we shouldn't feel sorry for the players. This is completely disingenuous. 

The reason is that while many franchises are technically losing money in the sense they are operating at a loss, they are also rising in value. For example, the Memphis Grizzlies are only the 28th most valuable team in the NBA, and they lost $2.6 million. However, at the same time they rose 4 percent in value, from $256 million in value to $266 million. 

They were purchased in 2000 for $160 million. That's a 106 percent rise in value over an 11-year period. When you have enough money to buy a $160 million, team you are not living paycheck to paycheck. When you factor in changes in franchise value, there's no chance these are losing propositions. 

Herbert Kohl purchased the Milwaukee Bucks for just $19 million in 1985. Now they are worth $255 million and are the least valuable team in the NBA. That's a 1300 percent return on an investment in 26 years. I'm no accountant, but that sounds pretty good. 

When you factor in the increase in value, only five teams lost money last year. Only one of them significantly, and that brings up the other part of the problem. Much of the team's value is tied to their star players. 

For example, the Cleveland Cavaliers took a 26 percent dive in value when LeBron James left. That's almost a $100 million dip. Not coincidentally, the value of the Miami Heat jumped 17 percent from $363 million to $425 million. The combined salaries of James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh was $42 million. 

This is the players' position. They are quite literally the value of the league. 

If the players are generating that kind of money for the league, why shouldn't they make that kind of money?

Furthermore, when it is spoken of in whole numbers and the billions of dollars to be split among the players, it works the other way as well. The owners would be splitting the same billions as the players, only their franchises are increasing in value as well. 

Aside from that, there is the disguise of "profit" and "loss" that the owners are perpetrating. For example, Gilbert is building casinos right by Quicken Loans Arena, which will dove-tail into the Cavaliers income, though they would technically be separate. They will share the same parking areas and fans will gamble before and/or after the game. 

Gilbert is projected to be making as much as $2 billion a year off this enterprise. 

Another example is Marc Cuban and the luxury suites, which per the last CBA were kept out of BRI (Basketball Related Income)

The point is the owners are doing a lot of things to obfuscate how much money they are really making. Whether it's through increase in value or through non-basketball related income that really is based on the basketball team, teams are making more money than they are letting on. 

If we've learned anything in the last decade it's that accountants can make lawyers look like they earn an honest living. 

Furthermore, the main reason, ostensibly for the lockout is teams are losing money, and the majority of the teams that are losing money are the "small market" teams, the bulk of which were created under the reign, and at the behest and encouragement, of David Stern. 

So why did Stern want to generate so many new teams? Why did he push for expansion? Because in doing so he also generated huge value for the NBA. But once again, that value is tied directly to the players. Those franchises that are losing money generate value for the league. 

When you have hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars you don't live paycheck to paycheck. You don't measure yourself in terms of income but in terms of net worth.

The fact is most of these owners are seeing their net worth go up, regardless of whether their franchises are operating technically at a loss or profit. 

Bickering over whether this is "millionaires vs. billionaires" is moot because the fact is that this money is being generated and the main reason the owners are seeing their net worth climb is the players, particularly the star players.

The players are "worth" it because you can draw a straight line from the "worth" of the team to the players. Just ask Dan Gilbert!

Finally, Stern is utterly disingenuous in describing the talks as the players not bargaining in good faith. The players moved seven percent, the owners three percent off the BRI.

The owners are the ones that said they were giving the players their last offer. The owners literally said they were not going to negotiate even further. 

Stern tantalized with images of a 72-game season and made it seem that if the players rejected the deal, it was all on them. He did that knowing full well that the offer he gave the players was bogus and that there was no way they would accept it. 

Furthermore his claim that the players had kept the disbanding option open as a threat is utterly hypocritical. First, why shouldn't they keep all their options open, especially if the owners aren't negotiating in good faith? Second, it was the owners who were making threats, "take this offer or you get less." 

If you feel angry with the players, wake up. You've been manipulated by the master manipulator, David Stern. He knows the real culprit in all of this is himself, which is why he wants to place the blame on Billy Hunter, who has committed no greater crime than doing his job.