Gingrich Antagonizes Palestinians

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright December 10, 2011
All Rights Reserved.                                         

                Abusing his authority, NBA Commissioner David Stern vetoed a multiplayer deal that would have brought New Orleans Hornets’ superstar point guard Chris Paul to the Los Angeles Lakers.  Stern’s decision bypassed all appropriate legal channels exercising his arbitrary power as NBA chief and defacto owner of the Hornets.  Stern claimed his decision to veto the deal was based on what’s best for the Hornets.  When LeBron James decided as a free agent to opt out of Cleveland, the franchise net worth went into a freefall.  By the same logic, Stern vetoed the Paul deal, fearing it would be next to impossible to sell the franchise without at least one superstar.  Explaining the league-owned Hornets would be “better served with Chris in a Hornets uniform than by the outcome of the trade,” Stern showed a sickening selfishness, concerned more about money than principle.

            Stern or league owners have no legal right to veto any trade if it fits the legal parameters of the NBA’s new Collective Bargaining Agreement or usual-and-customary business practices in the NBA or any other professional sports league.  Stern should have recused himself because of his bias to see the Hornets, for selfish reasons, fetch as much cash as possible.  Messing with Paul who wants out of New Orleans or Los Angeles Lakers’ players now out on the auction block but reeled back in because of the veto displays a lack of professionalism.  Whether or not the league can protect small market teams is irrelevant.  Stern killed the deal not for philosophical reasons but purely to save cash.  Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert pounded on Stern, calling the trade a “travesty,” after mismanaging and losing now Miami Heat superstar shooting guard LeBron James.

            Whether or not Stern ever finds a buyer for the Hornets should have no bearing on where Paul plays basketball.  Players, superstars or not, have every right to move to teams that meet their career objectives.  No one should apologize—certainly not Stern—for the Lakers winning NBA tradition.  While it’s entirely possible that the trade will eventually go through, Stern’s behavior was inappropriate and unacceptable.  Gilbert’s failures in Cleveland can’t be used to bludgeon against the NBA’s winningest franchise.  It’s only natural for players like Paul to one day join professional organizations that match their talent and desire to win.  Whatever financial problems face small market teams, the fix is not involuntary servitude by its players.  Stern can’t justify the arbitrary and capricious use of his power to infringe on the legitimate business rights of other respected NBA teams.

            No matter how Stern justifies the veto, it’s inappropriate under current league rules to block any deal that follows NBA guidelines.  Blocking the trade opened up Stern to all kinds of legal problems, most likely forcing him to back down and let the trade go through.  “The owners half-pushed this, and Stern took it the rest of the way,” an anonymous NBA source told Yahoo Sports.  “In the end, David didn’t like that the players were dictating where they wanted to go, like Carmelo had, and he wasn’t going to let Chris Paul dictate where he wanted to go,” giving more insights into Stern’s imperious side.  With all due respect to league officials, Stern’s decision hinged on where Paul’s exit hurt the Hornet’s resaleability.  Stern crossed the line when messed with existing rules that govern how business is conducted in the NBA.  Simply protecting his bottom line wasn’t reason enough.

            Stern knows he has no legal grounds to stand on.  If the matter moves to the courts, Stern almost certainly loses.  Everyone in the league benefits from parity but they don’t benefit when the Commissioner suffers from egomania, something seen in Stern’s recent problems negotiating in good faith with the NBA Players Assn.  Placating Gilbert or any other NBA owner doesn’t give Stern the right to undermine the leagues existing business rules.  Whatever the multi-team deal to bring Paul to the Lakers, it’s not up to Stern to micromanage parity or where franchise players chose to play.  Team ownership, in big or small markets, can’t hold players hostage because of what happened in Cleveland with LeBron or elsewhere.  Big or small market teams, whether successful or not, can’t let pure envy eclipse the legal rights of successful franchise like the Los Angeles Lakers.

            Stern overstepped his authority acting selfishly to protect the NBA’s cash interest in the New Orleans Hornets.  No professional sports commissioner should act so selfishly in his own interests, simply to save him cash.  Whatever happened to Cleveland’s worth losing LeBron, it’s not appropriate for Stern to act so selfishly.  His veto of the Paul trade shows an egregious lack of professionalism, calling into question his fitness to run the NBA.  Details of the deal notwithstanding, Stern’s self-serving veto showed his contempt for league rules when it comes to his own self-interests.  Envious owners, fearing more domination by the Lakers, cannot be permitted to trample on the legitimate rights of well- respected franchises.   Stern didn’t act in the best interest of the New Orleans Hornets, he acted selfishly to preserve the NBA’s equity interest in the franchise.  To rectify the problems, Stern needs to butt out.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.