November 08, 2011
Gminski: No downside for Jordan
Former Charlotte Hornet and Duke Blue Devil Mike Gminski doubts Michael Jordan's hard-line stance in the NBA's labor negotiations will have a negative effect on the Bobcats' future ability to sign free agents.
Jordan, majority owner of the Bobcats, has been a prominent voice among small-market owners pushing for further concessions from the players union.
Jordan was criticized by several current NBA players on their Twitter accounts. Golden State Warriors rookie Klay Thompson called Jordan a "hypocrite,'' while Indiana Pacer Paul George said Jordan "should have been the first one behind us.''
Gminski, who lives in Charlotte and does color analysis on ACC basketball telecasts, doubts players would think less of signing with the Bobcats because of Jordan's role in the lockout.
"I really believe players focus on these things only when they're going on,'' Gminski said of labor friction. "Signing a player comes down to 'What are you going to pay him? and 'What's the deal?' ''
A 14-season NBA veteran, Gminski sees nothing hypocritical in Jordan playing tough-guy as an owner, the same way he did as a player during the 1998 lockout.
"It's a very different deal when you're writing the checks, instead of getting them,'' said Gminski, who believes the NBA's offer to the players -- a 50-50 split of revenues -- is a reasonable position in these economic times.
Gminksi rejects the players' position that, as the performers, they're entitled to more than half of NBA revenues.
"Why should they get more than 50 percent? They have guaranteed paychecks,'' Gminski said. "The owners have all the risk and they've demonstrated they're losing money.''
Posted by Observer Sports on November 8, 2011 at 12:23 PM | Permalink
Humorous to see players like Klay Thompson try and criticize, and he hasnt even played in an NBA game yet. Jordan is an owner now. Why in the world would he he "the first to back the players" when his investment lost an estimated 20 million dollars last year? Some of these players need to actually do some research, and pay attention to whats going on before they get on their twitter accounts.
Posted by: Jason Warren | Nov 8, 2011 1:13:14 PM
I would miss hoops, but it would be funny to see what these players do without the NBA. A few would play elsewhere (for alot less money). The rest? That would be a great reality show watching them try to make a living. Might as well add a few more to the unemployment line.
Posted by: Cranky | Nov 8, 2011 1:28:39 PM
seriously. I dont think mike wants free agents like Klay Thompson, and Paul George. Who cares what those nobodys wrote on their twitter.
Posted by: zach | Nov 8, 2011 2:03:59 PM
I heard a rumor that Jordan and a few other owners don't want the players to accept the current deal tomorrow because then they could push for a harder cap. If the players reject the deal and push for decertification they are complete idiots.
Posted by: apauldds | Nov 8, 2011 2:08:05 PM
To be honest, Klay Thompson and Paul George not ever signing with the Bobcats will not hurt my feelings.
Posted by: PantherDave | Nov 8, 2011 2:23:54 PM
Cancel the season and let these players make no salary this year. Eventually they will except what they are offered or won't get paid anything. I hate this ridiculiously greedy players. Sick of it!
Posted by: Brian | Nov 8, 2011 2:29:12 PM
Gminiski stick to ACC basketball. 'What are you going to pay him? and 'What's the deal?' are not the only reasons current players sign with a team. The best deal for a player is to resign with his current team. Why is Wade the only free agent to resign with his team? Another article that misses the point.
Posted by: Reggie | Nov 8, 2011 2:48:48 PM
The owners intended, from the beginning of these "negotiations", to break the players' union. They have nearly succeeded and tomorrow they will probably be doing their "Victory!" dance after Hunter and Fischer finally capitulate to the inevitable.
But Giminski's right - a half hour after it's all resolved one way or the other they will have forgotten all about it and it will be back to business as usual. They'll all still be instant millionaires, with far more money than they will ever be able to spend in one lifetime. All of this supposed acrimony will be quickly forgiven and forgotten.
Posted by: archie | Nov 8, 2011 2:55:26 PM
It's time to draw a line. Where can they make this kind of money. Most could not get a min. wage job if need be. They think they are GOD. They are nothing.
Posted by: B | Nov 8, 2011 3:05:09 PM
My gut feeling is that the players are going to reject the deal and vote to decertify the union. That will push the lockout into late December and quite possibly cancel the entire season. I understand their point but by that time they will have lost more money than the 1 or 2% they're bargaining for.
Posted by: apauldds | Nov 8, 2011 3:10:10 PM
Cranky, that is a great idea! Have a reality show following all the rookies and unsigned players during the lockout. Hilarity ensues.
Posted by: James Reed | Nov 8, 2011 3:35:12 PM
I missed the part where players said, "they're GOD". Jealousy tends to cloud the mind.
Posted by: Chuck | Nov 8, 2011 3:41:00 PM
Reggie. You are the one missing the point. 22 of 30 NBA teams are losing money. Anyone that does not think there needs to be a new deal more favorable to the owners is clueless...or an NBA player.
Posted by: Cranky | Nov 8, 2011 3:47:37 PM
When the NFL was in lockout mode, Jerry Richardson was a hard-liner for the owners in an almost identical way that M.J. is doing right now with the NBA lockout... ultimately, after the lockout ended, the Panthers resigned all of their free agents they wanted. Basically, Jerry's role in the labor negotiations had no bearing whatsoever in the players' willingness to sign with the team.
Posted by: appstategrad2008 | Nov 8, 2011 4:53:00 PM
i just hate that we're missing games because the owners don't know how to run a business successfully. bobcats didn't lose money because of the salary cap.
they lose money because they haven't done ANYTHING to build a fanbase of substance. ticket prices are too expensive to encourage regular patronage. team hasn't been consistently competitive OR well coached to garner patronage. the first owner was arrogant, racist, ignorant, offensive, etc. and foreign to charlotte. the front office has for years overpaid guys that barely play. the team has failed to gain any national tv dates. they've given up on every single player in team history without properly developing them except gerald wallace who they then HAD to get rid of to start rebuilding again.
ask OKC why they aren't complaining. ask Indiana. sure those owners are probably pushing for 47% too.........why the eff not. if i offered you 6 more dollars for every 100 would you not be interested? they already have 4 more. a lotta yachts are getting ready to be bought off this deal. before they were going to a regular dealer, now they're calling paul allen asking him where he got his.
players have done NOTHING to create leverage. nothing. not enough guys went overseas with williams and lawson and j.r. smith and wilson chandler. not enough of these exhibition games are working out. not enough unity, not enough clarity, not enough leadership. billy hunter should be fired as the head of the union.
owners won a 4% swing on the day negotiations started and they're looking like they're going to get AT THE VERY LEAST 2% more before games are EVER played. even if it's next year (probably).
you never call a man's bluff (in this case stern/owners) unless you can afford to. these players can't. and they called bluff.
Posted by: charlottean | Nov 8, 2011 5:31:44 PM
I'm on the owners side here. I'm tired of the same teams in the finals every year. Players have taken over this league. They demand to go where they want, when they want, for however much they want. I wish I could go to my boss and tell him I want to be relocated to a bigger city where my best friends are and I want 57% of company revenue in the process.
As the owner you take all the risks, while the players collect checks. The owners invest, the owners are in charge. Bottom line. If the players want to have more say, they need to save thier money and own a team.
Posted by: Smitty | Nov 8, 2011 6:10:08 PM
"Charlottean" is always yapping like he's smoking something illegal. The owners are right, rich, and own the NBA.
The players are employees, also rich, but not owners. Deal with it or start your own league at the local Y. Rookies should be seen and not heard anyway. Tomorrow it's deal or no deal day for this year.
Posted by: really? | Nov 8, 2011 9:38:18 PM
Bravo Mike, and other owners for trying to get this league straightened out. The players will still enjoy an enormous opportunity and income. Hopefully the fans will be the ultimate winners, as even small market teams (if they make good decisions and develop their talent) can win championships and retain their talent.
Posted by: Bassman | Nov 8, 2011 10:47:45 PM
Most of what I'm hearing here and all lockout are people jealous of the players and never jealous of the owners. Wonder why. To say playing basketball without the NBA equates to flipping burgers shows someone doesn't understand what student athlete means. Must be wall street occupiers mad about the one percent being talented or smart enough to be in the one percent.
Posted by: Altheus | Nov 9, 2011 4:03:45 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.