Oct 23, 2011, 4:30 PM EDT
From a great piece by Sports Illustrated’s Sam Amick:
“What we told the players again today was that we could not trade one off for the other,” Silver said of BRI and system issues. “As much as we would like to find a way for a so-called win-win for both parties, or we win one and you win one, in terms of the future of this league, we don’t think it makes sense.”
This was another quote in the midst of all the disaster of Thursday’s meetings to get lost in the shuffle. But nothing explains the league’s position quite like this. If you and I negotiate over something, we’re going to reach a conclusion which is at some level, a win-win in most instances. Even if one of us wins more than the other, both sides are getting something out of it. If two companies negotiate a business deal, most often it involves satisfactory terms for both sides. That’s not what’s going on here. At all.
The implication from Silver’s statement can be interpreted as such:
“It doesn’t make sense for the players to win anything. It only makes sense for us to win everything. BRI, system, everything.” What’s more, considering the concessions the players have already made in negotiations, it’s not just winning. It’s “it only makes sense if we achieve total victory and win overwhelmingly.” This will not be news for most of you. But if you’re pondering the insanity of both sides being so close and not being willing to make a deal, this is a good explanation. It’s not about the win. They’ve got that. It’s about the rout.
- Former GM: Carmelo Anthony leaving in free agency would be ‘doing Knicks a favor’ 8
- Report: Cavaliers privately believe it’s not too late to lure LeBron back to Cleveland 11
- Report: Phil Jackson ‘leaning toward’ accepting offer to become Knicks president 39
- Paul Pierce’s move to power forward adds twist to his career, Brooklyn Nets’ season 5
- O.J. Mayo suspended one game for punching Pelicans’ Greg Stiemsma in the throat (VIDEO) 6