Q&A: Adam Silver

Courtesy of NBA TV

Q. Adam, on playoffs and possible changes, when you read the room with your owners, what's the feedback? What kind of split might you have when it comes to the idea of change? And then do you think this postseason coming up will have any more of a ripple effect than maybe years past in terms of which teams get in? 

SILVER:  Obviously, Sam, just to be clear we're not talking about any changes for this year. 

In terms of our owners, I haven't polled them necessarily on this issue yet.  And this process should work its way through the Competition Committee.  As you might imagine, there are certain Eastern Conference owners who like the status quo and certain Western Conference owners who are saying change is due. 

But on the other hand, I think we have a group of owners who are willing to take a long‑term view ultimately.  They understand over time that we're in a highly competitive marketplace.  That we want to put our best foot forward.  That we want the best product on the court.  That's been the way they've approached all our issues. 

So as I said, I think it's a difficult issue, because there are no perfect solutions.  And on one hand to the extent you increase the amount of travel, it goes directly against my first issue on reducing wear and tear on our players, and ensuring that on any given night our players are playing at the optimum level.
It's early days but we're going to take a very hard look at it. 

Q. Adam, as far as your scheduling concerns, what role could a concentrated preseason play in helping with that issue? And how likely will we see some changes there soon? 

SILVER:  Actually in response to Sam's question, I have talked to a lot of our basketball people about the preseason.  And my sense is, that while they still feel a training camp and a fairly long training camp is still critically important, especially because we have a lot of young players in this league and there isn't a lot of practice time once the season starts, I think they don't think the preseason games are as valuable as they once were, in terms of the conditioning of their players, in terms of getting a chance to truly observe players in game conditions. 

So I could see a scenario where while we'll continue to have a fairly lengthy preseason, we may be able to shorten it a little bit, and that will help with some of our scheduling issues, and we may be able to reduce the number of preseason games. 

Q. Commissioner, Portland has put in a bid to host the 2017 or '18 All‑Star Game. What's the likelihood that they could get one of those dates and the challenges that they may have to go through? 

SILVER:  Too early to say.  What we've talked to Portland about and other interested cities for beyond Toronto, which is next year's All‑Star Game, is one of the issues historically for communities like Portland is frankly the number of hotel rooms. As I said, we have 1,800 credentialed members of the media alone in need of hotel rooms. Then we have thousands of guests who come to town as well. 

So I would love to end up having an All‑Star Game in Portland.  It's really just a function of ensuring that we can fit in town. 

Q. Adam, one of your clear objectives during collective bargaining was to competitively rebalance the league, give everyone a well‑managed and fair chance. But if the TV money all comes in all at once in two years, you could have a situation where the Lakers would have as much as $80 million of cap room. The Knicks could have 50.  Miami, although you don't consider that a large city, but still a free agent destination, could have 60 million in cap room. Did you anticipate this potential consequence of what's otherwise a good problem to have a lot of money coming in, but to also have an undoing of the progress made on competitive balance? And what is, in your opinion, a realistic, negotiated solution to the problem? 

SILVER: Well, when you say did we anticipate it, it's what our system is.  The players receive on a sliding scale roughly‑‑ it ranges from 49 to 51 percent, as we negotiated the deal.  And because of the revenue targets we hit, the players will receive 51 percent of the new television money. 

And so, no, at the time we negotiated the deal, we weren't projecting that our television increases would be as large as they are‑‑

Q.  I'm sorry. I meant when you negotiated the television deal. 

SILVER:  No, when we negotiated the collective bargaining agreement we weren't then anticipating that this many years out that we would have this quick a jump in our television rights fees, but that's where the market has taken us.  As a result of those big increases that we know will now come in in the 2016‑'17 season, we approached the Union with a so‑called smoothing concept.  And just so it's clear, under that smoothing concept, the players would still receive 51 percent of the money that year.  But what we proposed is that we would lower the cap, artificially as the Union has characterized it to a lower level, then what would otherwise be 51 percent of the revenue.  The delta between where we lowered it and the 51 percent would be paid in a lump sum to the Union to be distributed to all the players.  And in that way‑ and this goes to the essence of your question‑ there would be a smoothing in of the increases, and you wouldn't see a one‑year spike in the salary cap.
That's something we presented to the Union.  Ultimately it's up to them to decide what is in the interest of the Players' Association.  I have a feeling there will be additional discussions.  I know they had a meeting last night and they made an announcement following their meeting.  I haven't had a chance to engage with the Union directly since they had that meeting last night.  My sense is there will be additional discussions.  But ultimately that is what our system is under the current collective bargaining agreement. 

And it's like a lot of things in business and in sports that you sort of you deal with this situation as it's presented to you.  And I don't want to act like it's a terrible problem to have, where we're thrilled that based on the interest in the NBA we're able to command these big increases in the television market.  And we will live with our deal.  It was structured in a way where 51 percent of that revenue, in essence, gets paid to our players. 

Q.  Adam, with the scheduling, the making of the schedule, is there any discussion or will there be or can there be about the calendar simply starting earlier, ending later than what you already do, or are you pretty much locked into a Halloween start and a June 20th end and that's got to be the way it is? 

SILVER: Sure, Brian. And I think that goes to the earlier question about the preseason. Training camp is critically important to our teams. Could we shorten it up a little bit if we didn't have quite the same number of preseason games, and then add those days in the regular season, so we would gain a little bit at the beginning?  And the question is towards the end of this season, can we push a little bit further in June closer to the Draft? I think there had been discussions‑‑ well, I wouldn't characterize them as discussions.  I've heard proposals about them moving The Finals past the Fourth of July. Generally the view has been ‑‑ in addition it just feels out of sync once you get into the summer ‑‑  historically those haven't been viewed as the best television nights, once you get into July, and just in terms of households watching TV. 

I will say maybe that's something we should look at, too. If we're truly going to take a fresh look at this, we have to examine what the appropriate time is to begin the season and when we should end it. 

But at least without a major overhaul in the way our season is now played, you're right, we can gain a little bit at the beginning of the season. We can gain a little bit at the end. When it comes to four games out of five nights and back‑to‑backs, literally every day matters. So that will be helpful to pick up a few more days on both sides of the schedule. 

Q.  Adam, you've come out and said that you think that the age limit should go up to 20. Michele Roberts from the Union came out pretty staunchly that she doesn't want to see that happen.  First of all, how much was it a priority to you to resolve this one way or another within the breadth of issues you have within the Union? You can't really compromise here; I guess not 19 1/2.  Where do you see this going? 

SILVER: When you say it has to be resolved, obviously it's 19 right now.  We had proposed 20 the last round of collective bargaining. And it remained at 19. I've been very clear, when you say how big a priority is it for me? I think consistent with my priority about youth basketball.   think it would be much better for the game if the minimum age were 20 instead of 19. 

Having said that, I do understand the other side of the issue. While the Union has stated its view that they want to keep it at 19, we haven't entered collective bargaining. We haven't sat across the table and discussed it with them. We haven't had an opportunity to present, in essence, our side of why we think it would be beneficial not just for the league, but for the players as well. 

So we'll see. When we get into bargaining, I'm sure we'll discuss it. 

Q. The last few years there has been a pretty significant decrease in home‑court advantage for teams. I think this year it's around 52 or 53 percent in terms of win percentage. Some of that has been attributed to the fact that there's a decrease in number of foul calls for the home team. Is that something the League has pushed for with its referees in terms of trying to eliminate home‑court advantage or how would you characterize why that is taking place? 

SILVER: Tim, I don't know the answer to that question. It's definitely not something we've pushed for. I think it's one of those things that's too early to say whether that's just a statistical blip or whether there's a trend there. That's just the nature of data. And so there's certainly no directive about home or away. It just may be that the teams as they've gotten more sophisticated in terms of analytics, they have a better understanding of defenses and offenses. There's more of a focus on every game now maybe than there was historically. 

But I don't know the answer to that. 

Read More

Q&A: Nzinga Shaw, Hawks new Diversity and Inclusion Officer

Courtesy of Chris Vivalamore

Q. First, tell me about yourself. Where are you from? What is your background?
A. I am from Freeport, New York, which is in Nassau County. I went to Spelmen College so I’m so excited to be living here in Atlanta, Georgia. Spelman was my first time away from home and I just enjoyed my experience there. I did my graduate at the University of Pennsylvania. Then my professional career has been in Human Resources, most recently doing heavy diversity and inclusion work. I have worked at Essence Magazine, at the Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, at the National Football League and, most recently, led the diversity and inclusion strategy for Edelman, the world’s largest public relations company.

Q. Had you heard about what went on with the Hawks this summer? What was your reaction?

A. As an outsider looking in and as an African-American woman, initially I was disheartened and very disappointed with the events that took place. As time progressed as when the Atlanta Hawks organization wrote the open letter to the city with their intentions to rebuild trust and partnership in the community, they indicated they would be implementing a Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer role and my heart lit up and I became excited about the brand and I knew that with such a bold statement, particularly that statement being bold because there had never been such a role in the National Basketball Association, I became uplifted. I wanted to be a part of that change. The short way of saying it, is that I that I was initially disappointed and as time progressed I became excited and uplifted.

Q. Obviously, there are still these issues hanging over the organization. What do you see as the biggest challenge?

A. I think the biggest challenge is going to be getting people to understand the necessity and the value for this role. So there might be a contingent of people who are apprehensive about the role or may think that it’s just a PR stunt. So I think gaining trust and gaining relationships early on is going to be the greatest area for opportunity.

Q. You’ve been in a similar role in other organizations. How important do you see this position?

A. I see it as critical. I think that organizations that have a Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer are far ahead in terms of business strategy, in terms of really deepening the depth of talent that they have on board. Organizations that employee a diversity officer are very forward thinking and our thinking about the emerging communities that they serve, the global context of business and how important it is to interact with multiple constituents. I think this is the right step. I think this will mean so much. I see it as a true liaison between a number of departments in big business. It should not be housed in the human resources department. It is not an HR function. It is a business function that can serve as a community partner, can serve as an internal catalyst for change and for building a strong culture. It can serve as the eyes and ears of marketing and ticket strategy folks and thinking about how we portray our brand to multiple audiences. I find that diversity and inclusion happens to be critical in business, particularly in sports entertainment.

Q. Are there basketball specific elements of this position?

A. There will be basketball specific elements. I really look forward to partnering with the folks in basketball operations to understand how they are structured, understand who the players are from a human perspective and really put our heads together and collaborate and figure out where should we spend our time, where should we spend our resources, how can we utilize this strong team to help build the community.

Q. So much of what happened this summer has not been resolved. Ownership is still in flux and Danny Ferry’s position is still in flux. How much of that plays into your role?

A. My role is focused on moving forward. What happened in the past is unfortunate and the current people who are in place are well-equipped to get through it. My role is more strategic and looking forward. So, looking for opportunities, looking for ways to grow, looking for ways to continue to rebuild and looking for synergy with the community so that we can be the best and most respected team in the NBA and we can have the most inclusive culture in the NBA. That’s how I see this role and that is what the organization wants for this role.

Q. This is a difficult question, but, obviously the ownership situation will eventually be resolved. I wonder, can Danny Ferry come back to this organization?

A. I’m not in a position to offer a perspective on that. I don’t have enough information and I’m not equipped enough to give you an honest answer. I will refrain.

Read More

Q&A: Adam Silver

Courtesy of GQ

I'm not going to ask you a hundred questions about [NFL commissioner] Roger Goodell's handling of the Ray Rice scandal, because I realize you're not in a position to comment on someone else's problem. But I do want to ask you one: If placed in a position to advise Goodell, what would your advice be?

If Roger was to come to me—and he hasn't—my advice would remain confidential. And I'm not comfortable talking about what I would tell another league. We've had our share of issues, and—even before I was commissioner—I appreciated that other leagues didn't feel a need to pile on when we were having problems.

I'm certainly not pushing you to pile on. But when you see this happening to another commissioner, you must imagine yourself in that position.

That I do. I think about that all the time. But that's different than offering advice to the NFL. That's the NBA offering advice to itself. What can we learn from how this was handled? If we have a player arrested for domestic violence, how will we handle it pre-adjudication, when it's still an allegation? How do we balance the player's due process against the public clamoring for instant justice? While I don't want to offer advice to the NFL, there is a lot that can be learned here. We view ourselves as a learning organization.

Here's a simpler version of what I'm really asking: How do you approach the crisis management, when a mistake has already been made? When a problem happens and something goes wrong—how do you respond to the public relations nightmare?

Just as a general matter, we've learned that honesty, transparency, and directness with the fans and the owners is critically important. It's always important to seek advice from other people … when we were handling the situation with Donald Sterling, in those few days before we had to make our decision, I received some fantastic advice from other owners. And it wasn't a matter of what the fine should be or what the suspension should be. It was more from a process standpoint: How I should approach it, how I should view it personally. One of the benefits we have as a high-profile sports league is that virtually anyone will answer our calls. My advice is to get advice, and to get it quickly … And frankly, this is especially true with issues involving race. I bring my own perspective to those issues, but there are different perspectives: The perspective an African-American brings, or the perspective of an African-American of a specific generation, or the perspective of someone holding public office.

Does the NBA's racial inversion—the fact that the league is around 77 percent black, while American society is roughly 13 percent black—inevitably complicate every issue you face?

I don't try to put it aside. I try to deal with reality on its own terms. To act as if our league wasn't 77 percent African-American—or to ignore the predominantly white-male ownership—those variables become factors in what we do.

Give me an example of an issue that becomes more complicated because of that reality.

I'm not sure it complicates it, necessarily. Sometimes it simplifies things. In other industries, they might have to weigh these issues differently. Going back to Donald Sterling, here was a situation where nearly 80 percent of his employees were African-American. The fan base was also heavily African-American. So in that case, the racial component actually clarified my response.

But that raises a different issue: Let's assume that Donald Sterling had made the same kind of offensive comments, but not about African-Americans. What if he'd made similarly offensive comments, but not about race?

I'm not sure if it ultimately would have led to a different outcome. But here again, I'm just trying to deal with reality: Race is the third rail in this country, in my view. And while we may have ultimately done the same thing, prejudicial statements against other minority groups may not have the same media outcry, or the same reactions from sponsors, or the same reactions from fans. I'd like to think we'd protect those other groups as much as any other group. But the outcome also might have been different if you didn't have the president of the union, Chris Paul, playing for that team. Or if you didn't have someone as thoughtful as Doc Rivers as the coach. Or if you didn't have social media sharing that audio 10 million times in the first twenty-four hours. All of those things have a direct impact on the facts that are then presented to me.

What if Sterling had made those comments about Asian-Americans? Asians represent less than 1 percent of the league's players. Would that prompt you to consider the problem differently?

I think I would not be being honest if I said that if the comments had been directed toward another minority group in society, the response would have been the same. Again, it's hard to deal in those kinds of hypotheticals. But in this situation, there is no doubt that the racial composition of our league and the historical track record of the NBA were things we considered. I would like to think that if the league is tested in a similar situation—but that the target of the animus was some other ethnic group—that we would also react in the right way.

Your handling of the Sterling problem was almost universally supported. But I'm curious: How much discomfort did you have with the idea of stripping an owner of his franchise for having problematic social views? Were you worried about the precedent this decision would set?

Number one, it all happened so quickly. I heard the tape on Saturday morning, and Donald Sterling had been banned by Tuesday. And I was traveling at the time—I had a pre-planned trip to three NBA cities over that weekend. So in a way, I benefited from not having time to dwell on the greater societal implications of that decision. But thinking about it now, I am less concerned—precedentially—with the fact that an owner can be removed for his beliefs. I am more concerned with it from a privacy standpoint. I am mindful that this began as a private conversation between Mr. Sterling and a girlfriend. In some ways, this case was made easy for us, because that private conversation—completely unrelated to any acts of the NBA—was made public and widely distributed. So from the NBA's perspective, I was dealing with a public statement. But that is something I've thought about quite a bit. This did not originate as a business conversation. It was not intended for public dissemination. And in fairness to everyone in the NBA, we have to consider the appropriate lines. We're all entitled to our private thoughts, and even an occasional misstep or misstatement should not be career-ending.

Let's say the recording of Sterling and his girlfriend had been brought directly to the league office and was never disseminated to the public. The lack of attention would obviously not alter his internal belief system. How would that have impacted the response? You're essentially saying that his private statements matter more because someone else made them public.

That's a very good question. We still would have acted on it, even if it had not gone public. But it would have been a different circumstance. Again, in the case of Donald Sterling, we had the potential for immediate damage to our business. I was acting to protect the best interest of our business, in addition to doing what we believed to be right. Now, you raise a separate issue: What if there was a secret recording that only I was aware of, as we had in a situation with another team [comments made by Atlanta Hawks general manager Danny Ferry about a player, Luol Deng]—if there was an email that only a small group of people knew about? What is the response? … I think it's my job to handle the full complexity of every situation, as opposed to establishing bright lines that define how a league should respond. Every situation is going to be different. And the one thing we're all learning is that if something is supposedly private, but it has been recorded or videotaped, it's highly unlikely that it won't become public. So that's something else that must be considered. That's why leagues have commissioners' offices. I've had people tell me the league under-reacted to Danny Ferry's clearly inappropriate statement about Luol Deng. But at the same time, when I've asked them about how they felt about Paul George's clearly inappropriate tweet about domestic abuse, they say, "Well, I'm not sure if his contract should be terminated just because he put out a stupid tweet that he quickly apologized for." So I ask them, should there be a different standard for a GM who says something he immediately regrets?

You've said that nationalized gambling is now inevitable in this country, and that you have no moral problem with it, and that you want the NBA to be involved. All of that said, do certain aspects of this notion still worry you?

Absolutely. I have lots of fears, and a lot of them come from what's already happening now, which is widespread illegal sports betting on the NBA. That has existed forever, but now it's been mainstreamed. You can go to any search engine and put in "Bet NBA," and then spend your entire day looking at those sites with up-to-date point spreads and up-to-date information on who is officiating those games. If you enter your credit card, you can start making bets. Now, that might be illegal in the United States, outside of Nevada. But millions of people are doing it. So my view is that—if this is going to exist anyway—we're better off partnering in some way with the government, and the gaming companies, in order to regulate it. Both for the league and for the bettors. We need to insure that the information about injuries are properly reported and we need to make sure there is no inside betting from people who should not be allowed to make bets.

Do you have any thoughts about tweaking the game itself? Have you considered changing the dimensions of the court — perhaps slightly widening the width of the floor and the width of the foul lane? Or have those debates evaporated?

There are certain physical constraints with that, at least in the short-term, because of the construction of the arenas. But over time, those adjustments could be done. It's interesting you should ask about this, because I was just in Spain, watching the Basketball World Cup with Patrick Baumann, the head of FIBA. And we actually talked a little bit about this, as we were watching the championship game. We were looking out on the court and looking at the size and speed of the the players. I don't know if this is something that anyone in the NBA is currently pushing for, but it might be something we should continue to look at.

If you could instantly change anything about the NBA, without having to negotiate the terms or compromise your position, what change would you make?

I would have a harder salary cap. I still think it's unhealthy for the league when a team like Brooklyn goes out and pays an exorbitant luxury tax in order to give themselves a better chance to win. From a league-office standpoint, the ideal league would be for all thirty teams to compete based on the skill of their management and players, as opposed to one team paying more to get better talent. So creating a more even system would be at the top of my list. And I'll give you one more: I think it would benefit the league to raise the minimum age from 19 to 20.

Why can't you do that now? If it's possible to dictate that players can't sign until they're 19, why is making that age 20 any more complicated?

The reason we can't unilaterally do it is because it must be collectively bargained. We bargained with the union many years ago in order to move it from 18 to 19. Going to 20 was on the table during the last bargaining cycle [in 2011], but it was an issue we parked, having already lost several weeks of the season [due to the lockout], and we were anxious to get the season going. But it's something I hope to address in the near future.

What is the union's principal argument against raising the age limit? It seems like it would be good for everyone—the NBA, the college game, the physical development of the players.

Their principal argument is that it's a restriction on players. And as a philosophical argument, I totally understand that. Of course it's a restriction, in the same way a draft is a restriction. But our view is that it would make for a better league. You'd have more skilled players, more mature players. The draft would be better. It would be better for basketball in general. Strong college basketball is great for the NBA. And we know those players are eventually going to come to the NBA, whether they are 19 or 20 or 21.

Marijuana is legal in Colorado. A player from the Denver Nuggets can legally smoke weed but would be penalized by the NBA for doing so. What will you do if these drug laws continue to erode, state by state?

It doesn't force us to change our policy. Plenty of employers have rules against employees drinking, which is perfectly legal. This is a policy matter, and it's our strong preference that our players do not consume marijuana. We believe it will affect their performance on the court. That said, marijuana testing is something that's collectively bargained with the players' association, and we adjust to the times. But we're much more concerned about HGH testing and designer performance-enhancing drugs. Among our many priorities going forward, marijuana is not at the top of our list.

Read More

Q&A: Mikhail Prokhorov

Courtesy of Tom Lorenzo 

On Lionel Hollins: "He is a meat and potatoes coach with a great reputation, and what I like is that all the players really respect him," Prokhorov said." Hollins told the media that he has yet to meet face to face with Prokhorov, but Prokhorov did say that he "looks forward to meet him" during his current stay in Brooklyn."

On selling the team: "My position is that I will not give up control of the team. But, you know I'm quite happy when somebody sends me a nice offer without taking my control. For the time being nothing is imminent, but still I think it's not bad not to listen."

"I will not give up control of the team."

"From what we feel now, we have a lot of proposals to buy the minority of the team....and we're willing to listen."

On his investment in the Nets: "It's five times, six times more that what we spent, and that's why it's a very good business."

On losing $114 million in basketball operations last season: "It's not a big deal."

On whether he would buy Bruce Ratner's 20% share: "We have a great partnership with Bruce (Ratner). I will not speak for him."

On Jason Kidd: "You know, I think there is a nice proverb in English; don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you...I like what we have now. We have a really strong coach and a really strong GM in Billy King."

"You know, I think we shouldn't get mad, we should get even."

How often will he be in Brooklyn this year: "Twenty-five percent of the home games."

On not signing Paul Pierce: "I think that Paul Pierce is a great man, but we need to have some really experienced players and we need to have space for the youngsters."

On whether or not he has passion in owning the franchise: "It's a combination; it's passion, it's professionalism, and of course sometimes you need money."

Read More

Q&A: NBPA Union Director Michele Roberts

Courtesy of Chris Sheridan 

CHRIS SHERIDAN: “What’s the toughest negotiation you’ve ever been involved in as a lawyer?”

MICHELE ROBERTS: “The toughest I had was a homicide, where a client killed his wife or fiancee, the mother of his child, and confessed, and they had the murder weapon. There was no death penalty in D.C., but there was life without parole, and the guy was maybe 23 or 24. And I had nothing. Nothing. No leverage at all, and I wanted to get a plea offer to second-degree murder, because first-degree murder was mandatory 30 years to life. And I knew I couldn’t win. It was the most unsympathetic case in the world, and the prosecutor I had beaten in court earlier, so she was not throwing me any favors. And what I somehow managed to do, as it was a horrible domestic violence case where he literally killed her because he loved her, I somehow managed to convey that to the prosecutor. The guy had no record, he was kind of a blue collar guy, he just fell in love with a woman that just didn’t want to have anything to do with him anymore. And he just killed her. I convinced her that was what happened, and she gave him second-degree murder. Now, turns out he got 25 to life, he’s probably still in there or died in prison. But I remember thinking, my cat can do as good a job as I can, because I’ve got nothing. So that was the toughest.”

CS: “What are your thoughts on the age limit, restricting the age someone can come into the NBA to 19, instead of 18, as it once was.”

MR: “The word that is troubling to me, generally speaking, is ‘restriction.’ My DNA is offended by the notion that someone should not be able to make a living because he needs to have been alive a year longer. That’s Michele, not Michele NBPA executive director.”

CS: “So you are sympathetic to 18-year olds?”

MR: “I am. I know what it means to want to be able to make a living and support your family. (Emmanuel Mudiay) can’t play in his country because he’s not old enough. That makes no sense to me.”

CS: “Your thoughts on the max salary?”

MR: “I have difficulty with rules that suggest that for some reason, in this space, we are not going to allow you to do what is ordinarily allowed in every other aspect of American life – you can work and get compensated at the level that someone thinks you’re worth being compensated at. And for all the reasons that it might be reasonable, it still – as a base – the premise offends me. So for me, there needs to be a justification that is substantial. And I’m told that in large part it’s because there’s an inability on the part of some owners to control their check-writing habits. So that’s where I am. Now, there’s a history that led up to max contracts, and I’m not going to pretend it’s not significant. But if you ask me off the cuff, that’s my response.”

CS: “What about having rookies on a salary scale?”

MR: “It’s got to be consistent. If the genesis was that people were not able to control or limit show much they would be paying someone new to the league, is the answer to somehow artificially impose a scale? That would not have been my answer. And I would support any decision to revoke that schedule, but again, that’s Michele speaking.”

CS: “What do you think of the union’s giveback in the last CBA negotiations from 57 percent of revenues to 49-51 percent?”

MR: “I can certainly appreciate why (the players) are not happy. That’s a lot of money. And it’s hard for me to be critical because I wasn’t in the room, so I cannot say that it was something that was avoidable. But it’s certainly not a happy turn of events, and I get why the players are not of the view that they came out winners.”

CS: “Do you think it was justified by the fact that teams were losing money?”

MR: “Teams weren’t losing money.”

CS: “That was what they were telling people.”

MR: “Yes, that was the narrative. And I think recent events have proved that just wasn’t true.”

(UPDATE: The NBA is taking issue with this portrayal. From spokesman Mike Bass: ” “The NBA shared the complete league and team audited financials as well as our state and federal tax returns with the players union and those financials demonstrate the substantial and indisputable losses the league incurred during the last collective bargaining agreement.”)

CS: “What do you think of the way Billy Hunter ran the union?”

MR: “If he ran it the way the Paul Weiss report reflected he ran it, then he ran it poorly.”

CS: “What are some of the things he did wrong?”

MR: “He didn’t understand who he worked for. He worked for the union; he didn’t work for his family. He didn’t work to promote his own interests. He worked for the union, and the things he did clearly were not designed to affectuate the best interests of the union.”

CS: “Tell me three things that the players want.”

MR: “I can tie it up into this whole notion of fairness, but I think at the end of the day they want to be respected for the fact that they are what makes this game successful, and one of the ways to show that is to allow for fair compensation,. and any limitations on their ability to make as much money as either the teams or anyone else is prepared to pay them is unfair. You know, we don’t restrict the revenue that the owners are able to enjoy. They share it with us, but apart from that there aren’t these overlays that restrict how they can generate new revenue, or what they can do with the revenue. So I think when the players talk about wanting to be treated fairly, they want to be treated as the persons who are responsible for the product. I mean, they create the product.”

CS: “Guaranteed contracts. Billy Hunter used to say, ‘That’s the holy grail. They can take that out of my dead hands at my funeral.’ How do you feel about them?”

MR: “Well, I think you’ve identified something that Billy and I have in common. I think Kevin (Garnett) said it best: ‘Get off of that, Mark (Cuban). That’s not happening. That’s not changing.’”

CS: “Are you going to opt out?”

MR: “We are preparing to opt out. I mean it’s not my call., because unlike Billy I don’t think I run the union. This union is run by the executive committee, I serve at their pleasure, and I do what they command I do. I advise, and I will recommend. But at the end of the day, it’s not Michele Roberts saying to the executive committee: ‘Look, guys, get ready. We’re opting out.’ It doesn’t work  that way. So it’s not my call, but in the event the call is made, we will be ready. And we are preparing to opt out.

Read More

Q&A: Pistons Owner Tom Gores

Courtesy of Vince Ellis 

Question: The No. 1 topic that has dominated the entire off-season has been Greg Monroe. What are your thoughts on the contract impasse? (Monroe is a restricted free agent.)

Answer: “We think Greg is a great player. First of all, he’s done a really great job of establishing himself as a player in Detroit. He’s shown great respect to the city and as a young man he’s really done everything we could ask of him.

“With Greg we just believe in him. I’d like Greg to really get excited about being in Detroit because he deserves it. He’s really been good to the city. You’ve seen him. He’s good to the city. Stan is going to have to figure out exactly everybody’s role, but we’re believers in Greg Monroe. He’s not just a great player; he also has a good basketball character. I know it’s been a lot of the off-season stuff, but I’m a believer in Greg Monroe.”

Q: There’s a pretty substantial offer on the table (slightly better on a per-year basis than the four-year, $54-million deal Josh Smith signed last summer). Is there any disappointment that it hasn’t resolved itself and he hasn’t taken the offer yet?

A: “Of course we would like him to do that, but the fact is Greg has to decide what’s exactly right for him and he has great people representing him. We’d like Greg to get on board, but he’s got time to think about it and we should give him that time.”

Q: In your several years owning the team, you’ve developed good relationships with players. You have a good relationship with Monroe, Andre Drummond was at your birthday party this past weekend and when Brandon Knight was traded last summer you wrote a note to then-Bucks owner Herb Kohl asking him to take care of Knight. Where does that come from that you feel like you have to establish a good relationship with players?

A: “It’s the only way I want to do it. Brandon was a draft pick and he’s a great person, a great player, so I just think that they deserve a lot of honesty, they deserve a lot of support. As much as we talk basketball and we want to win, our guys put in a lot of time, so I did write a note to Herb and the reason I did it was because Brandon deserved that note because he’s such a good person.”

Q: What was the CliffsNotes version of the note?

A: “The CliffsNotes version was it was very difficult, but I just want to let you know that I’m sending you a player over there that’s a great person and he’s done everything that we’ve asked of him to deliver. Personally and professionally I believe in him. I just wanted him to know I wasn’t sending him off in anyway that was small or I didn’t think highly of him. He really deserved that. I like to make sure another owner knew what he was getting.”

Q: It’s been a newsy summer from a league perspective and the most recent thing would be the catastrophic injury suffered by Pacers small forward Paul George at USA Basketball camp. You have Andre Drummond and he’s moving on to Chicago to continue tryouts with Team USA. Does George’s injury give you pause?

A: “It’s always difficult in this kind of situation. As a Detroit Pistons owner you get worried, but at the same time there’s such a valuable experience that comes out of them being together as players, camaraderie for the country, camaraderie for themselves, a different purpose. I think there is a part of it that’s great for the players because it’s just winning for your team. There’s something bigger at stake and they’re not doing it for their contract or this or that.

“I’m not torn on it. The upside is for the players. Is their downside for teams? That’s possible. As just a business owner? It’s very possible, but at the same time you can take a guy like Andre Drummond who has the ability to have this experience with all these different guys who are going to play for their country and are really superstars, how would I ever take that away from him? At the end of the day, I think the guy should have the experience.”

Q: Do you see Mavs owner Mark Cuban’s point that there really isn’t a tangible benefit for the league to subsidize international basketball competitions?

A: “Tangibly speaking, he’s probably right. But the intangible, and this has nothing to with the league, the intangible of these guys who are selected is to have a special experience. They will get personal time with each other, they will build relationships that will be life-lasting and beyond basketball. So tangibly speaking ... Mark’s a very smart guy and he’s probably right. But intangibly, taking even the NBA out of the equation, I think we have to respect our players’ rights to do this and be involved in something like this. It is powerful worldwide.”

Q: Another happening was the Donald Sterling matter. It cast a cloud over the league during the playoffs. Commissioner Adam Silver was faced with a difficult challenge early in his tenure. How do you think he handled it?

A: “He did what he needed to do. That was a very, very tough situation and unique. He needed to stick up for what the league represents in terms of fairness and the right thing. I think Adam did what he had to do, and it seems like it’s proving itself out.”

Q: He had your full support in every decision?

A: “Absolutely. Everybody might approach it differently. I would have one approach vs. Mark vs. you vs. Adam or anybody else. I think he needed to draw the line and the idea in terms of what we represent in this league. I think he was put in a very tough position, and I think time is going to show he did the right thing.”

Q: Back to the Pistons. We are around the three-month anniversary of when you first sat down with Van Gundy to talk about the job. What do you like so far?

A: “I knew he was great. I didn’t realize how great he was. He’s a powerful guy, a great communicator. He’s delivered on every aspect of what I expected. The part of Stan that’s been very interesting is the way he engages with every single player and what they have to do in terms of going forward. Stan is not afraid to engage. Stan has great words, but what’s better about Stan is his actions. I’ve run a lot of businesses globally, and I can tell Stan understands how to make it happen.”

Q: The free-agent signings were targeted to address needs but lacked sizzle. Do you in hindsight wish this would have been the approach last summer when you made the splash of signing Josh Smith?

A: “Everybody has a different approach. One of things that I’ve really enjoyed about what Stan is doing is he’s connecting the floor to the front office, so everything he’s doing is about the way he’s going to coach it and the way he’s going to run this team and the way he’s going to move this franchise forward. He knows exactly what he’s doing.

“I have personally seen Stan be an executive. He has the ability to do both things. I know a lot of people question this, but I can tell you I’ve seen him in action. We all know he’s a great coach, but he’s a great executive. He’s a great leader. He’s very strategic.”

Q: With the numbers out there for some of the signings — Jodie Meeks and Caron Butler — some say you had to pay the Detroit tax, meaning you had to overpay for free agents. Is that true?

A: “We signed what we felt we needed. Most importantly, if you win, they will come. We have to get back to our winning ways. I think, in this year’s free agency, I think we got the guys we really needed. Stan knows that. I believe in his vision and it helps that he knows what he’s going to coach, but we have to find a way to win. Detroit 
is a great place to be, and I promise you it’s better when you’re winning.”

Q: Do you expect the playoffs? You’ve always been asked that question and people come back and throw it in your face when you don’t make the playoffs, but is that the expectation this season? (The Pistons haven’t made the playoffs in five seasons and are 83-147 in Gores’ three seasons of ownership)

A: “Every year I will tell you I expect our team to compete. One of the things that Stan and I talked about is to win, but don’t sacrifice the future. Stan understands.

“Now, am I willing to lose with Stan? Absolutely. Stan knows exactly what he’s doing. We’re on the same page in that we’re building for the future, but we want to win and we both we realize that’s what the franchise needs and we’re going to work toward it. I don’t think there’s going to be a year that I’m going to get up and say it’s not time to win. I don’t believe that organizationally. I don’t think it’s great for the players culturally.

“I believe in winning. If you get a little bit complacent and say this is a rebuilding year, what are you telling everybody? We want to win and we want to win badly. That’s what will ultimately create a championship.”

Read More