Should Stern be allowed to comment on Lebrons legit choice?

[ziggy]

Why shouldn't he?  It's not his decision, he has no say, to me it is no different than asking anyone else in the league.

Stern doesnt want Lebron to leave because that small market team goes from popular back to no-ones-gives-a-f over the summer.

It is inappropriate for the LEAGUE commissioner to express an opinion about what he hopes or what he thinks will happen with any individual player.  He can have any opinion he wants, he should just keep them to himself.  It serves no purpose, and adds nothing to the process, except to create a perception that the commissioner may be influencing a process where he should not be involved. 

So I ask you WHY SHOULD HE?  Since it is not his decision, and he has no say, then he should avoid the appearance of a potential conflict.  If Phil Jackson was asked that question and he said he wished he would come to the Lakers, it would be defined as tampering.  This is the same thing.  It can be construed as tampering, and nothing of value comes from Stern offering his opinion.

Sorry Zig but Phil Jackson saying he would like a player to come to LA would not be defined as tampering.  There would actually have to be some evidence of a backroom deal for it to be labeled 'tampering'  Until that evidence popped up it would be a person expressing their opinion.  When Phil Jackson made it clear a few seasons ago he would like to have a Ron Artest playing for him it was nothing more than a coach expressing a need for a player that fills a role.  That wasn't tampering even after Ron showed up 3 years later.  Why?  Because it was still Ron's decision to go or not.   Just like it is still Lebron's decision to stay or go.  The league is not going to punish him for leaving.

Now I understand the argument that it COULD look like he is throwing his influence around.  The problem is what  is he going to throw around that Lebron wants?  Are you guys going down Reality lane in here where you think David Stern is doing a back room deal to promise Lebron a championship if he stays?  That and money are the only driving factors for Lebron right now.  Since the league already has made sure the Cavs can offer him the most money in rules put in place years ago that only leaves one thing.  I for one am not going to do down Reality Lane and act like David Stern is going to deliver a championship to Lebron, via his refs, if he stays in Cleveland.  So to me when David Stern says he hopes Lebron stays in Cleveland it's nothing more than a hope for the league as a whole to have a very popular small market team.  Since David Stern cannot guarantee him a title (and if you think he can why do you even watch basketball if its pre determined?) then it seems like nothing more than words to me.  You guys are sadly mistaken if you think David Stern's opinion ranks over a championship and money for Lebron James.

To answer your question 'Why should he' ?? Because he is entitled to have an opinion just like everyone else.

From Larry Coons FAQ on the NBA CBA

94. What is tampering?
Tampering is when a player or team directly or indirectly entices, induces or persuades anybody (player, general manager, etc.) who is under contract with another team to negotiate for their services. The NBA takes tampering very seriously and may impose stiff penalties if it is discovered, however the league will not investigate unless another team files tampering charges. Here are some examples:
?   The Miami Heat were discovered to have tampered with Pat Riley in 1995 by negotiating with Riley while he was still head coach of the New York Knicks. The Heat "settled," and avoided league-imposed penalties, by compensating the Knicks with $1 million and their first round draft pick in 1996.
?   After Will Perdue left San Antonio in the 1999 offseason to sign with Chicago, he commented to the press about the possibility of the Bulls signing Tim Duncan and/or Grant Hill in 2000. The league considered this to be tampering, and issued Perdue a warning.
You may have noticed that when general managers and other team personnel talk to the press, they are careful to avoid talking about specific players who play for other teams. They do this in order to avoid tampering.


Tell me how my example with Phil Jackson is any different than Will Purdue's?

As far as I said above, he is entitled to any opinion he wants, but in his position, there are opinions that he should keep to himself.  For a tin pot dictator like Stern to fine any and all players, coaches, owners for what they say, he should have the good sense to follow his own expectations for other league members, and be careful to avoid talking about specific players who play for other teams. They do this in order to avoid tampering.

In this case he should have approached as such;

Q  -  "What do you think about LeBron signing with another team or remaining in Cleveland".

A  -  "I won't comment on any specific player's free agent options, except to say that CBA was designed to give teams an advantage in resigning their own free agents, but those final decisions rest with the players and teams involved."

[westkoast]

Was the bold and underlining really necessary Ziggy?  Really?  I think maybe the time spend on adding that should have been spent at really looking at the difference between a TEAM/players trying to gain advantages over other teams by contacting players early and management of the league answering a question.  When teams and players are involved it is different.  They can actually offer things up, they can actually make things happen when it comes to paying out money.  That is really what it is about.   Stu Jackson can't offer a player anything and neither can David Stern.  A team can however and that is the difference.  When it comes to players and teams they are out for self and the franchise.  David Stern is out for the league as a whole.  That is why the rule is written the way it is.

As for the example you gave  between the Phil Jackson and the ones you stated is they actually had a talk..  There was actual talks to entice Pat Riley.  Will Perdue let out the bag that the Bulls wanted to go after Duncan hinting at being told by management they were actively going after him.  The team was using that to entice a player and that is tampering.   You are getting an unfair advantage over other teams by saying that Duncan is coming to your team early because it would entice players to go there..  Or that could hurt the Spurs chances of landing a player because Duncan might leave.   Could Phil Jackson say he would like Ron Artest to play for him entice Artest to join the Lakers?  Sure.  So could Carmelo Anthony saying Kobe is the greatest player in the league and he loves to play along side of him.  Same with Wade giving Bosh a lot of praise after the gold medal.   Is that really tampering with the players decisions in an illegal way?  Not in a league where money rules all because at the end of the day that is #1 in 98% of the players mind in this league.  You see no difference between 'I would like to have Duncan play for me because he's a great defender' and 'Duncan is going to Miami' ?

The rule doesn't apply to David Stern or anyone in the league front office so he can approach it any way he wants.  He is ALLOWED to give his opinion, just like you or I are.  David Stern cannot force Lebron to stay nor can he offer him anything to convince him to stay.  What the commissioner wants is so far removed from the players heads that there is no reason to assume he is tampering with anything.  Besides Ziggy, like Lurker pointed out, he didn't come straight out to say 'Lebron should stay in Cleveland' just like that.

[ziggy]

Was the bold and underlining really necessary Ziggy?  Really? 

Get over yourself.  I did that simply to make it clear what came from Larry Coons website, so as not to confuse what I wrote and what he wrote and nothing else.  I wasn't attempting to be a smart ass or anything else.

[westkoast]

Was the bold and underlining really necessary Ziggy?  Really? 

Get over yourself.  I did that simply to make it clear what came from Larry Coons website, so as not to confuse what I wrote and what he wrote and nothing else.  I wasn't attempting to be a smart ass or anything else.

Oh is that why you added the bold and underline to your own comments afterwards?  That is why I took it the way I did.  I know what you were trying to do.  I don't need you to bold things you think I need to pay attention to.

Tell me how my example with Phil Jackson is any different than Will Purdue's?

As far as I said above, he is entitled to any opinion he wants, but in his position, there are opinions that he should keep to himself.  For a tin pot dictator like Stern to fine any and all players, coaches, owners for what they say, he should have the good sense to follow his own expectations for other league members, and be careful to avoid talking about specific players who play for other teams. They do this in order to avoid tampering.

[Joe Vancil]

Mark me down as 100% in agreement with ziggy on this.

The problem is that the conduct Stern was engaged in technically falls under the category of tampering.

[Lurker]

From Larry Coons FAQ on the NBA CBA

94. What is tampering?
Tampering is when a player or team directly or indirectly entices, induces or persuades anybody (player, general manager, etc.) who is under contract with another team to negotiate for their services. The NBA takes tampering very seriously and may impose stiff penalties if it is discovered, however the league will not investigate unless another team files tampering charges.

Mark me down as 100% in agreement with ziggy on this.

The problem is that the conduct Stern was engaged in technically falls under the category of tampering.

And what team is Stern under contract with?

[ziggy]

From Larry Coons FAQ on the NBA CBA

94. What is tampering?
Tampering is when a player or team directly or indirectly entices, induces or persuades anybody (player, general manager, etc.) who is under contract with another team to negotiate for their services. The NBA takes tampering very seriously and may impose stiff penalties if it is discovered, however the league will not investigate unless another team files tampering charges.

Mark me down as 100% in agreement with ziggy on this.

The problem is that the conduct Stern was engaged in technically falls under the category of tampering.

And what team is Stern under contract with?

Come on Lurker I know you get the point.  If anybody from an existing team did what Stern did, Stern could have fined them, and there is a high degree of probability that he would have fined them, and the fine would have been substantial.  He fines lots of people for commenting on a number of league issues, and not small $ amounts.  He does that because he believes he is protecting the integrity of the league.  Don't comment on officiating "because that impugns the credibility of our officials, which creates a perception that our league may not be completely legit".  So it is OK for Stern to comment on things where he can and often fines other league members substantial amounts?  You don't see an inconsistency in that?  You don't see that as eventually creating a problem at some point down the road?

[Joe Vancil]

From Larry Coons FAQ on the NBA CBA

94. What is tampering?
Tampering is when a player or team directly or indirectly entices, induces or persuades anybody (player, general manager, etc.) who is under contract with another team to negotiate for their services. The NBA takes tampering very seriously and may impose stiff penalties if it is discovered, however the league will not investigate unless another team files tampering charges.

Mark me down as 100% in agreement with ziggy on this.

The problem is that the conduct Stern was engaged in technically falls under the category of tampering.

And what team is Stern under contract with?

Technically, every one of them.  And that makes his comment far, far worse.

Here's a good example for you, though:  let's say Phil Jackson, who is under contract with the Lakers, was asked, "What do you think LeBron should do?"  And Phil, after careful thought, says, "I think he should go to the Knicks."  Jackson's not specifically involved with Cleveland, James, or New York.  But that's still tampering.  How is that different?

In the best case, Stern represents the interests of the league as a whole.  However, the interest of a single team (for purpose of this example, let's say Milwaukee) may NOT represent the best interest of the league as a whole.  If Milwaukee is planning to pursue James, Stern's comment is directly in opposition to Milwaukee's goal of signing James.  If James stays put in Cleveland, it's better for the league, but Milwaukee could care less what's better for the league - they're supposed to be competing for their *TEAM*.  And Stern's words adversely impact them.

In the worst case, if the league is corrupt, Stern could be directing LeBron, "If you go to New York, we're going to miss out on great LeBron versus Kobe finals because New York just isn't good enough to make it to the finals right now.  That hurts us as a whole from a marketing perspective.  Cleveland's where we want them right now, and it's a franchise we can't afford to have go down the tubes."

There is *NO* good from Stern's statement, and there's a great deal of potential credibility loss.  For a league that is already starting to alienate fans and even some young prospects (who choose to go play (or sit) in Europe rather than go to college for a year - and let's not forget that the NBA now has a list of some pretty talented defections to Europe), and one that is still battling a credibility issue with its referees and the monitoring thereof, the league doesn't have credibility to waste.  It was a mistake for him to comment - AT MINIMUM.

[westkoast]

Joe, how does it make his comments far far worse? 

His job is to make sure the entire league does well.  Making a comment that rules the league put in place to help the original team keep their star is not a poor comment.  It is also something every single team in this league has access too.  The whole basis for their tampering rule is to stop one franchise from having an unfair advantage over others.  David Stern telling everyone the Cavs can pay Lebron more and offer him a longer contract is something everyone knows and everyone could take advantage of with their own star players.  Dallas is going to be one of those teams this off season.  Same with Toronto and Miami.  I don't see where the advantage the Cavs gain by David Stern saying what he did applies.

[Joe Vancil]

'koast,

It's far, far worse because it comes from someone who oversees the officiating, marketing, and scheduling of the entire league.  It's far, far worse because the person in question stands to gain from the result, which is why tampering is illegal in the first place.

If you feel Stern isn't involved, then why not Jackson in the case above?  Why would his statement be considered tampering?

Or, let's say you're the Lakers.  How would you have felt about Stern saying, "Well, Orlando can pay Shaq the most, so I hope he stays there, since that's what the rule is for"?

TAMPERING.  Bad enough when it's someone not involved, worse when it's someone who is POTENTIALLY involved.

How about this - what if LEBRON answers Stern by saying, "I just have to feel that Cleveland is going to be contending for a championship before I commit."  How does *THAT* look to the outsider?  Say it *BEFORE* Stern says anything, and it's completely innocent.  Say it afterward....

If Stern wants to talk about the *RULE*, fine.  If he wants to talk about the hopeful outcome of the rule, that's where the problem occurs.

[Lurker]

Come on Lurker I know you get the point.  If anybody from an existing team did what Stern did, Stern could have fined them, and there is a high degree of probability that he would have fined them, and the fine would have been substantial.  He fines lots of people for commenting on a number of league issues, and not small $ amounts.  He does that because he believes he is protecting the integrity of the league.  Don't comment on officiating "because that impugns the credibility of our officials, which creates a perception that our league may not be completely legit".  So it is OK for Stern to comment on things where he can and often fines other league members substantial amounts?  You don't see an inconsistency in that?  You don't see that as eventually creating a problem at some point down the road?

Yes, I get the point.  But the funny thing is that Stern made a general comment about the CBA being designed to allow teams to retain their stars and "everyone" wants to interpret that as the same thing as Stern saying LBJ should stay in Cleveland.

Also, Stern is the top dog.  The CEO.  The chairman of the board.  He sets the rules for the others to follow.  And he doesn't fine owners for saying the CBA does or doesn't do things.  He doesn't fine players for saying that their share of BRI is too low.  He fines players/owners for comments detrimental to the league.  Saying that he hopes the CBA works as designed is not detrimental to the sport.  Comparing a general comment about the CBA and criticism of the refs is like comparing hockey to figure skating.

[Lurker]

Technically, every one of them.  And that makes his comment far, far worse.

No, it makes it definately non-tampering. Because if he is under contract to Cleveland then he is free to talk about LBJ and his choices all day long.

Here's a good example for you, though:  let's say Phil Jackson, who is under contract with the Lakers, was asked, "What do you think LeBron should do?"  And Phil, after careful thought, says, "I think he should go to the Knicks."  Jackson's not specifically involved with Cleveland, James, or New York.  But that's still tampering.  How is that different?

Because as you stated Jackson is under contract with the Lakers.  And LBJ isn't.  You can't comment on anyone who is under contract to a team different than the one you are under contract with.

In the best case, Stern represents the interests of the league as a whole.  However, the interest of a single team (for purpose of this example, let's say Milwaukee) may NOT represent the best interest of the league as a whole.  If Milwaukee is planning to pursue James, Stern's comment is directly in opposition to Milwaukee's goal of signing James.  If James stays put in Cleveland, it's better for the league, but Milwaukee could care less what's better for the league - they're supposed to be competing for their *TEAM*.  And Stern's words adversely impact them.

How did Stern's words effect them?  I would hope that the owners in Milwaukee want the CBA to work the way it was intended.   Maybe if he goes to Milwaukee and says: "I hope the CBA works and the Bucks can retain Bogut."  then you will be happy.

In the worst case, if the league is corrupt, Stern could be directing LeBron, "If you go to New York, we're going to miss out on great LeBron versus Kobe finals because New York just isn't good enough to make it to the finals right now.  That hurts us as a whole from a marketing perspective.  Cleveland's where we want them right now, and it's a franchise we can't afford to have go down the tubes."

WOW!.  Joe, that is the longest stretch I have ever seen you make.  Stern came no where close to making that comment.  Stern made NO COMMENT about where he thinks or wants or desires LeBron to play.  His only comment was that he hoped the CBA worked and Cleveland would retain him.

[Reality]

Stern made NO COMMENT about where he thinks or wants or desires LeBron to play.  His only comment was that he hoped the CBA worked and Cleveland would retain him.

"Hopefully he'll stay," Stern said Monday before Game 2 between Cleveland and Boston in the Eastern Conference semifinals."

In saying he hopes James will stay with Cleveland he is in fact stating he thinks wants and desires Lebron to NOT play with the other 29 teams.
You cannot seriously be trying to state otherwise.

[Lurker]

Stern made NO COMMENT about where he thinks or wants or desires LeBron to play.  His only comment was that he hoped the CBA worked and Cleveland would retain him.

"Hopefully he'll stay," Stern said Monday before Game 2 between Cleveland and Boston in the Eastern Conference semifinals."

In saying he hopes James will stay with Cleveland he is in fact stating he thinks wants and desires Lebron to NOT play with the other 29 teams.
You cannot seriously be trying to state otherwise.

As typical, Reality, you cut just the part of the quote that you think supports your position.  I have pasted the WHOLE quote below so it can be read in context.  And I bolded Stern's words so there could be little confusion on whaat he said and commentary by the sportswriter.

"Hopefully he'll stay," Stern said Monday before Game 2 between Cleveland and Boston in the Eastern Conference semifinals. "That's the way the system is designed."

Stern helped negotiate the current collective bargaining agreement, which provides teams the ability to pay more and add an extra year for their own free agents. Stern is hopeful that will allow teams such as Cleveland to retain its stars.

"That's the way it should be," Stern said. "It allows teams to keep their own players."

He hopes that he stays in Cleveland because that is the "way the system is designed".  Because he thinks that "is the way it should be"; a system that allows "teams to keep their own players".

[Reality]

Doesn't change the context one iota.
No need for me to quote the whole thing.