↓ Login/Logout ↓
Schedule/Results
↓ Roster ↓
Salaries
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

Dave Checketts’ NBA lockout comments all but prove he’s done with Pistons

Last we heard from Dave Checketts, he was probably finished working for the Pistons. David Aldridge of NBA.com:

He had only a two-month consulting arrangement with the team, according to sources — a deal that supposedly expired on July 31.

That “supposedly” always left a slight doubt, but Checketts’ radio interview yesterday all but proved he no longer holds a role with the Pistons. As transcribed by RealGM:

"The rumblings coming out of both the players side and owners side are suggesting there is a deal," said Checketts.

"I think this is heading in a positive light. This certainly could and has already in this negotiation over time, crashed into a wall. I get a different feeling about this. I think both sides have come together and are trying very hard to iron out the details and come out unified."

Checketts expects positive news to emerge on Thursday evening.

"I’ve received a couple of phone calls from friends who are very close to the process that say ‘we have a deal and it’s a matter of having everything straightened out."

I’d be totally shocked if Checketts commented publicly on the lockout while still working for an NBA team. Executive-types like him would be last on my list of NBA employees most likely to risk a $1 million fine for talking about the lockout.

By the way, a deal too end the lockout appears far from imminent, according to Marc Stein of ESPN. So, Checketts isn’t a Piston, and he isn’t right.

7 Comments

  • Nov 11, 201111:54 am
    by Laser

    Reply

    I miss basketball like one misses a drug to which one is only a little addicted that has a mild negative impact on one’s life. I can’t think of a relevant example.
     
    At this point, I do think it would be nice if fans could collectively say, “Ya’ blew it” and tell the NBA and NBPA to shut up and go away and have it sorted out by next year when we’re interested again. I think it would send the wrong message to welcome the league back with open arms at this point.
     
    And, yes, I’m about as much on the players’ side as is humanly possible, but there comes a point where they should just put their money where their mouths are and start their own league already. If the owners want to renege on contracts and the players are the true commodity here, grow some balls and invest your fortunes into a new league. It’s hard to take them seriously.

    • Nov 11, 201112:11 pm
      by tarsier

      Reply

      If the players were to start their own league, you have to realize that for at least the next half-decade, they probably wouldn’t be making half of what they would if they just agree to the owners’ proposal (and that is if they could make their own league work at all). It would be a really stupid move motivated entirely by pride and spite.

      • Nov 11, 201112:22 pm
        by tarsier

        Reply

        I should rephrase that. It would be stupid from a financial/economic perspective. I suppose I can’t fault the intelligence of someone who prioritizes other things over money. If the players think about it rationally and decide that pride and spite are more valuable to them than millions of dollars, more power to them, I would be disappointed but not resent them for starting their own league.

        • Nov 11, 20113:20 pm
          by Laser

          Reply

          I understand the situation. It won’t be easy, and it’ll be a rough road to hoe for a while. Honestly, over the long haul, if they played their cards right they could end up making WAY more money. But that would require a lot of work and patience and financial risk.
           
          Thing is, I think there’s plenty of money to go around with the league as it’s been run so far. The owners might have a leg to stand on in terms of the system being “broken,” but they’re going about it all wrong. You can’t just look at the fact that 22/30 teams lost money last year and blow the system to bits. Losing money is a risk they run owning a sports team, and they stand to gain the most if the league is successful. And besides, a bunch of the teams that lost money are to blame, not the system itself. The owners obviously want to have their cake and eat it too, twisting the numbers to restructure the system and make an absolute KILLING.
           
          So to that point, I’m with the players. They’re the draw here, and they deserve to get a fat share of the pie. And, above all else, the owners lost me completely by attempting to renege on contracts they already handed out. If the system was so badly and irreparably broken, they should have known better than to guarantee money they didn’t fully intend on paying. As a matter of principle, the players giving back money never should have been on the table.
           
          However, once it becomes clear that the owners don’t want to play ball (no pun intended), the players just start looking weak and stupid. There’s some saying about it being impossible to argue with a fool without becoming one yourself, and that’s where I’m at right now. I never took the owners seriously in the first place, and it’s getting harder and harder to take the players seriously either.

          • Nov 14, 20119:54 am
            by tarsier

            “attempting to renege on contracts they already handed out”

            While I see your point, tachnically no NBA player is under contract. Their contracts are subsidiary to the CBA, so unless the new one stipulates otherwise (which of course it will), all of their contracts are over and expired right now. Adding something like an amnesty clause merely says that the league will renew most of the expired deals but not all of them.

            I hate the term “give backs.” If I buy a gallon of milk today for one price and for a lower price next week, the store has not given me anything back. It isa  completely new and separate deal.

          • Nov 14, 20114:59 pm
            by Laser

            Well, i understand the technicality and the fact that it’s all predicated on a continuum of ever-changing CBAs, but the principle is the same. They had an understanding on how much money was to be paid, and if there was a smooth transition from one CBA to another, the contracts would be unchanged. It strikes me as sort of a bullshit backdoor out to give out a contract without the full intent to pay it, just because technically there will be a renegotiation period in a year or so.

  • Nov 11, 201112:33 pm
    by Jacob

    Reply

    Like I said on Twitter last night – Checkett’s was simply referring to the deal the NBA and NBAPA had reached on what pizza to order for dinner last night. Everyone took it out of context and ran with it.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here