Jerry West describes Silver's Durant comments as "unfair"

[WiggyRuss]

Well, I'm pretty sure when a quote starts with the words "I THINK" it is safe to say that is an OPINION rather than fact.

very true. very true LAD- great point.

I will go with Adam Silver on this one. You can side with TrojanFan12 and ChiefsLakers67....i feel VERY COMFORTABLE with that. LOL. to each their own.

which party has more credibility? The reigning NBA Commissioner- or those 2 guys? I guess thats a matter of opinion too....

i know what mine is....

 

[Black Adam]

You were destined to be a Lawyer.

You are the King of the Red Herring defense.

What does anything quoted in this article have to do with Stern's Power being autonomous?

I mean, that is the actual word you used.

Me: Stern did not have complete autonomy to unilaterally make decisions, hand out punishments.

You: He made everyone billionaires.

Me: that's great, you are right, he's a great business man but worked within the power granted by the Owners.

You:


:

At the risk of sounding repetitive...

"ahem"...

"if you CAN'T dazzle 'em with your brilliance"...

baffle 'em with your bullshit..."

 

[LAD]

very true. very true LAD- great point.

I will go with Adam Silver on this one. You can side with TrojanFan12 and ChiefsLakers67....i feel VERY COMFORTABLE with that. LOL. to each their own.

which party has more credibility?

but, the point is not where your comfort level is. The point is this was NOT proof and really couldn't be used as a supporting factor of your initial claim that Stern was autonomous.

 

[WiggyRuss]

but, the point is not where your comfort level is. The point is this was NOT proof and really couldn't be used as a supporting factor of your initial claim that Stern was autonomous.

very true...its just the opinion of the reigning NBA Commissioner who worked by Stern's side for years saying the job is more like a CEO's than that of a cops- which is PRECISELY what i said. You are free to take reigning NBA Commissioner ADam Silver's word for whatever you think its worth.

 

[Black Adam]

very true. very true LAD- great point.

I will go with Adam Silver on this one. You can side with TrojanFan12 and ChiefsLakers67....i feel VERY COMFORTABLE with that. LOL. to each their own.

which party has more credibility?

huh, so you PROVED Stern had the power over the owners...?

must've missed that somewhere...

 

[WiggyRuss]

You were destined to be a Lawyer.

You are the King of the Red Herring defense.

What does anything quoted in this article have to do with Stern's Power being autonomous?

I mean, that is the actual word you used.

Me: Stern did not have complete autonomy to unilaterally make decisions, hand out punishments.

You: He made everyone billionaires.

Me: that's great, you are right, he's a great business man but worked within the power granted by the Owners.

You:


:

you are correct Mecca...

like Obama---- the people grantedh im the power to be president--- so they are the ones actually in charge right?

Me and you and joe fabeets have WAYYYY more power and influence on national policy than Obama does by your logic...lol....such a horrible horrible argument.

of COURSE STern has to keep in mind his constituency- just like anyone voted to ANY position--- which is the owners- but to act like he was a cop that acted without autonomy as commissioner is just so frightfully wrong its insane.

 

[Black Adam]

very true...its just the opinion of the reigning NBA Commissioner who worked by Stern's side for years. You are free to take his word for whatever you think its worth.

Translation: "i'm as wrong as wrong can be. and no amount of massively worded articles and my own filibuster is going to change that".

trust me, we ALL know...

 

[WiggyRuss]

huh, so you PROVED Stern had the power over the owners...?

must've missed that somewhere...

that its undisputable the most powerful person in the history of hte league and hte person who has had the most effect on molding the league is David Stern. You seriously think thats not true?

 

[Black Adam]

that its undisputable the most powerful person in the history of hte league and hte person who has had the most effect on molding the league is David Stern. You seriously think thats not true?

DO keep trying to move the goal posts, WiggityWack...

You're the one that went with the "autonomy" angle...

you're flopping like a fish outta water...

 

[LAD]

very true. very true LAD- great point.

I will go with Adam Silver on this one. You can side with TrojanFan12 and ChiefsLakers67....i feel VERY COMFORTABLE with that. LOL. to each their own.

which party has more credibility? The reigning NBA Commissioner- or those 2 guys? I guess thats a matter of opinion too....

i know what mine is....

But I think it's all subjective when no proof can be provided that one side or the other is absolute. That is what we're all trying to say.

 

[Black Adam]

But I think it's all subjective when no proof can be provided that one side or the other is absolute. That is what we're all trying to say.

he knows EXACTLY what we're trying to say...

the boy ain't foolin' a single soul...

 

[CitySushi]

To me this argument is pretty pointless because the NBA is set up in a system of checks and balances that regulate each entity.

The Owners have to approve any rule changes or game play that the NBA League wants to implement.
The League can sanction the players and fine them for things because of the CBA.
The CBA allows players protection of their rights against the league and the ownership.

While the League pretty much verifies details of trades and they go through an approval process to make sure the numbers match up. Other than the one time Stern vetoed a trade, there have been none made based on competitive balance or things like that. Stern's trade veto was an anomaly because of the pending sale of the franchise. Basically the trade should have never happened in the first place and Stern was rectifying that. He was doing his job by protecting the future owner of the team by not allowing a fire sale to devalue the franchise before they had a chance to take over. It wasn't about the Lakers getting better. That's just ridiculous. There have been far more lopsided NBA trades that have happened that never were vetoed.

Did Stern have influence? Absolutely. But it was always Ownership that had to agree on any drastic changes to the league. It wasn't as if Stern was just gun slinging everything he did. What Stern did was drive a ship in which everyone was in agreement that the direction he was going was the right one. It wasn't as if Stern was left unchecked, but more so his moves were all deliberate and mostly correct for the growth of the NBA.

 

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

you are correct Mecca...

like Obama---- the people grantedh im the power to be president--- so they are the ones actually in charge right?

Me and you and joe fabeets have WAYYYY more power and influence on national policy than Obama does by your logic...lol....such a horrible horrible argument.

of COURSE STern has to keep in mind his constituency- just like anyone voted to ANY position--- which is the owners- but to act like he was a cop that acted without autonomy as commissioner is just so frightfully wrong its insane.

Oh, I know I'm correct and so do you ...lol

You keep droning on about things that nobody else is contesting.

But, you keep ignoring the point that you stated that Stern had complete autonomy, your words, and you are wrong.

You can keep posting your unicorns, flying pegasus and Gryphons.

But, it doesn't distract from the fact that you are wrong.


Silver was pressed about why Sterling has not been punished previously, especially in light of two major lawsuits against him—one a federal discrimination lawsuit stemming from his practices as a landlord in 2003, the other a lawsuit by former Clippers executive Elgin Baylor in 2009.

Silver pointed out that in the ’03 case, Sterling wound up settling. And in the ’09 case, Baylor ultimately lost.

It’s wrong to think that the league just didn’t care about what an odious presence Sterling was during that time—a league source told SN that commissioner David Stern had, more than once, considered ways in which he could oust Sterling.

Stern knew he would be on shaky legal ground in going after Sterling, that only a narrow reading of league bylaws would open a legal path to forcing Sterling out based on cases that had been settled or in which Sterling had prevailed. The bigger challenge was that he did not have the support of Sterling’s fellow owners—that’s ultimately the group Stern was overseeing. The NBA swallowed hard and tolerated Sterling.

 

[WiggyRuss]

he knows EXACTLY what we're trying to say...

the boy ain't foolin' a single soul...

it does not surprise me that this is a over your head....

To me this argument is pretty pointless because the NBA is set up in a system of checks and balances that regulate each entity.

The Owners have to approve any rule changes or game play that the NBA League wants to implement.
The League can sanction the players and fine them for things because of the CBA.
The CBA allows players protection of their rights against the league and the ownership.

While the League pretty much verifies details of trades and they go through an approval process to make sure the numbers match up. Other than the one time Stern vetoed a trade, there have been none made based on competitive balance or things like that. Stern's trade veto was an anomaly because of the pending sale of the franchise. Basically the trade should have never happened in the first place and Stern was rectifying that. He was doing his job by protecting the future owner of the team by not allowing a fire sale to devalue the franchise before they had a chance to take over. It wasn't about the Lakers getting better. That's just ridiculous. There have been far more lopsided NBA trades that have happened that never were vetoed.

Did Stern have influence? Absolutely. But it was always Ownership that had to agree on any drastic changes to the league. It wasn't as if Stern was just gun slinging everything he did. What Stern did was drive a ship in which everyone was in agreement that the direction he was going was the right one. It wasn't as if Stern was left unchecked, but more so his moves were all deliberate and mostly correct for the growth of the NBA.

i think IDEALLY thats how it would work CS- but functionally it did not/does not work that way in real life WHATSOEVER.

think about what you just wrote--- after he is voted in as Commissioner- if the owners HATE something he is doing- they need a MAJORITY to stop him- kind of like Congress being able to over-ride the veto of the President by a 2/3rds vote. Functionally- that just DOESNT HAPPEN....

when you are like 2 decades into your job as CEO- and you have taken the league from not a pot to piss in- to insane wealth- and you KNOW where all the bodies are buried- you are untouchable- which is absolutely where David Stern was.

when you are Commissioner for 3 decades- you absolutely amass that type of unchecked power which Stern regularly exercised.

 

[LAD]

that its undisputable the most powerful person in the history of hte league and hte person who has had the most effect on molding the league is David Stern. You seriously think thats not true?

So lets take the example of Obama- that you've introduced into this convo. If Stern is the most powerful person in the history of the league- couldn't the President of the US fall in the same category? And if you agree with that, then would you also agree that the "owners" in the league are something akin to congress?

And exactly how much government "work" has Obama been able to get done when congress doesn't back his ideas/plans? About as much as Stern was able to get done against Sterling, yes?

The only reason Silver was finally able to move against Sterling was because he made a mistake- a mistake that was able to be used against him and convinced the majority of the other owners to side with the commissioner.

The point being, the most powerful person is nothing without the support of his/her constituents. It was designed that way to serve as a balance of power.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Oh, I know I'm correct and so do you ...lol

You keep droning on about things that nobody else is contesting.

But, you keep ignoring the point that you stated that Stern had complete autonomy, your words, and you are wrong.

You can keep posting your unicorns, flying pegasus and Gryphons.

But, it doesn't distract from the fact that you are wrong.


Silver was pressed about why Sterling has not been punished previously, especially in light of two major lawsuits against him—one a federal discrimination lawsuit stemming from his practices as a landlord in 2003, the other a lawsuit by former Clippers executive Elgin Baylor in 2009.

Silver pointed out that in the ’03 case, Sterling wound up settling. And in the ’09 case, Baylor ultimately lost.

It’s wrong to think that the league just didn’t care about what an odious presence Sterling was during that time—a league source told SN that commissioner David Stern had, more than once, considered ways in which he could oust Sterling.

Stern knew he would be on shaky legal ground in going after Sterling, that only a narrow reading of league bylaws would open a legal path to forcing Sterling out based on cases that had been settled or in which Sterling had prevailed. The bigger challenge was that he did not have the support of Sterling’s fellow owners—that’s ultimately the group Stern was overseeing. The NBA swallowed hard and tolerated Sterling.

im glad to know that me and you and Joe Fabeets are more powerful than Obama since we are the ones that ultimately voted him into office!!

lets hold his feet to the fire and get some reduced taxes and help for those syrian refugees!!! LOL.

 

[WiggyRuss]

So lets take the example of Obama- that you've introduced into this convo. If Stern is the most powerful person in the history of the league- couldn't the President of the US fall in the same category? And if you agree with that, then would you also agree that the "owners" in the league are something akin to congress?

And exactly how much government "work" has Obama been able to get done when congress doesn't back his ideas/plans? About as much as Stern was able to get done against Sterling, yes?

The only reason Silver was finally able to move against Sterling was because he made a mistake- a mistake that was able to be used against him and convinced the majority of the other owners to side with the commissioner.

The point being, the most powerful person is nothing without the support of his/her constituents. It was designed that way to serve as a balance of power.

do you know what the term "imperial presidency" means?

ill let you look it up - i am guessing you are at least a few years older than me- hence it would have been a popular catch phrase during the time you went to high school.

not only that- but one of the biggest criticisms of Obama his enemies have propesenity to push is that Obama has "acted outside of the constitution" by issuing executive actions- that THEY SAY he doesnt have the power to do....well?-- he does them anyway...why? because he CAN.

how you even define "traditional powers" of the commissioner is pretty irrelevant becuase there has only been 1 in 30 years so whatever "traditional" means doesnt really matter----- but whatever the scope of those traditional powers were at one point 3 decades ago--- Stern has FAR surpassed that scope and acted outside of it on his own for a LONG LONG LONG TIME.

 

[CitySushi]

it does not surprise me that this is a over your head....

i think IDEALLY thats how it would work CS- but functionally it did not/does not work that way in real life WHATSOEVER.

think about what you just wrote--- after he is voted in as Commissioner- if the owners HATE something he is doing- they need a MAJORITY to stop him- kind of like Congress being able to over-ride the veto of the President by a 2/3rds vote. Functionally- that just DOESNT HAPPEN....

when you are like 2 decades into your job as CEO- and you have taken the league from not a pot to piss in- to insane wealth- and you KNOW where all the bodies are buried- you are untouchable- which is absolutely where David Stern was.

The part that gets me is that instead of the assumption that Stern was untouchable, that maybe the league/ownership gave him the benefit of the doubt in his judgement calls. This wouldn't be unreasonable seeing as each of their franchise grew in value exponentially over his term.

Ultimately the Commish has limited powers to enact anything on his own. He had to have the backing of the owners who are his bosses. You could argue the Ownership gave him the benefit of the doubt on everything, but to realistically say he controlled everything without any sort of governance would be a bit of a stretch.

 

[Black Adam]

it does not surprise me that this is a over your head....

i think IDEALLY thats how it would work CS- but functionally it did not/does not work that way in real life WHATSOEVER.

think about what you just wrote--- after he is voted in as Commissioner- if the owners HATE something he is doing- they need a MAJORITY to stop him- kind of like Congress being able to over-ride the veto of the President by a 2/3rds vote. Functionally- that just DOESNT HAPPEN....

when you are like 2 decades into your job as CEO- and you have taken the league from not a pot to piss in- to insane wealth- and you KNOW where all the bodies are buried- you are untouchable- which is absolutely where David Stern was.

no worries. wasn't " over my head" anymore than you saying Stern was absolute power. keep going, though...

this shit writes ITSELF...

 

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

To me this argument is pretty pointless because the NBA is set up in a system of checks and balances that regulate each entity.

The Owners have to approve any rule changes or game play that the NBA League wants to implement.
The League can sanction the players and fine them for things because of the CBA.
The CBA allows players protection of their rights against the league and the ownership.

While the League pretty much verifies details of trades and they go through an approval process to make sure the numbers match up. Other than the one time Stern vetoed a trade, there have been none made based on competitive balance or things like that. Stern's trade veto was an anomaly because of the pending sale of the franchise. Basically the trade should have never happened in the first place and Stern was rectifying that. He was doing his job by protecting the future owner of the team by not allowing a fire sale to devalue the franchise before they had a chance to take over. It wasn't about the Lakers getting better. That's just ridiculous. There have been far more lopsided NBA trades that have happened that never were vetoed.

Did Stern have influence? Absolutely. But it was always Ownership that had to agree on any drastic changes to the league. It wasn't as if Stern was just gun slinging everything he did. What Stern did was drive a ship in which everyone was in agreement that the direction he was going was the right one. It wasn't as if Stern was left unchecked, but more so his moves were all deliberate and mostly correct for the growth of the NBA.

Yeah....you won't find a single post that challenges what Stern has done for the NBA.

This all started when I disputed the fact that Stern had full autonomy.

He doesn't.

Then Wiggyruss started posting Unicorns to distract us from the fact that he either misspoke, or has no idea what the definition of autonomous is.