Is it time for David Stern to step down?

I know it's kind a knee-jerk reaction of a topic considering today's announcement but all the same, has the time come for fresh leadership at the top?

Adrian Wojnarowski penned this piece last week which basically called out Stern on his role in the continued rift between players and owners, suggesting he's the commissioner for the owners rather than everyone. It's not all on Stern, the owners and players have to play ball too, but he's obviously right there in the thick of things and isn't helping the situation much if, as Wojnarowski suggests, he's just fighting for the owners.

This is the second time labor issues have led to cancellations of regular season games under his watch. There's also been the debacle with the new ball a few years back (though they did revert to the old style), the scandal with Tim Donaghy and bewildering changes to the technical foul rules. None have completely ruined the game, but they haven't exactly done the league too many favours, either. Even in the case of the new ball where the league had enough sense to listen to the complaints and bring back the old ball, I recall Stern vehemently arguing the merits of the new ball against the people who would know best, the players.

The two lockouts that have cost the league games are the big ones though and in light of the most recent one, I think it's fair to wonder if Stern has lost his touch. If so, is it also fair to suggest that it's time for him to go?

For my part, I would say no...at least, not yet.

I think the good that he's done is too easily overlooked. The drug policy he instituted was absolutely a good move for the league; it's not going to prevent everyone from throwing their lives and careers away, but it seems to have gone a fair way in giving players incentive not to wash out as they did in the 70s and early 80s. The eras of Magic, Bird and Jordan certainly didn't hurt in propelling the league to new heights, but Stern obviously had the savvy to capitalise on the opportunity, expand the league's popularity worldwide and while there have been bumps in the road, the NBA has been quite successful during his tenure. He's had to make some tough decisions, some have panned out while others have not, but the league has done pretty well when it's all said and done.

He's also avoided potential labor stoppages a couple of times in the past, so he's not completely inept in that area. Bottom line, the league has had too much success under Stern for him to be a bumbling moron who managed to luck out more often than not. He's a smart man who does know how to run a major professional sporting league, but I'd say he's just a bit too pigheaded on some issues and in situations like the present lockout, that can potentially be quite costly for the league.

I believe he has to finish these negotiations, so even if he were to step down now isn't the right time. Maybe in a year or two and with a new CBA in place, it could be time for someone like Adam Silver or Stu Jackson to take over, though there's no guarantee they'd do a better job (Jackson being no stranger to controversy as one of Stern's executives). I don't think Stern stepping down tomorrow would do any good, I think ultimately he'll be able to work things out with the current lockout as he did in 1999 and can continue as an effective commissioner. For how much longer though, I'm not sure.

I'd say David Stern not only was/ is in charge during two lockouts - the last CBA (which brought the second lockout) took his fingerprints all over - he made some big mistakes with expansion teams too.
He reminds me a bit of a dinosaur in our times. He does not belong there (the same counts for Billy Hunter).
With a new kind of owners (like Jordan, Cuban, Prokhorov and Meruelo) may come new circumstances Dino David (and Brontosaurus Billy) might not really be able to adjust to (anymore).
So I agree that Stern should stay until there's a new CBA but he should also step down afterwards.
I disagree on Stu Jackson. In my opinion he is not that different to David Stern and I would not be surprised if both turn out to be the new Putin & Medwedew.

I atually wouldn't mind a fresh look to the league. Aside all Stern's issues, I would welcomes changes.

There is always an ongoing need for 'innovation' in order for the league to continue to be successful in that it needs to be continually marketed to stay at the top of its 'business' game and to be profitable. With that comes more opportunity for 'failures' as well as 'successes'. When I say innovation, it's not only about new marketing schemes, balls, rules, etc but also the regulation of the game and how the league is run. Stern has had more hits than misses as you have pointed out Andrew.

As for current situation - I am not an expert in it and the numbers really confuse me - but I will say that the league needs the owners more than the players and if franchises are really losing money substantially, we are not going to have a league. I think it's crucial and correct that Stern is on the 'owner's side' more than the players - he is trying to ensure the league continues to expand and provide a product for the fans. You may correct me if I am wrong as I am not certain that I have the right facts but my rationale stays the same.

My answer to your question would be a no.

There is a difference between opening up new markets and the expansion of the league. NBA did well do aim for the Chinese market but awfully failed with their last expansion teams. Also relocation of teams like moving the Hornets away from Charlotte to NO was not that kind of a good idea.
Maybe Stern had more hits than misses, but within the last few years the amount of misses grew faster than the amount of hits.
I agree with you Sit, that owners might be needed more than players (no owner->no payment->no player) but I'm not sure whether the league needs David Stern much longer...
The question I have is: who is to blame that the league/ franchises are losing money substantially? Surely, you can blame the owners for spending too much money on mid level players. But it's also a result of the last CBA, the one that made it possible for players to get 57 % of the BRI. I think we all know who negotiated on the owner's side back in 1998/99...

That's the thing though, who takes his place? You noted you weren't keen on the idea of Stu Jackson taking over, which is fair enough as he's as much Stern's right hand man as anyone else in the league front office. Would Adam Silver be much different if he were to take a step up the ladder? The clock is ticking on his tenure but I think he's got at least a few more years left.

I'd say David Stern not only was/ is in charge during two lockouts

Uh, there's been more than just two lockouts in the last 25 years.

But it's also a result of the last CBA, the one that made it possible for players to get 57 % of the BRI. I think we all know who negotiated on the owner's side back in 1998/99...

But the last CBA was negotiated in 2005 and 2006.

which basically called out Stern on his role in the continued rift between players and owners, suggesting he's the commissioner for the owners rather than everyone

lol wtf, do these people really not know who employs Stern and what his role is? He's an employee of the owners only, full stop. That's it, the players, the fans, they can go fuck themselves because they don't employ Stern and he doesn't have any reason to answer to them.

That's the thing though, who takes his place? You noted you weren't keen on the idea of Stu Jackson taking over, which is fair enough as he's as much Stern's right hand man as anyone else in the league front office. Would Adam Silver be much different if he were to take a step up the ladder? The clock is ticking on his tenure but I think he's got at least a few more years left.

I don't know enough about Adam Silver to say whether he'd be the better choice over Stern. Stern, at least, seems to get along with (most of) the owners pretty well. His successor would do well if he'd be able to do so too. As benji pointed out this should be more or less a choice owners will have to make...

@benji
As the 1999 and the 2005 version of CBA are much the same, I'd say the foundation of the leagues plight has been already laid in 1999.

lol wtf, do these people really not know who employs Stern and what his role is? He's an employee of the owners only, full stop. That's it, the players, the fans, they can go fuck themselves because they don't employ Stern and he doesn't have any reason to answer to them.

That is the unfortunate reality of the situation, sure, even if one would like him to act in the best interests of everyone.

I heard Charles Barkley and Reggie Miller on NBA.com say that part of why Stern and the owners are being too rigid is because they want a much tighter salary cap so that the league is not top heavy due to Star players banding together. If the league becomes too top heavy then a lot of fans will become discouraged from watching (especially casual fans) and they will lose even more revenue.

http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nba_tv/2011/10/11/20111011_chuck_reg_pt1.nba/

Give that a listen its very persuasive. Can anyone tell me what may be wrong with both of their point of view about the lockout?

Six teams have won 28 of the last 31 titles. Five teams have won 26 of them, four teams have won 23 of them.

The largest growth in the NBA came during 1980-98. Only five teams won titles during that period, the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls or Rockets were in every single NBA Finals except 1990. Similarly, Larry Bird, Magic, Jordan or Hakeem were in all those NBA Finals as well. Three of those four were super teams with Kareem/Magic/Worthy, Bird/McHale/Parish, Jordan/Pippen/Grant-Rodman. Another superteam in the 1983 Sixers won one of the titles.

Since, we've had the Spurs or Lakers in every NBA Finals except the two Heat/Mavericks matchups. Kobe, Shaq or Duncan have shown up in all but one Finals. Shaq/Kobe-Wade, and Duncan/Manu/Parker. KG/Pierce/Allen were in two of the last three before this year.

Back in the day you had basically a top heavy league with the Celtics, the Lakers/Hawks, and wherever Wilt was playing. Then the Lakers/Knicks/Bucks/Celtics at the start of the 1970s.

The only time there's ever been "real" parity was when the league was barely staying alive in the late 1970s. And the Bullets still went to three of the five Finals.

The Heat have been in the center of this lock out implicitly. They seem to be on everybody's mind despite it's been hapening in previous decades over and over.

It's true that casual fans are tuning in but is bad for Cavaliers. League wins while a small market team loses. You can't fault this on players. The league should share its profit little more wisely then.

If players want to band together as the Heat's trio did last season, they'll find a way. It might be a little tougher with a more restrictive cap in place but players willing to accept smaller deals to join together to try and win will still make the sacrifice. Likewise, teams will still find ways to make lopsided deals that end up placing two or three big names on one roster.

Could be happening within the next couple of years.

Insiders say that David Stern is planning to tell NBA owners at their April Board of Governors meeting that he's good for two more seasons, and that he'll step down as commissioner then. "At one point, he had talked about doing it for one more season, but it looks now like two more," said a league source. League suits say there probably won't even be a search conducted to find a successor and that deputy commissioner Adam Silver is a lock to succeed Stern, with one source saying Stern's lieutenant has the backing of almost 90% of the owners. All he needs is a simple majority.