Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: “Power Play for Howard” case study.

Prepare a 600 word case analysis of “Power Play for Howard” :


Prepare a 600 word case analysis of “Power Play for Howard” on Juwan Howard's perspective(benefit,cost, risk)




This is the Case Study to Power Play Howardr

Nothing less than the future of the Washington Bullets hung in the balance on the
evening of July 11 when Juwan Howard, the club’s all-star free agent forward, arrived at
agent David Falk’s headquarters in Chevy Chase Pavilion to solicit $100 million contract
offers from National Basketball Association team executives.
Outside, on Wisconsin Avenue NW, the Bullets held a We-Love-Juwan rally for
rabid fans desperate to keep their young star in Washington??"a city that hasn’t had a
winning NBA team in nine years. Inside, in Falk’s private office??"adorned with Michael
Jordan??"autographed basketballs and other client memorabilia??"Howard braced himself
for a long night of high-stakes negotiating.
Bullets General Manager Wes Unseld got first crack at Howard??"a courtesy Falk said
he was extending to the club as “the incumbents.” It soon became clear, however, that incumbency,
like loyalty, had limited value in professional sports. Shortly after 7 p.m.
Unseld offered a seven-year, $78.4 million contract. Lucrative as it was??"the offer
amounted to more than $136,000 per game through the 2002??"2003 season??"Howard considered
the proposal far below his market value. He loved playing and living inWashington,
and the thought of leaving brought tears to his eyes even as he dismissed Unseld’s offer.
Yet leave he would. By dawn, Howard had begun seriously contemplating a move
south to play for the Miami Heat, which ultimately trumped the Bullets with a sevenyear,
guaranteed $100.8 million deal??"the biggest in the history of team sports, garnished
with luxury hotel suites and limousine service for the 23-year-old Howard during road
trips. The Bullets’ most promising player in a generation was gone, and with him hopes
of resuscitating the club’s fortunes.
But Howard’s tears would prove premature and the Heat’s huge offer only the opening
gambit in one of the most intricate and controversial episodes in recent sports history.
Over the next 30 days, Howard would sign with Miami only to have the contract
invalidated by the league, triggering a bitter sequence of threats, legal maneuvers, and
shifting alliances. The final outcome would prove a colossal windfall for the Bullets:
When Washington opens its 1996??"97 season Friday in Orlando, Juwan Howard will be
wearing his familiar No. 5 on a red, white, and blue Bullets uniform.
This turbulent saga??"recounted here following extensive interviews with Howard,
agents, league officials, union representatives, and team executives??"illuminates the extent
to which pro sports have become a tangle of emotion and fiscal logic, on-court talent
and off-court financial calculation.
The unprecedented case also featured an unusual collaboration between two traditional
adversaries, the NBA and the players’ union, the National Basketball Players
Source: This article is reprinted courtesy of The Washington Post. Copyright © 1996, The Washington Post.
Reprinted with permission. Originally published as “A Power Play for Howard, in Many Acts” on October 27,
1996, by Bill Brubaker and Mark Asher.
Lewicki??'Barry??'Saunders:
Negotiation: Readings,
Exercises, and Cases, Fifth
Edition
Cases 3. A Power Play for
Howard
© The McGraw??'Hill
Companies, 2007
Association. It featured the repudiation, first by the league and then by Howard, of one
of basketball’s most charismatic, cunning, and successful coaches, Pat Riley, who is also
the Heat’s president. By taking strong and decisive action against Riley and Heat owner
Micky Arison, the NBA may have brought Washington’s franchise back from the
dead??"a critical development for a club that will change its name to the Wizards next
year and move into a new, 20,600-seat downtown arena, the MCI Center.
During a summer in which free agent bidding took the never-never land of NBA
salaries to new heights, Howard’s odyssey ultimately became the story of a favorite son
who briefly sought his fortune elsewhere but ended up returning to the fold??"perhaps
wiser and certainly much, much richer. Buoyed with a nine-figure contract from the
Bullets, Howard celebrated by buying a $230,000 Ferrari sports car and a luxury suite at
MCI Center and by contemplating his dream house: a Washington-area mansion with
eight bedrooms, indoor and outdoor swimming pools, a bowling alley, theater, and
basketball court. “I want elevators inside my house,” Howard would explain. “That’s
always has been a dream of mine.”
“This was about bucks,” Unseld said in his office next to USAir Arena, a computer
printout of NBA player salaries by his side. “No matter how you want to put it, I think
that’s eventually what it came down to.”
A Sour Start
Howard’s summer of 1996 “fiasco,” as he has called it, had its roots in the summer of 1994
when the Bullets drafted the 6-foot-9-inch University of Michigan junior. Howard wanted
a six-year, $24 million deal, considered the going rate for the fifth player chosen in that
year’s draft. By agreeing, the Bullets could have locked Howard into a long-term contract.
But during negotiations in the sunroom of Bullets owner Abe Pollin’s house in
Bethesda, John Nash, then the club’s general manager, essentially told Howard he wasn’t
worth it. Nash (who resigned under pressure in April) later offered Howard an 11-year,
$37.5 million deal with the option of becoming a free agent after his second season, in
1996. Howard considered the below-market offer “totally unfair,” but he accepted it
and soon established himself as a valuable NBA commodity, averaging 19.8 points,
8.3 rebounds, and 3.6 assists per game over the two seasons.
Howard’s game was more than statistics, however. With a positive attitude and strong
work ethic, he became a guiding light for less disciplined teammates. Off court, he donated
time and money to charitable causes and community projects. Polite and soft-spoken,
Howard was untouched by controversy until this May, when a Detroit woman filed a paternity
suit alleging he is the father of her 4 1/2 -year-old son. Howard has denied the allegation.
A blood test taken by Howard indicated there is a greater than 99.99 percent probability
he is the child’s father, according to a lab report filed in court by the woman’s attorneys.
Knowing that Howard would become a free agent this year, players from opposing
teams playfully began recruiting him during games last season. “Grant Hill was recruiting
me, telling me what Detroit had,” Howard said in an interview earlier this month. “Alonzo
[Mourning of the Heat] and Patrick [Ewing of the New York Knicks] were recruiting me
at the All-Star Game. I just laughed, man. I just said, ‘Yo, this seems like college recruiting
all over again.’ It felt good to feel wanted.”
A Power Play for Howard 617
Lewicki??'Barry??'Saunders:
Negotiation: Readings,
Exercises, and Cases, Fifth
Edition
Cases 3. A Power Play for
Howard
© The McGraw??'Hill
Companies, 2007
Howard insisted that he wanted to remain a Bullet. “He’s theirs to lose,” said agent
Falk, 46, a George Washington University law school graduate whose client list at Falk
Associates Management Enterprises (FAME) includes Jordan, Mourning, and Ewing. In a
half-page ad in The Washington Post, Pollin promised Bullets fans, “We will do everything
we can to keep Juwan with us in Washington. . . . We love Juwan Howard.” Howard and
his agents could not open negotiations with clubs until a new collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) was signed this summer. In early July, with the moratorium still in effect, Falk
deliberately sent the Bullets a signal by telling a Washington Post reporter he expected
Howard would sign for $15 million to $20 million a year ($105 million to $140 million
over seven years, the maximum term allowed under the new CBA).
One minute after the new labor agreement was finalized at 4:59 p.m. on July 11, the
NBA’s free agent marketplace officially opened. So began a competition that in tone and
tension resembled a cross between a television game show and a Turkish bazaar. That
evening, a parade of free agents and team officials converged on FAME’s eighth-floor
headquarters at Chevy Chase Pavilion. Offers for various players were scrutinized by
Falk’s 36-year-old partner and fellow lawyer, Curtis Polk, in what the agents called their
“War Room”??"an inner sanctum with a computer main-frame, three laptops, and six
telephone lines. But most of the action would unfold in Falk’s private office, watched
over by a framed Sports Illustrated magazine cover featuring Falk and Jordan.
Between 5 and 7 p.m. Falk quickly negotiated a one-year, $30 million contract that
would keep Jordan playing for the Chicago Bulls. Then he turned to Howard.
Unseld, a wide-bodied, 6-foot-7 Hall of Famer who led Washington to its only NBA
title in 1978, immediately notified Howard, Falk, and Polk that he alone would represent
the Bullets. Howard and his agents asked for assurances that the Bullets’ coaching staff,
headed by Jim Lyman, would be retained. Unseld said it would. Howard also asked how
the Bullets intended to improve a team that hadn’t made the NBA playoffs for eight
years. Unseld disclosed that he was trying to acquire Rod Strickland, one of the NBA’s
top point guards.
Unseld, who had replaced Nash as the Bullets’ general manager only two months
earlier, then offered Howard a seven-year, $78.4 million contract. The proposal stirred
little enthusiasm among Howard or his agents, and after Unseld left Falk’s office, Polk
said there was no chance Howard would play again in a Bullets uniform. The assessment,
with its ring of cold finality and implication of abrupt change, was upsetting to
Howard, who began to cry.
But the press of business beckoned. Between 8 and 10 p.m. the Detroit Pistons’ top
basketball executive, Rick Sund, discussed his interest in Howard, followed at 11 p.m.
by Knicks General Manager Ernie Grunfeld, who had flown to Washington in the team’s
Gulfstream jet. Neither made a firm offer that evening.
At 2 a.m., Howard slipped off to take a nap. As he dozed, the Heat, represented by
Riley, a club lawyer and two vice presidents, negotiated with Mourning, their prized,
6-foot-10, free agent center. Of 160 free agents on the market, the Heat rated Mourning
and Howard third and fourth most desirable, respectively, after Jordan and the Orlando
Magic’s Shaquille O’Neal, who ended up with the Los Angeles Lakers.
Riley asked Mourning to sign a one-year contract at less than market value to help
the Heat create more room under the salary cap. Mourning dismissed the proposal.
618 Case 3
Lewicki??'Barry??'Saunders:
Negotiation: Readings,
Exercises, and Cases, Fifth
Edition
Cases 3. A Power Play for
Howard
© The McGraw??'Hill
Companies, 2007
Riley said he then assured Mourning that after “taking care of some business” with other
players, “I will make you the highest-paid player on the team.”
At that moment, the seeds of controversy were planted.
Under the CBA, club officials are forbidden to make undisclosed agreements,
promises, “representations, commitments, inducements . . . or understandings of any
kind” with players. The prohibition aimed to prevent clubs from circumventing the rules
of the league’s salary cap, which limits spending on players to keep teams competitive
with one another; in general terms, the cap restricts teams’ payrolls to $24.3 million for
the 1996??"97 season. The CBA also requires teams to report immediately all player
contracts??"oral or written??"to the league.
Riley would later contend, bitterly, that his pledge to Mourning was proper because
it contained no specific dollar figures??"an interpretation of the CBA supported by the
players’ union but disputed by the league.
Shortly before 3 a.m. Mourning left the room and Howard walked in. “All the guys
were very tired,” Riley recalled, “and it was very, very serious in there. We all knew we
were going to be talking about a lot of money.” Riley tried to lighten the mood by
recalling how his brother had represented him in his first negotiation as an NBA player
in 1967. “Before going into the room, my brother looked me in the eye and said, ‘Just
think, Pat! You’re going to earn $17,000 a year!’ ” Riley told Howard and his agents.
The Heat’s opening bid for Howard was $84 million over seven years. For several
hours the two sides haggled. By the time the session broke up around 6 a.m. on Friday,
July 12, Riley had increased his offer to $91 million plus $3.5 million in bonuses and
some perks. The Heat executives shuffled off to breakfast, then to their hotel, the ANA,
on M Street NW.
At noon, Howard returned to Falk’s office to review the offers. The Bullets initially
were eliminated from consideration; Howard had been impressed by Riley, who had won
four NBA championships as the Lakers’ coach. But Howard could not easily shrug off his
feelings for the Washington club, and it was decided to give the team another chance, what
Falk called “the court of appeals.” Howard asked to meet Pollin at his house in Bethesda.
At 5 a.m. Howard, Falk, and Polk joined Pollin, Unseld, and club president Susan
O’Malley in the sunroom where Howard had his first negotiation with the Bullets in 1994.
Pollin announced to his guests that Unseld would make one last offer, and warned that the
Bullets wouldn’t exceed that “by a dime.”
The Bullets executives left the room for a few minutes to confer. When they
returned, Unseld increased his seven-year offer from $78.4 million to $84 million. “Wes and
Susan said they had studied the numbers and . . . this is what they could afford,” Falk said.
“They had given Juwan an ultimatum.” (Pollin declined to be interviewed for this article.)
The meeting broke up before 6 p.m. Back at FAME’s offices Howard again cried as
he considered the take-it-or-leave-it negotiation at Pollin’s house, which echoed his first
contract talks two years earlier. Regret gave way to irritation. “I couldn’t believe this
was happening again . . . despite that I gave 100 percent on and off the floor for the franchise,”
Howard said. “Abe Pollin had made that promise to the people that he would do
anything it took??"anything possible??"to make sure Juwan Howard stays in Washington.”
Howard told Falk and Polk that Miami was his top choice, but he wanted the Heat to up
the ante. Within an hour Riley was back in Falk’s office. The Heat now offered $95.2 million
A Power Play for Howard 619
Lewicki??'Barry??'Saunders:
Negotiation: Readings,
Exercises, and Cases, Fifth
Edition
Cases 3. A Power Play for
Howard
© The McGraw??'Hill
Companies, 2007
plus $6 million in bonuses, but Howard wanted more perks. Riley agreed to the hotel suites
and limos, as well as an extra $5,000 to help Howard sponsor a summer basketball camp.
Still, Howard’s agents pressed for more.
“You’ve got to stop this,” an exasperated Riley finally demanded. “Every time
I walk out of the room and come back in there is something else. Please. It’s over with,
OK? This is the final offer.”
Riley left around 8:30 p.m. Falk and Howard phoned Unseld at his Baltimore home.
Do the Bullets have any room to compromise? Howard wanted to know. For three hours,
Unseld floated various suggestions for increasing the value of his offer, such as deferred
payments. But Falk would have none of it.
“Can you do any more?” Howard finally asked.
Unseld was out of ideas. “No,” he said.
“OK,” Howard said, “I guess there’s no more to talk about. Thank you for two great
years. And good luck to you guys.”
Howard hung up and turned to Falk. “Call Pat Riley,” he told the agent.
Miami Bound
Around 1 a.m. on July 13, the phone again rang in Riley’s room at the ANA Hotel.
Howard was on the phone.
“Coach,” he told Riley. “I’m coming to Miami.”
Howard reviewed the Heat’s offer, point by point, with an elated Riley. The final
deal would amount to $100.8 million in cash, plus perks. “Then they began to ask for a
little bit more,” Riley later recalled. “Silly things. I said, ‘You need [more game] tickets?
OK, we’ll give you a couple more tickets. But let’s move on, OK?’ ”
In Falk’s office, Howard exchanged champagne toasts with new teammate Mourning
and FAME staffers. Falk declined to disclose FAME’s cut for negotiating the Howard deal
other than to say it was less than the maximum 4 percent agents can charge under the
labor agreement.
Yet an apparently ironclad deal still seemed to have some wiggle room. Unseld
talked to Falk by phone that afternoon.
“Is it a done deal?” the Bullets executive said he asked. Falk said no.
Later, Falk phoned Unseld again. “Falk gave me a figure and says, ‘If you guys did
this . . . ’ ” Unseld recalled. “And I thought that was strange because I thought it was
finished with us.”
Falk said later he never suggested Howard was open to new offers, and Unseld concedes
he may have misinterpreted Falk’s signals. Nevertheless, Unseld phoned Pollin at
his Virginia farm, and the Bullets’ owners agreed to increase the club’s offer from
$84 million to $94.5 million.
Unseld said he then phoned Falk only to have the new offer rejected. But Falk said
he recalls no new bid on the afternoon of July 13, and he accused the Bullets of using
“spin control . . . to make it look like they were really close” to signing Howard.
The next day, the Bullets renounced their rights to Howard??"conditional on him
having a valid contract with the Heat??"in order to have room under the salary cap to sign
free agent forward Tracy Murray. In the coming days the Bullets also would acquire free
620 Case 3
Lewicki??'Barry??'Saunders:
Negotiation: Readings,
Exercises, and Cases, Fifth
Edition
Cases 3. A Power Play for
Howard
© The McGraw??'Hill
Companies, 2007
agent forward center Lorenzo Williams and, in a trade with the Portland Trail Blazers,
point guard Strickland and forward Harvey Grant. But the club was being lambasted by
Washington fans and media for losing Howard.
On July 17, Howard flew to Miami in a private jet to sign his new contract. At a
news conference that evening, Howard called his new contract a “blessing” and his
relationship with the Heat “like a marriage.” The signing, he said, was the most important
day of his life, after graduation day in Ann Arbor, Michigan, last year.
The Unraveling
Riley had little time to celebrate: NBA investigators were heading his way. In an interview
on July 16 on ESPN, Mourning left the impression that he had an agreement with
the Heat. Asked if his new deal was for “$100 million plus,”Mourning said, “Yeah, it is.”
If Mourning had such an agreement, the Heat had not notified the NBA as required.
A new Mourning agreement would have dramatically shrunk the room Miami had
under the salary cap to sign Howard. And that would jeopardize the validity of Howard’s
contract. Riley and Falk again insisted no deal had been finalized. (Mourning declined
to be interviewed for this story.)
The NBA hired Robert Del Tufo??"a former New Jersey attorney general who also
had once prosecuted mobsters and Russian spies as a U.S. attorney??"to determine if the
Heat had circumvented salary cap rules. Had the team made an undisclosed deal with
Mourning, possibly as early as last November, when the club obtained him in a trade
with the Charlotte Hornets?
Del Tufo and two other lawyers flew to Miami to interview Heat executives on July
24. Riley insisted there were no undisclosed deals. But a week later, on July 31, the
NBA’s chief legal officer, Jeffrey Mishkin, phoned Arison, the Heat’s owner, to tell him
the NBA had disapproved Howard’s contract because the club could not fit Howard’s
first-year base pay of $9 million under the salary cap. Mishkin told Arison the Heat had
improperly made an undisclosed agreement with Mourning and used his previous, less
lucrative contract to calculate the room the club had available to sign Howard. The team
also had miscalculated the portion of incentive bonuses in two other free agent deals??"
for guard Tim Hardaway and forward P. J. Brown??"that should have been counted
against the cap, Mishkin asserted.
Under the CBA, a club can offer a player performance bonuses that are unlikely, in
the club’s estimation, to be achieved. “Unlikely” bonuses ultimately are not charged
against the cap. The CBA defines “unlikely” bonuses as those based on achievements not
attained the previous season by a player or his team. The CBA also gives the NBA commissioner
authority to contest any “unlikely” bonus he considers to be, in fact, probable.
Riley had given Brown and Hardaway “unlikely” bonuses. One incentive, for example,
would pay Brown $1.5 million if the Heat won either 27 home games or 43 total
games this season. The Heat deemed that “unlikely” because the franchise never had
won more than 26 home games or 42 total games in its eight-year history.
But the league, noting that the Heat had significantly improved its prospects by signing
Howard, disagreed. Mishkin told Arison that those bonuses, now deemed “likely,”
shaved $2.5 million from the Heat’s payroll ceiling, thus invalidating the Howard deal.
A Power Play for Howard 621
Lewicki??'Barry??'Saunders:
Negotiation: Readings,
Exercises, and Cases, Fifth
Edition
Cases 3. A Power Play for
Howard
© The McGraw??'Hill
Companies, 2007
Riley was stunned by the news. He denounced the ruling as “unconscionable,” one
that “dismantled” his team. As a “partner” of the Heat, he asserted that the NBA had a
“fiduciary responsibility” to alert the club if the Howard deal was in jeopardy. “Every
team in this league pushes the envelope a little,” Riley said. “And then you talk to the
NBA and they say, ‘You can’t go that far.’ ”
Owner Arison, who had tangled with the league before, was equally upset. In 1995
the league had fined him $1 million??"and taken his top 1996 draft choice??"for recruiting
Riley while he was under contract to the Knicks. Miami officials speculated that
NBA Commissioner David Stern may have disallowed the Howard contract to punish
the Heat’s relentlessness or to bail out Pollin’s flailing franchise.
“We’re not mistake-free,” Arison, who also owns Carnival Cruise Lines, said in an
interview. “I don’t think we made mistakes greater than many teams have made, and
we’re being punished greater than any team’s ever been punished for similar mistakes.”
The NBA office was unmoved. The league could not alert Miami to potential problems
with the Howard deal, an NBA official said, because it only learned of the Brown
and Hardaway details after their contracts were signed.
Stern, in his first public comments on the Howard case, said he judged the case
solely on its merits. “We took our action because that’s what the facts before us required
us to do. . . . If the Heat is unhappy, get on line,” he said in an interview last month.
“At a meeting of 29 owners you would get unanimity that I have it in for all
29 owners,” Stern added. “If you’re not prepared to have all of the teams mad at you,
you’re not doing your job.”
622 Case 3
Over the Cap: The Dispute between the NBA and the Heat
Issue Miami’s Version NBA’s Version
Salary cap $24.3 million $24.3 million
All other Heat players $4.26 million $4.26 million
Alonzo Mourning $6.84 million* $9.4 million**
Tim Hardaway $2 million $3 million
$2 million salary $2 million salary $2 million salary
$2 million bonuses $2 million unlikely bonuses $1 million likely bonuses,
$1 million unlikely
P. J. Brown $1.7 million $3.2 million
$1.7 million salary $1.7 million salary $1.7 million salary
$1.5 million bonuses $1.5 million unlikely bonuses $1.5 million likely bonuses
Juwan Howard $9 million $9 million
Total $23.8 million $28.86 million
($500,000 under cap) ($4.56 million over cap)
*Heat’s figure??"representing 150 percent of Mourning’s salary last season, in accordance with new collective
bargaining agreement??"was based on its contention that it had not made agreement with Mourning before
making agreement with Howard.
**NBA’s figure??"representing salary league believed Mourning would receive in 1996??"97??"was based on
league’s decision that Heat had made undisclosed deal with Mourning before it made deal with Howard.
? Areas of dispute.
Lewicki??'Barry??'Saunders:
Negotiation: Readings,
Exercises, and Cases, Fifth
Edition
Cases 3. A Power Play for
Howard
© The McGraw??'Hill
Companies, 2007
The Heat is Off
In a news release on July 31, the NBA stated that issues raised by the Howard matter
would be resolved by arbitrators jointly selected by the league and union. The Heat,
however, had at least as much at risk under arbitration as Juwan Howard. Under a worstcase
scenario for the Heat, if an arbitrator and appeals panel upheld the NBA’s allegations
regarding the alleged Mourning agreement, the league could void Mourning’s
contract, fine the club $5 million, suspend Riley for a year, take away draft picks??"and
still leave the Heat without Howard.
While the NBA was disapproving his contract, Howard was en route to Miami to
shop for a house in Coconut Grove, a picturesque community on Biscayne Bay. Howard
planned to visit a Mediterranean-style house on the water??"a location that would even
let him take a boat to practice. But as Howard stepped into the airport terminal, one of
his agents told him of the latest trouble.
Howard rushed to the Heat’s downtown offices, where Riley assured him the NBA’s
allegations were false. “We’ll fight these charges like hell because we’ve been wronged
here,” Riley told Howard.
With Arison looking on, Howard hugged Riley. “Coach,” he later quoted himself as
saying, “I’m behind you guys 100 percent.”
That evening, Howard joined Riley at Paulo Luigi’s, a trendy restaurant in Coconut
Grove. But in the next several days the warm relationship between new player and new
team quickly cooled. Howard concluded after discussions with Polk that if he backed
Miami and the team lost a protracted fight with the league, other NBA clubs might have
as little as $40 million or $50 million to offer him for seven years. In effect, he would
take a $50 million pay cut and become, he said, “a laughingstock.”
That house on Biscayne Bay suddenly lost its appeal. Riley found he couldn’t get
Howard to return his calls.
“I mean, this is a business,” Howard later explained. “Yes, indeed, I believe in loyalty.
But I believe in loyalty in the sense that it has to be done right and make sure that I
don’t lose in no kind of fashion.”
Falk had gone to Europe and Israel on a long-planned family vacation, leaving Polk
to sort out Howard’s future. Polk tried to sort through the key issues. Could the Heat prevail
in arbitration? Possibly, Polk believed, but it might take two months. But if the Heat
lost the arbitration, Howard stood to lose tens of millions.
The Bullets could sign Howard only if the league restored the team’s “Larry Bird
rights.” The CBA provision, named after the former Boston Celtics star, allowed
teams to exceed the salary cap in order to re-sign their own players. The Bullets had
lost their “Bird rights” to Howard when they renounced him. But if the rights were
restored, the Bullets would have no limit on the sum of money they could pay
Howard.
On August 1, the NBA declared Howard a free agent. Howard instructed Polk,
“Wait for word on the Bullets before coming to an agreement with any team.”
The next day, Unseld phoned Pollin, who was in Atlanta for the Olympics.
“If we can get Juwan, we could be a very good team,” Unseld said.
“Do what you want to do,” Pollin responded. “Do what you have to do.”
A Power Play for Howard 623
Lewicki??'Barry??'Saunders:
Negotiation: Readings,
Exercises, and Cases, Fifth
Edition
Cases 3. A Power Play for
Howard
© The McGraw??'Hill
Companies, 2007
Unseld had tried not to second-guess himself over the earlier Howard negotiations??"
the media and irate fans had done plenty of that. But now he had a chance to make
amends. “I’m sure if I looked back on it,” he subsequently said, “I would find plenty of
mistakes. . . . I choose not to do that because if I did I would drive myself crazy.”
The league was driving the Heat crazy. On August 2, NBA Deputy Commissioner
Russ Granik told Arison by phone that based on his understanding of the CBA the Heat
would be unlikely to regain Howard’s services through arbitration. “You will not get
Juwan Howard,” Granik declared, according to Heat officials.
Later that day, the Heat obtained a temporary injunction prohibiting Howard from
signing another contract unless it recognized the validity of the Miami deal. The injunction
named the NBA and Howard as defendants. Howard was angry at the Heat for not
forewarning him. “Where’s the loyalty there?” he demanded.
The players’ union agreed with the Heat that the Hardaway and Brown bonuses
were “unlikely” and that Mourning did not have an undisclosed agreement. But the
union disagreed with Miami over whether Howard should be allowed to re-sign with the
Bullets.
On August 3, as the league and union were completing an agreement to restore the
Bullets’ Bird rights, Unseld prepared to negotiate his second-chance contract with
Howard. Polk, concerned that Miami would impose further legal obstacles, phoned
Howard in his hometown of Chicago and advised him to return to Washington. Howard
arrived that night.
Monday, August 5, was triumphant for the Bullets, disastrous for the Heat. The
league and union agreed that if a player signs a second contract after his first deal has
been disapproved, the second contract is the valid one, making arbitration moot. The
deal, which would apply first and foremost to Howard, was intended to protect players
against financial losses in disputes between the NBA and its teams.
In Howard’s case, the league and union also agreed to restore the Bullets’ Bird
rights and allow Murray and Williams to remain with the Bullets. If the club re-signed
Howard, however, it would forfeit its 1997 first-round draft choice.
Riley, ever more furious, accused the league and union of “getting into bed together”
in an “unholy alliance.”
On the afternoon of August 5 Unseld phoned Polk. “We got our Bird rights restored.
Why don’t you come on over?” Unseld said, according to Polk.
Pollin agreed to match the terms of Howard’s $100.8 million Miami deal??"adding
$4.2 million to cover Maryland taxes because Florida has no state income tax??"even
though Howard seemed to be in a decidedly weaker negotiating position. “We wanted a
happy player,” Unseld said.
Howard’s seven-year, $105 million Bullets contract??"contingent upon the resolution
of the Heat’s legal challenges??"took but 30 minutes to negotiate. Unseld refused,
however, to match Riley’s offer of hotel suites and limos. “I didn’t want him getting
picked up in a limousine and everybody else getting on a bus. It’s as simple as that,”
Unseld explained. “Everybody else in a regular room and one guy in a suite? I don’t
think it makes for the chemistry of a team.”
Before signing the contract, Unseld took Howard aside. “He wanted to see where
my head was at,” Howard said. “He wanted to see, Did I have any grudges against
624 Case 3
Lewicki??'Barry??'Saunders:
Negotiation: Readings,
Exercises, and Cases, Fifth
Edition
Cases 3. A Power Play for
Howard
© The McGraw??'Hill
Companies, 2007
him? . . . I told him, ‘Hell, no.’ Excuse my French. I said, ‘No. You guys had to do what
was best for the organization and make a bright business decision for yourselves. And I
had to do the same thing for me.’ ”
Shortly after 10 p.m., Riley called Polk at his Rockville home. Though arbitration
was now a remote possibility, Riley still hoped for a final meeting with Howard. “We
needed Juwan to tell us, ‘If I go down the road with you and you win [arbitration] I will
come to Miami,’ ” Riley said.
Polk refused, and the conversation turned ugly. “Riley told me, ‘You’re a shrinking
violet. . . . You’re a coward,’ ” Polk said. Riley said he does not recall making those
comments, but added, “We had some very, very heated discussions.”
For Riley, the battle was over. Without Howard in his corner, he said, “we had
nobody to fight for anymore. . . . And that’s where you had to cut bait.” Riley remained
furious at the league for allowing Washington to recover from its mistake. “The league
built a team in Washington, basically,” he later charged.
Falk said the Heat fell victim to a league intent on “dealing very sternly, no pun
intended” with clubs that pursued free agents too aggressively and to a union “not in a
strong enough position to do battle with the league.”
“The league had the whole thing wired; the league forced Miami to settle,” Falk
added. “The league presented the Heat with a plea bargain: If you go to an arbitrator,
you’ll go to jail for 100 years. If you don’t, we’ll let you off.”
In the settlement, announced August 10, Howard’s contract with the Bullets was
approved. The NBA and Miami agreed to drop “the various legal proceedings between
the parties,” which meant the Heat would abandon its bid for a permanent injunction
and the league would not pursue the alleged undisclosed Mourning
agreement. The Heat signed Brown and Hardaway to new contracts, removing the issue
of whether their bonuses were likely or not, and Mourning signed a seven-year,
$105 million deal.
Two days later, Howard appeared at a news conference at USAir Arena.
“He’s baaaaaack,” Unseld said in introducing his once and future star.
“I look at this as a blessing??"a blessing from God,” Howard told reporters, echoing
the same language he had used a few weeks earlier in Miami. “I could recall the time I
graduated from college. That was the best day of my life, right there. I consider this
behind that.”
Riley paused, chuckling softly as he reconsidered. “Juwan will probably win championships
in Washington,” he said. “And he’ll probably forget that this whole thing ever
happened.”
That, Howard said, is unlikely.
The “$205 Million Man”
In the end, Pat Riley said, he bears Howard no malice. “You know what? I wish Juwan
the very best,” Riley said one afternoon recently. “But I think deep down in his heart he
will always wonder what it would have been like to play with Alonzo and this team
down here. That’s something he’ll never know.”
Riley paused, chuckling softly as he reconsidered. “Juwan will probably win championships
in Washington,” he said. “And he’ll probably forget that this whole thing ever
happened.”
That, Howard said, is unlikely.
A Power Play for Howard 625
Lewicki??'Barry??'Saunders:
Negotiation: Readings,
Exercises, and Cases, Fifth
Edition
Cases 3. A Power Play for
Howard
© The McGraw??'Hill
Companies, 2007
“I will never forget this,” he said after a Bullets practice. “This is something I can
tell my grandkids about. How I signed a $100 million contract. How I signed a $105
million contract. I’m the first guy this has ever happened to. This summer??"Juwan
Howard had the look of a man who had just accomplished something really big??" “I
was a $205 million man.”
626 Case 3
Also contributing

Essay Instructions: Power, Authority, and Influence


O.K., this is the moment you've all been waiting for! It's time to find out how you score in relation to gaining power and influence at work!!!

Please complete the following questionnaire - don't worry, no one will know who you are! - and then total the score. This is just for you, for your own information. You don't even need to tell me what your score is! Of course you can if you want to, but you don't have to. Go to: http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/uzzi/ftp/page292.html

Assignment Expectations:
Then please write a 2-3 page essay in which you tell me about how you gain power and influence in your own workplace.

Essay Instructions: Power, Authority, and Influence


Women and people of color face unique challenges in acquiring power and influence in corporations. Read this paper: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/13/womenofpr.html?page=0%2C0

Then in an essay of 3-5 pages (not including cover and reference pages), please:

Compare and contrast the ways in which women succeed in gaining real power at work.

Assignment Expectations:
Be sure to talk about the ways in which the background readings relate to the question.
Please be as specific as you can.
And again, use 12 point font, double-spacing, and one inch margins.


Customer is requesting that (bolavens) completes this order.

Essay Instructions: Power and Moral Leadership
This assignment is intended to build on the understanding of power, moral leadership, the 11 step plan for civil virtue, and diversity.
Part Two (Chapters 5, 6, and 7) of Moral leadership contains articles on the psychology of power in relation to exercising moral leadership.
A central concept in these readings is that power and self-interest without restraint leads to corruption.
Write a 5 page paper analyzing and evaluating ways in which power is or is not restrained in an organization you have worked with, are familiar with, or one you have read about in multiple sources.
Note that at the end of chapter five on pages 156 and 157, Zimbardo offers an 11 step plan for civil virtue, number eight being ?respect human diversity.?
Critically evaluate two steps in this plan: number eight and another one of your choice and discuss how they relate to the organization you have chosen.
Further recommend and defend two important guidelines for restraining power and self-interest in organizations.
You may find the articles by Bruhn (2009) and Ardichvili (2009) useful.
Please include at least 5 scholarly articles in addition to the text.

Content Criteria
The paper meets all of the requirements listed in directions.
The reference list includes at least 3 scholarly articles in addition to the texts.
The length is 5 pages with no wasted-space formatting or digressions into irrelevant areas. That is, all of the paragraphs develop the argument of the paper.
The paper is well structured and gives logical ?completeness to the analysis. There is a discernible beginning, middle, and end.
The writer demonstrates thorough and detailed understanding of the material.
The writer analyzes the situation with logical progression of ideas.
The paper highlights important concepts from ethics, ethical theories, moral leadership, and ethical decision making (texts and articles).
The work synthesizes concepts from the readings, outside sources, and professional experience.
The writer critically evaluates the topics in depth and with insight at the doctoral.
Usefulness of applications is discussed.
The author identifies any unsupported conclusions.
Writing and Organization Criteria
The central theme/purpose of the paper is clear.
The structure is clear, logical and easy to follow.
The tone is appropriate to the content of the assignment.
The thoughts are clear and include appropriate beginning, development, and conclusion.
Paragraph transitions are present, logical, and maintain the flow throughout the paper.
Sentences are complete, clear, and concise.
Sentences are well constructed, with consistently strong, varied sentences.
Sentence transitions are present and maintain the flow of thought.
Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed.
The paper uses words and language that are inclusive, clear, and unambiguous.
Spelling is correct.
Research and Criteria
The paper includes a summary and analysis of at least three professional/scholarly articles, internet sources, and information obtained from an organization.,
Professional/scholarly journals are peer reviewed and focus on the profession/application of psychology (located on Proquest, EBSCOHost, PsycNET, etc.). Non-scholarly articles include newspapers, periodicals, secular magazines, etc, and are not peer reviewed. Websites not approved include wilkipedia.com and about.com.
Research focuses on the most current information (past five to ten years) except when citing seminal works (e.g. Freud, Erikson, etc.).
Paper includes the appropriate number of references required by the assignment.
When appropriate, the paper addresses ethical considerations in research.
Style Criteria
The paper is in the appropriate APA format used by the institution/program (e.g. the 6th edition).
The paper is double-spaced and in the appropriate length required by the assignment
The paper includes an APA style cover page.
The paper includes an Abstract that is formatted to support the appropriate version of APA Publication Manual (e.g. 6th edition).
The paper properly uses headings, font styles, and white space as outlined in the appropriate version of APA Publication Manual (e.g. 6th edition).
The paper includes an introductory paragraph with a succinct thesis statement.
The paper addresses the topic of the paper with critical thought.
The paper concludes with a restatement of the thesis and a conclusion paragraph.
Citations of original works within the body of the paper follow the appropriate version of APA Publication Manual (e.g. 6th edition) guidelines.
The paper includes a References Page that is completed according to the appropriate version of APA Publication Manual (e.g. 6th edition).
Readings
1. Textbooks
Hartman, L. P., DesJardins, J. R., & MacDonald, C. (2013). Business ethics: Decision-making for personal integrity & social responsibility (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc Preface: Why a Decision Model?
Chapter 8: Ethics and Marketing
Chapter 10: Ethical Decision Making: Corporate Governance, Accounting, and Finance
Rhode, D. L. (Ed.). (2006). Moral leadership: The theory and practice of power, judgment, and policy. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN: 2
Chapter 10: Strategic Philanthropy and Its Malcontents
Chapter 11: Ethics and Philanthropy
Chapter 12: Exercising Moral Courage
Review Week 3 Readings in:
Rhode, D. L. (Ed.). (2006). Moral leadership: The theory and practice of power, judgment, and policy. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Chapter 5: The Psychology of Power
Chapter 6: Taming Power
Chapter 7: Power and Moral Leadership
2. Articles
Ardichvili, A., Mitchell, J., & Jondle, D. (2009). Characteristics of ethical business cultures. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 445-451. (Document ID: 1).
Bruhn, J. G., (2009). The functionality of gray area ethics in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 89 (2), 205-214. (Document ID: 1).
Pies, I., Beckmann, M., & Hielscher, S. (2010). Value creation, management competencies, and global corporate citizenship: An ordonomic approach to business ethics in the age of globalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(2), 265-278. (Document ID: 1).
Recommended Readings
1. Articles
Chesters, C., & Lawrence, S. (2008). The business of doing good: An Australasian perspective on corporate philanthropy. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (31), 89-104. (Document ID: 1).
Marshak, R. & Grant, D. (2008). Transforming talk: The interplay of discourse, power, and change. OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 26(3), 33-40. (ProQuest document ID: 1).
Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full-range leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 533 ? 547. (Document ID: 1)
Zoghbi-manrique-de-lara, P. (2010). Do unfair procedures predict employees' ethical behavior by deactivating formal regulations? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 411-425. (Document ID: 1).