For many months, NBA commissioner David Stern and Players’ Association head Billy Hunter were all smiles as they announced that their negotiations toward a new collective bargaining agreement were going well. Then they started talking about money, and the goodwill and optimism turned to rancor. Now, only five weeks away from the start of a possible lockout, no talks are scheduled and each side is blaming the other for the breakdown.

The contentious state of negotiations is cause for concern for all basketball fans. The six-month lockout of 1998 resulted in the cancellation of nearly 40% of the following season, which was then marked by a decline in the overall quality of play. Lethargic play ruled during a truncated 50- games-in-90-days schedule, and points per 100 possessions dropped to 99.3 from 102 in 1997-98.

At the same time, the lockout provided a lesson that is crucial to remember as the labor situation heats to a boil: The only reason the 1999 season happened at all is that the players rejected the advice of their representatives and accepted an 11th-hour proposal that resulted in unprecedented cost controls on their wages.

Now, the NBA is demanding even greater controls. In response, the union and players’ agents have vociferously denounced the league’s proposals. But no player has spoken out against the monetary aspects of the proposals, and it seems likely that the players will eventually agree to terms being set forth by the league.

During the first few months of negotiations, the most prominent issues were procedural: the development of a formal minor league and setting an age limit that would stem the tide of teenagers entering the league. Stern and Hunter discussed the minor league on several occasions and there were only a few details left to be settled.

The age limit was a tad thornier. There is compelling evidence that teenage entrants into the league like LeBron James, Dwight Howard, and Jermaine O’Neal – the last of whom publicly opposed the ban and questioned if there weren’t racial motives behind it – are neither a detriment to the caliber of play in the NBA nor its image. Stern persevered with the idea, and while Hunter opposed it, a compromise entry age of 19 seemed in the offing.

Then negotiations crashed. The two crucial issues were contract length and a standard clause called the “raise escalator.” At present, the maximum contract is for six years (seven if the player is re-signing with his present team) for upwards of $14 million in the first season, with annual increases of 10-12%. Thus, the deal Kobe Bryant signed with the Lakers last summer calls for him to receive $14.2 million this season, but in the final year of his deal, the 2010-11 season, he will earn $24.8 million.

That’s what the owners want to curtail. Twenty-nine players made more than $12.5 million this past season and the vast majority are not among the league’s elite talents. The proliferation of these contracts to the likes of Latrell Sprewell, Brian Grant, and Damon Stoudamire have created millstones that prevent teams from acquiring the talent necessary to contend.

The owners have proposed cutting the maximum length of a contract to three years, four if a player re-signs with his original team. And they want to do away with the escalator altogether, while the union wants to keep the present system for pay scales in place.

There were rumors recently that both sides had compromised on a maximum of four years (five if re-signing) and a raise escalator attached to league revenues. But the union was allegedly rebuffed when it presented the proposal to a series of top agents. League officials then accused the union of backing away and blamed the agents, which Hunter took as an affront. Talks broke down quickly after that.

If talks don’t resume soon, the specter of a lockout could end up casting a dark shadow over the upcoming Finals. But don’t expect a repeat of 1998. Although the owners’ proposal is just another chapter in the “save us from ourselves” tactics that have reigned in collective bargaining agreements in all sports, shorter deals could in fact hold significant advantages for players.

Right now, players entering the league are signed to rookie contracts that govern their wages for their first four years in the NBA. Then, if they sign full-length max deals, they re-enter the free-agent pool as players clearly in their downward phases. Such veterans are usually signed on to either the mid-level or veterans’ exception deals, which range from $1-5 million dollars for the remainder of their careers.

With shorter deals, top players would still be in their primes at the expiration of their first post-rookie contracts, making them strong candidates to sign max deals a second time. Such players would thus be receiving the maximum money for a longer period than they do at present.

The union might not be keen to do the math to make this case, but the players themselves will likely overrule their advisers and vote for the league’s proposal just before a lockout occurs. The players understand that their ability to make large sums of money for playing basketball is extremely limited and that work stoppages cut into that time; what’s more, a lockout would make them out to be greedy, selfish youth, thus cutting into their endorsement opportunities. It’s ironic, but the players stand to profit by saving the owners from themselves, and that will save the NBA from an NHL-style meltdown.