laissez-faire ball

Just keep on meddlin'

2008-11-16T17:56:00.005-06:00

Please, don't try and help.

As you may have noticed, it has been quite some time since I have posted anything to this faire blog (see what I just did there?). So, it takes something in the sports world that is politically interventionist enough to roust my grumpy ass out of my cyberspace rut.

Sometimes, things like that come along.

On an interview on 60 Minutes, President-elect Barack Obama shared his feeling that college football should have a playoff system. Fair enough, I can't say I disagree with him. The sham BCS system is a complete sham that most college football fans would probably agree needs to go away in the process of determining a national champion. However, what señor Obama and I differ on greatly is the method in which that needs to happen:

"I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So, I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do."

First, let me say that this kind of thing isn't surprising. Politicians have many times thought it was in the best interest of the public to interfere in sports matters on behalf of fans. If you've read anything on this blog before, then my response is about to be very predictable.

Please, Barack Obama, leave it alone. Go back to sticking your fingers into the economy and fouling it up by overregulating the crap out of everything and further devaluing the cash in my pocket. But please, leave sports alone. Don't try and strong arm your way into "fixing" a system in which you have no stake. Don't "throw your weight around" to try and get an eight-game playoff system. If college football finally gets enough of the griping about the BCS system being idiotic, then they'll change the format. And if fans have enough of it, they'll stop watching games. Don't expect that to happen though since fans don't hold any stake in college football games other than the money they spend perpetually on gear, tickets and donations to their alma maters. If fans are truly fed up with it, they'll stop going to the games and buying stuff. They can also use the halt of their donation dollars to their school of choice with the caveat that the money will commence when their school gets on board with a playoff. Fans can do their best to bully their points of view in, that's America, dammit.

Ultimately, the BCS system still thrives because of the corporate sponsorship stakes that are held in the games. And any fan that claims to have more of a mandate over how those games should be played than a business that has poured millions of dollars into it is someone who clearly doesn't value the principle of investment.

Do I think that the businesses and NCAA could come up with a system that still utilizes bowl games and integrates them with a playoff system? Absolutely. But it isn't Barack Obama's or any other politician's responsibility to stick their nose in it and force private organizations to follow the whim of a fan who just so happens to have power.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Nonsense regarding unions and the UFC

2007-10-16T23:42:00.001-05:00

The man made the cover of ESPN The Magazine, you think he might have earned his stripes?

I would like to acknowledge that I have been incredibly lazy and unmotivated to write lately. My sports excitment has been in the only real doldrum of the year. The Astros are done playing and the NBA season hasn't started. However, I do still follow the daily online rag and stumbled upon this little gem by way of Deadspin.

Let me start by saying that this hogwash idea is very pervasive throughout the United States. In the current state that the United States is in business- and employment-wise, unions are a ridiculous concept. The Motley Fool provides a decent dummy's breakdown of the positives and negatives of unions, but this is a sports site, so I won't bicker on about the invalidity of unions in general any longer. Instead, let's move on to the illogical points brought about in the Chicks Heart Fights blog.

Their main contention from the beginning is that there should be some kind of system to have fighters earn fair wages in comparison to their performance. In truth, their contention that Chuck Liddell earning $500,000 in a loss is unfair to Keith Jardine earning $14,000 in a win is preposterous.

I admittedly do not follow the UFC, although I do recognize its merit as a legitimate sport, much more so than the sham that professional boxing has become. My brother and Dad are huge fans and fill my ears with how awesome it is all the time. Regardless of what I hear of Liddell from my family, I still hear Chuck Liddell's name pop up quite a bit elsewhere. Hell, the newspaper I work at even ran something about the Chuck Liddell/Quentin Jackson matchup in May, which is something we usually never did at that point in time. My point is this: Chuck Liddell has earned his stripes and earns quite a bit of money based upon the popularity he has earned for himself. He has earned it, and he deserves the money he receives. In turn, he also earns quite a bit of money for the UFC as an organization, something they obviously see fit to reimburse him for. By defeating Liddell, Keith Jardine will likely see his dividends increase quite a bit in the future. He earned his victory, and if he continues success, he'll see the money he deserves.

In essence, if you adopt a union for the UFC and put in purse restrictions that supposedly even the playing field on how much money is earned, you are removing factors that consider revenue earned for the UFC. You think Chuck Liddell thinks he should make less money? Hell no. And the UFC obviously recognizes his importance. In a few years when Keith Jardine develops his legend further, he will prefer to have a 1/2-million-dollar payout as well for helping progress the UFC's cause.

Moving on, there is more nonsense within:

How can any fighter make as little as $3K for a fight that takes a minimum of two months of training, 30 hours a week? Break that down, and Diego Saraiva is being paid a little more than $11 an hour. He can make much more, and have benefits, working at UPS.

Let me just fall over in disbelief at this concept. If a fighter can make more money and have benefits working at UPS...maybe he should go work at UPS. The truth is, these guys want to be fighters. Their talent lies in beating the shit out of another human being. If they wanted a 9-to-5 job, that's what they would be doing.

They do make one good point:

With drug-testing, the UFC has clearly placed the onus of drug-testing on the state commissions, and that also makes me wonder. The states have different rules on drug-testing, so if the UFC has a fighter that they suspect might fail a test, the UFC could put him on a card in an event in a state with more lax drug testing. How is it fair that a fighter who has a match in Texas may get away with something that a fighter in Nevada can’t?

Instead of having a hard-line stance on drug testing, the UFC is instead opting to let whichever state the match is being held in determine what rules govern the fight. If they want to be taken seriously, they need to incorporate a UFC-wide system to govern drug testing.

In the end, it is a person's responsibility to determine how they want to make a living. If these individuals are unhappy with how things are going, they can ask the UFC for some recourse. And depending on what kind of business Zuffa (UFC's owner) wants to run, they may or may not get it. It's their decision, and if fighters don't like it, they are free to negotiate contracts that garner them the benefits and pay they wish, or they can leave. It is very simple.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Self-righteous pundits love anything with a "-gate" at the end

2007-09-21T00:23:00.000-05:00

Think he'd give this up for a little reputation repair? Nope.

With all of this Bill Belichick business finally starting to settle down, most of the national pundits are finishing up their self-righteous rants about cheating and dishonesty.

As you've seen with many controversial subjects on this blog, my stance is usually a bit divergent from the media consensus about incidents.

When someone commits a wrong in sports, national columnists and pundits across the country can't jump to their keyboards fast enough to denounce the evil doer. If there is a juicy story out there, you can bet that anyone with a platform will try and one-up one another in an effort to strong-arm their way into the discussion. Sometimes it seems like some columnists are running for the President of Sports with one strong platform: "I'm tougher on crime than my opponents."

Given, what Belichick did deserves punishment. He broke specific rules concerning the monitoring of another team. What all of these self-righteous yahoos fail to recognize is that what Bill Belichick helped his team gain a distinct advantage that absolutely earned him and his franchise far more than the fines and penalties they incurred. Depending on who you talk to, he's been doing this for some time. If so, he was able to get away with something most teams dream of being able to pull off. He successfully stole the other team's advantage. And in the end, he is only accountable to himself and his franchise. The NFL can impose penalties until they are blue in the face, but until those penalties outweigh the gains derived from the infractions, they'll be useless. If you asked Patriots owner Robert Kraft if he would take a paltry fine and the loss of a draft pick for three Super Bowl championships and a position as a premier NFL franchise...well, you see the obvious answer here.

Other writers have made other logically faulty arguments defending Belichick's actions as just and simply of a competitive nature. These are not accurate either. Stealing signs in baseball has always been the norm, but nobody has been outed for using extra means to attain them, i.e. electronic means. You can bet it's been done though. They've just been too sneaky to get caught. Now that this business about Belichick has come about, the likelihood that anyone will will be caught in the future is slim. There are plenty of ways to survey another team without having a cameraman blatantly standing on the sidelines.

Stealing another team's advantage has been around since sports began. It will continue to be prevalent, even if the perpetrators go uncovered.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Will tiered pricing price you out?

2007-09-14T10:29:00.000-05:00

What happens when Greg Oden isn't there to justify the Portland price hike? (Credit: RM)

I don’t have an economics degree (that’s Travis), but anybody would agree that tickets to certain games are in higher demand than others. Obviously, you have your Super Bowl or Final Four tickets, but what about individual games during the season for your favorite franchise?

It’s arguable that NBA fans would pay more to see LeBron James rather than Antoine Walker, but this week has brought a new test to the theory.

For season ticket holders of the San Antonio Spurs, individual game tickets went on sale this week and there was a noticeable bump on the prices of some games. Fans with the option to buy now are reporting the season-opener against Portland, as well as games against conference rival Phoenix and intra-state rivals Dallas and Houston are higher than most other games.

A supposed Spurs season-ticket holder said prices were increasing about 50-100 percent for the aforementioned games. That’s interesting.

A look at the seating chart and pricing (warning: PDF) for the AT&T Center reads "Tiered pricing will be in effect for select games."

I believe people will pay more for better games with arguably better players. The initial reaction around the Spurs message boards when Thursday’s news of the injury to Greg Oden and the ticket pricing was discovered was that the price for the Trail Blazers game might drop. That’s not going to happen considering it’s also expected to be the night when the Spurs receive their championship rings.

But think for a second if the game were scheduled a week later – would the pricing have to drop some with Oden missing the game? The casual NBA fan might not be so apt to shell out a little more money for the game while a deeper fan would recognize the Blazers have a solid, young core of players in Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge, Sergio Rodriguez and Raef LaFrentz (okay, you can stop laughing at the last one) that should be very entertaining to watch develop into a championship contender once their man in the middle returns.

What happens if Dirk Nowitzki goes down with an injury a month before Spurs vs. Mavs? Do the Spurs drop prices on tickets and risk an iPhone-like backlash or do they run the risk of not selling out the arena for what would still likely be a nationally-televised game?

The Spurs dealt with an embarrassing ticket situation following the Western Conference Semifinals against Phoenix last season. Following the emotional exhaustion of the victory over the Suns, there was such a quick turnaround – late Friday to midday Sunday/Father’s Day – to the matchup against the Utah Jazz in Game 1 of the Western Conference Finals, that the game didn’t come relatively close to a sellout (officially more than 450, but eyewitness accounts bump that number a little higher).

On the flip side, would teams reduce prices for games that might not sell? Doubtful. First, if your team is successful at bringing in fans at your pre-determined price, why drop the price and lose profits? People are already paying the set price and I don’t see a backlash coming unless your team flat out sucks and ownership fails to try and pour money back into the franchise to rebuild (see: Pirates, Pittsburgh; Lions, Detroit).

But as the NBA has seen its marketing go time and again (and as Scooter has pointed out) with the focus on individuals versus teams, the time when ticket prices rise for a game against a great team with less marketable (for whatever reason) stars will not come soon enough.

Granted, this is nothing new and MLB is approaching record attendance numbers (most on the high side and a few on the low side). The other factors will come into play, too, such as overall ticket pricing, local market economy, total costs of attendance, etc.

So the question finally arises: At what price point will you pay to see your favorite team play against a stellar rival versus one against an also-ran? Would you also demand to pay less for the lesser teams?

Joe
E-mail us
Joe is a guest contributor to laissez-faire ball.

Not a lot of fish in the sea

2007-09-14T01:47:00.000-05:00

So lonely...

Have you ever gone to a baseball game and tried to sneak into better seating than you purchased? If so, then Wednesday’s Nationals-Marlins game appears as if it wouldn’t have been much of a challenge.

According to published reports, there were around 400 people in the stands at Dolphins Stadium at the start of the game even though the paid attendance number floating around is 10,121.

Any team official worth their embroidered team shirt will tell you it’s the gate that counts, but this is simply embarrassing for the Marlins and the people of Miami. But they’ve pretty much shown they couldn’t care less about the pinstriped fish until they make the postseason.

In fact, the crowd was so sparse; a fan was ejected for heckling home plate umpire Paul Schreiber so loud his jeers were apparently heard on the telecast. The Washington Post (with such a delicious word play on its headline) describes the scene:

The man was so loud, and the atmosphere so quiet, the fan could be heard saying "you don't make more than me" on the television broadcast as he was forced to leave.

I haven’t overheard anything yet, but I’m just picking random spots before the fifth and listening for an at-bat or so. I do hear an echoing chant of “Let’s go, Marlins,” though. After continuing to watch and listen to the broadcast, I can hear distinct heckles, but not enough to hear exactly what’s being yelled.

Speaking of paychecks, Marlins catcher Miguel Olivo (1 for 6 with a 2-run homer) could have taken his game check and purchased an authentic Marlins cap for each fan through the gate at Dolphins Stadium. Olivo reportedly is making $2 million this year / 162 games = just over $30.

He might want to do that. I don’t think the Marlins can afford to lose any more fans.

Enough of that, though. Let’s look at the major money factor. Ten thousand paid seats sold and a crowd of about 400 can’t be profitable unless the concessions operator closed all but two beer stands and jacked up the price of a brew to about $450/cup.

Talk around the Miami area says people don’t want to sit during midday heat and humidity to watch a battle for the first amateur draft pick and that’s totally understandable. It’s just I just can’t imagine the profits of a team like this and sadly, I also can’t picture how an indoor stadium or one with a retractable roof will suddenly bring the gate attendance to the fifth digit.

The city of Miami does not deserve a team they can’t – or choose not to – support.

On the same evening, the San Antonio Missions (the Double-A affiliate for the San Diego Padres) drew around 3,200 for the second game of the Texas League’s championship series. Knowing the attendance numbers at that ballpark, it was probably a solid 2,800. Lately, the weather has been just as unbearable in SA as it reads in Miami – and granted the TLCS was a night game – but even this city that rarely supports any franchise not named the Spurs showed some support for the home team.

Well, enough support to make sure the concessions employees were paid.

Joe
E-mail us
Joe is a guest contributor to laissez-faire ball.

NFL needs a common sense injection

2007-09-02T00:53:00.000-05:00

Wade Wilson, Cowboys quarterbacks coach will have five weeks off.

It was announced today that Dallas Cowboys quarterbacks coach Wade Wilson will be suspended for 5 games and fined $100,000 for possessing a banned substance.

In the wake of New England safety Rodney Harrisson admitting to using human growth hormone, it was discovered Wilson, who is a diabetic, had also acquired banned substances to help him deal with his diabetes.

So, taking a hard-line stance against banned substances, commissioner Roger Goodell and the NFL took action against Wilson as harshly as they could.

Did this strike anyone else as being incredibly off base? It's such an odd story. Why would the NFL penalize a coach for taking medicine that helps him deal with something as serious as diabetes? He's a coach, after all, and isn't playing or testing his physical mettle. HGH is a physical aid, not mental, and he was obviously taking it for a serious medical condition. He even admitted that he took it and made no excuses. He obviously wasn't trying to hide anything and was taking care of himself.

"If I was trying to hide something I wouldn’t have put it on a credit card. I had no idea this was illegal or against league policy."

It's a move that lacks common sense and represents the overzealous nature that Goddell has displayed thus far in his tenure as commissioner.

Normally I have no qualms in damning rule breakers to the consequences of their actions, but I make exception in this siutaiton. The NFL obviously has a lot of image and behavior problems, but punishing a diabetic 48-year-old quarterbacks coach isn't the way to clean it up.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Stay focused or pay the consequences

2007-08-19T01:40:00.000-05:00

Hats off to you Mr. Materazzi.

With Italian soccer player Marco Materazzi finally disclosing exactly what it was he said to upset Zinedine Zidane so badly, it made me consider the nature of such actions and the repercussions of them.

Some incidents of a similar nature come to mind. Alex Rodriguez' yell when rounding third base against the Toronto Blue Jays, causing a dropped pop up was an act of distraction seen by many as unsportsmanlike. Robert Horry's clothesline of Steve Nash in the Western Conference Semifinals prompted Nash's teammates to leave the bench, thus earning them a suspension.

To varying degrees, these actions all come back to the same base concept of disrupting the other team in some fashion. One was more physical (Horry), another was merely immature insulting that incited action (Materazzi), while one was simple gamesmanship (A-Rod).

Fans get up in arms about these types of incidents since they interrupt a seeming balance of pure competition in the game by including more human interference than many fans are comfortable with. Most fans want to see a purer competition, one in which the participants play the game "the way it is supposed to be played" which basically means "the way each individual fan thinks it should be played."

Ultimately, a player can do whatever he chooses. In leagues and competitions that are driven by revenue, and with wins being one of the most impactful effects upon that revenue, players have choices to make. Is public perception more important to them, or is winning and succeeding and earning more money the priority? Some athletes choose to satisfy public perception while others choose the latter or find a middle ground between the two. There is absolutely nothing wrong with either one, and in a way, I respect the former more. If you can poke, prod, yell at or insult another team enough to get them out of concentration, make them angry enough with words to attack you or incite an action that is for the betterment of your team, you are dedicated to winning. You are devoted to your team, your fans and the ultimate outcome of that team. I respect that.

Additionally, if you are professional athlete and can't concentrate enough in the field to be distracted by another players actions, or if you don't have the mental fortitude to ignore an insult hurled your way, you deserve the repercussions of the lack of mental toughness you possess. Take some personal responsibility for once.

Despite the fact that some guys have done some despicable things in sports, when they are within the rules or for the betterment of your team, try to understand their motives. A-Rod's yelp may not have been classy, but it caused something positive for his team. Horry's attack on Nash was an unwarranted assault, but the ultimate outcome benefitted his team. Materazzi's insult may not have been the most reputable thing to do, but it got Zidane ejected. All of these guys won because of these things. They gained positivity for their respectice teams. Don't get angry just because it didn't seem like the sporting thing to do, get angry because the outcome of said events wasn't what you wanted personally.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

A community-selfish ownership move: Nothing wrong with that

2007-08-18T00:50:00.000-05:00

It's coming.

Just as we thought might be the case, it is really looking like the Sonics will move to Oklahoma City.

With all that joy that Seattle fans had generated after drafting Kevin Durant, they have to be letting out a collective whimper. When a franchise decides to make a true youth movement and start from scratch, it can be one of the most exciting things that can happen for a fan base. Watching your young players grow and mature and gradually win more games as the develop, fans get a certain feeling of involvement with that team that just isn't the same as with teams that acquire most of their talent from free agency or through trades. The reward is so much greater when you get to watch your team blossom from scratch. That's why, subconsciously, this inevitable move is stinging the true Sonics fans out there in a major way.

What is most convincing about the potential of a move is that these Sonics owners are prepared to net a loss in moving the team to Oklahoma City. Aubrey McLendon, who the above article is about, said as much.

"But we didn’t buy the team to keep it in Seattle; we hoped to come here. We know it’s a little more difficult financially here in Oklahoma City, but we think it’s great for the community and if we could break even we’d be thrilled."

It's a strange thought on ownership that I honestly never considered. A rich man loves the area he lives in. The community, the area, everything about it. This is where him and his other rich friends want to spend money, work and live. By happenstance, a tragedy befalls another team's city and they temporarily reside in said rich guys' area. They know that due to the precarious political situation in the town the tragedy befell, they would likely not be afforded the opportunity to purchase that team. So, knowing the temporary team will eventually return to their old city, they seek out another team to purchase.

Clay Bennett saw his opportunity. The Sonics had been having some major problems in getting a new stadium built in Seattle for some time now. Seeing an opportunity to nab a franchise that could potentially move cities, Bennett and his compadres moved in. Their thoughts from the beginning were to move a team to Oklahoma City, that has become rather clear. Of course, they fed some public relations lines to the fans about wanting to stay in Seattle, and they will likely do that same until the move to Oklahoma is approved.

And good for them. Of course, the fans in Seattle are getting screwed pretty good by no control of their own. Unfortunately for them, it isn't their team. It's owned by the guys who purchase it. Sorry, that's how it works.

Now, the ownership group headed by Bennett will be able to move a professional sports team into their backyard, likely helping to pump money into their hometown economy and have a professional pet project to groom. Fortunately enough for them, their pet project is already looking like it has the makings of a thoroughbred.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Consider the "news' in "online news" lightly

2007-08-08T01:30:00.000-05:00

Judge, jury, executioner.

As Barry Bonds finally reached his ultimate goal (no, not a World Series title, dummy) it was time for all the sports information disseminators to finally put into action the dreaded endpoint to the saga of Bonds and his home run chase.

As the disseminators of sports information, these outlets have choices to make concerning how to present the information at hand. Do you take the role of objective third-party observer? Do you try to provide more perspective to your readers? Or do you make up their minds for them, approaching subjects as if you are the end-all-be-all of information?

Three out of the four main online sports information sites decided to choose the third option. CBS Sportsline, SI and Yahoo all decided to haul out the asterisk as the story. No dust had settled, the story was not presented for what it was. They skipped the information-providing step completely by jumping straight to question-of-validity mode. Is this wrong? It depends on your goal as an information provider.

Interestingly enough, ESPN is the fence sitter on this one. They provided the story straight up. Instead of asterisking it up like the other three, they decided to present the story as it happened: a baseball player broke a baseball record. One of the biggest head scratchers of the evening was how Yahoo treated it. You'll notice the link I provided earlier had no asterisk on it. The version earlier in the night was the exact same as the one you see from that image link except there was a big fat asterisk next to the "756". Having been a decision they likely discussed for some time before Bonds broke the record, it's really striking that they would decide to pull the asterisk after a short time. Cold feet?

Ultimately, the court of public opinion will decide the perception of Barry Bonds. Let the public think what they will, but don't get preachy with your news. Put it out there for people to know, provide some perspective and let them decide for themselves. Most people already believe Bonds' record is tainted, they don't need any help along the way.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Different approaches to ownership

2007-07-31T23:41:00.000-05:00

One of these things is not like the other.

Would you rather have the best players on your team, or the most marketable ones?

It sounds like a stupid question, mostly because it is. Any fan worth their water doesn't give a crap what the general public thinks about the players on their team. As long as they are winning, that's all they care about.

It's an interesting question to ask, however, because many owners probably try and balance this in some way. When it all boils down, there are two worlds that sports owners live.

Revenue-driven owners look out solely for the bottom line.

Competition-driven owners want to win over all other things.

Although not mutually exclusive, the thought process for these two worlds is different. Owners like Mark Cuban and George Steinbrenner, despite their pitfalls, ultimately just want to win. It consumes them. They know that if they win, the money will come. And ultimately, they will spend whatever is within their power to get to that point. Losing kills them inside. They can't sleep, their stomachs hurt. Don't get me wrong, they want to make money, but they would never sacrifice the product they put on the field if it means some lost revenue.

Given, all owners would like their teams to win, but when you break it down to pure motives, most owners fall into one category or the other. Given, I have no problem with the revenue-driven owner. After all, it's usually the real reason anyone who has enough money to buy a professional sports team is rich in the first place. You want a return on your investment. And if that is your main prerogative, that's fine. I just think that owners who aren't passionate about their team's on-field or on-court success don't care about or realize that their earning potential is exponentially higher when the team is successful.

Take the Los Angeles Angels for instance. Their owner, Arte Moreno, realizes that spening money on salary and putting the right players on the field will make his team successfull (obviously). He has also taken steps to cater to the fans by renaming the ballpark to a non-corporate name (branding for the Angels), and lowering beer prices. He takes the fans into consideration and watches his bottom line in the process. It's really a brilliant, not-so-crazy concept that somehow doesn't catch on.

Given, team situations are different. But there are teams that have the opportunity to create an atmosphere of winning that fans love to be around. The Angels built themselves up the right way. Many do not.

My point in all of this rambling is that there are owners like Moreno who consider success primary among the concerns of fans, and sprinkling it with some other incentives helps. Then, there are those who are fine with rolling out a mediocre-to-bad product just because they'll continue to make acceptable profits. Instead of producing a winner, they cover the team with unhealthy toppings instead of building the actual product. New York Knicks owner James Dolan is obviously fine with doing this every season. Because of television contracts and the city they play in, the Knicks will probably always sit atop the revenue hill among NBA teams. What Dolan needs to finally acknowledge, is that rebuilding would ultimately earn him even more money in the long term. Owning a sports franchise is about long-term revenue performance, right? Instead, he keeps pulling in players who he feels the city of New York will embrace...Stephon Marbury and Larry Brown's acquisitions being the biggest offenses among them all. Of course, Brown didn't last. But the Knicks still have Marbury, a New York guy who the fans supposedly like having. But, going back to my initial question...which would fans rather like? A well-built team that can compete, or a team with guys they like personally? I'm imagining they choose the former every time.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Three leagues can thank the others for screwing up

2007-07-30T02:22:00.000-05:00

A perfect storm of bad behavior is keeping the three main leagues from buckling under their own mischief.

With the recent outbreak of ne'r-do-wells in sports, it makes one wonder if any one sport will fall in popularity for the transgressions of the people involved with each sports.

What everyone refuses to recognize among the overreaction is that each one of these seeming horrid events benefits the other two leagues.

Right now, the biggest three stories/controversies are split among the United States' three major sports league. Michael Vick's dogfighting charges, Tim Donaghy's betting scandal and Barry Bonds' imminent breaking of the all-time home run record are dominating headlines, causing some to declare that everything sucks.

But, because these three events are culminating at the same time, each sports league is getting a small reprieve. Every league right now has a great argument that the other league is worse for their transgressions.

The NBA can look at the NFL and MLB and say "Hey, at least none of our superstars are accused in this betting mess. At least our players have some integrity, unlike a certain cantaloupe-headed slugger and that animal-murdering demon."

Major League Baseball can look at the NBA and NFL and say "Nothing has been proven about our supposed bad guy. He doesn't murder animals, and he doesn't bet on games. He plays his games and does not break the rules."

And finally, the NFL has a very strong statement: "At least the integrity of our actual sport hasn't been compromised. Zing."

If these events were happening at separate times, I imagine fans would likely be in more of an uproar toward that particular sport. But, because all three of the sports are in the middle of a perfect storm of misbehavior, each one is let off the hook a little bit. In the end, nobody will stop following sports because of all this mess. Animals lovers who like the NFL will still follow the NFL. People who follow the NBA will still follow the NBA and have more interesting speculations about refereeing. And nobody will care about Bonds breaking the record when A-Rod laps him.

In the end, the respective commissioners for each of these leagues is likely thanking the other two leagues for crapping the bed at the same time.

Scooter's signature:

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

See who likes what, when and where

2007-07-29T00:47:00.000-05:00

A stat dork's wet dream.

I don't try and keep my love for Google a secret.

I convert as many people as I can to using Gmail. I use Google Maps religiously. If Google has a product, chances are I find a way to use it. And now, Google has allowed me to see what people are interested in.

Spending hours and hours on Google Trends, cross referencing what people search for in relation to other similar topics is endlessly entertaining.

For instance, more people seem to care about the NBA draft than the ~~penultimate~~ ultimate contest in the NBA, the Finals. Also, more people in the Philipines seem to care about the Finals than Americans do. Greeks seem to love the All-Star game and the Finals, but could care less about the draft. Is any of this beneficial to the average person? Probably not. But if you're a giant dork about this kind of stuff like I am, it's incredibly interesting.

Some more obvious ones show that Americans care more about football than any other sport. Duh. However, what is interesting is that the top five cities that search for "football" the most are all in close proximity to major college football centers. Birmingham AL; Columbus, OH; and Omaha, NE; Columbis, SC and Austin, TX are interested in football more than any NFL city. New Orleans is the NFL city closest at ninth overall. With the overwhelming popularity of the NFL, you would imagine that more people would be searching in NFL cities. I do acknowledge that these results aren't necessarily 100 percent accurate since many fans search for specific players and teams as their entry points to finding information. For that reason, it fascinates me that college football fans would be venturing forth with less specific searches. Again, I am a dork.

To vary from the beaten path for a bit, do some non-sport-related searches. One really obvious one is sex vs. love, with sex obviously winning hand over fist (no pun intended). Also, it should be noted that Pakistanis and Egyptians love them some sex. I imagine the United States is nowhere to be found on this list as we all have weird-ass specific searches for the kind of sex we want to see. We're very specific like that.

Other searches can be a bit more disturbing. Some are probably on their way to aligning a bit more evenly of late.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

David Stern: Great job

2007-07-25T02:25:00.000-05:00

Somber, cool, collected.

David Stern is such a smart man. Always smooth and collected, with the snarkiest and wryest sense of humor around, he is unflappably cool about anything that comes to him.

This is why his handling of the recent abomination involving referee Tim Donaghy is so brilliant. No one has seen this side of Stern before. Whether his emotion was genuine or manufactured is moot. He sold it exactly how he needed to. He admitted some guilt on the NBA's lack of preparation. He set the proper mood for the situation. By making a sharp contrast to his normal demeanor, even previously on seemingly important issues, he communicated exactly what he needed to. He created some much needed transparency to the league's processes, and hopefully that is a trend that will continue.

He's doing exactly what he should. Don't make any rash promises. Obviously he needed to promise to improve, but he refused to give specifics on how the situation will be improved. He ended his pre-question-and-answer final remarks with this perfectly placed, perfectly calculated line:

But if there's anything that is possible, virtually regardless of the cost, we plan to pursue that and to, in effect, reaffirm our covenant with our fans; that the NBA is a product that will remain proud of its officiating staff, which we believe is the best in the world, and that our games are decided on their merits.

He goes on to throw Donaghy under the bus (as he should) by referring to him as a "rogue employee" and an "isolated criminal." By singling him out, he distances Donaghy as one bad egg, and not someone who is indicative of a bigger problem.

I also understand that Mr. Donaghy is the only referee who is alleged to have bet on NBA games and disclosed confidential information to others with respect to NBA games that would enable them to place wagers with an advantage. I'll say it again, I understand that this is an isolated case involving an NBA referee who engaged not only in a violation of our rules, but in criminal conduct.

Kudos to David Stern. Even when owners feel he unfairly deals with their respective teams or is sometimes too meddlesome, I truly believe he looks out for the best interests of the league, both financially and competitively. And ultimately, he will right the ship and get the league back on track.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

What the NBA should do about their referees

2007-07-21T02:20:00.000-05:00

"That was a three you hit right? Yes, I saw your toe on the line, let's just agree it was a three and move on."

For a few years now, several people I know have playfully purported that the NBA fixes games. Sometimes their justification is that the NBA wants to promote a certain star or team, thus manipulating games to the outcome they want. Never fully serious, they cite a few examples such as Dwyane Wade's phantom calls in the 2006 Finals, Michael Jordan's countless foul calls during his tenure in the league and Derek Fisher's 0.4-second buzzer beater in 2004. I always shrugged it off of course. The NBA has no reason to rig contests. They may be slipping in popularity as compared to the other two major sports, but they are doing OK for themselves. Fixing games isn't a business they need to get into.

I wrote a post about the stupidity of resistance to putting an NBA team in Las Vegas, and I still believe this to be true. Players are paid well enough to avoid these types of things.

The one facet I never thought of was the potential corruption of NBA referees. 15-year NBA referee Tim Donaghy is currently being investigated by the FBI for point shaving, mob connections and other no-good activities.

The NBA is obviously in a huge pickle. In a sport, integrity is at the top of things a sports league must have to survive as a valid competition. It's the reason Major League Baseball is trying to distance itself from Barry Bonds. It's the reason there was a fuss about Wayne Gretzky's wife's involvement in a gambling ring. It's the reason Roger Goodell is punishing criminal NFL players for acting the fool. It's the reason the Tour de France is trying its best to crack down on dopers. You just can't have any question in the general public's mind that the players aren't being true to the game.

So, in a time that's about as inconvenient as it can be, the NBA finds itself having to answer questions about corruption. Following a very tumultuous playoffs, where many fans feel that the Western Conference Semifinals between the Spurs and Suns was tainted, the outcome of many games is being questioned as potentially tainted as well.

So, how do you fix this? One suggestion is to raise referee salaries. Making between $100,000 and $300,000 a year, NBA referee salaries are a drop in the bucket compared to the players they officiate. It's a dastardly situation for all involved. Unless you start paying them close to what the average player makes ($5.2 million/year on average), that isn't going to work. With games having the potential of millions of dollars riding on the outcome, the incentive to side with the seedier side of life is still strong.

They could hire more surveillance on officials, but they already do quite a bit to monitor their bank accounts and police within. So, I have a simpler solution.

Do nothing.

OK, maybe not absolutely nothing, but don't change any fundamental ways that they deal with officials. Push a hard public-relations campaign to try and convince the public that your league isn't corrupt. Up referee salaries by 10 percent to dupe the public into thinking that will make a difference. They are kinda dumb, after all.

But honestly, there isn't really anything you can do other than screening the people you hire and following their financial moves as much as possible. There will be a public outcry about this situation, but it's an isolated incident, and that's what the NBA has to focus on for damage control. Many columnists will call for the overhaul of the system that the NBA uses in monitoring and hiring its referees, but this isn't the solution. If the NBA focuses on more than promoting this as an isolated incident, they are giving in more than they should and will ultimately wish they hadn't. They should also tack on some PR about improving officiating on the court, which is really what NBA fans want anyway.

In the end, this will probably be a stink that doesn't die for some time, let's just hope it's the only stink.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

That's only enough time for one Chad Johnson end-zone dance

2007-07-18T15:17:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week, the NFL began a campaign to actively shift the media’s focus on the league from athletic and coaching related activities towards more accessible media topics like dog fighting. If a reporter were video taping at the court house in Richmond this week, they would be welcomed with unfettered access to investigator press conferences and interviews with Michael Vick’s attorney’s and Federal prosecutors. The content of these interviews could then be freely posted on the reporter’s online media source. However, if the same reporter were to travel to Atlanta and interview Bobby Petrino, the head coach of the Atlanta Falcons, and a few of Vick’s teammates working out at the team’s training facility, the reporter’s website would only be allowed to air a total of 45 seconds worth of footage. Why the discrepancy? The National Football League has recently announced that it will begin limiting online sources to 45 seconds per day of audio and video footage recorded on NFL property. After 24 hours, this footage must be removed and the segments have to link back to NFL.com and the pertinent team website.

For a lot of the print newspapers that have had to rely more and more on their electronic format for revenue, this seems like a pretty severe blow, but hardly a death knell. A talented group of writers can draw tons of readers through more creative online content. I would certainly hope that in the realm of everyday team coverage, a football fan would be able to find more sophisticated coverage among the professional sports writers of the newspapers than in the blog world or on the team websites. If not, then they probably shouldn’t be professional sports writers.

As for the NFL, it should come as no surprise to the readers of this blog that I believe the NFL is completely within their rights to limit video and audio broadcast of their product online. They have also not interfered with the online newspapers’ ability to broadcast interviews with players and coaches that are not recorded on NFL property. Any newspaper looking for video clips only needs to place a reporter and a camera in a strip club or gun shop right outside the team’s training facility and wait. Having had the opportunity myself to hang out with NFL stars in this environment leads me to believe that they can be much more engaging and interesting from a fan’s perspective. This example was mainly inserted for humor…mainly, but it shows that just maybe there would be a creative way for online newspapers to provide their readers with content that the NFL could not limit.

Those that are most upset about this new rule keep rambling on about how the NFL would not be what it is today without the coverage provided by the print media, but perhaps the NFL, in conjunction with most other major sports, could say the same thing. But that’s all history now. The NFL has a new television network, and every team has its own website. Times have changed, and there really isn’t anything that the NFL needs from the print media (this point can be argued, but that seems to be how the league feels) in order for its fans to be updated with current information. Fans in other arenas have begun to move their patronage elsewhere as well. Have you noticed that the stock listings section of your local newspaper has been drastically reduced or disappeared all together? Why would I unfold some big cumbersome piece of paper to find out what yesterday’s close price was whenever I could just go online and get the current price straight from the exchange? The NFL is simply following a trend in the distribution of information, where the middle-men are being taken out more and more. The online print sports guys should take a cue from their business page colleagues. Just because they don’t print the stock listings anymore, doesn’t mean they have to quit their job. I read the Wall Street Journal (online) religiously every day, and I pay a sizable sum for it. I don’t do it because that’s where I can find security prices, I do it because they write interesting articles and provide me with valuable insight that I use to make decisions both at home and at work. Put more simply, intelligent writing will attract readers more than video clips.

If the newspapers do decide to push what little leverage they have in this situation, they can simply forget to report whenever one of the NFL players does something for charity (having lived in St. Louis during the Warner years, the purchase of a home for a low-income family was an everyday occurrence), or they could report a whole lot whenever a player gets busted driving drunk in possession of a firearm.

All in all, I doubt this new rule has much effect on anything. The NFL can do whatever it wants. It really isn’t worth speculating whether or not this is a good business decision on the part of the league…Never mind, I speculate that this is probably a pretty good business decision for the league. They lose nothing while at the same time providing their sponsors with exclusivity. The newspapers have to realize, that anyone can make “online news,” I’m doing it right now, but as far as competition is concerned, I am setting the bar pretty low.

Travis
E-mail us

Ron Artest suddenly likes to help others

2007-07-17T02:17:00.000-05:00

Ron needs to fix his image badly.

First off, let me say that humanitarianism is always honorable. Taking time out of one's busy schedule to donate energy and resources to the less fortunate is something to be proud of. But I want to focus on people's motivations.

When someone does something nice for humankind — whether it's volunteering at a homeless shelter, providing African relief or handing someone their wallet they just dropped on the sidewalk — there's always a motivation.

Some people do it out of the goodness of their heart. They feel that doing something good for their fellow man is just something they were made to do. They feel that everyone should think this way, and are often dismayed when they see others pass up opportunities to help.

Some people do it because it makes them feel good inside. Maybe deep down, they would have loved to have kept that wallet that fell on the ground in front of them, but the reward of the money outweighed the overall warm-fuzzy feeling they got from making someone else happy. Maybe they would have preferred to have their Saturday morning to themselves, but they went to volunteer at the children's hospital instead because the happiness they brought to the kids made them feel good about themselves.

Then, there is a third kind. We'll call these kinds of people "Me Humanitarians."

Me Humanitarians are usually in the public eye. Politicians, celebrities and athletes comprise this group for the majority. Their motivation is to be seen doing good things. They have the means to help, and they do. But they do it from a completely different motivation than the first two on the list. Most of the time, these people do good services to maintain an image. They are seen as good guys, and they want to keep it this way. It might earn them votes (politicians), endorsement opportunities (athletes) or higher-level celebrity status. Then there are those who perform good acts in an attempt to repair their image.
Enter Mr. Ron Artest.

With a practical laundry list of idiotic and criminal actions from his past, Ron Artest has figured it's finally time to go straight. After the NBA announced that Artest and former knucklehead teammate Stephen Jackson would each be suspended for seven games because of their respective criminal transgressions, Artest was a day late in publicly responding because he is on a relief mission in Kenya.

Don't pin me as labeling what Artest is doing as some kind of despicable act. Obviously humanitarian work of any kind is a positive thing. But my caution to the fans of the world is to keep your opinions of Ron Artest intact. Instead of looking at the actions that people take, always look at the motivations behind them, lest we be fooled into thinking Artest is actually turning over a new leaf. He's done some community outreach activities in the past, so this new brand of good guy persona isn't entirely brand new.

Let's give him a year. If he's still walking the line, then I'll reconsider. For now? Don't expect me to go drafting him early in my fantasy draft this year. It's all just posturing.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Ties are not the enemy

2007-07-15T16:24:00.000-05:00

Let's end it here.

Ties. They are the bane of American sports fans, often cited as one of the reasons Americans can’t get behind soccer. NCAA football and the NHL have, in recent years, eliminated ties from their competitions with contrived formats that hardly represent the sport in its true form. Four on four hockey and 25-yard football both determine winners, but you cannot say that those wins came from playing actual football or hockey. Those wins come from mini-games tacked on to the end of the match just so we can say that somebody "won". They might as well play a game of Gradius, a la the NES classic hockey game Blades of Steel to determine the winner.

Granted these are creative and entertaining ways to determine a winner, but they are not really fair to all the teams that are victorious at the end of regulation time and they bastardize the sport in some ways by changing the rules to provide a winner in a timely fashion. Why does an NBA team that needed 53, 58, or 63 minutes to defeat its opponent get equal credit as the team that needed just the standard 48? If you needed extra time, a few extra possessions, or a four on four situation to defeat your opponent, there is no reason why it should be credited as a win because, in all fairness, the win came as a result of a special situation in which the teams otherwise would not find themselves. When the game starts, the players, coaches, and fans know that their team has 48 minutes (or however long your favorite sport’s regulation time lasts) to win, and if they cannot, get it done in the time allotted. A second chance at victory should not be awarded.

Overtimes favor the more talented team, also. The Celtics should be rewarded in some way for staying even with the Cavaliers through 48 minutes instead of being subjected to five extra minutes of LeBron James and, most likely, a loss. On some days, teams are equal and nobody deserves the win, ties reflect that better than anything else. When a winner of a match is not guaranteed, the value of winning is increased and play will elevate to reflect that.

Now, I will say that overtimes provide an aura of excitement after regulation is over. Games like the epic New Jersey Nets vs. Phoenix Suns game this year illustrate that perfectly. That game set the record for points scored in an NBA game while providing loads of memorable moments and stat padding statistics for all players involved. However, in a sport like basketball, that excitement would just be crunched into the last few minutes of the game. In the end, teams would have to decide on taking a two for the tie or a three for the win without the benefit of a looming overtime period to bail them out if they decide to do the safe thing and go for two.

This leaves us with a playoff conundrum though. In the FIFA World Cup of old, if a game in the Knockout Round (playoff round) ended after 90 minutes in a tie, the teams would just have to play another game two days later. This rule was quickly abandoned in favor of the two-fifteen minute overtime periods followed by a (silly) shootout that we see today. Albeit this is a time-consuming way to determine winners, it is a very motivating way to end games during regulation as I’m sure not many NFL players would want to play a second game in the first round to advance in the playoffs. For basketball, hockey, and baseball, this is very doable. Imagine your favorite basketball team tying two games in a row, staving off elimination to advance to the next round. Or, if two games in a best of seven series result in ties, the series would just become a best of five, and so on.

In short, overtimes usually turn a sport into somewhat of a different game played with similar rules to force a result that was not necessarily earned outright by the victorious team. Over the course of an 82-game season there are plenty of opportunities to win, the great teams would find a way to do it in 48 minutes, like they are supposed to.

Kenneth
E-mail us

Kenneth is a guest contributor to laissez-faire ball.

Some more tips for signing players

2007-07-14T01:01:00.000-05:00

Signing the Magic's ticket to being almost good enough.

Now that Rashard Lewis has been introduced by the Orlando Magic and the dust has settled, the second guessing game is in full force. Inspired by the exorbitant contract Lewis received, ESPN's Chad Ford wrote a fantastic article advising teams on how to manage the salary cap.

His five suggestions are great and hit at the heart of many NBA team's mistakes when signing players. There are a few I would like to add to this list.

Don't be fooled by statistics, they can be deceiving
Lewis puts up great stats. But, Ford astutely points out that Lewis was the second-best player on his old team, his old team was bad and he isn't even the best player on his new team. But, because he averaged 22 points, 6.6 rebounds and hit 151 three pointers last year, the Magic felt he automatically made them a championship contender (why else would you give someone a max contract?). Sure, Lewis makes them better, but at what price? As Ford also points out, they have no flexibility now. Because the Magic were fooled by stats, they now have someone who is a reasonably soft second-tier scorer who plays little defense under contract for the next six years.

Stay away from long-term deals for players over 30 years old
GMs inevitably hand over long contracts to players on the other side of the hill of their careers. Sure, the first three years of that contract might be rosy, but the last two or three years always, always, always end up being an albatross. Let it be known that I acknowledge the need to sometimes offer more contract years to a player for the purpose of luring him away from the competition, but a certain amount of discretion is still required in offering contracts. Many times offering more money with less years under contract is a smarter play. Players are usually in their primes from 26-30 years old. Use some responsibility and recognize that players usually start a sharp decline around 31-33, so why offer a player a long, cumbersome contract that will end up paying for a player's move into retirement when they are 35 or 36? Lewis is about to turn 28, so the Magic are bumping the nose of acceptability on this one.

The amount that a player helps your team should be proportional to his pay
If your team's cornerstones are rebounding and scoring around the rim, a player who compliments those things very well may be worth more to your team than to another. Sometimes paying a player over market value is fine, as long as it makes sense with team needs. For example, the Suns gave Steve Nash an accurate amount of money for what he was worth...just under the max contract level. But they were criticized for giving him such a long contract. While it may be true that they will rue the final year or two of that contract, it was worth it for them to overpay for the one cog that makes their machine work properly. Now? The only ones criticized for the Nash situation are the Mavericks, who refused to match that contract and instead signed Erick Dampier to an even longer contract. So, Nash is paid quite a bit of money, but he constitutes such a high percentage of that team's success that he will never be paid enough. That is what makes it a good deal.

Find a number and stick to it
A smart team finds the maximum price they are willing to pay a free agent and sticks to it. Once you start making concessions about contract length and salary, you will always end up overpaying. Players are only worth what you think they are worth. Let someone else overpay for them if they want.

Ultimately, as I always point out, it comes down to owner responsibility. Every owner should have the right to pay a player what they wish, but that doesn't mean you have to have an overzealous means to an idiotic end.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Some suggestions to juice up All-Star Monday

2007-07-11T02:16:00.000-05:00

Why not stick Carlos in a home run derby?

As the Home Run Derby concluded Monday night, I couldn't help feeling like there was something missing...an opportunity that was sorely missed. The Home Run Derby has a certain Herculean draw to it that people love, and there is definitely skill involved in succeeding in it. But power is only one part of the very complex game that is baseball. If Major League Baseball would like to add some more competitions to build fan interest, I think they could and fans would be very receptive to it. Why have All Star Monday consist solely of crap like the celebrity softball game and cap it with one decent event like the Home Run Derby. What if we expanded the Monday lineup a bit?

The NBA does it. They saw the slam-dunk competition's popularity and expanded to include pre-All-Star Game events. Of course, now it has become a bunch of laughable competitions that no one cares about (including the dunk contest), but their hearts were in the right place. These are the events that Major League Baseball could employ for a glorious Monday night of festivities:

Precision Outfield Toss
Tom Emanski's Back-to-Back-to-Back AAU National Champions wouldn't have crap on these guys. Set the players up in center field and put a small bucket at home plate and dare them to throw as many balls out of 10 that they can. The last ball could be a "money ball," a la the three-point competition in the NBA. Come on Andruw Jones, even you and your .211 batting average could go to the All-Star Game this year if you wanted to.

This year's entrants:
Jeff Francoeur, Delmon Young, Willy Taveras, Michael Cuddyer, Josh Hamilton
Winner: Jeff Francoeur
Has a cannon and has 10 assists, second among outfielders. Cuddyer is the obvious choice with 15 assists, but I like to live dangerously on my fake predictions.

Home Run Rob
Everyone's favorite highlight play can come to life over and over again in this competition of skill and style. A coach or teammate of the participant lobs a ball that goes just over the wall or at the wall, and the player must make the catch in the most entertaining way possible. Be it a back flip, a running up the wall a la Bo Jackson or just an old-fashioned cookie jar grab over the fence, this one would look mighty cool. You wouldn't have to limit it to outfielder either as there are plenty of athletic fellows in infields around the Majors who could pull this off with gusto. Judged by a panel including Ken Griffey Jr., Bo Jackson, Ichiro, and Kevin Mitchell (why not?), this would be judged on style and the successful grab.

This year's entrants
Torii Hunter, Jose Reyes, Curtis Granderson, Chone Figgens, Joe Crede
Winner: Curtis Granderson
Nimble, athletic and has an awesome name. Has the right amount of flash to pull this off like it should.

Inside-the-park home run
This one is basically a test of foot speed and not much else. To start, you have to hit a ball out of the infield in the air, then make it as fast as possible around the bases. It could be a great showcase for the league's young speedsters and it would interesting to see if anyone would fall flat on their face.

This year's entrants
Jose Reyes, Carl Crawford, Reggie Willits, Curtis Granderson, Hanley Ramirez
Winner: Hanley Ramirez
He's incredibly fast and seems like he would try more than everyone else. Probably has some kind of inferiority complex to Reyes.

Fungo Precision Swat
As much as the Precision Outfield Toss judges throwing accuracy, the Fungo Precision Swat is about hitting a ball at a specific point. You could pit coaches against players, or, even better, have a team of a player from one team and the coach who hits fungo for that respective team.

This year's entrants
Rangers, Art Howe and Kenny Lofton; Red Sox, Dave Magadan and Kevin Youkilis; Astros, Jose Cruz and Mark Loretta
Winner: Astros, Jose Cruz and Mark Loretta
Homer pick puts Cheo and Loretta in the winner's circle because I want them to be there.

Non-Pitcher Strikeout Challenge
This one pits position players who think they can pitch against high school baseball players. It's simple, you pitch an inning, and whoever puts up the best stats (or least worst) wins. The only requirement to enter is that you can't have pitched a single pitch in the Majors. So, guys who did it up in the minors or high school, feel free to jump right in.

This year's entrants
Richie Sexson, Aaron Rowand, Vladimir Guerrero, Shane Victorino
Winner: Vlad Guerrero
High school hitters are so terrified that Vlad will hit them that they whiff while falling out of the batters box.

Pitcher's Home Run Derby
This one is pretty self-explanatory. You scoot the fence in about 15-20 feet and let the pitchers go to town. The only requirement would be to have pitched the minimum amount of innings to qualify for the statistical leaders list at the All-Star Break. The comedy of this one would be unrelentingly hilarious.

This year's entrants
Carlos Zambrano, Bronson Arroyo, Mike Hampton, Kerry Wood, Dontrelle Willis
Winner: Carlos Zambrano in a landslide.
Things Carlos Zambrano does well: hit home runs with excellent frequency for a pitcher, emphatically pump him fist after striking someone out, punching Michael Barrett.

Understandably, some of these competitions might push away some players for fear of injury risk, but just as happens with the NBA dunk contest, there will always be youngsters out there looking to make a name for themselves any way they can.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

ESPN goes the way of MTV, who cares?

2007-07-10T00:40:00.000-05:00

They really aren't all that different.

And just like that, the last shred of ESPN's previous glory days is completely gone from the picture.

Don't get me wrong, ESPN has grown into a hackneyed, tiresome elephant that isn't getting any better. I watch the sporting events they carry, and I occasionally watch an Outside the Lines piece. But, the ESPN as I and many others knew it is gone.

But my feelings are different than most who hate what ESPN has become. You know why? Because there are a million other places to get what I need sports-wise. When it was born, ESPN was the sole national sports news provider. There was little choice about where to get your sports information outside of the local newscast's three-minute sports bit or tomorrow's newspaper. The innovation they provided will always be felt. But, because of that innovation, everyone else eventually figured out that it would be a good idea to jump on and start mass broadcasting sports.

Now that ESPN has become fat and happy, they have ceased to possess the edge that once made them great. But, I'll end my criticism there. ESPN can do what they wish, and getting angry about it is absolutely pointless. For every angry blogger that makes a list of all the reasons why ESPN sucks, there are ten fat, happy television watchers who don't mind hearing Stuart Scott or Chris Berman speak nonsense. For every overESPNed sports fan out there that is appalled by the asinine segment currently running called "Who's Now?", there is a viewer who is just fine with consuming it.

The funniest part of this is that it all seems eerily similar. Know why? MTV did the exact same thing.

Once upon a time, MTV was badass. Programming was rife with music videos, music shows, edgy cartoons and the occasional Real World (which at the time was the only reality show, and thus acceptable). Then, something changed. MTV started cutting back on its music-based programming and started to focus more on reality shows, comedy programs and popular culture shows. As MTV was in the process of transitioning out of being a majority music-based network, they added M2, which eventually became MTV2. They transitioned most of their music-based programming to M2, and those that were lucky enough to get M2 on their cable package could still watch shows like 120 Minutes, Yo! MTV Raps and Amp. Eventually MTV2 transitioned into a slightly tweaked version of late-1990s MTV and became full of spare crap like its parent company. Now they are basically the same network with a few different shows. MTV puts more focus on the TV than the M, and that's fine. They found the audience that would make them buckets of money and stuck with it. That's called being a smart business.

The beauty about the time frame of MTV's transition out of being a music-based network was the rise of the Internet. Now, instead of waiting on 120 Minutes to tell me a new Jon Spencer Blues Explosion or Faith No More album was coming out, I could get on the Internet and find out everything I needed to know. In the past few years, with the advent of Youtube, even having a network to broadcast music videos has become obsolete. You can find them all on the Internet already and watch exactly the ones you want to see without wading through the occasional terrible one as you used to have to do when MTV still showed music.

As time progressed, ESPN found their niche also. They have found that following the E, P and N in their name will make them more money than the S. If that's how they find success, then let them go right ahead. Just don't believe them when they purport to put their journalism first, because that is an obvious lie. But the beauty of it all is that we don't have to get our sports news from ESPN anymore. In essence, ESPN's change and MTV's have been the same, and the world's information consumption has transitioned with it.

So, my recommendation to those of you who are fed up with ESPN's mediocre-to-bad programming: start watching ESPNews, a Fox Sports affiliate or the Internet. Lord know there's plenty out there to consume.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

The greatest solo sporting event on Earth

2007-07-08T15:36:00.001-05:00

Let's hope the UCI can start cracking down on doping, then maybe people will start to care again.

In 1903 the Parisian equivalent to Sports Illustrated, L'Auto (now known as L'Equipe), founded the greatest bicycle race on the face of the Earth and named it the Tour de France. The Tour was conjured up to increase newspaper circulation, which it dramatically did, but through the years has grown into what can be seen as the greatest individual sporting event on Earth.

Sure the Olympics can provide some outstanding individual efforts in track and field, swimming, and other such sports. Marathoners and triathletes have all of our respect with their strength, endurance, and willingness to compete in what seems to be more self-torture than sport. The cyclists that compete in the Tour de France have them all beat, hands down.

In a race that spans a little over three weeks, 2,000+ miles, and with a measly two rest days, it is hard to argue that any event can hold a candle to what these guys put themselves through in pursuit of the coveted maillot jaune or, yellow jersey. Just take a look at this and tell me that even completing the race is an easy feat. It isn't. That's right, these guys ride bikes at speeds reaching 60 mph (downhill, of course) across most of France, parts of Belgium, through the French Alps, and through the Pyrenees Mountains. For those who are not familiar with France's mountain ranges, the peaks of the Alps are right up there with the Rockies while the Pyrenees are not far behind. Every year several cyclists who specialize in flat land cycling (sprinting) drop out when the mountain stages begin while during the race the Voiture balai, or broom wagon, collects riders who can not finish or are too far behind.

Everyone who has even overheard a conversation or news piece about cycling will tell you that they don't care because most of the riders, in their opinion, are using performance-enhancing drugs. The types of drugs used in cycling tell you just how rigorous the sport is as most offenders are found to have taken EPO and/or given themselves blood transfusions to increase the amount of oxygen in the blood. Every sport has cheaters and dopers, very few sports have athletes who store up their own oxygen-rich blood with the intent of replacing their oxygen-depleted blood overnight. Hopefully, these practices are coming to an end as the UCI (cycling's governing body) has drafted tough, mandatory contracts for riders to adhere to. This year is already looking ten times better than last year.

Assuming cycling can put its recent sordid past behind it and pedal into greener fields, the Tour de France will remain as one of the top sporting events in the world. It is already the penultimate test of human endurance and the pinnacle of what a solo athlete can achieve in the world of sports today.

Kenneth
E-mail us

Kenneth is a guest contributor to laissez-faire ball.

Everyone will love A-Rod in 2012

2007-07-07T01:32:00.001-05:00

Start getting ready to love some A-Rod.

As Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez hastily makes his way toward the 500 home run milestone and catches another all-time great in homers, it made me think. Why does the general public have a distaste for Alex Rodriguez?

He's pretty arrogant. But, he has earned the right to be. He's that damn good. Besides, what team in baseball doesn't have a handful or arrogant players? It's baseball after all, the arrogant player's sport.

He makes more money than any other player in Major League Baseball, but who cares? It's not like he's hurting the Yankees' salary cap situation since one doesn't exist. Are people subconsciously jealous?

He doesn't exactly seem very approachable, but then again, not seeming approachable doesn't necessarily make you an unpopular guy.

Honestly though, for the fans in the general public who dislike A-Rod, I think it mostly boils down to the amount of money he makes and his unwavering success; people are jealous by nature. But honestly, who cares right now? At this point in his career, he isn't approaching any milestones anyone else hasn't already reached several times. Hell, this season alone, he is one of five players who will likely achieve some significant home run milestones, so isn't like his story seems like anything special. With Sammy Sosa breaking 600, Frank Thomas breaking 500, Ken Griffey Jr. possibly making a run at 600 and Barry Bonds inching his way toward the all-time mark, A-Rod's 500 is seen as just another step for him, like it's something that has always been expected of him.

What the general public fails to foresee is the eventual love and admiration for A-Rod that is coming in about five to six years. With the everlasting hatred being directed at Barry Bonds, baseball-loving America will be looking for someone to right their record books. If someone can come along and unseat Bonds, no matter who it may be, America will embrace that person to no end. Enter a 37-year old Alex Rodriguez.

With more home runs at his age than any other player in history (Jimmie Foxx is second with 464 at age 31), he's on an unbelievable pace. Hell, he's had more home runs at his age than anyone in history ever year since he was 25 years old. His pace far outreaches Griffey, who had 460 at age 31. At his current pace, A-Rod should finish this season with 524 home runs.

Considering he finishes this season at his current pace of 58, he will have averaged 44.5 home runs over his past five seasons, an accurate enough sample for his career. Let's do a little career analysis on what we can look to expect from A-Rod as compared to some of the all-time great home-run hitters. We'll exclude Barry Bonds as his data would skew the results of this for some pretty obvious reasons.

Hank Aaron

Peaked at 37 years old with 47 home runs

Had an incredibly level career, fluctuations in home run totals never deviated very far from the mean

Didn't start missing any games to speak of until he was 37 years old

Played until age 42

Babe Ruth

Peaked at 32 years old with 60 home runs

Averaged about a 10 percent decline in home runs after 32 (not including final season in which he only played 28 games)

Only significant injury was a nasty case of gonorrhea at 30 years old that only let him play in 98 games that year

Played until age 40

Willie Mays

Peaked at 34 years old with 52 home runs

Took a pretty big hit after his peak with an 33-percent decrease in home runs after the 1965 season (percentage decline excludes his final three season in which he combined to play 154 games)

Didn't miss significant time until he was 38 years old, a season in which he played 117 games

Played until age 42

What does this tell us definitively? Absolutely nothing. A-Rod could very well pull a Griffey and start breaking down physically at 32, which is A-Rod's next birthday. But, Griffey had some injury issues even before breaking down for three seasons. In 1994 and 95, he combined for 183 games, part of which were missed with a hand injury. After becoming a full-time player in 1996, the fewest games A-Rod has played has been 129 in 1999 when he suffered a minor knee injury. He still finished that season with 42 homers. Excluding that, he has been almost injury free, and for the sake of this argument and the hope of baseball fans everywhere, let's assume that he doesn't just wilt like Griffey did for 3 1/2 years.

So, let's assume the following things about A-Rod in accordance with the information we have about him, Aaron, Ruth and Mays.

A-Rod will average 45 home runs in 2008 (32 years old) and 2009 (33 years old)

A-Rod will finish the 2007 season with his current pace of 58 home runs

A-Rod will peak in single-season home run total when he is 34 (an average age of the three players) with 60 home runs in 2010

His home run totals for each subsequent season will decrease by 10 percent (a reasonable estimate mostly based upon the logical decline of Ruth)

He won't miss significant time to injury

He will play until age 41 (average of the three)

When he is 40 and 41, he will play half a season due to his inherent oldness

If so, we can expect his home run totals to look like this:

2007: 58 HR (524 total)

2008: 40 HR (564 total)

2009: 50 HR (614 total)

2010: 60 HR (674 total)

2011: 54 HR (728 total)

2012: 47 HR (775 total)
And that's the record...assuming Bonds calls it quits at the end of this season, which he will.

Just for the sake of fun, let's see how many A-Rod should end up with:

2013: 44 (822 total)

2014: 39 (861 total)

2015: 18 (879 total)

2016: 16 (895 total)

Obviously this extrapolated data will not necessarily pan out this way, but it's interesting to look at where A-Rod should end up in the not so distant future anyway. Barring some catastrophic injury, he'll pass Bonds' record without a doubt. He may not get there as fast as this data suggests, but he will get there, and you will love him if for no other reason than the fact that he has a normal-sized head and a lack of the word "steroids" ever entering the same breath as "A-Rod."

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Solving the contract-year menace

2007-07-06T00:23:00.000-05:00

Please God, don't let them see me for the fraud that I am.

Imagine a scenario with me.

An NBA player is entering the last year of a multi-year deal. He plays as hard as he can and busts his hump harder than he ever has before. He's practically salivating at the prospect of all the money he's going to earn next year. He's averaging career highs in almost all of the major statistical categories and makes sure to play even harder when his team is playing on national television. He knows that once he earns that massive contract during the summer, he can go back to putting up an 80-percent effort for the remainder of his contract until another contract year comes up. Life is sweet.

As free agents are being snapped up by the dozens, several of which have likely duped their respective teams by a stellar contract year, it makes the mind wander into scenarios that would curb such situations. Now, I am absolutely acknowledging that the NBA Players Association would never, ever, ever approve of ideas like these, but for the sake of argument and interest, we'll map out two potential solutions.

Have teams provide more incentive bonuses and less guaranteed money
Instead of just guaranteeing every chunk of a contract to players, make their performance reflect the due they earn. Every player could still be paid a base salary which would still provide a substantial portion of a player's salary. But if 1/4 of a player's salary was determined by how many games he was able to play in a season (punishing oft-injured players and pansies), an expected minimum PER or other expected statistics such as rebounds, blocks or field-goal percentage (punishing lazy or suddenly inefficient players) or team wins earned (rewarding the team as a whole for success), you could keep players honest and focused toward a common goal of succeeding throughout the season. With clearly established individual and team goals, you can help keep players from "shutting themselves down" and reward them for continuing to produce a professional effort.

Have a team option of voiding one contract per year
At the end of the season, if a player has shown himself to be completely unworthy of the contract bestowed upon him, the team could feasibly void his contract completely, making him an unrestricted free agent. The catch is the team could only void one contract at the end of each season, so you would really just need to play better than another overpaid weak link. There is one facet of this possibility that would have to be worked out before it was implemented.

Some teams would inevitably sign a player for far more money than the market dictates. Because some teams would have the shady vision of cutting the player at the end of the season so they don't have to pay his salary, in essence renting him for one season, penalty provisions would have to be put into place to discourage teams from making unethical decisions, knowing they can just void their way out of it. So, as a penalty for voiding a lazy player's contract, the team would have to pay a quarter of the salary remaining on the players contract to the player, and a quarter of the remaining salary to the league as a penalty.

So, when Vince Carter is loafing his way through the middle of his enormous deal with the Toronto Raptors, the Raptors could simply cut him to go wherever he wishes, and only end up paying half of what they still owed him. It would free up salary cap space immediately, and allow them to possibly lure in a more honest player who won't laze up the final three years of his contract and demand a trade because he's bored. It would also encourage Carter to continue to play as hard as possible, and would kill some of his leverage to force a trade elsewhere. It's a sticky situation that would have several pitfalls, but the current system certainly has plenty of pitfalls as well.

In reality, for this problem to be solved, owners would have to start exercising contract responsibility, something of which they have obviously shown themselves to be incapable. So, as long as the Vince Carters, Erick Dampiers, Tim Thomases and Mike Jameses of the world continue to bust their hump for one year, idiot owners will continue to throw salary-cap destroying amounts of money at them for all eternity.

This year's candidates? Vince Carter, Matt Barnes, Gerald Wallace and Mikki Moore. If I'm a betting man, I'm betting this year's production from these guys will pale in comparison to last year's. Happy signing!

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Stick to the field with your sports criticism

2007-07-05T13:05:00.001-05:00

There's an epidemic going around. It spreads in newspapers, gyms, slow-pitch softball games, churches and pretty much anywhere that sports are discussed and debated. It's called I'd Never Do That syndrome.

In the sports world, there is always debate. It's inevitable that people want to offer what they feel that professional athletes should do with their lives. Second guessing in-game decisions as well as off-field decisions are the easiest arguments to make.

On-field issues are easy to discuss and criticize for several different reasons. We have the benefit of gruelingly reviewing plays through instant replay and discussion, which gives us some kind of perceived omniscience about the game that is almost always skewed and incomplete. Some who played the sport (no matter how briefly) feel they have some kind of extra knowledge that some egghead who just watches that particular sport doesn't have. Never mind that they probably played for two years in the long, long ago; they know the sport because they played it.

But, despite the annoying proportions that in-field criticism reaches, it isn't that bad. After all, that's many people's reason for following sports: to live the sports dream by proxy. No, the most egregious sports opinions are the ones that have to do with issues surrounding sports that don't involve in-game analysis. That's where INDTs strikes truest.

Everyone has heard it before. "Look at Barry Bonds, what a cheater. I never would have taken steroids. That just isn't right." Another classic: "How could he abandon his teammates for a few extra million dollars? I would have taken the pay cut." And finally, my favorite: "How could that guy go out partying like that? He makes millions, he could buy the party and bring it to his place. I'd never have gotten caught doing something stupid like that if I made his kind of money."

Just stop it. As I addressed in my article about LeBron James' Darfur situation, unless you have the money and face the situations these athletes deal with, you have no basis for saying how you would react.

Some people may possess the fortitude to say "no" to using steroids and making millions of dollars in salary and endorsements that come from it, but its moot. Until that situation is staring you in the face, you have no right to pass judgement on a pro athlete who decided he would use a substance that wasn't illegal to earn himself more money than you'll ever know. Players who allegedly used steroids like Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Jason Giambi are rich men, and many of their kind are unapologetic about their pasts. They saw a pile of money waiting for them and sacrificed some of their long-term health and dignity for a lot more money. But, inevitably, some yahoo next to you at a bar will still be spouting on about how "they should give the money back, they cheated." Well, I hate to argue with you (seriously you're probably an idiot), but it isn't cheating because Major League Baseball screwed up and didn't make it illegal until the integrity of the sport was already compromised. So, any player out there that used performance-enhancing drugs before MLB outlawed them had the choice to take their health into their own hands as well as all the money they'd be making, or keep plugging along with their natural talent alone. On a personal note, I don't want Barry Bonds to break Hank Aaron's home run record. It's not because he played in a tainted era or used steroids. I just can't stand the guy. He's an insufferable jerk. That's far more of an offense than doing something that was within the rules at the time.

Salary issues are also a favorite point of contention. In December of 2005, Johnny Damon signed to the Yankees as a free agent for a few million more than the Red Sox had offered him. Red Sox fans were outraged. How could Damon just throw the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry to the side and sign with the enemy like that over a measly few million dollars? It should have been obvious. Your goofy rivalry doesn't mean a damn thing to him. You'd probably have taken the money too, hypocrite. He wanted more money and a new situation, and he took it. You thought he owed you some kind of break in playing for Boston when all he really owed you was to play the best he could while he was there. If anything, they should have been angry at ownership for not stepping up and paying Damon. Stop giving the team your money if you're that mad.

The most fun point of criticism involves off-field mischief players get into. I usually like to restrict my criticism to "What a dumbass" and try to leave it at that. But I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone remark about how they can't believe a player would continue to go out to clubs when trouble usually finds them. Well, guess what? They have tons of money and like to have fun, it's really not a novel concept. It doesn't make their activities smart, but it's not like it doesn't make any sense. As a general rule, people like to have fun. If they have the means to do it, they're likely going to have fun and bring all their friends along for the ride. So, get off your high horse and put a lid on it, you have no idea what their temptations are like unless you are put in their situation.

The bottom line is this: just because you follow sports and watch them religiously doesn't give you some kind of expert license to know what it's like to be faced with a pile of money and an endless amount of decisions concerning it. Stick to criticizing the on-field moves, it's a lot more fun to act like an expert that way.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Sonics made a good call: Start from the ground up

2007-07-03T18:31:00.000-05:00

In case anyone was wondering if Seattle was starting over completely, the last nail has finally entered that coffin. According to reports, free agent Rashard Lewis will join the Orlando Magic in a five-year, $75 million deal.

After making the playoffs in 2005 and winning in the first round, things have gone badly for the Sonics. After going 52-30 in that season, they followed it up with a lackluster 35-47 season and won only 31 games last year. With their best player Ray Allen not getting any younger, and their up-and-coming star Rashard Lewis likely working himself into quite a bit more than than the Sonics want to pay him, they were at a bit of a crossroads as an organization. Actually, they were and still are at a huge crossroads. With their new ownership considering a move from Seattle, there could be huge changes coming their way. Regardless, before the lottery winners had been announced, the Sonics were likely wondering what direction to go concerning their roster. And then, the lottery answered all their questions for them.

That's when they made a conscious decision to start from scratch. Let the two the links to the past go. Even if they are stand-up guys like Lewis and Allen, allow your youth to develop in a trial by fire. Allow your future core to learn together, improve together and mature together.

So, the Sonics saw a good deal on the table for Ray Allen and took it. In turn, they received the number five overall selection, Delonte West and Wally Szczerbiak. They selected Georgetown forward Jeff Green with the pick, and now new golden boy Kevin Durant has a sidekick to start fresh with. The Sonics didn't want Durant being a sidekick to anyone to start with, and that's fair from a marketing standpoint and from a basketball standpoint.

Now the Sonics will likely roll with a lineup that looks like this:

PG Luke Ridnour, 26 years old; Backup: Delonte West, 23 years old

SG Wally Szczerbiak, 30 years old (the lone grandpa); Backup: Damien Wilkins, 27 years old

SF Jeff Green, 20 years old; Backup: Mickael Gelabale, 24 years old

PF Kevin Durant, 18 years old; Backup: Nick Collison, 26 years old

C Chris Wilcox, 24 years old; Backup: Robert Swift, 21 years old

The Sonics finally realized what most teams never do. Sometimes it just makes sense to strip it down the foundation and build a new house. Don't just remodel it or buy some new cabinets or paint the living room a new coler. Bulldoze it.

Why keep some older holdovers on the roster when you can start something completely new? Screw the two years or so that would won't be competitive, the dividends when the players mature will pay off more than you can imagine. Strangely enough though, hardly anyone considers this an option. At least in the NBA, no one ever seems happy with completely blowing up the team and starting over. Call it a fear of alienating the fan base, fear of lost revenue during the rebuild or whatever you like, but the alternative to these decision will be so much better. The New York Knicks are proof positive of this. This is a team that reloads itself with different overpaid, overrated players every year. The have put themselves in such a hole under the salary cap, there appears to be no way out. And the reason? Who the hell knows. I assume it's because the money keeps pouring in from television contracts. That is their prerogative, but Knicks fans know the difference. And eventually, Knicks management might have a revolt on their hands.

So, while the Sonics rebuild for the brightest of futures, other teams should consider the same. That is, if it's still possible.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Countdown to a glorious meltdown at the Garden

2007-07-03T00:40:00.001-05:00

Thank you Isiah Thomas for constantly keeping me in stitches. And thank you Zach Randolph for being a nutburger-crazy man who has overrated stats and makes buckets of money.

This is going to end so gloriously, hilariously awful.

The big story during the draft had the New York Knicks acquiring Zach Randolph, Dan Dickau and Fred Jones from the Portland Trail Blazers for Channing Frye and Steve Francis.

For one of those rarest of moments, Knicks fans actually applauded throughout the Madison Square Garden theater, capped off by long-time Knicks fan Spike Lee putting his support behind the transaction for all the world to see.

Knicks fans and some writers have been complimenting Thomas, the Knicks coach and President of Basketball Operations, for finally having made a good decision. Lord knows he's made plenty of bad ones.

So, now Randolph (listed extremely modestly at 215 pounds) joins a frontcourt that also includes Eddy Curry (285 pounds and growing) and Jerome James (listed at 280 pounds), the Knicks will look to ~~outeat~~ outscore teams in the post. I say outscore because none of these guys play a lick of defense and offer absolutely nothing other than scoring and rebounding. Curry and Randolph combined to average 0.7 blocks per game last year. How is it even possible to play center or power forward without lucking into at least a block a game? These guys combined to block 55 shots last year. And that's the big-man tandem you want to go to compete with? So, I will acknowledge Randolph averaged 23 points and 10 rebounds last year, but I will also point out that he averaged 3.16 turnovers while only handing out 2.2 assists per game. Additionally, for a post player, he only shot 46.7 percent, which is pretty bad considering that most of his scoring is done so close to the basket.

Another misconception floating around (see 6:14 here) is that the Knicks tossed out Steve Francis' bad contract in the deal, which was something Isiah Thomas had been wanting to do ever since he realized trading for him was a horrible idea in the first place. Here's the thing though, Francis' contract ($33.5 remaining) is up at the end of the 2009 season, so he only had two years left under contract. He also gave up Channing Frye who will make about $2.4 million in this, his final guaranteed year. By contrast, Randolph will make $61.2 million on the remainder of his contract that runs until 2011. Some kind of salary relief fantasy in this deal is completely out of the question. The Knicks almost doubled the money they took on and will be on the books for such for four more years. You think they're ready for four years of Zach Randolph?

On top of all this mess, there is Randolph's flawless record of behavior to consider. You name it, he's done it or been accused of it. Sexual assault, DUIs, punching a teammate, flipping off fans. You name it, his name has been in the same sentence with it. Isiah is deluding himself into thinking Randolph will turn over a new leaf in New York City of all places. Why would someone leave a quiet city like Portland and all of a sudden stop acting like a knucklehead in New York City? There's a whole other world of naughtiness to jump into in New York. Come on, this is the guy whose high school coach famously remarked "I just don't want the day to come where I pick up that paper and it says he shot someone, or that he was shot. Every day that goes by that I don't see that, I feel good." So, while Isiah and Knicks fans beguile themselves into thinking Randolph will help them to the playoffs, I'll just sit back and throw some popcorn in the microwave. I can't wait for the honeymoon to end.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Warriors have to be wanting some Yi

2007-07-02T00:35:00.000-05:00

As I discussed at the end of my last post, the Milwaukee Bucks selected Yi Jianlian with the sixth overall pick in Thursday's NBA draft. Yi's request to have a team that was in a large metropolitan area with a high Chinese population select him obviously went on deaf ears, and he is now headed to Milwaukee...for now.

My theory is that as soon as Milwaukee selected Yi, Don Nelson and his cohorts with the Golden State Warriors immediately started making moves to get Yi in Oakland.

As I am sure the Warriors were intently watching, the Charlotte Bobcats selected Brandan Wright with the eighth overall selection. Michael Jordan, who is evidently calling the shots for Charlotte personnel moves had publicly stated he was tired of losing as the Bobcats have been since their inception in 2004. It looked as if the Bobcats were looking for a veteran who could make a big impact immediately. Golden State saw this opportunity and jumped right on it.

So, now Golden State holds the player that was selected two picks after Yi, readying them to offer Milwaukee a do-over and obtaining a player the Bucks would have been justified in selecting at the No. 6 pick. Depending on how enamoured the Warriors are with Yi and how impatient the Bucks get with Yi's lack of desire to play in Milwaukee, an even swap could be in the cards. The Warriors don't have very many spare pieces laying around with Matt Barnes likely leaving to be overpaid elsewhere and Mickael Pietrus becoming a restricted free agent. I could see them packaging Wright with their bonehead draft selection last year, Patrick O'Bryant, in an effort to convince the Bucks to part with Yi.

The reasons the Warriors are likely so high on getting Yi to the Bay Area has to do with several factors.

First and foremost, Yi is the exact type of player Don Nelson can mold into a success in the NBA game. See Yi as Nellie's latter-day Dirk Nowitzki. Nellie is accustomed to dealing with language barriers, coaching players who aren't interested in playing defense and being viewed as a Godfather-type figure. If he can get Yi to work up to his potential, he'll be canonized with God-like status as he was with Mavericks fans before Mark Cuban started villianizing him.

Secondly, Yi would be a perfect fit in Oakland because of the Bay Area's huge Asian population. San Francisco and Oakland combine to have the second most Chinese Americans in the country (behind New York City) and have easily the most Chinese Americans per capita of any area of the United States. Financially, Yi's presence in such an area would pull a windfall of support from a faction of fans that probably never would have attended a game before, but now will be attending games, buying T-shirts, and generally putting wads of cash into Warriors owner Chris Cohan's pocket.

Third, from everything I hear and read about Yi, he seems perfect for the system that Golden State employs. Athleticism, jump shooting and ball movement are cornerstones of their success, and these are what Yi excels in. Notice defense isn't listed there, which means he'll fit in perfectly with Golden State.

There is word out that Yi would consider not reporting to play for the Bucks if they don't trade him and that it is a distinct possibility he will never play for the Bucks.

My feelings on the subject have always been very cut-and-dry. If you enter a draft for a sport, you are submitting to the possibility of going to whomever chooses you. That's why it's called a draft. Yi is already getting close to being Dead to Me in the sports world, joining John Elway, Steve Francis, Kiki Vandeweghe, Eli Manning et. al. For what's it's worth, I currently wish for a career-ending injury for anyone who pulls this move. Call me vindictive, I feel very strongly about this issue.

So, on one hand, for basketball sense, I hope Yi gets traded to the Warriors. For personal sense, I hope his knees explode in a glorious, career-ending injury if he forces his way out of Milwaukee. I'm sure he's losing sleep over my feelings right now.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

The Hawks usually do dumb things

2007-06-29T00:49:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine was outraged this morning that the Atlanta Hawks had killed talks about acquiring Amare Stoudemire from the Phoenix Suns for their third and eleventh overall draft picks. If they could do that deal, why not go through with it, he pleaded? Given, the Hawks are traditionally a dumb, disorganized franchise, so something stupid happening isn't totally out of the question with them.

Then, he and I discussed who they might potentially draft. Conventional wisdom had them taking Al Horford at the third overall selection. After some discussion, my friend settled on something that sounded like a move the Hawks would pull.

Yi Jianlian is a Chinese forward, who is roundly recognized as a good prospect with little assurance on how he will adjust to the NBA game. But, having (here comes the imminent draft-day buzzword) upside, he will go high. My friend basically landed on the idea that the Hawks were going to draft him since the Hawks didn't want to deal either of their picks. His justification (which, one again sounds like something the Hawks would do) was that the Hawks would select Yi to cash in on all the Chinese dollars that would come their way as a result of selecting him. Basketball skills be damned, this guy was a potential cash cow.

My friend was offended that a team would draft a player based upon potential revenue from afar and throwing team needs and basketball sense to the wind. He was offended, I found that I really wasn't. If a team wanted to take that risk player-wise, then why not? It's a business, they have every right to run it like they want to. If Yi turned out to be good, they would look like geniuses, both basketball-wise and business-wise.

Well, the Hawks didn't go that route, instead opting for the more basketball-sense route, which I believe, in the end will help to re-establish a better fan base in Atlanta by putting a higher quality product on the court. By selecting Horford, a great rebounder with athleticism, and Acie Law, a point guard with a winning pedigree and developed skills, they will hopefully develop something more permanent than a potential three-year project/cash machine in Yi. Plus, they wouldn't be stabbing the few fans they have left in Atlanta in the back.

Of course, Yi's desire was the be drafted to a team in a metropolitan city with a high Chinese population. Yi was drafted by Milwaukee. Umm, good luck there chief. More on that tomorrow.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Time to revive Pacific Northwest basketball fandom

2007-06-27T00:48:00.000-05:00

I must admit, I am salivating at the thought of the combined futures of the Pacific Northwest's two new superstars. With little distance between Greg Oden (who will assuredly be selected by the Portland Trail Blazers) and Kevin Durant (who will be taken by the Seattle Supersonics), the future for these two is obviously very bright.

It's obviously too early to call the rivalry they will likely have on par with some of the great rivalries in the past. Howeverm the greatest part is that their potential rivalry will be unique for several reasons.

1) Durant is competitive enough to see his draft position slipping below Oden by one spot as a major slight. Having put together the ridiculous season Durant did, he probably sees himself as the rightful owner as the top draft pick. Given, Oden had a good season with Ohio State, but honestly, it's not like his play was that impressive. It's obvious to the rest of us why the Blazers will take Oden at the No. 1 slot, he's one of a dying breed of skilled big men who actually want to be big men and dominate the post. But, in Durant's mind, a certain amount of bitterness has to be manifesting itself that will surely drive him to hungrily pursue Oden's team for the rest of his career.

2) Unlike some of the rivalries of old, such as Bird vs. Magic and Russell vs. Chamberlain, Durant and Oden will enter the league at the exact same time at the same age only one pick apart as a consensus No. 1 and 2. With everyone after them in the draft being toss-ups, the two of them from this draft class will constantly be compared, and their career paths will be analyzed in the same breath until one or both of them retires. Media exposure and the eventual commercial tie-ins will never let this die.

3) Unlike many of the rivalries throughout the years (namely Bird vs. Magic, Hakeem vs. Robinson, Jordan vs. Malone/Stockton) most of the more interesting ones haven't been intra-divisional, and if they were, they weren't as close in proximity as Portland and Seattle. With Nate McMillan defecting from the Sonics almost two years ago, the embers of a geographical rivalry have already been stoked between the two cities, and it's something neither will likely just forget about. Add all that to them playing each other four times every year and many inevitable face-offs in the playoffs, and it really looks like this could turn into a strong rivalry.

4) The two cities have embraced players such as these for their championships past. Seattle won with a dynamic scorer and Portland won with a dominant center. These guys match their respective city's formula of the past, it's just too perfect.

Now, just to play devil's advocate on myself for a bit, let's consider the things that could really screw this thing up. The first one is pretty obvious.

1) Both of them have to be damn good. If both of them don't live up to the hype or one suffers major injuries, this derails the whole plan. But, come on, they're both really good, so let's just assume they're both going to turn out to be badasses.

2) The Sonics move out of Seattle. OK, this is one is a good possibility. However, with the Sonics landing Durant, and basically overhauling their entire front office, the city of Seattle may come around to funding a new stadium if they see the product as up and coming that will boost the city's economy, and in turn, the owner may be inclined to keep the team in Seattle. It should be noted that if the Sonics do move out of Seattle, it will be the longest that an NBA team has been in one city before being moved to another.

But, even if the Sonics leave Seattle, I can still see the rivalry running strong despite the distance.

Here's hoping things go as planned, I am really dying for an interesting rivalry with some solid bases.

Oh, who am I kidding? The Sonics are leaving Seattle. Dammit.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Big guys and a potential youth movement

2007-06-23T01:41:00.001-05:00

I hope Tony Mejia is right on this one.

Irresponsible spending on the part of NBA owners—especially to big men—has reached epic levels over the last several years. It seems owners are dumbstruck by the size of some players and in turn they provide them with far more money than they are worth. See Erick Dampier, Ben Wallace, Adonal Foyle, Nenê, Fat Eddy Curry, Fat Jerome James, Mark Blount, Dan Gadzuric, Etan Thomas, Chris Kaman and Nazr Mohaammed are just a few examples.

Believe me, it is the right of the owners to pay someone however much they choose for their services, but for God's sake, use some common sense.

Even though his columns are mostly useless New England/Las Vegas blather now, Bill Simmons has always has a great point about NBA team's front offices. They are all in dire need of a "Vice President of Common Sense." How much could some of these former players or rich curmudgeons with no business being in the front-office benefit from someone with a little bit of common sense who knows basketball? Or, better yet, stop hiring yahoos as general managers and hire someone who knows that signing Jerome James to a $30 million contract isn't the shrewdest of moves. Either way, it's time to stop hiring old guys and former players, please.

Baseball is already trending toward a youth movement in the front office with mixed results. Theo Epstein has been a success in Boston and is the highest profile of the youngsters. Rangers GM Jon Daniels, despite getting an extension recently, has been a massive failure thus far. But, the potential pitfalls in baseball are much larger. The draft never guarantees a slam dunk and the management of a minor league system and the sheer volume of major league players really requires a thorough understanding of the major league system.

In many ways, basketball is much simpler. The undeveloped, scarce talent pool of the Developmental League and the small roster sizes (12 active players, 3 inactive) is far less than that of a baseball team (40-man roster just for the major-league-ready players) and the amount of players on an NBA team that even log significant time is usually between 7 to 10 depending on the team concept or coach. In that respect, a specific understanding of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and some people skills paired with a healthy dose of youthful common sense can go a long way in the NBA.

The Sonics are already going young by hiring 30-year-old Sam Presti earlier this month. For owners who spend so much on players, why wouldn't they find people who really know what they are doing? When will owners finally figure out that basketball-playing experience (staring at Danny Ferry, Isiah Thomas and Kevin McHale)doesn't mean you know anything about running a basketball team? When owners finally start to figure out that general managers have just as much to do with creating a contender as the coach that molds the players, teams might start making wiser decisions. If the league as a whole starts making smarter decisions, the player market might finally start to dictate accurate salaries for players and have them paid what they're worth.

Some guys are worth $15 or 20 million a year, and once teams and GMs start figuring out that being 7-feet tall doesn't automatically put you in that club, they'll finally stop weeping over their horrible signings.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Playing the athlete stock market

2007-06-20T02:26:00.001-05:00

Every once in awhile, you find a unique concept that is just so damn cool you have to mess with it for a few days before you really understand the parameters of how it works and the implications of it on your daily life.

Welcome to Protrade.com, another in the long line of awesome time wasters I consume on a daily basis.

It's like fantasy sports meets the stock market, and if you have a basic understanding of each, you can jump right into this thing with a few short tutorials.

When you register to the site, you start out with $5,000 in Protrade Dollars (fake money) that you have to trade for players and teams. At the beginning of each season, Protrade puts a dollar value on each player in the league. Once the season begins, Protrade users can go buck wild, buying players who they believe are undervalued and shorting (betting against) players they think are overvalued. As players are purchased, their price goes up, as players are sold, their price goes down. At the end of the season, they have an Earnings Day, where you cash out all the players you purchased during the season and (hopefully) make money off of said players. They currently offer MLB, NBA, NFL, NCAA men's basketball (teams only) and a Beta version of Golf (sorry NHL, nobody cares about you).

As you build up Protrade Dollars, you can cash them in for various levels of prizes, from crappy giveaway stuff with the Protrade logo, all the way up iPods and autographed jerseys. Although I imagine you'd really have to play it to earn enough Protrade dollars to cash in for a signed jersey (a signed Troy Aikman jersey will cost you 1.25 million Protrade Dollars), the fun of playing the stock market with players intrigues the hell out of me even if the prospect of earning the top prizes is unbelievably far away.

You can also register for challenges that cost you a little Protrade Dollars to enter, and give you the potential of earning lots of Protrade dollars (I am currently in one with a prize of $250,000).

If this sounds intriguing to you, trust me, it is. As I noodle along and buy and sell MLB players and teams, I can't do anything but drool at the prospect of playing this thing during the NBA season. Or maybe that's the anaesthetic from the dentist's office this morning.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Brad Ausmus surfs, we want to see some head wiggle

2007-06-18T00:29:00.000-05:00

Travis and I wrapped up our weekend of semi-debauchery by attending our second Astros game of the weekend, the second game of a three-game series against the Seattle Mariners. Saturday's giveaway was a Brad Ausmus surfer bobblehead doll (pictured) to the first 10,000 attendants. We got to the game about 30 minutes ahead of time, but unfortunately, all of the bobbleheads were gone. We were unhappy as each of us really wanted one.

So, after the Astros took care of the Mariners 9-4, Travis and I finished our time in Minute Maid Park by seeking one out. After quickly determining that no one in their right mind would leave one behind at their seat as they left, we proceeded to make our way out to the main concourse to try and buy one from someone.

As we walked up the aisle from our seats toward the concourse, Travis began asking people he spotted with more than one in their hand if they would sell him one for the reasonable price of $10. Several said no. Then he approached a family of seven or eight, and offered $15 to any member of the family who would sell him one. All of them denied him. "Good Lord, what family needs eight bobblehead dolls?" I remarked.

Semi-desperation set in on Travis (I never really got too stressed about it even though I also wanted one badly). He pulled out a $20 bill and started waving it around in the middle of the crowded concourse yelling to anyone who would listen that he was willing to buy a bobblehead for $20. It was admittedly hilarious to watch. A Minute Maid Park employee came up to him after about a minute of his random open bidding. She politely told him he had to stop for a reason on which we weren't quite clear. However, it made sense to me. Minute Maid Park wants you spending money with Minute Maid Park inside Minute Maid Park, and not giving it to anyone else. They have that right to deny anyone to sell anything inside the walls of the stadium that they choose. Well, before we had to resort to street haggling and acts of coercion, Travis found a taker in a reasonable old cowboy who realized the thing would probably end up collecting dust on a shelf in his closet. It was really quite surprising that it took him as long as he did to find a taker.

As Travis paraded around happily with his $20 Ausmus bobblehead, I scoped the crowd out a little more to see if anyone looked willing to part with theirs. I tried in vain, asking a mother with four in her hands if I could purchase one. Then, I spotted an Asian family, a husband, wife and small child. I thought quickly, A) they're likely Mariners/Ichiro fans, B) They know their kid is probably the only one who actually wants one, and, C) Asian cultures are far more efficient and nowhere near as wasteful as American culture and probably don't even want an extra one.

So, I sent my brother over (he's a far less imposing presence than me) to ask them if they would sell him one for $10. The wife consulted in Japanese to her husband, and they agreed. As my brother handed her the money, she asked him if he was sure, like she may well have just given it to him if he had asked. That's when I truly realized, instead of selling an extra doll for well over its market price, almost all of these people would rather take it home just to hoard it away, probably in a closet or in a box somewhere in their attic.

I can see bringing and extra one home to give away to a friend, but if I am at the ballpark with a wife and three kids, and we have five bobblehead dolls, two or three of them are getting sold if someone asks. Hell, I'd probably stand outside the stadium and ask someone with empty hands if they wanted to buy one.

It's really a simple question. Do you want $40, or do you want to take up space in your closet? I'm taking the cash.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

The NCAA is run by old guys

2007-06-12T01:38:00.001-05:00

Pulled straight from the file of "What the hell were you thinking?", the NCAA is enforcing a rule that prevents live blogging from the press box during a game. A Louisville Courier-Journal reporter was ejected from the press box of Jim Patterson stadium and had his credentials revoked when it was discovered he had (gasp!) been blogging throughout the game and the NCAA tournament.

Live blogging from the game, a practice that isn't new by any stretch, C-J writer Brian Bennett (pictured) was told that it "is against NCAA policies. We're revoking the credential and need to ask you to leave the stadium."

It's really quite obvious, but I guess I'll say it anyway. This is so incredibly dumb. Not only is the NCAA refusing to have its event promoted via the Internet, a forum they are obviously very ignorant of, but they ejected the evil-doer from the stadium, preventing him from further reporting on their event.

In a stadium that was constructed with the funding of the University of Louisville (a large part of it coming from the stadium's namesake) and state dollars, the NCAA should keep their hands out of who is doing what in a school's press box. It should be the host school policing each press box, and enforcing an arcane NCAA rule is likely the last thing UL wants to do to its local media folk.

First, the Courier-Journal needs to demand a changing of the rule and could even ask for an apology, although they would never get one.

Second, the University of Louisville needs to man up and let the NCAA know they disagree with the rule, that is if they would like to maintain a solid working relationship with the Louisville C-J.

Third, the NCAA needs to can this rule, it is obviously curtailing exposure for their sport, something they should know is never smart.

Just in case anyone was wondering if the NCAA is run by a bunch of curmudgeons, now all doubt has been removed. Those damn internets!

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Don't try and put yourself in LeBron's shoes, they're too big

2007-06-10T01:05:00.001-05:00

An underreported story in America, but a major crisis nonetheless, the genocide and humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan has really gotten to Cleveland's Ira Newble.

For those unaware, here's the short version of what's happening in Darfur. The Sudanese government funds a militia group called the Janjaweed that has caused somewhere between 200,000 and 450,000 deaths in response to prior rebellions by insurgents who sought autonomy from their non-representative government. The Chinese and Russian governments have given money and military supplies to the Sundanese government, which in turn goes toward oppressing and killing more people. China buys 2/3 of Sudan's oil, and thus are fully vested in maintaining that relationship at a cutthroat cost. Bottom line? It's a bad situation that isn't getting any better. The Wikipedia article on it is pretty accurate and explains it in a lot more detail than I will here.

Back to Ira Newble. The Cavs journeyman, who has played 8 minutes thus far in this year's playoff run, read up on the Darfur situation and got motivated. After gathering information and communicating with a professor/activist on the issue, Newble decided it was time to do something about it. So, Newble drafted an open letter to the Chinese government urging the Chinese government to use its power to end the suffering in Darfur before it hosts the Summer Olympics in 2008. Then, he sought all of his teammates to sign the letter as a showing of support in an effort to increase awareness along with trying to influence the Chinese government. Everyone signed...except for two players. LeBron James and reserve guard Damon Jones both declined.

LeBron signed a $90 million deal with Nike of which he still benefits. Jones recently signed a shoe contract with Li Ning, the leading Chinese sports manufacturer.

With Nike having a huge vested interest in China and Jones' sponsor also obviously having large stakes there, the reason for their refusal to sign the letter is pretty obvious. LeBron said he didn't want to sign because, "it's basically not having enough information" and Jones simply refused comment about the issue.

Now, writers around the country are jumping on their high horses (1, 2, 3, plus many more) to denounce James for putting his financial interests ahead of an opportunity to show support and raise awareness of an underreported issue. Many are shaming him for refusing to use his platform as a potential soapbox. Newble has even voiced a bit of displeasure about LeBron's refusal, but admits that LeBron needs more time to educate himself about the issue before he were to represent himself like that. Never mind the fact that he's been in the middle of leading an awful basketball team (and a terrible coach) to the Finals for the first time in his career, almost all by himself. Also, let's throw aside the fact that his long-time girlfriend is going to give birth to his second child any day now. The man likely hasn't had time to keep up on the local weather, much less on international conflicts.

I applaud Newble for his efforts, and it would be great if it catches on. Writers should be focusing more on lauding Newble than denouncing James.

Personally, I refuse to denounce or laud LeBron's decision to wait or refuse signing altogether, if that is what he ultimately decides. All the writers out there that are piling on him for not risking his and his employer's (Nike) money for a cause really need to check themselves. It's very easy to denounce someone successful or famous for not risking/spending their money when the denouncer isn't risking anything themselves. And, to a degree, it goes similarly for Newble. Making around $3.2 million a year, and little else from endorsements, Newble's risk is much lower than what LeBron would be laying on the line by signing a letter calling out the Chinese government.

In fact, this is indicative of a larger issue that I'll write about sometime in the future: it's very easy to criticize someone's decision when it's impossible to put yourself in their shoes.

The situation in Darfur needs exposure, but the point no one is making in the reporting of all this is that LeBron's choice to wait on making a deicision about the letter is giving more publicity to the issue than it likely would have gotten if LeBron would have joined a list of NBA players led by Ira Newble. Either way, it's his decision to champion the causes he wants to. It's not like he's some kind of greedy scrooge who doesn't help out with the community.

So, I will withhold my judgement of LeBron. Until I have a nine-figure paycheck staring me in the face, I'll never pretend to know. I won't hold my breath waiting for that one.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Giambi's Gettin' Yanked by the Monopoly Man

2007-06-07T10:41:00.000-05:00

Maybe its naïve, but I actually have a lot of respect for Jason Giambi. I have been a quiet supporter of his ever since his decision to stop blaming his declining performance on a host of mysterious ailments, like intestinal parasites, and admit (well sort’ve) that performance enhancing drugs had contributed to his success at the plate. He’s not offering to give back his American League MVP award or anything, but I do believe the man really has acknowledged that what he did was wrong. Many will argue, however, that his apology is moot, because he has never specifically admitted to using any controlled substances, only apologized “for doing that stuff,” allowing us to use our imagination as to what “stuff” is. Now, thanks to Bud Selig, and with a little help from the New York Yankees and Congress, a man who has chosen to step out of the shadows (a literary reference), faces contract termination and suspension for things he may have done before steroid use was ever even punishable in Major League Baseball (remember it was not until 2003 that players could be suspended for steroids use, and that was only if there was a criminal conviction).

Please don’t misunderstand my sympathy however, I am not calling Jason Giambi a saint, but I do believe that the competitive fabric of the sport is not the issue here. The Yankees are bad this year, and they’ve probably realized by now that the last season in the house that Ruth built will probably be enough to draw the crowds this summer. Hell, I’m going to New York this weekend for that very reason. Anyway, if you’re the Yankees, there is no need to have Giambi’s $20.4 million salary (making him only the third highest paid Yankee) weighing you down in a rebuilding year. But the Yankees are the ones who said they would pay him that money, and much to the dismay of the Oakland A’s fan base, Giambi agreed to take it from them. Well apparently the Yankees are now aghast at the fact that their slugger may have taken steroids while he was hitting all of those homeruns, and have decided that they don’t want to pay him anymore. Suddenly, the commissioner, has ordered Giambi to speak with former Senator George Mitchell, the man Bud Selig appointed to lead Major League Baseball’s investigation into steroid use.

For me, this is the biggest rub. There are those players out there who have benefited from the use of performance enhancing drugs (if we were being honest with ourselves, probably a lot of them) who have not publicly apologized and therefore will never be fined or suspended. The truth is, you have to fail a test to get suspended, and I can’t imagine how even that would void your contract. But a voided contract is exactly what the New York Yankees want, which is why they are compelling Giambi to fully cooperate with Mitchell’s investigation.

Now you may be thinking, even though this may be an interesting moral discussion, what does this really have to do with free market sports? The real dollars and cents lies in the motivation for this entire witch hunt. The Yankees are merely taking advantage of a relatively unique situation, and acting in their own best financial interests. But why is the league so concerned with Giambi’s past discretions, which they will never be able to prove. The facts show that they are very concerned. ESPN news estimates that the Mitchell investigation is costing the league $2 million a month, and that individual teams are spending between $70 and $100 thousand a month on legal representation for themselves and their players. Keep in mind that after all of this money has been spent, George Mitchell has yet to interview a single player in 15 months. To make matters worse, the league’s public perception isn’t exactly improved by the humiliation of one of its stars.

So why go through all of this trouble? The answer is simple; the American electorate is very concerned with steroid use in Major League Baseball. So concerned, that we hold hearings in the Senate. Hearings that have no judicial basis, just hearings that give baseball’s superstars the opportunity to ruin their hall of fame hopes, or perjure themselves under oath. The truth is, Major League Baseball has to look like they are doing something, or something very valuable can be taken away from them. Remember, that the only two entities in the United States are granted monopoly rights that go beyond simple patent protection, Major League Baseball and the United States Postal Service. In the minds of our elected officials, that justifies their interest in the competitive fabric of the league, and they may have a point. It should be no surprise to anyone reading this blog that monopoly protection in any situation, even the Post Office, is not in the interests of free markets. We really don’t know what would be in the best economic interests of the league, because when we legally protect an enterprise with monopoly status, we are taking economics out of the equation. Unfortunately for Jason Giambi, his foot injury came at the wrong time, and the likely verdict will be paying the cost of landing on boardwalk after Bud Selig and the Yankees have already built a hotel there.

Travis
E-mail us

Will the NHL ever learn a lesson?

2007-06-05T19:55:00.000-05:00

In case anyone wasn't sure if the NHL was still a part of the "Big 4" of pro sports in America, we have some stone-cold proof that is no longer in that group.

Neilsen Media Research is reporting that Saturday night's Game 3 of the Stanley Cup Finals on NBC equaled the lowest rated prime-time program in network history. It tied a July 2005 repeat of The West Wing.

I really don't have much to say about hockey as I join the rest of America in not giving half a crap about it. I am from Southeast Texas...we don't do hockey. It can't be too much longer before hockey realizes its American impact is going down the tubes and it assumes the role of a regionally popular sport that stays up north and in Canada. The NHL as a league has overextended itself, assuming that fans across the U.S. would support it. The best advice I have heard for any owner who isn't earning the dividends they want, is to move it to Canada, where it belongs in the first place.

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman's misguided attempts to push hockey further in America than tap into the bundles of fans in Canada is killing the league, and some owners really should consider moving franchises out of bad U.S. hockey markets. Bettman is pushing the potential owner of the Nashville Predators to stay in a moribund NHL market. And the prospective owner has said he'll agree to it, which would likely have the Predators in Nashville for seven years more. Nashville. Some people need an injection of common sense. Move it back to the great white north or continue to bleed money. It's very simple.

But hey, at least I could care less about hockey and it's ultimate fate as a second-tier sport. And not so surprisingly, I have a lot of buddies that are members of that club also.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

LeBron brings 'em back

2007-06-05T00:40:00.001-05:00

Where once there was indifference, enthusiasm thrives.

What was formerly a forgone conclusion has turned into something else entirely.

With the Cleveland Cavaliers making their first NBA Finals appearance, and super-duper star LeBron James comprising about 80 percent of the team, people who stopped watching in the second round are back. My friend was talking to me yesterday about a phone call from his mom, who doesn't really follow sports. She was flipping around and landed on LeBron's virtuoso importance in Game 5, and tuned in for Game 6 because it was so impressive. I find this indicative, and the NBA couldn't be happier about this turn of events.

They, like most everyone else, were ready for another tried-and-true matchup of Spurs vs. Pistons. Many could have cared less, and thus the Finals would probably have seen some truly horrid viewership. Now, with the culture that has forever been installed by the individual dominance of Michael Jordan, many sports fans will be tuning in to see if they can get a glimpse of history.

Never mind the fact that the Spurs are going to roll the Cavaliers quickly. My prediction? The Cavs win game 3 in Cleveland, and that's it. But then again, I picked Detroit to roll Cleveland too. Maybe LeBron has made the permenant jump. If so, the Spurs really are going to have their hands full. To be successful, the Cavs formula has to have LeBron excelling in some aspect of the game, whether it be scoring or hitting the open man, and at least one other Cavalier has to step up their game. In Game 3, it was a combo of Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Sasha Pavlovic. In Game 4 it was a combo of Daniel Gibson and Drew Gooden. In Game 5 it was LeBron, LeBron, and another LeBron. I don't actually remember any other Cleveland players in the floor at all. Game 6, Gibson stepped up big time. So, he just needs at least one other player to step up and play well. That really isn't that far fetched. Then again, the Spurs are a much more collected, consistent version of the same style of play as the Pistons. If the Spurs can deal with LeBron on full-on attack mode, they'll succeed like I expect them to.

One of the other more interesting subplots will be how much leniency Bruce Bowen gets. The national villianization of the Spurs' showstopper reached epic levels in the last few weeks, and his constant blanketing of LeBron will probably fuel more. Likely, the biggest difference maker will be whether or not Bowen is allowed to poke, prod and bump LeBron as much as he is used to doing. If the officials let him do what he normally does, the Spurs should lock up their fourth championship handily. If the officials start giving concessions to the superstar (and this is a distinct possibility), the Cavs might have a fighting chance.

Personally, I am happy for the NBA as a league. I like to see it succeed, and I like to see people paying attention.

Here's hoping it's a close series either way. The subplots begin Thursday at 8 p.m.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Billy Donovan has no personal responsibility

2007-06-03T22:49:00.001-05:00

Well, nix that. Various sources are reporting that Billy Donovan wants out of the contract he just signed with the Magic. Come now. Really?

Evidently he really toiled with the decision in the first place, and ultimately, he should have toiled a bit longer.

And, just to name who got screwed the most, it was the Magic. Not only have they set the bar on how much they are willing to pay a coach and tipped their hand a bit, but they have also sold over 200 season tickets over the last few days to fans who wanted to see what Donovan could do with the young Magic players. If I work in the Magic front office, I am so angry right now I can't even see straight.

So, once the Magic release Donovan from the contract (and they will), he will likely be duly compensated by Florida with a hefty new contract. He might not get quite as much, but it will likely be close.

When someone signs a contract with you for a set amount of money for a set amount of years, that person is supposed to honor that contract. It's brutally simple. Learn some personal responsibility and learn to accept the decisions you make, or don't make them in the first place.

So, now the Magic have until tomorrow to decide whether or not they will release him. Boy, how weird would that be if they took a hardline stance and told him to live with his decision? Donovan accepts the decision but fails horribly in the first season because his heart isn't in it. Plus, his players would never really trust him because he was fully prepared to leave them in his dust on his was back to the swamp.

Any respect I had for Billy Donovan is now gone. I'm sure he'll be heartbroken that I disapprove of his actions.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Billy Donovan really did learn from his mentor

2007-06-01T22:17:00.000-05:00

Billy Donovan’s sudden jump from rock-star status at the University of Florida to coach of the Orlando Magic really took me by surprise. After two straight titles and 11 years of building, Donovan looked to be getting rather comfortable in Gainesville. He had even turned down a rather lucrative offer to coach at his alma matter at Kentucky. So, initially the news came across as shocking. But, not really. With five years of security and $27.5 million ($5.5 million per year) staring him in the face, Donovan did what any sane person did. He took the money.

The talk among many was that if Donovan would have agreed to a contract extension with the Gators, he would have become one of the highest paid college coaches in the country, or he would at least come close. To provide a bit of scale on that, Rick Pitino, the college-to-pros-is-a-bad-idea poster child, just signed a six-year extension with Louisville that will earn him about $23.2 million (average of $3.86 million per year) over a six-year period. According to The Orlando Sentinel, if Donovan had signed an extension with Florida, it would have started at $3 million per year and escalate to $3.75 million by the end of his contract in 2013-14. At seven years, assuming a $0.125 million-per-year increase that would graduate up to $3.75 million in the final year, that would likely earn him $23.625 million. That's a difference of $3.825 million total...but in two more years if he stayed at Florida.

Every time a successful college coach makes the jump to the pros, everyone compiles the list of the past failures who have done the same. I’ll spare your time, as well as mine as it really isn't the point.

Many national columnists have second guessed Donovan, as they do every time a coach leaves college for the NBA for leaving a supposed dream situation to coach in a higher pressure, potentially higher profile environment.

Maybe Donovan really just wanted a different challenge, just like he said. Maybe that extra $3.8 million was too much to pass up. Or maybe, in the back of his mind, he knew he could do what Pitino did and test out his NBA coaching prowess and return to the college ranks later on if it doesn't suit him. I'm imagining it's a combination of all three.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

ESPN doesn't care so much about the Spurs

2007-05-30T23:50:00.000-05:00

It's really not as much of a secret anymore that national opinions or feelings on sports subjects are shaped by ESPN. If the term "juggernaut" applies to anyone, in the sports world, ESPN is the one. So, it really shouldn't be terribly surprising that, upon the night of their third NBA finals berth in five years, ESPN would have the top story and the centerpiece photo treatment with Kobe Bryant's face and his puppeteering of the media as the dominant story.

The funniest part about this is that, even though the Spurs just won the Western Conference ̶ the better conference according to almost everyone ̶ the flip-flopping fate of the Los Angeles superstar is the biggest story by far. Actually, the funniest part about all this is that the Stanley Cup finals beat out the Spurs in billing. Up until about 11:45, they didn't even have the main video on the right-hand side, it was dedicated to baseball. Simply amazing. If there was ever an accurate indication of national opinion on the current state of the NBA playoffs, this is it.

National viewership of the Spurs has become so disenfranchised, the guys who supposeduly represent it don't even see their berth into the penultimate contest of their sport as the second-best item on the page.

UPDATE: 1:30 p.m. Thursday:
The day after? No mention whatsoever on the main ESPN page.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Flopping to a win, and more fans' disgust

2007-05-28T22:45:00.000-05:00

Why is it that every time someone beats the Spurs, they feel as if they were wronged? This is starting to become a trend. Even excluding the Robert Horry mess that led to the two suspensions for the Suns, there was plenty of foul called by the Suns' contingent before with Bruce Bowen's horrid dirty play and Manu Ginobili's ever-present flopping routine.

Then, tonight, Ginboili did what he does best — fall down — when running up the court alongside Derek Fisher. Jazz coach Jerry Sloan and Fisher both ended up getting ejected and the Spurs ended up winning handily. The game was mostly gone at the point already, but irresposible refereeing (more than just a trend) essentially ended the game for the Jazz at the point that it could have potentially turned around.

It's really quite mind-boggling that the NBA hasn't stepped up and done something about flopping. Believe me, I understand the importance of taking a charge. It keeps offensive players honest and keeps players from slashing the lane with wild abandon. I have no problem with that, that rule exists for a reason. However, players like Manu Ginobili, and the basketball godfather of the practice, Vlade Divac, might be the most spineless athletes on the planet. Gaining a competitive advantage is one thing, and a little bit of gamesmanship is one of the things that makes sports great. But, at its base level, this practice represents a complete lack of respect for the game. Exploiting a rule again and again that undermines the quality of basketball is something the NBA must look into if it wants to keep people from giving up on the NBA as a compelling sport more than they already have.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Of gambling and NBA

2007-05-28T19:25:00.000-05:00

With last season's NBA All-Star festivities taking place in Las Vegas, and a franchise currently looking for a new home (Seattle Supersonics), it would seem as if the plate was being set the eventual relocation of an NBA franchise to Sin City.

NBA commissioner David Stern has since softened his stance and has appointed a committee to explore the viability of a franchise in Vegas, either by expansion or move.

Count me on board that Vegas should have an NBA team. I don't think that an NFL or MLB team would work in Vegas, but the atmosphere of that city would fit an NBA team like a glove.

Stern's biggest gripe, and supposed hardline stance of not allowing a team to go to Vegas unless casinos took gambling off the books is foolish to say the least. This Vegas isn't the Vegas of old, involved with organized crime and other such forms of corruption. The salaries that NBA players helps deter any kind of corruption that may have been possible in days of old. At an average salary of $5.2 million, the price for an NBA player to risk the kinds of repercussions involved with tampering is almost nonexistent. Never mind the fact that if such activities were going to happen, they would anyway as it doesn't require a location in Vegas to collude on throwing a game.

Either way, if an NBA owner wants to move his team to Vegas, there should be no reason that it's acceptable to move to Oklahoma City or Kansas City and not to Las Vegas.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Why do NBA fans turn off?

2007-05-27T23:02:00.000-05:00

As NBA watchers continue to act disinterested and bored, and both Conference Finals are still halfway competitive at 2-1 apiece, one has to wonder why everyone is so disgusted with the things that have taken place thus far in the NBA playoffs.

With the madness that occurred in the Western Semifinals, many were up in arms about the best series in the playoffs fouled up by a misguided rule and the overly strict implementation of it. The NBA was right in suspending Stoudemire and Diaw, but only because they had a specifically stated rule with clear-cut language. However, the NBA failed miserably in not having revisited this rule previously to at least have some discretion included. But, this issue has been hammered home so many times that it's tired, so we'll drop it for now.

The issue that is still at hand — why everyone is disinterested in the NBA right now — remains unsolved. I had the benefit of being out of the country when all of the Suns/Spurs bru-ha-ha went down, thus sparing me from all the rhetoric on both sides of the argument. So, coming into the situation, I have few biases spread by the national media. As an NBA fan, I am still interested in the playoffs, and will watch every game. But I am not excited. And, as I said before, I am not alone.

Before I start, I would like to make a few quick distinctions.

NBA fans are people who will follow happenings and games in the NBA no matter what.

Sports fans will follow sports, and will pay attention to the sport that is most compelling.

Fans of a specific NBA team may also be NBA fans in general, but that isn't always true.

Here's are the reasons I have nailed down as the reasons everyone is so disenfranchised:

1. Forgone conclusion
In these conference finals, most sports fans and NBA fans have made the forgone conclusion that the Spurs will win the West and the Pistons will win the East.
Predictability breeds disinterest, and until this thing has one of the underdogs take the lead in the series or push it to a seventh game, many sports fans will turn their attention elsewhere.

2. Nash love
America loves Steve Nash, a white superstar and a back-to-back-MVP. Without Nash in it, many sports fans and NBA fans became disinterested when the man they secretly (or openly) love is dispatched after having such an exciting, dominating season.

3. Suns are exciting, others aren't
With an up-tempo style that produces highlight after highlight when it is running on all cylinders, people love to watch Phoenix play. Every team left plays a much more grueling (or in Cleveland's case gruesome) style of ball.

4. No superstars
LeBron James is the only remaining sexy star left in the playoffs. Tim Duncan is a star, but doesn't command as much attention because of his lack of flash and for another reason that I'll get to in a bit. Utah's tandem of Boozer and Deron Williams may make waves in a few years, but aren't there yet. Detroit is a team, but no real individual stars really still exist.

5. It's tainted
Many sports fans are still bitter that the series that was most compelling to them — San Antonio vs. Phoenix — had an air of taint to it. When Robert Horry decked Nash and Stoudemire and Diaw flew off the bench, many saw this as an instinctual reaction, and with a lack of understanding or respect for the rules in place, many sports fans will scoff at the result of that series as another rigged NBA contest. Never mind the fact that if the NBA were going to rig it anyone's way, it would be the Suns, but that's a topic for another day.

6. These aren't the matchups everyone has been waiting to see.
All season, NBA watchers across the nation have been waiting to see Mavs vs. Spurs or Mavs vs. Suns. In the East, the nation would have much preferred a Bulls vs. Cavaliers Conference Finals. The Mavs didn't do their part, and the Pistons are way better than the Bulls, so nobody should really be surprised anyway.

7. Same old thing
It happens to every great team. People get tired of seeing the same successful teams over and over. Nowadays, the Spurs are always either winning it, or in the hunt. The Pistons are the same to a lesser degree.

(Now here's the real reason, but it's the one nobody realizes or recognizes)

8. Unattractive market
Tony Parker said it best:

"If our team was in New York, there would be a different perception of our team," Parker said. "They'd be talking crazy about Manu and Timmy and stuff like that. But we're in San Antonio. Don't get me wrong; I love San Antonio. But I'm just saying that different markets, I guess . . . if our team was in New York, it would be huge."
Story

This describes the subconscious attitude of many NBA fans and sports fans and I couldn't have said it better myself. It isn't just the Spurs right now, and right now, there are four of the least sexy markets in all of basketball (save Milwaukee and Minnesota) in the mix. Detroit has a metroplex of 5.4 million, Cleveland's has 2.2 million, San Antonio's has 1.9 million and Salt Lake City has a mere 1 million. As far as NBA markets go, Detroit is really the only one that is of any real size. Plus, who the hell ever wants to go to Detroit. It's bleak. Cleveland is a beleaguered sports town that hasn't ever really been successful and has little that is atttractive to the rest of the country besides LeBron. San Antonio is in the middle of Texas, and really has little else to offer of national interest beyond the Spurs and the Alamo. Utah...well, it's Utah.

My point is that there isn't anything to compel national sports fans to these unattractive markets. There is something interesting about seeing things happen in New York, Los Angeles...hell, even a place like Denver or Phoenix.

My question to my fair reader(s) is:

Why is America disinterested in the NBA?

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

The tandem that could have been

2007-05-24T21:56:00.000-05:00

As I continue to watch LeBron James struggle mightily to beat the best team in the Eastern Conference (literally, I think there are no other Cavaliers on the floor save Sideshow Bob), I can't help but reminisce about what could have been.

Tonight, as he has for most of his career thus far, LeBron had a sack of turds surrounding him on the court. But, as many NBA fans know, things could be much different.

The year before LeBron James arrived in Cleveland, the Cavs had made the very astute draft choice of Carlos Boozer in the second round at the 35th overall pick.

In the summer of 2004, the Cavs had Boozer under contract for about $700,000 for the following season. They claimed to have made a verbal agreement with Boozer that if they released him as a restricted free agent, he would re-sign with the Cavs for about $40 million over six years, keeping Boozer in Cleveland for a long time and giving Boozer a very substantial raise and a lot more security for the 2004-05 season. Never mind that they verbally negotiated this inside of a moratorium period when contract talks aren't allowed, they felt they had Boozer's trust and went ahead and released him as a restricted free agent.

For those who don't know and don't want to have to decipher the jargon of the NBA's collective bargaining agreement, this is basically how it works. A player who becomes a restricted free agent can test the open market, and if another team makes an official offer to said player, the team that had him last year can match it.

So, Boozer went out as a restricted free agent, only to have Utah, who had whiffed on signing several free agents the last few years, offer him a max contract, something Cleveland didn't have the salary cap space to match. So, Boozer, being a normal red-blooded human, signed for an absurd amount of money because...well...that's what you do when it is sitting there on the table. Gordon Gund, then owner of the Cavs villainized Boozer as betraying his trust, and the Cleveland fans really let Boozer have it.

It was a hairy situation at the time, and has since settled down quite a bit. Both Boozer and LeBron are both in their respective conference finals, and are both down 0-2 in each series. Each is the best player on their respective team, and each is likely looking at a quick exit after the deepest playoff run for each team in quite some time.

So, without laying blame on anyone (OK, screw it, the Cavs were idiots) let's play some number games. Right now, this is what LeBron's team looks like (playoff averages in parentheses)

F-LeBron James (24.5 pts, 8 reb, 8.2 ast)
F-Drew Gooden (11.6 pts, 9.3 reb, 1.4 ast)
G-Larry Hughes (15.6 pts, 5.1 reb, 2.8 ast)
G-Aleksander Pavlovic (8.9 pts, 2.2 reb, 1.8 ast)
C-Zydrunas Ilgauskas (15.0 pts, 10.1 reb, .9 ast)
F-Anderson Varejao (5.2 pts, 6.2 reb, .6 ast)

I'm not going to list the Jazz stats, because for the intents of this story, Utah is peripheral. Obviously, if Boozer was still on the Cavs, the rest of the team would likely look pretty darn different. The Cavs likely would have still refused to pursue a point guard, against every bit of common sense. But, let's play the "what if" game. Let's acknowledge first off that the Cavs would have LeBron and Boozer. Let's give LeBron a 15-percent scoring increase as another scoring option would allow him to be hassled less and score more like he did during the regular season against bad teams. Since LeBron now has someone worth a crap to pass the ball to, let's give him a 5 percent boost in assists. We'll leave him alone statistically otherwise. We'll also leave Boozer's stats alone since he currently plays on a team with a point guard and other scoring options, so he could probably be expected to have about the same stats. So that this whole thing doesn't get out of hand, let's not assume anything else except that Larry Hughes wouldn't have signed with the Cavs as they would have spent all their money re-signing Boozer. This is not such a bad thing. That's a bad contract on a player who can't stay healthy.

So, then, the Cavs look more like this right now:

G-LeBron James (28.2 pts, 8 reb, 8.6 ast)
F-Carlos Boozer (24.7 pts, 12.4 reb, 3.1 ast 53% FG)
G-Aleksander Pavlovic (8.9 pts, 2.2 reb, 1.8 ast)
C-Zydrunas Ilgauskas (15.0 pts, 10.1 reb, .9 ast)
F-Anderson Varejao (5.2 pts, 6.2 reb, .6 ast)
F-Drew Gooden (11.6 pts, 9.3 reb, 1.4 ast)

Now, given, they still have virtually no guard play whatsoever, but you're telling me that a statistical tandem of Boozer and LeBron rockin' and rollin' wouldn't give them a good chance at beating the Pistons, and ultimately winning a title? With both players entering their primes, this would be a nasty tandem for years to come. Also, you could probably assume that the Cavs would have gone out and signed another guard of a lower caliber that they could have afforded (which likely would have been a better signing than Hughes), so who knows what their backcourt would look like had Boozer stayed. Everyone loves to play the "what if" game about the NBA Draft Lottery, but sometimes it's more fun and practical to look at what could have been had someone not pulled an avoidable, bone-head move.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Oklahoma City/Kansas City/Las Vegas Sonics face interesting situation

2007-05-23T01:14:00.001-05:00

Despite the yearning desires of Celtics fans and ESPN, the franchise with the most NBA championships in league history came up very, very short in today's lottery drawing. With the second best chance to win the lottery (19.9%), Boston ended up with the fifth overall pick, the worst possible pick they could have gotten.

Two franchises in small markets came up large. My favorite is the speculation that almost always comes about concerning a fixed lottery drawing. It's always a bit refreshing when two teams that the NBA would really have no reason whatsoever to endorse end up winning the picks that matter. The Portland Trail Blazers won the first overall pick and the Seattle Supersonics won the second overall pick.

Portland is one of the smallest markets in the NBA, but have a reasonably rabid fan base when the team is competitive. But, for interest's sake, we'll focus on the Sonics. Sonics Chairman Clay Bennett has made his intentions to move the franchise out of Seattle less than subtle. Oklahoma City has shown itself to be a legitimate NBA city by its successful temporary hosting of the Hornets while New Orleans put itself back together. Some other cities, including Kansas City and Las Vegas have jumped into the fray also. Since Seattle and Washington state have basically told the Sonics that a new arena in Seattle isn't going to happen without substantial funding from the franchise, Bennett has sought to move the team elsewhere so that the team will be in a newer facility and have the potential to gain more revenue from a city that is hungry for a basketball team.

The Sonics without a GM and head coach, it seems that a completely fresh start is coming. With either Kevin Durant or Greg Oden soon to become a Sonic, the franchise really does find itself in a unique situation. They'll be in Seattle for at least the next season, so starting clean completely this coming season just won't happen. One of the most interesting subplots this coming season will be how the city of Seattle reacts to an exciting young player in a city that is preparing to have their long-time NBA team moved elsewhere. How Oden or Durant (whichever falls to them) reacts to the situation will be equally interesting. Now, if somehow a move to Vegas happens, expect me to have an aneurysm of interest in that situation. A potential post on the NBA's potential in Vegas is coming soon.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Money≠wins

2007-05-21T20:41:00.000-05:00

This utterly fascinating graphic is just too good not to share with the five people who actually visit our blog.

Some interesting observations:

The Indians and Brewers are my current salary heroes.

10 out of the 15 teams who overpay for their wins are in the American League.

Thus far, the Astros and Phillies get exactly what they pay for: mediocrity.

The Yankees are wildly overpaying for their record (not that it's news to anyone).

The Nationals are overpaying to be really, really, really horrible.

The Cardinals aren't very good this year (also not news).

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Football Association, big spenders and shrewd decisions

2007-05-20T20:50:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine brought up an excellent point that I thought needed to be addressed. According to the tenets listed on this site, salary caps restrict teams from fully realizing their earning potential and running their business as they wish. I still believe this to be true, but there certainly seems to be another facet to that statement in relation to what Travis discussed concerning the Football Association.

With free agency and a lack of a salary cap, the long-standing tradition of balance among English soccer teams is in jeopardy, and that is of obvious concern to the league. However, the treatment of players as permanently indentured servants is no longer that case, which is obviously positive to the rights of specific athletes. As much as owners want to pay players their market value, players want to be paid that market value. And, if owners want to be able to push for profit more than competitive balance, then they can sleep in the bed they make.

My point is, if the owners want to modernize their league and treat it more as a business than a competition where wins are the chief commodity, then they should go right ahead and do it. Whether or not it will end up paying them the dividends or happiness they desire remains to be seen. I imagine that the disparity between the lower-revenue and higher-revenue teams will balance in a similar manner that baseball does. To that effect, lower-revenue teams can find success through the development of young players and a smart approach to player signings (see Oakland Athletics, San Antonio Spurs, Minnesota Twins, Indianapolis Colts, San Diego Chargers and, until the last few years, Portland Trail Blazers).

Of course, the Yankees (everyone's favorite Salary Satan) won several championships at the turn of the century, and since winning their last championship, their players salaries have increased by 175 percent, yielding two World Series losses and plenty of other playoff disappointments. Given, they are perennial contenders and make the playoffs every year, but George Steinbrenner is known for desiring wins at the cost of revenue. By spending more, he hasn't gotten what he really wants, and has gone about trying to succeed in a stupid manner. The St. Louis Cardinals, who spent less than half of the Yankees salary last year, won the World Series. In 2005, the White Sox had about 40 percent of the Yankees salary that year and won it all. In 2004, the Red Sox actually had a dip in player spending in relation to 2003 and 2005 and won it that year. The list goes on, but the point is this: you don't have to be the No. 1 big spender or even near the top to be a champion. The game fluctuates, and big spending isn't always a guarantee of success, shrewd moves are what makes a winner.

Honestly, the system that Major League Baseball has set up is a good one at its base level. There is a large amount of development that allows for lower revenue teams to compete by making smart decisions in drafting and player advancement.The Football Association may end up reflecting the MLB model, and that may not end up being such a bad thing for the league if they play their cards right. That is obviously the biggest question mark.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

Russian women's basketball toy

2007-05-20T00:28:00.000-05:00

I came across a fascinating article about the WNBA yesterday. Admittedly, this is the first time that has ever happened, and my interest was piqued early on by a Russian women's basketball team owner named Shabtai von Kalmanovic, pictured right. He is referred to as the "Mark Cuban of Russian Basketball"... only if Cuban had ties to African diamond trafficking and spying for the former Soviet Union.

Either way, this guy is quite a character. Incredibly wealthy from a construction business in Africa, von Kalmanovic owns Spartak, a women's team in Russia and employs the likes of well-known American women's players Diana Taurasi and Sue Bird (no relation to Larry), both WNBA players. The crazy thing is, Bird makes makes four times as much in Russia as she does in the WNBA, and Taurasi makes 10 times as much in Russia as she does in the WNBA. Even with basketball easily playing a third hand in the U.S. to football and baseball, and even with women's basketball usually getting second-class citizen status among basketball fans, surely the U.S. could afford to pay more to players than a team that plays winters in Russia and all over Europe and parts of Asia, right?

Here's the catch: von Kalmanovic doesn't seem concerned with making money off the team. With loads of cash to throw around, von Kalmanovic estimates that his expenses for the season will be $5-6 million. They don't charge money for tickets to games (of which they average a measly 3,000 in attendance per game), they pay to have their games televised, and pay for travel among other expenses. He basically makes no money from owning the team. He compares it likes this:

"I have friends who go to casinos," von Kalmanovic said. "I know friends who risk on the stock exchange. I am Lithuanian — for me, basketball is everything. It is a hobby, a pleasure, a casino, whatever you want."

Completely contrary to virtually every other model of team ownership, von Kalmanovic basically holds his team as a toy. With the WNBA having a relatively short season and an incredibly restrictive salary cap based upon years of service, the opportunity for the top women's players is too great to pass up. In what adds up to no salary cap, owners such as von Kalmanovic can basically pay to have the best players in the world come play for them during the winter, often putting them up in a nice place to live and providing attractive amenities.

At the end of the article, von Kalmanovic talks about him and his fellow owners sitting down and agreeing on maximum salaries for players because "it becomes too much." We'll see how he likes it when another owner steals a player he covets because she likes the area the team plays in better than his own and he isn't able to pay more to draw her to Moscow because of the maximum salary limit.

The point to all this is that it really is quite amazing that an independently wealthy basketball fan basically just throws all the BS to the wind and strives to put together a toy that performs very, very well. Can you imagine a rich American basketball fan who didn't want to deal with the mess of purchasing an NBA team and instead opted to pay significant salaries to players who marginally miss NBA rosters and dominate through a league like the CBA or ABA? With little concern for profits, someone like that could make a lot of waves and could essentially build up their toy to win through a league full of spares as they wish. Mark Cuban, are you listening?

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us

FA to MLB

2007-05-19T17:29:00.000-05:00

As this is my first contribution to this blog, it may be expected that I offer some detailed manifesto outlining my personal feelings on a variety of sports issues. That isn’t going to happen. I enjoy sports and I enjoy economics. In the coming weeks (years), I hope to show how well economics can contribute to our understanding of the off-the-field actions of professional and collegiate sports. The company you work for is not like a Major League Baseball team. There was never a bond issue so that you could work in a nicer office, nor is there a single employer for every professional in your trade. The efficiency and sustainability of these anomalies are best gauged in an economic context, so let’s get started.

An overview of the landscape of professional sports worldwide will undoubtedly result in the definition of two distinct league structures; a franchise system common to nearly all North American professional sports, and a relegation system common to the various soccer leagues around the world. In reference to the relegation system, this discussion will focus primarily on The Football Association (FA), the principal governing body of all professional football (soccer) teams in England. The FA consists of a variety of leagues organized in a hierarchical structure, the most elite of which is known as the Premier League. Each season, a predetermined number of poor performing teams in the Premier League are relegated to a lower-level league, and an equivalent number of teams from the lower-level league are promoted to the Premier League. It is not uncommon however for a team to play against teams in other leagues, or countries for that matter. The FA also organizes an FA Cup each year where teams from all leagues compete in a sudden death tournament to determine an overall champion, which seems to carry with it honors akin to winning the Super Bowl or the World Series. However, unlike the North American championships, every professional team in England that qualifies for the tournament, has a shot to be crowned FA Cup champions, not just the Premier League teams.

On the basis of pure competitiveness, the relegation system seems to be far superior to the franchise model that is prevalent here in the United States. If you want to be in the best league, you must perform at an elevated level. It goes without saying that FA teams who participate in the Premier League are rewarded with higher gate revenues and more lucrative television contracts, and demotion to a lower league can carry disastrous financial consequences for the owners. So this may be an example of a perfect model for the construction of competitive athletic leagues … maybe.

In order to make that determination however, there are a few other issues that we will need to look into. Throughout most of the FA’s history, individual soccer teams basically owned the rights to players outright, not dissimilar to the system practiced in Major League Baseball until St. Louis Cardinal Kurt Flood brought his case to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972. Until 1963, the FA granted complete discretion to a player’s current team as to whether he was allowed to move, irrespective of its decision whether or not to extend his present contract. In 1963 this discretion became contingent on the renewal of the contract, and in 1978, an out-of-contract player became entitled to move without his employer’s consent (Dobson and Goddard, 2004). Regardless of league structure, it would never be in the best interest of any team to allow even moderate talent the ability to move to a potential competitor, however, in the relegation system, everyone is a potential competitor. This is where the effects of a similar labor policy can differ drastically between league structures.

In 1902, the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues established the groundwork for what would later evolve into the “minor leagues.” A bitter feud between the American and National Leagues had resulted in the outright theft of a number of independent league players without any sort of compensation granted to the player’s former employer. This forced many of the independent league’s team owners to make a decision between becoming a formal member of a major league team’s organization or face extinction. As a result, competition for talent between teams really only consisted of a contest between 16 teams (until the expansion era) as opposed to competing against all professional baseball teams that played in North America. Across the pond however, professional soccer teams have had to compete for talent with 92 other teams. Because of relegation, even the worst teams had a theoretical chance at competing in the Premier League someday, and possibly winning the FA Cup, so there would never be any reason to let even a marginally talented player leave for another team. This allowed for a long period of competitive balance in English soccer. If you wanted good players, you were going to have to make them yourself, whereas in baseball, they could be purchased at will from the minor leagues. Another peculiarity of the British, and European system as a whole was their restrictions on foreign players. Until 1995, all of the professional English soccer teams were limited to three foreign players. Combined with a lack of free agency, this nationalistic restriction severely limited the talent pool, and made it very difficult, even for teams who had the means, to purchase talent that would improve the club.

The introduction of free agency to the FA has changed its competitive balance significantly. Premier league teams can now use their revenue-generating advantage to purchase better talent in the free-agent market, and as a result the disparity in revenue between Premier League teams and lower league teams has grown. According to Dobson and Goddard, in 1926 the Premier League’s ticket revenue accounted for 32.8% of the ticket revenue of all professional leagues, and 1999, the Premier League’s share had grown to 43.5%. If those figures were to include revenue from television rights ad merchandise, it likely would show even more disparity. Dobson and Goddard also show that over the same time period, higher league teams have become more and more likely to win inter-league matches such as FA Cup games, and as a result, spectator interest, measured through ticket revenue, has fallen as the outcome of these matches has become more predictable.

As the labor market in English soccer has become less regulated, the competitive balance of the Football Association has fallen. Big-city teams with more money have been able to out-spend their smaller-market rivals, and as a result, been rewarded with consistently higher league positions and gate revenue. The apparent competitive balance that existed for a good portion of the Football Association’s history was more the result of an over-regulated labor market than of the relegation system. This does not imply however, that the franchise system is superior in any way, but it seems that the landscape of English soccer is looking a little more like Major League Baseball every year. In other words, some teams will become permanently relegated to the dregs of the Football Association, and simply serve to farm talent for the bigger clubs, while other teams will become perennial contenders. So basically, as the amount of regulation in English soccer has been reduced, the result has been a convergence to a Major League Baseball style arrangement. Why is this the case? Well—and this is just my opinion—for most of the Football Association’s history, team owners have lost money or just barely broken even, while nearly all of the North American sports teams have been consistently profitable. So it would obviously not be in the interest of any North American team owner to push for their league to organize itself more like the Football Association. Basically, the 1902 agreement in Major League Baseball essentially mandated what the markets would have figured out eventually, but the motive for that mandate was profit, something we would expect owners to want. For whatever reason, the British motivation for having a good soccer team was beating the team in the next town, not making any money. As the Football Association players have earned the right to demand their true market value, only the teams in larger markets can afford to pay the best players, so it may end up that the franchise system is closer to the true market equilibrium than it would otherwise seem.

Travis
E-mail us

Credit where credit is due
-Dobson, Stephen and John Goddard. “Revenue Divergence and Competitive Balance in a Divisional Sports League” Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 51, No. 3, August 2004.
-Haupert, Michel J. “The Economic History of Major League Baseball” EH.net, found May 9th, 2007.

An introduction to laissez-faire ball

2007-05-10T12:39:00.000-05:00

Several weeks ago, I got home after a night out and started flipping around the channels looking for something interesting. As is routinely the case at 2:30 in the morning, there was little on beyond SportsCenter that even mildly piqued my interest. But, I continued to flip.

Eventually, I landed on a repeat of a congressional hearing on C-SPAN from earlier in the week that included John Kerry lecturing to DirecTV heads about their prospective
$700 million deal not being fair to fans. Kerry argued that it was a disservice to baseball fans everywhere that fans would either be forced to switch to DirecTV if they wanted to have access to the Extra Innings package, or subscribe to MLB.tv and watch games on their computers.

I switched off the TV and went to bed letting my distaste for John Kerry simmer. When I woke up, I realized I was downright angry about this. What right does he have to tell Major League Baseball that they can't reach an exclusive deal to show its product with whomever they choose? If the deal ends up turning off baseball fans because of a lack of access, that is their right as a business. As long as the owners of the teams agree to it, where is the harm? We don't have some kind of intellectual right to enjoy a specific sport, and if we want to see or experience something that we deem worthy, we can make the necessary sacrifices to do so. Nobody has the right to deny Major League Baseball that right except the people who own the teams, especially not Congress.

Then, I realized, this is all part of a larger issue that encompasses so much more. There is a very pervasive attitude in sports that carries all the way down the line. Sports owe people something. We care about their product, and thus it entitles us to try and control what those sports do. In reality, the only thing that team owners care about is your passion for their team - as it relates to revenue. In the end, they could really give a damn whether you are a hardcore fan who watches every game and spends $400 a year on team-related endeavors (tickets, T-shirts, etc.) or if you are a passive fan who watches one game a year and drops $400 in one day at the ballpark. If you're an owner worth your water, you'll believe such in your heart of hearts.

I'm being long-winded to get to one main point - fans do not hold some kind of intellectual property of a sport or team.

However, every day, fans complain about what happens with their favorite team/sport and don't realize that the only way they can really enact change is with their pocketbooks. If an organization (sports or otherwise) isn't doing what you want it to, then stop giving it your money. This is how the market works, and few people realize that this is their only true recourse.

As I started going over these thoughts and organizing them, the first person I thought of that agreed with me is one of my best friends, Travis, who now lives in St. Louis. He and I believe that the less the government is involved, the better. It's a simple concept, but unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be as popular in America as it used to be. His educational background (Bachelor's degree in Economics and a minor in Mathematics from Webster University, currently a graduate student at University of Missouri-St. Louis) gives him a lot more special knowledge of the ins and outs of economics, and my educational background (Bachelor's degree in Print Journalism) give us a semi-unique perspective of the sports world.

Most of the subjects you will find here will be finance related, but I imagine that as this project progresses, it will broaden some, and it's impossible to predict where it will go.

Under each post, you will find either my signature, or Travis'. Although he and I agree on many issues, always remember that just because I write something, it doesn't make it Travis' opinion, and vice versa. He may agree with everything I am saying, but don't just assume that.

This blog is dedicated to common sense and free markets.

The Tenets of Free Market Sports

1) The concept of free-market economics can be successfully implemented into sports in all aspects.

2) Sports is an entertainment business and should be thought as such by players, fans and especially the government.

3) Fans do not hold intellectual property of a team or sport and can only hold sway with the money they spend.

4) Government regulation of sports in any facet is intrusive and unnecessary.

5) The funding of sports stadiums either partial or fully by taxpayers without a popular vote is undemocratic.

6) Athletes are entertainment commodities and are not overpaid. The compensation they receive is the result of a demand for their services and is a reflection of the markets they serve.

7) Profit sharing is counterintuitive and does not encourage lower-revenue teams to improve their product.

8) It is not the public school system's responsibility to train young athletes. The model the rest of the world uses works much better.

9) College athletics are government-funded monopolies that employ a broken system and are an extension of the broken high school system.

10) Salary caps prevent franchises from freely running their business and thus unnecessarily restrict them from fully utilizing that franchise's learning potential.

Reasonably yours,
Scooter
E-mail us