A community-selfish ownership move: Nothing wrong with that

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

ESPN goes the way of MTV, who cares?

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

Stick to the field with your sports criticism

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

Countdown to a glorious meltdown at the Garden

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

Brad Ausmus surfs, we want to see some head wiggle

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

An introduction to laissez-faire ball

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