The 2011-12 NBA Season in jeopardy! Does anyone care?...part 2

Yesterday I drove from Natick, MA to Harrisonburg, VA and pretty much listened to sports talk radio on the Sirius all day. To be specific the Mad Dog Radio channel. While listening to the afternoon/evening line-up, Chris "Mad Dog" Russo & Dino Costa, there was a lot of talk about the NBA lockout. Even this morning there's more talk about it with Mike & Mike in Morning (Stern was just interviewed earlier this morning). Since there's more buzz, I'm going to chime in with my relatively worthless opinion.

 It was no secret that the NBA was going to have labor issues not too long after the Mavericks came back to beat "the Heatles." It's another topic for sure but I watched the finals, Miami should not have lost that series and LeBron deserves a lot of the flack for his play in the 4th quarter. Michael Wilbron mentioned it while the NFL was negotiating their new labor deal over the summer, http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=wilbon-110630.

 Personally, I don't care about the size of the player salaries. The amount of money they make seems absurd but there's no doubt that when LeBron comes to town, his presence puts fannies in the seats. The same held true for Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. The same holds true for an actor getting $20 million for a film, that's just the way it is (it also applies to CEO's who sit around a table in the board room but that's a topic for another time). To add a bit to the Carmelo Anthony reference, Denver had little choice to trade him because if Melo walked (which he made it clear he was going to do), Denver would not receive any compensation. By dealing him, they got players in return. The issue is Melo held them hostage by only wanting to be traded to the Knicks. Quite frankly, the Knicks have been so awful over the last few years they didn't really have any players the Nuggets wanted. In fact the Knicks & Nuggets had to bring the Timberwolves into the mix in order to pull it off (be advised...the T'Wolves took Eddy Curry & his ridiculous contract off the Knicks hands so they're a doomed franchised and they deserve what they get for that one). While I'm on it, Eddy Curry is probably another reason why the owners want a new labor deal. Curry had a great year for the 33-49 Knicks during the 2006-07 season then injuries, weight & a general poor attitude got him into 69 games over the next 3 years, none in 2010-11, http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryed01.html.

One of the reasons for the expansion to cities where they probably shouldn't have gone is money. Owners get millions in franchise fees from an expansion team. The players association likes expansion because it adds jobs for the union. As the article I referenced in the prior blog about the Simmons article on the Maloofs holds true, the NBA doesn't care how you run your team as long as the check to the other owners for the franchise fee doesn't bounce.

There are a lot of problems with the NBA. Chris Russo stated that the regular season is too long, too many teams make the playoffs (16 teams in a 30 team league) almost making the regular season meaningless and the same arguments about players only trying in the last few minutes of a regular season game or the playoffs. Davis Stern says that there are 22 of 30 teams that operate in the red. In an interview with Mike Francessa of WFAN (I think it was this one but I'm not sure as Stern is making the rounds), Stern said that the union believes only 8 teams are losing money (the union believes this despite having financial records from all the teams & being offered to have accountants from both sides review the books together according to Stern).

To be honest, NFL excluded, the regular season for the NBA, NHL & MLB are too long. Now a shorter season means less revenue for owners & players so that will not happen. The NBA & NHL send too many teams into the playoffs (during the 80's the NHL had a 21 team league & 16 teams made the playoffs. Prompting multiple playoff appearance by my hapless Hartford Whalers) but tio change the system would mean a loss of playoff revenue for owners & players, so that's not going to happen.

The NBA should contract franchises (good idea for MLB & NHL as well but its another topic for another time). Especially when the NOLA Hornets don't have an owner, Mark Cuban has stated he's not happy about having to prop them up while they get to compete against his team simultaneously. That's not going to happen. The owners would then have to admit they're wrong (billionaires are NEVER wrong) in the fact that a franchise shouldn't be in a certain city and the players association won't have because it would mean losing jobs. You can argue that the problems with the Hornets stem from a previous owner, George Shinn, but NOLA couldn't support the Jazz in the 70's (they moved to that basketball hotbed...Utah!) and they've had a tough time supporting the Hornets. Plus, the league has been running the Hornets since at least last season and I haven't heard about the line forming to buy them. Contraction would indeed eliminate jobs but one could argue that it would raise the level of talent. With 30 teams I feel that the talent pool is a bit diluted.

I touched upon Amare Stoudemire's statement about forming a new league on the last post. Since then I've heard people (Dino Costa & Colin Cowherd) pretty much mock that statement. Both Dino & Colin were critical of the business acumen of the players but I won't do that (stats show that most of professional players are broke within 3-5 years out of the game). Where's the line of billionaires forming to own a team? Who's going to negotiate a TV contract? Who's going to book the travel? Who's going to set-up the leases with arenas? It isn't going to happen & even if it did, how long before they run into the same problems? Also, when the labor issue gets settled, the players in this "new league" would jump ship the 1st chance they get.

That's it for me. As I get ready to enter the hot tub in my hotel room, I will leave you with a link to an article by Michael Wilbon about how the players seem to think that the fans are on they're side, http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/wilbon-111013/public-ridicule-disdain-force-ends-nba-lockout. When millionaires argue with billionaires it turns everyone off. I'm not for ownership but I'm not siding with the players either. Sure I watch the NBA but I don't start paying attention until after the Super Bowl. I just wish the NHL get get on TV a bit more.

Thanks for your time.

The 2011-12 NBA Season in jeopardy! Does anyone care?

The NBA has been in lock-out mode for over 3 months with almost no progress. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering NBA pundits were bringing this up during the NFL lockout. The owners have taken a real hard line towards the players. It seems very clear that they want to make sure the players miss paychecks so they rush to the bargaining table to make a deal that's favorable to them. The owners are claiming that the league is losing hundreds of millions of dollars each year so they need change now (whereas the NFL owners had to lockout the players because they weren't making enough profits).

The NBA does appear to be in trouble financially. The New Orleans Hornets are currently owned by the league and the Sacramento Kings, according to the owners, need a new arena or they need to move out of town. Other small market franchises claim to be losing money hand over fist. It is my firm belief that the owners & the league itself are at fault for their problems and here's why:

• Owners are the one's handing out max contracts to players that are not worth it (Rashard Lewis & Johnson coe to mind). The teams offer these guys the contracts so now the owners are asking the union to help them control their own spending because the owners can not do it themselves. Here's an arrticle by ESPN's Bill SImmons and Jonathon Abrams about some bad contracts teams have gotten themselves into & would love to get out of, http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7026680/welcome-amnesty-20-nba
• The league expanded too fast when the times were good (the NHL, MLB & the NFL are all guilty of this) and went into places that maybe they shouldn't have gone into . The Grizzlies open up in Vancouver in 1996 but moved to Memphis in 2002 (and stillhave trouble drawing). The Charlotte Hornets entered the NBA in 1989 then moved to NOLA in 2003, now they have no owner and the league runs their day to day operations to make sure they can honor the player contracts. The Timerwolves have had 6 straight losing seasons (5 in row with 50 or more losses) punctuated by going 15-67 in '09-'10 & 17-65 in the '10-'11season (ownership even took out an add in the newspaper asking the fans to be patient while the team sucks for a few seasons during the rebuilding process). Charlotte's new team, the Bobcats, entered the league in 2004 and have had 1 winning season in that span and having trouble drawing spectators. 
• There are a lot of owners who are no good at what they do. Take for example the Maloof Brothers in Sacramento. The Maloofs were billionaires with a lucrative beer distributorship (I think that's how they got their fortune, inherited if I'm not mistaken) and they owned the Palms hotel in Vegas. During their tenure as owners, the highwater mark for the Kings was their appearance in the 2002 WCF & subsequent shady way the lost the series to the Lakers (the infamous game 6), they've managed to take a small market franchise that has drawn well for years (an old SI article stated that the Kings fans would say "it's our team bad or worse but it's our team!), enjoy a nice playoff run which saw 7 straight appearances and see the team throw it in the tank with 5 straight losing seasons. For more info on the Maloofs check out this Bill Simmons article on them from earlier this spring, http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110425&sportCat=nba.

The players are guilty of being out of touch with fans, case in point the Carmelo Anthony nonsense from last season. Here's a guy who was in the final year of his contract and made it clear that he wasn't going to re-sign with the Denver Nuggets. However, only the Nuggets would be able to sign him to a max contract (roughly $22 million/year). If Melo goes free agency then he gets less money (around $15/year). See the problem? So in order for Melo to get a max contract, the Nuggets have to do a sign & trade with another team (or teams). However, Melo really only wants to play for Knicks and he pretty much stated such. So Melo makes this all public and even goes so far as to pat himself on the back for staying "focused" despite all these "distractions," which he brought upon himself! In the midst of a poor economy & joblessness, who exactly was feeling sorry for Melo? I wish he would've been quiet about it because it's tough to feel sorry for a guy who holds his employer hostage so he can make $7 million more a year and the Knicks & Melo took flack because they didn't turn into an elite team overnight.

I haven't bothered to confirm this (it's probably easy too) but a max contract for a player re-signing with his current team is 6 years for $132 million. So if that same player decides to sign with another team the max becomes 6 years for $90 million (that's a lot of money left on the table!). So I don't have any issue with a player wanting that extra $30 million, my problem is taking those issues public & trying to garner sympathy especially during the present economic climate!

Players also pretty much want to play for certain teams that either have good year round weather, no state income tax or in a big city. Those teams are the Heat, Knicks, Chicago, LA (Lakers only) & Dallas (too a lesser degree Boston, Orlando and perhaps San Anotonio & Houston). I agree with Bill Simmons, in the article I linked about the Maloofs, that a player should play where he wants to when he becomes a free agent. If had a choice to play in Miami or NYC  as opposed to Indianapolis or Sacramento, I'm choosing Miami or NYC. Not to say that Sacramento or Indianapolis are bad, but they can't compare to Miami or NYC (in my opinion). That makes it difficult for the other 24 teams to attract free agents. It's also clear that most players don't really play until that last 2-5 minutes of a game & that they save it for the playoffs (although these criticisms have surfaced periodically for decades).

This is just a theory I've kicked around for a few years but the NBA's key demographic is 18-30 year old males, especially Black males. The problem is the NBA doesn't necessarily want this demographic (that buys the NBA video games, jerseys, hats & have a passion for the game) in the arena. The NBA wants the corporate (passionless), 40-55 year old crowd to fill the arena because the average fan probably can't afford season tickets (the same hold true for the NFL & probably to a degree). Gone are the days when the "average guy" can afford good seat season tickets. It's just another bogus mathematical theory of mine so there's probably a validity issue. Although I think that all the major sports want corporate money to fill the seats of the stadiums/arenas.

Fact of the matter is, I just don't care if the NBA plays at all this season. Be advised I was a HUGE NBA fan when I was younger and had the NBA package on DirecTV (when I lived a domesticated life in the mid-90's). I enjoyed the drama of the playoffs last year and have had in the past when interested. I've even heard the 73% of people also don't care if the NBA plays or not but that might have more to do that most casual sports fans don't care about the NBA until after the Super Bowl.

Recently, Amare Stoudemire stated that the players should go out and form a new league (or something to that effect). NBA pundits have stated that what he really meant that the players should barnstorm or something. Whatever he meant, a new league would eventually lead to the same problems. Add to the fact that most fans only care about 10-15 players anyway. So barnstorming wouldn't help the 8th guy off the Clippers bench. The owners also don't seem to care about players going overseas to play.

It will be interesting to see how everything turns out for the owners & the players. I hope that the NHL can take advantage of all this somehow. To me, the NHL is a better product (the NBA still runs marketing circles around the NHL) than the NBA but I also realize that's it's barely on the map compared to the Big 3; football, baseball & basketball.

Moneyball revisited

As we enter the next round of the baseball playoffs (LCS), the big market teams (Yankees & Phillies) have exited early. Add in the fact that the Red Sox (payroll $162 million) had an epic September collapse to allow the Tampa Bay Rays (payroll $41 million) to make it into the playoffs. With all those recent big money acquisitions (Lackey, Crawford & Gonzalez) the Red Sox had a September stretch where they went 6-18 in their last 24 games. The Rays (whose payroll is about as much as the 3 Red Sox I mentioned) went 16-8 in the same 24 game stretch overtaking the Sox by 1 game. Boston's 2 pitching aces (Beckett & Lester) went a combined 2-5 in September. To paraphrase ESPN's Bill Simmons, neither Beckett nor Lester was able to step up during the spiral and put the team on his back. To add insult to injury the Red Sox were picked by everyone in the pre-season to represent the American League in the World Series.

Boston aside, the Phillies (payroll $173 million) won 102 games, had a tough line-up and easily the best starting rotation that baseball has seen in a long time, http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2011.shtml. The Phillies were beaten by the Cardinals in 5 games. Phillie ace Roy Halladay pitched a great game, 8 IP 1 ER, but Cardinal ace Chris Carpenter pitched magnificently, CG 3H 10ks. Let's not forget the fact that the Phillies beat up on the Braves at the end of the season allowing the Cardinals in slip in (the Braves collapse would be historic if not for the Red Sox being epically historic). The Cardinals are not a small market team, they just spend a bit more wisely than other teams. The Phillies were the odds on favorite to not only represent the National League in the World Series but to win it all.

That leaves the New York Yankees (payroll $202 million). The Yankees have had the highest payroll for years. They charge a lot of money so ownership has felt that they need to field a championship caliber team every year. Getting into the playoffs for the Yankees isn't enough, only hoisting the World Series trophy is considered a successful season in the Bronx. The Yankees have been taking a lot of heat for losing to the Tigers at home in an elimination game. They didn't get a lot of production from their 4,5 & 6 hitters A-Rod, Teixeira & Swisher (the 3 were represented as the Three Stooges on the back page of the Daily News or whatever after the game 5 loss). A-Rod makes about $30 million and Teixeira made $22.5 million, not quite the bang for the buck the organization would have like to have seen in a big spot.

What's left is the Detroit Tigers (10 highest payroll at $105.7 milion), St. Louis Cardinals (11th highest payroll at $105.4 million), Texas Rangers ($93 million) and the Milwaukee Brewers ($85 million, 17th highest). Only the Brewers are in the lower half of the league in payroll. Both the Brewers & the Cards face a dilemma in re-signing their best player. Prince Fielder, Brewers 1st baseman, is in the final year of a contract that pays him $15.5 million. Many believe that they will not be able to meet his asking price (probably somewhere in the Mark Teixeira neighborhood). The Brewers weren't able to re-sign Sabathia when he became a free agent, allowing the Yankees to back the Brinks truck up to CC's home. Albert Pujols made it clear before spring training that he wanted a long term deal that would make him one of the highest paid players in the game. As I stated earlier, the Cards spend money but a 10 year $300 million contract (the numbers being thrown about at the beginning of the year) would be difficult for them (probably difficult for any team but the Yankees but they've got A-Rod & Teixeira locked up for awhile so they're out).  In my opinion, Pujols, 3 time MVP, didn't help himself with what could arguably his worst year as a pro; .299 BA, 37Hr, 99 RBI, 105 R & led the NL in grounding into double plays (95% of all players would love to have a crappy year like that but when you compare it to the rest of his career it's a bad year. Don't take my word for it see for yourself, http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pujolal01.shtml).

Make no mistake payroll is an issue. The top 2 payrolls won the most games and had home field advantage in the playoffs until the World Series. However, the 3-9 highest payrolls did not make the playoffs (some teams, let's say the Mets & the Cubs for example, were terrible) including the 2010 Champs the SF Giants (8th highest at $118 million). You also had the Diamondbacks win the NL West (25th payroll at $53 million) and the Rays (see above for their payroll info) making the playoffs as well. Being able to spend money helps but it obviously doesn't guarantee you a championship or a playoff appearance for that matter.

There's just a whole lot of factors that come into play. The Minnesota Twins were considered the blue print of a small market team that had made it to the post season with frequency, since 2002 they've made the playoffs 6 times but only got to the LCS in 2006 and they got swept. This year ( a payroll of $112 million) after getting a new stadium and re-signing their best player, Joe Mauer, they proceeded to won only 63 games. Injuries played a big factor for the Twins. Injuries are always be a problem, A-Rod missed 63 games this year (I even heard a caller on the Chris "Mad Dog" Russo show say "if A-Rod can't juice, he can't produce" in reference to his steroid issues) the Red Sox had injuries within the pitching staff. In addition to injuries there can sometimes be bad decisions by upper management (the Mets & Dodgers vault to the forefront here) and of course guys who just don't produce even when healthy.

In regards to poor decision making, the Yankees are going to be in a tough spot over the next few years. A-Rod will be into his 40's y the time his massive contract expires and his production has dropped off a bit and he's missed 150 games since 2008. Teixeira hit 39 homers but a measly .248 batting average (since BA has gone down since his arrival in the Bronx, I've even heard Yankee fans call in & say that he doesn't hit in the clutch). Jeter is old but he's still got it despite a slow start in 2011 but in his late 30's he may not be able to cover the ground he was did. Sabathia may opt out and demand more money (he made $23 million this year) and more years as well as  taking heat for being too fat. Stephen A. Smith of ESPN wrote that the Yankees can pay him more but they shouldn't give him a long term deal, he's not the only person to take that stance. The Yankees blinked when A-Rod opted out a few years ago and they made a bad deal because of it so I think they're too smart to make the same mistake but who knows.

It will be interesting to see who ends up in the World Series. So far the playoffs have been great to watch. I don't have a dog in the fight so I wouldn't mind seeing Milwaukee & Detroit in the Fall Classic but I think the Tigers & the Cardinals is the more compelling match-up.

Not really sure if I went anywhere with this but if someone reads it, thanks for your time.

2012 GOP Platform

I've been loosely following the 2012 GOP Presidential candidates over the last few months and these people are quite a bunch. Here's what you've got (in no particular order):

• Mitt Romney: Mitt is a Mormon, which alienates a lot of people. He served 1 term as Massachusetts Governor after a successful run as Chairman of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee (you know the one that was uncovered for bribing officials to grant SLC the 2002 Winter Olympics). Mitt's a super rich guy who's probably not in touch with the average working man (this has been the comedy gold for a lot of talking heads).
• Newt Gingrich: Newt is a staunch conservative who preaches family values. Don't forget he was cheating on his cancer stricken wife while going after Clinton for getting a BJ. Newt was at the forefront of the "Contract with America" after Republicans won back majority on the House & Senate in 1994. I don't remember much about the "contract with Amercia" so my opinion is that it really wasn't all that significant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America. Suffice to say I glanced over it on Wikipedia & it didn't seem all that significant. 
• Michele Bachmann: A Tea Party favorite who has periodic dialogues with the Lord Almighty (he often gives her advice). She's recently fallen from grace if you want to call it that & no longer seems to curry the favor of the Tea Party. After reading an article about her in Rolling Stone & hearing Bill Maher go off on her, it's almost inconceivable that a rational human being would vote for her. She's against things like farm subsidies but she's taken them in the past. I brought her up in a previous post. 
• Rick Perry: Governor of Texas. Rick was in office when he urged Texans to pray for rain to end a drought (another candidate who converses with the Almighty). Rick went toe to toe with Romney in a debate awhile back & seemed to generate some steam. Then he kept talking & whatever steam he gathered soon dissipated. His record as governor appears spotty at best.
• Herman Cain: To be honest all I knew about this guy until today was that he was the token non-white guy. This morning I watched an interview he gave on some Sunday morning talk show (I was under the influence of cold medication so that's my excuse). He seems to feel that African-Americans should be voting Republican (despite the fact that the GOP has done very little to meet or care about the needs of the Black community, as pointed out by the interviewer) and have been "brainwashed" by the Democratic Party. Herman's a business man who recently did real well in a some sort of straw poll or something so he thinks his chances are getting better.
• Ron Paul: Ron ran as an Independent candidate in 2008 but has since gone over to the GOP. He's got a loyal (almost cult) following but he's got some opinions that the hard core conservatives don't agree with. Seems like a reasonable guy.

There are others of course but they all are running on one underlying theme...to expunge Barrack Obama from history. I saw clips of a debate & they all said the same thing, their 1st "acts" will be to undo anything Obama has done. That's it. Apparently once that's done everything will just get better. That's the best solution that these clowns can come up with. If I cared to do the research, I would better dollars to Little Debbie Snack Cakes that their "solutions" to America's problems are not that original and each candidate's "solutions" seem eerily similar to the others. I'm reminded of a World War I documentary about the Dardenelles Campaign. The British wanted a 2nd front to alleviate pressure on the Western Front. The original plan was all naval as few if any ground forces could be spared. The plan was simple, the Royal Navy was to sail up the Dardenelle Straits right to Constantinople. The Turks would either surrender or runaway at the mere sight of the Royal Navy. Suffice to say that plan didn't work. That's just what these clowns have come up with. Somehow undo what Obama has done & everything will fine.

Speaking of other GOP candidates, what is the deal with this country's weird fascination with Sarah Palin? The Tea Party has been falling all over her since she sabotaged McCain's bid for President. She quit her job as Governor of Alaska halfway thru, she's into family values but tried to keep the father of her grandson out of the baby's life. What's she ever accomplished? Seriously? To my knowledge she's yet to declare her candidacy but she gets public money for it (like her little summer bus tour where she "happened" to show up in New Hampshire when Romney was there to announce his candidacy thereby stealing his thunder). During this tour she got the gist of Paul Revere's ride all wrong, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4C7bvHv2w, when she visited the Old North Church during her bus tour. Most grade schoolers can give a better answer (she gives a rebuttal on Fox News, http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=CLQTcZwbykw, where she denies getting wrong & tries to rewrite history). Inconceivable!

The pool of talent is so shallow for the GOP that they're begging NJ Governor Chris Christie to announce his a run. Christie seems like an everyman but he's got some views (gun laws) that don't jibe with the hard core conservatives either.  We'll see what happens.

Thanks for your time & thanks again to all the the men & women in the US Armed Forces.