Month: March 2016

Back in 2010 when ESPN was televising the World Cup, I wrote that I really enjoyed the British announcers that ESPN had gathered up to do the games. You can read why I enjoyed those telecasts here. In that posting, I said that my favorite announcer of the lot was Ian Darke who has continued to be associated with ESPN on and off in the intervening years. Earlier this week, ESPN announced that they had extended their relationship with Ian Darke.

According to the announcement, Darke will be the main announcer for US Men’s and Women’s National Team games including friendlies, games that lead to qualifying for World Cup competition and any World Cup games that fit into the schedule. As is often the case, there is a lot of management speak and high-fallutin’ verbiage that accompanies such an announcement. This was no exception but in this case, I tend to agree with much of what the management-speak boils down to:

“Ian is one of the finest English-language commentators in the world and his work has elevated our overall presentation of soccer since he joined ESPN. Ian has become a destination listen and has the proven ability to appeal to a wide audience. We are thrilled he will continue as an integral member of our team for years to come.”

The new contract extends through 2020 which means he will be on ESPN for the next men’s and women’s World Cup games. I like that…

In the NBA, the Kobe Bryant Farewell Tour meanders on. I use the term “meander” here not in the sense of “aimless wandering” but to connote its random happenings in various NBA cities. Plenty of commentators have spent time and energy trying to put Bryant’s final season into some sort of context with regard to his “legacy”. Such commentary seems to take one of several forms:

These celebrations are for the fans who want to see him play just one last time and for players who have been his opponents and/or teammates in the past to acknowledge him as “one of the greats”. Therefore, this set of extravaganzas is all good.

These celebrations are nothing but a dog-and-pony show that the NBA and various teams are milking for all it is worth. It overshadows the NBA season and demeans the NBA product.

These celebrations unfortunately culminate with Bryant playing in a real NBA game demonstrating that his once prodigious skills are no longer present. This distorts completely his legacy; this is like watching Willie Mays stumbling around in the outfield trying to find pop-flies in the sun.

There is a nugget of factual basis in all three of those sorts of commentaries meaning that all of them are sorta right but not completely right. I only want to address the “tarnish the legacy” argument here. My problem with this sort of thinking is that sports legacies create and maintain themselves and they do so without much help from commentators and they do so on a long term basis not a memory of the final performance of the athlete. We remember Willie Mays as a great baseball player despite his final days in uniform; we remember Muhammad Ali as a great champion despite his final performances in the ring. A truly great athlete who attains and deserves a “legacy” is not a “one-hit-wonder”; he/she has earned whatever legacy exists by means of sustained superiority.

I really think the commentators who lament the “tarnishing of the legacy” here miss a very important point. Kobe Bryant has been on this “victory lap” for about 3 months now; plenty of people have put themselves in the camp that they wish he would go out gracefully instead of the way he is doing so because – and this is important – they want to remember him the way he was and not the way he is now. Two points here:

Focus on how you remember him from his glory days and shrug off a sub-standard performance or two that you might see this season. That is what you would have done if he had chosen to retire back in December instead of “soldiering on”.

The very fact that you yearn to remember him differently – and gloriously – demonstrates how good a player he was over the course of his career. That fact assures that he will have a “legacy” and that it will be a positive one.

Kobe Bryant was not the greatest NBA player of all time. In fact, I would argue that he was not even the greatest Laker of all time; in my mind, that position is occupied by Magic Johnson but I acknowledge that other fans may put some other Laker in that exalted slot. Having said all of that, Kobe Bryant was an exceptionally gifted player; he will be remembered for a very long time; when people reminisce about his on-court skills and leadership and energy, they will remember all of that in a positive way.

When my kids were young, they grew up watching Sesame Street which meant that I too spent time watching that program. Call it a guilty pleasure if you want, I used to enjoy Sesame Street almost as much as my kids did. In the Washington Post yesterday, in the agate-type “Transactions” column, I was reminded of Sesame Street. With regard to pitchers signing contracts, it was a day brought to you by the letter “Y”:

Rangers signed Yohander Mendez to a 1-year contract.
White Sox signed Yordi Rosario to a minor league contract.
D-Backs signed Yuhei Nakaushiro to a minor league contract.

Too bad the Yankees could not sign Yogi Berra to a contract on the same day. Sadly, Yogi is on the wrong side of the infield grass…

Finally, Brad Dickson of the Omaha World-Herald had this comment about a former teammate – and opponent – of Kobe Bryant:

“Shaquille O’Neal is getting his own statue outside Staples Center. For nostalgia’s stake, it will be erected in the general vicinity of where his free-throw attempts used to land.”

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………

CBSSports.com has a report this morning that the legal fees paid by the parties to Deflategate could be as high as $20M. That estimate does not include the cost of the Wells Report that set much of this in motion; Wells has said that he billed the NFL $2.5M for that report. It also does not include the fees incurred by the Pats when they filed their rebuttal to the Wells Report; that rebuttal ran to 20,000 words so it surely cost more than “3 easy payments of $39.95.” Later this week when the league appeals the decision that set aside Tom Brady’s suspension, the NFLPA will have 9 lawyers in court representing the union. For the full CBSSports.com report, check it out here…

A different legal battle involving an NFL player came to an end recently. WR, DeSean Jackson and agent Drew Rosenhaus had been involved in a tug-of-war over about $500K that an arbitrator said Jackson had to pay to Rosenhaus. Here is the backstory:

Rosenhaus was Jackson’s agent; in 2013 Jackson fired Rosenhaus and hired someone else.

Rosenhaus filed a grievance with the NFLPA saying that Jackson had borrowed $400K from him prior to the firing and that he wanted his money back. An arbitrator ruled in Rosenhaus’ favor.

Jackson went to court to overturn that ruling claiming that Rosenhaus had bribed him to hire Rosenhaus in the first place and that Rosenhaus had not disclosed in that case that he had a prior relationship with the arbitrator. Evidently, Rosenhaus had paid the arbitrator $140K in fees involving a previous arbitration case that did not involve Jackson.

The judge overturned the arbitrator’s decision for legal reasons that I will not pretend to understand fully but it would seem in this case that the “good guy” came out ahead. Jackson does not have to pay Rosenhaus – pending an appeal from Rosenhaus that may or may not happen. However, there was an even more interesting commentary from the judge in this case. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald noted that the NFLPA – an organization that exists to promote and protect the rights of the players who are its members – uses the same arbitrator in the vast majority of its arbitration cases involving players and agents and that the players lose about 80% of the time.

Maybe the NFL players and the folks who sit on Mahogany Row in the NFLPA office suite had not noticed that correlation prior to this matter. Now that they have a decision from Judge Fitzgerald and those stats – combined with the claims of bribery by an agent to get a player to sign on in the first place and undisclosed transactions between an agent and the most common arbitrator – how long should it take for the players and the union leaders to change the system? Personally, I would think two weeks ought to be about right…

Oh, by the way, when one is confronted by circumstances that demand a fundamental change in the way business is done, inertia and an historical mindset often make the start of the change process difficult. I am not going to try to tell the NFLPA how it should alter its arbitration processes here but I will offer them a suggestion regarding how they may begin the “restructuring process”:

Often, a good place to start is to look at how other organizations handle similar matters. From that sort of examination, the beginnings of a new process can emerge.

Memo to the NFLPA: I suggest you do NOT look to the NFL as a model for how to handle arbitration matters and how to mete out punishments for wrongdoings. If ever there were a set of processes that fit the description of “ineffective while simultaneously inefficient”, the NFL’s processes would the ones.

One more note for the NFLPA on this matter, do NOT look to the NCAA as your role model in this matter either. If you even tempted to do that, consider the following:

In its headlong rush to prove that it is politically correct, the NCAA has spent lots of time and maneuvering to force certain schools to change their names/mascots. One school that had to do so was the University of North Dakota who used to be the Fighting Sioux and are now the Fighting Hawks.

The school and the NCAA had been in court over this matter but settled it all in 2007. Five years later, the people of North Dakota voted to change the school nickname and mascot. Seriously, this was a referendum item in a primary election there.

Here is the stupidity that could only accompany a settlement reached with the NCAA; this sets a new standard for suffering under the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Part of the 2007 agreement requires the University of North Dakota to “retain sole possession” of the “Fighting Sioux” trademark and brand. Clearly, the purpose is to prevent some “rogue alumni group” from glomming onto it and maintaining the presence of the nickname the NCAA finds offensive. Sounds smart, no…?

Well, in order to maintain one’s claim on a trademark, one must – inter alia – use the trademark. So, the university has set up the Dacotah Legacy Collection which makes and sells a small line of t-shirts and hats and various tchotchkes with the “Fighting Sioux” logo on it.

So the school had to manufacture said items that – by definition – the NCAA finds offensive but in addition, the school has to sell them too in order to use the trademark thereby retaining sole possession as per the settlement with the NCAA. Where can you buy the stuff? In the gift shop at the university’s hockey arena – which is usually packed with fans because North Dakota is always one of the nation’s top hockey teams.

So, let me recap here. The University of North Dakota was forced by the NCAA to stop being the Fighting Sioux. To keep possible malcontents from perpetuating the insult of the name and brand, the school was forced to keep the trademark and that demands that the school make and sell openly merchandise that the NCAA forced them to stop making and selling in the first place.

This is so outrageous that I can only come to one conclusion:

If stupid could fly, the NCAA would be a Supersonic Transport.

Finally, since I spoke about a player/agent matter above, consider this comment from Greg Cote of the Miami Herald regarding another player/agent pronouncement:

“His agent confirmed Marshawn Lynch will retire. ‘No comment,’ said the media.”

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………

Last week, MLB announced two rule changes for this year. The first is destined to be known as the “Chase Utley Rule” because it requires runners going from first base to second base to go directly toward the bag. Last year, Utley made a perfectly legal play according to baseball rules and history and it resulted in the Mets losing their shortstop to a knee injury. The new rule clearly is motivated by player safety and it provides a measure of protection for defensive players who now have the opportunity to get out of the way of an oncoming runner because they know where he will be sliding.

The other rule change also affects play around second base in potential double play situations. For years, baseball has had the “neighborhood play”; the umpire would call a player out on an attempted double play if the defender at second base had the ball while his foot was “somewhere in the neighborhood” of the bag. The player did not need to have the ball in his glove and have his foot on the bag simultaneously in order to get the runner called out. Starting next year, the umpires are supposed to ignore the “neighborhood play” and make the call at second base the way it would be called at first base.

I am in favor of both rule changes/adaptations; let me make that clear. At the same time, might I point out that eliminating the “neighborhood play” AND requiring the base runner to go directly to the bag at second base is a recipe for more collisions at second base? Moreover, injuries due to collisions are directly proportional to the number of collisions; ergo…

Former Nats’ shortstop, Ian Desmond finally found a home in MLB. He sat out all of the free agent season without a satisfactory offer but finally signed on with the Texas Rangers to play left field for them until Josh Hamilton is recovered from his injury – presumably sometime in May. Desmond signed a 1-year deal for $8M; in his career he has played the outfield exactly once. This may seem like a strange signing for the Rangers but I think it is a good one. Let me explain.

Ian Desmond is only 30 years old; there are still miles on those tires.

Desmond had a terrible year in 2015 at shortstop for the Nats where he led the NL in errors (27) and only hit .233.

However, his career batting average is .264; his career OBP is .312 and his career OPS is .736. for his career he has averaged 19 HRs and 75 RBIs per season.

As a career infielder, Desmond can provide the Rangers with competency as a utility infielder at shortstop or second base in addition to playing the outfield. More importantly, he is a baseball player; he plays the game with focus and intensity and he plays the game properly. An $8M salary for a year is something I would fondly wish for; in this case, I think the Rangers got themselves a good deal.

Steve Rosenbloom of the Chicago Tribune demonstrated last week that he is already in mid-season form with this “analysis” of a comment made by Adam Eaton as the White Sox became immersed in Spring Training:

“Adam Eaton said the White Sox are beginning a ‘ in which they do the ‘little things’’ better. Quick someone tell Eaton that hitting the ball and catching the ball are not little things.”

Meanwhile, in St. Petersburg, FL, the Mayor and the head of the Chamber of Commerce announced the creation of a 30-person team whose purpose is to convince the Tampa Bay Rays to stay in St. Petersburg because that is the best place for them to play ball and flourish. The team/committee/whatever is called Baseball Forever.

The reason these civic leaders need to go to the trouble of forming this committee is that the St. Petersburg City Council recently agreed to some sort of deal with the Rays that would allow the Rays to check out possible alternative stadium sites in Pinellas County (containing St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Dunedin and Tarpon Springs) and in Hillsborough County (containing Tampa, Brandon and a place named Fort Lonesome). The Rays have expressed a desire to move to an in-town stadium in Tampa; they now have permission to see if they can make a deal to make that happen.

The launch for the Baseball Forever effort was held at a sports bar adjacent to Tropicana field where the Rays now play their home games. The committee has 30 members and the crowd in attendance was about 200 folks. Therein lies the problem the good folks of St. Petersburg must overcome. If each of the 30 members of Baseball Forever had 2 people with him/her, that would be about half of the crowd in attendance. Let me summarize the reason that the Rays want to move from St. Petersburg in the first place very succinctly:

Attendance at home games stinks.

For the 6 seasons from 2008 through 2013, the Rays were contenders for the playoffs or they were in the playoffs or they were in the World Series. In that run, attendance peaked in 2009 at 1.875M folks; the Rays averaged 23,148 fans per game in their best year of attendance. In 2014 and 2015, the Rays were not serious playoff contenders and here is what happened to their attendance:

2014: Finished 19 games out in the AL East. Attendance was 17,857 per game.

2015: Finished 13 games out in the AL East. Attendance was 15,889 per game.

I am not a civic leader or a business maven or a politico; I do not know what the solution to the problem in St. Petersburg might be. Here is what I know. Unless Baseball Forever can find ways to get more fannies in more seats in Tropicana Field on a consistent basis, that team is going to move some day. The folks who make up Baseball Forever need to realize that baseball will go on – potentially forever – but that does not mean it will have to continue to be in St. Petersburg.

Finally, in keeping with today’s baseball theme, here is an item from a recent column by Dwight Perry in the Seattle Times:

“Hip-hop recording artist Kanye West says he’s in debt to the tune of $53 million.

“Moral of the story: It doesn’t pay to keep doubling down on your Cubs bets.”

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………

March may come in like a lion and go out like a lamb; but here in Curmudgeon Central, I try to keep an even keel. I seek to maintain “Consistent Crankiness” from day-to-day and month-to month. Accordingly, you should not expect leonine outbursts here today. However, I make no promises about tomorrow because here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, we are holding our primary elections today. That means I will go to the polls later today to discharge my responsibility as a citizen. In so doing, I will approach a system dominated by people for whom I have generally low regard – or worse. Ergo, unless I mellow by tomorrow morning, I might tend to the upper limits of my “Consistent Crankiness”.

The NFL Combine is finally over. I will go out on a limb and say – without actually reading them – that you can safely skip any of the “post-mortem reports” from the event. Anything that tries to summarize the Combine activities in terms of “stock trending up” and/or “stock trending down” should not be taken with a grain of salt for the simple reason that it should not be taken in the first place. I did run across one article that dealt with the uncertainty of drafting a QB this year where none of the eligible candidates come with a pedigree similar to those of Andrew Luck or Jameis Winston or Marcus Mariotta from recent years. In that article, Bruce Arians was quoted saying:

“When you’re dealing with these guys and evaluating [them], the two muscles you can’t evaluate are the brain and the heart. And they’re the two you play with.”

That is not exactly a malapropism, but it is close. The brain – yours, mine or a quarterback’s – is not a muscle. If it were a muscle, then the brain would be a form of meat and that would make the quarterback a meathead and you would not want to draft him. In any event, that was one of the most important “insights” that I gained from reading – sparingly – about the NFL Combine. As they say in the car ads on TV, “Your mileage may vary…”

With the announcement that Tom Brady has extended his contract for 2 more years and would be playing QB at age 42 should he play out that deal, let me present to you a couple of numbers that should reinforce your belief in the fact that a top-shelf QB is critical to NFL success:

Bill Belichick’s record when Tom Brady is his starting QB: 183-65 with 6 Super Bowl appearances and 4 Super Bowl victories.

Bill Belichick’s record when someone else is his starting QB: 40-48.

Ka-beesh?

The NFL recently provided us with yet another installment of “The Story That Will Not Die.” According to reports, two members of the British Parliament sent a joint letter to NFL Commish, Roger Goodell, urging the Commish to do one of two things:

1. Change the name of the Washington team because the name is offensive.

2. Alternatively, send a different team to play in London next Fall.

The two MPs were indeed in high dudgeon as they crafted their missive. Here are a few samples of their rhetoric:

“As one of the U.S.’ biggest cultural exports finds success in the U.K., the sport’s values and standards come with it. Unfortunately, it is apparent that within these values there is a deliberate insensitivity and apparent hostility to a prominent minority group.”

And …

“We were shocked to learn of the derivation of the term ‘R*dskin,’ pertaining as it does to the historic abuse of native Americans, including the production of a piece of flesh as proof of kill by bounty hunters. The exportation of this racial slur to the U.K. this Autumn … directly contravenes the values that many in Britain have worked so hard to instill.”

The Skins and Bengals are scheduled to play there in October this year and the controversy that we have dealt with on and off for the last 35 years or so has now spread across the pond. The two MPs seem not to have picked up on the key element of the dispute over the name; they seem to think that appeals to morality and good taste and respect for others is what all this is about. Actually, what it is about is far more crass; it is about money.

Memo to Offended Members of Parliament: The Washington franchise makes money hand-over-fist using that team name. Until and unless something happens to change that fact, the team name is not going to change – and Roger Goodell will not/cannot order such a change.

What I find very interesting about this particular situation and the agita it seems to have generated in Great Britain is that the monetary aspect cuts both ways here. The presence of an NFL game in London does attract some money to the local economy and there are more than a few folks in London who would like to see a permanent NFL franchise there for economic reasons. The reality is that should the British acquire an NFL franchise, it would be part of the same league that harbors this team with this name that the MPs find sufficiently offensive that they penned the letter that they did.

The Skins make money so they are not changing their team name; the NFL puts some money into the London economy so London continues to want to host NFL games – including the one on the schedule this October between Washington and Cincinnati. That is the thing about money; it spends equally well no matter the source. That may not be the most uplifting thought for the day – but it is reality. Sometimes reality bites … sort of like the reality I am about to encounter as I head out from Curmudgeon Central and go to the polls to vote.

Finally, to close on a lighter note, here is an item from a recent column by Brad Rock in the Deseret News:

“Continuing on their roll, the [BYU} Cougars have received a commitment from four-star junior college transfer Handsome Tanielu.

“If BYU has any sense of humor, it will hire former Western Kentucky defensive back Wonderful Terry as a graduate assistant.”

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………