Why are players losing the so-called public relations battle in the ongoing labor dispute with NHL owners?
And does it really matter to the players, anyway?
Is it because the players are not getting their messages across effectively? Or are their messages — what they are saying and through their actions in recent years — indeed coming through loud and clear?
A recent ‘poll’ (on slam.ca) while not likely scientifically accurate, suggests 47% of those who ‘voted’ supported the owners; 12% supported the players. 30% didn’t support either of them.
Maybe more disconcerting than that to both parties is the fact that while fans in the U.S. are largely unconcerned about the lack of hockey, that apathy has crossed the border into Canada.
Oh sure, hockey fans would like to see hockey, even in certain U.S. markets. Once baseball is done, and the Super Bowl is history, long-time fans will crave the game come January.
But right now there just isn’t a lot of gnashing of teeth over the lack of NHL hockey, even in Canada.
To the earlier point: why might it be that so few people are aligned with the players in this protracted dispute?
Owners don’t score pretty goals. They don’t sign autographs. They’re management. Nobody likes management.
Most media people will suggest that hockey players are by far the best athletes to deal with of the major sports in North America.
It’s a reputation hockey players have earned, by and large. In Canadian markets, it’s hard to imagine anyone more popular than a member of the Oilers, or Leafs, in their respective communities. Many hockey players are also well known for their charitable involvements.
And after all this is a lockout, not a strike. The players say they want to play.
Well, in terms of public perception, there are possible reasons why fans aren’t rushing to support the players, and may never, regardless of how long this lasts.
1. As talented as many of the NHL’ers are, and as physically demanding as their job is, it is difficult for the “average” person earning, say, $40,000 a year, to relate to players whose average salary is almost 2 million a season.
2. Players insist a salary cap is unacceptable, in part because it goes against free market principles. There has never been a salary cap in hockey. So they don’t want to “give up” something they’ve “earned” through collective bargaining. Yet if they were operating under a different set of rules to begin with (i.e. a limit of some description on overall salaries) they would gladly, one assumes, appreciate the opportunity to earn an average annual wage of 1.3 million, which is what the owners claim to be offering.
3. As one of their messages, NHLPA leadership continues to put forward the idea that National Football League players, for example, are unhappy with the NFL salary cap, which has been in place for many years. Yet prominent NFL player reps are saying exactly the opposite — that a cap has been good for football, and for the players. The NFL is the best-run and most popular sport in the United States.
4. Players say they are fighting for the younger players, just as players in earlier generations fought for them. Yet, how many current players fought alongside Carl Brewer, Gordie Howe, Andy Bathgate and others to try to ensure that players of yesteryear — the very players who really made the sport what it is today — received their due while they were being unjustly treated by the league and its owners?
5. If this dispute does not ultimately resolve the economic woes plaguing many franchises, and results in, say, four of those franchises ceasing to operate in future, that would result in a net loss of about 100 NHL — and therefore NHLPA — jobs. Does this outcome help all the players in the Association?
6. Fans may wonder: how much does a player need to have “financial security” for their family? Must their income ensure security for their families for generations to come?
7. Many players are quoted as saying they have already offered “concessions” to the owners. But when the bar was set so high in favor of the players for years, is the appropriate word really concessions? Isn’t it a matter being time the players got in touch with reality?
8. NHL players are a brotherhood, and players stress that they are sticking together. Yet more than 200 players have signed contracts to play in Europe — most of whom have every intention of racing back to North America the moment a new deal is signed. In the same breath, some long-time NHL players have actually signed contracts to play in the American Hockey League, or other minor leagues. In a free world, that’s entirely within the rights of any individual, of course. But how is that creating a sense of solidarity? What message does this send to the public?
9. Those NHL players now playing in Europe — many of whom have been earning millions of dollars a season — are taking jobs away from players who really need those jobs. Do those NHL players care about putting fellow professional players out of work, and the impact that has on those families? Or are the only “fellow players” that matter in the NHLPA?
10. The public has read, for years, comments from the players association that suggest the players, like the owners, have built up a huge “war chest” as they prepared for this scenario. If such a “lockout” fund is available, the public wonders: why do the players need to earn money by playing in other leagues?
11. Interestingly, some players are not signing with other leagues. Many are staying in shape by renting ice and working out together. They are evidently making a clear choice not to play in a different league. Again, everyone is free to follow their own conscience. But if you belong to an “association”, generally members stick together in order to, among other reasons, send out a consistent public message, regardless of whether it’s a lock out or a strike situation.
12. Players who have signed with the so-called Original Six Hockey League are saying they’re doing it for charity, for the fans, so kids can see them play. They stress that kids will be allowed into the dressing room after games, etc. Sounds tremendous. Will players encourage and allow this same free and easy access to kids once they are back in their NHL dressing rooms and there is no public relations battle to be won?
13. NHL officials are not being paid at all during the dispute. Many are taking jobs of various descriptions. The average wage of NHL official is about $100,000 a year. Yet they have — to a man— decided they will not take refereeing jobs in other leagues, to ensure they don’t take jobs away from fellow referees. This is clearly not a stand all players have taken.
14. If there is any sympathy felt, it is for those really affected by the lockout: individuals in the industry who have lost full-time jobs, and part-time rink employees, for example, and all those who are missing out on important income to help them make ends meet at home, or help get them through school.
15. A high-profile NHL player, during the 2003-’04 season, was accurately quoted as saying the players would “sit out for the rest of our lives”, rather than accept the conditions the owners were trying to put forward. This particular player makes several million dollars a season. When the player realized how his comments came across, he tried a more conciliatory tone the next day. But his true feelings had been expressed for all to hear.
16. Similarly, some years back, a veteran NHL player (still actively involved with the Players Association) was asked about the fact that many fathers could no longer afford to bring their kids to an NHL game. The response was, basically, “Maybe those dads should not be taking their kids to a game.”
One more recent example: A prominent NHL’er recently reacted to an appearance by NHL
17. Commissioner Gary Bettman on the CBC National news. Reports quoted the player as saying “I know Mr. Bettman likes to think he knows a lot about hockey. But I’ve never seen him stop a puck, or bleeding when he gets a shot in the face or getting needles in the arms, back and stomach. Players are rewarded handsomely, we understand that, but at the same time we work very hard for what we have.” Players work hard, indeed. People in many walks of life (teachers, police officers, those who do manual labor — soldiers on the front lines, to be sure — and many others) “work hard” . Many take serious physical risks, yet have limits on what they can earn.
18. When figures are cited about player salaries, that doesn’t take into account the royalties players receive on items such as trading card sales, and monies raised through licensing agreements for the sale of NHLPA endorsed merchandise. That bumps the players’ real income up by a substantial amount.
19. The public may wonder how many “freebies” and various ‘perks’ of fame players receive. Do players ever travel other than first-class? Does a hockey player stand in line for anything?
20. Some players play into June in a given season. It can be a long, tough season. For those players who don’t make the playoffs, however, their season starts in training camp in mid-September and ends in mid-April. Five months off in the summer. The “average” person works 49 weeks a year, with three weeks off.
21. Many fans are fed up with hearing athletes whine. Whine that they want to play for a winner, rather than accepting the challenge of staying where they are and helping make their current team a winner; are insulted by contract offers that don’t pay them enough millions; players that demand trades; hide behind the words of their agents; ask to renegotiate contracts; hold out for even more money when they are still unproven and in the early years of their career.
22. Many fans are increasingly tired of the influence of agents. Fans realize that the agents really do speak for the players they represent. The players allow their agent to do the public dirty work.
23. People also likely cringe every time a player is quoted as saying, “I sure hope this gets resolved before much longer”, as though individual players are standing on the outside of this situation and have zero influence. Of course players have influence on the Association leadership. They aren’t helpless by-standers in this situation. And if they are helpless by-standers, people wonder, what kind of an Association is it?
24. Fans have noticed that every time a player steps out of line and says anything the union leadership doesn’t want to hear, the player suddenly retracts or clarifies his earlier (honest) feelings.
25. Additional reasons why players are losing the optics battle jump out almost every time someone speaks on behalf of the union. For example, a high-ranking NHLPA official was just quoted as saying he couldn’t imagine the owners putting a worse proposal on the table than is there right now. Worse than an average salary of 1.3 million a year? Again, the public hears this and just sighs, stunned.
Fans don’t want to hear one more agent or player say, “Well, we didn’t make the owners give us the money. It’s not our fault”. This comment implies of course that owners are “dumb” for spending so much on players to begin with. Many won’t disagree. But hearing the comment repeated endlessly and stated as though the players are simply unwitting millionaire pawns leaves the public numb.
The players stress no one forced the owners to drive up salaries. True. But even if owners decided individually to use their ‘common sense” and set up their own informal wage ceiling, would teams be accused of collusion?
There is little question that pages could also be written about the all the baggage ownership brings to the table in this dispute — not to mention the often unseemly history of NHL ownership over the last many decades. It’s unlikely that many fans have any real sympathy for owners, or much care about the owners at all.
It is clear that there is no game without players. But most people also realize that without owners, there is no sport at all. You’d be left with just a bunch of talented athletes who may get together, barnstorm through the countryside and pass the hat out during a series of exhibition games against local competition from town to town.
Sympathetic figures or not, without those who have made huge profits in their various businesses, there would be no owners in professional sports. Hockey needs the successful entrepreneurs to survive and there aren’t that many of them around — at least not that many that can run a professional sports franchise efficiently and successfully.
And these owners expect to make significant money on their investment, including with their sports franchises.
There is one question that no one will answer, but is an interesting question nonetheless: If the current players refused to play under the conditions ownership wants, and if the NHL as we know it dissolved tomorrow and a new league started anew, would there be players to fill teams?
If players felt truly “free” to decide, on their own, without pressure from any particular corner, and did not feel they were crossing some sort of real or imagined picket line, it’s hard to imagine the answer would be anything but “yes”.
In other words, if the game started over again, could it work?
The answer is indeed yes. Players who may not be as gifted as current NHL’ers would play, and they would play for much, much less money just for the honor of playing in what might still be called the National Hockey League.
After all, isn’t that what the AHL and ECHL are right now, and for that matter, the European professional leagues? Good leagues made up of good players who, for the most part, are not quite NHL-players just yet?
They earn a good, steady, if unspectacular income. People pay to watch them play in various markets across Canada and the United States and Europe. Yet not one of the players complains publicly over little things, because there are dozens of other players just “below” them hoping and waiting for their chance.
Would people still pay to see the game if every current NHL’er quit the game?
Absolutely.
Real hockey fans love U.S. college hockey, Major Junior hockey, semi-pro hockey. If it’s well played, played hard by people who give their all, people will come and watch.
Imagine returning to a time when a parent could bring two or three kids to an NHL game and buy really good seats — park, eat something, and go home with change in their pocket after spending less than a hundred dollars.
Imagine returning to a time when, like in the Canadian Football League, the players realized they were fortunate to play a sport they love, be paid for it, and, like most everyone else in society, had the same financial insecurities most people face, once their career in sport are over.
As the economy has changed and evolved and ebbed and flowed over the last 15 or so years, tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs, struggled to find new employment, started over again.
Many people have had to “re-invent” themselves, to borrow the often-used phrase.
Maybe the players will finally realize that while many fans enjoy and appreciate their talents, they are no more special than anyone else simply because they are professional athletes.
Maybe it is time to start all over again. A new league. New players — eager, appreciative players who can repair the disconnect that is killing the relationship between athletes and fans, players who won’t balk at playing for, say, a few hundred thousand dollars a year, which is still more than the best medical specialists earn — people who can actually save lives through their education, training and “hard work”.
Professional hockey would still be, as many ruefully say, a “business”. But it would be a different kind of business.
One fans might understand.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Wednesday, September 1, 2004
So Little Perspective
Much has been and will be written about the opposing “sides” in the ongoing NHL labor dispute — a dispute which could last well beyond the 2004-05 season.
There is no lack of points of view concerning who is to blame (if blame can be attributed in such a circumstance).
What does seem clear is that both parties go to great lengths to defend their positions in public, in an effort to create awareness and understanding — and perhaps even a twinge of support, if not sympathy — for their position.
Inevitably, comments will be made which leave an observer shaking their head.
One example: A prominent NHL’er with a Canadian-based team recently reacted to an appearance by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman on the CBC National news.
Newspaper reports quoted the player as saying “I know Mr. Bettman likes to think he knows a lot about hockey. But I’ve never seen him stop a puck, or bleeding when he gets a shot in the face or getting needles in the arms, back and stomach. Players are rewarded handsomely, we understand that, but at the same time we work very hard for what we have.”
This is not simply to chastise this particular player, who has a reputation as a tough, hard-working player.
Clearly, few who have any sense of what it truly takes to become a professional (or high-level) athlete — especially a professional hockey player — doubt the talent, hard work and dedication required. Most would acknowledge, and could not themselves tolerate, the severe physical toll hockey takes on individual players.
But it is difficult to comprehend the argument that that physical toll means the average NHL salary should be almost $2 million dollars a season per player, when the “average” person works 50 weeks a year to earn maybe $40,000 a year. Brilliant surgeons, who can save lives, for example, do not make anywhere near the kind of money top NHL players make.
Oilers General Manager Kevin Lowe made a simple but revealing remark when team stalwart Ryan Smith was in a contract stalemate some time back. Lowe basically said the team had done all it could to keep Smith happy over the years, and alluded out loud to the fact that Smyth — still a very young man — had earned something like 17 million dollars in 6 or so seasons with the club to that point.
Smyth is a fine player, full of heart, indeed. But 17 million dollars already?
Those who follow pro sports realize that there are “superstar” players in sports who have earned more than 15 or 20 million dollars a season. Many people do not like the idea, but recognize that the “best of the best” in the entertainment industry are paid beyond what makes sense.
But Lowe’s simple comment, about a someone many see as a solid yet unspectacular player, likely struck a nerve with many fans. 17 million dollars in a few short years. That is way, way more than most hard-working people would earn in several lifetimes.
Public appearances by athletes for financial and public relations purposes aside, there is a real disconnect nowadays between many athletes and the people who support them.
More to the point, perhaps: if an NHL player truly believes he is “worth” millions of dollars a year for playing a game, what is the young man or woman “worth” who fights to defend their country in times of war? Whether one agrees with the notion of sending young people off to fight to preserve freedoms, it has been and is a political and life reality.
These young men and women risk more than a physical toll. They risk their very lives. And if they return home at all, they risk returning home with lifelong physical ailments.
And they aren’t doing what they do to simply entertain other people.
While that is an extreme example, it is nonetheless a comparison worth noting. But there are many other people who work hard at what they do who don’t receive the kind of income, compensation, perks, “freebies” and adulation that pro athletes receive.
If the players want to “win” the public relations battle, they would be well-advised to communicate through the media with the public a little differently.
The average person can no longer afford tickets to watch NHL teams. Do the players care?
When you hear quotes like the one above about Bettman, the old quote rings true about “protesting too much”.
The players can protest all they want. Few are buying that they should continue to receive the kind of income they have achieved simply because of the competitive realities owners face to field competitive teams.
I recall a comment a prominent NHLPA member once made (he’s still an active player). When asked about the fact that many dads could no longer afford to take their kids to an NHL game, the player said, in essence, “well, maybe that dad shouldn’t be taking his kids to the game if he can’t afford it.”
That comment was made years ago.
Have the players learned any lessons since?
There is no lack of points of view concerning who is to blame (if blame can be attributed in such a circumstance).
What does seem clear is that both parties go to great lengths to defend their positions in public, in an effort to create awareness and understanding — and perhaps even a twinge of support, if not sympathy — for their position.
Inevitably, comments will be made which leave an observer shaking their head.
One example: A prominent NHL’er with a Canadian-based team recently reacted to an appearance by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman on the CBC National news.
Newspaper reports quoted the player as saying “I know Mr. Bettman likes to think he knows a lot about hockey. But I’ve never seen him stop a puck, or bleeding when he gets a shot in the face or getting needles in the arms, back and stomach. Players are rewarded handsomely, we understand that, but at the same time we work very hard for what we have.”
This is not simply to chastise this particular player, who has a reputation as a tough, hard-working player.
Clearly, few who have any sense of what it truly takes to become a professional (or high-level) athlete — especially a professional hockey player — doubt the talent, hard work and dedication required. Most would acknowledge, and could not themselves tolerate, the severe physical toll hockey takes on individual players.
But it is difficult to comprehend the argument that that physical toll means the average NHL salary should be almost $2 million dollars a season per player, when the “average” person works 50 weeks a year to earn maybe $40,000 a year. Brilliant surgeons, who can save lives, for example, do not make anywhere near the kind of money top NHL players make.
Oilers General Manager Kevin Lowe made a simple but revealing remark when team stalwart Ryan Smith was in a contract stalemate some time back. Lowe basically said the team had done all it could to keep Smith happy over the years, and alluded out loud to the fact that Smyth — still a very young man — had earned something like 17 million dollars in 6 or so seasons with the club to that point.
Smyth is a fine player, full of heart, indeed. But 17 million dollars already?
Those who follow pro sports realize that there are “superstar” players in sports who have earned more than 15 or 20 million dollars a season. Many people do not like the idea, but recognize that the “best of the best” in the entertainment industry are paid beyond what makes sense.
But Lowe’s simple comment, about a someone many see as a solid yet unspectacular player, likely struck a nerve with many fans. 17 million dollars in a few short years. That is way, way more than most hard-working people would earn in several lifetimes.
Public appearances by athletes for financial and public relations purposes aside, there is a real disconnect nowadays between many athletes and the people who support them.
More to the point, perhaps: if an NHL player truly believes he is “worth” millions of dollars a year for playing a game, what is the young man or woman “worth” who fights to defend their country in times of war? Whether one agrees with the notion of sending young people off to fight to preserve freedoms, it has been and is a political and life reality.
These young men and women risk more than a physical toll. They risk their very lives. And if they return home at all, they risk returning home with lifelong physical ailments.
And they aren’t doing what they do to simply entertain other people.
While that is an extreme example, it is nonetheless a comparison worth noting. But there are many other people who work hard at what they do who don’t receive the kind of income, compensation, perks, “freebies” and adulation that pro athletes receive.
If the players want to “win” the public relations battle, they would be well-advised to communicate through the media with the public a little differently.
The average person can no longer afford tickets to watch NHL teams. Do the players care?
When you hear quotes like the one above about Bettman, the old quote rings true about “protesting too much”.
The players can protest all they want. Few are buying that they should continue to receive the kind of income they have achieved simply because of the competitive realities owners face to field competitive teams.
I recall a comment a prominent NHLPA member once made (he’s still an active player). When asked about the fact that many dads could no longer afford to take their kids to an NHL game, the player said, in essence, “well, maybe that dad shouldn’t be taking his kids to the game if he can’t afford it.”
That comment was made years ago.
Have the players learned any lessons since?
Sunday, August 1, 2004
A Real Apology
We’ve all said things that we wished we had not said.
For most of us, however, we make those comments relatively privately.
For someone in the public eye, words can come back at you very quickly.
Kevin Garnett of the NBA Minnesota Timberwolves had that experience very recently. After Game 6 of the Western Conference semi-final against the Sacramento Kings, Garnett – no doubt feeling the rising intensity and physical nature of the series – told reporters: “This is it. This is for all the marbles. I’m sitting in the house loading up the pump; I’m loading up the Uzis and the M-16s. I’m ready for war.”
Given the very real war-like conditions that many sadly experience daily – including, of course, many Americans in Iraq in recent months – Garnett’s comments offended many.
But after huddling with team officials, Garnett made a full and evidently genuine apology for his comments the very next day, saying, “I’m a young man and I understand when I’m appropriate and this is totally inappropriate. I was totally thinking about basketball, not reality.”
We all recall that in the days and weeks following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, many media commentators made a point of saying how inappropriate it is to speak of athletes as ‘warriors’, and of sporting events in terms of “going to war”. Though such references had been made routinely for years, especially in the physically demanding world of professional football, they seemed out of place and out of touch in a world touched by such a horrific event, and the very real “war” that was sure to follow.
But before too long, comedians began taking liberties, using the tragic events of 9-11 as fodder for jokes. Eventually the sports pages were filled again with references to athletes as warriors.
It’s not that people forgot about 9-11. Perhaps old habits are easy to pick up again.
Against this backdrop, it’s not stunning that an athlete, particularly a young one such as Garnett, would plunge headlong into a diatribe about weapons and war in the ‘heat of battle’.
Athletes are often criticized, justifiably so at times, for an apparent lack of perspective. Many high-profile performers live a ‘fishbowl’ existence, and it can be demanding and difficult. When they fail in the eyes of the public, how they react and respond usually determines whether their “image” is tarnished beyond repair.
In this instance, that Garnett quickly recognized – and then publicly acknowledged his momentary lapse in judgment – is laudable, and sets a good example for others to follow.
For most of us, however, we make those comments relatively privately.
For someone in the public eye, words can come back at you very quickly.
Kevin Garnett of the NBA Minnesota Timberwolves had that experience very recently. After Game 6 of the Western Conference semi-final against the Sacramento Kings, Garnett – no doubt feeling the rising intensity and physical nature of the series – told reporters: “This is it. This is for all the marbles. I’m sitting in the house loading up the pump; I’m loading up the Uzis and the M-16s. I’m ready for war.”
Given the very real war-like conditions that many sadly experience daily – including, of course, many Americans in Iraq in recent months – Garnett’s comments offended many.
But after huddling with team officials, Garnett made a full and evidently genuine apology for his comments the very next day, saying, “I’m a young man and I understand when I’m appropriate and this is totally inappropriate. I was totally thinking about basketball, not reality.”
We all recall that in the days and weeks following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, many media commentators made a point of saying how inappropriate it is to speak of athletes as ‘warriors’, and of sporting events in terms of “going to war”. Though such references had been made routinely for years, especially in the physically demanding world of professional football, they seemed out of place and out of touch in a world touched by such a horrific event, and the very real “war” that was sure to follow.
But before too long, comedians began taking liberties, using the tragic events of 9-11 as fodder for jokes. Eventually the sports pages were filled again with references to athletes as warriors.
It’s not that people forgot about 9-11. Perhaps old habits are easy to pick up again.
Against this backdrop, it’s not stunning that an athlete, particularly a young one such as Garnett, would plunge headlong into a diatribe about weapons and war in the ‘heat of battle’.
Athletes are often criticized, justifiably so at times, for an apparent lack of perspective. Many high-profile performers live a ‘fishbowl’ existence, and it can be demanding and difficult. When they fail in the eyes of the public, how they react and respond usually determines whether their “image” is tarnished beyond repair.
In this instance, that Garnett quickly recognized – and then publicly acknowledged his momentary lapse in judgment – is laudable, and sets a good example for others to follow.
Saturday, May 1, 2004
Setting the Bar Way Too High Never Helps
Rumblings started more than a year ago about the arrival of a young man from Russia, a young man with ‘game’, in basketball terminology.
Of all places, he landed in Oakville, Ontario (Canada), lived with relatives and friends and attended a local Oakville high school.
Naturally, he played ball for the high school team in 2002-‘03, and word spread of his size and prowess. At 7 feet 1 inch, Ivan Chiriaev started the 2003-’04 season with a goal in mind, the seed of an ambition that had been planted some time ago.
There was talk that he had the skills to be an NBA draft choice right out of high school, something that had never previously happened to a player based in Canada.
College recruiters and pro scouts began to attend his high school team’s games and tournaments, and even their practices. The attention grew but, unfortunately, much of the media talk turned to what the young man was saying, as opposed to how we was playing.
It is far too easy, of course, to criticize a young man for any apparent slips of the tongue, especially a young man for whom English is not a first language.
Unfortunately, the comments from the young man himself throughout much of this past season seemed to suggest he was very self-impressed.
Last November, he was quoted as saying, “They (NBA scouts) say I’m like Kevin Garnett….They’re saying I’m Dirk Nowitzki, but more athletic and with better handles.”
He would say the words were not his, rather those of unnamed NBA scouts. But such utterances were seemingly put forth often enough that some observers developed the impression that he was not exactly disagreeing with the ‘comparisons’ to some of the NBA’s top performers.
This culminated in a media conference in March, 2004, apparently called by his ‘people’, at which the young athlete declared for the NBA draft and was accurately quoted as saying “The NBA wants and needs Ivan Chiriaev.” (Unfortunately, Chiriaev’s own school teammates were not allowed entry into his “press conference”, and by all accounts, the press gathering was only allowed to ask one question of him, though he did consent to some one-on-one interviews afterwards.)
This approach, clearly thought-out in advance, gave further testimony to the sense that he was not, perhaps, a team-oriented young man, and was pushing himself a little too much, and maybe a little too soon.
Clearly, there is nothing wrong with having positive self-esteem and a healthy dose of self-confidence. Perhaps his advisors encouraged him to talk himself up, in the hopes that his seeming confidence would create a desirable aura around him. Maybe he spoke on his own accord, regardless of what he was encouraged to do.
Yet we all know that words only take us so far, and at the end of the day, an athlete has to be able to back up his talk. This past year, the 19 year-old had played mostly against local competition, though he did compete against some top teams from across Toronto and Ontario, as well as some strong U.S. prep teams, in various tournaments.
But even in those situations, he did not dominate. He demonstrated some shooting ability, impressive for a big man, and some unusual ball-handling skills for someone his size. Yet he was not a dominant player, and not always a tough presence underneath the basket.
But he was a talent, clearly someone with skills who should only get better.
Earlier this May, Chiriaev played in an All-Canada high school All-Star game in Mississauga, Ontario. He led the game in scoring, and was named game MVP. But NBA scouts were evidently left under-whelmed by his efforts and conditioning.
Many were apparently saying that the young player will not be a first-round draft choice, and may not be drafted at all, though Chiriaev himself has been saying in the media for months that he has been told that he could be a lottery pick.
After the All-Star game, the Toronto Sun quoted a Chiriaev advisor as saying “Whether [Chiriaev] is a lottery pick or not, he has done more for basketball in Canada than anybody before him and maybe even ever will”.
Many who have quietly contributed lifetimes to developing young Canadian players, high school and college coaches, for example, among others – not to mention the likes of actual NBA stars such as Steve Nash – may be confused, or perhaps astounded, by that reference.
Of course it is entirely possible that, after some private workouts, an NBA will still select him as a first round draft, and provide him with the multi-million dollar contract he desires to bring his family over to North America and establish a solid future for himself and his family.
Unfortunately, now that he has hired an agent, the U.S. college option is no longer available to him should his NBA hopes not move forward just yet.
He – and his advisors – seem to have established an expectation in the marketplace such that it has become very difficult for him to meet the expectations of NBA scouts.
This begs the question: all the bravado, all the talk, was it really helpful in the end?
Where were his advisors to encourage him to perhaps take a softer stance in his public discussions about his abilities, and his future?
We often are frustrated when athletes seem to lack charisma, or have nothing to say of interest. But as important as it is to be yourself and be genuine in one’s interactions with the media, did it help this young man’s cause to be so “out there”?
History tells us over and over: If you set the bar at a modest level, and exceed that expectation, things often work out well.
If you set public expectations too high, if you promise too much and don’t deliver, you are perceived, often unfairly, as a failure of sorts.
Chiriaev is a young man who may well have an NBA career ahead of him, despite the apparent drop in his draft-appeal of late.
But you can’t help but wonder how scouts might have reacted if he had come in under the radar screen a little more, had not pronounced himself to the basketball world in such brash terms. Instead of being disappointed that he is not what he has been hyped to be by his own people, they may have appreciated, instead, a ‘diamond in the rough’ – a 19 year old with unusual size and skills for a big man. A youngster who is still struggling with a new language and a new culture. A young athlete with immense potential, someone who may be a real player down the road.
But it may be harder now to reclaim the high road than it would have been to handle things differently in the first place.
Of all places, he landed in Oakville, Ontario (Canada), lived with relatives and friends and attended a local Oakville high school.
Naturally, he played ball for the high school team in 2002-‘03, and word spread of his size and prowess. At 7 feet 1 inch, Ivan Chiriaev started the 2003-’04 season with a goal in mind, the seed of an ambition that had been planted some time ago.
There was talk that he had the skills to be an NBA draft choice right out of high school, something that had never previously happened to a player based in Canada.
College recruiters and pro scouts began to attend his high school team’s games and tournaments, and even their practices. The attention grew but, unfortunately, much of the media talk turned to what the young man was saying, as opposed to how we was playing.
It is far too easy, of course, to criticize a young man for any apparent slips of the tongue, especially a young man for whom English is not a first language.
Unfortunately, the comments from the young man himself throughout much of this past season seemed to suggest he was very self-impressed.
Last November, he was quoted as saying, “They (NBA scouts) say I’m like Kevin Garnett….They’re saying I’m Dirk Nowitzki, but more athletic and with better handles.”
He would say the words were not his, rather those of unnamed NBA scouts. But such utterances were seemingly put forth often enough that some observers developed the impression that he was not exactly disagreeing with the ‘comparisons’ to some of the NBA’s top performers.
This culminated in a media conference in March, 2004, apparently called by his ‘people’, at which the young athlete declared for the NBA draft and was accurately quoted as saying “The NBA wants and needs Ivan Chiriaev.” (Unfortunately, Chiriaev’s own school teammates were not allowed entry into his “press conference”, and by all accounts, the press gathering was only allowed to ask one question of him, though he did consent to some one-on-one interviews afterwards.)
This approach, clearly thought-out in advance, gave further testimony to the sense that he was not, perhaps, a team-oriented young man, and was pushing himself a little too much, and maybe a little too soon.
Clearly, there is nothing wrong with having positive self-esteem and a healthy dose of self-confidence. Perhaps his advisors encouraged him to talk himself up, in the hopes that his seeming confidence would create a desirable aura around him. Maybe he spoke on his own accord, regardless of what he was encouraged to do.
Yet we all know that words only take us so far, and at the end of the day, an athlete has to be able to back up his talk. This past year, the 19 year-old had played mostly against local competition, though he did compete against some top teams from across Toronto and Ontario, as well as some strong U.S. prep teams, in various tournaments.
But even in those situations, he did not dominate. He demonstrated some shooting ability, impressive for a big man, and some unusual ball-handling skills for someone his size. Yet he was not a dominant player, and not always a tough presence underneath the basket.
But he was a talent, clearly someone with skills who should only get better.
Earlier this May, Chiriaev played in an All-Canada high school All-Star game in Mississauga, Ontario. He led the game in scoring, and was named game MVP. But NBA scouts were evidently left under-whelmed by his efforts and conditioning.
Many were apparently saying that the young player will not be a first-round draft choice, and may not be drafted at all, though Chiriaev himself has been saying in the media for months that he has been told that he could be a lottery pick.
After the All-Star game, the Toronto Sun quoted a Chiriaev advisor as saying “Whether [Chiriaev] is a lottery pick or not, he has done more for basketball in Canada than anybody before him and maybe even ever will”.
Many who have quietly contributed lifetimes to developing young Canadian players, high school and college coaches, for example, among others – not to mention the likes of actual NBA stars such as Steve Nash – may be confused, or perhaps astounded, by that reference.
Of course it is entirely possible that, after some private workouts, an NBA will still select him as a first round draft, and provide him with the multi-million dollar contract he desires to bring his family over to North America and establish a solid future for himself and his family.
Unfortunately, now that he has hired an agent, the U.S. college option is no longer available to him should his NBA hopes not move forward just yet.
He – and his advisors – seem to have established an expectation in the marketplace such that it has become very difficult for him to meet the expectations of NBA scouts.
This begs the question: all the bravado, all the talk, was it really helpful in the end?
Where were his advisors to encourage him to perhaps take a softer stance in his public discussions about his abilities, and his future?
We often are frustrated when athletes seem to lack charisma, or have nothing to say of interest. But as important as it is to be yourself and be genuine in one’s interactions with the media, did it help this young man’s cause to be so “out there”?
History tells us over and over: If you set the bar at a modest level, and exceed that expectation, things often work out well.
If you set public expectations too high, if you promise too much and don’t deliver, you are perceived, often unfairly, as a failure of sorts.
Chiriaev is a young man who may well have an NBA career ahead of him, despite the apparent drop in his draft-appeal of late.
But you can’t help but wonder how scouts might have reacted if he had come in under the radar screen a little more, had not pronounced himself to the basketball world in such brash terms. Instead of being disappointed that he is not what he has been hyped to be by his own people, they may have appreciated, instead, a ‘diamond in the rough’ – a 19 year old with unusual size and skills for a big man. A youngster who is still struggling with a new language and a new culture. A young athlete with immense potential, someone who may be a real player down the road.
But it may be harder now to reclaim the high road than it would have been to handle things differently in the first place.
Friday, April 30, 2004
Sometimes Good Guys Do Finish First
It’s hard to imagine there were many golf fans that were pulling against Phil Mickelson as he worked his way through the last 9 holes of the 2004 Masters.
That Mickelson won the tournament was as popular a victory as could be imagined. For years, the accomplished left-hander had earned a tag that the top golfers don’t really want: the best golfer never to win a major championship.
Oh, Mickelson had won his share of PGA tour events and was considered an elite player, certainly worthy of Ryder Cup play for the U.S. side, for example.
Yet he had developed, fairly or not, a reputation as a player who couldn’t win the big one, who folded somewhat under pressure; someone who perhaps did not bring the necessary ‘thinking’ and strategic tool box with him at crunch time in the big events.
It was also mentioned that he was not quite dedicated enough to winning, to getting himself into top physical condition as had others such as David Duval. He certainly did not seem to have the drive or the intensity of a Tiger Woods.
That said, Mickelson brought another quality with him to work every day, one that most professional athletes would do well to emulate: he was human and acted that way.
He was “normal”.
Even his critics would have to acknowledge that few in his sport -- and few in professional sports, period – were as patient and articulate in defeat as Mickelson. And given that he seemed to “lose” a lot, that patience was surely tested more than he might have cared for.
But unlike many in his sport (even Canada’s popular Mike Weir has been known to fly past reporters with little to say on days he does not play well), Mickelson will stand for lengthy periods of time, thoughtfully addressing the same questions over and over again.
He almost always does so, by all accounts, with as much good cheer as possible. He answers questions fully, not with short, clipped, defensive responses.
He is clearly a family man, with three young children, and for all his golf-earned wealth, appears to have a sense of perspective, which a family can certainly help achieve in terms of balancing life’s priorities. (It can be said that golfers, for the most part, can take themselves quite seriously and can provide unerring and excruciating detail on each shot they make, expressing wrenching disappointment regarding their woes in the sandtrap and such things. They sometimes give the impression they have no idea there is a world often in real pain beyond theirs.)
This is not to canonize Mickelson, simply to say the moral of the story here is this: you do often reap what you sow.
Why are people so happy for Mickelson? Not because he needs the money that winning the Masters will bring him in terms of earnings and endorsements.
No, people are happy for him, one senses, because he seems to be a genuinely decent, well-rounded guy. He loves baseball (spent some time “pitching” at a major-league training camp earlier this year, as I recall, a privilege not granted many, to be sure) and is about as accommodating as an athlete can get.
That even the media on hand was largely pulling for him demonstrates that he has earned their respect and support with his determination, accessibility, straightforwardness and honesty.
So yes, every once in a while “nice guys” can, deservedly, finish first.
And set a pretty good example for others in their field in doing so.
That Mickelson won the tournament was as popular a victory as could be imagined. For years, the accomplished left-hander had earned a tag that the top golfers don’t really want: the best golfer never to win a major championship.
Oh, Mickelson had won his share of PGA tour events and was considered an elite player, certainly worthy of Ryder Cup play for the U.S. side, for example.
Yet he had developed, fairly or not, a reputation as a player who couldn’t win the big one, who folded somewhat under pressure; someone who perhaps did not bring the necessary ‘thinking’ and strategic tool box with him at crunch time in the big events.
It was also mentioned that he was not quite dedicated enough to winning, to getting himself into top physical condition as had others such as David Duval. He certainly did not seem to have the drive or the intensity of a Tiger Woods.
That said, Mickelson brought another quality with him to work every day, one that most professional athletes would do well to emulate: he was human and acted that way.
He was “normal”.
Even his critics would have to acknowledge that few in his sport -- and few in professional sports, period – were as patient and articulate in defeat as Mickelson. And given that he seemed to “lose” a lot, that patience was surely tested more than he might have cared for.
But unlike many in his sport (even Canada’s popular Mike Weir has been known to fly past reporters with little to say on days he does not play well), Mickelson will stand for lengthy periods of time, thoughtfully addressing the same questions over and over again.
He almost always does so, by all accounts, with as much good cheer as possible. He answers questions fully, not with short, clipped, defensive responses.
He is clearly a family man, with three young children, and for all his golf-earned wealth, appears to have a sense of perspective, which a family can certainly help achieve in terms of balancing life’s priorities. (It can be said that golfers, for the most part, can take themselves quite seriously and can provide unerring and excruciating detail on each shot they make, expressing wrenching disappointment regarding their woes in the sandtrap and such things. They sometimes give the impression they have no idea there is a world often in real pain beyond theirs.)
This is not to canonize Mickelson, simply to say the moral of the story here is this: you do often reap what you sow.
Why are people so happy for Mickelson? Not because he needs the money that winning the Masters will bring him in terms of earnings and endorsements.
No, people are happy for him, one senses, because he seems to be a genuinely decent, well-rounded guy. He loves baseball (spent some time “pitching” at a major-league training camp earlier this year, as I recall, a privilege not granted many, to be sure) and is about as accommodating as an athlete can get.
That even the media on hand was largely pulling for him demonstrates that he has earned their respect and support with his determination, accessibility, straightforwardness and honesty.
So yes, every once in a while “nice guys” can, deservedly, finish first.
And set a pretty good example for others in their field in doing so.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
He Said, She Said... Or Did They?
It’s so common now, and there’s no turning back the clock.
The issue? Unidentified sources.
This is certainly not a new phenomenon. The notion of a journalist, a reporter of some description, writing a story with compelling information from “sources” is as old as journalism. (Woodward and Bernstein will likely go to their graves without revealing the name of “deep throat”, the individual largely responsible for providing the then soon-to-be-famous investigative reporters the anonymous information that led to the disintegration of the Nixon administration in the mid 1970’s. Theirs may be one of the more prominent historical cases of the media utilizing so-called “unidentified sources” to chase down a story)
That these media “sources” are often undeclared remains through the years a question of some ethical debate. Reporters have, through the years, been willing to risk jail time in order to protect – that is, not publicly identify – their sources.
One view puts the information shared privately between the “source” and the investigating reporter in the realm of a sacred trust, not to be disclosed at any cost.
Others view this approach as a dangerous game.
If a person can report as fact something that may have occurred based on information obtained from anonymous sources, what guarantee is there that such events absolutely took place?
If a reporter quotes an individual speaking about someone else, without naming the first person, how does the public know that the quote was not simply “made up” in the interests of weaving a more ‘sale’-able story?
Might the reporter have an agenda, a personal bias?
These are but a few of the simplest questions that can be asked when discussing the reality of how such sources are utilized.
I recall a time (in the late 1970’s-early 80’s, if I’m not mistaken) when Scott Young, the highly-respected columnist for the Globe& Mail resigned his position at the prestigious Canadian national newspaper. Why? Because a younger fellow writer had written a rather poisonous piece about the then General Manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Punch Imlach.
Perspective and fairness requires that it be said that Young and Imlach had been close through the years, and had collaborated on a couple of popular books together. But Young’s resignation stemmed from his concern that the story which vilified Imlach was filled with quotes from unidentified sources – apparently not a longstanding or fully accepted practice at the time, at least not in Young’s mind, it would seem.
Young saw this as journalistically unsound, and lacking the high ethical standards required of a reporter.
So, he resigned in protest.
Much more recently, that same newspaper ran a major story on the alleged dysfunction within the basketball operation side of the Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment empire.
The story was sprinkled liberally with anonymous quotes about then General Manager Glen Grunwald (since fired) and his supposed internal battles with the apparently soon-to-be-fired Kevin O’Neill.
Not surprisingly, the story – quoting current and former Raptor players without attribution, as well as people supposedly ‘close’ to Raptors forward Vince Carter and others within the management group of MLSE – caused a firestorm. It also undoubtedly hastened the timetable that will see the continued dismantling of the struggling organization.
For appearances’ sake, on the record, at least, the players stood behind their coach. But the public is left to wonder: Who were these anonymous players who spoke out against O’Neill? Who were the management types who allegedly said the things they said? Did anyone have an agenda here?
Were all of these quotes accurate? Was the story really credible when everyone quoted was unnamed? Could any of this have been made up?
Was the newspaper outlet and its reporters simply reflecting what was really going on inside the organization?
In recent years, one of the best – and most outspoken – players in baseball has been pitcher Curt Schilling. Schilling of course was a mainstay with the Phillies and then the Diamondbacks, when Arizona beat the Yankees in the World Series a few seasons back.
Schilling went on a nationally syndicated radio program recently, and spoke about the media attention the Red Sox receive in Boston.
His contention was that the Boston press simply make up quotes to create stories, and sell newspapers.
So we can count Schilling as one athlete who does not support the use of anonymous quotes.
If you are a young athlete, you need to be aware that the media is always looking for a story – good, bad or anywhere in between. Most ‘beat’ reporters covering the local major-league NFL, NHL or NBA team need a story a day.
When they sense trouble in paradise (i.e. within the clubhouse or dressing room, or within the front office) it is in their blood to seek out – some will say create – the story.
They will utilize whatever approach and sources they can to develop a story that is entertaining and potentially of great interest.
It may even be accurate.
My sense has long been: if you don’t want to see it in the newspaper, don’t say it. Don’t say it in the elevator, the hotel lobby or the dressing room. On the record or “off the record”.
Just don’t say it.
If you go “off the record”, if you speak on the condition of anonymity, you may feel ‘protected’. And that particular reporter may like you as a “source”, especially if your comments gave that reporter a supposed ‘scoop’. But at the end of the day, he or she will wonder about your personal integrity, all the while using your quotes to make his or her story.
Since integrity is still important to most people, that’s something worth thinking about before playing the ‘unidentified source’ game.
The issue? Unidentified sources.
This is certainly not a new phenomenon. The notion of a journalist, a reporter of some description, writing a story with compelling information from “sources” is as old as journalism. (Woodward and Bernstein will likely go to their graves without revealing the name of “deep throat”, the individual largely responsible for providing the then soon-to-be-famous investigative reporters the anonymous information that led to the disintegration of the Nixon administration in the mid 1970’s. Theirs may be one of the more prominent historical cases of the media utilizing so-called “unidentified sources” to chase down a story)
That these media “sources” are often undeclared remains through the years a question of some ethical debate. Reporters have, through the years, been willing to risk jail time in order to protect – that is, not publicly identify – their sources.
One view puts the information shared privately between the “source” and the investigating reporter in the realm of a sacred trust, not to be disclosed at any cost.
Others view this approach as a dangerous game.
If a person can report as fact something that may have occurred based on information obtained from anonymous sources, what guarantee is there that such events absolutely took place?
If a reporter quotes an individual speaking about someone else, without naming the first person, how does the public know that the quote was not simply “made up” in the interests of weaving a more ‘sale’-able story?
Might the reporter have an agenda, a personal bias?
These are but a few of the simplest questions that can be asked when discussing the reality of how such sources are utilized.
I recall a time (in the late 1970’s-early 80’s, if I’m not mistaken) when Scott Young, the highly-respected columnist for the Globe& Mail resigned his position at the prestigious Canadian national newspaper. Why? Because a younger fellow writer had written a rather poisonous piece about the then General Manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Punch Imlach.
Perspective and fairness requires that it be said that Young and Imlach had been close through the years, and had collaborated on a couple of popular books together. But Young’s resignation stemmed from his concern that the story which vilified Imlach was filled with quotes from unidentified sources – apparently not a longstanding or fully accepted practice at the time, at least not in Young’s mind, it would seem.
Young saw this as journalistically unsound, and lacking the high ethical standards required of a reporter.
So, he resigned in protest.
Much more recently, that same newspaper ran a major story on the alleged dysfunction within the basketball operation side of the Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment empire.
The story was sprinkled liberally with anonymous quotes about then General Manager Glen Grunwald (since fired) and his supposed internal battles with the apparently soon-to-be-fired Kevin O’Neill.
Not surprisingly, the story – quoting current and former Raptor players without attribution, as well as people supposedly ‘close’ to Raptors forward Vince Carter and others within the management group of MLSE – caused a firestorm. It also undoubtedly hastened the timetable that will see the continued dismantling of the struggling organization.
For appearances’ sake, on the record, at least, the players stood behind their coach. But the public is left to wonder: Who were these anonymous players who spoke out against O’Neill? Who were the management types who allegedly said the things they said? Did anyone have an agenda here?
Were all of these quotes accurate? Was the story really credible when everyone quoted was unnamed? Could any of this have been made up?
Was the newspaper outlet and its reporters simply reflecting what was really going on inside the organization?
In recent years, one of the best – and most outspoken – players in baseball has been pitcher Curt Schilling. Schilling of course was a mainstay with the Phillies and then the Diamondbacks, when Arizona beat the Yankees in the World Series a few seasons back.
Schilling went on a nationally syndicated radio program recently, and spoke about the media attention the Red Sox receive in Boston.
His contention was that the Boston press simply make up quotes to create stories, and sell newspapers.
So we can count Schilling as one athlete who does not support the use of anonymous quotes.
If you are a young athlete, you need to be aware that the media is always looking for a story – good, bad or anywhere in between. Most ‘beat’ reporters covering the local major-league NFL, NHL or NBA team need a story a day.
When they sense trouble in paradise (i.e. within the clubhouse or dressing room, or within the front office) it is in their blood to seek out – some will say create – the story.
They will utilize whatever approach and sources they can to develop a story that is entertaining and potentially of great interest.
It may even be accurate.
My sense has long been: if you don’t want to see it in the newspaper, don’t say it. Don’t say it in the elevator, the hotel lobby or the dressing room. On the record or “off the record”.
Just don’t say it.
If you go “off the record”, if you speak on the condition of anonymity, you may feel ‘protected’. And that particular reporter may like you as a “source”, especially if your comments gave that reporter a supposed ‘scoop’. But at the end of the day, he or she will wonder about your personal integrity, all the while using your quotes to make his or her story.
Since integrity is still important to most people, that’s something worth thinking about before playing the ‘unidentified source’ game.
Thursday, April 1, 2004
The Same People You Met on Your Way Up
Most of us have heard the oft-repeated expression, which goes something along the lines of: “Be good to the people you pass on the way up, because you’ll be seeing them again on your way back down….”
Whether one agrees with the rationale for electing to ‘be good’ in this instance (choosing ‘goodness’ because it will help your own situation, as opposed to choosing to do good simply because it is the right thing to do), it is clear that this is a philosophy shared by some, but not all, in the field of sports.
This brings to mind a revealing newspaper article penned more than ten years ago by then Globe & Mail sports columnist Marty York. York wrote a piece about the at the time just-retired Expo catcher (and now Hall-of-Famer) Gary Carter, who broke into the big leagues with the Expos, won a World Series with the Mets before ultimately ending his career with his original club.
The gist of the article was this, as I recall:
Back in the mid-later 70’s, a young cub reporter, barely out of high school, was doing some freelance reporting from spring training. Being so young, this young man had no ‘reputation’ to speak of, so he was not known to the players. He had no hands-on cash to entice players as he begged for interviews from the players on hand -- any players.
As the story goes, he was routinely and repeatedly turned down by everyone he sought out for any kind of brief interview. He was evidently rebuffed by stars and non-stars alike.
The one player who took the time to do an interview with this young, fledgling reporter was then Expos star catcher Gary Carter.
Now, part of the perspective required to fully appreciate this story was that, in his own way, Carter was much like former hockey superstar Bobby Hull. At the height of his popularity and long before players were paid handsomely to attend collector shows and sign autographs for big cash, Hull would sign for virtually every person who asked, after practices and long after games, often while his teammates were waiting impatiently for the team bus to depart.
There was some resentment of Hull, it has often been written, because he seemed to like his celebrity a little too much, was all smiles for the cameras, the media and the public.
But the reality was that Hull, in those days, was genuine in wanting to ensure that he never turned down a polite person seeking his signature or attention, especially children. (He had a personal experience in his youth when the legendary Gordie Howe granted him an autograph, and he was determined to do the same for others.)
As a personal aside, my own one-time experience with Bobby Hull, by the way, was in keeping with his reputation at the time.
It was the mid 1960’s, and the night before the Black Hawks were to play the Red Wings at the old Detroit Olympia, Hull had been brought in (and probably paid a few hundred dollars, attractive money for an athlete back then) by Canadian Tire in Windsor, Ontario to shake hands with visitors to the store the evening before the Hawks played the Wings.
I recall sitting with my Dad and an elementary school chum for at least two to three hours in our car, waiting, as Dad put it, “for the line to get shorter”.
We finally left the car as the line was down to a couple of dozen people and waited to meet The Golden Jet. My friend, wiser than I, had brought a puck to be signed, which Hull gladly signed, though this was not a night for autographs, only shaking hands.
I shook Hull’s hand. Mad dad talked farming with Hull for a couple of minutes, and we all left more than pleased.
(As recently as the fall of 2003, I attended a collectibles show with my youngest son. Hull was asked by a collector to sign a particular piece of memorabilia, but the company sponsoring Hull’s appearance said no, because the time was up and the collectible was not one provided by the sponsoring company. Hull quietly suggested that the person wait until Hull was finished his responsibilities, and then he would sign for the man, free of charge. At about that time, my son went up to shake Hull’s hand, and Hull could not have been more gracious, though he earned not a cent for the handshake. He could easily have said, “Sorry folks, my time is up…”)
Hull made a lot of money for his impatient teammates over the years, especially when he took his skills and people skills to the new World Hockey Association in 1972 and helped drive hockey salaries upwards.
To this day he remains a hockey icon in Canada, despite some events that have tarnished his public persona somewhat. He remains popular largely because he was such a positive person in dealing with the media, and so patient and responsive in dealing with the public.
Sometimes the equity you build – and Hull built plenty over the years with the media and the public – helps you a great deal when things get difficult, as they sometimes have for Hull over the years for various reasons.
Back to Carter: The story goes that, not only did Carter give an interview to the young reporter, he brought him into the team’s dugout and chatted for about half an hour.
The young man filed his story, and from there built a successful career that later resulted in his being a key decision-maker with the network that was to air the Florida Marlins games when that team joined Major League Baseball as an expansion club in the early-mid 1990’s.
The now executive received hundreds of resumes from ex-jocks, all former players looking to land the coveted job of “color analyst” on the Marlin broadcasts in their inaugural season.
No doubt many of the resumes came from haughty players who, when they were ‘somebody’, had flipped off the young reporter back in the 1970’s.
In any event, who was among those looking to land that plum assignment, even though he had no broadcast experience other than doing interviews himself?
Gary Carter.
Who got the job?
Gary Carter.
Carter, like Hull before him, was said to be envied and disliked by many of his teammates over the years. He was, they whispered, too in love with a camera, too anxious to be quoted, too much of a self-promoter.
Yet, the above story reveals that his old teammates apparently wouldn’t give the time of day to a young guy who was just trying to catch a break, and get his career going in a small way.
But Carter did. And years later, the young man remembered, and returned the favor.
Whatever Carter’s motivation way back when, the story reminds us all – and certainly is a reminder for young athletes who are on their way to earning a more than substantial living as a professional athlete – that if being good to others because it is the right thing to do is not motivation enough, then doing good because you might benefit down the road is an acceptable “back up” motivation, perhaps.
Isn’t it better to make time for others, be accommodating, be patient, especially when you’ve been blessed with the opportunity to earn your living – a very successful living – doing something you really love to do?
Whether one agrees with the rationale for electing to ‘be good’ in this instance (choosing ‘goodness’ because it will help your own situation, as opposed to choosing to do good simply because it is the right thing to do), it is clear that this is a philosophy shared by some, but not all, in the field of sports.
This brings to mind a revealing newspaper article penned more than ten years ago by then Globe & Mail sports columnist Marty York. York wrote a piece about the at the time just-retired Expo catcher (and now Hall-of-Famer) Gary Carter, who broke into the big leagues with the Expos, won a World Series with the Mets before ultimately ending his career with his original club.
The gist of the article was this, as I recall:
Back in the mid-later 70’s, a young cub reporter, barely out of high school, was doing some freelance reporting from spring training. Being so young, this young man had no ‘reputation’ to speak of, so he was not known to the players. He had no hands-on cash to entice players as he begged for interviews from the players on hand -- any players.
As the story goes, he was routinely and repeatedly turned down by everyone he sought out for any kind of brief interview. He was evidently rebuffed by stars and non-stars alike.
The one player who took the time to do an interview with this young, fledgling reporter was then Expos star catcher Gary Carter.
Now, part of the perspective required to fully appreciate this story was that, in his own way, Carter was much like former hockey superstar Bobby Hull. At the height of his popularity and long before players were paid handsomely to attend collector shows and sign autographs for big cash, Hull would sign for virtually every person who asked, after practices and long after games, often while his teammates were waiting impatiently for the team bus to depart.
There was some resentment of Hull, it has often been written, because he seemed to like his celebrity a little too much, was all smiles for the cameras, the media and the public.
But the reality was that Hull, in those days, was genuine in wanting to ensure that he never turned down a polite person seeking his signature or attention, especially children. (He had a personal experience in his youth when the legendary Gordie Howe granted him an autograph, and he was determined to do the same for others.)
As a personal aside, my own one-time experience with Bobby Hull, by the way, was in keeping with his reputation at the time.
It was the mid 1960’s, and the night before the Black Hawks were to play the Red Wings at the old Detroit Olympia, Hull had been brought in (and probably paid a few hundred dollars, attractive money for an athlete back then) by Canadian Tire in Windsor, Ontario to shake hands with visitors to the store the evening before the Hawks played the Wings.
I recall sitting with my Dad and an elementary school chum for at least two to three hours in our car, waiting, as Dad put it, “for the line to get shorter”.
We finally left the car as the line was down to a couple of dozen people and waited to meet The Golden Jet. My friend, wiser than I, had brought a puck to be signed, which Hull gladly signed, though this was not a night for autographs, only shaking hands.
I shook Hull’s hand. Mad dad talked farming with Hull for a couple of minutes, and we all left more than pleased.
(As recently as the fall of 2003, I attended a collectibles show with my youngest son. Hull was asked by a collector to sign a particular piece of memorabilia, but the company sponsoring Hull’s appearance said no, because the time was up and the collectible was not one provided by the sponsoring company. Hull quietly suggested that the person wait until Hull was finished his responsibilities, and then he would sign for the man, free of charge. At about that time, my son went up to shake Hull’s hand, and Hull could not have been more gracious, though he earned not a cent for the handshake. He could easily have said, “Sorry folks, my time is up…”)
Hull made a lot of money for his impatient teammates over the years, especially when he took his skills and people skills to the new World Hockey Association in 1972 and helped drive hockey salaries upwards.
To this day he remains a hockey icon in Canada, despite some events that have tarnished his public persona somewhat. He remains popular largely because he was such a positive person in dealing with the media, and so patient and responsive in dealing with the public.
Sometimes the equity you build – and Hull built plenty over the years with the media and the public – helps you a great deal when things get difficult, as they sometimes have for Hull over the years for various reasons.
Back to Carter: The story goes that, not only did Carter give an interview to the young reporter, he brought him into the team’s dugout and chatted for about half an hour.
The young man filed his story, and from there built a successful career that later resulted in his being a key decision-maker with the network that was to air the Florida Marlins games when that team joined Major League Baseball as an expansion club in the early-mid 1990’s.
The now executive received hundreds of resumes from ex-jocks, all former players looking to land the coveted job of “color analyst” on the Marlin broadcasts in their inaugural season.
No doubt many of the resumes came from haughty players who, when they were ‘somebody’, had flipped off the young reporter back in the 1970’s.
In any event, who was among those looking to land that plum assignment, even though he had no broadcast experience other than doing interviews himself?
Gary Carter.
Who got the job?
Gary Carter.
Carter, like Hull before him, was said to be envied and disliked by many of his teammates over the years. He was, they whispered, too in love with a camera, too anxious to be quoted, too much of a self-promoter.
Yet, the above story reveals that his old teammates apparently wouldn’t give the time of day to a young guy who was just trying to catch a break, and get his career going in a small way.
But Carter did. And years later, the young man remembered, and returned the favor.
Whatever Carter’s motivation way back when, the story reminds us all – and certainly is a reminder for young athletes who are on their way to earning a more than substantial living as a professional athlete – that if being good to others because it is the right thing to do is not motivation enough, then doing good because you might benefit down the road is an acceptable “back up” motivation, perhaps.
Isn’t it better to make time for others, be accommodating, be patient, especially when you’ve been blessed with the opportunity to earn your living – a very successful living – doing something you really love to do?
Monday, March 1, 2004
If One More Player Says 6 Million Dollars is an Insult...
It’s happened yet again.
A professional athlete has come out and stated – clearly, and for the public record – that he is insulted by a contract offer that he has received.
The player in question is All-Pro cornerback Ty Law of the defending NFL Super Bowl Champion New England Patriots.
The actual monetary details won’t mean much to most of us – but for the record, he has turned down a contract extension offer of almost 30 million dollars over the next four years, and was evidently insulted, in his words, by the Patriots offer. He now says he never wants to play for the Patriots again. His current contact already calls for him to make over 6 million in 2004, more than 8 million in 2005.
I recall a time many years ago – I believe it was the late 1970/early 80’s. A top major league relief pitcher/closer by the name of Bruce Sutter was offered the then staggering amount of $700,000 a season.
His reaction? He said he was insulted. He had to, he said at the time, feed his family.
So we fast forward more than 20 years later, and such insult comes at a higher price, at least.
The hockey world is now battling ‘image’ problems in the wake of the (rightly so) highly publicized Todd Bertuzzi incident. But the problem facing hockey is not simply a matter of its often misguided ‘eye for eye’ system of justice and self-policing.
It is also the reality that the people who play the game are becoming more and more disconnected from the “fans” and those who really care about the game – the very people who help pay for those same players to play the game and earn their substantial incomes.
Salaries have spun totally, totally out of the realm of what ought to be. Not surprisingly, the cost of purchasing a ticket to see an NHL game in many markets is prohibitive for the “average” person.
Fighting – or causing – the same cycle is baseball, still struggling to recapture its luster and popularity in many markets almost 10 years after a disastrous strike/lockout.
And now we hear about football players who are “insulted” by offers that would provide them with more money than they could possibly spend in several lifetimes.
Basketball has long overpaid its athletes. (Recall that Kevin Garnett of the Minnesota Timberwolves, who has been earning millions since he was 18 years of age, was also “insulted” a few years ago by a 120 million dollar contract offer.)
How did we get here? How did we reach a point where these – albeit very talented, in most cases – individuals truly believe they are worth millions and millions of dollars – per season! – to play a game they love to play.
A few years ago, in a comment that was not as publicized as it should have been, a very popular NHL (and NHL Players Association leader) player was asked about the high cost of tickets for the average dad. His reply was, in essence: “If that dad can’t afford it, maybe he shouldn’t be taking his kids to a game”.
Hmm...
Does that sound like someone even remotely connected to reality? Someone with any sense of perspective? Yet this is a player lauded for his “community work”.
Much more recently, a prominent member of one of the most popular Canadian-based NHL teams said he was prepared to “sit out” for the rest of his career, before accepting any kind of salary cap in the upcoming round of collective bargaining with the league. (This player makes close to three million dollars a year, and will expect much more in his next contract.)
After his advisors likely informed him just how bad that comment sounded to fans everywhere and anywhere, the player tried to modify his comments the next day, too late to hide his true feelings.
Perhaps it could be said that these individuals are at least ‘being honest’ and are not simply giving pat, typical responses to media questions. But in the same breath, are these really the types of messages and attitudes these athletes want to convey to the public? Do they somehow think that saying these kinds of things will engender public sympathy or support? Are they so disconnected because of their high profile and wealth they don’t understand how poorly they are coming across?
Or do they just not care?
Sadly, riches can lead to a certain headiness, a lack or loss of perspective. Only when we are touched by significant loss of prestige or income, or by tragedy, illness, a sudden loss of a loved one, do some individuals regain balance in their life.
One wonders if many athletes, past and present, worked half as hard, and showed half as much appreciation for their good fortune as, for example, the average Special Olympics athlete does, how many of them would feel “insulted” by being offered a contract that makes them wealthy beyond anyone’s wildest imagination?
A professional athlete has come out and stated – clearly, and for the public record – that he is insulted by a contract offer that he has received.
The player in question is All-Pro cornerback Ty Law of the defending NFL Super Bowl Champion New England Patriots.
The actual monetary details won’t mean much to most of us – but for the record, he has turned down a contract extension offer of almost 30 million dollars over the next four years, and was evidently insulted, in his words, by the Patriots offer. He now says he never wants to play for the Patriots again. His current contact already calls for him to make over 6 million in 2004, more than 8 million in 2005.
I recall a time many years ago – I believe it was the late 1970/early 80’s. A top major league relief pitcher/closer by the name of Bruce Sutter was offered the then staggering amount of $700,000 a season.
His reaction? He said he was insulted. He had to, he said at the time, feed his family.
So we fast forward more than 20 years later, and such insult comes at a higher price, at least.
The hockey world is now battling ‘image’ problems in the wake of the (rightly so) highly publicized Todd Bertuzzi incident. But the problem facing hockey is not simply a matter of its often misguided ‘eye for eye’ system of justice and self-policing.
It is also the reality that the people who play the game are becoming more and more disconnected from the “fans” and those who really care about the game – the very people who help pay for those same players to play the game and earn their substantial incomes.
Salaries have spun totally, totally out of the realm of what ought to be. Not surprisingly, the cost of purchasing a ticket to see an NHL game in many markets is prohibitive for the “average” person.
Fighting – or causing – the same cycle is baseball, still struggling to recapture its luster and popularity in many markets almost 10 years after a disastrous strike/lockout.
And now we hear about football players who are “insulted” by offers that would provide them with more money than they could possibly spend in several lifetimes.
Basketball has long overpaid its athletes. (Recall that Kevin Garnett of the Minnesota Timberwolves, who has been earning millions since he was 18 years of age, was also “insulted” a few years ago by a 120 million dollar contract offer.)
How did we get here? How did we reach a point where these – albeit very talented, in most cases – individuals truly believe they are worth millions and millions of dollars – per season! – to play a game they love to play.
A few years ago, in a comment that was not as publicized as it should have been, a very popular NHL (and NHL Players Association leader) player was asked about the high cost of tickets for the average dad. His reply was, in essence: “If that dad can’t afford it, maybe he shouldn’t be taking his kids to a game”.
Hmm...
Does that sound like someone even remotely connected to reality? Someone with any sense of perspective? Yet this is a player lauded for his “community work”.
Much more recently, a prominent member of one of the most popular Canadian-based NHL teams said he was prepared to “sit out” for the rest of his career, before accepting any kind of salary cap in the upcoming round of collective bargaining with the league. (This player makes close to three million dollars a year, and will expect much more in his next contract.)
After his advisors likely informed him just how bad that comment sounded to fans everywhere and anywhere, the player tried to modify his comments the next day, too late to hide his true feelings.
Perhaps it could be said that these individuals are at least ‘being honest’ and are not simply giving pat, typical responses to media questions. But in the same breath, are these really the types of messages and attitudes these athletes want to convey to the public? Do they somehow think that saying these kinds of things will engender public sympathy or support? Are they so disconnected because of their high profile and wealth they don’t understand how poorly they are coming across?
Or do they just not care?
Sadly, riches can lead to a certain headiness, a lack or loss of perspective. Only when we are touched by significant loss of prestige or income, or by tragedy, illness, a sudden loss of a loved one, do some individuals regain balance in their life.
One wonders if many athletes, past and present, worked half as hard, and showed half as much appreciation for their good fortune as, for example, the average Special Olympics athlete does, how many of them would feel “insulted” by being offered a contract that makes them wealthy beyond anyone’s wildest imagination?
Sunday, February 1, 2004
Is It Really Worth Saying?
The examples are too many to cite, but here are a few:
Days before a crucial late season NCAA college football game in November 2003 between arch-rivals Michigan State and the Michigan Wolverines – a game that could determine who went to the Rose Bowl – a Michigan State defensive lineman publicly called out the Wolverines quarterback and offensive line.
It was later disclosed, not surprisingly, that the comments from Greg Taplin had become bulletin board material for the Michigan offensive line. The game was a fairly lopsided Michigan victory, and their offensive line dominated Taplin and the State defensive line all afternoon.
The Indianapolis Colts were outstanding in the first two games of the 2003 NFL playoffs. Their success shed the club – and its All-Pro quarterback Peyton Manning, who played brilliantly in both games – of its label as playoff failures, a club that could not play its best when it really mattered.
Not content to let their play speak for itself, Indy tight end Marcus Pollard was quoted as saying (only days before the Colts were to face New England in the AFC Championship game in Foxborough, Massachusetts): “If we keep playing like this, they might as well give us our Super Bowl rings right now.”
Of course, football fans – and Colt fans – know only too well that the Patriots defense overwhelmed, outperformed and almost completely shut down Manning, Pollard and the Colts as the Pats won handily.
Ex-Chicago Bull Jalen Rose, now with the Toronto Raptors, went back to Chicago in late January, 2004 to play the Bulls in the Windy City for the first time since he was traded. He was quoted as saying, before the game, that he was looking forward to playing his ex-team, and evidently noted, “The Bulls are the worst team in basketball.”
Of course, the Bulls hammered the Raptors convincingly, which makes it difficult to assess, in light of Rose’s pre-game analysis, what the Raptors now are.
Of course, these stories are hardly uncommon in the world of sports. It is a world full unbelievably talented athletes, many remarkably dedicated.
It is also a world full of bravado, testosterone, WWE-style posing after dunks and end-zone celebrations.
It is not surprising that athletes will, on occasion, predict their own success. In fact, when their words turn prophetic, as was the case in 1969 when Jets quarterback Joe Namath called his shot before the Super Bowl and (correctly) guaranteed a win against the heavily-favored Colts, he was the swashbuckling sports hero of the highest order. The game ultimately earned him Hall-of-Fame honors for a career that was otherwise very solid, but not extraordinary, other than for its flamboyance.
That said, when bold athletes speak out and promote themselves or trash their opponents before “the big game”, there are way, way more stories that end up exactly the way things did for Taplin, Pollard and Rose than for Namath.
There is no doubt that the media, particularly beat reporters who cover any given professional team in sports markets across North America, love it when an athlete steps beyond the often tightly-controlled club house environment and says something beyond, “….we played as a team, gave 100%, left it on the field, etc…”
Great – especially controversial – quotes make for stories that write themselves and properly highlighted, increase readership or viewership and ultimately circulation. From a business perspective, anything out of the boring, plaid, milquetoast norm creates headlines, sells well, and potentially increases revenues for the media outlets serving up the stories.
Athletes may say bold, unexpected or colorful things for a whole host of reasons: they let their guard down; they wanted to send a message to their coach, their teammates or the opposition; they’re tired of saying the same old, same old.
But sometimes athletes say things simply because they don’t take a second to consider the consequences. Not that providing fuel for the opposition is a particular tragedy, even in the world of sports, but since winning does matter at the pro level, giving your opponent extra motivation seems like an ineffective strategy in the vast majority of cases. History backs that up.
There are also times that athletes likely feel pushed to break out of their self or team-imposed “box”, usually by the media who often complain that too many athletes have nothing to say.
That is why reporters tend to love, in the hockey world, a Brett Hull or Jeremy Roenick, because they rarely miss a chance to air a view on any number of subjects, whether it is particularly well-thought out or not.
(After hockey superstar Joe Sakic of the Avalanche appeared on the Jim Rome show some time back, a Toronto-based hockey columnist wrote in a major publication: “…the interview demonstrated once again one of the problems selling of hockey in the U.S. Hockey players, unlike many other athletes, almost always are dry and boring interviews, even if they are probably the most sincere guys in sport. Unfortunately, the way sport sells nowadays is by trash talking and being controversial. But other than Brett Hull, hockey guys just aren’t up to it.”
Yet most athletes have not built up the ‘media equity’ that superstars like Hull and Roenick have built up, (whereby when those players make comments that some may feel are out of line, the media will not condemn them, but will usually put their comments in a, “oh, that’s just Brett talking again..” context).
Most athletes, as in the Sakic example, face the pressure of being called bland, boring, of having nothing of consequence to say.
Yet, if they do take that risk and say something out of the ordinary, the media will generally be the first to slap them into place.
What to do?
Every athlete, like any individual, must of course follow their own comfort levels, their sense of what they want to project, how they want to come across and how they wish to be perceived -- if it that matters to them.
Somewhere between bravado and blandness there is often the opportunity to provide the ever-eager media, who need a story a day and quotes to build their story line, whatever it is, with thoughtful comments. Either thoughtful reflections upon a particular game, analysis at a level beyond “we gave 100%”, or when the opportunity arises, a peek inside, comments that reveal something about the values that that individual athlete may genuinely hold dear.
Once an athlete is known for being accessible, patient, responsive, and having something beyond the bland to contribute – in good times and in difficult times – he or she becomes golden to most reporters – who might prefer something sensational, but will at least respect a thoughtful approach instead.
Days before a crucial late season NCAA college football game in November 2003 between arch-rivals Michigan State and the Michigan Wolverines – a game that could determine who went to the Rose Bowl – a Michigan State defensive lineman publicly called out the Wolverines quarterback and offensive line.
It was later disclosed, not surprisingly, that the comments from Greg Taplin had become bulletin board material for the Michigan offensive line. The game was a fairly lopsided Michigan victory, and their offensive line dominated Taplin and the State defensive line all afternoon.
The Indianapolis Colts were outstanding in the first two games of the 2003 NFL playoffs. Their success shed the club – and its All-Pro quarterback Peyton Manning, who played brilliantly in both games – of its label as playoff failures, a club that could not play its best when it really mattered.
Not content to let their play speak for itself, Indy tight end Marcus Pollard was quoted as saying (only days before the Colts were to face New England in the AFC Championship game in Foxborough, Massachusetts): “If we keep playing like this, they might as well give us our Super Bowl rings right now.”
Of course, football fans – and Colt fans – know only too well that the Patriots defense overwhelmed, outperformed and almost completely shut down Manning, Pollard and the Colts as the Pats won handily.
Ex-Chicago Bull Jalen Rose, now with the Toronto Raptors, went back to Chicago in late January, 2004 to play the Bulls in the Windy City for the first time since he was traded. He was quoted as saying, before the game, that he was looking forward to playing his ex-team, and evidently noted, “The Bulls are the worst team in basketball.”
Of course, the Bulls hammered the Raptors convincingly, which makes it difficult to assess, in light of Rose’s pre-game analysis, what the Raptors now are.
Of course, these stories are hardly uncommon in the world of sports. It is a world full unbelievably talented athletes, many remarkably dedicated.
It is also a world full of bravado, testosterone, WWE-style posing after dunks and end-zone celebrations.
It is not surprising that athletes will, on occasion, predict their own success. In fact, when their words turn prophetic, as was the case in 1969 when Jets quarterback Joe Namath called his shot before the Super Bowl and (correctly) guaranteed a win against the heavily-favored Colts, he was the swashbuckling sports hero of the highest order. The game ultimately earned him Hall-of-Fame honors for a career that was otherwise very solid, but not extraordinary, other than for its flamboyance.
That said, when bold athletes speak out and promote themselves or trash their opponents before “the big game”, there are way, way more stories that end up exactly the way things did for Taplin, Pollard and Rose than for Namath.
There is no doubt that the media, particularly beat reporters who cover any given professional team in sports markets across North America, love it when an athlete steps beyond the often tightly-controlled club house environment and says something beyond, “….we played as a team, gave 100%, left it on the field, etc…”
Great – especially controversial – quotes make for stories that write themselves and properly highlighted, increase readership or viewership and ultimately circulation. From a business perspective, anything out of the boring, plaid, milquetoast norm creates headlines, sells well, and potentially increases revenues for the media outlets serving up the stories.
Athletes may say bold, unexpected or colorful things for a whole host of reasons: they let their guard down; they wanted to send a message to their coach, their teammates or the opposition; they’re tired of saying the same old, same old.
But sometimes athletes say things simply because they don’t take a second to consider the consequences. Not that providing fuel for the opposition is a particular tragedy, even in the world of sports, but since winning does matter at the pro level, giving your opponent extra motivation seems like an ineffective strategy in the vast majority of cases. History backs that up.
There are also times that athletes likely feel pushed to break out of their self or team-imposed “box”, usually by the media who often complain that too many athletes have nothing to say.
That is why reporters tend to love, in the hockey world, a Brett Hull or Jeremy Roenick, because they rarely miss a chance to air a view on any number of subjects, whether it is particularly well-thought out or not.
(After hockey superstar Joe Sakic of the Avalanche appeared on the Jim Rome show some time back, a Toronto-based hockey columnist wrote in a major publication: “…the interview demonstrated once again one of the problems selling of hockey in the U.S. Hockey players, unlike many other athletes, almost always are dry and boring interviews, even if they are probably the most sincere guys in sport. Unfortunately, the way sport sells nowadays is by trash talking and being controversial. But other than Brett Hull, hockey guys just aren’t up to it.”
Yet most athletes have not built up the ‘media equity’ that superstars like Hull and Roenick have built up, (whereby when those players make comments that some may feel are out of line, the media will not condemn them, but will usually put their comments in a, “oh, that’s just Brett talking again..” context).
Most athletes, as in the Sakic example, face the pressure of being called bland, boring, of having nothing of consequence to say.
Yet, if they do take that risk and say something out of the ordinary, the media will generally be the first to slap them into place.
What to do?
Every athlete, like any individual, must of course follow their own comfort levels, their sense of what they want to project, how they want to come across and how they wish to be perceived -- if it that matters to them.
Somewhere between bravado and blandness there is often the opportunity to provide the ever-eager media, who need a story a day and quotes to build their story line, whatever it is, with thoughtful comments. Either thoughtful reflections upon a particular game, analysis at a level beyond “we gave 100%”, or when the opportunity arises, a peek inside, comments that reveal something about the values that that individual athlete may genuinely hold dear.
Once an athlete is known for being accessible, patient, responsive, and having something beyond the bland to contribute – in good times and in difficult times – he or she becomes golden to most reporters – who might prefer something sensational, but will at least respect a thoughtful approach instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)