Why young athletes need a little guidance…

That fans pay for autographs is no surprise. The custom of promoters bringing in sports celebrities to draw and crowd and earn money by charging an entry fee and/or charging an autograph fee has been in place for years.

I remember waiting with a friend in my Dad’s car back in the mid 1960’s in Windsor, Ontario, across from Detroit, for probably two hours on a mid-week winter evening, at a Canadian Tire, I think it was.

The attraction was Bobby Hull. He and his Chicago Black Hawks were scheduled to play the Red Wings in Detroit the next night.

He met with people for hours in a long line, and when we finally went through at the end of the line, he spoke with my Dad about farming, and signed my friend’s puck. No charge.

Of course, Hull was paid by the store for his appearance, but there was no “extra” charge to the fans.

Things are a little different today, of course.

A recent Canadian Press story out of Edmonton reported that some Edmonton Oiler fans were upset that the team’s two young star attractions, Sam Gagner and Andrew Cogliano, both 19, were signing autographs at a local “show”, but for a fee.

The fee was charged by those organizing the event.

The CP story reported that the players had little to say when asked about the fee. According the report:

Cogliano said the signing was part of his contract with AJ Sportsworld, but declined to comment further after being told not to talk to media.

Gagner, looking at the table in front of him and slumping his shoulders when asked why they're charging fans, declined to answer.

As someone who has been an advisor to coaches and athletes for many years, the thing that I found surprising about the story was not that there was a fee involved (people can certainly decline to attend these events if they don’t like the idea of paying for autographs), but that the young athletes, according to the story, seemed unprepared to answer questions about the issue.

Just as it’s fair game to charge for autographs, it’s fair game to be asked questions about it.

If you’re old enough to earn close to a million dollars a year (soon to be much more than that), as these players earn, and old enough to sign a contract with a promotion company that charges a steep price for your signature, you’re also old enough to be prepared to address any related questions thoughtfully and honestly.

If these young athletes were indeed “told” not to talk with the media, the question is why?

And if they weren’t prepared to answer questions candidly and openly about their role in the event, perhaps they should not have agreed to participate.

Or, better still, someone (an agent, the team’s public relations staff—someone) should have helped prepare them for the reaction of the media, and the fans.

Media reports indicate the players did try to explain what happened a day later, but the damage had already been done. Not irreparable, of course, but unnecessary damage none the less.

No preparation and “No comment” is rarely, if ever, a good approach to building trust with your audience.

Gillick sets an unusual example in sharing credit

Often, the first thing new Coaches or General Manager’s do when they take over from a “fired” or displaced predecessor is directly - or subtly - comment on all the work that needs to be done to rebuild the organization.

By making this claim publicly in the first days of their administration (much like an incoming political party who claims that things are much worse than they feared when they took office and “saw the books”, therefore they can’t afford to do what they promised they would do during the election campaign), it sets the expectation bar so low that any progress is seen as major improvement under their watch.

So it was refreshing to hear Philadelphia Phillies General Manager Pat Gillick give credit to Ed Wade, his predecessor as GM of the National League pennant-winning Phillies. So often when a team succeeds, you don’t hear about the earlier Coaches or Managers who actually also helped build the squad’s success.

Gillick’s comments reinforce the notion I’ve long held about him.

More than 30 years ago, when I was a young nobody working in radio on the smallest station in the Toronto radio market, the Toronto Blue Jays were the new expansion team. The team, under ‘PR’ oriented President and General Manager Peter Bavasi, was very aware of building the team’s profile, even with small-time radio folks with no “influence” such as myself. I was able to interview, at length, all the names in the Toronto front office, including Bavasi, manager Roy Hartsfield and of course Gillick, who had moved over from the Yankees organization, if I remember correctly. Gillick, now 71, was then an up and coming baseball guy. He was approachable, smart and worth interviewing because he had something to say. He became GM in Toronto and built the Jays into a World Series Champion.

My work took me to other situations and I never stayed in touch with Gillick. But I also recall that, somewhere along the way, my eldest son, then in Grade 7, sent Gillick a letter asking some questions for a school project. Gillick actually wrote back with some comments. While he didn’t disclose any state secrets, it was no form letter and I was impressed with the fact the he actually took the time to respond to specific questions posed by a 12-year-old kid. Gillick would not have been doing this because he “knew” me. He didn’t. He was simply the kind of person who would take the time to write back to a kid.

Gillick has been one of those universally respected guys in major league baseball for 30 years. Ed Wade would be among those who could tell you why.