What is perhaps most noteworthy about the media furor surrounding Larry Brown’s tasteless need to be wanted yet again — in the middle of his current team still contending for an NBA championship— is that the media hasn’t chased this type of story down more often in the past.
The media — including NBA Hall-of-Famer Bill Walton — have argued strenuously that Brown is hypocritical at best in this scenario. The man who constantly preaches about “doing things the right way” is certainly multi-tasking — negotiating by day to become the top man with the Cleveland Cavaliers, while coaching the defending champion Pistons by night.
Who knew that being paid millions of dollars a year to coach wasn’t a full-time job?
The fact that Brown has been disingenuous with the media, given only evasive non-answers, only makes things worse— and will appear even more so when he is indeed announced as the new boss of the Cavaliers within the next few days, or as soon as the Pistons are eliminated.
The media will have made this all up, right? It will just be coincidence if (when?) Brown ends up with the Cavaliers?
This latest escapade paints Brown as someone chronically in need of adulation, of being chased, of being wanted and needed— and at a higher and higher salary, of course, after he has already earned millions upon millions in the game.
All of which might be acceptable— even to his media friends— if it weren’t for the fact that he has been chasing his next job while still being paid handsomely to do a pretty important job right now.
All that said, this happens all the time in sports.
Before the current coach of the Michigan State football Spartans took the MSU job a couple of years back, word was that his then players found out about his new appointment while on the sidelines of a Bowl game, no less.
He must have forgot to tell his players first, before the media found out.
No doubt one of this fellow’s first speeches to his new bright-eyed college players was about dedication, commitment — and loyalty.
All these values — and words— only seem to matter to players, coaches or executives, until the opportunity to “better” themselves (or in the case of executives, their team) comes along, even if they are still under contract.
How many times do we see a General Manager fire a baseball field manager or hockey Head Coach, and within hours, if not minutes, announce the new manager or coach?
This means, in plain English, that the negotiations were already not only underway, but that a deal was signed, sealed and agreed upon— before the current field boss had even been given his pink slip.
This happens all the time, and virtually no one says a word. No one stands up and says, “hey, wait a minute. You mean you, as a GM, actually hired another guy when you had not even shown the professional courtesy — and intestinal fortitude — to tell your current guy he was gone?”
No one seems to care. It’s an accepted part of how things are done in sports.
When players openly speculate in mid-season of about their impending free agent status…when GM’s play ‘hire the new guy before we axe the old guy’… when NFL stars demand to renegotiate one year into a 7-year contract, should we be surprised that ego-driven individuals feel, for some reason, the urgent need to set themselves up for their next gig before they have even finished with what they owe their employer in their current post?
Does anyone remember Mike Keenan, the summer after he had coached the Rangers to their first Stanley Cup in 40 years, back in ’94? Oh, we all heard about contract technicalities that were supposedly not lived up to, making Keenan a “free agent”, at least in his own mind.
Yet he was suspended by the NHL hierarchy, so something was amiss.
But Keenan was nonetheless gone — gone, gone, gone, some would suggest before he had even finished coaching in the playoffs that year with New York.
When do these kinds of suspicious negotiations take place? Does anyone have qualms of conscience in these circumstances?
Evidently not.
The only surprise, as I said at the outset, is that the media has chosen the Larry Brown case to make such a fuss.
The truth is, it happens all the time.
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
Sunday, May 1, 2005
The Disconnect Grows
For those who have a sense of sports history who are over, say, 40, the response of the Indiana Pacers fans to Reggie Miller in his last game against the Pistons in the playoffs this spring was at least a little heartwarming.
The ‘disconnect’ between many professional athletes and the public seems to grown by the day, and the issue is not as simple as the ‘revelations’ (as though we didn’t know) steroids in baseball. It has been building for years and goes much deeper than that.
Why is there a disconnect? Well, the reasons are many and everyone reading this could add their own thoughts and plug in a reason or two.
Among many other things, we don’t see many athletes retire with the same team they started with, especially after 18 seasons.
There aren’t many Bill Russells’ left in basketball, as there are few Al Kalines’ in baseball or Jean Beliveaus’ in hockey — individuals who played the game at such a high level, and left the game with their reputation unsoiled and their dignity intact after playing their entire (lengthy) careers in one city.
The lack of “loyalty” to one’s team is not itself in itself to kill the traditional bond between athlete and player. And there have always been some players who didn’t much care about the fans.
But many other factors have crept into sport as well.
NHL players, for example, are fighting a battle to salvage a gravy train that should have — in the minds of most fans — been shut down years ago.
NBA players seem destined for a similar fate, apparently unhappy (at least the most powerful agents in the sport are) at the mere thought that if NBA owners had their way, ridiculously-long guaranteed contracts might be a thing of the past.
I mean, who wouldn’t want 18 million dollars a year for 7 years, instead of ‘only’ 5, for example.
Yes, the tongue is planted firmly in my cheek as I write this.
It’s also hard to miss the daily reports of “unhappiness” around the NFL. Edgerrin James skips mandatory mini-camp with the Colts, displeased with the fact that he can only earn 8 million dollars this coming season because he was placed under the team’s ‘restrictive’ franchise tag.
Granted, it is hard to plan for your family’s financial future when your team won’t give you all the millions you want for as many years as you want.
There’s the tongue again.
Eagles’ receiver Terrell Owens — while demanding to have his contract re-worked only one year into a seven-year deal he gladly signed — is quoted as saying he is concerned about feeding his family.
These examples of — what can we call it, politely?— a lack of perspective are obviously way to many to number here.
But the fans are left numb.
I wasn’t quite born when Joe Dimmagio retired in 1951, and I don’t doubt he tried to make as much money as he could, but somehow, players such as he, Mantle, Berra, Ford and many other Yankee greats were closer to the hearts of the fans of yesteryear than today’s Arod-style one-man corporations are.
Until some athletes stop thinking about getting more and more, and agents stop demanding more and more, and ownership stops capitulating constantly to ridiculous demands, the disconnect will grow.
No hockey, who cares?
No baseball. We all survived.
No basketball next season. We’ll get used to it.
No football in a couple of years?
Hey, replacement players worked the last time, in the 1980’s. The players quickly realized the sports world could and would go on without them.
What player, in which sport, is going to be a real leader and show the fans that athletes are not only about making millions and forever wanting more and more?
Yes indeed, Joe, where have you gone?
The ‘disconnect’ between many professional athletes and the public seems to grown by the day, and the issue is not as simple as the ‘revelations’ (as though we didn’t know) steroids in baseball. It has been building for years and goes much deeper than that.
Why is there a disconnect? Well, the reasons are many and everyone reading this could add their own thoughts and plug in a reason or two.
Among many other things, we don’t see many athletes retire with the same team they started with, especially after 18 seasons.
There aren’t many Bill Russells’ left in basketball, as there are few Al Kalines’ in baseball or Jean Beliveaus’ in hockey — individuals who played the game at such a high level, and left the game with their reputation unsoiled and their dignity intact after playing their entire (lengthy) careers in one city.
The lack of “loyalty” to one’s team is not itself in itself to kill the traditional bond between athlete and player. And there have always been some players who didn’t much care about the fans.
But many other factors have crept into sport as well.
NHL players, for example, are fighting a battle to salvage a gravy train that should have — in the minds of most fans — been shut down years ago.
NBA players seem destined for a similar fate, apparently unhappy (at least the most powerful agents in the sport are) at the mere thought that if NBA owners had their way, ridiculously-long guaranteed contracts might be a thing of the past.
I mean, who wouldn’t want 18 million dollars a year for 7 years, instead of ‘only’ 5, for example.
Yes, the tongue is planted firmly in my cheek as I write this.
It’s also hard to miss the daily reports of “unhappiness” around the NFL. Edgerrin James skips mandatory mini-camp with the Colts, displeased with the fact that he can only earn 8 million dollars this coming season because he was placed under the team’s ‘restrictive’ franchise tag.
Granted, it is hard to plan for your family’s financial future when your team won’t give you all the millions you want for as many years as you want.
There’s the tongue again.
Eagles’ receiver Terrell Owens — while demanding to have his contract re-worked only one year into a seven-year deal he gladly signed — is quoted as saying he is concerned about feeding his family.
These examples of — what can we call it, politely?— a lack of perspective are obviously way to many to number here.
But the fans are left numb.
I wasn’t quite born when Joe Dimmagio retired in 1951, and I don’t doubt he tried to make as much money as he could, but somehow, players such as he, Mantle, Berra, Ford and many other Yankee greats were closer to the hearts of the fans of yesteryear than today’s Arod-style one-man corporations are.
Until some athletes stop thinking about getting more and more, and agents stop demanding more and more, and ownership stops capitulating constantly to ridiculous demands, the disconnect will grow.
No hockey, who cares?
No baseball. We all survived.
No basketball next season. We’ll get used to it.
No football in a couple of years?
Hey, replacement players worked the last time, in the 1980’s. The players quickly realized the sports world could and would go on without them.
What player, in which sport, is going to be a real leader and show the fans that athletes are not only about making millions and forever wanting more and more?
Yes indeed, Joe, where have you gone?
Friday, April 1, 2005
"The Survey Says..."
Sometimes it takes a good old-fashioned public opinion poll to tell us what we already know.
ESPN The Magazine (February 28/’05 issue) released the results of its annual research into the behaviours and attitudes of sporting fans, and presented some fairly significant observations.
Oh, some of the ‘findings” aren’t really findings, rather some pretty obvious stuff. We are told, for example that more and more fans care about the affordability of ticket prices to major league sporting events. This makes sense. Who wants to pay more, rather than less? We all realize that it is getting more and more difficult — in many cases impossible — for the “average” person to bring his kids to a pro game, especially when you factor in parking, food, etc.
But this is where something else of interest jumps out of the survey: “People care less about championships and more about honest ownership, strong coaching and players who give their best effort and act like pros.”
The magazine suggests this makes sense, especially in light of incessant steroid talk, for example, in the media and calls it “a fundamental shift in the relationship between the fans and teams”.
The Magazine quotes the President of the company that has conducted the annual surveys, who says, “ In the past, fans wanted their teams to ‘just win, baby’. But in 2004, we got to the point where it isn’t just about winning. It’s doing the right thing, with the kind of players you get and how you treat the community.”
Not that the surveyed opinions of a relatively few fans “proves” anything, but it’s hard not to feel that fans have grown disaffected by a lot of what has gone on in professional sports in recent years. Arrests and drug-use are so common it’s not something most fans seem to pay that much attention to. The NFL, for example, faces this “image” challenge on occasion, and still sells out every Sunday.
But fans, I sense, are increasingly turned off by the attitudes of many of today’s growing list of multi-millionaire athletes. Though fans have indeed helped create the problem — most of them innocently enough— many of those same fans seem to finally be reaching their limits when it comes to athletes who are disconnected from the very people who help pay their enormous salaries.
The NHL dispute certainly seems to validate this: The players clearly have never gained public sympathy, despite a highly unsympathetic opposition in NHL owners.
Who knew the disenchantment of hockey fans ran so deep? Clearly it was there, ready to burst, triggered finally by the realization that millionaires and billionaires couldn’t decide how to cut up the cash.
Basketball, it says here, will face its own very real problems with fans, especially if the Association and players determine a lockout is needed to ultimately find an equitable economic agreement.
Baseball fans will soon realize, if they haven’t already, that the home-run races that brought so many of them back to the strike-damaged game in the mid 1990’s was spurred by steroids, and steroids alone. We wanted to tell ourselves it wasn’t so, and no matter who denies what now, the fans know.
Greed kills so many things. And it shows itself in many ways. The whining for more and more money. The willingness to do and try anything to get bigger, faster, stronger.
Fans are slowly letting athletes know that they, the fans, want something different. But only when players are hit in the pocketbook — that is, when fans stop paying to go to or watch games on TV — will there be a real change where fans want to see it most: attitude.
ESPN The Magazine (February 28/’05 issue) released the results of its annual research into the behaviours and attitudes of sporting fans, and presented some fairly significant observations.
Oh, some of the ‘findings” aren’t really findings, rather some pretty obvious stuff. We are told, for example that more and more fans care about the affordability of ticket prices to major league sporting events. This makes sense. Who wants to pay more, rather than less? We all realize that it is getting more and more difficult — in many cases impossible — for the “average” person to bring his kids to a pro game, especially when you factor in parking, food, etc.
But this is where something else of interest jumps out of the survey: “People care less about championships and more about honest ownership, strong coaching and players who give their best effort and act like pros.”
The magazine suggests this makes sense, especially in light of incessant steroid talk, for example, in the media and calls it “a fundamental shift in the relationship between the fans and teams”.
The Magazine quotes the President of the company that has conducted the annual surveys, who says, “ In the past, fans wanted their teams to ‘just win, baby’. But in 2004, we got to the point where it isn’t just about winning. It’s doing the right thing, with the kind of players you get and how you treat the community.”
Not that the surveyed opinions of a relatively few fans “proves” anything, but it’s hard not to feel that fans have grown disaffected by a lot of what has gone on in professional sports in recent years. Arrests and drug-use are so common it’s not something most fans seem to pay that much attention to. The NFL, for example, faces this “image” challenge on occasion, and still sells out every Sunday.
But fans, I sense, are increasingly turned off by the attitudes of many of today’s growing list of multi-millionaire athletes. Though fans have indeed helped create the problem — most of them innocently enough— many of those same fans seem to finally be reaching their limits when it comes to athletes who are disconnected from the very people who help pay their enormous salaries.
The NHL dispute certainly seems to validate this: The players clearly have never gained public sympathy, despite a highly unsympathetic opposition in NHL owners.
Who knew the disenchantment of hockey fans ran so deep? Clearly it was there, ready to burst, triggered finally by the realization that millionaires and billionaires couldn’t decide how to cut up the cash.
Basketball, it says here, will face its own very real problems with fans, especially if the Association and players determine a lockout is needed to ultimately find an equitable economic agreement.
Baseball fans will soon realize, if they haven’t already, that the home-run races that brought so many of them back to the strike-damaged game in the mid 1990’s was spurred by steroids, and steroids alone. We wanted to tell ourselves it wasn’t so, and no matter who denies what now, the fans know.
Greed kills so many things. And it shows itself in many ways. The whining for more and more money. The willingness to do and try anything to get bigger, faster, stronger.
Fans are slowly letting athletes know that they, the fans, want something different. But only when players are hit in the pocketbook — that is, when fans stop paying to go to or watch games on TV — will there be a real change where fans want to see it most: attitude.
Tuesday, March 1, 2005
Can NHL players not see why they have lost the fans?
It’s clear that the (apparent/pending?) official “cancellation” of the long-dead NHL season has had the same effect as the old line about ‘hitting yourself on the head with a hammer, because it feels so good to stop’.
The average person doesn’t generally care about labor disputes at the best of times — unless the dispute impacts them personally.
But even fewer people are impacted — or much care — it seems, when wealthy athletes take on even-wealthier owners.
This said, our commentary of last fall (October-November) touched on many of the possible reasons why, at the time, the players seemed to be losing the public relations battle. The reasons were — and are — many.
The irony is, of course, that professional hockey players by and large are the most “liked” of all professional athletes. They are closest to the fans, most accessible to the media, and so on.
This dispute has killed most, if not all, of that goodwill. But in truth, the erosion started many years ago.
Do fans support the owners? Of course not. No one cheers for billionaires or asks for their autograph, Donald Trump aside. Forget the logic of either side’s position in terms of “cost certainty” versus a free-market system. Does anyone “care” about NHL owners, other than their ability to put teams on the ice so that those who are interested can watch?
Let’s be clear: The owners have made their share of mistakes, from an optics perspective. Telling the players in a meeting a recently that they (the players) are essentially “just” employees while spouting in public about wanting a “partnership” didn’t fool anyone, especially the players.
But that said, here are some things to consider as the season is over, but the dispute rages on.
- Why are NHL superstars — including a number who earn millions of dollars a year and have for many years — taking away the jobs of players who make a few thousand dollars a year playing in the United Hockey League, the “lowest” level of professional hockey in North America? What does the average hockey fan think about that, one wonders?
- How many times have fans heard a player ‘spokesman’ say, “Hey, the owners caused this problem”? The ‘problem’ they refer to created many more jobs for players, at salaries that are astronomical by the standards of the average person.
- For those media player-apologists who say, “well fans are just envious. Those fans who say they’d play in the NHL for less aren’t good enough to play in the NHL. Of course they’d play for less.” And these apologists add, when asked why doctors make so little compared with pro athletes, for example, “Well, no one pays to watch doctors operate”. Interesting. So the fact that people are willing to pay to watch an entertainer means the entertainer should make millions upon millions? (Even if they don’t show up for work, like Alonzo Mourning?) Odd logic. What about the “value” of someone who can save a life, versus the “entertainer”?
- One prominent player spoke out a while ago with an unveiled warning for any “replacement” player that would play next season in the “new” NHL. Hmmm. The fact that hundreds of NHL’ers have flocked to Europe and have taken jobs away from individuals who certainly needed them much more to “feed their families” is acceptable, but a “replacement” player struggling to make ends meet who would love to play in the NHL for one day should feel as though he is doing something unethical? And should fear for his physical safety? And this while NHL’ers play in Europe, the AHL, CHL and UHL, not to mention senior hockey in Canada?
- The classiest player in the history of pro hockey, Jean Beliveau, a thoughtful man respected throughout the hockey world, says the league needs a cap to survive, that he doesn’t support the players in this dispute. A prominent member of the player’s bargaining team refuted Beliveau’s claims. Who would you believe?
- What have other ex-players had to say? Well, Phil Esposito says for the first time he does not support the players. Nor does Darryl Sittler, the ex-Maple Lea Hall-of-Famer. Patrick Roy said some time back that the league needs a cap to ensure the viability of franchises throughout the league. The Players Association no longer has a hold on those individuals.
- One of the NHL players who is now playing in the United Hockey League was quoted as saying the NHL doesn’t care about small market teams. In the same breath, the same individual reportedly told reporters, according to various accounts, that the league should get rid of a number of teams. Interesting concept. Except, from an NHLPA perspective, that approach would take out say, 100 jobs from the association. Yet the star players are supposedly fighting for — and speak for — the “little guy” who may never play in the league again?
- Here is a question that should be mulled over. Do we expect owners to save the game, to save the season because they love hockey? In reality, these are individual business leaders, or large corporations. Whether they like or love the game is not the point. They are involved in hockey as an investment, or as a sideline, perhaps, maybe even as a bit of a “toy”. But they expect to make a profit, not lose money constantly. The players are the ones who have a “passion” for the game, and many believe it is up to them to “save” the game.
- Those who own NHL franchises, each and every owner, made their fortunes in businesses totally unrelated to professional hockey. They could walk away from hockey today and still make millions in their original chosen fields. How many players will be able to maintain their hockey income in other walks of life? So the fans may wonder, who really needs whom more?
- If we ever do reach a point where “replacement” players are signed to play in the NHL, will fans pay to watch? Likely, yes. Fans have spoken loudly throughout this protracted dispute. They are tired of mega-million dollar athletes in an industry that can’t afford it. If the owners sign players with drive, with some flair, with a passion to play because they really love playing and not for the money, people absolutely will show up.
- Have players offered to share in the losses the owners may experience in the future? Would that not make them true “partners”?
One thing is abundantly clear. The players prefer to make far, far less in other leagues right now, and even perhaps under a “new” NHL at some point in the future, than they would under a salary cap they feel would be imposed upon them against their will. It is an admirable stance — if one believes it is one based on some kind of ethical principle. As a matter of practical decision-making, it is harder for the average person to understand.
Some observers still seem baffled by the fact that there is no uproar in Canada because there is no hockey.
Well, perhaps the majority of fans held their noses these past 10 years, while salaries rose ridiculously and average-ability pro players took home millions. Fans held their noses because they like watching hockey, long ago having established loyalties to certain teams or players.
But slowly, they held in their anger, their frustration, not because they envy the players, but simply because the players’ expectations and sense of entitlement has grown absurdly out of the realm of what is acceptable to many “average” people.
For their part, the owners have finally, like an overly permissive parent, finally put their foot down. The players don’t like it.
The fans are saying “too bad”.
Those same fans hold the final key to all this, and the players, more than the owners, will have to win back the fans, if they ever get the chance.
The average person doesn’t generally care about labor disputes at the best of times — unless the dispute impacts them personally.
But even fewer people are impacted — or much care — it seems, when wealthy athletes take on even-wealthier owners.
This said, our commentary of last fall (October-November) touched on many of the possible reasons why, at the time, the players seemed to be losing the public relations battle. The reasons were — and are — many.
The irony is, of course, that professional hockey players by and large are the most “liked” of all professional athletes. They are closest to the fans, most accessible to the media, and so on.
This dispute has killed most, if not all, of that goodwill. But in truth, the erosion started many years ago.
Do fans support the owners? Of course not. No one cheers for billionaires or asks for their autograph, Donald Trump aside. Forget the logic of either side’s position in terms of “cost certainty” versus a free-market system. Does anyone “care” about NHL owners, other than their ability to put teams on the ice so that those who are interested can watch?
Let’s be clear: The owners have made their share of mistakes, from an optics perspective. Telling the players in a meeting a recently that they (the players) are essentially “just” employees while spouting in public about wanting a “partnership” didn’t fool anyone, especially the players.
But that said, here are some things to consider as the season is over, but the dispute rages on.
- Why are NHL superstars — including a number who earn millions of dollars a year and have for many years — taking away the jobs of players who make a few thousand dollars a year playing in the United Hockey League, the “lowest” level of professional hockey in North America? What does the average hockey fan think about that, one wonders?
- How many times have fans heard a player ‘spokesman’ say, “Hey, the owners caused this problem”? The ‘problem’ they refer to created many more jobs for players, at salaries that are astronomical by the standards of the average person.
- For those media player-apologists who say, “well fans are just envious. Those fans who say they’d play in the NHL for less aren’t good enough to play in the NHL. Of course they’d play for less.” And these apologists add, when asked why doctors make so little compared with pro athletes, for example, “Well, no one pays to watch doctors operate”. Interesting. So the fact that people are willing to pay to watch an entertainer means the entertainer should make millions upon millions? (Even if they don’t show up for work, like Alonzo Mourning?) Odd logic. What about the “value” of someone who can save a life, versus the “entertainer”?
- One prominent player spoke out a while ago with an unveiled warning for any “replacement” player that would play next season in the “new” NHL. Hmmm. The fact that hundreds of NHL’ers have flocked to Europe and have taken jobs away from individuals who certainly needed them much more to “feed their families” is acceptable, but a “replacement” player struggling to make ends meet who would love to play in the NHL for one day should feel as though he is doing something unethical? And should fear for his physical safety? And this while NHL’ers play in Europe, the AHL, CHL and UHL, not to mention senior hockey in Canada?
- The classiest player in the history of pro hockey, Jean Beliveau, a thoughtful man respected throughout the hockey world, says the league needs a cap to survive, that he doesn’t support the players in this dispute. A prominent member of the player’s bargaining team refuted Beliveau’s claims. Who would you believe?
- What have other ex-players had to say? Well, Phil Esposito says for the first time he does not support the players. Nor does Darryl Sittler, the ex-Maple Lea Hall-of-Famer. Patrick Roy said some time back that the league needs a cap to ensure the viability of franchises throughout the league. The Players Association no longer has a hold on those individuals.
- One of the NHL players who is now playing in the United Hockey League was quoted as saying the NHL doesn’t care about small market teams. In the same breath, the same individual reportedly told reporters, according to various accounts, that the league should get rid of a number of teams. Interesting concept. Except, from an NHLPA perspective, that approach would take out say, 100 jobs from the association. Yet the star players are supposedly fighting for — and speak for — the “little guy” who may never play in the league again?
- Here is a question that should be mulled over. Do we expect owners to save the game, to save the season because they love hockey? In reality, these are individual business leaders, or large corporations. Whether they like or love the game is not the point. They are involved in hockey as an investment, or as a sideline, perhaps, maybe even as a bit of a “toy”. But they expect to make a profit, not lose money constantly. The players are the ones who have a “passion” for the game, and many believe it is up to them to “save” the game.
- Those who own NHL franchises, each and every owner, made their fortunes in businesses totally unrelated to professional hockey. They could walk away from hockey today and still make millions in their original chosen fields. How many players will be able to maintain their hockey income in other walks of life? So the fans may wonder, who really needs whom more?
- If we ever do reach a point where “replacement” players are signed to play in the NHL, will fans pay to watch? Likely, yes. Fans have spoken loudly throughout this protracted dispute. They are tired of mega-million dollar athletes in an industry that can’t afford it. If the owners sign players with drive, with some flair, with a passion to play because they really love playing and not for the money, people absolutely will show up.
- Have players offered to share in the losses the owners may experience in the future? Would that not make them true “partners”?
One thing is abundantly clear. The players prefer to make far, far less in other leagues right now, and even perhaps under a “new” NHL at some point in the future, than they would under a salary cap they feel would be imposed upon them against their will. It is an admirable stance — if one believes it is one based on some kind of ethical principle. As a matter of practical decision-making, it is harder for the average person to understand.
Some observers still seem baffled by the fact that there is no uproar in Canada because there is no hockey.
Well, perhaps the majority of fans held their noses these past 10 years, while salaries rose ridiculously and average-ability pro players took home millions. Fans held their noses because they like watching hockey, long ago having established loyalties to certain teams or players.
But slowly, they held in their anger, their frustration, not because they envy the players, but simply because the players’ expectations and sense of entitlement has grown absurdly out of the realm of what is acceptable to many “average” people.
For their part, the owners have finally, like an overly permissive parent, finally put their foot down. The players don’t like it.
The fans are saying “too bad”.
Those same fans hold the final key to all this, and the players, more than the owners, will have to win back the fans, if they ever get the chance.
Saturday, January 1, 2005
It's So Hard to Leave Town on Top
It’s been interesting, to say the least, to see the Vince Carter saga unfold in recent months.
Just a few short seasons ago, Carter was the high-flying, Michael Jordan-in waiting fledgling “superstar” of the once-woeful NBA Toronto Raptors.
Carter was seen as a player with unlimited talent, an ever-present smile; a nice guy, almost too good to be true.
But time wore on. Holes in Carter’s game—and attitude—appeared to surface.
He didn’t play much defense, as Jordan himself noted at one point when asked about Carter. Carter started to accumulate a series of injuries which kept him hobbling—or on the sidelines—for lengthy periods of time. He seemed to spend an unusual amount of time wincing and lying on the floor during games and not getting up.
He didn’t present as a leader, either. Fans began to wonder why he kibitzed so much with opposing players, and hugged opposing players so often before, and after, games even after games in which the Raptors got hammered.
Eventually, as media and public criticism grew, his friendly approach with the media turned sour.
His answers become less patient. He went public in his demand for a trade, and by the time he left Toronto, he was gone with a whimper, not a bang. Few seemed to notice, or much care.
In terms of how athletes present themselves, how they come across, how they are seen by the media and the public, it is reasonable to ask: what went so wrong for someone who could have “owned” the city of Toronto?
The short answer is, there is no easy answer. Oh, one certainly has a sense that many factors went into the Carter situation beyond his control: too many coaches in too short a time, teammates of limited ability, a fan base that perhaps expected too much.
But some players deal with those things well, and maintain their work ethic on the playing field and a positive demeanor off it.
In the Toronto sports market alone, similar breakdowns have not been uncommon. You could go back to the 70’s and 80’s, when one time Leaf Captain and heroes, Dave Keon and Darryl Sittler, both left town unceremoniously (though most observers simply blamed then team-owner Harold Ballard).
But let’s move to more current times.
Damon Stoudamire was “Mighty Mouse” to Toronto fans when the virtually unknown rookie appeared on the scene in the Raptors inaugural season in the mid 1990’s. Stoudamire was not the most engaging off-court player, but his determination and small stature made him a fan favorite.
Within three seasons, he was unhappy and finally, traded.
Roberto Alomar was perhaps the most loved of all Blue Jays players. He was the most talented second baseman the Jays had ever had, and perhaps the most talented in baseball period, for many years.
He was the heart and soul of the club, and helped get them over the playoff hump by hammering a Dennis Eckersley pitch in Oakland for a home run that turned around a critical playoff series for the Jays, the one that got them over the hurdle into their first World Series.
But after leading them to those two World series wins, and long before the sad “spitting” incident (he spat on an umpire over a disputed call and something the umpire said to him) while a member of the Orioles/Indians, his popularity in Toronto waned.
For example, he was seen as being more interested in preserving his .300 batting average than in playing the last game of the 1995 regular season. No Ted Williams there. (Williams played the last game of the 1941 season, putting his .400 batting average at risk.)
Something had been lost, and when he left as a free agent, he was seen as yet another unhappy player leaving town.
He had some good seasons with Baltimore and Cleveland, but his start never shone as brightly nor was he ever again as popular as he once was in Toronto.
Rare it is that an athlete can play out his career with the same team and leave on a high note, still popular with his teammates and the fans.
Even Joe Montana had to leave San Francisco, as did Jerry Rice. Salary cap issues were part of those departures, to be sure. But there was also a disconnect with the fans and/or the organization that seemed to emerge over time.
Alex Rodriguez was adored in Seattle, and will never be as loved again, as he seeks respect and an elusive championship (to go with a 250 million dollar contract).
The examples are too many of once-loved athletes leaving town with their reputations tarnished, albeit in most cases with a lot of cash in their pockets.
Thankfully, there are still examples of athletes who made it and lasted in a particular market. Wendell Clark with the Leafs could be seen in that light, though even he, too, was criticized by Ballard.
Steve Yzerman has lasted 20 years in Detroit, appreciated by fans and the organization alike.
But unlike the days of Rocket Richard and Jean Beliveau, who left the game and their team as revered heroes, it doesn’t happen very often anymore.
With the NHL lockout still on as of late January, 2005, there remains a huge disconnect between fans and many pro athletes. Oh, fans still go to games, but the dynamic has certainly shifted as salaries have risen astronomically in the last ten years in all sports— and especially since the hockey and baseball work stoppages of the mid-1990’s.
The current lockout has shown without doubt that fans have grown increasingly weary of athletes who many fans see, fair or not, as greedy and unappreciative of what they have.
It was revealing to read a quote from a former NFL player, signed just 10 days before the Super Bowl to play for the Eagles against the Patriots.
The Eagles lost starting tight end Chad Lewis to a serious injury, and the club signed a fellow who has not played in two seasons to fill in for the one game.
The individual, Jeff Thomasson, now works for a company in New Jersey. He has evidently taken vacation-time to play with the Eagles.
His comment upon signing?
"I’m probably the luckiest guy in the world. (But) When I get back, I'll have to work a year straight without vacation," he was quoted as saying. "I'll probably make more during vacation (away from his regular job while playing one game for the Eagles) than my annual salary. Now I know how hard it is to earn a buck in the real world. I worked a lot of hours."
Interesting comment indeed. “Now I know how hard it is to earn a buck in the real world.”
Few of us standing on the sidelines of the professional sporting world would dare risk the physical demands— much less have the talent— to play in the NFL or NHL, for example. We know instinctively that it is very demanding work — work which requires training, years of dedication and a unique level of talent and toughness.
So there is a built-in respect for those athletes on our part. They do something we can’t do, and because they are “entertainers”, and people pay to see them work, they are paid handsomely for their work.
But perhaps what fans are looking is respect back from the players, the recognition that athletes are not the only ones that work hard for their money. The recognition, the acknowledgement that the “average” person works every day in “the real world” as Thomason put it.
And that it is those “average” people who very directly help pay for the astronomical salaries earned by athletes.
The negative feelings the fans have obviously pent up over the past many years might be diffused somewhat, if they felt players really respected the fans.
Fans may be more patient or forgiving with a Vince Carter, or any number of other athletes.
But it needs to be a two-way street.
It will be interesting to see how NHL players will react to the public when the lockout ends— if it ever ends.
It appears as though Jeff Thomason is one athlete who did not know what he had until it was gone — someone who needed to get out into the “real world” to see the light.
Will others?
Just a few short seasons ago, Carter was the high-flying, Michael Jordan-in waiting fledgling “superstar” of the once-woeful NBA Toronto Raptors.
Carter was seen as a player with unlimited talent, an ever-present smile; a nice guy, almost too good to be true.
But time wore on. Holes in Carter’s game—and attitude—appeared to surface.
He didn’t play much defense, as Jordan himself noted at one point when asked about Carter. Carter started to accumulate a series of injuries which kept him hobbling—or on the sidelines—for lengthy periods of time. He seemed to spend an unusual amount of time wincing and lying on the floor during games and not getting up.
He didn’t present as a leader, either. Fans began to wonder why he kibitzed so much with opposing players, and hugged opposing players so often before, and after, games even after games in which the Raptors got hammered.
Eventually, as media and public criticism grew, his friendly approach with the media turned sour.
His answers become less patient. He went public in his demand for a trade, and by the time he left Toronto, he was gone with a whimper, not a bang. Few seemed to notice, or much care.
In terms of how athletes present themselves, how they come across, how they are seen by the media and the public, it is reasonable to ask: what went so wrong for someone who could have “owned” the city of Toronto?
The short answer is, there is no easy answer. Oh, one certainly has a sense that many factors went into the Carter situation beyond his control: too many coaches in too short a time, teammates of limited ability, a fan base that perhaps expected too much.
But some players deal with those things well, and maintain their work ethic on the playing field and a positive demeanor off it.
In the Toronto sports market alone, similar breakdowns have not been uncommon. You could go back to the 70’s and 80’s, when one time Leaf Captain and heroes, Dave Keon and Darryl Sittler, both left town unceremoniously (though most observers simply blamed then team-owner Harold Ballard).
But let’s move to more current times.
Damon Stoudamire was “Mighty Mouse” to Toronto fans when the virtually unknown rookie appeared on the scene in the Raptors inaugural season in the mid 1990’s. Stoudamire was not the most engaging off-court player, but his determination and small stature made him a fan favorite.
Within three seasons, he was unhappy and finally, traded.
Roberto Alomar was perhaps the most loved of all Blue Jays players. He was the most talented second baseman the Jays had ever had, and perhaps the most talented in baseball period, for many years.
He was the heart and soul of the club, and helped get them over the playoff hump by hammering a Dennis Eckersley pitch in Oakland for a home run that turned around a critical playoff series for the Jays, the one that got them over the hurdle into their first World Series.
But after leading them to those two World series wins, and long before the sad “spitting” incident (he spat on an umpire over a disputed call and something the umpire said to him) while a member of the Orioles/Indians, his popularity in Toronto waned.
For example, he was seen as being more interested in preserving his .300 batting average than in playing the last game of the 1995 regular season. No Ted Williams there. (Williams played the last game of the 1941 season, putting his .400 batting average at risk.)
Something had been lost, and when he left as a free agent, he was seen as yet another unhappy player leaving town.
He had some good seasons with Baltimore and Cleveland, but his start never shone as brightly nor was he ever again as popular as he once was in Toronto.
Rare it is that an athlete can play out his career with the same team and leave on a high note, still popular with his teammates and the fans.
Even Joe Montana had to leave San Francisco, as did Jerry Rice. Salary cap issues were part of those departures, to be sure. But there was also a disconnect with the fans and/or the organization that seemed to emerge over time.
Alex Rodriguez was adored in Seattle, and will never be as loved again, as he seeks respect and an elusive championship (to go with a 250 million dollar contract).
The examples are too many of once-loved athletes leaving town with their reputations tarnished, albeit in most cases with a lot of cash in their pockets.
Thankfully, there are still examples of athletes who made it and lasted in a particular market. Wendell Clark with the Leafs could be seen in that light, though even he, too, was criticized by Ballard.
Steve Yzerman has lasted 20 years in Detroit, appreciated by fans and the organization alike.
But unlike the days of Rocket Richard and Jean Beliveau, who left the game and their team as revered heroes, it doesn’t happen very often anymore.
With the NHL lockout still on as of late January, 2005, there remains a huge disconnect between fans and many pro athletes. Oh, fans still go to games, but the dynamic has certainly shifted as salaries have risen astronomically in the last ten years in all sports— and especially since the hockey and baseball work stoppages of the mid-1990’s.
The current lockout has shown without doubt that fans have grown increasingly weary of athletes who many fans see, fair or not, as greedy and unappreciative of what they have.
It was revealing to read a quote from a former NFL player, signed just 10 days before the Super Bowl to play for the Eagles against the Patriots.
The Eagles lost starting tight end Chad Lewis to a serious injury, and the club signed a fellow who has not played in two seasons to fill in for the one game.
The individual, Jeff Thomasson, now works for a company in New Jersey. He has evidently taken vacation-time to play with the Eagles.
His comment upon signing?
"I’m probably the luckiest guy in the world. (But) When I get back, I'll have to work a year straight without vacation," he was quoted as saying. "I'll probably make more during vacation (away from his regular job while playing one game for the Eagles) than my annual salary. Now I know how hard it is to earn a buck in the real world. I worked a lot of hours."
Interesting comment indeed. “Now I know how hard it is to earn a buck in the real world.”
Few of us standing on the sidelines of the professional sporting world would dare risk the physical demands— much less have the talent— to play in the NFL or NHL, for example. We know instinctively that it is very demanding work — work which requires training, years of dedication and a unique level of talent and toughness.
So there is a built-in respect for those athletes on our part. They do something we can’t do, and because they are “entertainers”, and people pay to see them work, they are paid handsomely for their work.
But perhaps what fans are looking is respect back from the players, the recognition that athletes are not the only ones that work hard for their money. The recognition, the acknowledgement that the “average” person works every day in “the real world” as Thomason put it.
And that it is those “average” people who very directly help pay for the astronomical salaries earned by athletes.
The negative feelings the fans have obviously pent up over the past many years might be diffused somewhat, if they felt players really respected the fans.
Fans may be more patient or forgiving with a Vince Carter, or any number of other athletes.
But it needs to be a two-way street.
It will be interesting to see how NHL players will react to the public when the lockout ends— if it ever ends.
It appears as though Jeff Thomason is one athlete who did not know what he had until it was gone — someone who needed to get out into the “real world” to see the light.
Will others?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)