Since it was so much fun to write about the miserable state of Denver sports on Monday, I've decided to give Houston, my current hometown, the courtesy of joining the party. With the exception of the Major League Soccer Dynamo, who won the league title in 2006 and 2007, their first two years in Houston, the city has actually endured a longer title drought than Denver. Since Houston does not have an NHL team, the Dynamo are the clear #4 in the city, but as much pride as this community feels for the soccer team (especially the large Hispanic population), I still feel like the city would quickly trade both Dynamo titles (and maybe even a third) for one title in the other three major sports.
I suppose I would be remiss if I didn't at least mention the now-defunct Houston Comets, the most successful team in WNBA history. Founded in 1997 as one of the original franchises in the league, the Comets won the first four WNBA titles. The success waned, however, and with it so did attendance and when the owners attempted to sell the team in 2008 but found no takers, the team folded. This is more of a statement on the viability of the WNBA (a league that has operated at a substantial loss throughout its history but has been propped up by the NBA as David Stern's brain-child) than on the state of the Houston sports community. Now the Comets' wikipedia page reads like an obituary.
Now on to the meaningful sports in the city. The most successful franchise in recent years has been the Astros who made the playoffs in 2004 and 2005 as a wild card each year. In 2004, the 'Stros advanced to the NLCS before falling in 7 games to the eventual World Series Champion St. Louis Cardinals. That year's run was highlighted by the eight postseason home runs hit by Carlos Beltran, a mid-season addition to the Astros who played less than half a season with the team before leaving for greener pastures in New York (pun definitely intended). The following year, the Astros made the only championship appearance of any Houston team since the mid-90s, beating the Cards in the NLCS this time on their way to the World Series where they were swept by the Chicago White Sox. While the Astros have been competitive the last three years, there were few expectations of a deep playoff run in that stretch and the future isn't exactly bright.
The only current Houston team in the big 3 sports with a championship victory is the Rockets who won the NBA title in 1994 and 1995. However, I don't know if any team in any sport has had to deal with the kind of asterisk to their titles that these Rockets have. As you may recall, a certain Chicago Bulls player had mysteriously chosen to pursue minor league baseball in that two year stretch, only returning in 1995-96 to win the next 3 titles with the Bulls. It seems any time anyone discusses the Rockets' championships, it must be mentioned that Jordan was "retired" for those two seasons. Of course no one mentions the fact that "45" returned to the Bulls midway through the 1994-95 season but the Bulls would be eliminated in the second round of the playoffs by Shaq, Penny and the Magic (that year's Eastern conference champs). Regardless, this disrespect is a clear chip on the shoulders of Houston fans that won't be removed until a Houston team, and specifically the Rockets, wins another title. In 1996, the Rockets would fall in the second round of the playoffs and the team has not advanced passed the first round since. As for this season, things do look surprisingly promising as the Rockets have climbed to 3rd in the Western Conference standings and appear poised to have homecourt advantage in the first round of the playoffs. Whether the team can capitalize on this and win a series remains to be seen and with the Lakers looming as the dominant force in the West, the city is trying to temper its enthusiasm.
Finally, there's the NFL in Houston. As we all know, the Houston Texans have existed since 2002 but have yet to achieve a winning record, much less make the playoffs. Before the Texans came the Oilers, one of the NFL's most frustrating franchises for its fanbase. The Oilers were a charter member of the AFL in 1960 but didn't find any success until the late 1970's when they made the playoffs three straight years from 1978-80, the first three years of University of Texas product Earl Campbell's career. Those playoff appearances would be fruitless, however, with two of them ending in AFC Championship losses to the Pittsburgh "Steel Curtain" Steelers. The Oilers would fall into oblivion again until 1987 when, under quarterback Warren Moon, they became one of the most successful teams in the AFC over the next 7 years, making the playoffs each year. Despite their regular season successes, the team was never able to get over the proverbial hump and never reached the Super Bowl. Included in this run was the infamous 1992 playoff loss at Buffalo in a game known simply as "The Comeback" in which the Oilers blew a 35-3 lead to lose 41-38 in overtime, the biggest comeback/choke job in league history. After a second round playoff loss in 1993, Warren Moon was traded and the team began a new downward spiral eventually ending in the team's acrimonious stadium dispute with the city and finally the move to Tennessee in 1997. It was this move that has made Bud Adams, current Titans/former-Oilers owner, one of the most despised men in Houston. It is also the reason that a lot of Houston fans still root for the Titans, a perplexing attachment that I myself have been guilty of. I've heard it described, accurately so, as having a nasty divorce with a vindictive wife and then somehow rooting for her to find true love and be happy in the future. You should want her life to be miserable, right? Right?!?
So again, back to the topic at hand. As I mentioned, the city of Denver has had the luxury of living in the world of "just short" with most of its teams. Houston is facing the same situation with the Astros and Rockets and is quickly approaching this point with the Texans. With the Rockies and Texans, I have known the numbness of rooting for a team with no chance at contending. With the Broncos and Astros, I've had the thrill and the disappointment of rooting for teams that get ever so close only to fail in the end. As a sports fan, you start to wonder when, even if, you will feel the joy of victory again. Sometimes so much so that you become the absolute worst thing in all of sports fandom: a bandwagon jumper. You pick the hot team and attach yourself just to try to recapture the glory of victory again, but the feeling is hollow and if the team wins, you feel like you've just cheated on your team for a one-night stand.
Once again, where do your teams fall? Would you prefer an all-out loser or a soul-crushing failure in the postseason? Post your comments below.
To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Just Short or Not Even Close?
It's a depressing time to be a Denver sports fan. I've covered some of the local teams' failings ad nauseam in this blog (well, maybe not that much but close) and watching yet another late-season swoon by the Nuggets has lead me to a question that I've debated many times in my sports life: is it better to have the teams you root for be perpetually awful/mediocre non-contenders, or to have them get close and always come up short?
Here's how this applies to the Denver sports scene. The last championship in the city of Denver was won by the Avalanche in 2001, shortly before hockey became irrelevant in the United States. Before that, we were blessed to get back-to-back Super Bowl victories from the Broncos in 1998-99, so I know it may not have been long enough since our last major title to really start the complaining process, but we're going on 8 years here! Since the Avs' last title, the team has gone from very good (immediately after the title) to good to mediocre to the point where they likely won't even make the playoffs this season, for the second time in the last three years, a far cry from the nine consecutive division titles the Avs won immediately after moving to Denver from Quebec in 1995.
The other local teams have been equally as frustrating. First, the aforementioned Broncos have had one realistically good season since the Super Bowls (and coinciding retirement of John Elway), a 13-3 season in 2005 that ended with an embarrassing 34-17 home conference championship loss at the hands of the sixth-seeded (and eventual champion) Steelers. Also in that span the Broncos gave us the Brian Griese era, consecutive blowout playoff losses to the Colts (2003-04, along with the much-"enjoyed" (read: endured) Jake Plummer era), the soon-to-be-infamous blown three-game division lead with three to play (capped by a wonderful 52-21 loss to the rival Chargers in the final game to seal the collapse), and now the Josh McDaniels era that is off to an inauspicious start as he seeks to alienate his young franchise quarterback in his first month on the job. Certainly not a fun time to be a Donkeys fan.
Second, the Rockies have come the closest to breaking the title drought with their improbable run to the 2007 World Series, but a four-game sweep at the hands of the heavily-favored Boston Red Sox put an end to that dream season. The Rocks made a significant splash in the Denver area as they won the first NL Wild Card ever in 1995, the franchise's third year in existence. After that, mediocre would be a generous way to put things as they wallowed in the cellar of the NL West for the next 11 years, rarely even threatening the .500 mark before the breakout 2007 season. Even in '07, concerns lingered that it was a "lightning in a bottle" situation where a so-so team got hot at the right time with the exact right set of circumstances to make a playoff run. Of course Rockies fans will never forget the young team reeling off 14 wins in 15 games to force a 1-game playoff with division-rival San Diego, and then the 13-inning epic that game became and finally the 7-straight wins to sweep their way to the NL Pennant. Unfortunately, 2008 brought the feared back-slide, and the Rox have already begun disassembling (read: selling off) their most successful roster ever with the trade of their best player, outfielder Matt Holliday. While I still hold out hope as all baseball fans do in March, I fear this year's Rockies will be little better than last year's.
Finally, there's the Nuggets. For a team that has historically been one of the NBA's most exciting to watch, never have they been a legitimate title contender and particularly not in the last 8 years. The team only gained any sense of competitiveness in 2003 because of sheer luck, winning third in the lottery behind a Detroit team that had inexplicably fallen in love with a foreign big man named Darko. Because of that love affair, the second-best prospect in the draft (behind a certain forward currently playing for the Cleveland Cavaliers), Carmelo Anthony, fell into the Nuggets' laps and the franchise was relevant for the first time in a decade. 'Melo made an immediate impact, leading a rag-tag Nuggets team to the playoffs for the first time since 1995. Suddenly Denver began to believe they had a shot, and began making free agent acquisitions to improve their contending status, such as signing Andre Miller, Kenyon Martin and eventually moving Miller for Allen Iverson. Unfortunately, these moves (which were both lauded and derided at the time they were made) all had the same inevitable result: first round playoff losses. In Anthony's first four season in the NBA, the Nuggets lost first round playoff series's all by the result 4 games to 1. Finally, they broke the streak last year, getting swept by the Lakers.
So now I sit here watching my new hometown team, the Houston Rockets, face my true hometown team, the Nugs, and as the Nuggets trail by 12 at home in the fourth quarter, I wonder if this year will be any different. Yes, all signs point to the Nuggets making the playoffs again and if they can get hot, they might even have homecourt advantage for the first round for the first time in the Melo era. Heck, they might even win TWO games with Chauncey Billups, their first real point guard in this era, manning the 1. But will they win a series? Maybe. Two? Probably not. A title? Flatly, no.
And now finally I return to my first question with you having a full understanding of where I'm coming from: is it better for your favorite teams to be downright awful or to be good but not good enough? For Denver fans, we are smack in an era of not quite good enough for all of our teams. None are so bad that they will flat-out rebuild and try to become better in a few years, but also none seem to be close enough to winning it all to be a team to rally behind. I thought the Rockies, with considerable youth, had the talent to start a string of successful seasons. Instead, they're a team whose window may have opened and closed in an 18-month span as ownership's purse strings are too tight to make the needed moves. For the Nuggets, my hopes have been raised and dashed so many times I'm becoming numb to them. The Broncos are closer to rebuilding than winning it all. And the Avs? Well, they basically died to me at the 2004-05 lockout and don't appear to have the talent or direction from ownership/management to become relevant again any time soon.
Alright, now that I'm thoroughly depressed, let me know what you think. Which situation are your teams in, and which would you prefer?
To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
Here's how this applies to the Denver sports scene. The last championship in the city of Denver was won by the Avalanche in 2001, shortly before hockey became irrelevant in the United States. Before that, we were blessed to get back-to-back Super Bowl victories from the Broncos in 1998-99, so I know it may not have been long enough since our last major title to really start the complaining process, but we're going on 8 years here! Since the Avs' last title, the team has gone from very good (immediately after the title) to good to mediocre to the point where they likely won't even make the playoffs this season, for the second time in the last three years, a far cry from the nine consecutive division titles the Avs won immediately after moving to Denver from Quebec in 1995.
The other local teams have been equally as frustrating. First, the aforementioned Broncos have had one realistically good season since the Super Bowls (and coinciding retirement of John Elway), a 13-3 season in 2005 that ended with an embarrassing 34-17 home conference championship loss at the hands of the sixth-seeded (and eventual champion) Steelers. Also in that span the Broncos gave us the Brian Griese era, consecutive blowout playoff losses to the Colts (2003-04, along with the much-"enjoyed" (read: endured) Jake Plummer era), the soon-to-be-infamous blown three-game division lead with three to play (capped by a wonderful 52-21 loss to the rival Chargers in the final game to seal the collapse), and now the Josh McDaniels era that is off to an inauspicious start as he seeks to alienate his young franchise quarterback in his first month on the job. Certainly not a fun time to be a Donkeys fan.
Second, the Rockies have come the closest to breaking the title drought with their improbable run to the 2007 World Series, but a four-game sweep at the hands of the heavily-favored Boston Red Sox put an end to that dream season. The Rocks made a significant splash in the Denver area as they won the first NL Wild Card ever in 1995, the franchise's third year in existence. After that, mediocre would be a generous way to put things as they wallowed in the cellar of the NL West for the next 11 years, rarely even threatening the .500 mark before the breakout 2007 season. Even in '07, concerns lingered that it was a "lightning in a bottle" situation where a so-so team got hot at the right time with the exact right set of circumstances to make a playoff run. Of course Rockies fans will never forget the young team reeling off 14 wins in 15 games to force a 1-game playoff with division-rival San Diego, and then the 13-inning epic that game became and finally the 7-straight wins to sweep their way to the NL Pennant. Unfortunately, 2008 brought the feared back-slide, and the Rox have already begun disassembling (read: selling off) their most successful roster ever with the trade of their best player, outfielder Matt Holliday. While I still hold out hope as all baseball fans do in March, I fear this year's Rockies will be little better than last year's.
Finally, there's the Nuggets. For a team that has historically been one of the NBA's most exciting to watch, never have they been a legitimate title contender and particularly not in the last 8 years. The team only gained any sense of competitiveness in 2003 because of sheer luck, winning third in the lottery behind a Detroit team that had inexplicably fallen in love with a foreign big man named Darko. Because of that love affair, the second-best prospect in the draft (behind a certain forward currently playing for the Cleveland Cavaliers), Carmelo Anthony, fell into the Nuggets' laps and the franchise was relevant for the first time in a decade. 'Melo made an immediate impact, leading a rag-tag Nuggets team to the playoffs for the first time since 1995. Suddenly Denver began to believe they had a shot, and began making free agent acquisitions to improve their contending status, such as signing Andre Miller, Kenyon Martin and eventually moving Miller for Allen Iverson. Unfortunately, these moves (which were both lauded and derided at the time they were made) all had the same inevitable result: first round playoff losses. In Anthony's first four season in the NBA, the Nuggets lost first round playoff series's all by the result 4 games to 1. Finally, they broke the streak last year, getting swept by the Lakers.
So now I sit here watching my new hometown team, the Houston Rockets, face my true hometown team, the Nugs, and as the Nuggets trail by 12 at home in the fourth quarter, I wonder if this year will be any different. Yes, all signs point to the Nuggets making the playoffs again and if they can get hot, they might even have homecourt advantage for the first round for the first time in the Melo era. Heck, they might even win TWO games with Chauncey Billups, their first real point guard in this era, manning the 1. But will they win a series? Maybe. Two? Probably not. A title? Flatly, no.
And now finally I return to my first question with you having a full understanding of where I'm coming from: is it better for your favorite teams to be downright awful or to be good but not good enough? For Denver fans, we are smack in an era of not quite good enough for all of our teams. None are so bad that they will flat-out rebuild and try to become better in a few years, but also none seem to be close enough to winning it all to be a team to rally behind. I thought the Rockies, with considerable youth, had the talent to start a string of successful seasons. Instead, they're a team whose window may have opened and closed in an 18-month span as ownership's purse strings are too tight to make the needed moves. For the Nuggets, my hopes have been raised and dashed so many times I'm becoming numb to them. The Broncos are closer to rebuilding than winning it all. And the Avs? Well, they basically died to me at the 2004-05 lockout and don't appear to have the talent or direction from ownership/management to become relevant again any time soon.
Alright, now that I'm thoroughly depressed, let me know what you think. Which situation are your teams in, and which would you prefer?
To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
Monday, March 2, 2009
What is up with the Broncos?
I apologize for the absence from posting for the past week or so, but we just completed the printing of my father's latest book, The Ultimate Gamble (available here), and I have been swamped working on marketing the thing. It's a non-fiction philosophy book that examines whether or not god exists from both a scientific and religious perspective.
Anyway, the biggest news of the last few days has been the opening of free agency in the NFL and as usual, my hometown Denver Broncos have been extremely active. As expected, the Broncos took a sledge hammer to their defensive roster from last year cutting multiple starters including two players (Dre' Bly and Dewayne Robertson) that Mike Shanahan had traded for. When your team's defense ranks in the bottom 3-4 in the league in virtually every category, and was the main reason for your head coach's firing, then this certainly makes sense. We're also told the Broncos will be switching from a 4-3 defensive alignment to a 3-4, meaning a lot of new personnel would be needed anyway, regardless of how effective or ineffective the old players were.
So the Broncos made headlines late Friday -- the first day of free agency -- by being rumored to sign former Eagles' Pro Bowl safety Brian Dawkins. They also signed a pair of running backs (Correll Buckhalter and JJ Arrington) and a couple other defensive players. By late Saturday, the Dawkins signing was confirmed (along with the signing of another former Cleveland Brown, linebacker Andra Davis) but it was clearly overshadowed by the day's biggest story: the Kansas City Chiefs acquiring Matt Cassel from the New England Patriots. Next thing I know, a headline on ESPN.com reads "Cutler Upset" and I'm wondering what in the world could this be? That's when the Broncos' offseason moves turned confusing.
Evidently, according to multiple sources, the Broncos had been shopping quarterback Jay Cutler (just in his third year and coming off a Pro Bowl) and looking to trade for Cassel themselves. As we found out, the Chiefs, whose new GM is Scott Pioli, formerly of the Patriots, gave up just a second-round pick (#34 overall) for Cassel. But rumors were that the Broncos had almost come to an agreement with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers that would have sent Cutler to the Bucs for Tampa's first and third round draft picks, and then sent a first round pick to the Pats for Cassel. Certainly there must be more information yet to come to the surface, because right now this situation is rather mind-boggling. Here's why:
Let's hope this isn't indicative of how the new Broncos front office and coaching staff are going to run things in the future (can you say New England West?). Definitely an exciting weekend for the Broncos and their fans, but certainly not for all of the reasons most would like. Looks like McDaniels is going to have his work cut out for him with this team, and he's not entirely blameless in the situation.
To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
Anyway, the biggest news of the last few days has been the opening of free agency in the NFL and as usual, my hometown Denver Broncos have been extremely active. As expected, the Broncos took a sledge hammer to their defensive roster from last year cutting multiple starters including two players (Dre' Bly and Dewayne Robertson) that Mike Shanahan had traded for. When your team's defense ranks in the bottom 3-4 in the league in virtually every category, and was the main reason for your head coach's firing, then this certainly makes sense. We're also told the Broncos will be switching from a 4-3 defensive alignment to a 3-4, meaning a lot of new personnel would be needed anyway, regardless of how effective or ineffective the old players were.
So the Broncos made headlines late Friday -- the first day of free agency -- by being rumored to sign former Eagles' Pro Bowl safety Brian Dawkins. They also signed a pair of running backs (Correll Buckhalter and JJ Arrington) and a couple other defensive players. By late Saturday, the Dawkins signing was confirmed (along with the signing of another former Cleveland Brown, linebacker Andra Davis) but it was clearly overshadowed by the day's biggest story: the Kansas City Chiefs acquiring Matt Cassel from the New England Patriots. Next thing I know, a headline on ESPN.com reads "Cutler Upset" and I'm wondering what in the world could this be? That's when the Broncos' offseason moves turned confusing.
Evidently, according to multiple sources, the Broncos had been shopping quarterback Jay Cutler (just in his third year and coming off a Pro Bowl) and looking to trade for Cassel themselves. As we found out, the Chiefs, whose new GM is Scott Pioli, formerly of the Patriots, gave up just a second-round pick (#34 overall) for Cassel. But rumors were that the Broncos had almost come to an agreement with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers that would have sent Cutler to the Bucs for Tampa's first and third round draft picks, and then sent a first round pick to the Pats for Cassel. Certainly there must be more information yet to come to the surface, because right now this situation is rather mind-boggling. Here's why:
- If you're the Patriots and you have a chance to get a first round pick in the 12-19 range for your backup QB, why would you instead give up the QB and a veteran linebacker (Mike Vrabel also went to KC in the deal) for just a second rounder? Is there another conditional pick involved that hasn't been announced yet? Is this a buddy-buddy deal between Pats coach Bill Belichick and Pioli? Does Belichick secretly hate or resent new Broncos coach Josh McDaniels, a former Pats assistant, the same way he apparently hates Eric Mangini?
- If you're the Broncos, why in the world would you want a QB who has started just 15 games in his career since high school and had good, not great, numbers in those starts over a younger player that was a high draft pick, still has 3 years left on his deal, and is coming off of a Pro Bowl season? Add to that the fact that you're likely going to have to re-sign Cassel to a long-term deal for big money, and it really makes no sense. And if you're the Broncos, you'd better be sure you can complete the deal if you start talks because you already know that Cutler can very very temperamental (he stated publicly that he was angry over the Shanahan firing, for example).
Let's hope this isn't indicative of how the new Broncos front office and coaching staff are going to run things in the future (can you say New England West?). Definitely an exciting weekend for the Broncos and their fans, but certainly not for all of the reasons most would like. Looks like McDaniels is going to have his work cut out for him with this team, and he's not entirely blameless in the situation.
To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Who'll Feel the Economic Pain First?
Interesting coincidence, as it turns out, not only did A-Rod take steroids, but apparently spring training is about to start pretty soon. Who knew they actually still play baseball anymore? With some big name free agents still on the market in baseball (names such as Manny Ramirez and Ben Sheets top the list now that Ken Griffey, Jr. finally signed) as pitchers and catchers report to Florida and Arizona, the issue of the economy looms large on the upcoming season. In previous years, players like Ramirez would have signed within a couple weeks of the end of the season (it's been almost four months since play ended) and even a guy like Sheets, with all of his injury concerns, would have likely found a home. But times, they are a-changing and owners are tightening their belts around the MLB and all professional sports.
Already, there are signs that teams (outside of the greater New York metropolitan area) are cutting back, or at least minimizing their spending. Here in Houston, Astros owner Drayton McLane, not necessarily known to be extremely tight with money, has all but shut it down this offseason as the Astros have signed only one free agent (Mike Hampton for around the veterans minimum) and have let several players from last year's wild-card runner-up team sit unsigned. Starting third baseman Ty Wigginton is still on the market, and pitcher Randy Wolf, a solid late-season pickup last year, sat on free agency until just 2 weeks ago when he signed with the Dodgers. Houston is not exactly a small market, yet the purse strings are as tight here as anywhere.
Baseball is the first major pro sport in the US that will get a true taste of the bad economy. For the NBA, most teams sold their season tickets around April or May of last year, before the stock market crash, meaning that their only noticeable impact from the recession is a decrease in walk-up ticket sales and the difficulty in getting money in loans for payroll. But for the MLB, last season didn't end until the economy began it's decline, and now we will find out just how much American families and corporations are cutting back their spending on sports entertainment. After years and years of attendance gains, Major League Baseball may see a huge drop-off as fans will be very reluctant to come out to the ballpark for mid-week games early in the season or between two bad teams.
With the NBA trade deadline passing this afternoon, we began to see (and hear) similar economic rumblings from that league. Many struggling small market teams looked to make trades to trim money, but even the big market teams were reluctant to bring on big salaries leading to a relatively quiet day of action. One of the higher-profile trades, the New Orleans Hornets sending former All-Star center Tyson Chandler to the Oklahoma City Thunder (a trade that was later rescinded because Chandler failed a physical), was a clear cost-cutting move by the struggling New Orleans franchise. The trade made very little sense on paper for the Hornets as a team, but as a franchise that is in one of the league's poorest markets, they felt they had to do something, and trading a big contract for a couple of expiring contracts seemed like their best option. Who knows what will happen now that that trade has fallen through. Word out of the NBA's All-Star Weekend last week was that the talk among NBA insiders was about the economy and some of the dramatic effects it could have on the league. The question of whether some franchises, such as New Orleans, New Jersey, and Memphis, would move or even be contracted was the undercurrent of the weekend.
While the MLB free agency period has shown us one view of the struggling economy, we will get an interesting perspective in the coming weeks as the NFL, the country's most successful league, will enter its free agency stage. With a more equitable profit-sharing system and a strict salary cap, the NFL presents a much different landscape from the MLB. Small market teams will not be completely locked out of free agency as they were in baseball, and big market teams, while still having some advantage, shouldn't dominate. Then again, a team like the Dallas Cowboys offers a much stronger opportunity for a free agent looking for outside income (advertising money, for example) than a team like the Buffalo Bills does, and the Cowboys will now be far more willing to give a nice healthy signing bonus than those smaller market teams. I shudder to think what the situation would be like if this year was the uncapped year as opposed to next year. (In case you didn't know, the NFL owners exercised an option to opt out of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement, reached several years ago, as of next year and if no new deal is reached, the NFL would have no salary cap in 2010.)
The reason for some of the financial woes for teams isn't even necessarily the lack of income from the teams. While this is the catalyst for problems, the root cause is that many of the super-"rich" franchise owners were really only rich on paper (in other words, companies/stocks/funds they owned had extremely high value). Now that these big companies' values have collapses, so too has the wealth of these owners. For example, the Cleveland Cavaliers owner's money comes from Quicken Loans. How do you think his portfolio is doing these days? That is a team that might be a financial risk if it weren't for LeBron James and the fact that the team is a title contender, assuring strong attendance. Many owners will be forced to cut back their spending -- such as big signing bonuses for NFL free agents -- because of the lack of availability of cash for them.
All in all, we don't know exactly how teams will respond because we don't know exactly how long the economy is going to stay bad, and how bad it will be over the next couple of years. Regardless, I'd call it a fair bet that at least one NBA franchise moves in the next two years for financial reasons (my money's on New Orleans, but Memphis seems promising, too) and the other leagues may see the same thing. Even if the franchises don't move, there's still a strong possibility that we could see some teams sold in the next two years. Which sport do you think will be first or most affected by the nation's financial turmoil?
To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
Already, there are signs that teams (outside of the greater New York metropolitan area) are cutting back, or at least minimizing their spending. Here in Houston, Astros owner Drayton McLane, not necessarily known to be extremely tight with money, has all but shut it down this offseason as the Astros have signed only one free agent (Mike Hampton for around the veterans minimum) and have let several players from last year's wild-card runner-up team sit unsigned. Starting third baseman Ty Wigginton is still on the market, and pitcher Randy Wolf, a solid late-season pickup last year, sat on free agency until just 2 weeks ago when he signed with the Dodgers. Houston is not exactly a small market, yet the purse strings are as tight here as anywhere.
Baseball is the first major pro sport in the US that will get a true taste of the bad economy. For the NBA, most teams sold their season tickets around April or May of last year, before the stock market crash, meaning that their only noticeable impact from the recession is a decrease in walk-up ticket sales and the difficulty in getting money in loans for payroll. But for the MLB, last season didn't end until the economy began it's decline, and now we will find out just how much American families and corporations are cutting back their spending on sports entertainment. After years and years of attendance gains, Major League Baseball may see a huge drop-off as fans will be very reluctant to come out to the ballpark for mid-week games early in the season or between two bad teams.
With the NBA trade deadline passing this afternoon, we began to see (and hear) similar economic rumblings from that league. Many struggling small market teams looked to make trades to trim money, but even the big market teams were reluctant to bring on big salaries leading to a relatively quiet day of action. One of the higher-profile trades, the New Orleans Hornets sending former All-Star center Tyson Chandler to the Oklahoma City Thunder (a trade that was later rescinded because Chandler failed a physical), was a clear cost-cutting move by the struggling New Orleans franchise. The trade made very little sense on paper for the Hornets as a team, but as a franchise that is in one of the league's poorest markets, they felt they had to do something, and trading a big contract for a couple of expiring contracts seemed like their best option. Who knows what will happen now that that trade has fallen through. Word out of the NBA's All-Star Weekend last week was that the talk among NBA insiders was about the economy and some of the dramatic effects it could have on the league. The question of whether some franchises, such as New Orleans, New Jersey, and Memphis, would move or even be contracted was the undercurrent of the weekend.
While the MLB free agency period has shown us one view of the struggling economy, we will get an interesting perspective in the coming weeks as the NFL, the country's most successful league, will enter its free agency stage. With a more equitable profit-sharing system and a strict salary cap, the NFL presents a much different landscape from the MLB. Small market teams will not be completely locked out of free agency as they were in baseball, and big market teams, while still having some advantage, shouldn't dominate. Then again, a team like the Dallas Cowboys offers a much stronger opportunity for a free agent looking for outside income (advertising money, for example) than a team like the Buffalo Bills does, and the Cowboys will now be far more willing to give a nice healthy signing bonus than those smaller market teams. I shudder to think what the situation would be like if this year was the uncapped year as opposed to next year. (In case you didn't know, the NFL owners exercised an option to opt out of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement, reached several years ago, as of next year and if no new deal is reached, the NFL would have no salary cap in 2010.)
The reason for some of the financial woes for teams isn't even necessarily the lack of income from the teams. While this is the catalyst for problems, the root cause is that many of the super-"rich" franchise owners were really only rich on paper (in other words, companies/stocks/funds they owned had extremely high value). Now that these big companies' values have collapses, so too has the wealth of these owners. For example, the Cleveland Cavaliers owner's money comes from Quicken Loans. How do you think his portfolio is doing these days? That is a team that might be a financial risk if it weren't for LeBron James and the fact that the team is a title contender, assuring strong attendance. Many owners will be forced to cut back their spending -- such as big signing bonuses for NFL free agents -- because of the lack of availability of cash for them.
All in all, we don't know exactly how teams will respond because we don't know exactly how long the economy is going to stay bad, and how bad it will be over the next couple of years. Regardless, I'd call it a fair bet that at least one NBA franchise moves in the next two years for financial reasons (my money's on New Orleans, but Memphis seems promising, too) and the other leagues may see the same thing. Even if the franchises don't move, there's still a strong possibility that we could see some teams sold in the next two years. Which sport do you think will be first or most affected by the nation's financial turmoil?
To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Guilty By Association
Now a full week removed from the startling revelation that Alex Rodriguez had tested positive for steroid use in 2003, it is interesting to take in the reactions of those both within the sports world as well as those viewing from the outside. From the perspective of pro baseball players, there seems to be three different reactions to the news:
1. Understanding/Forgiveness - This is coming almost exclusively from others that have been "outed" in the last several years for having done the same things. Players like Jason Giambi and Andy Pettite have been quick to commend A-Roid (I'm also partial to the nickname Ster-Rod, but no one seems to be catching on with it) for being forthright about his cheating. As if somehow admitting that you cheated after you were caught cheating makes it okay.
2. Anger - This is coming from those players, such as the Houston Astros' Lance Berkman and Roy Oswalt, that did not cheat (supposedly). Their anger, of course, is because of that "supposedly" that must now be placed by the names of all baseball players. Before A-Rod's exposure, there were still many that wanted to believe that some great players were simply great, and didn't require or even want to use the drugs. Now, every single baseball player of the last 2+ decades is guilty by association.
3. Silence - There are a couple of explanations for this. Either they don't have strong feelings about what's going on (seems rather unlikely), or they are trying to stay below the radar because they've done something they don't want revealed. I know that not every player used (at least I *hope* that not every player used), but any players that are being quiet right now appear suspicious, like they are trying to hide something. As we know, Rodriguez was just one of 104 players that tested positive in the supposedly confidential drug test. Right now, there are 103 other players praying that the rest of the names never get released.
So how do I feel about this whole thing? It's tough to say. I want to say that I've lost all interest in baseball because the purity of the sport has forever been tarnished. Then again, we knew this for years as we watched Barroid Bonds break record after record with an increasingly bulbous head. And then I just wonder how this is any different from the sleaze-ball bankers and executives that used unethical and even illegal tactics to bilk countless Americans (and now every American taxpayer) out of billions of dollars to line their own pockets. It's all cheating. Sports are supposed to be an escape for us, and yet we are now seeing in the sporting world the same greed and corruption as we see in the corporate world. The fact is, though, players have been doing things to get an edge ever since sports began, and especially since money became such a significant factor. Sure, now it's steroids, but in the 70's and 80's it was cocaine, before that it was spitballs, pine tar, even nail files being used to change the way the ball moved. Cheating in sports, and in baseball in particular, is nothing new.
Does this make it okay for today's baseball players to cheat? Absolutely not. All I'm saying is that if you enjoy the game, take it for what it is. Watch it on t.v. where you get the best view of the action and you're not paying exorbitant ticket prices, and understand that the idea of purity in anything in society, particularly anything concerning money, is gone.
To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
1. Understanding/Forgiveness - This is coming almost exclusively from others that have been "outed" in the last several years for having done the same things. Players like Jason Giambi and Andy Pettite have been quick to commend A-Roid (I'm also partial to the nickname Ster-Rod, but no one seems to be catching on with it) for being forthright about his cheating. As if somehow admitting that you cheated after you were caught cheating makes it okay.
2. Anger - This is coming from those players, such as the Houston Astros' Lance Berkman and Roy Oswalt, that did not cheat (supposedly). Their anger, of course, is because of that "supposedly" that must now be placed by the names of all baseball players. Before A-Rod's exposure, there were still many that wanted to believe that some great players were simply great, and didn't require or even want to use the drugs. Now, every single baseball player of the last 2+ decades is guilty by association.
3. Silence - There are a couple of explanations for this. Either they don't have strong feelings about what's going on (seems rather unlikely), or they are trying to stay below the radar because they've done something they don't want revealed. I know that not every player used (at least I *hope* that not every player used), but any players that are being quiet right now appear suspicious, like they are trying to hide something. As we know, Rodriguez was just one of 104 players that tested positive in the supposedly confidential drug test. Right now, there are 103 other players praying that the rest of the names never get released.
So how do I feel about this whole thing? It's tough to say. I want to say that I've lost all interest in baseball because the purity of the sport has forever been tarnished. Then again, we knew this for years as we watched Barroid Bonds break record after record with an increasingly bulbous head. And then I just wonder how this is any different from the sleaze-ball bankers and executives that used unethical and even illegal tactics to bilk countless Americans (and now every American taxpayer) out of billions of dollars to line their own pockets. It's all cheating. Sports are supposed to be an escape for us, and yet we are now seeing in the sporting world the same greed and corruption as we see in the corporate world. The fact is, though, players have been doing things to get an edge ever since sports began, and especially since money became such a significant factor. Sure, now it's steroids, but in the 70's and 80's it was cocaine, before that it was spitballs, pine tar, even nail files being used to change the way the ball moved. Cheating in sports, and in baseball in particular, is nothing new.
Does this make it okay for today's baseball players to cheat? Absolutely not. All I'm saying is that if you enjoy the game, take it for what it is. Watch it on t.v. where you get the best view of the action and you're not paying exorbitant ticket prices, and understand that the idea of purity in anything in society, particularly anything concerning money, is gone.
To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
