MLB All-Star game losing its shine

MLB rewarding steroids user?

It appears baseball has found itself in quite a conundrum. Los Angeles Dodgers outfielder/performance enhancing and women's fertility drug abuser Manny Ramirez is an uncomfortably close 4th place in the National League All-Star voting as of this writing with 442,763 votes, just over 34,000 behind New York's Carlos Beltran.

What? Please stop for a moment and think about this. We are in the “steroid era” of baseball. All we hear about is how disappointed we are in such former stars as Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens, yet the fans are still rewarding Manny with a potential All-Star game appearance? Heck, the Dodgers may even be rewarding him if he has a contract caveat that pays him a bonus should he make the All-Star team.

Why is there not a rule that stipulates that players who have been caught using performance enhancing drugs are ineligible to participate in the game? I am losing a lot of faith in the management of Major League Baseball for not taking a more proactive approach in curbing the use of steroids. By allowing Manny to potentially participate, what is the message that Commissioner Bud Selig is sending? Is it perfectly acceptable for players to violate the current drug policy and still be shown for display on a night that is meant to display the most positive aspects of the league?

Here's something I just stumbled upon. Apparently baseball does have a policy in regards to this situation, and it states: “A player shall be deemed to have been eligible to play in the All-Star Game if he was elected or selected to play; the commissioner's office shall not exclude a player from eligibility for election or selection because he is suspended under the program.”

Honestly, I'm starting to think that the league executives are simply putting on a facade of caring about steroids usage in their league. Think about it, their most profitable times came as a direct result of steroids users; the McGwire/Sosa home run race of '98, Bonds' single season home run record and Bonds' chase for the all-time home run record. If they really wanted to cut down on steroids usage, they would not have budged on issues like this and the rule in the paragraph above. They must not have been too concerned if they let offenders of the current drug policy still participated in their premier showcase event outside of the World Series.

Of course the better part of me dismisses such notions, but the MLB allowing Manny to potentially participate after breaking what would appear to be the league's most sacred rule raises a lot of questions in my mind: Is the league more concerned with ticket sales and TV ratings than the integrity of its game? It needs to balance those two very carefully or else it could end up on the wrong side of both of those issues.

The best of the best?

Who can tell me definitively what the purpose of the All-Star game is?

How about Dodgers manager Joe Torre?

“To me, I think the significance of the All-Star Game is to reward players who have a good first half.” Sounds reasonable. Let's get a second opinion.

What are your thoughts, Charlie Manuel? You must have a valid opinion, being a world champion manager for the Phillies and all.

“The All-Star Game is for the fans and I think if (Manny) got voted in, then it would be appropriate for him to play.” So it's not about rewarding the best players from the first half? It's a popularity contest?

We need a tiebreaker. How about the league? They should be a definitive source.

According to a 2003 New York Times article: “Despite initial opposition to the idea, the Players Association agreed yesterday to a two-year experiment that will link the outcome of the All-Star Game to home-field advantage in the World Series.”

So now the game is about home-field advantage in the World Series?

The league seems to be in a state of perpetual miscommunication on this issue. There cannot be three different aims for this single exhibition game. It just won't work and all it will do – and it certainly has done – is cause controversy. Is that really something the league wants on its biggest night outside of the playoffs? Sure it generates discussion, but its also turning viewers off to the game.

Out of the four major sports – NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL – the baseball All-Star game is the only one that is experiencing a downturn in television ratings. Last year's edition of the midsummer classic did have more views than any other since 2002, but a lot of that can be attributed to the setting at Yankee Stadium. Overall, The game has been on a downward trend since the 2001, and the game two summers ago got the lowest ratings since the 1970's.

Obviously something must be done by the executives of the league to turn this trend around, since the World Series home-field advantage thing just isn't working out (a debate for a later posting). It is on that note that I present my idea to boost ratings: add another game.
I call it the “All-Stats” game. More often than not, the players that are doing the best are often pushed out of the All-Star game because of the fans' votes. In order to get some more exposure, these players should have a game of their own. What would happen is that after the All-Star rosters are announced, a team from each league would be compiled from the remaining players featuring the two best offensive and defensive players at each position, based on statistics, and the top two pitchers from the major pitching stat categories (ERA, Wins, Strikeouts and Saves). These teams would be managed by the manager from each league that had the largest win-loss improvement from the previous year at the All-Star break.

I will argue that this game would be much more exciting and intriguing than the All-Star game and would draw back the baseball purists who have been turned off by the politics of the midsummer classic. In addition, it would be another game worth of revenue for the league, the stadium and Fox Sports, who covers the game.

Because, as seems to be a recurring theme on this blog, everything boils down to money.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4215510
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4210101
http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/weekly-ratings-mlb-all-star-game-leads-fox-to-ratings-win/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/16/nba-all-star-game-ratings_n_167404.html
http://www.nfl.com/probowl/story?id=09000d5d806a6a1a&template=with-video&confirm=true
http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/nhl-all-star-overnights-up-12.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/televisionNews/idUKN1436552520080715

Think I made some great points? Did I say something that you disagree with? Anything that you think I missed? Let me know: comment below.

Even the pros worry about the tax man

Since the beginning of the summer – and the subsequent lack of cable television in my room compounded with TV's in my house ALWAYS being occupied – I have been listening to what most would consider an excessive amount of sports radio. Sirius/XM Radio has a fantastic variety of sports news and talk channels, along with NBA, NHL, MLB and select conferences of college football, baseball and basketball games. In fact, I haven't watched a second of the NBA Conference Finals games on TV – I have listened to a large majority of the games on ESPN Radio, though. Those of you that know me well know that this is exceedingly rare. I have found that listening to the games on the radio brings a completely different level of anticipation and edge-of-your-seat thrill than does its visual counterpart, providing a fully-enriching, though not necessarily better, experience.

In addition to listening to the NBA on ESPN Radio – which is available locally for free on 100.9, along with Loons games – I have become enthralled with sports radio talk shows, particularly The Herd with Colin Cowherd. What sets Colin apart from most other sports radio talk show hosts is the fact that he talks about things that transcend the boundaries of sports on a daily basis, while still making them relevant to the world of athletics.

One point that he continually makes that I have taken great interest in is the role of state income tax in regards to where a player chooses to play – and more importantly, live and settle down with his or her family. I know, pro athletes and team owners and other executives make enough money to not have to worry about how much they are paying for state income tax, right? I don't think so. Pro athletes are human just like the rest of us and it is human nature to want to keep as much of their earnings as possible.

One example that Colin frequently cites in regards to this is Tom Golisano, the owner of the NHL's Buffalo Sabres, who moved from Buffalo to Naples, FL, to avoid having to pay state income taxes. In an article written by the Business Review in Albany, NY, Golisano is quoted as saying that he will save $13,500 per day in what he would have previously payed to the state of New York. Yes, you are reading that correctly - $13,500 per day.

Holy crap.

If you haven't already done that math, that is $4,927,500 per year. Now regardless of your political beliefs on the issue of taxes, no one is going to turn down an extra five million per year. Sure, that money could be better served, perhaps, within the government funding some of the programs that they are running and balancing the debts they are compiling/trying to erase, but it's his money and he is not doing anything illegal to keep it. I say more power to him.

Aside from Florida, which is obviously a top destination due to factors other than the non-existent income tax – beaches, Disney World, consistently warm weather and booming cities like Miami, Tampa Bay and Orlando – there are several other states that do not levy state income taxes, though some local governments do. These states are Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming, Washington, Nevada and Texas. Now, of these states only two are currently relevant in the world of sports – Washington and Texas. Texas has obviously taken advantage of this with three NBA teams, two MLB teams, two NFL teams and an NHL team, and Seattle has its fair share of franchises – and it is my belief that they were wrongly denied an NBA team and will get one back in the near future. But those other states could become relevant in the near future.

Enter Reno, NV.

Why there isn't a big-time professional sports team there yet is a mystery to me. Having been to Reno, I can tell you that it certainly lives up to its billing as “The Biggest Little City in the World.” The place has the feel of a big-time town. As we have witnessed in my home town of Midland, when a pro sports team comes to town, the economy of that area is boosted, regardless of the level. New stadiums require people to build them, which means an influx of jobs; the operation of the stadium requires hundreds of people, which creates jobs; and the areas directly around the stadium experiences an increased amount of traffic, which leads to to greater economic success for businesses located in those areas and fosters the growth of new businesses. Plus people get a form of local entertainment on most given nights within a certain time of the year. It's a win-win for everyone involved. Midland is on the upswing, especially the downtown area, because of the baseball team.

Within the past year-and-a-half or so, pro sports have begun to make their way into Reno, albeit at the minor league levels. They have the Reno Aces, a Triple-A affiliate for the Arizona Diamondbacks and the owners of a really snazzy name, and the National Basketball Developmental League's Reno Bighorns. These teams arrived in the area in 2009 and 2008, respectively.

It is my prediction – and you can say that you heard it here first – Reno will have a major pro sports team in the next seven years.

Why not Vegas? you may ask, as it seems a more logical first step into Nevada. Think of it in these terms: would you want to have a bunch of young athletes - who are in many cases immature and unfamiliar with how to handle large sums of money – running around Vegas if you were the owner of a team? Me neither. Besides, you will still draw the same regional audience from Reno that you would in Vegas.

And Reno is perfect for fostering a major pro team. Its growing – the 95^th fastest-growing city in the country; it has a large population of 18-35 year-olds, roughly 25% or so, which is the core of the sports demographics and it has a consistently warm climate – without the humidity of Florida. That alone is enough to make me want to live there. That's not even mentioning the benefits for an owner of a pro franchise not having to pay state income taxes. As proved by the owner of the Sabres, this could be a very profitable option, who could, in theory, put that money saved back into the organization to give it the best competitive advantage possible.

It may not have all the amenities that Florida or Texas has, but it is certainly an area on the rise and an area that I believe will be the home of a major pro franchise within the next seven years.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2009/05/11/daily53.html

http://www.american-apartment-owners-association.org/blog/2009/03/30/top-10-fastest-growing-cities/

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US3260600&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno,_Nevada

http://www.govspot.com/know/incometax.htm

Think I made some great points? Did I say something that you disagree with? Anything that you think I missed? Let me know: comment below.

One is the lonliest number

No one has enjoyed watching the dethroning of King James and his band of Cavaliers at the hands of the oft-written-off Orlando Magic in the Eastern Conference Finals more than I have. I typically try to be as objective as possible when I watch games, but I find myself rooting for the Magic. Part of it may be an ongoing debate with my roommate, who said that the Magic weren't legit, while I tapped them as my dark horse. The talk always focused on Cleveland and Boston, and rightly so, but I feel that the Magic were unfairly written off after the injury to Jameer Nelson earlier in the season just before the trade deadline.

The other part of this series is that I am very intrigued by is a paradigm shift that seems to defy what the pundits have said for about fifteen years. Ever since Jordan won those six championships the NBA has become a “stars' league.” Every single team in the league is bent on building up excesses of salary cap space so that they can lure a LeBron James or a Kobe Bryant or a Dwyane Wade to their team with a max contract.

But is that really the way that teams should approach constructing their teams? Is offering top-tier players max contracts and eating up salary space the best way to win? Well, let's take a look at recent history, post-Michael.

The San Antonio Spurs have had Tim Duncan, but they have always had a solid supporting cast around him, whether it be Sean Elliot and David Robinson or Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, who could all be perennial all-stars. The focus of that team was not simply Duncan, but team basketball in which everyone was involved.

The Lakers may be a semi-exception, as they acquired Shaq just before they went on their run, but they had a very solid team. Derek Fisher, Rick Fox and Robert Horry were all very capable players in their own rights. But the difference is that they built their team around two players – Kobe and Shaq. They had a combo that was tough to counter.

The team that upended the Lakers – the Pistons – were the antithesis to the star power theory. They had no real superstars or big-time players, just a nice collection of players that were dedicated to a common goal – defense and winning.

The Miami Heat were configured very similarly to the Lakers, with Kobe being substituted for Dwyane Wade alongside Shaq. They had two players that teams had to deal with that could kill them on any given night.

The Celtics of just one year ago had three players – Garnett, Allen and Pierce – that could light it up and torch a team. In addition, they had a cast of solid role players.

So it is through that lens that I view the current situation in this year's playoffs. If we take past precedents into consideration, Cleveland is the least like the teams that were mentioned above. Outside of LeBron, there is not a consistent threat on the floor. Mo Williams has his moments, but he has been disappointing to say the least during the Conference Finals. Delonte West is in the same boat. Despite LeBron averaging numbers that no human being should average over a number of games, he just doesn't have any support from his mates. Sure, last night he finally got some help and the Cvs won, but that was the first time this series that multiplie players outside of LeBron have put up decent numbers.

Looking at Orlando and Denver and Los Angeles, however, those teams are built for championships. Each of them have undisputed team leaders – Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony and Kobe Bryant, respectively – solid support players – Rashard Lewis/Hedo Turkeglo, Chauncey Billups and Pau Gasol/Andrew Bynum/Lamar Odom, respectively – and solid role players. If one of these teams has an off night from one of their players, there are more than enough adept players to pick up the slack. That just isn't the case with the Cavs.

Perhaps that is why the Cavs are the team that has the longest shot to get to the Finals.

Think I made some great points? Did I say something that you disagree with? Anything that you think I missed? Let me know: comment below.

Rewarded for losing?

Last week the Clippers won the NBA Draft lottery, ensuring the opportunity to draft college superstar/man-beast F Blake Griffin from Oklahoma. Now although the Clippers weren't the odds-on-favorite to win the ping-pong ball lottery - with about a 17% chance - was anyone really surprised that they ended up with the top pick? During the past 25 years of the Clippers' miserable existence in Los Angeles, they have made the playoffs four times - advancing past the first round only once - but have only finished with a winning record three times. In their extended history back to the 1970 inaugural season as the Buffalo Braves, they can boast only two more playoff appearances.

In short, the Clippers are the bottom of the bucket when it comes to the NBA hierarchy, and they have been since the 70s.

That seems to go against what everyone seems to call parity in the NBA. Sure, there are cycles in which some teams have down years, but even in those down years those teams still make the playoffs or at least come close. Take the Boston Celtics, for example. In their 63 years of existence, the Celts have missed the postseason just 17 times. , a majority of which were a consecutive streak in the 90s. But the Clippers, they don't even come close.

Part of the problem may be the current system that the NBA currently employs in the form of the lottery and the Draft. It's common knowledge - or at least commonly perceived - that teams sometimes tank the last portion of the season in order to ensure a better chance at a top pick.

How about instead of rewarding teams for doing poorly, how about punishing them, so to speak?

I was having a conversation with a friend of mine that is crazy about football - soccer - about how her brother's favorite team in the English Premier League nearly got relegated to a lower league last season. In the EPL, the bottom three teams get sent down to the minors, so to speak, and three teams from the lower league come up to take their places.

What a fantastic idea! Why haven't American sports taken this same approach? Granted it may be too late to take that approach now that many American sports are well-set in their ways, but if we think that there is parity in professional sports now, actual incentive to compete - aside from money, which is currently the motivation to win - would make professional sports infinitely more interesting.

When it comes right down to it, American sports team owners would never approve this sort of system, though. For them , its all about money. If their team were to be relegated they would lose out on millions and millions of dollars. In order to compensate for this, a new collective bargaining agreement would have to be signed mandating that luxury taxes be paid by those teams in the highest league and spread out to the lower league(s).

Ultimately money would get in the way of creating a more competitive sports landscape in America. But should that really surprise anyone, because aside from the Clippers finishing in the lottery, the biggest guarantee in sports is that money will always be the foremost factor in dictating what teams and leagues do, not competition.

Think I made some great points? Did I say something that you disagree with? Anything that you think I missed? Let me know: comment below.