Parents, kids and finding a guy to carry your bag

Oh, dads and their kids, eh?

That was the big topic around the ballyard yesterday with the arrival of Colby Rasmus to join the TOD.

The details are here in pieces by Griff and by Paul Hunter if you want to get up to speed.

My take?

As long as Dad doesn’t really interfere by offering suggestions that run counter to what the kid’s hearing for the bosses at work and the people who pay him, who cares?

I don’t imagine this is going to be a case where the kid runs into the clubhouse in between at-bats to check in at home; nor do I think there’ll be nightly calls back and forth. At least that’s what I get from what I’ve read, heard from Rasmus himself and got from John Farrell, who dropped this one on us pre-game, to many smiles:

“I’m not saying we’re going to give him a uniform and let him sit in the dugout.”

Anyway, kind of struck me as unfamiliar because in my regular life, it’s seldom parents are issues.

It’s wives and friends and what they do is get in a players’ ear with the things like: “Why don’t you get more minutes. The guy should be running more stuff for you. Get yours when you get a chance.”

Moms and dads?

Seldom seen or heard, with one rather notable exception and that’s been well-chronicled. But even Vince’s Mom was just a “presence” rather than a distraction and it was entirely irrelevant to what transpired in the games.

You can safely say pretty much every athlete in every sport has a parent or sibling or a friend or someone who’s giving them advice, helping them through difficult times and just being around.

Doesn’t seem to hurt anyone, I think athletes probably need someone divorced from their organization to talk to often, to air grievances to, to act as sounding board.

All harmless.

-

So now it’s Kevin Durant who says he’s 50-50 on perhaps going to Europe to play if the NBA lockout drones on into the regular season.

I remain in the “I’ll believe it when I see it” mode on him, Kobe, Dwight Howard, any of them and I will also say this:

It will have no impact whatsoever on negotiations on a new CBA.

If you think the owners care what the players are doing when the NBA isn’t in business, I think you’re dead wrong.

This isn’t about anything other than filthy rich owners wanting more of the pie and clawing back stuff they have collectively bargained away and if some players want to go play, I can’t see how they’d care.

Mostly because they know in their heart of hearts – and I’m sure you all realize this, too – that the second there’s a settlement, all of these guys will be back quicker than you can say: “$105 per diem, five-star hotels, charter flights and home.”

-

There was water falling from the sky this morning.

Anyone got an idea what that is?

Oh, right, it’s like a Slug magnet. Gotta get me some raccoon repellent for tonight, I imagine.

-

Seeing how we’ve been on about women’s basketball a bit this week, I dredged this one out of the mail:

Q: HI Doug. I had asked you this question before, but I don't recall seeing an answer to it. In light of the amazing (and badly under reported) success of the Canadian Women's Basketball team, I was wondering if you had a top 5 list of best female basketball players ever (includes Olympics/World Champs/WNBA etc)

Not sure how you keep finding things for your blog, but it's appreciated.

Sohail G, Colingwood

A: I am only going to guess that you mean Canadians because my depth of knowledge of the international stars kinds of starts and stops with Hortencia from Brazil and the usual American suspects. But I could probably come up with five if I had to.

And even to get the Canadians, I needed some help and enlisted the aid of some friends who are more expert than I even to get to three. I’m going back to the halcyon days of Canadian women’s basketball, when they are among the very best teams in the world and these two women – in my opinion – were so far ahead of the curve it was silly.

I can’t tell you how good they were.

So here you go and I’m sure there are others that some Irregulars will come up with over the course of the day:

Bev Smith

Sylvia Sweeney

And I am so bailing or cheating on No. 3 by doing this:

Not sure any, or many, of you have heard of the Edmonton Grads but read and watch this to get up to speed.

Now, I’m going to finish with a story.

(And I may have told it before and if I did, I apologize)

Jim O’Connell is a legendary international/college basketball writer with the Associated Press and a guy who has seen all the greats play often. He is also not one prone to, um, exuberance. Great guy, Jim.

Anyway, he once told he that only one time at an event has he seen an athlete on the street and stopped them to introduce himself and tell them how impressed he was with their skill, drive and style of play.

It was in 1987 at the Pan Am Games in Indianapolis.

The player?

Bev Smith.

-

Too bad I have to go to Baltimore next weekend to do the baseball.

I hear there’s a guy who needs a looper for the PGA Tour event.

But if I can’t help Tiger, maybe he can get a kid somewhere here.

Best sports comedy ever?

I’d say so.

-

We’ll take more mail here because there’s always an hour or so to kill sitting around the baseball press box and what better way to kill it than by corresponding with my close personal reader friends after I try to watch the live boxscore of the junior women who get Spain in the world quarter-finals starting at 1:30.

-

 

Comments

[Dave Fritz, Kingston]

Hi, Doug,
Re the Edmonton Grads: It should be noted that most of that large number of games won mentioned in the video clip were against mens' teams. They also chose to play mens' rules at a time when most women played "womens' rules", a phenomenon largely and deservedly forgotten now. You could make a case that Percy Page's best legacy was that he wanted his players to be ladies off the court and basketball players on the court.

Thanks for bringing this important bit of history to general attention.

Cheers,
Dave

[DavidT (Ottawa)]

Probably doesn't really apply for your list, but I grew up in the same town that Stacey Dales (-Schumann) did. I remember going to the YMCA with some friends to play a bit and there was always a girl with some really good fundamentals on the opposite basket. One time we got her to play, I got unlucky and was on the other team. Half way through, this girl (whose name I didn't know) pretends she's Tim Hardaway, crosses me over and then goes for a lay-u.... WHAT THE... she dunked it on me???

True, when she made the WNBA I was home-town-proud. But in a sense I felt somewhat vindicated, as well. Cheers!

[Chris]

Doug - while I agree with you that players deciding to play overseas during this lockout probably won't impact the CBA, I disagree with your comment that owners don't care what their players are doing when the NBA is not in business (not sure if you mean during this lockout, or just the summer months when there are no games)...how many times have we heard of owners not wanting/permitting their international players playing for their home countries during the summer because they don't want them to get hurt (Dallas comes to mind first and maybe even San Antonio)...granted, should they get hurt (anywhere - in the US or Iceland) insurance (once sorted out) will probably take care of the salary but I can't believe that the owner of the Thunder would sit there and say "I'm happy with Durant being our superstar and the success and revenue he brings us playing for the team, but I would be just as happy, should he injure himself, that insurance took care of his salary and now i don't have my superstar or the salary"...
-
Owners have to (or should) care what their players are doing and where they're doing it, regardless if there is a lockout or it's just a downtime in the summer - without their star players, they have no success, no fans, no revenue etc...I fail to beleive that they don't care about their players.

Thoughts?

Blogger's note: Simply a different opinion than mine. All valid points

[Heath]

I seem to remember some funny quote you've used before from Big O's mom about him holding out for some last big contract. Was that her interfering, or just her passing on the hype of some dopey agent that made them believe something that wasn't?

Blogger's note: As I recall, was agent-driven. Last game of first season, Oliver had an opt-out and his mom told he was taking so "my boy can get paid."

[doug]

I think the stuff with Rasmus's dad has been overblown as Griff's article states LaRussa has had many difficulties over the years...he is one of those guys where longevity doesn't make a great manager, he is vastly over-rated but he manages in the temple of baseball St.Louis (and the Cards are a religion there), has his own p.r. machine, a one newspaper town where he is god....so it is what it is and he is what he is...the kid will be fine, Escobar was supposedly a problem child when he rolled into town how's that worked out?..pretty darn good.....Caddyshack is a absolute classic, just the best....and as far as owners caring about their players, well tough if they cared that much they'd get off their butts and be sincere about settling this strike, the players owe them nothing go and play elsewhere and the owners can go pound salt....

[doug]

you know another thing and it's time for a rant as this strike just makes me angry as why is their even a strike??...there is no need for one at all, yes there had to be tweaking, and if people don't realize there is already a "cap" in place and it operates as the 57% revenue ceiling, the owners have fixed costs, it's all a sham...and look at this taken a few minutes ago from a article about the impending "negotiating" session

"Don't get your hopes up.

For one, the pressure of losing regular season games isn't real yet for either side. Neither is the threat of losing money, especially after it was revealed last week that not only will the players get their $162 million escrow withholding back because salaries did not exceed 57 percent of BRI, but they also will receive an additional $26 million because salaries came in slightly lower. That's $188 million deposited into the players' lockout warchest, paid out according to salary."

you know what that means?? the league and owners made money last year, the owners had lower salaries then they anticipated and they DO HAVE a "cap" so to speak, it's all a charade i hope the league shuts down for a year and the selfish,greedy owners can pick up the pieces and clean the mess they created...the players aren't being greedy Stern and the owners are playing fans for fools and believe me I am not....

[john]

@doug, interesting take on the salary issue. The other side of the coin is that players seem to always contradict the owners complaints about salaries being too high with "if you had better management and showed fiscal responsibility and were smart with the contracts you gave out you wouldn't be in this mess" The owners showed fiscal responsibility and tried to spend less on salaries so that they could save costs and lose less but still had to pay out $26 million to the players to top up their salaries to the 57 percent. The escrow is already the players money, its just held back in so the owners don't "overpay". I have no idea if the league made money or not and neither does anyone except the owners. how you take this payment to be evidence that the owners made money? What if the owners cost of running the business was 52% and now they have to pay the players 57% in salaries? How is that a profit?
-
The best judgement of whether or not the teams are making money or not is the free market. If teams were making money, the price of the franchises would be going up and up and up and wealthy people would be lined up to buy them. This is not the case. There are two or three franchises that have been pretty much given away for their debt load and a half dozen have been on the block for a while and no one is buying them. This is the only fact that leads me to believe that the owners are actually losing money. Maybe not as much as they say, but the fact is their franchises are eroding in value and very difficult to sell.

[joeu]

@john

Here is my take on the points you raise:

The escrow is kept by the NBA teams if the league fails to generate revenues of a certain amount. You could call this the "minimum expected revenue".

If some or all of the escrow is paid back, you know the league made more than the minimum expected.

Paying back more than the escrow, you know the nba had an exceptional year.

If I was a prudent owner, I would budget for my non-player costs to be 47% of the minimum expected. And, this year, if not every year, I would be making a profit.

As to your second point regarding the value of franchises, there are a few cases you should consider:

Question #!: How much do you think the value of MLSE increased after they were given the ACC property by Mayor Mel ?

Question #2: Frank McCourt buys The LA Dodgers for $400M ( they are thought to be currently worth over $700M ) and recently signs a TV deal for $3 billion dollars over 17 years, and MLB blocks the deal, due to concerns over possible bankruptcy - would this be due to several million dollars in player salaries, or several hundred million dollars in value being funneled to the owner's own pocket ?

Franchise value ( or debt in the case of LA ) sometimes has nothing to do with the annual operating profits or losses of the on-court team.

[doug]

@john no one is disputing these 2 facts you mention 1) that some teams are losing money, how many or how much will also never be known, but suffice to say it is nowhere near the 22 team statement that Stern made, which really didn't get negotiations off to a good start 2) and that there is more then enough money to go around......what lies at the crux of the problem and where the players have a problem and so do I,,,is that the owners even admit they have to do a better job of revenue sharing, but, and this is a big BUT they insist that it is a separate issue from the CBA ...well that's absurd, the players have agreed to cut the revenue ceiling to 53%, the owners want it at 40% which is absurd...so how do the players negotiate with owners that won't even commence to settle the issues in their own ownership group...it is NOT incumbent on the players to solve those problems and for the owners to say revenue sharing is a side issue is equally absurd....teams like the Celts,Lakers had in excess of $250 million in revenue, where teams like the Bobcats etc had $100 million, no matter what system the players agree to in the new CBA it does nothing to bridge that gap...as you say team values are no different then a Tim Hortons franchise, there are franchise fees, (quit high), stronger franchises subsidize the weaker ones etc. to maintain a overall value....the NBA is no different, and until the owners are willing to fix their financial inequity you can't ask the players to negotiate...here's a excellent article and it's the owners that need to deal with their own financial house first..or make the 2 issues inclusive of one another not separate as the owners want

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/02/20110214/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NBA-revenue.aspx?hl=Leagues%20and%20Governing%20Bodies&sc=0

[john]

@Doug, i never once mentioned Tim Hortons. Do you think all the Franchisee’s in Tim Hortons put all their profit in a pot and divide it equally amongst the rich and poor? Hahahahahahahaha!!!

Also, its fine to say the league should split up their revenue but that is a totally different subject. Of course the players want the owners to split up the revenue, it will make a few more franchises look like they are making a profit. I guess with this line of thinking, the players should pool all their income and split it evenly amongst themselves as well or is that not fair? What’s good for the goose...

[doug]

@John i was using Tim Hortons as a example....as the NBA or the league is no different, they are franchise owners that should divide and share revenue as ALL successful franchises do, by paying franchise fees and then have to buy products from who franchisor stipulates and give a royalty of up to 6% and sometimes higher of revenue each month back to the franchisor so i don't know what your laughing at??...do you honestly think McDonalds,Tim Hortons stores etc...all keep all of what they make, business 101 lesson no they don't... ....the NBA is no different or shouldn't be..so with that being said you are aware that the NBA is the ONLY league that doesn't have extensive revenue sharing amongst the teams, if you had read that article you would see where even the owners admit their system is broken ....... every other pro league has it, so believe me it's not a foreign concept...the NBA owners need to get their ducks in a row first, before anything else happens it's plain and simple, think what you will...it's the facts...the owners locked out the players don't forget not the other away around, as the system that was in place wasn't even broken ....do some research and you will see and better the understand the true issues and stumbling blocks...it's not up to the players to fix the owners broken revenue model but it is the key component in trying to settle this dispute..hence the catch 22 for the players union..this lockout will go a long time until they the owners do something on their end first.....

[Steph]

@Doug, find me one corporation that doesn't have issues to deal with. Franchisees are no different, some operate better then others. You're going on like the owners are a disfunctional group of bad bussinessmen who can't manage anything. Can you try and remember that these same individual are captains of industry. These owners are owners because they know what there doing and it's little men like, you / me that stand from affar and pretend that we know better.
..
Stop that non sense that it's only the owners that have problems to deal with. Stop with the non sense that players need more money because they can't feed there families. The owners are entittled to make as much money as they can, and wether they decide to profit share or not has nothing to do with us, or the players. That's a league issue. And if the league has gotten into markets that can't sustain themselves, see NHL, why should the profitables owners be made to subsidize them? Some owners are better at managing, or have better management teams then others, why should they be compelled into profit sharing, or dumping money into unsustainable markets?
..
There is no sense in working your self up over all this. Nothing of value has yet been lost and this posturing is all part of the process. Negotiations are a complex process, one better left to professionals, and not bloggers and journalists that pretend they all know how to manage somebody else money better then they do.

[doug]

@Steph for one thing believe me I am not worked up over this at all, it's just a discussion a opinion I am still old school where I can discuss without becoming emotionally invested or insulted...and never,ever did i say about the poor players having to feed their families...you sort of sound like Doug Ford there at the end, if I want to express a opinion or talk about this issue, what am I suppose to become a owner or a part of the players union...and that's it...good grief Charlie Brown is all i can say...oh and some more basic business 101 healthy franchises need to or should subsidize unhealthy ones and hence why contraction doesn't occur is because those weak franchises devalue the whole league...hence everyone suffers and loses money...just saying...cheers time to hit the links...