Who'll be best first is a difficult question to answer, but we tried

So the lads and I – and an awful lot of you, thanks very much – had this little chat yesterday afternoon about the state of four main pro sports teams in Toronto and what the issues are that are keeping them from, you know, winning.

It was kind of fun, actually, we were overwhelmed by the number of comments that arrived, many well thought out and which could have led to far more discussion.

But the heart of the conversation was supposed to be which team is closest to contention of the pucks, Raptors, TFCs and Blue Jays and while we didn’t come to any consensus, I’d say the Raptors are the next Toronto team to make the post-season, followed by the Blue Jays, TFC and I don’t know about the Leafs, mainly because I don’t know if there’ll even be a season and if there isn’t, what kind of setback that will cause. But the interesting questions was about championships, and whether it’s better for fans to have a team catch lightning in a bottle and win one before fading away or to have team that’s always in the post-season but still striving to win it all.

I can see both points, a championship run is exhilarating (or at least that’s what friends tell me, I haven’t experienced one in decades) but I honestly think the second scenario might be better.

After all, you have to walk before you run so getting in is the first job; and once you’re in, who knows what might happen, as we’ve seen so many times with lower seeded teams taking advantage of breaks (Philly in the NBA last year when Derrick Rose got hurt) or coming together at the right moment (last year’s Kings in the pucks, or the ’99 Knicks in the NBA).

But if I’m a fan and you gave me five straight years of playoffs – with hopefully a natural progression for a first-round exit – I might take that over one magical year and then nothing.

What do you think?

But, of course, in the discussion was a question of which team would win a title first of those four.

Me? I took the Blue Jays. It’s a sport where you can transform your team in very short time (two pitchers, three hitters with career years out of nowhere and you might get there) and the playoff journey is not nearly as arduous as the others. Get the right spot in the regular season and you could have a really short run to a championship.

We all agree?

-

Maybe you guessed this was coming?

-

If you’re looking for a Raptor who might come out of relative nowhere to have an impact this season I’m going to suggest you pay close attention to Alan Anderson.

He seems to have supplanted Linas Kleiza as the primary small forward backup – Anderson’s a better defender with quicker lateral speed and, frankly, he’s shooting it as well as anyone today – and Anderson’s just the kind of guy Dwane likes, as the coach told us the other day at the casino.

“He’s a solid pro; he’s a man and it’s man’s league. He comes out and brings a solid effort, he’s where he’s supposed to be all the time, nothing fancy, nothing flashy, he just goes about his job. And that’s what you respect about it and that’s why he’s back here.”

With Landry Fields struggling to shoot with any consistency, and with Anderson providing some of the toughness that Casey so loves, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Anderson doesn’t have a much increased role once the season gets going.

-

Man, that was some wind overnight, wasn’t it?

Feel terrible for my friends in New York City and on the Eastern seaboard and I will say this: The forecasters got it right and I guess that might let them off the hook for the other scares that haven’t quite panned out.

Hope you all got through it safely.

-

So I see Amar’e Stoudemire might be out six weeks and Kobe might miss the Lakers opener with a sore foot and the NBA regular season is upon us.

I’m sure you’ve all seen this but if you haven’t (and shame on you!) here’s how one guy sees the year turning out.

And if you get back to our site this evening or tomorrow morning, there should be all kinds of Raptors stuff, too.

Enjoy.

-

Hmm, I see not too many of you are in total favour of any kind of paywall we might put up sometime in 2013 after Mr. Cruickshank’s announcement yesterday morning.

As I mentioned the other week in a mailbag, I believe it was, there has to be some way for newspapers to monetize the internet since dwindling print advertising revenues are a huge issue.

Now, I also don’t think we can, or should, start charging for everything and I have the utmost confidence in our Tallest Foreheads that they won’t make that the case.

I know “trust us” might not be something you want to hear but I must say I was a bit taken aback by the rather strong reaction to a rather vague announcement from our publisher.

I think we should all just relax a little bit and see what they come up with next year; maybe it’s only “extra” stuff that carries a fee, maybe there’s a limit on the number of items that are free. I don’t know and – as hard as this is to believe – they haven’t shared their innermost thoughts with me.

But something is coming, it’s the way of the world and, sadly, it’s unavoidable.

But we also don’t know what it is.

-

Hey. Since you’ve all read that little discussion we talked about off the top, what did you think of it? First time we’ve tried anything like that and we always appreciate feedback.

 

Comments

[Will]

Paywalls were inevitable. I'm actually somewhat surprised it took this long for Canadian newspapers to get on board. I've actually spent a bit of time thinking about how these paywalls should be implemented. Is it better to offer a flat rate for unlimited access? I'm not sure, at least for me. I wonder whether a system where one could either pay for complete access, or pay a certain amount of money per columnist or newspaper section a month. Those smarter than I will figure all this out, no doubt.

[Eric-in-NS]

The Four Sportsmen of the (Toronto) Apocalypse?
Liked it. Please do it again.

[Tim H.]

Hey Doug:

I too was somewhat surprised by all of the reactionary comments about a paywall in yesterday's comments. I saw the 'headline' and thought, "Here we go!" But, as I continued reading the article, I saw that nothing was finalized, no dollar figures were even hinted at, and nothing was happening until next year. What is there to get so excited about?

Now, if a future announcement states that in order to access this you have to pay $X, then - and only then - will I have to decide whether I consider it a worthwhile expense. Until then, what's the point of getting all up-in-arms about it?

[Justin]

Until there is an ownership group committed to winning, like there is in places like LA,Toronto fans should learn to love sports for some other reason.

[Lawrence]

Hey - there's a pretty good documentary out there called "Page One" about the New York Times, print media in general, and the internet paywall. Makes it make a lot of sense. Its available on your TMN or On Demand service.

[Phil A]

Please, no paywall!

If this paywall is indeed implemented, I hope you can find a way to provide us with this blog free of charge. Perhaps we could gain access to this on twitter without having to pay? As much as I love this website, I probably won't pay $20 to subscribe to it.

[Tabber]

I'm all in favour of a paywall, and this is how mine will work: For each ad on the pages I go to, the Star will pay me a penny ($0.01), due at the end of each month. Just so's I'm first on my block, this will commence Nov.1, 2012, and the cheque will be delivered by the 10th of each month following. Unless I receive a note from the publisher stating otherwise, this will be the arrangement, and should there be tardiness in payment, there will be interest charged of 1% per month.

Please forward to the Tall Foreheads, and thank them for the idea. This constitutes official notice.

Blogger's note: Sure; and how much are you paying for the information you get? Gimme that number and I'll pass it on

[Jeff]

I never read total newspapers, focusing on the sports and business sections only. With the recent announcement from the G and M, along with the Star trying to monetize their websites, I will simply go elsewhere for my information. I understand the need to create revenue, but as long as there is solid information on other sites, I will use that avenue.

[joeu]

Good morning Doug,

To your question about "Lightning in a bottle" versus constant contending, I was a Leafs fan for the whole Mats Sundin Era, which included playoff appearances from 98 through 2004 ( give or take ) and for me, the defining thought of that stretch is that they completely failed to build around Mats, and squandered a huge opportunity to build a team which could go deep into the playofffs.

[Sharkey]

Blowin' in the Wind was a decent choice, but what about the old Bruce classic Sandy?

[sam]

I read the Chat last night and it read like it was a lot of fun. It allowed the reader to get a better idea about the personalities of the writers.

Paywall's are inevitable, but as has been mentioned there is nothing set in stone to what the cost will be and when the Star will start the program. Technology is the biggest factor in Print Media looking for different revenue streams. It used to be you would spend your morning with the morning paper, scanning the different sections and reading what interests you.
Now it seems you spend it with your electronic device perusing the many sites.

Only one more sleep until a new HOTH season.....Training camp seems to have gone on forever.....

[Dave B]

@ Tin H. I commented on the paywall because as I learned after 37 years working for a corporation, once a decision is made and the parameters are established it is almost impossible to change things. I think everybody should express their opinions on this idea now and it might influence the Tall Foreheads decision whether it is a certain amount of free stuff, limited charges for limited content or leaving interactive content free.

As an aside, in this day of environmental friendliness, it is time to get rid of the printed newspaper. Most people read a small portion of the massive amount of paper generated and we all pay for the recycling cost of the wasted paper.

[MC]

DS - "Escargot" App

made me laugh out loud - good one! I thought you were more a "wing man" - just curious - spicy or BBQ, Sweet or mild?

Blogger's note: Hot, but not crazy hot; and the drier the better

[David in Oakville]

Good Morning Doug,

I know I am late to the party on some of this stuff (traveling and trade shows) but I thought your Nash stuff was particularly good.
+
I agree with your assessment of Stern and I think he is perhaps the most consistent of the big four and the one guy I would most likely to meet or have a beer with or see tangle with John Stewart.
+
Kind of think you were off the mark with your remarks about Obama. It is my understanding that he reminded the millionaires and billionaires that a lot of other people depend on their business for their livelihoods. And as many of the places that these millionaires / billionaires ply their trade were built with taxpayer's money with the expectation of increased tax revenue.. why shouldn't a national politician have a say. Wouldn't argue your point that it seems to matter little to the players and owners.. but it needed to be said and and should be repeated by others. And quite frankly, repeated ad nauseum the next time an owner comes calling with his toothiest grin explaining why he needs a new building with the all the ancillary revenue to make a go of it (Edmonton, Quebec City).
+
My thoughts on the pay wall... the Star is a private business and should do whatever they feel is necessary to generate the desired revenue for its owners. Like all business, it's customers will decide if the price is right. At present, I get great value from many of the Star's features (your blog and reporting included) but I am not asked to pay for anything. Ask me to pay! I will decide if I like the price or if there is better value elsewhere.
+
Yesterday's chatfest made for an interesting read. The Star seems blessed with four excellent, thoughtful and mostly funny guys covering the four majors. Good luck to Not Grace Kelly with his eternal quest to find a billionaire to cosy up to.
+
Looking forward to the start of the season with the hope that it is just a coincidence that we start on Halloween. GO RAPS!

[511]

Interesting issue, this paywall thing. To anybody who's thought about it over these last years as it became increasingly obvious that SOMETHING would have to give, it's no surprise. Really, more 'when' than 'if'. Since we've had our reading-news online, the free-for-all made it so that we didn't have to choose the way we once did. We'd subscribe to (and pay for) one or two papers and catch the odd extra bits from what might be found in a subway car or restaurant … and that was that. Lately, with online news freely available, the array of choice, there for the simple click of a link (aside from the costs of internet connection and computers themselves), one could go from the Toronto Star to the NYDaily News to the Montreal Gazette to the LA Times … and then, as time might permit, peruse the various online magazines that are as yet, freely available. Now that we're edging back (forward) to the days when we'll have to once again, CHOOSE who we pay for our reading-news, will overall quality improve across the board, I wonder? (I would imagine, 'yes'.) It'll be so interesting to see how it all shakes out in the end, over the next couple or so years … and how the ripple-effects will be felt all throughout the internet. The times they are a-changin'.

[Wayne]

I think you should do a examine making a spin-off site (something like Grantland)... I bet it would be a success!

[Chris]

If this paywall is applied to your blog...enjoy all the readers you have now. I'll bet my paycheck your readers get cut in half. Too bad.

Blogger's note: I'm pretty confident that we should wait 'til 2013 to see what happens. Really. It's not even November. And how much money do make?

[Richard Ganton]

I am okay with a pay wall. I will probably subscribe to the Star, the Globe and Mail and the NY Times. I recently switched from USA Today to the NY Times because of the almost useless rearrangement of USA Today. As long as it is not too much. I have enjoyed the days of the free internet but I don't mind paying some to keep up my news sources. The Globe and Mail discussion section is far, far, far better than the Star's but just as dominated by lefties.
I believe the Raptors will make the playoffs. I think the Lakers might have a hard time making the playoffs. If they do, they might go far. But I think that Kobe and Nash don't have a full year in them of quality. Dwight, Pau and Metta might hold it together well enough to get them in the playoffs. I am really doubtful about the Knicks. They might be fighting Detroit and Washington for last.

but I think the Blue Jays might have gotten far without all the injuries. There has to be change in trainers or training or something. Or they just had really bad luck.

[LeeZ]

Ah yes, the paywall. T'was only a matter of time, I guess. And I certainly have no problem with it, in theory. I say that because I am a New York Times addict, and I thought, when they first introduced the paywall, that I would pay my fair share to ensure that such a great paper could continue to thrive and be there for me. But then a friend taught me an incredibly easy way of circumventing the paywall, and so I hemmed and I hawed, and I eventually succumbed to my baser instincts and used my friend's technique, which I do to this day. Out of respect to you and your paper, Doug, I won't reveal the technique here (which can also be used on any online newspaper paywall), but I'm pretty sure it's very well known. In fact, I'm quite surprised that the Times haven't done anything to prevent people from using this method of freeloading.

[Mark]

Once upon a time, most of the internet was free. It was full of pirates and smugglers and whatnot. Yarr! Eventually, though, it became the primary vector of content delivery. It suppose it feels unfair to pay for something less physically tangible, like we could understand why we're paying money when a paper is handed to us, but not when we're just reading bits on a screen, that no one had to deliver anywhere. I think, though, that when we dig deep within our hearts, we can realize that the content has always been the more important facet than the delivery mechanism, and the efforts of producing that content are no less, for the writers or the corporation. Heck, IT is a fickle mistress, it's probably far more effort than handling the printing of some extra hard copies.

I guess, to try to make a singular point, we can't expect things to be free just because they have been in the past. The need to monetize digital delivery is greater now, as a greater majority of consumers shift to this medium. Reasonably, some folks might be driven away if they don't expect their usage to warrant whatever the price ends up being, but there's no reason to be upset here. As always, pay or don't. I think I would probably pay, assuming the cost isn't outrageous. I read the Star a fair bit.

Good luck this season, Doug! Thanks for all the efforts in keeping the off season entertaining.

[Rob K]

Hi Doug,

Not to dwell on this any further, but one quick point - I think what gets people (myself included) up in arms about paywalls is that this is 'been there, done that' territory and it failed the first time around. Now, you're right, it's better to wait and see what is developed and I understand the need to develop new sources of revenue. But, this just seems like another exercise in futility.

[D-Mac Ottawa]

What's the over/under on how many weeks after the publishers set up their tollgates that broadcasters follow suit and we're now paying to watch televised sports as well? Especially in Canada, where the franchises just so happen to be owned by those very broadcasters?
And @LeeZ, do you have a paywall arrangement in place yet for your info?
Are paywall arrangements unreasonable? Not in the least. We'll all just need to become far more particular (again) about how we intend to spend our shekels and endorse our 'suppliers'.
I'm thinking Harden to OKC is the second best thing that's ever happened to Jeremy Lin (second to Baron Davis's herniated disc).
Cheers. Go Raps!

[Tim H.]

@D-Mac Ottawa: Most of you already are paying to watch televised sports! Unless you are stealing cable or satellite (and none of the Irregulars would do that, right?) you are paying.
How many sports (other than 'national' games) are televised on network TV. I could not watch a single CFL game this season; I don't think any TOD games were on network TV; no Raptors games will be. So, in effect, you are already paying.

[james]

One name missing from your round table discussion was the most successful team architect in recent Toronto history, Pat Gillick. One forgets how master plans usually work. I recall my shock in about '82 or '83 when I realized the Jays were actually a good team. It had only taken six years. By '85 they were in the playoffs. Seven more years and they were champs. As any Cub fan can tell you, nothing is guaranteed when you adopt a team, but management is the key and patience is a virtue. Of the current team managers, I have the most confidence in Colangelo.
As far as paywalls are concerned, I am not objective because shares of Torstar reside in my RRSP. The dividends should more than cover the fees. Others with disposable income may want to consider this approach.
Early season games are great fun: optimism abounds.

[D-Mac Ottawa]

@Tim H., Oh yeah, I'm regularly reminded (as in monthly) of how much I'm paying for the 999 channels that are 276 repeats of themselves and of which maybe 12 or 13 are actually 'watchable'... but will that stop the broadcasters from further loonie-and-toonie-ing' us to death every opportunity they think they can get? They know how us addicts need our basketball jones...
Cheers again.