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

[Josh]

I find it weird that there has been an extreme lack of coverage for Terrence Ross. He was the 8th overall pick in last year's draft and there's virtually no expectations for him and he's barely cracked the second string rotation.

[GM]

As someone who commented three times (I think) yesterday on the paywall, I want to say I don't have a strong reaction. That is, I'm not angry or upset. If it happens, so be it. I won't read it, but there are a million other things in the world to read. I'm always kicking myself that I should get to the dozens of great books I have that I haven't finished.

Someone mentioned Grantland. If that's free, that's another option. They write some great and entertaining articles and I don't get to the vast majority of them just because, well, who has all that time? So just saying that the Star is replaceable. Different, for sure, but replaceable. When the NYT started charging, I went elsewhere, as much as I liked it. No biggie. I'm sure there will be those who pay, and if that works for the company, great. Readership will be way down, but maybe the bottom line will be up.

One thing I don't get is that almost every city has a major free newspaper, many of them entertainment related and often weeklies. Still, though, they're substantial and they're free. They have a large staff and they pay their freelancers more than the dailies pay freelancers. Yes, they're ad driven and that doesn't (or hasn't yet) transferred over to the internet, but it seems to me that's what the tall foreheads should be working on -- how to make advertising on their sites work better. I know I can't watch some videos without sitting through a 10- or 15-second ad.

But enough of this. It's Raptors time! I'm almost tempted to not go trick-or-treating with my son. Thank goodness for PVR.

[Gary Mugford]

Doug,

I've had the paywall talk with two newspaper publishers, one a friend, the other a frenemy. I've maintained that a paywall can't work effectively with the general news. Too many alternative free news sources. Including very direct competitors.

As much as it pains me to see it, the paywalls will have to be somewhat like the insider paywall at ESPN. Regular news for free, and insightful, entertaining, witty, amusing, opinionated (are your ears burning yet?) commentary with a monthly/yearly charge. And those insider-like links at sites I deem worth it, get my money. The trick is measuring the price-point correctly.

Charging for the columnists and long-form journalism will take some getting used to for we readers. But my suggestion to The Star, is to break down the paywall into discreet sections based on the sections in the paper. I have limited interest in most sections. I would pay the sports section paywall price happily at the right price point. YOU and Not Grace Kelly and The Spinster are worth my hard-earned, but ill-gotten gains. Not so much for the other sections. BUT if you charged, let's say, 12-24 bucks annually PER section, The Star could successfully monetize each section. And some more worldy readers than I, would end up donating a pretty sum to The Star's coffers annually. I'd offer discounts for multiple sections subscribed to.

What I'm describing is an a la carte system that won't drive readers away to the degree a seemingly reasonable $10-20 bucks a month for everything would. I would balk at such a price on a yearly basis for what I read at The Star. But $20 for sports and maybe $20 for entertainment would get my credit card on the table, so to speak.

Lastly, I recommend The Star seriously look at DoubleRecall, a paywall system that is working quite well in Europe. I know that the New York Times is running some variant of that. Obviously, the management at the paper has undoubtedly investigated it through due diligence. But it's a system that would allow some free reading of even completely walled up sites. Enough to get your blog five or six times a week and maintain the working relationship with your readers that you have worked so hard at.

Just some thoughts from an old newsman who's veins still bleed with literal ink.

GM

[Mike Ellis]

The discussion on Toronto sports teams is interesting. However the inclusion of MLS makes it seem very strange that the CFL is not included. Here again in this blog entry you talk about "the four main pro sports teams". I find it hard to believe that Toronto FC would be considered to be more "main" than the Argos. Using objective measures such as overall payroll, attendance and TV ratings would surely show the Argos ahead, no? Not to mention history.

And shouldn't the overall relevance of the league factor in as well? Within Canada, I'd have to think you rank these 5 leagues under discussion here as 1. NHL, 2. CFL, 3. MLB, 4. NBA, 5. MLS. Baseball and basketball are certainly popular, but without regional teams I think the CFL has them beat in terms of overall popularity, nationwide.

Anyways, keep up the great basketball work!! - we have an exciting NBA season ahead, that is for sure!

[Hope Caper]

Actually I don't see why big business allows the government to have all of the fun.Want money? Just raise taxes. It's great. They tax you according to what you make so no undue hardship is experienced. Taxation is a model of consistency in that as the sun rises in the morning so rises your taxes and all are happy. I have come to the conclusion that I don't own money, I'm just waiting for the next guy to come along and take it. Whether it's the Star or the government what is the difference?
To me Doug all kidding aside, when I buy a newspaper I buy it at a place of convenience. I am free to look it over whenever I want, as many times as I want, and then I can use it to pack dishes, start a fire or line a litter box with it. Can't do that with e-media. I'm sure these captains of industry are licking their chops when they charge the same money for a paper subscription as an e-paper. Just think of it. No plant, no printing and no overhead (comparatively speaking), and no handling. Pardon me if I am a bit cynical but business owners aren't generally known for their largess. As in pass along the savings.
Anyway it doesn't matter what I think as they are going to do what they are going to do. It just burns me that over the years time and again when things like this happen the consumer never gets the benefit. You would think we would learn after a while.

[Andrew Gregg]

Hi Doug:

Regarding this paywall business, I think the problem isn't figuring out how to monetize the web as much as it is trying to figure out how to keep paying for printing papers. You are used to it--I am used to it, but we are over the statistical hump on the graph that shows where consumers will be putting their money in the near future--in fact, where many of them are putting their money now.

We get paper delivery in our house because that's what we've always done. My kids? Straight to the web.

With Newsweek going paperless and news sites like HuffPo making money, I think it's only a matter of time before the "paper" paper just isn't feasible anymore. When that happens I think you'll see plenty of people happy to subscribe--just like they do for home delivery now. It will just be a question of what's reasonable.

Right now there is confusion in the marketplace--and people aren't sure what exactly they'll be paying for--and why.That was evident in the comments yesterday--they wanted to know if they could still get your blog, or pay a fee for some stuff but not others, etc., etc.

We are always going to need media and information. Maybe you'll end up being Canada's answer to Chris Sheridan and run your own site--who knows?

Whatever--I'll keep reading.

AG, Toronto

[Mr. Cook]

I'm late to the game on this, but for posterity:

Elite media organizations switching to paywalls to help finance the cost of a large newsroom (hello, Star), foreign correspondent or investigative journalism (hello, NYT) or keeping a guy on the beat (hello, Doug) is a fascinatingly controversial topic.

Because I figure you and some of the irregulars will enjoy it, Doug, here is a link to a pro-paywall piece by David Simon--the creator and writer of the Wire and Treme and former Baltimore crime beat journalist among other roles. He wrote this in response to the cuts at the Times-Picayune just after it dropped daily publication. For readers who that vaguely triggers something for, Doug commented on it in his May 25, 2012 blog; the same date Mr. Simon wrote this missive. It's short and frankly logically specious: http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/david_simon_creator_of_the_wir.php

Here is a response that is not at all short but does an excellent job of placing paywalls and the internet as a news gathering instrument into context. Short version: paywalls don't work. http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/why_david_simon_is_wrong_about.php?page=all

Similar to a few other readers I don't understand the angst about a paywall. It starts with the fact that they're preposterously easy to beat. You can google it, folks. So while a paywall is useful because it will catch a fair amount of middle-age, middle-class folk who both have the money to pay and the lack of technological where-with-all (or lack of inclination) to beat the wall the real advantage is people that just don't mind paying for content they enjoy as a conscious choice. What I don't understand--since it's not particularly difficult from a programming point of view, I'm told--is why media sites don't allow subscriptions for very low costs to just certain portions of the site. For example, you could pay $3/month for just this blog. Or $5 for all of the sports section, or mix and match, and so on. This would allow consistent readers of one section or another who find $20/month to be prohibitive as a consumer to still subscribe to the portion they enjoy and generate revenue for the site. It would also provide an easy indicator of what sections and parts of the site do well and generate the most revenue from a reader-connection point of view, something that gives more market insight than mere click-counters.

[Rob H]

Hey Doug,

First off, although I didn't take part in the discussion live, I read it after and found it to be quite enjoyable.

As for the pay wall. I see it for what it is: A necessary, but unfortunate sign of the times.
I think some sectors of the paper will undoubtedly be hit harder than others. As a sports fan there is a plethora of other websites I could go to for similar (though obviously not quite as good) coverage without a fee. I imagine those who only use the Star for sports related writing will likely move toward alternative (free) media sources.
However, as somone who enjoys reading politics and international affairs, there is a much smaller number of alternatives. At least not ones of high quality.
All in all, I hope the transition is smooth and it does not hurt the paper, or perhaps most importantly, this blog!
Best of luck Doug!

[Ben]

I'm also surprised there hasn't been a paywall yet. I happily pay my $3 to ESPN Insider every month. I pay for my print version of the star... Maybe if you pay for the print version of The Star you get some sort of wicked discount on the online version? I've thought a few times about actually cancelling my print subscription to The Star since I can get all the articles off the web for free (and more updated articles at that).

[J]

I do hope your blog remains untouched by whatever changes may come. I can't speak for anyone else, nor should anything be inferred from the following statement about the value your blog has to me, but as a blog-only visitor I will find it difficult to justify paying when I can't even justify a cable subscription or land line.

[sportschic]

I'm there with you, D-Mac, paying way too much every month for a *lot* of channels, so you could say I already pay a premium for content that matters to me (and some that doesn't matter that I'm stuck with whether I want it or not).

I'll wait to see the cost before I make a decision on what to do.

[minks]

Doug, I know it was busy but you let Feschuk (put me in the "I'm not a fan" camp) get away with saying the Raps were never willing to spend on elite players or go into lux tax territory during either the VC or Bosh eras. YOU know this is false as you yourself have reprimanded fans for lamenting MLSE for being cheap. BC came out and said they'd given him the green light if the right deal came along or the right guy was available. Heck I don't even think they had a punitive luxury tax before the 2005 CBA.

DF has a snarky style and that's his schtick, I get it. It's obvious he's more comfortable with the pucks than ball but I don't understand why he likes to kick sand on the HOTH every chance he gets.

[malayalam sms]

I don't know why anyone would fly any airline other than Southwest. Besides low fares, no baggage fees, they have the friendliest service, and their frequent flyer miles are hands down, the best in the business. If Southwest doesn't fly there, I probably don't need to go there, unless it's overseas.