What Makes a Good Owner

As a sports fan, there is one singular characteristic I want from the owner of my favorite sports franchise: the relentless pursuit of a championship.

That's it.

All week long, as the sale of the Chicago Cubs becomes closer to a reality, the buzz around the Windy City has been whether apparent buyer Tom Ricketts will be a good owner for the team. Most fans want him to lower ticket prices, upgrade Wrigley Field, or add a Cubs regional sports network. They're glad he's a diehard fan who grew up around the ballpark and met his wife in the bleachers. That's all fine and dandy.

I don't care about any of that stuff. All I want is for him to put them in the best position to win.

It doesn't matter to me how much of a diehard he is. It doesn't matter to me if he met his wife in the bleachers, the nosebleeds, or behind a pole. And while it would be nice, it doesn't matter to me if he lowers ticket prices or upgrades Wrigley Field, so long as the primary objective is getting the Cubs to win.

The best owners in sports are the ones that consistently surround themselves with good people to ensure the constant success of the team. They don't have to be rowdy off-beat types like Mark Cuban, and definitely shouldn't be old and cheap like the late Carl Pohlad. They don't have to be polarizing figures like George Steinbrenner. But they should be constantly evaluating their product, and should be keenly aware that no matter what the most profitable scenario for any sports team is whether they're succeeding on the field.

Cubs bashers will point to the fact that they've stunk for years and continue to sell out the ballpark. That's true. But when they've won, albeit just division titles or a playoff series, the profits are through the roof. Ricketts has inherited a team capable of doing big things. It is his job to surround himself with the right people and provide the resources to take them to the next level.

If that means they have to add Jake Peavy's hefty salary via a trade? Fine. If it means another move? Fine. But all he needs to assure me as a fan is that he's committed to them competing for the Fall Classic every year.

Look at the the best run franchises in sports: the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Cowboys, the Lakers and the Red Wings. The common characteristic for those teams is that they consistently pour money back into the on the field, court, or ice product to continue to reap the benefits of success. They'll gamble on a particular player if it means he could be the difference come the post season. If other teams stopped crying poor and took financial risks like these teams do, maybe they would be competing on these teams' level more consistently.

That said, some people will say it's not always about how much money you spend. "Look at the Yankees since 2000," they'll say. "They increase pay roll year after year but haven't won." Obviously there's a balance that must occur between overspending on players and investing in the draft and your farm system. That's true across all sports. But the common demoninator remains that the most successful teams, more often than not, spend what it takes to win.

I hope Tom Ricketts will do the same. And that's all I hope he does.

What Is The Point Of It All?

What does all of this tattle-telling do? What do we all get from this back and forth bickering nonsense?

Former players ratting out teammates, brothers dropping dimes on brothers. Trainers and confidants coming from out of the woodworks. And so I ask, where are we now?

Where are we after knowing all of this? How much different are our lives after the infamous Mitchell Report?

Players seem to take one of two paths. They either deny it and do so arrogantly (Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens) and are later found to be guilty. Or, they come clean, maybe cry, and are forgiven (Jason Giambi, Andy Pettitte, Marion Jones etc.).

I, for one, am tired of the whole charade. I don't want Congress involved any longer (concentrate on the more important things) or ever again. I don't want to watch some ga-gillionaire get on TV and either cry for forgiveness or wag a finger in my face like I'm a jerk for even thinking he did steroids or HGH or whatever.

My view on the game is already tainted. As Jordan mentioned, McGwire had already been convicted in the court of public opinion. But, the honest truth is, we all have players in our own minds, Mitchell Listed or not, that we think did steroids. Personally, there's about 20 or 30 players that I wouldn't be surprised to hear about having done something.

And so I ask, where do we all stand? Baseball's popularity's at an all-time high, people are flocking out to games in record numbers, and, despite a recession, teams are still spending money. Hell, the Cubs are about to be bought for nearly a billion dollars.

Does finding out that a certain player did steroids make you not want to watch the game? It would bother me, sure, but I'm not just going to stop my love. So, I beg, let's stop this. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss, and this is one of those times.

A lot of these guys messed up, and there's no defending that or making it right. But, after a while, it's time to move on. Until there is some real action taken on these players (like strike some records from the books or ban someone from the Hall), I'll be content being kept in the dark.

Brotherly Love

In the court of public opinion, Mark McGwire was found guilty of steroid use and cheating a long time ago.

There was the discovery McGwire was taking androstenedione during his record break season of 1998 when he hit 70 home runs. The controversy that followed was the validity of his records, and whether the drug later just referred to as "andro" really was a steroid. Turns out, technically it's not. And, andro was allowed by Major League Baseball at the time.

We found out a few years later that McGwire was in fact taking performance enhancing drugs, or at least, he was suspected of it. While it hadn't exactly been proven, McGwire testified under oath at a 2005 Congressional hearing probing into Major League Baseball's steroid problem. McGwire's body language oozed guilt, his facial expressions defined guilt, and his answers to questions lacked any substance, giving the impression that he was immensely guilty of performance enhancing drug use.

After that episode that murdered his already dwindling reputation, we find out this news today: McGwire's own brother Jay is writing a book detailing Mac's steroid use. It's name? "The McGwire Family Secret: The Truth About Steroids, A Slugger and Ultimate Redemption".

What a cosmic slap in the face: profiting off his brother's downfall.

"Mark is a man I think most would like to forgive because his reason wasn't nefarious--it was for survival," the proposal on his website states. "My bringing the truth to the surface about Mark is out of love. I want to live in truth to see the light, to come to repentance so he can live in freedom."

I'm sure Mark feels very loved right now.

Jay has successfully slung his brother through the mud one more time. He has only given further confirmation to something most of us already assumed. And it's not like McGwire hasn't already suffered consequences from his actions. While Mark was living quietly away from the limelight, as people were starting to forget about the man whose hall of fame votes are dwindling year by year, Jay has to bring this upon his former superstar brother. The two haven't even spoken for years. This is how Jay plans to reconcile with Mark? Publicly embarrass him again?

I'm not saying Mark McGwire is truly a victim here. McGwire deserves the flack he has taken for cheating the game of baseball and taking performance enhancing drugs. For those who will say "well, everyone was on steroids," that might be true. But that doesn't mean McGwire doesn't deserve blame. The fact is, he was breaking records. And in a sport where records are sacred, players who break them deceitfully should pay the price for their actions.

But who would have thought that the guy to finally out him would be his own brother?

That's some kind of brotherly love.

Back and Forth: 100th Post Edition: Big East or ACC?

Jordan:  For our 100th post Scott, on this momentous occasion, I say we go a little Back and Forth.  Shall we?  100 posts really has me pumped, considering were this little blog started just a month and a half ago.  But what also gets me pumped is a little college hoops discussion.  Everyone knows the two best conferences in college basketball are the Big East and the ACC.  But which is better?  We're both Big East alums and fans, but I've gotta go ACC here.

Scott:  Well before I get fully involved, knee deep in proving how wrong you are (again?), let me say it's been a fun century.

J:  It has.  Certainly has.

S:  Come on dude, how can you honestly tell me the Big East isn't better than the ACC?  Let's look at the Top-25 first, OK?

J:  Go ahead.

S:  OK.  I'm going to give your "North Carolina Division" some props.  Much needed.  1 and 2 in the country.  Great job.

J:  Thank you.

S:  But, outside of that, only two others are in the Top 25.  My conference (should I say, our conference before you became a Benedict Arnold) has eight.  EIGHT!

J:  True.  But as I eat my Eggs Benedict while debating you this morning, here's why the ACC is better.  The Big East is bigger, and has more teams available to be ranked in the Top 25.  Second, when you have the top TWO teams in the country, (Wake Forest, home of your idol Tim Duncan, and Duke) and you have a team in North Carolina which currently is ranked 5th but everyone and their mother thought might go undefeated this year, the cream of the crop is in the ACC.  The Big East has a lot of good teams, but the ACC's best are better than the Big East's best.

S:  Maybe so.  But here's the flaw:  Sure, Pittsburgh was upset already from their number one spot.  But your darling Demon Deacons were dropped last night too.  So you can kiss that number one ranking good-bye.

J:  True.  But when your Hoya Saxas went down to old Cameron Indoor Stadium for a classic Big East/ACC match-up, what happened?  The Dukies slapped them slapped them in the mug.

S:  Kind of like when the "and their mother" UNC squad got handled by Boston College on their own floor, no?

J:  BC is in the ACC, pal.

S:  Ok, so?

J:  So it means that a team at the bottom of the conference is still good enough to beat the best in the conference, showcasing its depth.  I doubt Jerry Wainwright's DePaul Blue Demons would come within twenty points of Marquette, Louisville, UConn or Pitt.  Same goes for your Rutgers squad in lovely Piscataway, or Bobby Gonzo's Seton Hall club.  

S:  Clever reasoning.  I like you.

J:  I like you too.

S:  Yet the same could be twisted to say the opposite.  The bottom tier squads in the ACC can beat the so-called best team any night, showcasing that the teams at the top really aren't as great as everyone thinks.  It's a matter of perception, clearly.

J:  Yes sir.

S:  Don't penalize those top teams in the Big East because the conference is too big.

J:  I'm not, but you and I both watch a lot of Big East basketball.  While the top teams are very good, do you see any particular Big East team as a favorite for the Final Four?  I see some teams I think are certainly talented enough to get there, but not one that seems like a lock.  In the ACC Carolina and the Dukies both look like Final Four teams the way they're playing this season.  Not to mention Wake, which despite their loss, was the last team in the country to drop a game.  And, when Carolina played Notre Dame (in the Maui Invitational) they beat them by 15 points.  The only thing the Big East is leading the ACC (besides number of ranked teams) is the number of family members who have charged the court.

S:  I don't know.  I think this year in college basketball is so wide open, I wouldn't be shocked to see either of those two teams making the Final Four, nor would I be surprised to see a team like Pitt or UConn make it.  So as far as the Final Four talk is concerned, I think we're a bit premature.  In fairness, it's not even February yet, so March talk seems a bit soon, no?

J:  It's never too early for that.  Just ask Joe Lunardi.  He's had "bracketology" out since probably August.  

S:  Anyway, in depth, we've got you.

J:  That point is true, yes.

S:  Top heavy, maybe the ACC is.  Maybe.  But the Big East is a better conference on the whole.

J:  But I say you judge a conference by its best.

S:  But here's the thing, as of a week or so ago, the Big East had the top team in the land.  And both conferences still have four teams in the top ten.

J:  True enough.  But so far, in the limited head to head match-ups, the ACC has the edge.  And at this point, numbers one, two and five.

S:  No denying that.  But the head to heads are too limited.  I discount those because of where the games were played and the sample size.  Let's see Duke play in DC or UNC play in South Bend.  You are obviously well aware of how big of a difference home court is in college basketball.

J:  No question.  But I think these teams are good enough to win on the road in the Big East.  Unless they play as well on the road as our Syracuse Orange.  Then the Big East wins big.

S:  Had Syracuse beaten Pitt, I think I'd have a better argument.  

J:  Yes, but we could never be so lucky.  You know that.

S:  No.  I'm well aware of that.  It would have knocked Pittsburgh off the top, but SU would be higher up.  Maybe even top 5.

J:  Yes, but oh well.  Let's let our readers decide.

S:  This should be interesting.  A lot of our readers didn't go to ACC or Big East schools, so I'm interested to read what they have to say.    

Hall of Fame Personality? No. Hall of Famer? Yes.

Jeff Kent is planning to retire Thursday afternoon.  The all-time home run leader among second basemen hit seventy-four more home runs (351 as a second baseman, 377 overall) than the previous record holder, hall of famer Ryne Sandberg (282 career home runs, 277 at second base).

He was the MVP of the National League in 2000, and was a five time all-star.  Kent was the most feared hitter among second basemen once Sandberg retired, and he put together some fantastic years for San Francisco during the peak of Barry Bonds steroid induced run.

There's no question that he should get into the hall of fame one day.  After all, how could a guy that holds the record for most home runs at his predominant position not get a call to Cooperstown?  

Kent was a great hitter who hit more than twenty home runs in nine straight seasons (1997-2005).   But his surly personality and his unwillingness to back down to teammates is what he might be remembered for most.  If there's anything that keeps him out of the hall on the first few ballots, it will be his tumultuous relationship with the media.

Is it fair?  Maybe not.  Though the fact remains that the way a player is perceived by the Baseball Writers of America, those who vote for him, is immensely critical to his potential enshrinement.

Jeff Kent had his famous shouting match with Barry Bonds in the dugout, which made him look good to people that knew Bonds was a terrible clubhouse influence at times.  But it didn't help his image in the media.

Nor did his lie to media that his 2002 motorcycle crash happened because he 'fell while washing it'.  When San Francisco Chronicle writer Henry Schulman found later that he fell off his bike while doing a wheelie, when the Giants had distinctly told him and Bonds not to, he became much less friendly to the writers in which he had previously confided.

Jeff Kent was never considered one of the good guys.  And he never had enough clout to be so surly.  While former teammate Barry Bonds was smashing the single season home run record in 2001 with 73 round trippers, (granted, we now know he did that using steroids, [allegedly, ha!]) Bonds could afford to act the way he wanted around the media because at the time he wielded such immense power in the game.  Kent was softer spoken, but while he quietly racked up quality season after quality season, he never let the media in, and consequently never received any positive publicity.

Media darlings like Peyton Manning, Derek Jeter and LeBron James can do no wrong in the press.  As a result, one day their careers will be revered and celebrated, then validated by trips to the hall of fame.  In the case of Kent, he'll never have the fan fare.  He'll never have the appreciation associated with what was a great career.  Sure, he's not at the level of the three players mentioned above, but because he was never thought of as a good person, he'll never be recognized for a superb and steady seventeen year career.

So if Kent was smart, he'd smile and be cheerful in announcing his retirement.  Because if that's the last image we have of Kent as a baseball player, for his sake, it better be a positive one. 

Hump Day Headlines

In this week's Hump Day Headlines, we discuss the 44th President, the joke that is the Pro Bowl, more from the never ending Roger Clemens saga, and why Cardinals fans should take it easy...

• In case you were in a hole yesterday, you should know by now that Barack Obama is officially the 44th United States' President after his inauguration yesterday. Certainly, as Scott mentioned in his post yesterday, it was a historic day. He's the first African-American president in the history of this country, and it was certainly a day to celebrate. In the sports world, however, it was the best bail out topic for media trying to cover their various sports teams for the last few days. I think I heard ten TV journalists Tuesday ask an athlete, "What are your thoughts about Barack Obama as our next president today?" Chalk this question into the 'cliche questions that the media asks athletes' category. Now, I'm not saying that some of the athletes asked this question didn't have interesting answers, but do we need literally every single athlete and analyst weighing in on this? If I'm tuning into sports, I want to hear about sports. If I want news, I'll watch CNN, or the networks (which I did for about six hours yesterday.)
• Scott and I mentioned this a bit in the most recent BERNing on Sports Podcast, but this weekend next year (that is, the weekend between the NFC and AFC Championships and the Super Bowl), the NFL will play the Pro Bowl, it's miserable joke of an all-star game in an effort to increase interest in it. Adding to its reputation for being a miserable joke is the fact that this year's game, which will still be played in Honolulu after the season, will be missing two of the biggest stars selected play. Brett Favre and Phillip Rivers will no longer be suiting up for the AFC due to various injuries, and Kerry Collins will be taking over in their stead. As if it couldn't get any worse. Instead of watching the future hall of famer Brett Favre light it up at Aloha Stadium, we'll be subjected to watching the much less exciting Kerry Collins. Now, whether Collins deserves to be there over Favre in the first place is a different argument. I'd agree with those that would want to argue that point. But in terms of the game, which already has zero intrigue on a national stage, the fact that the NFL's prima donna and Rivers won't be in the game figure to make this one of the least watched programs on television the weekend after football season ends.
• Known steroid deal Kirk Radomski revealed this earth-shattering fact in his tell-all interview with ESPN's Jeremy Schaap on the network's investigative program "Outside The Lines": he believes his friend Brian McNamee's story and not the one being told by Roger Clemens. Well that's just fine and dandy, isn't it? This is the story Radomski told a federal grand jury recently as Clemens is being tried for perjury. Clemens vehemently denied under oath all the accounts found by former Senator George Mitchell in the famous "Mitchell Report" examining the steroid problem in our national past time. Radomski's story seems to check out with what the court of public opinion already believes: that Clemens is guilty. He claims his old 'roid-dealing pal McNamee initially only told Mitchell part of the story to protect Clemens from further investigation. Apparently when McNamee realized this would put himself in the proverbial legal hot water, he let the rest of the truth come out. It's interesting stuff and I encourage all of you to read some of Radomski's quotes. And, if I were Clemens, I'd look up at the sky to see what little public dignity I have left rocketing down to the ground.
• Cardinals fans should be thrilled at their team's recent success. After all, the perennially  pitiful Arizona squad is representing the NFC in the Super Bowl for the first time in team history. But this kind of action is absolutely moronic. Cardinals fans had been taunting Eagles QB Donovan McNabb all week at his home in Chandler, AZ, leaving a Cardinals flag in his tree and a cardboard box in his driveway that read "Go Cards" and "Beat Philly" on two of the sides. McNabb laughed it off for the week, but not when he found this: fans after Sunday's victory over McNabb's eagles burned Cardinal cheers in diesel fuel into the QB's lawn, costing him $2,000 in damages. Granted, that's chump change for the star quarterback, but what the heck are these 'Zona fans thinking? Maybe more stupid than the fact that these fans could have burned down McNabb's house with the childish prank, was that the cardboard box left in the lawn had the address and name of the man that committed them. Chandler resident Rex Perkins, a 37-going on 15-year-old dope, was charged with misdemeanor criminal damage. His co-dope, Ryan Hanlon also admitted to the pranks. "When they decided to get diesel fuel out and start damaging the yard, they crossed the line," Chandler Police Sergeant Joe Favazzo said yesterday about the incident. Think so, Joe?

USC = Duke?

Well, on its face, the comparison seems quite obvious. Both are powerhouses in college sports, the former more so in college football, the latter decidedly in college basketball.

So yeah, on that level, sure. But, after Mark Sanchez decided to go pro last week, I got to thinking: is this perennial Pac-10 powerhouse putting out a comparable amount of great pro players? (Enough p-words?)

For a school nicknamed "Tailback U", for a school that has a reputation, at least in recent history, for being know for its great offense, the answer isn't as favorable as you might think.

Let's take a quick look at some of the offensive skill players drafted in recent years.

2007

2nd Round - Dwayne Jarrett, Steve Smith

2006

1st Round - Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart

2nd Round - LenDale White

2005

1st Round - Mike Williams

2004

2nd Round - Keary Colbert

2003

1st Round - Carson Palmer

2000

1st Round - R. Jay Soward

1996

1st Round - Keyshawn Johnson

Out of that list, there's only two that I could say have been or were good pro's: Keyshawn Johnson and Carson Palmer. But, both come with asterisks. Johnson's being that he truly was a disappointment, having been a Heisman Trophy winner, and (more importantly) a number one overall pick (only four thousand yard seasons and one 10 TD year in 11?). Then again, if he was a disappointment, then fellow number one pick Palmer would have to be as well. Thus far in his young career, he has been with only having had two really good seasons, the rest either average-poor or injured.

Of the rest, how many do you remember being very good at USC? Having a ton of potential, being highly rated, having bigtime college careers? Most, if not all of them (and that's not even including the John David Booty's and Chauncey Washington's)

Most of those guys haven't been nearly as good (nor project to be) in the pro's. Jarret and Smith have been average receivers early on. Bush has developed a rep as being a soft player, in addition to being a largely useless player. As far as Leinart's concerned, two words sum up his value: Kurt Warner. LenDale White seemed more likely to eat his way out the league before gobbling up all of Chris Johnson's TD's this year. Mike Williams' is obviously the biggest bust as he barely has even played, and Keary Colbert, unfortunately continues to play, just at a very poor level. Finally, Soward never did much in the NFL because of a little thing called reefer.

So, back to the title, USC = Duke? Well, yes. Because, as I've just shown you, USC seems to have developed a reputation for putting formerly great college players into the professional ranks and watch them disappointment.

Duke? Well, we all know their history...William Avery, Jason Williams, Trajan Langdon, Bobby Hurley, J.J. Reddick, Christian Laettner, Shelden Williams...I think I've made my point there.

And thus, my overarching theme here is, don't get crazy over Mark Sanchez because he's leaving early and bucking trends and any of that nonsense. Get crazy because, frankly, USC hasn't produced a ton of great offensive pro's in recent memory. Kind of like Duke.