AJC > Sports > Columnists > Archives > 2005 > December > 14
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Blank owning Braves would be too much
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Jeff Schultz
So I was just wondering about Bobby Cox’s reaction the first time Arthur Blank comes down to the dugout to watch the last two innings of a Braves game. (Arthur: Duck.)
Since the Journal-Constitution blared, “Braves for sale” in a headline Wednesday, responses have overwhelmingly fit into two categories:
— Those who equate Time Warner’s exit with having a moon-size mole removed from the middle of your forehead;
— Those who would rejoice if Arthur Blank buys the team. And run the government. And helps Earth fulfill its potential.
None of the above makes any sense.
Let’s start with the easy one: Blank. Despite paying $545 million for the Falcons and claiming he personally will finance $150 million in Georgia Dome upgrades, I’m assuming he could leverage another some-$300 million for a baseball team. He has a high credit score. You know those come-ons you get in the mail for high-limit credit cards? Blank gets those all the time.
The problem is Blank, the man. This is no silent owner. This is someone who invests himself not only financially but also emotionally in everything he does. He not only attends Falcons games, he goes to practices and meetings. He goes to sleep thinking, “sponsorships.” He wakes up thinking, “Pass rush.” Inhale. Exhale.
These aren’t toys. This is the NFL and Major League Baseball. Running two franchises the way Blank runs things would require 48-hour days and double the body parts. It would turn an energetic, 63-year-old to mush.
Stan Kasten, who went from president of one team (Braves) to three (add Thrashers and Hawks), said Blank is a “superior talent who loves baseball.” He said, “I know he toyed with the idea” of buying the Braves two years ago, when they were for sale, and speculates he could do it.
But when asked how his own life changed when his responsibilities tripled, Kasten said: “It wasn’t the hours. It’s the emotional and mental rigors of there being a final exam every day. Your career, your livelihood hinges on a score every single night. There’s a rhythm of the year. There’s a time to play games, a time to draft, a time to sign free agents, a time to trade. But when you’re running more than one team, that’s every time of the year.”
Secondly, sports are about competition. Four pro sports teams in one city should have four owners. Franchises should not only be competitive within their league but also within their city for fan investment. It’s no different than Burger King and McDonald’s being under the same corporate roof. Sometimes, it works. But overlapping ownerships increase the possibility of conflicts and diminished competition. In Detroit, Mike Ilitch has been named among both the best and worst owners in sports. Why? Because he feeds the Red Wings prime rib and the Tigers Spam.
Now, about Time Warner. Corporate sports owners generally get bashed, presumably because most of us relate better to a face than a stock report. But there are as many bad “face” owners as there are good ones, and as many success stories as failures on the corporate side.
We have seen the Braves have cut their payroll by $20 million. It’s not that Time Warner can’t absorb the losses — $20 million to them is a Ho-Ho to us. But losses don’t look good on quarterly reports and there are stockholders to answer to. That’s what led to Time Warner selling two of their “non-core assets,” the Thrashers and Hawks.
But do you really believe a local owner would not have cut payroll? Rising salaries and declining attendance is a losing formula, regardless of who’s writing the checks.
At the risk of painting Time Warner as blemish-free, certain facts are undeniable: The Braves win. They have a nice stadium. They generally are considered a blueprint for other organizations and, with John Schuerholz and Bobby Cox, have been a model of stability.
Time Warner hasn’t been all that bad. Before you go celebrating its exit, realize that there are no guarantees with the Braves’ next owner.
The priority shouldn’t be having a face to complain to. The priority should be not having a complaint.
Permalink | Comments (79) | Categories: Braves / MLB, Jeff Schultz
Why not Artest here?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Terence Moore
Ron Artest to the Hawks? It’s not going to happen. This wacky but talented player who wants to leave the Indiana Pacers likely is going to the Los Angeles Clippers for Corey Maggette.
But we can dream, can’t we?
Sure Artest has more than a few problems dealing with all of those gremlins flying inside his head. Sure he’ll never be completely happy no matter where he plays or how long he plays.
He plays, though, and he plays extremely well in all aspects of the game. He also plays with enough of an edge to do two things that would help the Hawks: Make his teammates better on the court and put fannies in the empty seats at Philips Arena. He’d eventually flip out as usual, but the struggling Hawks (their two-game winning streak notwithstanding) have nothing to lose, and they could enjoy the show why it lasts.
It’s like this: If Artest for Maggette doesn’t work, the Pacers may agree to go back to the future. They could send Artest to the Hawks for former Indiana player Al Harrington, already rumored to be out of Atlanta before the NBA trade deadline.
Oh, well.
Time to wake up.
Permalink | Comments (31) | Categories: Quick Hit, Terence Moore
