Category Archives: Sports (MC Archive)

Sports columns that appeared on Jason Menard’s previous Web site, Menard Communications.

NHL Free Agency Costly for Have Nots

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

The silly season that is NHL unrestricted free agency is well underway. And with it comes the very thing that the new collective bargaining agreement was supposed to avoid – the establishment of the haves and the have nots.

The usual suspects are falling into place: Philadelphia Flyers, New York Rangers, check – your penthouse suites are booked and packed to the rafters with all kinds of luxurious new toys. We’ve sprinkled a little Brière here and a splash of Drury and Gomez over there. Oh, and Dr. Detroit, yes – I think you’ll find the Rafalski we’ve recently added to your collection to be quite exquisite.

Mr. Sabres? Oh, sorry – this floor is restricted access. You’ll have to take the bus down the street to our low-rent district. Yes, we thank you for living in the same city as us, but you’re really not right for this neighbourhood.

Of course, there’s also the eclectic neighbours – the ones who have the money to reside comfortably in the ritzier areas, but lack the right taste when it comes to decorating properly. Yes, we’re talking about you Mr. Maple Leaf, with your two matching goaltenders – unfortunately, there’s too much goalie and not enough crease. And let’s not get into the overpaying for complementing pieces. You added a Blake, yes – Jeff, not Rob… $4 mill is a little pricey for that.

With a salary cap over 50 million US – about six million more than what the NHL teams were claiming represented Armageddon for their franchises – teams have the financial wherewithal to stockpile talent. And we’ve seen outrageous sums of money thrown at various players by clubs looking for that quick fix.

Danny Briere is a nice player. Not eight years nice. Not $10 million in his first year nice. Ryan Smyth, late of the Edmonton Oilers and New York Islanders? Good kid. Captain Canada and all that jazz. Not five years and $31.5 million worth of heart, though. Nobody has that big of heart.

But what’s happened is we’ve come to a point in time where there are again haves and have nots. There are those who are willing to pay up to the max of the cap. Heck, they’re willing to overspend the cap and demote players to the minor league ranks where there salaries don’t count against the cap.

But then there are a number of other teams who have set their own caps. They can’t – or won’t – spend to the max. They’ll return to their status as feeder teams for the big boys of the NHL. And they won’t have a chance to win.

Although I love what teams like Montreal and Pittsburgh are doing, eschewing the free agent route and preferring to build from their own farm system, one wonders how long they can do that? After all, wasn’t that the model the Buffalo Sabres tried?

Think about it. Darcy Regier had figured out where the NHL was going before anyone else. He built a team from within, drafting wisely, and adding other people’s castoffs for high-priced vets. He created a team that was perfect for the new NHL – fast, mobile, and talented from line one to four. And how was he rewarded? The heart of his team has been removed – and it’s going to take a long time for the good hockey fans of Buffalo to recover.

Sure, owner Tom Golisano could have opened up his wallet and matched or exceeded those offers. But just as one can’t blame the players for taking these exorbitant salaries, nor can we begrudge an owner who finds that the market is too rich for his blood. After all, if he sunk all that money into two players, what would happen in the coming years when that crop of talented youth reaches free agency? Even restricted free agents could be attractive as a capped-out club wouldn’t have the resources to match.

So again we come to a time where some teams can buy their way to glory, while the fans of other teams may feel that they’re unable to compete on a level playing field because of finances. Hey, I’m all for capitalism and paying full market value. But the NHL isn’t an open market – it’s a collective. Having 30 competitive clubs is good business and it’s exactly what the new CBA was supposed to fix.

Wasn’t that why we lost a year of hockey?

2007© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Free Agency Can Cost a Lot – a Team’s Future

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Seems somewhat fitting that our national holiday marks the official start of NHL unrestricted free agency. After all, there are few things Canadians are more passionate about than hockey – and there are few things that stoke those flames of passion more than speculating about trades and signings, especially when it comes to your favourite franchise.

In large part, though, this silly season is much ado about nothing, but you wouldn’t know that by staying abreast of the action. Yes, big name players will sign astronomical contracts. Yes, pundits and analysts alike will wring their hands in consternation, lamenting the loss of sanity of various general managers and increasing their hyperbolic commentary to the point where it would seem like we’re discussing the advent of the apocalypse.

But in the end, very few of these deals will pan out. More often, the overinflated contracts that are signed will soon act as an anchor, dragging down the franchises fortunes. It is then that fans will realize how heavy a piece of paper can be.

Compounding this problem is the advent of the relatively new collective bargaining agreement, complete with its salary cap. Gone are the days where a club can simply spend its way into contention. Now, forethought, budgeting, and roster creativity rule the day.

And the best thing about this new system? The right players get paid. Players entering, or firmly in the midst, of their prime get the lion’s share of the money. Unlike the NFL, rookies are subject to a wage scale, so that an unproven player won’t be commanding a salary eight times greater than a seasoned vet. And older players get their due as well under the system.

So, if it all seems to work out, where’s the problem? Simply put, you can’t legislate ou stupidity. There will always be an owner willing to choose a quick fix as opposed to looking-long term. The problem with that is that the path of least resistance isn’t always that way. And the ramifications of a bad financial decision now can impact your club for years.

We saw evidence of this at the NHL trading deadline in February. Smart clubs hoarded first round draft picks, knowing that success in the future will be built upon a continual infusion of young talent coming into the season. After all, if you’re going to pay your stars the lion’s share of salary cap allocation for your club, then you’re going to have to have solid, performing players on their entry level contracts.

The desperate or foolhardy teams peddled off draft picks for grizzled veterans. First rounders were discarded like yesterday’s trash, when they are the treasure that represents the coin with which future success will be purchased.

Even on draft night, we saw that some teams still don’t get it. The Toronto Maple Leafs discarded their first and second-round selections for an aging goaltender who may or may not be the answer in net. It’s a similar song with different lyrics from last season when they also obtained a more-established goaltender – but the price then was potentially the goaltender of the future they are now looking for, Tukka Raask.

Arguably the top three free agents on the market are Buffalo’s Daniel Briere and Chris Drury and Montreal’s Sheldon Souray. While it’s hard for the fan’s hearts to say, the head suggests that unless you can resign them for a reasonable cost, then it’s probably best to let them go. Although these are outstanding players, their value to a club may not be what the going market rate is.

But value can be defined in many ways. What Drury brings to a franchise in intangibles can’t have a price tag put on it. Conversely, Souray’s big shot and power-play goal-scoring can be dazzling, but that ledger needs to be balanced by his less-than-stellar defensive play.

In the end, some owner will look at these players not as aging high-end vehicles, but as bright, shiny new toys. They’ll be blinded by the imperfections and see only the positives. Unfortunately, the fans will be the ones paying for this blindness.

After all, it may be free agency, but it can come at a tremendous cost – a club’s future.

2007© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Balsillie Makes Owners’ Blackberries Shrivel

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

It doesn’t take much for the money men who run the National Hockey League to get their backs up. So it comes as no surprise that when someone shakes them up as much as Research in Motion co-founder Jim Balsillie has recently, they’re going to stiffen up as if someone spiked the owner’s meeting water supply with Viagra.

If the rumours reported earlier today in a Canadian Press report, it appears that Balsillie will come away empty in his second attempt to purchase an NHL franchise. The latest scuttlebutt suggests that Nashville Predators’ owner Craig Leopold will be entertaining a less-lucrative $190 million US offer from William DelBaggio, a California businessman.

For the Predators to take less money from another suitor than was Balsillie offered must make the Canadian franchise-owner-in-waiting feel as if he’s been kicked in the, well, Blackberries. At the very least, he has to feel that this is a personal rejection.

Even though the Predators are rushing to embrace the California-based DelBaggio, one can easily speculate as to what the man they call Boots’ true intentions are. After all, DelBaggio has made no secret of his desire to bring an NHL franchise to Kansas City. Thanks to Balsillie’s aggressive moves earlier this month, we’re well aware of the opportunities that exist to break the Predators’ lease and move the franchise out of Nashville.

The difference between Balsillie and DelBaggio, other than a passport? Transparency. DelBaggio says and does the right things; Balsillie rattles cages and goes his own way. And it’s apparent that NHL commissioner Gary Bettman doesn’t want any mavericks on his watch – that is, unless Mark Cuban wants to pony up for a franchise.

So the Preds’ owner is willing to take a $48 million dollar bath – which represents the difference between Balsillie’s original offer and what’s being reported as the sale price to DelBaggio – then the NHL places quite the premium on conformity.

And that’s why the NHL is doomed to stagnate under its current watch. Hopefully Balsillie will find that the third time in acquiring a franchise truly is the charm – but first the NHL better hope and pray that there is a third time.

Yes, Balsillie was less-than-tactful in his bold efforts to extricate the Predators from the land where country music reigns supreme. But in the end, what exactly did he do? All he showed was that he was able to obtain financial guarantees from people about a product that had yet to be secured. He showed that there was a viable and potentially sustainable third Ontario market ripe for exploitation. And he showed that he was willing to overpay for the right to obtain an NHL franchise.

From the moment he was willing to shell out a whopping $238 million for the moribund Predators’ franchise, he showed that he was the type of owner that the NHL should be falling all over themselves to accommodate. And let’s not forget the extra millions he also was willing to pour into the facilities in Hamilton to bring them up to NHL standard.

With that evidence behind him, would there be any doubt that he’d be an aggressive owner consistently willing to pay to put out a quality product for his fans? I think not.

Say what you want about the aforementioned Cuban, but he’s a fan first who is willing to take care of his fellow fans. He spends money on things that don’t bring an immediate return on investment, but pay off huge dividends long-term. Cuban has made going to Mavericks games an event. He has shelled out copious amounts of money to ensure both his paying public and his paid staff – the players – have the best in all available amenities. And he’s spent money to keep his roster consistently amongst the upper echelon of NBA teams.

Balsillie seems to be cut from the same cloth, so tell me exactly why the NHL wouldn’t want him amongst its ownership group?

No, it’s much better to stay conservative, sell a troubled franchise to an owner who will probably move the club to another unproven marketplace within five years, and waste 10 more years in markets that are just not sustainable long-term.

Ironically, the addition of an owner who would have taken an American club and moved it north of the 49 th would, in the long run, do more for growing the sport south of the border than can ever be served by keeping the Predators in the land of the free. The energy, creativity, and fresh approach that Balsillie would bring to the ownership group, couldn’t help but move forward that seemingly lost cause.

No one wants to use the “E” word, but the NHL needs Jim Balsillie more than he needs it. He wants a club, he’s a fan, and he has very, very deep pockets – and that’s exactly the type of owner the NHL needs. So if the league is adamant about keeping all its franchise where they are, they should look at the only other way to bring in a bright, enthusiastic, and forward-thinking owner – by granting him an expansion franchise.

It’s time for the NHL to be a little more flexible. After all, when something’s too rigid, it’s far easier to break.

2007© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Hosts Forget Who Stars Really Are

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

It happened at about 5:35 this morning. It was the 1,374,913 th Austin Powers non sequitur that did it, but I’m finally ready to declare war on that most nefarious pox on our society – the television sports highlight show host.

Let me set the stage – although you’ve probably seen this play many times before. In recounting the events of last night’s baseball action, the immaculately coiffed – and slightly unctuous – host prefaced a home run with by shouting, “I’m a Sexy Beast!” and then proceeded to get to the part that mattered: a Randy Sexton home run.

Now, the image on the television continued to show the highlight, but you just know that the living bobblehead who uttered that line was on the verge of dislocating his shoulder in his attempts to pat himself on the back for such a stellar bit of witty repartée. Either that, or he was twisted in internal debate as to whether he should have broken out the ol’ Right Said Fred “I’m Too Sexy” reference. After all, that’s comedy gold.

I know I sit in a precarious position here, as – in hosting a radio show – words are the only tools I have to simultaneously inform and entertain. Yet the question has to be, when is enough enough?

Humour has a wonderful place in all aspects of life and sports, by no means, is immune to its presence. In fact, one could argue that sports of all of life’s follies, is most open to moments of laughter, ridicule, and levity simply because we are talking about – in essence – a game. Yet I’m a firm believer in allowing humour to come naturally from the setting, whether it’s a witty observation, or a clever comment.

But a random outburst based on nothing but someone’s name that has nothing to do with the action on the field? What’s the point?

Unfortunately, TV highlight shows are geared towards a particular demographic and hire accordingly. On-air personalities are trying to hard to be just that – personalities. Vague pop culture references and snide asides are peppered throughout a broadcast as if to allow the host to say, “You see kids, I’m down with you…”

The problem is that each and every bit of allegedly witty repartee diminishes the focus on the game and the real stories therein. Insightful analysis is sacrificed at the altar of lazy writing. After all, it’s much easier to shout “Duncan Hines you do make good cookies,” when someone scores a goal than to explain the how’s and why’s of the action.

Every sports broadcaster has their catch-phrases that are tossed out with semi-regularity. I still remember Howie Meeker semi-screeching that, “You’ve got to put it upstairs!” And play-by-play men like Buffalo’s Rick Jeanneret and Pittsburgh’s Mike Lange are known for their creative ways of describing highlight-reel plays.

Unfortunately, the highlight show desk jockeys try to make every highlight and every opportunity a time for an extraneous comment. Whether or not those comments are appropriate or needed is besides the point. And any value that these aside add to the on-field or on-ice action is accidental at best.

Maybe I’m showing my age. Maybe I’m pining for a show that’s targeted at someone beyond their teen years.

I like a little insight with my sports. It’s why I have trouble with the “he-who-shouts-loudest-wins-the-point” analysis of certain televised NFL pre-game shows and tend to favour the quieter depth provided by radio, print, and on-line pundits.

I don’t need the person on TV to be quick with the catch-phrases. What I need is for him to catch the intricacies of the action and present it in an entertaining fashion. And although the argument may be that highlight shows are too tightly packed and don’t offer the time for this type of commentary, but doesn’t that make the waste of that precious time on self-indulgent non-sequiturs all the more tragic?

Each of us remembers that kid we grew up knowing that wanted so desperately to be funny. He’d try and try to punctuate every situation or comment with a joke – most of which fell flat. And heaven forbid he or she would actually get a laugh – they’d milk that line for life. The kid from my youth spent a year shouting “Soap on a Rope” at every occasion following one serendipitous moment where that phrase proved to be funny.

I always wondered what happened to those types of people. Now I know — they grow up to host TV highlight shows.

2007© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Wrestling with Our Tolerance of Violence

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Violent criminals, thieves, rapists, murderers. Generally, they’re the type of people that we abhor. That is, unless they’re willing to strap on a uniform or do a little metaphorical song and dance and entertain us.

Last night, WWE decided to broadcast a three-hour show, which was shown on The Score, dedicated to Chris Benoit. Benoit, a Canadian wrestler who has gone by many names: The Canadian Crippler, the Rabid Wolverine, and now — allegedly — murderer.

A three-hour tribute to a man who may have killed his wife and seven-year-old son? What message are we sending?

Why is it we’re so willing to look the other way when an athlete commits one of these transgressions? It’s safe to say that one of the most abhorrent acts that exists in our society is violence against women. Unfortunately, the list of present and past athletes who have been charged with sexual assaults and rapes is mind-bogglingly long. We’ve seen police blotters stained with the names of athletes accused of assaulting their spouses and partners. Yet, when it comes time to press charges, suddenly what was once a violent attack becomes nothing more than a mere understanding. Do you think the fact that a multi-year stint could seriously derail the financial gravy train has anything to do with that?

But fans can remember. It just seems that many choose not to. Allegiance to the home squad’s colours appears to supersede our disgust at the acts, both real and alleged. Many of these athletes continue to receive the cheers and accolades of fans while they’re on the field of play.

And we haven’t even discussed those involved in gun play, robbery — anything up to and including defecating in a co-ed’s laundry hamper! Yet, sports fans are willing to forgive and forget far too easily.

Maybe it’s time to reframe this discussion. It’s easy to distance yourself from the impact of an athlete assaulting a nameless, faceless woman. But what if it was your daughter? How would you feel as a parent listening to thousands upon thousands of fans cheering on a man who abused your little girl? How would your daughter feel? It would be like being raped again.

Leonard Little, once known as a defensive end for the St. Louis Rams, should better be known for the fact that he killed an innocent 47-year-old woman 1999 after getting behind the wheel of his vehicle while inebriated. And how contrite was Little? Six years later he was given two year’s probation for speeding — and the three field sobriety tests that he allegedly failed, combined with the fact that he refused to take a breathalyzer test, was shelved due to his lawyer’s insistence that police didn’t follow the proper procedures.

A few years back Ray Lewis and his posse were involved in an altercation that left two men dead. He admitted he lied to the police about his involvement, then he copped a plea, testified against his co-defendants, and is now revered throughout the league.

When either of these players do their sack dance, do you think the victims’ respective families feel that they’re dancing on those graves?

Are we that willing to forgive an athlete’s actions because we believe that the same violence and aggression that can drive an athlete to success can spill off the field of play? Or are we simply willing to win at all costs?

In the end, people will argue that the person’s off-field persona and activities have no impact on what their sporting legacy should be. And there is some merit to that. The notes of a beautiful symphony don’t change just because it’s suddenly come out that the composer was a murderer.

And there is always the notion of forgiving and forgetting. But by celebrating these athletes and holding them up as icons, are we not simply aiding and abetting future generations of criminals?

In the end, a tribute to a fine Canadian wrestler may have been appropriate one day, but not on the day he stands accused of murdering his wife and child.

2007© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved