Three thoughts for today:
1. Is Free Agency Fun?
A situation developed last night in the college basketball world in which Bronny James was rather widely reported to have entered the transfer portal. The reports were false. What happened? It seems Dick Weiss, an aging college basketball reporter, was tricked by a fake report he saw on Twitter, then tweeted out the content of the report without any mention of the source. Weiss is a bit of a fixture in college basketball media, but only in an inside-baseball way. He’s been around a while. Other people in the industry know him. People outside of the industry mostly do not. I think he got some recognition last year at the Final Four for either hitting a milestone or retiring. The point is: He’s an old guy. It’s doubtful this was malicious on his part. But it was careless and foolish, and others were happy to be careless and foolish alongside him. All of this is mostly fine. This is how the internet works.
The broader takeaway from this episode is that Bronny James still might enter the transfer portal, and the combination of that and Eric Musselman potentially leaving Arkansas for USC is setting up for a frenzy of coverage all centered around a basketball program in California that has no historic significance and hasn’t made a Final Four in seventy years.
On the Bronny side, you have LeBron’s son’s services available for hire. Is he a good college basketball player? Not yet, but possibly next year. Is he a beast in the branding world? Yes. Attention will deservedly be paid to LeBron James’s son.
On the Musselman side, you’re potentially opening up the Arkansas job, one big enough that other sitting power conference coaches might be linked to it. Possibly even an SEC coach or two. Again, there’s going to be a lot of attention.
My question is this: Is this all fun? Do we enjoy the speculation and the movement and the rumor mill? I think we do. I think I do. But I’m really not sure. If it isn’t, that doesn’t mean anything should change. Sports shouldn’t be solely governed in the way that leads to the most fun. But I think it’s fair to ask which sports enjoy their season more than their offseason these days, and vice versa. I think it says something about the health of those sports.
2. Dodgers vs. Braves
The Dodgers and Braves won’t meet head-to-head for another month. They’ll only meet head-to-head a few times this season. But already, a duel is taking shape. The Dodgers are the favorites in betting markets, the roster of Shohei Ohtani and Mookie Betts and Freddie Freeman and Yoshinobu Yamamoto. The Braves are the favorites on paper, the roster of Ronald Acuña Jr. and Spencer Strider and Austin Riley and Matt Olson. Which is better?
The Braves have a little stronger position player depth than last year, but they’re still in a dangerous place if the injury bug rears its head. The Dodgers have more depth, but their best players—while bigger names—aren’t as good as the Braves’ best. Very importantly, the Braves have better starting pitching, which takes on outsized importance in October. Also importantly, the Dodgers might be more aggressive at the trade deadline. That’s been more their thing the last few years.
We don’t have a good answer to this yet. We’re just starting to frame it up. There are seven months left in this race.
3. What Was the Deal With That Royals/Chiefs Vote?
Yesterday, voters in Jackson County, Missouri rejected an extension of a 0.00375% boost to sales tax which would have contributed to a new downtown ballpark for the Royals and significant renovations to Arrowhead Stadium.
The broad narrative coming out of this is that voters want owners to pay for stadiums themselves, but it’s unclear if that’s really how voters felt. The 58/42 split wasn’t huge for a ballot question like this one, and the Royals’ downtown plan was vague and changing, leading some to believe that the vote may have gone differently had voters been voting on a more concrete direction of action.
Who should pay for what in pro sports is a question around which I don’t personally feel a lot of clarity. Owners are raking in profit as their franchises values’ skyrocket, but teams are also supposed to be icons for a city or a region, and I don’t know what the value is of stadium investments, specifically. I have a hard time telling someone else to make an investment that will lose them money, even if I think owners mostly have enough money already and would better their own utility the most by investing in fan experience and winning games. If the stadium would gain the owners money, then yes, they should pay for it. I just don’t know enough to know what the costs and benefits are.
Whatever the answer, this wasn’t a strong referendum in either direction. That should be the narrative.
