I remember one time I was out with the guys having a good time on a Friday night in Ottawa. It was a birthday party for one of my great friends and things were dying down in the market, so we figured that since the birthday boy had never been to a strip club before, we might as well take him so that he could get a good birthday present.
We get to the club and we sit down to have a drink as we try to figure out how Birthday Boy is going to have the most fun possible. He ends up going off to the private area and we wait at the table to see the reaction on his face once he comes back. (By the way, it was priceless...)
In the meantime, a friend at the table turns to me and asks, “Hey Phil, do you mind if I borrow some money until tomorrow? I’m just tapped out and have to wait for my check to clear from work in the morning.” I don’t have a problem with that. The guy is really good with his money and I won’t have to chase him down for it, so I lend him a couple hundred to tide him over for the night.
Next thing I know, he turns to the whole table and yells, “Next round is on me and I’m buying someone a lap dance! Who’s in?” I found that kind of odd, but didn’t really think too much of it. I thought, “Don’t really care about things when it comes to money and if he’s having a good time, then so be it.” But the more I thought of it and the more people pointed out that they would be angry in that spot, I became a little uneasy about it as well.
Why do I tell this story you ask? Well, I couldn’t help but be reminded of it when I heard about the Cliff Lee situation last night.
The talk on Friday was that Cliff Lee would miss his scheduled start against the New York Yankees that night because he was about to be traded by the Seattle Mariners to the aforementioned Yankees. Well, turns out he did indeed miss his start due to trade, but he wasn’t wearing the Yankee pinstripes. Instead, he was in civilian clothes as he made his way to Arlington, Texas to be with his new team as the Texas Rangers hosted the Baltimore Orioles.
Normally the story would get some press, but wouldn’t create controversy. The problem this time around is that the Rangers are in the middle of a bankruptcy situation and are being run by the league since there is no ownership in place.
I can’t imagine George Steinbrenner being too happy with the idea that he lost out in getting Cliff Lee to a team that he’s helping to finance right now through his luxury tax penalties.
Is this fair? Should a team with no money be allowed to go out and get a player to help them? I know if I’m an opposing owner, I’m not happy with the idea of a team with no owner or money going out and improving, while at the same time, possibly keeping me from getting to the post-season as well. Unlike my lending of money to someone, I know that I’m not going to be at risk of losing extra money on top of that because of the financial gain that the person received from getting a loan.
When asked to prop up another franchise that’s in need of assistance, I’m assuming there are no problems with the other owners as long as a couple of demands are met:
1) The money is recouped at some point or there is a reward given out for the good deed, or...
2) The franchise in trouble stays afloat and doesn’t hinder the other franchises that have remained solvent and void of financial troubles.
We see this come up time and time again in various leagues when ownership has problems. The Phoenix Coyotes not only flourished this season, but added to their team despite still not having an owner and having major uncertainty surrounding their future.
Is it fair that the Coyotes were allowed to improve their roster at the trade deadline and during the start of free agency this season?
I think the problem is that there doesn’t seem to be a set of rules in place when a franchise is in trouble and in the hands of the league. For instance, a simple rule could have a troubled franchise limited to spending only to the floor of the cap until ownership is found or if you think that’s too harsh, a team can only spend up to the average cap hit of all teams combined in the league. If it’s baseball, I would only allow that team to spend up to the median average salary of all teams combined. You have to take into account teams that spend large like the Yanks and the teams that have garage-sale like budgets such as the Pittsburgh Pirates and Oakland Athletics.
I could go on and on with different examples of rules, but that’s not the point. The point is to show that there’s confusion from the fans and the other teams not affected by a team troubled with financial instability.
The onus has to be on the commissioners of the various leagues to make it crystal clear what these franchises can and can’t do if in possession of the league. Nobody likes participating in anything where the rules are made up as time goes along. If I wanted to see that, I would still watch professional wrestling.
I just hope that the Phoenix Coyotes and the Texas Rangers become fiscally solvent again and get in a position to win championships. Then the owners will have their own money, and offer their fans a round of drinks for supporting them through the tough times.