E-Mail
Print
In fantasy sports, hard-core rebuilding is pretty easy.
You're in a keeper league -- Bulldog, that means where you keep most of your players from year to year -- and your team doesn't look like a winner. No biggie, just find somebody who does think their team is ready and trade him your good older players for youth and draft picks. In the Strat-O-Matic leagues I play in, you either do this or get mocked.
But of course, we don't have fans in Strat. We don't have to worry about paying customers, bitchy columnists, jersey sales. Torii Hunter had a great year for "me" last year but nobody will care if I trade him for a pick, which I did. To quote Hawk Harrelson, "He gone".
A caller Tuesday asserted that Buffalo fans won't tolerate rebuilding. I'm here to say different. I think we would, and I, for one, would welcome it -- if it's done right.
For guidance, look south. Right now in sports we are in the midst of one of the all-time rebuilding projects. It's called the Houston Astros. They are famously lowering the bar for all this. The Astros are brazenly content with losing 100-plus games a year in an effort to stockpile minor-league talent. They're like the Indians in "Major League" but they are saying it to your face. Their payroll is projected to be about half of that of the Miami Marlins, and closer to 10 percent of that of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Their owner, Jim Crane, recently told The Wall Street Journal this about all that:
"It doesn't bother me that people want us to spend more money. But it's not their money. This is a private company, even though it's got a public flair to it. If they want to write a check for 10 million bucks, they can give me a call.
"We want to build a product that's consistent, and the only way we can do that is the way we're doing it. If people want to complain about it, they have a right to complain about it. But we're going to stick with the plan."
Hello.
To me this all sounds focused and buoyed by good intentions. If I were an Astros fan, I'd be on board.
More owners should be like-minded. Unlike general managers, an owner's job security is not at issue. And remember, fans never change allegiances. You grow up rooting for the Astros, you still do it. And you'll still be doing it in 20 years.
The way our sports leagues are structured they tempt you to go this route. The worst teams draft first. Salary caps limit big-market spending. What more could you ask for?
If you're really in it to win it, it can make sense to dump.
Let's bring it home. One could argue (many of us did) that this should have been Terry Pegula's first order of business as Sabres owner in 2011. I want to win, as I told you, and we're not really a contender. So it's house-cleaning time. Check with me in five years about how it's going. Pegula could have spent some of his goodwill on backing the team up and have plenty of "cash" left to spare.
But of course Pegula didn't do that. Instead he looked at Gil Perreault and started to cry, and vehemently defended the Ruff/Regier regime, and he talked about how good the players were which made him sound like everyone over there ever. He latched on to Sabre sentimentality, eschewing the idea of a cold analysis.
Now, only two years later, look at us.
As a fan I'd enjoy an earnest rebuilding effort -- in many ways. The pressure would be off; wins that now feel hollow and are almost annoying would instead be more warmly embraced. Players' successes would be highlighted, rather than their failures. No, this would not last forever -- but it would for a couple of years.
I plan on being here then, how about you?
In real sports I think most fans can live with rebuilding, as long as it's clear that that's what it is. And should any fan base welcome it more than ours? Our teams never really commit to it and of course lose anyway. What are we worried about, that the lack of a contending team will hurt business? It hasn't yet.
As I wrote last week, 40 to 50 years of no titles and we're all still here buying tickets and painting faces.
For guidance, look south. Right now in sports we are in the midst of one of the all-time rebuilding projects. It's called the Houston Astros. They are famously lowering the bar for all this. The Astros are brazenly content with losing 100-plus games a year in an effort to stockpile minor-league talent. They're like the Indians in "Major League" but they are saying it to your face. Their payroll is projected to be about half of that of the Miami Marlins, and closer to 10 percent of that of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Their owner, Jim Crane, recently told The Wall Street Journal this about all that:
"It doesn't bother me that people want us to spend more money. But it's not their money. This is a private company, even though it's got a public flair to it. If they want to write a check for 10 million bucks, they can give me a call.
"We want to build a product that's consistent, and the only way we can do that is the way we're doing it. If people want to complain about it, they have a right to complain about it. But we're going to stick with the plan."
Hello.
To me this all sounds focused and buoyed by good intentions. If I were an Astros fan, I'd be on board.
More owners should be like-minded. Unlike general managers, an owner's job security is not at issue. And remember, fans never change allegiances. You grow up rooting for the Astros, you still do it. And you'll still be doing it in 20 years.
The way our sports leagues are structured they tempt you to go this route. The worst teams draft first. Salary caps limit big-market spending. What more could you ask for?
If you're really in it to win it, it can make sense to dump.
Let's bring it home. One could argue (many of us did) that this should have been Terry Pegula's first order of business as Sabres owner in 2011. I want to win, as I told you, and we're not really a contender. So it's house-cleaning time. Check with me in five years about how it's going. Pegula could have spent some of his goodwill on backing the team up and have plenty of "cash" left to spare.
But of course Pegula didn't do that. Instead he looked at Gil Perreault and started to cry, and vehemently defended the Ruff/Regier regime, and he talked about how good the players were which made him sound like everyone over there ever. He latched on to Sabre sentimentality, eschewing the idea of a cold analysis.
Now, only two years later, look at us.
As a fan I'd enjoy an earnest rebuilding effort -- in many ways. The pressure would be off; wins that now feel hollow and are almost annoying would instead be more warmly embraced. Players' successes would be highlighted, rather than their failures. No, this would not last forever -- but it would for a couple of years.
I plan on being here then, how about you?
In real sports I think most fans can live with rebuilding, as long as it's clear that that's what it is. And should any fan base welcome it more than ours? Our teams never really commit to it and of course lose anyway. What are we worried about, that the lack of a contending team will hurt business? It hasn't yet.
As I wrote last week, 40 to 50 years of no titles and we're all still here buying tickets and painting faces.
Darcy Regier is bluntly not right for this strategy. He's not aggressive enough, and he's also not skilled enough at expressing himself to fans. Fans will need occasional "faith check-ups", and you want a GM that can better articulate why this whole project is worth supporting, not to mention be someone that didn't put the team into this unenviable state. The Sabres may have other reasons to think they should dismiss Regier, but these are mine.
I want rebuilding, and I want to have faith that commitment to this is made fully. Bring in somebody to break it down for purposes of building back up. Whenever it's good for you.