Ocean’s Overboard and Overdone

This past Saturday I saw the newly released film called, Ocean’s 8. It held the same premise as all the former Ocean movies, but the difference was that the criminals were all female. The movie was filled with star studded actresses, such as Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, and Anne Hathaway, grabbing the headlines. Nonetheless, even with all these stars, the movie was probably the worst installment of the Ocean’s series.  Actually, what this movie resembled was the 2011 Philadelphia Eagles.

The 2011 Philadelphia Eagles were highly star studded. That year they signed 12 free agents compromised most notably of: running back Ronnie Brown, cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha, defensive tackle Cullen Jenkins and defensive end Jason Babin. However, the team finished just 8-8 and missed the playoffs.  To make matters worse, in 2011 the four newly signed players (Brown, Asomugha, Jenkins, and Babin) took up nearly a fifth of the team’s payroll. So it’s safe to say that the free agency acquisitions did not help the 2011 Philadelphia Eagles.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an interesting story in 2012 called, “NFL’s track record on building teams through free agency mixed at best: Analysis,” in which it analyzed all 32 NFL teams from 2006-2011 in terms of their free agent signings and their winning percentage. Eight teams won 60 percent or more of their games in those five years. Six of those eight teams signed fewer than fifteen free agents and three of those teams signed less than five. The teams that won over 60 percent of their games and, in turn, predominantly signed few free agents, were the dynasties of the late 2000’s. These teams consisted of the Saints (28), Patriots (22), Giants (14), Steelers (11), Ravens (10), Colts (4), Chargers (4), and Packers (3). Now the teams that were crappy during this time period tended to sign free agents more readily. For instance the Lions, who had a winning percentage of 31%, signed 35 free agents (remember this includes their 0-16 season back in 2008), the Raiders, who had a winning percentage of 37%, signed 27 free agents, the Dolphins and Redskins, who both had winning percentages of 40%, signed 26 free agents a piece, and finally the Browns, who had a winning percentage of 35%, signed 21 free agents.

There are several analyses that this data shows. First, the reason why it seems good teams signed few free agents is because those teams were not in a desperation mode. For instance, the Lions signed 35 free agents in these five years and within these five years they had one year in which they did not win a game. So it shows that the team was trying to do anything to muster some sort of respectability. In other words, the mentality is different. Whereas, in the case of the Steelers, a free agent helps to subtly improve the team, like whip cream does on a slice of pie. The pie will taste just fine without the whip cream, but the whip cream might push it to become the coveted dessert at family reunions. On the other hand, losing teams are trying to build their foundation with free agents, which is a liability for reasons that will be described next.

Typically traditional free agents have already proven themselves in the NFL. They have gained some level of respectability. However, free agents also come with some level of “baggage”. This is because the free agent was not able to come to terms with their previous team, or their previous team no longer thought that the player was in their best interest (hence why his previous team didn’t re-sign him). For instance, Terrell Owens was an excellent receiver but when he signed with the Cowboys, after being released from the Eagles, it was a gamble that the Cowboys had to evaluate thoroughly. Terrell Owens is a flamboyant and argumentative person, which led to him being released by the Eagles.  Although he played well for the Cowboys, there is some evidence that he also contributed to a lot of the team’s locker room drama. So because the free agent has proven himself, he is not as easily able to be conformed to his new team’s culture, which, as the aforementioned example explains, can cause issues within the team.

Due to the fact that free agents typically have “proven themselves,” they also hold more leverage in terms of their asking price when negotiating contracts. As stated earlier, the 2011 Eagle’s signed 12 free agents. Their four top free agents took up nearly a fifth of their cap space alone.  In turn, free agents are a financial gamble. The team must weigh whether proven performance is worth more than a high premium. That is not an easy answer because sometimes the free agent’s previous team made that player “look” better than he really was. In other words, that player is a system player, and the reason he performed well wasn’t necessarily so much a result of his natural talents, but because his natural talents fit the system that that team was running. For instance, when the Houston Texans signed quarterback Brock Osweiler to a $70M fully guaranteed contract, they were expecting a franchise quarterback. However, what the Texans got was a terrible player, who looked good in Denver because he was surrounded by great talent.

So in order for a free agent to help a team succeed two elements need to be met. First, the team who is taking in a free agent must have a well-respected and proven head coach. This is because if the team has a proven-coach they have a well-established culture. So it follows, if the team has a well-established culture then (1) they know what type of players and what system works best for their needs and (2) the entire team buys into that system.  If the coach is weak or unproven, there isn’t any cohesive culture and a free agent could cause just more internal team friction, while also wasting cap space.

So coming back to the issue with Ocean’s 8, the movie lacked the culture and the foundation on which the previous three were built. The most glaring reason for this is the fact the previous Oceans’ were all directed (i.e. the head coach) by Steven Soderbergh; whereas Ocean’s 8 was directed by Gary Ross. So, Ocean’s 8 was, like the 2011 Eagles, – fine, but given its star quality investment, it should have been a lot better.

How The Golden State Gold Rush Dries Up

The NBA is a league in which a single star player can thrust a sub-par team to the playoffs. So a team with four all-stars and above average bench players not only thrusts a team into the playoffs, but at the very least, takes their team to the conference finals. The latter are the Golden State Warriors.

So then how does a team that seems perfect, fail? The easiest answers would be injury or retirement. However, the former typically does not destroy a dynasty, unless the injury is career ending or is chronic (for instance Derek Rose has never been the same since his knee injuries, even though he is still in the league), and retirement is usually foreseeable in professional sports. Also most dynasties occur when the team’s players are not nearing retirement (Michael Jordan retiring from the Bulls for the final time).  In turn, a dynasty, like the Mayans, fails from within.

Now the question becomes: How do the Golden State Warriors collapse from within?  In the simplest terms it comes down to the fact that good players, all-star players, want to win, but also want to be paid adequately. In 2017 Kevin Durant, the Warriors’ forward who was courted from Oklahoma City in order to stop Lebron and the Cavs, took a pay cut. Typically a player of his caliber should receive the max salary (~$35M per year), but Durant took about a ten million dollar pay cut, in which he netted $25M. Dan Feldman, from NBCsports.com, stated that Durant’s pay cut allowed for, “the Warriors to keep Andre Iguodala and Shaun Livingston.” However, Durant could have been paid $31M and the Warriors could still have kept Iguodala and Livingston. Feldman then mentions that the Warriors were able to sign the shooter Nick Young, with the cash saved from Durant’s pay cut. If the Warriors’ really needed Nick Young so badly that they asked Durant to take a pay cut, it seems like a slap in the face to Durant. It should be noted the addition of Nick Young was not crucial to the Warriors’ continued success. Nonetheless Durant’s pay cut is just the foreshadowing of the demise.

Steph Curry, the overrated point guard for the Warriors, is scheduled to receive a “super max” contract worth $201M through 2022. Then Klay Thompson, who is the best all-around player on the Warriors, will become a free agent in the summer of 2019. Thompson’s current contract is scheduled to be worth $68M, so it is likely that, due to his caliber and talent, that he will likely not only like to see a monetary raise to compensate his value, but also to be paid like a super star. Then in the summer of 2020, Draymond Green’s current contract, which is scheduled to be worth $82M, expires. Here,  Green will have the same dilemma as Thompson. Golden State’s ownership will have to decide whether they adequately compensate their players, and in doing so, the ownership will have to pay the tax for being over the soft cap. In other words, the ownership would be losing money.  The other option is that the ownership tries to have Durant, who will be a free agent in the summer of 2018, take another pay cut. This option seems unlikely as Feldman has stated that Durant has implied he does not think taking another pay cut would be smart.

There seems to be two options available. The first is that the Golden State Warriors’ ownership uses Durant’s willingness to take a pay cut as precedent for the rest of the team to do the same when their current contract terms expire. The issue with this is that players will only be getting older and so their bargaining power, after they take their initial “pay cut”, becomes lower. The other option is that Golden State trade one of these players – namely Green or Thompson – in the last year of their current contract. This is highly unlikely for Thompson; the reason for this is because he will just be 28 when his current contract expires, and will also be in his prime. The more likely scenario is Draymond Green is not resigned or is traded in his last year of his contract, if he is not willing to take a pay cut. Green would be about 30 or 31 when his contract expires. However, Green is not physically gifted like other all-stars and so when he reaches his 30’s his abilities may be dissipating, rather than improving, or at the very least staying the same.

In the end the Golden State Warriors’ dynasty may collapse due to cash, as stated above.  But if the team decides to all take pay cuts or the ownership pays the tax, there is one inevitable way the dynasty ends – time. A player’s physical talent is finite, and as a player ages, his abilities deteriorate, and with that, so does his value to his team.

Star Spangle Banter!

Has Barnes ‘n Noble’s stock gone up? Are piano lessons being sought after at an astronomical rate? Has Fort McHenry received an absorbent amount of attendance? The reason I ask these questions is because for some reason the National Anthem has become so idolized that the NFL has now enacted a National Anthem Policy.

The policy is relatively broad and straight forward, which for those who have delved into any policy, law, or rule, realize that a broad law/rule tends to be challenged regularly and exceptions are enacted to narrow its scope. The Policy states, according to Sport’s Illustrated’s Albert Breer, that “the league’s new policy will allow players to choose whether or not they come out for the anthem, but require them to stand for it if they’re on the field when it plays.”

So there are three issues that need to be discussed with this rule:

1.       How the new policy was passed

2.       What’s the NFL’s reason for enacting such policy

3.       What parties are hurt by this policy.

Let’s start with the first issue of how this policy was enacted. The first reports indicated that the NFL’s owners voted on whether this policy should be legislated.  It was concluded that thirty-one of the thirty-two owners voted in favor of the policy, with the lone owner (the 49ers owner) abstaining from the vote. However, as reported by ESPN.com’s Seth Wickersham, the NFL did not actually conduct a vote, but rather polled the owners. From this poll they assumed that the owners would vote in favor of this policy.

So the NFL effectively decided to end an already dying protest by an authoritarian method – shutting down a peaceful demonstration by non-peaceful means. History has shown in America the consequences of such a strategy. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Selma March would not have been the same, nor would it have been as effective, if it was not for the government (i.e. the municipal police officers) using violent means to try and quash a peaceful protest.

What is more appalling is not the fact that the NFL lied by stating that new Anthem Policy was a vote made unanimously, but rather the fact that the NFL has not learned from its past lying.  This is the same league that only a few years ago botched handling the Ray Rice incident.  In that public relations embarrassment, the league was originally going to just hand Rice a two-game suspension, but then decided against it only once it felt the general public outcry toward the horrific elevator camera footage of the violence Rice inflicted upon his wife.  From that experience, the NFL should have learned it’s always best to “measure twice and cut once.” However, here in the flag issue the NFL handed down a broad policy, and wanted the general public to believe that every club was for it, but this was not true. This is exemplified by the Jets owner coming out and saying that he would not punish (i.e. pass down the fines that the club received) any player who violated this policy.

The other issue is the fact that the NFL did not discuss this new policy with the players, prior to it being announced. Now, legally, the NFL is a private corporate entity and therefore its employees are not provided with Constitutional protections – i.e. free speech. However, I would argue that NFL stadiums and owners who beg for their stadiums to be paid by local municipalities (taxpayers) are in fact a governmental entity and therefore subject to the Constitution. Regardless, the NFL, like any professional sports league, is unique in that its labor is extremely rare. In other businesses a policy like this anthem policy would be easily enacted as the company’s labor is easily replaceable. So input from its labor is less needed as they are more likely to succumb to the demands and policies of the company’s owners for fear that they could be terminated and quickly replaced. However, the NFL is made up of extremely gifted and rare individuals who make the game what it is – entertaining. In turn, it is important for the NFL to work harmoniously with its players, because, if they have an unhappy workforce, the product on the field could suffer. The NFL failed in this respect and has strained its relationship with its players even further.

The NFL claims it enacted this policy, reported by Tadd Haislop of Sportingnews.com, out of “respect for the flag and anthem.” Anyone who believes that reasoning probably also believes that Donald Trump is the “least racist person ever!” The NFL created this rule because it thought it would boost its perception. For instance the NFL recently passed a new rule, reported by George Henry of the Chicago Tribune, “that says any player who initiates contact with his helmet is subject to ejection after an in-game video review that will be decided in New York.” This rule includes lineman. If the referees are to follow the letter of the law, then lineman will be ejected at a rapid pace. So the rule will not be enforced, but just used to give the average fan a “perception” that the NFL is trying to make the game safer.

The same principle of “perception” is used with the National Anthem Policy. The NFL believed this would make them look more patriotic, so fans would feel that the NFL is “All about America.” The NFL really is trying to mitigate any “bad” press (largely stemming from the President). What the NFL really did was pour gasoline onto a dying fire, enrage its players, and preach “patriotism” through authoritarian means of enforcement. The irony is everywhere.

The Issues With The 2018 NBA Playoffs

I sit here watching  Game Four of the 2018 Western Conference Finals between the Houston Rockets and the Golden State Warriors, unimpressed. So far the series has been anything but competitive. All first three games, of the series, have been blow outs. The closest of these three games was game one in which Golden State beat Houston by 13 points to take away home court from the Rockets. With the Eastern Conference being weaker than in prior years (and that’s saying something), many analysts and pundits figured that the Western Conference Finals would determine the 2018 NBA Champion, as the NBA Finals are predicted to be more of a formality than an actual “Championship Series.” So far that prediction is not producing, and that is costing the NBA. 


The 2018 NBA Playoffs, up to this point, have been noncompetitive and boring. This is a problem considering a sport survives, albeit a professional sport, so long as it draws viewers.  Take the eight first round matchups – only half went to six games or more. What is even more disappointing is that it was the Eastern Conference’s most recognizable teams that were forced to extend their first round series past five games; whereas the more competitive, and as the pundits have suggested, more entertaining West, finished three of their four series’ within five games. 


Logically the first round of any sports playoff would be considered the least entertaining. That is not the case in this year’s NBA. In the second round, no series went more than five games.  Luckily the jury is still out regarding the NBA Conference Finals. It appears that the Eastern Conference Finals will at least go six games.


A counter argument to the above claim is that although the series themselves have been “quick,” the games themselves have been close. This may be true, but there is something to be said for the psychological aspect of one team consistently beating another team in nail biters. In the 2007 World Series an average fan remembers that the Boston Red Sox swept the Colorado Rockies, but they forget the fact that in two of those four games the Rockies only lost by one run. That’s the issue with one team in a series winning a bunch of close games – it’s competitive but not captivating. When Boston went up 3-0 against the 76ers in the second round, no reasonable fan was thinking that the 76ers were going to come back, but rather was wondering if Boston would finish the series in Game 4 or Game 5 (as an aside it doesn’t help that Boston is without its two best players for the entire playoffs). 


Assuming that Cleveland and Golden State make it to the NBA Finals for the fourth time in a row, it doesn’t mean much. The reason for this is because in order for a rivalry to be worthwhile, there needs to be some level of expectation that each side could win. That will not be the case this year, just like it was not the case last year, especially now with Cleveland struggling to defeat a deficient Boston team. 


It should be noted that no matter how bored I might be by the recent NBA playoffs, the rest of the country has been entertained. Since 2015 the NBA Finals have had an average viewership of 20 million and I will most likely continue to be one of them.