Dear NBA: Who Are You Again?

Oh yeah. There is a professional basketball league above the D-League and the CBA in this country. I had forgotten.

Well, I hadn't really forgotten. It's hard to forget with all the coverage about a lack of progress in negotiations between the NBA players and owners. There are rumors of players playing abroad--and sometimes more than rumors: Deron Williams of the Jazz is playing in Turkey and former St. Mary's star and Portland guard Patty Mills just signed to play in China. Once again, the American consumer and worker--in the form of fans and ticket office employees, concessionaires, etc--are brought face to face with the scourge of outsourcing. At least in this case, the owners of the businesses are not profiting from the outsourcing.

But I have kind of forgotten about the NBA, which I don't think is going to be an uncommon response. Last year, I was saying to Vaughn that I would really like to check out a Golden State Warriors game, since they play right there in Oakland next to a Bart station. This year, until an article in today's paper, I had completely forgotten whom the Warriors drafted in the most recent draft--for the record, they drafted Klay Thompson and Jeremy Tyler. I had forgotten that the new owners fired Keith Smart and hired Mark Jackson.

So many questions that could be answered, but won't be until if and when the players and owners decide that yes, they WOULD like to make a living from a game: did the Warriors make the Smart choice in changing coaches? Will Coach Jackson make his Mark in the Bay Area?

Better hurry up, NBA, before we decide we just don't care anymore. More specifically, take this as a warning that we may soon no longer care enough to offer warnings like this one.

Thoughts? Opinions? Anyone care to guess whether the NBA has a season this year? And if the NBA does have a season and no one cares enough to watch, does it make a sound?

In Search Of More Meaningful Meaningless Sports Cliches

Have you noticed that sports cliches are just too easy to mock these days? It's now boring to point out the physical impossibility of giving 110%, or the irrelevance of saying "there is no i in team"--although there is an i in win, and me in team if you jumble the letters.

It's time for some new cliches, or at least the recognition of some less-obvious cliches that require a little more creativity to ridicule.

Let's start with the category with more positive lexicographical associations. For a new cliche, I would suggest something along the lines of "it's not over until the last vuvuzela is banned from the stadium and trampled underneath a herd of rampaging elephants." This would be a good choice for a couple reasons: 1) we all found out about vuvuzelas during the 2010 World Cup and could all get behind a policy of trampling the damned things; and 2) it's culturally accurate, as vuvuzelas and elephants can both be found in South Africa.

As for some more subtle, newly discovered cliches, how about this? My friend, in discussing the Green Bay Packers, said that their defense "is designed to play with the lead." As opposed to all the defenses that only feel comfortable after giving up a touchdown or two, I noted. My friend replied with an obfuscatory, octopus-like cloud of analysis that was no doubt accurate, but my response was funnier, so I'm declaring myself the winner of that little debate.

Or then in today's paper, I read about a volleyball player who saved the day "with ice in her veins." Is it just me, or would that be very bad for the circulation? In which case, wouldn't ice in one's veins be detrimental to one's athletic performance?

Thoughts? Comments? Clever dissections of superficially-impressive-but-ultimately-vapid sports metaphors and chestnuts?

A Stadium By Any Other Name

There is headline news on www.soccernet.com about Newcastle United's decision to drop the historic "St. James' Park" from the name of the stadium, naming it instead the Sports Direct Arena. I know, I know; Sports Direct is a mammoth name steeped in sporting lore and legend, but some people seem to be upset about this.

Okay, so a few years ago, this would make me gnash my teeth and complain about selling out. As it is, it sets my teeth on edge.

However, I do not consider this to be a sign of the apocalypse, for a trio of reasons:

1) Newcastle United is my favorite Premier League team, and therefore, as an extension/reflection of my personality, they can do no wrong;
2) If I were to complain about every element of sell-out in sports, I would never have time to enjoy the games;
3) Who cares what the corporation calls it?

Let's take these in turn:

1) I'm willing to view this as a method of increasing revenue for Newcastle, which could allow them to go from strength to strength and challenge for greater honors. We'll disregard the fact that Sports Direct is the company owned by Newcastle's current owner, Mike Ashley, which means that the current name is just a lure for future sponsors. Sports are expensive; better this than raising ticket prices, right?

2) You could theoretically assume that every sport was riddled with corruption: money, drugs, and the drugs of money and the money of drugs, etc. But that just wouldn't be much fun. "Bread and circuses" still means you get to have a snack and watch a circus act.

3) They can call it Sports Direct Arena all they want; do you think the fans in the pubs will call it anything but St. James' Park? When the 49ers changed the name of Candlestick Park to Monster Park, I don't think I can remember ever hearing anyone other than TV analysts call it Monster Park; all the people who mattered--the fans--called it Candlestick Park.

So all in all, sound and fury signifying nothing; as long as any sponsorship revenue helps Newcastle tear apart Chelsea and win everything in the history of what there is to be won, and then some more winning after that. That's not too much to ask.

Goodbye, Jonathan Sanchez

The question of "What if?" is endemic to sports. What if Scott Cousins had slid around Buster Posey, rather than through him? What if the Germans had been penalized for a handball on the goal line in the 2002 World Cup Quarterfinal against the United States? What if spokesmen for Frank McCourt, lame duck owner of the Dodgers, had not subtly blamed Brian Stow for being beaten into a coma outside of Dodger Stadium?

What if Jonathan Sanchez had not been hurt this year? What if his control had improved, turning his mercurial flashes of brilliance into a steady glow, as his potential had always promised to produce? Would the Giants have traded him to Kansas City for Melky Cabrera yesterday?

I am sorry to see Jonathan go, because I would have loved to see the core of young talent that came up together stay in SF in perpetuity. Any time a local hero is moved on, you hear the cliche that 'it's a business,' uttered with varying degrees of bitterness. And it's true: baseball, like any business, is about managing one's resources, and diversifying one's strengths. I'm generally opposed to corporate culture, but I'm not going to launch an OccupyAT&TPark movement over this trade, for several reasons:

1) The Giants won the World Series in 2010. That is something to feed on for a while, like a bear feeds on stored fat while hibernating.

2) The Giants desperately need an injection of offense, and you can't get something without giving something in return. Well, you can, but it's called theft, and it is generally frowned upon. Plus, you can't really steal a player from one team and make him play for yours; it's called kidnapping, it would be noticed, and it is not looked on favorably.

3) Bolstering the lineup means the Giants might have a shot at re-signing Carlos Beltran, and I would love to see what he could do over a full year in San Francisco. Swapping the contract of Jonathan Sanchez for the contract of Melky Cabrera means that the Giants didn't have to spend more money to bring in a bat; they just reallocated funds from pitching to offense, and pitching is a source of strength.

4) The Giants won the World Series in 2010. Did I mention that already? We've met the goal, the young core took charge, and that can never be taken away from the players or the fans. Jonathan Sanchez had some wonderful moments; I will never forget turning on SportsCenter from a motel in Volcano, Hawaii, in June of 2009, just in time to see highlights from the first no-hitter for the Giants in more than 30 years. No matter what happens, he has been on top of the world in SF.

Of course, now that we have won the championship once in my life, we need to win it at least one more time so that my team will have won as many times as my best friend Vaughn's favorite team, the Minnesota Twins. It's called equality, and frankly, that's a goal everyone should support. Improving the offense gives us a better shot of making the playoffs next year.

So yes, there are many business reasons for making a trade like this. The better the team, the more money you can make from ticket sales, post-season revenue, merchandise, etc. But a sports team is clearly more complex than just a business. It is not just a question of the economics of exchanging resources to strengthen your team. It is a chess match, a narrative, and for many of us, a source of a sense of identity. And hey, as a source for self-identification, sports have produced fewer crusades than religion.

So good luck, Jonathan. I was so happy that your dad got to see your no-hitter, and I loved your strong pitching that got us where we needed to go. You will be missed.

And welcome, Melky. Show us what you've got.