The drama and saga of LeBron James, city of Cleveland, and community of South Beach (Miami) has brought to light the natural tension between professional athletes and the cities where they play.  While some athletes are more altruistic than others, it is hard to imagine any player who would sign a contract in the range of the average American household income: $46,000.   In fact, if statistically you are the best player in your sport, it’s hard to imagine signing a salary equivalent to the tenth-best athlete.

Some cities, particularly the less glamorous ones, ask players to give the “home-town discount,” because that city and the organization has treated the player so well.  The “home-town discount” actually does occur from time to time, but it is, without exception,  minimal.

The reaction to LeBron James’ move to South Beach was obviously great joy in Miami.  However, for South Floridians, this may be one of those “be careful for what you wish” scenarios: The Miami Heat just became the most disliked team in the N.B.A.  Cleveland has received  appropriate support and empathy from the sports media, even political columnists (see Maureen Dowd), and fans, particularly those in the Rust Belt.  However, this love affair with Cleveland may be short-lived, as the Cavaliers will likely join the ranks of also-ran teams in the league, with no discernible star player.

King James (as LeBron allows himself to be called) clearly did not act like a prince as Decision-Day came closer.  He hyped the suspense and then arranged for ESPN to give him an hour of air time to hype his decision (not a tough sell, since ESPN clearly cashed in on it).  Despite Mr. James’ many words of modesty, the message was clear: “It’s all about me.”

So, outside the South Beach metropolitan area, LeBron is the one who broke up what was thought to be a strong relationship, while Cleveland stands as the jilted lover.  For those who like to view issues as “good vs. evil,” Cleveland has our support and LeBron our disdain.

However, the issue may be far more complicated than the way in which much of the media has played it, LeBron has reinforced it, and the public’s desire to see issues in simplistic terms might like.

If we care to try to get over our anger, we might consider the following, which may put LeBron James’ decision in at least a neutral light:

In general, sports team owners are model for operating in their own self-interest; often treating players as property.  This issue came to a head in 1970, when baseball star Curt Flood objected to being traded by the St. Louis Cardinals to the Philadelphia Phillies. With the help of players union, he took major league baseball’s reserve clause to court.  Unlike most players, Flood passed up the opportunity for a lucrative contract in order stand on principle.  He stated:

“After twelve years in the major leagues, I do not feel I am a piece of property to be bought and sold irrespective of my wishes. I believe that any system which produces that result violates my basic rights as a citizen and is inconsistent with the laws of the United States and of the several States.

It is my desire to play baseball in 1970, and I am capable of playing. I have received a contract offer from the Philadelphia club, but I believe I have the right to consider offers from other clubs before making any decision. I, therefore, request that you make known to all Major League clubs my feelings in this matter, and advise them of my availability for the 1970 season.”

A player may be quite comfortable with the city in which he or she has been playing.  However, as is the case in every industry, an employee may not like the team’s owners.  Perhaps that was the case with LeBron James.  Consider what Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert said following James’ decision:

“As you now know, our former hero, who grew up in the very region that he deserted this evening, is no longer a Cleveland Cavalier.

This was announced with a several day, narcissistic, self-promotional build-up culminating with a national TV special of his “decision” unlike anything ever “witnessed” in the history of sports and probably the history of entertainment.

Clearly, this is bitterly disappointing to all of us.

The good news is that the ownership team and the rest of the hard-working, loyal, and driven staff over here at your hometown Cavaliers have not betrayed you nor NEVER will betray you.

There is so much more to tell you about the events of the recent past and our more than exciting future. Over the next several days and weeks, we will be communicating much of that to you.

You simply don’t deserve this kind of cowardly betrayal.

You have given so much and deserve so much more.

In the meantime, I want to make one statement to you tonight:

“I PERSONALLY GUARANTEE THAT THE CLEVELAND CAVALIERS WILL WIN AN NBA CHAMPIONSHIP BEFORE THE SELF-TITLED FORMER ‘KING’ WINS ONE” You can take it to the bank.”

If  Gilbert’s words reflect his general management style and respect for those who have served him well, then maybe LeBron James was justified leaving for reasons that had nothing to do with the city of Cleveland.  He may have wanted to get away from an ungrateful owner.

A player may simply want to play for a different team where (a) his closest friend(s) play, or (b) where the strategy that the coach /manager takes is more consistent with his/her preferences [e.g. an NFL quarterback who would prefer to play for a “pass-happy” coach]; (c) a player wishes to get away from certain players or “bad elements” associated with the team where he or she has played; (d) a member of the player’s family would strongly prefer to move on.  An excellent example of the opposite of this was several years ago when St. Louis Cardinals relief pitcher Russ Springer chose to stay with St. Louis because he and his wife felt that the best services for his autistic child was at the Judevine Center in St. Louis (now called TouchPoint Autism Services).

LeBron James had every right to take his talents from Cleveland to South Beach.   I wonder if he has ever heard of Curt Flood, who made this move possible.  But perhaps he was being a gentleman by not trashing the Cavaliers’ owner in the way in which Mr. Gilbert castigated him.  It’s a complicated situation; it doesn’t feel good; but it’s definitely food for thought.

The post Athletes and the cities they play in appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I went off to college at American University in September, 1965; the Cardinals were still technically world champions, but there would be no miracle this year.  American University was a logical choice; I loved politics and where better to be than Washington, DC.  I also loved baseball and the old Washington Senators always had plenty of seats available.  The Baltimore Orioles (formerly St. Louis Browns) were just 40 miles up the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.

I had been in Los Angeles the month before, but not when the impoverished Watts neighborhood exploded with one of America’s largest race riots to date; 34 people had been killed, 1,032 injured and 3,952 arrested.  It was then that we began to hear the term “rising expectations;” that African-Americans (then called ‘Negroes’ and about to be called ‘blacks’) found that legislative gains and increasing white awareness of their plight had not resulted in decent jobs, good schools, adequate and accessible health care, and de facto equal rights.

The next three summers were characterized by “racial disturbances” (i.e. riots) in over 100 American cities.  St. Louis was the only major city that seemed to escape the carnage.  Theories abounded: St. Louis was neither a northern nor a southern town; there was less (or was it more?) police brutality than elsewhere; and of course everybody’s favorite; the town was otherwise occupied in 1967 and 1968 as the Cardinals once again won the National League pennants.  True or not, race relations and the Cardinals were inexorably mixed in the late 1960s.  What did Bob Gibson, who could be so intimidating on the mound, think about the civil rights struggle and accompanying violence?  What about Cardinal center fielder Curt Flood?  When he was traded following the 1969 season while making $90,000 / year (among the highest salaries in baseball), he likened the reserve clause which took away his freedom to decide for which team he wanted to play, as slavery.  The players didn’t speak publicly about political issues, which while frustrating to a fan, only allowed us to play the game of speculation all the more.  When Flood (along with teammate Tim McCarver) was traded following the 1969 season, it took a large bite out of the hearts of many Cardinal fans.

It almost seemed that the Cardinals were cursed by the trade during the 1970s; they almost always competed but never won the National League Eastern Division (baseball was now

fragmented into divisional play).  There was still a political presence on the team; catcher Ted Simmons openly expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War and for those of us who questioned blind authority, he was a refreshing presence on the team.  His wife, MaryAnne, started a magazine exclusively for baseball wives.  It brought the women’s liberation movement to women who otherwise never would have been enlightened.

Before the 1982 season, manager / general manager Whitey Herzog traded Simmons, perhaps because Herzog thought that his authority would be questioned.  But that same off-season he acquired shortstop Ozzie Smith.  Mr. Herzog must have known something because he put together a championship team that year.  In 1985 and 1987 the team won the National League pennant only to lose seven-game World Series in the most frustrating of ways.   The teams of the 1980s were richly integrated with Smith, Jack Clark Vince Coleman, (Silent) George Hendrick, Tommy Herr, Lance Johnson, Tito Landrum, Jim Lindeman, Willie McGee, Terry Pendleton, Lonnie Smith and Andy Van Slyke.  Had it not been for an errant call at first base in Game 6 of the 1985 World Series and an outfield wall made of Hefty bags in 1987, the Cardinals teams of the mid-1980s might have qualified as a dynasty.

A dry spell ensued; nine years after the 1987 pennant-winning team, Tony LaRussa took the helm of the team.  After a slow start, the team romped to winning the Central Division of the National League by six games.  In the first round of the playoffs they swept the San Diego Padres, but blew a 3-2 game lead in the League Championship Series by tanking in the final two games in Atlanta.  The team had a diverse group of players; over 46% of the at-bats were taken by African-American players; a remarkable figure for any team in any year.  But the team did not seem to have the harmony of the Cardinal teams of the 1960s or 1980s; the impact of long-term contracts and some inflated salaries took their toll on the Cardinals and other teams as well.

Two years later Mark McGwire was on the Cardinals and along with Sammy Sosa they revived baseball with their combined 135 home runs.  As you know, there are associated factors to this story and you can read about them elsewhere.  The team continued to win, but baseball began to change in St. Louis.  It became more and more corporate and there was less diversity on the field.  The new owners bullied the community into an unnecessary new stadium with fewer seats, more luxury boxes, higher prices, and a still unfulfilled promise of a “Ballpark Village” on the site of the previous stadium.  Ownership prospered; taxpayers sacrificed tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue.  The fans didn’t seem to mind; they passed through the turnstiles of the new stadium at a rate of over three million a year, including 2009 in the midst of “the great recession.”  And as we said, the team, while very likable and competitive, entered the 2010 season without a single African-American on the roster as a player or coach.

The teams of the 1960s were intricately tied with the social progress and upheaval of the time.  A large part of the excitement of going to the ballpark was seeing integration work; a special bond among a diverse group of players.  It helped build an ethos that served as a model for people in other industries.  This was especially so in St. Louis because the team was so successful and the team as a group was a collection of very unique individuals.  It was true elsewhere; I loved going to games in Baltimore and seeing the Robinsons (Frank and Brooks) form the nucleus of outstanding teams that also reflected the demographics of the community.

In many ways today’s Cardinals team may reflect a portion of our current body politic.  For me the opening of Spring Training this year was somewhat disturbing when relief pitcher Ryan Franklin took issue with the league’s policy of no guns permitted in the clubhouse.  Somehow his concern for his gun rights just doesn’t measure up to Curt Floods personal sacrifice to remove the shackles of the rules of the game that bound a player to a single team for the entirety of his career.  It’s a different game now for a different audience.  I hope that you’ll pardon me if I this season I choose not to visit Mr. DeWitt’s palace and further fill his coffers.  I still love the game, and when the renaissance occurs, I’ll be there.

Link to Part I
Link to Part III

The post Baseball and Politics – Part II appeared first on Occasional Planet.