You may recall a recent blog of mine entitled The Worst Owners In Professional Sports History, in which I hinted that I may not be going to nearly as many Colorado Rockies games next summer as I have in the past. This came the day after All-Star left fielder Matt Holliday was traded to the Oakland Athletics for a package of reliever Huston Street, starting pitcher Greg Smith, and outfield prospect Carlos Gonzalez. Perhaps that blog was a little bit pre-emptive. I will say that I'm not upset that the Rockies traded Holliday. What upsets me is the fact that they could have gotten so much more for him. He was the Rockies' one trading chip that was a lock to land a front-line starting pitcher, the one thing that the Rockies have consistently lacked over the years, and Rockies GM Dan O'Dowd didn't land one in return for Holliday.
This has brought up the question in my mind of what I call "The Fan's Paradox": Do I support the players, or do I support the ownership of the team? Is it even possible to support one without supporting the other? For my entire life, I have believed that, as a fan, I support the players on the field, whether they are All-Stars or career minor-leaguers. It pains me to see a guy like Todd Helton, such a quality locker room guy, a loyal soldier, and a tremendous talent, spending his entire career for a team whose ownership group isn't dedicated to consistently fielding a contending team. Helton signed a long-term deal several years ago with the Rockies, and, with the exception of a magical 2007 season that saw the team win the National League Pennant, management hasn't rewarded his loyalty by building a consistent winner. Helton could have certainly gotten much more had he tested the free agent waters, although his contract with the Rockies is an incredibly lucrative one. I watch virtually every game, whether on TV or from the ballpark, and when I can't watch the game, I listen to it on 850 KOA. However, if I refuse, as a fan, to attend games, am I really supporting the players on the field? I'm not talking about not attending any games due to a lack of the financial means to do so, I'm talking about simply refusing to go to the games. If everybody refused to go to the games, I sure wouldn't want to show up to the ballpark to play in them. Part of me thinks that it simply isn't fair to the players that show loyalty to the fans of a team to not show up at the ballpark if I can.
The other side of the equation, though, is this: If I do pay my money for a ticket and show up to the games, am I not, then, saying to the ownership group that I approve of what they are doing? As a fan, and not an owner, I understand that the only vote that I have is my ticket. However, I am a baseball fan and a Colorado Rockies fan, not an employee of the team or a member of the team's ownership group. I want to support the team that I love so much, even though I don't approve of the direction that the current ownership group is taking it in. Is it a double-standard, then, if I begrudgingly pay for a ticket to go to a game?
This is a very difficult decision to make. When considering this question, it may be helpful if you don't take into account the fact that it is the Rockies that I am talking about. Imagine if this were your favorite team. What would you do? I am the self-proclaimed biggest Rockies fan of them all, and I have been since the team began play in 1993, when I was just 4 years old. I am in the stadium for a game on opening weekend every year. I attend the annual 4th of July fireworks game. I was in Coors Field for the NL Wild Card Tiebreaker game in 2007. I was there on April 5, 2008, when the 2007 NL Pennant was unveiled. I love this team, and I love going to Coors Field. It's a difficult decision for a fan to make, and it's one that I won't really have an idea about until baseball fires up again in 2009. It is also an unfair position to put a fan in, but it's one that is facing Rockies fans everywhere.
Daniella Sarahyba
Melissa Haro
Heisman Winners: Best NFL Careers
SI's Pictures of the Week
Comments (3) Add A Comment
We always hear that it isn't the name on the back of the jersey that matters... it is the name on the front. In the end, it isn't the player that draws me to the game but the jersey he or she wears. A change of uniform can do a hell of a lot to either cause me to like or dislike a certain player. I can respect a good player on another team, but I've been hard-wired as a fan to offer my allegiances to the team...
But this is a choice that every fanatic must make for himself or herself... there is not much of any way save EVERY fan of a specific team boycotting that team's games en masse... one man's protest far too often rings hollow. I've definitely mailed irate letters to management of my favorite teams before... but just as the solitary fan remaining home has little or no effect, neither does scribing screaming rants at ownership.
My advice? Go to all the games you want... and come armed with as many signs as possible voicing your displeasure... and make sure you angle 'em toward any national-television cameras which might cover that particular game... ;-)
Bigalke
Springfield, OR
Total Comments (22301)
I can absolutely relate to this paradox.
Over the years many of my favorire players on particular teams have been traded to other teams. More often than not though, I would find myself still following that player's career - and often still supporting his success and by extension that other team's success! It's a strange phenomenon. It does depend a little what teams are involved in the trade though and under what circumstances the player leaves town.
Currently it's the Ottawa Sens that I relate to in this paradoxical way. Even after last season's abysmal collapse then Sens are near the top of the league in corporate and fan support. The owners are therefore not feeling the pressure to improve the club and they continue to let the incompentent GM flounder around. If the fans - or the corporate sector - pulled back their support, I suspect the owners would step up. (It's basically how MapleLeafs owners abused their fanbase for decades. Why spend on the club if the fans and business dollars are rolling in anyway?).
Very frustrating. On one hand, you want to support the team though the good and the bad. On the other hand, you want to incentivize them to change for the better.
Good blog - The situation really is a dilemna!
YODA
Total Comments (16730)
Another good blog, WT. I can relate to Bigalke and his comment on being hard-wired to offer allegiance to the team over individual players. I think most fans follow this dictum actually - your team is part of your identity much more so than any player. He offers up some sound advice there in his last paragraph, too, and, unless you can find like-minded souls to organize a real boycott, going to games and supporting the players that are there, while at the same time showing your displeasure with management, is your best bet. As an O's fan I can relate well to all you say concerning ownership and their refusal to shell out to field a play-off caliber team. This after all those years of enjoying -and taking for granted - sold out home dates at Camden Yards. Sort of like Yoda's Leafs except our fans aren't quite as patient and haven't been quite as willing to keep coming in droves - except when Boston or NY are in town and then the Yard is either a sea of red or blue and white.......Disgusting!
Seabird 56
Total Comments (1660)
Comment
Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.