Sterling v. McCourt

Yesterday I alluded to the notion that Frank McCourt actually might be a worse owner than Donald Sterling. I could probably be convinced that Sterling is a worse person, but as an owner, Sterling is better, and it's not really close.

First of all, the claims about Sterling's racism are serious, and the fact that he, as a landlord, has the ability to affect people's lives is truly scary. For this argument, though, I'll focus on each owner's direct impact on his team, and by extension, their fans.

To me, there are three main responsibilities of an owner, they are: providing the financial support to the front office to field the most competitive team possible, providing support (also mainly financial) to the employees of the organization, and representing the company (team) positively in the community.

While none of these are technically legal obligations, save for the laws of running a company, they are unwritten codes that are accepted throughout sports. Because of Anti-trust exemptions and the fact that a majority of franchises receive public funding, it is expected that owners respect these codes of conduct. While I have little sympathy for fans who think players owe them something -- usually on the basis of said athletes' higher salaries -- I do believe that owners have an obligation to the community.

Here I will compare how these two men stack up against each other, based on the aforementioned criteria:

Support for Employees of Organization:

It is impossible to completely separate this category from the "fielding the best team" one because, let's face it, most employees of an organization -- and that includes players, coaches, front office -- are happier when the organization wins. Sure, it's possible to have a miserable work environment while some within it are prospering. Hell, I had some miserable times at MLB while Bud Selig was pulling in millions. But, essentially this category is about who values the process more. Which owner understands what it takes to build and sustain a winning organization. Frank McCourt has allowed this to happen. I can't believe I linked to Plaschke, but he points out a pretty classless act. Obviously one anecdotal example an argument does not make, but his history of being cheap is well documented.

Meanwhile, Sterling has stuck with GM/coach Mike Dunleavy for far longer than most owners would have, presumably because he understands that Dunleavy deserves a chance to win with a healthy team. He also just spent a ton of money on a nice new practice facility that has drawn praise from many who have been there.

Advantage: Sterling

Providing Resources to Support Competitive Team:

The most important aspect of ownership is putting good players on the court or field. To do this, an owner must invest in front office types who give them the best chance to do so. People have qualms with Mike Dunleavy the coach, but Mike Dunleavy the G.M. is far superior to Ned Colletti. Even if we assume that Colletti is hamstrung financially by McCourt, and it certainly looks that way, at least recently, he has made some big, bad signings that haven't helped the team. Juan Pierre and Jason Schmidt, in particular, had little chance of working out, and they didn't. His fetish for veterans has led him to trade young players with upside (Edwin Jackson, Dioner Navarro) for lousy veterans that perform at or below replacement level. He gets a pass on Andruw Jones because many viewed the short-term deal as one with potential. These are not isolated events, this is a philosophy that Frank McCourt has supported in his general manager since he hired him.

Dunleavy, on the other hand, has made savvy business decisions that has yielded a core of Eric Gordon (Superstar in the making), Chris Kaman (elite center, underpaid for his production), Al Thornton (14th pick, one of the steals of his draft), DeAndre Jordon (second round STEAL), and Marcus Camby, who he got for nothing, literally. He gets only some credit for landing the number one pick this year and selecting Blake Griffin.

McCourt has made countless decisions that have been financially motivated, most of which have hurt the team.

Sterling has always claimed that he would be willing to pay for the right player, and his record really has supported that. If you can stop reading Bill Simmons for just one moment and think logically, he has been an excellent owner for the last few years. EXCEPT...

Representing the Team Positively in the Community:

Both are big losers in the category. To even be associated with with this
bitch (no, not Posh Spice, the evil one on the left) is pretty bad. And in all of the divorce proceedings, he certainly comes off better than she does. But his support of constantly rising ticket prices and lack of support for the financial and competitive stability do reek of complete betrayal of the fans who care so much about the team.

Sterling's alleged racism and utterly inappropriate tirade in the locker room last year are unacceptable. He seems like a selfish and ignorant person. But, at the end of the day, he does more to help his franchise than the Cheap Man. I really don't know how else to put it, and to a nation of sports fans who disparage the Clippers, with or without cause, I can't think of a more damning indictment of the Dodgers owner.