I AM SHOCKED THAT HE NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT VINCENT SPANO IS A NATIVE NEW YORKER: Even before yesterday's football game, Joe Queenan saw fit to use the WSJ op-ed page to explain why Philadelphia is better than New York City.
Which Philadelphian will admit to a growing unease that Philly sports teams (Phillies especially) are morphing into the type of evil empire that they so despise? You're becoming Boston, Philadelphia. Winning games, but a lot less loveable.
We've never been lovable because of the way the country stereotypes the local fans. Boston's fans were seen as long-suffering and cursed; we've been seen as boors who don't deserve anything nice.
I agree with Adam. I'll happily trade being thought of as an awful sports town that doesn't win to an awful sports town that does (sometimes) win.
To the extent I have a growing unease, it's that the town may be turning into one that thinks it deserves to win, and I'm not a fan of the sense of entitlement. That said, our teams have only one one championship in 27 years (and the Phillies winning the offseason battle with the Yankees doesn't count. . . ask Redskins fans), so we're not exactly Boston or New York yet.
Were our teams, even this current Phils squad, ever loved outside of the greater Philadelphia area? Anyhow, I still see us not as a town with a sense of entitlement -- or at least title entitlement -- so much as a town that, by and large, still thinks that something can and likely will go wrong in each sport before we get another championship. Until we have a whole generation that grows up knowing only (or primarily) winners, I don't see that sense of fatalism going away.
We've got 2008, and before that, just one WS title in 1980, the back-to-back Stanley Cups covering 1973-75, and four NBA titles (2 for the Sixers, 2 for the Warriors, but none since '82-'83). No Super Bowl rings. So unless and until one of the other local pro squads nails down a title, we're just the guys who have figured out a way to hang around the upper tier for sustained periods (and usually not overlapping periods, although at the moment 3 of the 4 teams are/should be contenders). Until the Phils do it again, they're in danger of being labeled a fluke (or worse, a disappointment, considering the collection of talent).
In the past decade, Boston has titles in NFL (3), NBA, and MLB (2); overall, New York's got more overall than you could shake several sticks at, what with the multiple franchises, although only NFL and MLB in the past decade (I never know what to do with the Devils - does NYC claim them, other than on Seinfeld episodes, or not? If so, there's a couple more titles). We are pretty far from being Boston or New York.
Ok. So the answer appears to be nobody wants to admit it. Fair enough.
I guess I phrased my issue a little broadly. But put yourself in the shoes of a Pirates or Royals fan -- the Phillies had arguably the best starting rotation in baseball, and then went out and signed *another* ace for $120 million. Doncha think that those fans are just a little bitter in the same way that they're bitter when the Yankees sign a big free agent? Or maybe a Bills or Browns fan is a just a wee bit disappointed about the way that your long-time franchise quarterback was uncerimoniously dumped so that the Eagles could bring in a convicted animal abuser whose sins are forgiven because he's an electrifying player. That both of these moves were great sports moves doesn't change the fact that many folks outside of Philadelphia might react negatively.
Of course, NYC remains by far the worst offender in the lavish spending/sense of entitlement sweepstakes. Although Knicks fans may get a short-term pass in light of their decade of suffering.
I kind of think the difference, which you're ignoring and Philadelphians may not want to consider, is that New York will (and Boston might) have endless reserves of money to spend forever, and the Red Sox currently have a management that thinks hard analytically, instead of ad hoc, about how to spend their money. Philadelphia seems flush now, but I don't see where the money comes from when this group ages into mediocrity and I don't see where the success comes from when the money isn't there. This is a team that is peaking and using the resources available to it while it peaks, not a team that has developed a perpetual systemic advantage. A team as close to the title as Philadelphia might overspend to put itself over the top, but I doubt it's going to overspend to stay at the top year after year for the rest of our lives. I don't doubt that re Boston and New York.
As for the article itself, as sympathetic as I want to be, for a Philadelphian to claim painterly, poetic, and literary supremacy over New York is just shorthand for "pay me no mind; I'm just trolling."
As Isaac notes below, the Phillies have money because fans are supporting the team and selling out the park every night -- PIT, sadly, didn't use its new stadium to kick-start a spending spree the way we did, and didn't have the farm system either.
Vick could have signed anywhere; that wasn't a salary issue. And Vick's sins haven't been forgiven, not even here. But we can look the other way for now.
And double co-sign on Isaac's first paragraph. The Yanks and Red Sox have such troughs of TV money to play with, and such a national fan base, that they will be at the top as long as they want to keep spending money, because they will always keep making money. The Phillies only have a minority share of the local cable sports network, so while their TV deal is good, is isn't "F-ck YOU, that's my name" good. As Adam notes above, the attendance has been justifying the spending, and if the attendance goes, the payroll will follow. If Ruben Amaro Jr. is smart, he will figure out a way, perhaps following the Marlins model of boom-bust-boom. If he's not (and frankly the jury remains out, because the 2007-2011 Phils are not largely his construction, even if 60% of the rotation is), then we will have a prolonged down cycle. Like we did during the years when ownership tried to convince us we were actually a small market team (yes, they really did.)
The Devils are betwixt and between the NY and Philadelphia media markets, but more of a NY metro area team. New Jerseyans from Northern NJ tend to be fans of NY teams (Giants/Jets/Mets/Yankees) and southern NJ tend to follow Philly teams (Phillies/Eagles). Because the Devils are fairly new to the area, there are many Rangers and Flyers fans in NJ. But the Devils really are part of the NY media market. The local cablecast network is MSG+, which is NYC based. Besides the Newark Star-Ledger and the Bergen Record (Hackensack), the NY Post and Times are cover the Devils as a local team, though not as thoroughly as the Rangers. (And though the Devils are no better this year, the Islanders barely count as an NHL team anymore.)
<span>Look, I've been in the shoes of a Pirates fan and a Royals fan -- it's called "being a Phillies fan during the period 1984-2006, with the fluky exception of 1993, when ridiculous-on-their-face moves like 'signing Pete Incaviglia' actually panned out." But the latter years of that stretch were what has fueled the success of the current squad - between the homegrown players and the prospects that enabled us to trade for guys like Lidge, Lee and Halladay.</span>
Awesome game yesterday. Couldn't have happened to a nicer team. Way to go, Eli!!
ReplyDeleteWhich Philadelphian will admit to a growing unease that Philly sports teams (Phillies especially) are morphing into the type of evil empire that they so despise? You're becoming Boston, Philadelphia. Winning games, but a lot less loveable.
ReplyDeleteWe've never been lovable because of the way the country stereotypes the local fans. Boston's fans were seen as long-suffering and cursed; we've been seen as boors who don't deserve anything nice.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Adam. I'll happily trade being thought of as an awful sports town that doesn't win to an awful sports town that does (sometimes) win.
ReplyDeleteTo the extent I have a growing unease, it's that the town may be turning into one that thinks it deserves to win, and I'm not a fan of the sense of entitlement. That said, our teams have only one one championship in 27 years (and the Phillies winning the offseason battle with the Yankees doesn't count. . . ask Redskins fans), so we're not exactly Boston or New York yet.
Were our teams, even this current Phils squad, ever loved outside of the greater Philadelphia area? Anyhow, I still see us not as a town with a sense of entitlement -- or at least title entitlement -- so much as a town that, by and large, still thinks that something can and likely will go wrong in each sport before we get another championship. Until we have a whole generation that grows up knowing only (or primarily) winners, I don't see that sense of fatalism going away.
ReplyDeleteWe've got 2008, and before that, just one WS title in 1980, the back-to-back Stanley Cups covering 1973-75, and four NBA titles (2 for the Sixers, 2 for the Warriors, but none since '82-'83). No Super Bowl rings. So unless and until one of the other local pro squads nails down a title, we're just the guys who have figured out a way to hang around the upper tier for sustained periods (and usually not overlapping periods, although at the moment 3 of the 4 teams are/should be contenders). Until the Phils do it again, they're in danger of being labeled a fluke (or worse, a disappointment, considering the collection of talent).
In the past decade, Boston has titles in NFL (3), NBA, and MLB (2); overall, New York's got more overall than you could shake several sticks at, what with the multiple franchises, although only NFL and MLB in the past decade (I never know what to do with the Devils - does NYC claim them, other than on Seinfeld episodes, or not? If so, there's a couple more titles). We are pretty far from being Boston or New York.
Ok. So the answer appears to be nobody wants to admit it. Fair enough.
ReplyDeleteI guess I phrased my issue a little broadly. But put yourself in the shoes of a Pirates or Royals fan -- the Phillies had arguably the best starting rotation in baseball, and then went out and signed *another* ace for $120 million. Doncha think that those fans are just a little bitter in the same way that they're bitter when the Yankees sign a big free agent? Or maybe a Bills or Browns fan is a just a wee bit disappointed about the way that your long-time franchise quarterback was uncerimoniously dumped so that the Eagles could bring in a convicted animal abuser whose sins are forgiven because he's an electrifying player. That both of these moves were great sports moves doesn't change the fact that many folks outside of Philadelphia might react negatively.
Of course, NYC remains by far the worst offender in the lavish spending/sense of entitlement sweepstakes. Although Knicks fans may get a short-term pass in light of their decade of suffering.
I kind of think the difference, which you're ignoring and Philadelphians may not want to consider, is that New York will (and Boston might) have endless reserves of money to spend forever, and the Red Sox currently have a management that thinks hard analytically, instead of ad hoc, about how to spend their money. Philadelphia seems flush now, but I don't see where the money comes from when this group ages into mediocrity and I don't see where the success comes from when the money isn't there. This is a team that is peaking and using the resources available to it while it peaks, not a team that has developed a perpetual systemic advantage. A team as close to the title as Philadelphia might overspend to put itself over the top, but I doubt it's going to overspend to stay at the top year after year for the rest of our lives. I don't doubt that re Boston and New York.
ReplyDeleteAs for the article itself, as sympathetic as I want to be, for a Philadelphian to claim painterly, poetic, and literary supremacy over New York is just shorthand for "pay me no mind; I'm just trolling."
As Isaac notes below, the Phillies have money because fans are supporting the team and selling out the park every night -- PIT, sadly, didn't use its new stadium to kick-start a spending spree the way we did, and didn't have the farm system either.
ReplyDeleteVick could have signed anywhere; that wasn't a salary issue. And Vick's sins haven't been forgiven, not even here. But we can look the other way for now.
Yes on the first paragraph. The question is what this team looks like in 2015, and whether the fans will still come in these numbers.
ReplyDeleteAnd double co-sign on Isaac's first paragraph. The Yanks and Red Sox have such troughs of TV money to play with, and such a national fan base, that they will be at the top as long as they want to keep spending money, because they will always keep making money. The Phillies only have a minority share of the local cable sports network, so while their TV deal is good, is isn't "F-ck YOU, that's my name" good. As Adam notes above, the attendance has been justifying the spending, and if the attendance goes, the payroll will follow. If Ruben Amaro Jr. is smart, he will figure out a way, perhaps following the Marlins model of boom-bust-boom. If he's not (and frankly the jury remains out, because the 2007-2011 Phils are not largely his construction, even if 60% of the rotation is), then we will have a prolonged down cycle. Like we did during the years when ownership tried to convince us we were actually a small market team (yes, they really did.)
ReplyDeleteThe Devils are betwixt and between the NY and Philadelphia media markets, but more of a NY metro area team. New Jerseyans from Northern NJ tend to be fans of NY teams (Giants/Jets/Mets/Yankees) and southern NJ tend to follow Philly teams (Phillies/Eagles). Because the Devils are fairly new to the area, there are many Rangers and Flyers fans in NJ. But the Devils really are part of the NY media market.
ReplyDeleteThe local cablecast network is MSG+, which is NYC based. Besides the Newark Star-Ledger and the Bergen Record (Hackensack), the NY Post and Times are cover the Devils as a local team, though not as thoroughly as the Rangers. (And though the Devils are no better this year, the Islanders barely count as an NHL team anymore.)
<span>Look, I've been in the shoes of a Pirates fan and a Royals fan -- it's called "being a Phillies fan during the period 1984-2006, with the fluky exception of 1993, when ridiculous-on-their-face moves like 'signing Pete Incaviglia' actually panned out." But the latter years of that stretch were what has fueled the success of the current squad - between the homegrown players and the prospects that enabled us to trade for guys like Lidge, Lee and Halladay.</span>
ReplyDelete