Arena Impact

The loss of a professional sports team to the Sacramento region would do more damage to the city than one may think. Anyone who has flown into Sacramento has seen the open fields surrounding what is, but most people wouldn’t think to be, the capital of California. With Los Angeles being one of the biggest and most popular cities in America, it shadows Sacramento enough so, that the average person might believe Los Angeles to be California’s capital. When the Kings moved to Sacramento in 1985 they were not very good. Going through a few rough seasons before they even made the playoffs and eventually finding those glory years that many people of Sacramento still hold close to them. Twenty-six years later, Sacramento finds itself wondering if this team will even be around next season. A question that could have a lasting effect on the community has yet to be considered to the degree that it should. The answer not just affecting the fans that fill the seat on any given night during the season, but the many other pieces in play that could determine the outcome of the current situation Sacramento find itself in.

Although an entertainment facility/sports complex may not be the political brouhaha of the century, deciding on a way to get a plan drawn up and agreed upon involves a lot of politics. While the Kings would hold just 40 to 55 home games each year, the facility would allow for many other forms of entertainment to come in. That small portion of game time makes up for less than 13 percent of the calendar year; allowing a lot more time for other forms of entertainment to be held in the new facility. Whether it be a concert, Disney on Ice or allow for another professional team to share the building, coming up with the funds to finance an arena will come easier while the sports team is already here.  Those involved include the following: Mayor Kevin Johnson, the Maloof’s (Kings Majority Owners), local businesses, David Stern (NBA commissioner) and the citizens or fans that populate the area. While it would be nice to pick a few million off the money tree and drop an Arena in Cal Expo or the rail yards, the fact is that the plan needs to make sense for all parties involved, and until that happens there is no plan. Mayor Kevin Johnson is looking to do what is best for his city and the people in it. Mayor Kevin Johnson has put together a task force that’s sole purpose is to come up with the plan, with the March 12012 deadline looming. Mayor Johnson, a former NBA star, made a presentation on what he believed to be the best possible selling points to David Stern and his people. Although they aren’t the sole owners of the franchise, the Maloof family took majority ownership soon after purchasing the team in 1998. Soon after coming to Sacrament the family had expressed interest in putting the team in a newer, more up-to-date facility. Thirteen years later they find themselves in the same position, minus a few more tallies in the win column. This inability to come up with an arena plan has pushed them to their breaking point and that was publicized this past summer as they got very close to parting ways with Sacramento. The NBA’s Commissioner, David Stern, has made it known that he wants to keep the team in Sacramento; enough so, that he sent some of his people to Sacramento in order to help with ticket sales and marketing. That move was a success as it boosted season ticket sales noticeable weeks after, but unfortunately for Sacramento, the current lockout has prevented the season from getting started. Like Mayor Kevin Johnson, the local businesses were quick to act, realizing that if the team were to move, much of their money would be lost. Those businesses that realized this pledged a combined 10 million dollars to keep Sacramento here for just one more year, hoping a plan could be met before the deadline passes. While an agreement has yet to be reached regarding a new entertainment facility, it’s common knowledge that each party wants the team to stay in Sacramento. Deciding on the specifics of this plan is where things get interesting.

State of the League

            NBA commissioner David Stern took over the league in the 1980’s and is credited for much of the popularity gained the past three decades. Although players like Shaquille O’Neal, Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant deserve some of the credit, Stern has been the constant in a league that is continually adding and subtracting players. Television ratings are up by double digits and the average local TV deal for an NBA team around 12 million dollars (Thomsen, p. 12). Income varies from team to team but, but the average NBA team is thought to make in the upwards of $100 million dollars annually, with the Lakers and Knicks bringing in more even if their team is struggling on the court. Sacramento is no New York or Los Angeles when it comes to market size, but the capital of California still has a market bigger than cities like Utah, San Antonio, New Orleans, Indiana and Minnesota. So while some may think that Sacramento is too small to garner the corporate sponsors that they are thought to need, the fact is that they aren’t at the bottom of the league. Sacramento is a middle-tier market. The success of the league has allowed for an increase in improved arenas with a handful of NBA cities either building a new arena or renovating the one they currently have to home their NBA franchise. The same can be said in other professional sport leagues as sixty-four major league facilities have been built between 1991 and 2006 (Robertson, p. 1). The next step for Sacramento is coming up with a plan that works for all sides involved.

Game Plan

            Everyone involved is of the understanding that an arena is an expensive venture. Many cities building new stadiums costing excess of $200 million, plus infrastructural expenditures and debt service obligations that often double the cost of the project (Rich, p. 58). Knowing what you’re dealing with and how much certain things may cost is a tough game but it has been so many times that the resources are available to find such information. Depending on the assumptions made, one can get wildly different estimates. For instance, two studies were made about the impact of the Colts on the Baltimore economy in 1984. One study found an impact of $30 million and the other an impact of just $200,000 (Rich, p. 62). The Colts eventually lost their team but were lucky enough to get a new team. Mayor Kevin Johnson and his task force are of the understanding that once this team leaves, a new one won’t take their place.  Where exactly the arena will be placed is yet to be determined. Public subsidies make up a large portion of the arenas funding, providing hundreds of millions of subsidies for the construction of these arenas. This is being done through the issuance of bonds. Different taxes enacted specifically for this purpose are usually used to pay off these bonds (Robertson, p. 3). And although many people believe it should be the Maloof’s who anti-up for the new arena, only 30 percent of the sports facilities nationwide are privately owned (Robertson article-Stadiums and Arenas). Sacramento will look to fall in line with the other 70 percent using these specific taxes to find the money to pay for these bonds; whether it be a tax on hotel’s, rental cars or something else that would bring in new money. This new money would allow for the bonds to be paid off sooner rather than later, preventing the citizens to pay for a large portion of the money.

Weighing the Options

            With any decision one may have the positive and negative effects of that decision must be considered. Whether it’s what you decide to wear for the day or whether or not you should spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an entertainment facility. Most decisions can be made based upon the past decisions, or examples made by others. The Sacramento Kings are lucky to have two new examples of how, or how not to build arena, if they decide to stick a shovel in the ground. The Orlando Magic opened the Amway Center in October 2010 and they have felt a direct impact on the surrounding area. In addition to the thousands of jobs created during its construction, there were an additional 3,000 jobs created during the year, whether it is for the Magic games or some other avenue of entertainment. The Barclays Center, which is currently under construction, will lend as an example to the Sacramento task force.  In 2004, a study was done by Brad Humphreys and Dennis Coats that aimed to show prove that there was little to no economic benefits to a new sports facility. They pointed out the substitution effect arguing that “as sport- and stadium related other spending declines because people substitute spending on sports for other spending (Coats and Humphreys, p. 4). A study was performed by Xia Feng and Brad Humphreys (same guy) four years later, looking at the economic effect of housing values. Their results showed that sports facilities have a “significant positive effect on the value of surrounding houses and this positive effect decreases as the distance from the facilities increases (Feng and Humphreys, p. 3). The same study also showed that a new sports facility constructed outside of the center of a large city and unrelated to an urban redevelopment program will have the same positive effect on housing values in upwards of tens of millions of dollars.

With the opportunity for such increases in property value and the potential for lost profits if the team were to move, it’s not hard to understand why 33 local businesses pledged over 10 million dollars to the Sacramento Kings. SMUD (Sacramento Municipal Utility District), committed $250,000 over the next five years after hearing the team may be on its way out. Sutter Health, a nonprofit organization that is one of the region’s largest employers, committed $1 million to the team in it’s first-ever sponsorship with the Kings. The United Auburn Indian Community added an additional $650,000 dollars in sponsorship as the tribe’s Thunder Valley Casino and Resort is one of the primary sponsors of the team (Johnson, p. 2-4). These businesses were quick to react when the news of possible relocation was brought to their attention and hopefully for them their investment works out.

Good Team, Good Investment

            The Sacramento Kings have been rebuilding for the past few years missing the playoffs every season since 2006. The Maloof’s have taken a few body shots of their own to keep the team, selling their beer distributorship last year while also selling a stake to their Palms Casino and Hotel. They have reiterated that they would like the team to stay in Sacramento but their patience is wearing thin. If the team were to get an arena the Maloof’s would have to open up their pocket books as their public interest would take a shot if they promised to be the spenders in free agency that they said they would be. The team has shown promise with some of the young talent they have but it will take a few more pieces to reach the playoffs once again. Among the factors already stated is the sense of civic pride and unity a team can have on a community. Many fans and businesses took to Twitter and Facebook organizing meets and “Purple Fridays”, which allowed fans to show their team pride by wearing purple to work. There was a study done that demonstrated how a team’s success increases the personal income in the metropolitan area from which the winning team comes (Davis and End, p. 49). “The performance of sport teams predict the extent to which fans identify with the teams. Team performance affects personal reactions and, thus, may have real consequences for the economy,” (Davis and End, p. 39). The study was done focusing on NFL teams but they included baseball and basketball in their study. The study showed that a Super Bowl victory had the greatest effect on the individuals in the city for which the team is from but solid play from a NBA team has a similar effect just to a lesser degree. The better the team plays, the better off the city is.


            The city has until March 1, 2012 to reach an agreement. Giving the sides involved enough time to decide what exactly they want to do. Deciding on the where and how, while keeping those involved happy. The Maloof’s want to make sure they make a wise business decision. Mayor Kevin Johnson wants to keep the team in town, but getting that done in a way that will keep the citizens happy. David Stern wants the Kings to stay put but not at the expense of the league. And lastly, the citizens want to have a new entertainment facility just as long as it affects them in a positive light. Based on the studies shown it is possible to come up with a reasonable plan that goes along with the interests of both sides. Some compromises may have to be made by those involved but the plan won’t formulate by itself. It comes down to how much each side wants it and the quality-of-life benefits one can justify with the large public spending. These kind of benefits are hard to include in the debate on subsidizing sports facilities because they are so difficult to gauge. It is clear that if the Maloof’s and the team pack up and leave Sacramento it won’t do Sacramento any good. There won’t be as many jobs and that civic pride that few cities can hold onto will be lost. As nice as it would be to look and a crystal ball to see the city the ultimate affect this arena has, the simple fact is that it isn’t that easy. But it’s a different kind of ball that if taken away, could lend itself to more problems than this city currently has.

Works Cited

COATS, D. and HUMPHREYS, B. “Caught Stealing: Debunking the Economic Case for D.C. Baseball.” CATO Institute Briefing Papers (2004): 1-12. Web. 6 Nov. 2011.

END, CHRISTIAN and DAVIS, MICHAEL. “A Winning Proposition: The economic impact of successful National Football League franchises.” Economic Inquiry, Vol. 48 (2010): p 39-50. Web. 6 Nov. 2011.

FENG, XIA and HUMPHREYS, BRAD. “Assessing the Economic Impact of Sports Facilities on Residential Property Values: A Spatial Hedonic Approach.” IASE/NAASE Working Paper Series (2008): 1-19. Web. 6 Nov. 2011.

JOHNSON, KELLY. “NBA cutting deals with Kings sponsors.” Sacramento Business Journal (2011): 1-6. Web. 6 Nov. 2011.

RICH, WILBUR C. “The Economics and Politics of Sports Facilities.” (2000): 1-248. Web. 6 Nov. 2011

ROBERTSON, ROBBY. “The Economic Impact of Sports Facilities.” The Sport Digest (2008): 1-4. Web. 6 Nov. 2011.

THOMSEN, IAN. “NBA’s Future: Star-crossed.” Sports Illustrated, Vol. 114 Issue 10 (2011): 12-13. Web. 6 Nov. 2011.


A League of Justice

It was a cool night in the bay as thousands of fans gathered in AT&T Park to witness one of the most acknowledged records in sports history be broken.  As Bonds walked to the plate, the many fans in attendance grew in excitement as they hoped Bonds would hit homerun number 756.  Bonds walked to the plate, black maple bat in hand, the raucous fans chanting his name.  Everyone in the stands hoping he would send the ball into the bay.  The pitcher through the ball where everyone in attendance wanted it and everyone knew where it was going after they heard the crack.  The only problem that now lies in that record is whether or not the means, by which Bonds acquired this feat, occurred through just means.  The question in baseball, as well as other sports, is whether or not performance enhancing drugs should be allowed?  Some believe that it is unfair and questions the integrity of the game that they love.  You must also consider the young athletes who will one day want to break Bonds’ record as well.  The problem that fans and athletes now face is not knowing who the beneficiary of an unfair advantage is.

Former San Francisco Giants outfielder and current home run record holder Barry Bonds. (Photo courtesy of Sports Illustrated)

Former San Francisco Giants outfielder and current home run record holder Barry Bonds. (Photo courtesy of Sports Illustrated)

In “A Theory of Justice”, John Rawls talks about justice as fairness, which is to have an equal right to the most extensive of basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others.  Rawls writes, “The intuitive idea is that since everyone’s well-being depends upon a scheme of cooperation without which no one could have a satisfactory life, the division of advantages should be such as to draw forth the willing cooperation of everyone taking part in it. Yet this can be expected only if reasonable terms are proposed.  The two principles mentioned seem to be a fair agreement on the basis of which those better endowed, or more fortunate in their social position, neither of which we can be said to deserve, could expect the willing cooperation of others when some workable scheme is necessary condition of the welfare of all.  Once we decide to look for a conception of justice that nullifies the accidents of natural endowment and the contingencies of social circumstance as counters in quest for political and economic advantage, we are led to these principles. They express the result of leaving aside those aspects of the social world that seem arbitrary from a moral point of view.”

Finding justice in what some may see as cheating may force a change in the rules, a change that some may not want to see.

“The intuitive idea is that since everyone’s well-being depends upon a scheme of cooperation without which no one could have a satisfactory life, the division of advantages should be such as to draw forth the willing cooperation of everyone taking part in it.”  Dale Murphy, a former outfielder and leader of the I Won’t Cheat Foundation, a group that’s means is to help rid sports of illegal drugs is someone who believes, “We need better testing, harsher punishments and people will decide not to get involved with performance enhancing drugs,” while there are others who disagree with him.

Former Atlanta Braves' outfielder and first baseman Dale Murphy prior to a game against the New York Meta at the Braves' Spring Training camp at Disney's Wide World of Sports in Lake Buena Vista, Fla. (Photo courtesy of  Tom Priddy/Four Seam Images)

Former Atlanta Braves’ outfielder and first baseman Dale Murphy prior to a game against the New York Meta at the Braves’ Spring Training camp at Disney’s Wide World of Sports in Lake Buena Vista, Fla.
(Photo courtesy of Tom Priddy/Four Seam Images)

Norman Fost, professor of pediatrics and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin, states that “We use cars and computers to make are work more efficient, we use caffeine, Viagra and alcohol to improve our performance and every athlete in recorded history has used performance enhancing drugs,” talking about herbs used in the past by some cultures to improve their performance in battle.  When we consider “A Theory of Justice”, what can be taken from Rawls is that for us to all reach fairness, and in this case the fairness of professional sports, what is taken by one athlete should be available to the other athletes.

With the current ban in professional sports, players still get away with taking these illegal substances.  There are too many ways for athletes to get these drugs and take them without anyone’s knowledge of it.  Unfortunately steroids and performance enhancing substances will always be present in pro sports.  So why not control something that is dangerous to the athletes that make up the league.  Put the drugs in hands of doctors that have the players’ best interest, not in the hands of people in Tijuana, Mexico, that are looking to make money.

“The two principles mentioned seem to be a fair agreement on the basis of which those better endowed, or more fortunate in their social position, neither of which we can be said to deserve, could expect the willing cooperation of others when some workable scheme is necessary condition of the welfare of all.”  Those opposed to allowing steroids in sport, would say that if professional sport leagues were to allow its players to take these drugs then the integrity of the game would be in question. Bud Selig, the commissioner of Major League Baseball has made it known that he wants the playing field to be level by banning these drugs, and performance enhancing drugs would be a disservice to the players that played before the steroid era.  This is the same league that has a teams with a pay roll two to three times that of other teams in the league and a player in Alex Rodriguez who has a contract worth more than an entire teams payroll.  Is that fair to the other teams and fans in the league?

The game of today is not comparable to that of its history.  The field in which the game has been played over time has changed.  For records to be comparable the players would have to be playing on the same fields in the same conditions and that has not happened.  In 1920 the United States put a ban on the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcohol.  What ended this ban was the finding that more negative was brought out after the substance was taken away.  If a market was made for steroids, and the ban was lifted you could reduce the negative risks that were a cause of their ban.  As the league currently stands, there is a rule that does not allow for performance enhancing drugs in the game.  The question is why that rule is in place, and what should be done in order to change that rule?

“Once we decide to look for a conception of justice that nullifies the accidents of natural endowment and the contingencies of social circumstance as counters in quest for political and economic advantage, we are led to these principles. They express the result of leaving aside those aspects of the social world that seem arbitrary from a moral point of view.”  What critics fear about performance enhancing drugs are the health concerns that are associated with them.  The reason for athletes to take steroids is to, “hasten the repair of muscle strain and prolong workouts,” wrote journalist Blythe Bernhard.

Like many drugs there are side effects.  “Initial side effects include acne, hair growth and increased aggression known as roid rage.”  Much has been said about the danger when taking these substances.  When in actuality the sport in itself is more dangerous than any drugs one may be taking.  From 2006-2008 one hundred and thirteen concussions occurred in the National Hockey League, according to Sarah Kwak of Sports Illustrated.  “High school football players alone suffer 43,000 to 67,000 concussions per year, though the true incidence is likely much higher, as more than 50% of concussed athletes are suspected of failing to report their symptoms,” wrote Sean Gregory.

If we all were worried about the health of the athletes we wouldn’t be paying for the tickets and tuning in on the television set to support the games.  One way the leagues can take care of its players is by controlling steroids and other currently banned substances.  Making sure the athletes knew what they were taking and how to take it.  Professional sports would be able to pay doctors to research the safest and most beneficial substances.  We must consider the health of the young athletes as well.  The effects on children development are known and should not be tolerated in any circumstances.  A harsh penalty would be placed on athletes under a certain age as well as a coach or adult that is found giving the substances to the young athletes.  The fairness of the league would not come into question as the playing field would be even, and the safety of the athletes would be at a higher standard once these changes were made.

I wonder how big a fan of professional sports John Rawls was.  If he were a fan, he would have witnessed the last few years of professional baseball that was not burdened by the steroid era.  If Bud Selig were to consider Rawls’ ideals the league would benefit exponentially and legitimize a game that has been tarnished the last two decades.  One of the most desirable goals in society is justice, and in the MLB and other professional sports, fairness is the backbone of sport.  If you were to take away the backbone of the game, fairness, or to take away fairness from society, you would fall short of justice, and the goals of sport and society would not be accomplished.  Rawls would want those in power of competitive sport to consider only principles of justice and others closely related to them.  Rawls says, “We must recognize the limited scope of justice as fairness and of the general type of view that it exemplifies.  How far its conclusions must be revised once these other matters are understood cannot be decided in advance.” Finding justice in what some may see as cheating may force a change in the rules, a change that some may not want to see.

Bernhard, Blythe. “Steroids are helpful, harmful.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO) 15 Jan. 2010: Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.

Gregory, Sean. “The Problem with Football. (Cover story).” Time 175.5 (2010): 36-43. Academic  Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.

Katz, Jefferey. “All Things Considered.” Intelligence Squared U.S. PBS.2008 Radio.

Dir. Bob Costas. NPR. January 23 2008.

Kwak, Sarah. “Heads, You Lose.” Sports Illustrated 110.26 (2009): 34. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.

Rawls, John “A Theory of Justice.” A World of Ideas Eight Edition. Lee Jacobus. Boston.        Beford/St. Martins. 2010.233-244 (Print)


All the talk of who should win the award, has made no sense to me.  The 2010 Rookie of the Year conversation comes down to at most three possible players, and I don’t consider this a close race.  Those involved in the race being: Brandon Jennings of Milwaukee, Tyreke Evans of Sacramento and Stephen Curry of Golden State.

Let’s first take a look at Brandon Jennings, the high school phenom who was regarded as the top high school guard two years ago and played last year in Italy.  While his team has been playing the best out of the three players named, his game has faltered the last few weeks.

Since February 1st, Jennings has shot 31% from the field, compared to 38% on the year, which still is not that great. And for an award that is given based on his performance during the YEAR, he should not be awarded for his efforts. Jennings’ 55 point performance early on gave him a quick advantage in the rookie of the year race, that has recently been shortened by both Curry and Evans.

Apparently, Jennings no longer cares about the award.

“My offense is just terrible right now,” Jennings was quoted in the Journal-Sentinel. “Right now, I’m playing for something bigger. I don’t even care about the Rookie of the Year,” Jennings said. “Forget it. Whoever gets it, who cares? Both of their teams suck, so whoever gets it, it doesn’t matter.”

Jennings, you do realize that if Curry or Evans were taken with the 10th pick instead of you, they would be in the playoffs and still win the award. Andrew Bogut and John Salmons has led them to the playoffs, not you.

This leaves us with Tyreke Evans and Stephen Curry. While Curry has had an amazing second half of the season, his first half was similar to that of Jennings’ second half.  Evans has played consistently all year, recording his first triple-double on Wednesday.

On ‘Reke Roy Night, a night that I would have thought to be some of a distraction it was the exact opposite.  Evans played to what the night represented, recording a triple double and scoring on a behind the backboard continuation.  If you missed that, here it is:

———————–PPG   RPG  APG   SPG   BPG   FG%  FT%  3P%  MPG  Team Record

Tyreke Evans: 20.3  5.0   5.5    1.5     0.4    .46  .74    .25   37.2        22-43

Stephen Curry: 16    4.2   5.4     1.8    0.2    .45  .88    .41   35.8         17-47

If ‘Reke continues to rack up the stats that he is attaining, he will be one of three other players to get 20 5 and 5 in his rookie season.  The other players are Oscar Robertson, Lebron James and Michael Jordan.

If you compare their numbers as well as their records, you can honestly say you know who deserves the award.  If this were the best first half rookie award it would go to Brandon Jennings.  If this were the best second half rookie award it would go to Curry.  But if you combined the two, and that is what the award represents, it without a doubt, goes to Tyreke Evans.

NBA Mock Draft 1-10

We’ve got a few months until the draft but the fans of the weaker teams(I am one) want something to look forward to. Here’s what I got:

New Jersey-Poor New Jersey. With only 5 wins on the season they are a team that needs a player like John Wall.  He has stood-out as one of the best players in the NCAA this year and he is just a freshman.  In 34 minutes per game, Wall is averaging 16.8 ppg and 6.8 assists.  It would be hard for any team that gets the number one pick, not to take Wall.

Minnesota-With Minnesota having a strong, as well as young frontcourt, Minnesota will be looking to add players to their backcourt.  Drafting Ricky Rubio and Jonny Flynn have set them up at the point guard position at least for now.  They will most likely look to draft a shooting guard, and Evan Turner seems to be the best fit for them.

Golden StateDerrick Favors has the athleticism to play with the up-tempo Warriors.  They chose Brandan Wright in 2007 and may be moving on after three years of working on him.  Injuries have plagued him as well, playing 11 total games in the last three years.

Sacramento-Based on how many young guys are on this team, it is a tough to decide where they are needed most.  If Petrie were to draft based on need, I would guess that he takes Demarcus Cousins.  This decision would be based upon how confident they are in Jason Thompson and Spencer Hawes.

IndianaEd Davis. A talented center would be a great addition to a young team.  Danny Granger and Davis would be two seeds to grow from as they develop. Cole Aldrich and Hassan Whiteside would be two other options as well.

Utah-With the trade of Ronnie Brewer I could see Xavier Henry being a great pickup for the Jazz. He has the potential to be a very good wing scorer.

Detroit-The position that they would look to add to would seem to be a big man, although they could draft based on best player available. I see them going with a big man like Indiana, instead picking Aldrich.

Washington-The Wizards seem to have a couple pieces but could fill a few holes. I think they would draft based on best player available and take Wesley Johnson. He could be the player that slips in the draft.

Philadelphia-I think the best player for the 76ers would be Greg Monroe.  He is not the best big man in the draft but he has the potential to be a very good big man in this league.

L.A Clippers-With the trade of Al Thornton I would expect the Clippers to go with a small forward. If Al-Farouq-Aminu is available, I don’t see how they could let him slide by.  He would be a great addition next to Eric Gordon and Blake Griffin.

30 Years Ago Today…

In light of the USA Hockey Team beating Canada, I thought I should mention that today is the 30th Anniversary of the Miracle on Ice.

I was not alive during this time, nor am I a big Hockey fan, but this event is one of the greatest sporting events in history.

Maybe not for the Soviets…

The Hangover

Before last weeks trade deadline Josh Howard and others, were traded to Washington in a seven-player swap.

What Washington didn’t realize until after, was that Josh Howard sat out of the Jan. 20th game because of a Hangover.

The Mavericks, who were already shopping Howard , said that he had a stomach illness. Nice one Cuban!

This latest incident is just one of many off-court incidents in his tenure with Dallas.  He admitted to drug use as well as getting in trouble for saying some choice things on a video camera, c’mon Josh, ever heard of youtube? (video below)

I wonder what kind of trouble Howard will find himself in Washington?  I know Gilbert Arenas and Javaris Crittenton will help him find something…

Fine Dining

President Obama will be dining with the Maloofs tonight, specifically at the house of George Maloof. Among those invited were Kings guard Tyreke Evans, who President Obama urged for the Kings to get with their pick.

“If he (Obama) gets tired of his day job,” joked Joe Maloof,  “he can come to work for us as a scout.”

“I thought, ‘geez, the president told us to pick him. The least we can do is invite him to fly in and join us for the dinner.”

I wonder what they’ll be talking about at the table, maybe they’ll ask President Obama who they should take with their top pick this year?