The Bill Simmons Thread
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
I'm probably in the minority, but I don't really think all the drama really made much of a difference. It may have moved the timeline a little bit, but it was already over. ESPN is pivoting away from verticals like Grantland as a content platform.
Grantland is a modest success...but only cause of Simmons' traffic. ESPN has been launching a bunch of others...FiveThirtyEight, ESPNW, Jason Whitlock's "Black Grantland"...and all have been colossal failures, or in Whitlock's case, totally DOA.
ESPN doesn't bet on talent. They never have. They can't own talent long term. They bet on structures, that they can then put on the spin cycle and print out clones (and money). Sportscenter became 30 Sportscenters. Baseball Tonight became Inside the NFL...and the birth of the modern studio show. PTI became Around the Horn, and 25 other shows and His and Hers. They bet on structures because they can completely own them, and they're talent independent. They can survive any controversy, and can scale up and down depending on how much content ESPN can sign, or however many networks they want to launch.
They launched Grantland as a test case for verticals in their web content. Then they tried to integrate it into the network with stuff like "the grantland basketball hour", or the "30 for 30s". As an enterprise, Grantland is middling. It's spinoffs are complete and utter disasters. ESPN is pivoting away from the model...they'll kill all the others, and let Grantland slowly die on the vine.
Without this support, there's nothing really left at ESPN for Simmons to do. He's not worth 3 or 4 or 6 million/year as a part-time basketball analyst. His writing isn't "must read" anymore. His podcasts are popular, but not revenue streams. From ESPN's view, what's the point? Why put up with the aggravation?
I feel like all this recent drama is more an answer to when...not why. Really, it's Nate Silver's fault (and to a lesser extent, Jason Whitlock's).
Grantland is a modest success...but only cause of Simmons' traffic. ESPN has been launching a bunch of others...FiveThirtyEight, ESPNW, Jason Whitlock's "Black Grantland"...and all have been colossal failures, or in Whitlock's case, totally DOA.
ESPN doesn't bet on talent. They never have. They can't own talent long term. They bet on structures, that they can then put on the spin cycle and print out clones (and money). Sportscenter became 30 Sportscenters. Baseball Tonight became Inside the NFL...and the birth of the modern studio show. PTI became Around the Horn, and 25 other shows and His and Hers. They bet on structures because they can completely own them, and they're talent independent. They can survive any controversy, and can scale up and down depending on how much content ESPN can sign, or however many networks they want to launch.
They launched Grantland as a test case for verticals in their web content. Then they tried to integrate it into the network with stuff like "the grantland basketball hour", or the "30 for 30s". As an enterprise, Grantland is middling. It's spinoffs are complete and utter disasters. ESPN is pivoting away from the model...they'll kill all the others, and let Grantland slowly die on the vine.
Without this support, there's nothing really left at ESPN for Simmons to do. He's not worth 3 or 4 or 6 million/year as a part-time basketball analyst. His writing isn't "must read" anymore. His podcasts are popular, but not revenue streams. From ESPN's view, what's the point? Why put up with the aggravation?
I feel like all this recent drama is more an answer to when...not why. Really, it's Nate Silver's fault (and to a lesser extent, Jason Whitlock's).
MicrowaveDonuts said:
I think this is right.
Grantland's bid for irrelevance has begun. the Patriots/Brady discipline is the biggest story in sports right now, and you could make a good argument that Simmons leaving ESPN is second. but if you go to Grant land, you can get a Game of Thrones recap, a headline article about the Wizards (possibly the most nondescript franchise in sports), an article about blur, and something about Reggie Miller's eight seconds, which happened 20 years ago. I wouldn't even read this stuff on the crapper.
Nothing sure anybody is going to agree with your "grantland needs more hot takez" assessment.OilCanShotTupac said:
I wouldn't call 538 a failure until people see how it performs in 2016.
MD has it. Think of ESPN operating like a telecommunications company. They invest massive amounts in building the network/brand, then market the hell out of it. They're really selling the capital investment, not the features/stars. Ultimately, while there's always some movement when a new Samsung/Grantland hits the scene, those moves are really only interesting to the obsessives.
MD is partly correct. The structures are important but are worth nothing without proper talent. PTI was literally invented as a vehicle for Tony and Mike. Without them the ratings are zero. Grantland will be worth zero without Simmons. ESPN knows that.
The Social Chair said:
The three top stories on Grantland right now are a piece on the Hawks/Wizards series (historically, two of the most moribund and nondescript franchises in all of sports); something on the new football coach at Kansas (Kansas football?!), and something on M. Night Shyamalan. That's a pretty random and sad collection of crap. "hot takes" =/= coverage. Or it doesn't have to. There's a difference between spewing bullshit, and covering an important story responsibly. Are you saying it's not possible to write a good piece about either the patriots or Simmons, and that the only alternative is to not cover at all? That's ridiculous.
I get your point but complaining Grantland doesn't have a take on Deflategate is a bad example.
The single most qualified person on Grantland to write that post just got fired because he kept commenting bad about Roger Goodell. The silence is not an issue of the Grantland too pure for profit writers sitting in their ivory towers wondering what all the fuss is about.
The single most qualified person on Grantland to write that post just got fired because he kept commenting bad about Roger Goodell. The silence is not an issue of the Grantland too pure for profit writers sitting in their ivory towers wondering what all the fuss is about.
More importantly there are 632 other places to get someone's opinion on Dgate. Pierce already weighed in and Simmons is out. I have no interest in yet another breakdown and justification or repudiation.
TheRooster said:
The penalties were delivered yesterday. It was a front page story on most every paper, including the NY Times. It's on the front page of every sports website. Grantland has nothing on it. That's a serious omission no matter where Simmons is.
edit - however you feel about DeflateGate, it's a humongous story. To totally ignore it is a poor decision.
johnmd20 said:
That's been their modus all the time though. They don't flood the zone and they don't try to be in the first news cycle. If it's a big story they'll deploy Simmons/Pierce/Browne 2-3 days afterwards, and maybe tack on an addition half-joking commentary. I'd expect a column today or tomorrow, Pierce wrote after the report came out; other than the lack of a Simmons byline this is more or less what they do. You can certainly criticize the model as unresponsive in this day and age, but personally I find it kinda refreshing.
As for the pop culture stuff, is it just being noticed now? The bottom 60% of that site's content has for a very long time been as shitty as anywhere, or at the very least ultra-niche.
TheRooster said:
So why have a sports site then?
"Grantland: We Let Others Talk About The Big Stories"
I get the argument that they're into long-form analysis, rather than quick response; I'm not sure I agree with it, but I understand the point. The idea that they shouldn't cover it? Sorry- disagree. I started this train of thought by arguing that Grantland's relevance is questionable, and I don't think pieces on Kansas football and Blur help the relevance argument.
Fake edit: there is now a Deflategate story up.
I assume you don't read Grantland much. Think of it as a digital New Yorker magazine. It isn't exactly like that, but it isn't a news site, it never has been. Pierce wrote about the Wells report a few days ago, and I'm sure he or someone else will write about the punishments over the next few days, but it is a long-form site. Other than some bits that are staples (NBA shootaround, Mad Men, GoT) they don't do next day reactions that often.johnmd20 said:
And as I wrote this Mays posted a story about how the Brady suspension will impact the season.
Edit- I'm not sure why Kansas football and Blur are bad things to write about to you. They write dozens of stories every day, and Blur's new album has been something that a ton of people are writing about. The Kansas coach story is exactly the kind of thing Grantland is for, and in-depth look at something the writer finds interesting and the audience might too, but that isn't going to get a ton of attention on the hot takez, sites.
Grantland is part of ESPN. There's no shortage of Deflategate coverage on ESPN, across all platforms. Maybe Grantland will offer a long-form take in the fullness of time, or maybe it won't; either way, it doesn't say much about the future of Grantland or the relationship between ESPN and the NFL.
ifmanis5 said:
Is that true? It's been a long time since I looked but I recall that at one time PTI's numbers were virtually unchanged whenever Tony or Wilbon or both were not on the show. Maybe that's no longer the case. I think of PTI as an argument for the idea that ESPN talent is essentially interchangable.
According to the ESPN book, PTI was conceived as a recreation of the conversations/arguments that Tony and Wilbon would have everyday in the Washington Post newsroom. So at least initially, the show was entirely based around their talent and chemistry with each other.
However, now that the format has been established for so many years and they have a rotating cast of known commodities as guest hosts when Tony or Wilbon aren't there (SImmons, Whitlock, Bob Ryan, random Around the Horn guys), I wouldn't be surprised if ratings are basically unchanged whoever is hosting.
However, now that the format has been established for so many years and they have a rotating cast of known commodities as guest hosts when Tony or Wilbon aren't there (SImmons, Whitlock, Bob Ryan, random Around the Horn guys), I wouldn't be surprised if ratings are basically unchanged whoever is hosting.
Bailey10 said:
Back when I watched PTI, which isn't saying the show dropped off or bad etc. I just don't have time for it in my personal life anymore due to family etc., but I never didn't watch it because one of Tony or Mike weren't there because it was a breather or a good guest host. It was refreshing to have someone else on the show with a different viewpoint and for the most part the guest host was good. "Wow, Mike Wilbon isn't here and we're stuck with Bob Ryan hosting! I'm turning this off!" is something no reasonable person would say.
Half that, half there is nobody else on the site or in all of sports media (except Charlie Pierce, who has already written on the report) whose commentary I would want to read other than Simmons' on this issue.snowmanny said:
I literally could not care less on what Robert Mays has to say about it.
Grantland can't adequately cover this issue when the guy the sports world wants to hear write on it just got whacked.
I hope Simmons wrote something and filed it away, it would make a great first or second piece at his new home.
Yup, that was the basis for the show. They can plug in who they please and create all the games they want but the show was created to showcase Tony and Michael's conversations. Which it does very well.Bailey10 said:
Spacemans Bong said:
To their credit, both Barnwell and Mays declared the whole matter BS when the "Deflate-gate" story first broke, and vowed not to address it. Even Mays' story today is about how they'll get along for four games without Brady, and not about all the other blather about the ruling.
Simmons sure went to great lengths to weasel out of his commitment to do an NBA-related podcast every Monday during the playoffs, didn't he? (The irony of calling that podcast "Bill Don't Lie" is staggering, isn't it?)
But seriously, do we think he's done at ESPN to the point that we won't see any more output from him at the Worldwide Leader, whether through Grantland or otherwise? Theoretically, he could be taking a few weeks off to regroup before he works through the rest of his contract, although I can't honestly imagine Skipper et al. risking the possibility of Simmons going postal on his way out the door, so I'd have to think he's gone for good.
But seriously, do we think he's done at ESPN to the point that we won't see any more output from him at the Worldwide Leader, whether through Grantland or otherwise? Theoretically, he could be taking a few weeks off to regroup before he works through the rest of his contract, although I can't honestly imagine Skipper et al. risking the possibility of Simmons going postal on his way out the door, so I'd have to think he's gone for good.
Just as likely that thin-skinned Bill decided not to come to work for a while.ConigliarosPotential said:
Well he's justified in this case for sure (he got very publicly shafted) but his past actions and personality doesn't really add up to a professional who comes to work and puts in his time no matter what's going on. I'm picturing him on the couch with his arms folded and refusing to do anything like a spoiled brat.JBill said:
Do they want him to come into work and "put in the time" when they fired him in the fashion that they did? Probably not. I imagine his agent is negotiating with ESPN and at most he's talking to the Grantland staff. Not sure what else a professional would do.
John Skipper talked briefly about Simmons at the upfronts and said they are having discussions about what they'll be doing about the last 4 months of his deal, but that no decision has been made yet. I'd expect to at the least not see him for a few weeks.
Sitting tight for a couple days and figuring out with your lawyers whether you're going to be continuing to create content for four months after the Skipper announcement isn't pouting. It's what anyone with an ounce of sense would do. A contracted content creator isn't a time-clock puncher who makes commodified widgets.
By the way, the PTI format was created by Erik Rydholm to, yes, provide a TV friendly structure for the daily Kornheiser/Wilbon newsroom arguments. That it turned out to work with other hosts and on other shows was a happy accident for ESPN.
By the way, the PTI format was created by Erik Rydholm to, yes, provide a TV friendly structure for the daily Kornheiser/Wilbon newsroom arguments. That it turned out to work with other hosts and on other shows was a happy accident for ESPN.
Agreed, it's in all interested parties best interest to cool it off for a while in this case. However, it is most certainly definitely absolutely gold certified that contracted content creators are very much in the business of creating widgets for their employers. Don't even doubt that for a nanosecond.DLew On Roids said:
DLew On Roids said:
I would be stunned if Simmons ever lifts a finger on behalf of ESPN after what Skipper did.
My guess is that the legal wrangling is about representatives for Simmons pushing back against ESPN with respect to Simmons' non-compete/non-solicitation agreement. (Also, they are presumably negotiating a buyout of any ownership stake Simmons might have in Grantland.) Once that is resolved, Simmons is gone and on to his next gig.
Sort of. If you're a low-level blogger at Gawker, you're making widgets. If you're contracted for $5 million a year, your content has unique value.ifmanis5 said:
I think the type of story one would expect from a Grantland writer (or one a Grantland writer would want to put out) on Deflategate would not jive with the narrative ESPNFL wants to promulgate.
Official FOB Connor Schell is staying at ESPN:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2015/05/13/People-and-Pop-Culture/ESPN-Magnus.aspx
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2015/05/13/People-and-Pop-Culture/ESPN-Magnus.aspx
The high salary and value is all the more reason to produce or GTFO. If ESPN demanded content from him yesterday and he refused, he is out. Very simple. However, at this point I'm guessing both parties mutually agreed to a cooling off period which is a good idea. Content is widgets. Always has been always will be. In fact, the whole point of television (or any media) are the ads. The content is just filler (at least in American media model).DLew On Roids said:
I think ESPN agrees with you, at least to some extent. If they agreed fully, they wouldn't be paying Bill Simmons $5 million per year. They'd be getting 12-YOs in Pakistan to make it for $0.50 per day.
Simmons was absent from that preso. They've already moved on, even though Skipper admitted after it that replacing him won't be easy or a one step process.Cellar-Door said:
Average Reds said:
Why do we think Simmons has a NC/NS agreement? A NC/NS restricts future employment after termination of employment with the current employer. There is no indication that Simmons isn't free to get what ever job he wants after his ESPN contract expires.
While he is under contract with ESPN, he can't work for someone else. ESPN is required to pay him and he is required to provide his services exclusively to ESPN. Like a baseball player, ESPN can choose to play him or bench him (as long as they are still paying him).
ESPN invested tens of millions in a company set up for Simmons. They would be (even more) titanic morons not to make their investment come with an NC/NS agreement.SaveBooFerriss said:
NC agreements are virtually unenforceable in California, so that won't stick. But the non solicitation agreement has a better chance and they will fight for it.
Average Reds said:
OK. What does the NC/NS provide? What are the restrictions? How long is it in effect? Do have any of these answers?
Unless you have any actual knowledge of what is in Simmons' contract, you probably shouldn't make assumptions that do not make sense.
ESPN still owns Grantland so the investment is protected. The other writers at Grantland may or may not have exclusive services contracts with ESPN. Klosterman certainly did not. If the writers have exclusive contracts with ESPN, Simmons can't poach them. If they do not, they are fair game. If ESPN did not negotiate exclusive services contracts with these writers, I do not think they care much if they stay or go.
That's cute.
Of course I have no specific knowledge of Simmons contract, but I have experience in companies with similar agreements. And these sorts of provisions are standard. (And vary based on the specifics of each negotiation.)
I can also tell you that one of his senior editors and feature writers at Grantland is my cousin, so I do have an idea how ESPN/Disney handles these things.
I'm fine if you don't believe me, but I actually do know what I'm talking about.
Of course I have no specific knowledge of Simmons contract, but I have experience in companies with similar agreements. And these sorts of provisions are standard. (And vary based on the specifics of each negotiation.)
I can also tell you that one of his senior editors and feature writers at Grantland is my cousin, so I do have an idea how ESPN/Disney handles these things.
I'm fine if you don't believe me, but I actually do know what I'm talking about.
Average Reds said:
OK, does he have a non-compete clause in his contract with ESPN? What exactly does it provide.
The details of her contract are irrelevant. The mere fact that she has a non compete means that Simmons almost certainly does too, along with a non solicitation agreement because he was essentially the founder of Grantland.
I have no idea why you are arguing in such personal terms over something that is pretty obvious - Simmons has a NC and a NS written into his contract. And given the very public thrashing Skipper laid on him, Simmons will fight to remove those provisions from his severance agreement.
Do I know the specifics? Of course not. But that's what's happening.
I have no idea why you are arguing in such personal terms over something that is pretty obvious - Simmons has a NC and a NS written into his contract. And given the very public thrashing Skipper laid on him, Simmons will fight to remove those provisions from his severance agreement.
Do I know the specifics? Of course not. But that's what's happening.
Look I am not going to argue about this anymore because you don't have a single fact to support your position. I am not going to blindly assumes contract provisions that do not make sense.
Do you disagree that that, the day after Simmons' ESPN contract expires, he will be free to work for any other employer, whether it is Fox, TNT, etc.?
Unless you disagree, it means there is no NC agreement or it is a completely irrelevant and unenforceable provision. I am not going to assume that ESPN and Simmons negotiated irrelevant and unenforceable provisions in the agreement.
Do you disagree that that, the day after Simmons' ESPN contract expires, he will be free to work for any other employer, whether it is Fox, TNT, etc.?
Unless you disagree, it means there is no NC agreement or it is a completely irrelevant and unenforceable provision. I am not going to assume that ESPN and Simmons negotiated irrelevant and unenforceable provisions in the agreement.
Yeah I guess I don't understand how a non compete is remotely relevant when his contract is up and they've announced non renewal