Bill Simmons: Good Luck With Your Life.

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,311
johnmd20 said:
This is great. Ray Rice knocks out his fiancee in an elevator and drags her out while she's unconscious on the floor. Two weeks. Simmons says he thinks Godell is a liar and gets three weeks.
 
Once again, what you say is far more important than what you "do". It's so silly.
 
 
I get the juxtaposition but this is stupid.  So are the comparisons to SAS.  First of all, ESPN is not beholden to the standards set by the the NFL for disciplining it's employees.  Secondly, while what Ray Rice did was obviously worse on a societal level, and SAS's comments were dumber, neither were potentially libelous, which is a pretty big deal.  Unless I'm wrong, he didn't say "I think he's lying" or "I don't believe him", he said "he's lying" as if it were fact.
 
Put another way, I'm OK with the fact that MLB suspended Pete Rose for life while doing nothing to Tony LaRussa (among others) for DUI, even though DUI is a far worse offense to society.
 

Plantiers Wart

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 16, 2002
4,107
west hartford
Jnai said:
 
Wasn't meant to be personal, just hard to understand why someone who works at Grantland would want the guy who drives Grantland to leave.
 
 
 
Maybe someone who believes in free press, free speech, and the integrity of independent journalism? Someone who doesn't want to feel like the corporate overlord is controlling the content they produce?    
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,814
Shelterdog said:
The issue isn't that Simmons potentially opened them up to a defamation suit--and Floyd Abrams is right, the NFL isn't actually going to sue when truth is a defense--the issue is that Simmons said something potentially defamatory about ESPN's biggest partner.  The core of SImmon's argument is that Goodell is lying about seeing the tape and while we may suspect that Goodell saw it do any of us really know?
Having given this some thought, I now see it a little differently.

What Simmons did was confirm that ESPN really is full of shit. It's not just that he alled out the NFL or that he dared his bosses to punish him, but that by daring his bosses to punish him for calling out the NFL, he confirmed a lot of public suspicions about what sort of word was coming down from ESPN brass about covering these NFL scandals.

Good for him. give'em hell, Bill!!
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Plantiers Wart said:
Maybe someone who believes in free press, free speech, and the integrity of independent journalism? Someone who doesn't want to feel like the corporate overlord is controlling the content they produce?    
In his case, yes, it's the "corporate overlord" issue. They're under contract at Grantland - he's going to get paid even if Simmons leaves. There is potentially an opportunity for Simmons to bring some Grantland people on board as well, once their contracts run out.
 
Either way, I agree it's unlikely he leaves. I don't think the financial impact for Simmons would be dire, or even assuredly negative however (he would presumably have more equity in his next project). Leaving is tough because a lot of the Simmons personalities and properties like 30 for 30, Jalen and Cousin Sal are ESPN/ABC affiliated however, and are unlikely to follow him.
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
There is no Rev said:
Having given this some thought, I now see it a little differently.

What Simmons did was confirm that ESPN really is full of shit. It's not just that he alled out the NFL or that he dared his bosses to punish him, but that by daring his bosses to punish him for calling out the NFL, he confirmed a lot of public suspicions about what sort of word was coming down from ESPN brass about covering these NFL scandals.

Good for him. give'em hell, Bill!!
Honest question: did you read the OTL piece that ESPN published last Friday? Probably the best piece of investigative journalism yet produced on this matter. ESPN's studio talent including Ley, Bruschi and Schleref was sharply critical of Goodell after the Friday press conference. ESPN has been as critical of the league as anyone on this story, and far more critical than any other company that has a financial relationship with the league.

Knock ESPN for League Of Denial, or for other lapses in journalistic rigor, all you like but on this specific story it's hard to cast them as a lapdog for the league.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,707
OilCanShotTupac said:
I dunno. He clearly says, more than once, "I think .... "

I'd have to look at it more closely, but IMO that makes it BS's opinion and not a representation of fact.

I get the rest of your point, that ESPN can't be expected to look the other way, but I don't agree. They've opened themselves up to several criticisms: that BS got 3 weeks for saying what everyone was thinking, while Steven A. got only 1 for basically saying that women are complicit in their own abuse (this is all over Facebook tonight); that ESPN has whored out for the NFL; that ESPN lets Ray Lewis opine on cover ups and seems fine with that, but punishes BS.

I think ESPN would have been better served by issuing a statement that BS's opinions are his alone, not the network's; that it wasn't a statement of fact, etc.; and that they strongly disagree with the tone and content of the statement. The whole thing would have died out. With this high profile action, they just threw gas on the fire and ensured it will not go away.
 
"I think" doesn't matter. It's what comes after.  Otherwise, comments such as ? "I think OilCanShotTupac is a pedophile," would be protected. It isn't. That the NFL would be insane to sue, doesn;t mean it isn't a potentially libelous statement.
 
But 3 weeks is nuts.
 

MetSox1

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2007
724
Dehere said:
Honest question: did you read the OTL piece that ESPN published last Friday? Probably the best piece of investigative journalism yet produced on this matter. ESPN's studio talent including Ley, Bruschi and Schleref was sharply critical of Goodell after the Friday press conference. ESPN has been as critical of the league as anyone on this story, and far more critical than any other company that has a financial relationship with the league.

Knock ESPN for League Of Denial, or for other lapses in journalistic rigor, all you like but on this specific story it's hard to cast them as a lapdog for the league.
Honest question, did you notice that TMZ got the video before ESPN did?
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,639
bowiac said:
I'm also friends with a couple people at Grantland, and that's not a good reason for Simmons to stay. I've spoken with one of them, and he's itching for Simmons to leave.
 
 
Your friend needs to look at the Chris Berman/ESPN relationship and recognize that a departure is very unlikely.
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
joe dokes said:
But 3 weeks is nuts.
Yeah I think it's the length of the suspension that is crazy, I think a few days off for the "come at me ESPN" would have been much easier for them to sell. All they've done is overshadowed the good work the network has done on the Ray Rice issue.

It makes me think some higher up has been itching to get at Simmons for a while. I imagine some execs probably think he gets away with murder and that Skipper protects him.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,707
Plantiers Wart said:
 
Maybe someone who believes in free press, free speech, and the integrity of independent journalism? Someone who doesn't want to feel like the corporate overlord is controlling the content they produce?    
 
While it may be about (the lack of) independent journalism, this has little to do with free speech or a free press.  it has much mroe to do with concentration of media ownership.  Wait til Comcast buys Disney.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,277
bowiac said:
I don't know much about advertising, but is this really how it works? ESPN is courting sponsors, not the other way around, right? If Subway sponsors SimmonsLand, is ESPN really going to turn down Subway's dollars later? 
 
Maybe--but I would think ESPN is a brand that doesn't really need to see themselves to advertisers, that their demographic is what the sponsors want.
 
Either way, it's a small part of this.
 
I'm more intrigued by Simmons saying he'd go public if ESPN called him out. Will he?
 
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,277
southshoresoxfan said:
What country is this? Suspended for calling out a sports figure for what was a sham of a press conference? Joke.
 

I'm of the mind the suspension was more for calling out ESPN. ESPN can't have employees doing that. It's likely in their contracts.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,839
Needham, MA
Simmons lives and works in California, Grantland is headquartered there, so any non-compete he may have is probably worthless anyway, if he were inclined to leave.  I doubt he'll leave because he long ago made peace with the fact that his alliance with ESPN, while distatesful to him in a lot of ways, has made him a rich man, and I doubt he's going to flush that.  But he could if he wanted to.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,707
DrewDawg said:
 
Maybe--but I would think ESPN is a brand that doesn't really need to see themselves to advertisers, that their demographic is what the sponsors want.
 
Either way, it's a small part of this.
 
I'm more intrigued by Simmons saying he'd go public if ESPN called him out. Will he?
 
 
ESPN is what it is. And its so large that its movements are, as they say, "like trying to turn an ocean liner in a bathtub."
 
But that is a battle Simmons will lose.  If by "going public," he means dishing others' personal details, he will come off as an immature guy with a firehose; I think he's good at what he does (even if its no longer my cup of tea most of the time). But I also think he is not sharp enough to avoid over-playing his hand. What else could "go public" mean.  "They told me not to do it and i did it anyway?" No shit.
 
Ultimately, I think that while most people might think that 3 weeks is too long, most people will also eventually get that you can't go around ripping your employer (especially with a brotastic "come and get me") or acting like you are, as someone said, untouchable.  Even if those same people also think that Goodell is a liar.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,839
Needham, MA
And I fundamentally disagree that ESPN had to take action because Bill called them out.  What is this, sixth grade?  To the extent they care at all about whatever little journalistic credibility they may have, they should have just ignored it and let the Ombudsman's piece stay up there.  Instead they have put the issue of ESPN's relationship with the NFL front and center, and potentially damaged the relationship between them and maybe their most important employee.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,455
Southwestern CT
Ralphwiggum said:
And I fundamentally disagree that ESPN had to take action because Bill called them out.  What is this, sixth grade?  To the extent they care at all about whatever little journalistic credibility they may have, they should have just ignored it and let the Ombudsman's piece stay up there.  Instead they have put the issue of ESPN's relationship with the NFL front and center, and potentially damaged the relationship between them and maybe their most important employee.
 
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the reality is that corporations simply do not tolerate public insubordination.
 
I'm not saying it was smart for ESPN to have taken this action.  But once he stated that ESPN wouldn't dare touch him, his fate was sealed.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,707
Ralphwiggum said:
And I fundamentally disagree that ESPN had to take action because Bill called them out.  What is this, sixth grade?  To the extent they care at all about whatever little journalistic credibility they may have, they should have just ignored it and let the Ombudsman's piece stay up there.  Instead they have put the issue of ESPN's relationship with the NFL front and center, and potentially damaged the relationship between them and maybe their most important employee.
 
Bill Simmons is far from ESPN's "most important employee."  That said, other than calling Goodell a liar, did he really call out ESPN? As far as I can tell from listening he didn't criticize the coverage or their relationship with the NFL.  I guess the "nyah nyah nyah, you beter not call me and tell me I'm in trouble" comes close.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
joe dokes said:
Bill Simmons is far from ESPN's "most important employee."  That said, other than calling Goodell a liar, did he really call out ESPN? As far as I can tell from listening he didn't criticize the coverage or their relationship with the NFL.  I guess the "nyah nyah nyah, you beter not call me and tell me I'm in trouble" comes close.
I'm an unabashed Simmons fan, but who is a more important employee at ESPN than Simmons?
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
jose melendez said:
Second, if ESPN "journalists" had any balls they'd walk out en masse
I think that's tough given the media environment. Unless you're a true star, you're pretty close to fungible. ESPN can have a wave of defections and replace those guys with ease.
 
It would be nice if that's what we saw, but I think that's unrealistic.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
bowiac said:
I'm an unabashed Simmons fan, but who is a more important employee at ESPN than Simmons?
I'm here too.
 
I think there are likely more important people in the background etc, but in terms of public faces? He's to some degree associated with their 3 top non live sports related items, and is increasingly being pushed into their basketball coverage as the face of that.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,277
Ralphwiggum said:
And I fundamentally disagree that ESPN had to take action because Bill called them out.  What is this, sixth grade? 
 
Actually, it's how most companies would handle something like that.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,839
Needham, MA
joe dokes said:
 
Bill Simmons is far from ESPN's "most important employee."  That said, other than calling Goodell a liar, did he really call out ESPN? As far as I can tell from listening he didn't criticize the coverage or their relationship with the NFL.  I guess the "nyah nyah nyah, you beter not call me and tell me I'm in trouble" comes close.
Who is more important than him?  Maybe there are one or two guys, but he's certainly one of their top 5 guys I would think.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,839
Needham, MA
Average Reds said:
 
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the reality is that corporations simply do not tolerate public insubordination.
 
I'm not saying it was smart for ESPN to have taken this action.  But once he stated that ESPN wouldn't dare touch him, his fate was sealed.
I get it, what I am saying is that it was stupid.  They certainly could have chosen to do nothing, which to me would have been the smarter thing to do.
Or if you had to suspend him for insubordination do it for a day or two.  Three weeks is ludicrous.
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
MetSox1 said:
Honest question, did you notice that TMZ got the video before ESPN did?
 
Yep, and good for them. They pay their sources and most traditional outlets don't and as a result they were able to break a big story. That's great. Doesn't mean ESPN has not done a good job in covering this story since.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,707
LondonSox said:
I'm here too.
 
I think there are likely more important people in the background etc, but in terms of public faces? He's to some degree associated with their 3 top non live sports related items, and is increasingly being pushed into their basketball coverage as the face of that.
 
Maybe he's one of their biggest public faces (I dont watch much non-live sports on ESPN), but at this point, ESPN is so big that I dont think *any* single on-air talent is especially "important" anymore. Put another way, if he leaves, I doubt that ESPN suffers.
 
get it, what I am saying is that it was stupid. They certainly could have chosen to do thing, which to me would have been the smarter thing to do.
Or if you had to suspend him for insubordination do it for a day or two. Three weeks is ludicrous.
 
 Whatever else I disagree with, this I don't. As Simmons himself would say, mocking Mike Tyson,  "3 weeks is ludacrisp."
 
 

PBDWake

Member
SoSH Member
May 1, 2008
3,686
Peabody, MA
DrewDawg said:
 
Actually, it's how most companies would handle something like that.
Not to mention there's a history here, both long term, with Simmons, and short term, with employees not respecting the parent company.
 
Simmons has baited his bosses at ESPN for years. He's made no secret of the fact that he believes he's better than them at pretty much everything from content generation to connecting to fans, and that they owe much of their success in the online game to him. In some respects, he's right. He's shaped a lot of the direction this generation of sports writing has gone. But in some sense, he's kind of like Goodell. Just because you're presiding over an area of excellent growth in your company doesn't mean it's all attributable to you. ESPN probably does just fine without Simmons, it just looks different. Difference of course being that Simmons is better at his job than Goodell, but there's almost negative appreciation for the fact that ESPN has a lot of masters and he sometimes needs to be a good employee. He Keith Hernandez's them constantly. 
 
And in recent memory, ESPN has had a couple of notable bits of disrespect from its own employees ignoring their requests. Max Kellerman went on and talked personally about his own domestic violence history immediately after ESPN asked its hosts not to because they were trying to recover after the SAS comments. Dan LeBetard went to Deadspin to sell his HoF vote when ESPN would have killed to do a Sportsnation event for filling out a hall of fame ballot. Then, when they asked him to run his stunts by them first so they weren't blindsided, he bought the billboard in Cleveland to mock LeBron. I imagine John Walsh is pretty pissed off in general at personalities he thinks are too big for their britches right now.
 
Do I think 3 weeks is ludicrous? Yes. But do I see how it got to that point? Also, yes. This was their statement suspension. It'll be really interesting to see how Simmons responds.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
LondonSox said:
I think there are likely more important people in the background etc, but in terms of public faces? He's to some degree associated with their 3 top non live sports related items, and is increasingly being pushed into their basketball coverage as the face of that.
I'm not even sure there are more important people in the background. There are people integral to ESPN's operations, but there are a lot of talented business people and producers out there, so they can be replaced without too much difficulty. Simmons drives viewership/readership/listeners on his own meanwhile - he's not an invention of ESPN. Put another way, I would be surprised if Simmons wasn't ESPN's highest paid employee apart from Skipper (and even that's uncertain).
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,455
Southwestern CT
Ralphwiggum said:
 
Maybe.  But in this case it doesn't mean it wasn't stupid.  What does ESPN gain from suspending him?
 
My guess is that the action was more influenced by Disney.  And the objective is to demonstrate that no individual is above the corporation. 
 
I do agree that there are many ways they could have taken action that were less self-defeating, but self-defeating seems to be part of the DNA of ESPN at this point.
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
31,246
Geneva, Switzerland
bowiac said:
I think that's tough given the media environment. Unless you're a true star, you're pretty close to fungible. ESPN can have a wave of defections and replace those guys with ease.
 
It would be nice if that's what we saw, but I think that's unrealistic.
There is strength in a union!
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,839
Needham, MA
PBDWake said:
And in recent memory, ESPN has had a couple of notable bits of disrespect from its own employees ignoring their requests. Max Kellerman went on and talked personally about his own domestic violence history immediately after ESPN asked its hosts not to because they were trying to recover after the SAS comments. Dan LeBetard went to Deadspin to sell his HoF vote when ESPN would have killed to do a Sportsnation event for filling out a hall of fame ballot. Then, when they asked him to run his stunts by them first so they weren't blindsided, he bought the billboard in Cleveland to mock LeBron. I imagine John Walsh is pretty pissed off in general at personalities he thinks are too big for their britches right now.
 
Do I think 3 weeks is ludicrous? Yes. But do I see how it got to that point? Also, yes. This was their statement suspension. It'll be really interesting to see how Simmons responds.
 
The difference in these cases is that the underlying offense was suspension worthy.  If you ask an employee to do something or not to do something and the employee ignores that directive, then in that case I agree the company has no choice but to discipline the employee in some way.
 
ESPN, at least by its public statement, is not suspending Simmons because he ignored a direct order from someone senior in the organization, or even because he "called them out" or challenged their authority.  They are suspending him because he did not meet their "journalistic standards" which is ridiculous (and obviously not the real reason he was suspended, since others on ESPN have said the same thing that Simmons said).
 
It was a childish thing for Simmons to do in the first place, he could have said the Goodell thing without calling out his bosses.  But ESPN has responded in an equally childish manner.
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
31,246
Geneva, Switzerland
If he thought his bosses weer completely in bed with the NFL, calling them out was the right thing to do.  Of course, he should have explained how they were in bed.
 

Plantiers Wart

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 16, 2002
4,107
west hartford
bowiac said:
I'm not even sure there are more important people in the background. There are people integral to ESPN's operations, but there are a lot of talented business people and producers out there, so they can be replaced without too much difficulty. Simmons drives viewership/readership/listeners on his own meanwhile - he's not an invention of ESPN. Put another way, I would be surprised if Simmons wasn't ESPN's highest paid employee apart from Skipper (and even that's uncertain).
 
 
I was listening to Mike North on FoxSports radio this morning, and he repeatedly claimed Simmons made $3 million per year, as if he knew for a fact, with a net worth of $15 million.. 
 

Detts

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,165
Greenville, SC
Plantiers Wart said:
 
 
I was listening to Mike North on FoxSports radio this morning, and he repeatedly claimed Simmons made $3 million per year, as if he knew for a fact, with a net worth of $15 million.. 
 
You poor bastard.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
The thing that angers me the most is that ESPN suspending their top talent is arguably the biggest story today and has dominated social media over the night and into this morning and I haven't turned on the TV yet but I'm sure all the talent on air is going to be proceeding a long as if nothing has happened. 
 
ESPN apparently made the cold calculation that their Brand is king , their other talent would take the hint and know what is accepted and expected from now on , and Simmons is in a corner of choosing to continue operating on the biggest stage with the greatest gig or having to uproot and try to build it all again which is an extremely difficult Catch 22. 
 
If ESPN had any balls they would hold a presser to explain the length and the actual reasoning and take questions. 
 
Garbage on so many levels. I hope Bill's response is epic but he has a family and other writers now that theoretically depend on him going quietly back into his role as if the suspension wasn't an utter travesty. 
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,370
Detts said:
That is awesome. I love Deadspin for calling out this nonsense. It's a strong statement that I trust deadspin and tmz more than Peter king and espn.

Simmons isn't leaving. The one thing he said that should be clarified (and perhaps explains the length of the suspension) is his threat to "go public." It suggests he actually knows something that hasn't been reported. I'd like to know what that meant.
 

Freddy Linn

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,151
Where it rains. No, seriously.
Plantiers Wart said:
 
 
I was listening to Mike North on FoxSports radio this morning, and he repeatedly claimed Simmons made $3 million per year, as if he knew for a fact, with a net worth of $15 million.. 
 
Left the sunroof open and now my radio is stuck on that channel.  That show is the worst piece of programming I have ever listened to.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,957
Simmons has frequented these parts before no? Can someone send him an open invitiation?
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,363
How do noncompetes work with regard to media personalities?  They're not ordinarily read to prevent someone from practicing their trade at all.  If someone is a national journalist with a noncompete, enforcing that noncompete would be tantamount to saying that they're not allowed to work, which I can't see happening. 
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Suspended
Feb 12, 2003
24,895
where I was last at
I'm a Simmons supporter. I enjoy the guy for the most part, and he usually entertains me.
 
If all this is a legit employee/employer dispute, I'm rooting for Simmons to bite the hand the spoons him caviar. But this seems like a made for TV event, out of WWE Vince McMahon's playbook. Just wait for Bill to make his comeback in 3 weeks. Ratings soar, everyone wins.
 
Real question: Who owns Grantland? Is it Simmons or ESPN's?
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
bankshot1 said:
I'm a Simmons supporter. I enjoy the guy for the most part, and he usually entertains me.
 
If all this is a legit employee/employer dispute, I'm rooting for Simmons to bite the hand the spoons him caviar. But this seems like a made for TV event, out of WWE Vince McMahon's playbook. Just wait for Bill to make his comeback in 3 weeks. Ratings soar, everyone wins.
 
Real question: Who owns Grantland? Is it Simmons or ESPN's?
 
Agree completely. I admire his career and expanding influence and impact greatly but I do wish he would write more often. The Gooddell mailbag was one of his finest in recent months I would say. 
 
On the owning Grandland question it will be super interesting to see if that gets answered. I'm sure ESPN didn't divest total ownership and I imagine they still pay the writers with Simmons doing everything else? Further  if I remember correctly Simmons had huge leverage in his last contract negotiation and even bragged about it in his column a bit. 
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,839
Needham, MA
Marciano490 said:
How do noncompetes work with regard to media personalities?  They're not ordinarily read to prevent someone from practicing their trade at all.  If someone is a national journalist with a noncompete, enforcing that noncompete would be tantamount to saying that they're not allowed to work, which I can't see happening. 
 
For the reasons you note (that courts do not like preventing people from working at all), plus the fact that both Simmons and Grantland are located in California, I would be shocked if ESPN is successful in preventing Simmons from working for more than a very short period of time, if at all.  In addition to California's general prohibition on non-competes, several other states have statutes that restrict the ability of broadcast employers to enter into non-competes with their employees.  I don't know the answer for sure, but that seems like a losing battle for ESPN.
 
What may be in his contract that probably is enforceable, though, is an agreement not to solicit ESPN employees for a period of time, which might impede his ability to start up a rival to Grantland with any of the same writers currently at Grantland.  But, proving that an ex-employee is soliciting your current employees can be hard, and again at the end of the day courts generally don't like to tell people they can't work. 
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
bankshot1 said:
I'm a Simmons supporter. I enjoy the guy for the most part, and he usually entertains me.
 
If all this is a legit employee/employer dispute, I'm rooting for Simmons to bite the hand the spoons him caviar. But this seems like a made for TV event, out of WWE Vince McMahon's playbook. Just wait for Bill to make his comeback in 3 weeks. Ratings soar, everyone wins.
 
Real question: Who owns Grantland? Is it Simmons or ESPN's?
ESPN owns Grantland.