Are the A’s doomed again?

The Athletics are baseball’s nomads. They’ve relocated to three different parts of the country in over 100 years of play, and they could be doomed to relocating again.

I don’t normally link too many stories from Deadspin, but I think this one by its founder, Will Leitch, is an interesting read. He likens the franchise to the Montreal Expos, stating that the A’s almost certainly will move again.

It’s hard to argue with that assessment. It looked like a ballpark in nearby Fremont was going to get built, but that fell through. And considering the budget shortfalls in California, it’s hard to believe stadium legislation would get passed in the state without an owner forking over some serious cash for one.

The funny thing about the A’s and their nomadic ways is that they’ve been one of Major League Baseball’s most successful franchises on the field. Those powerful teams just didn’t translate to powerful fan bases.

The nine world championships (five in Philadelphia and four in Oakland) are the second- or third-most in baseball history (can’t remember which, but it’s top three). Some of those teams – 1929-31 Philly A’s and 1972-74 Oakland A’s – are among baseball’s greatest dynasties.

But the franchise just doesn’t stick, despite producing such all-time greats as manager Connie Mack and players Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Cochrane, Al Simmons, Reggie Jackson, Catfish Hunter, Rickey Henderson and the juiced-up Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire.

ONE MORE LINK

I wrote a column – or as we call them, a "mini-column" – on Gary Bettman‘s upcoming dilemma about whether or not to allow NHL players to compete in the 2014 Olympic Games.

It will be interesting to see what he decides. I personally think the NHL gains more by having a world hockey tournament on the world’s biggest stage in the Olympics than starting one of its own and having it broadcast on Versus or whatever.

It might make the league some moderate immediate profits, but it will knock it a couple more notches down on the sports totem pole, just like the deal on Versus did and the decision to move teams from Canada and northern hockey-loving markets to the South did.

Remember the days of the "Big Four," which was the NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA? There’s no doubt the NHL has since slipped behind NASCAR and pro golf – at least, when Tiger Woods is playing – on the average fan’s radar. And UFC is fast approaching, if it hasn’t eclipsed it already.

Reviewing The Marriage Ref

I want to start out by saying I’m a huge "Seinfeld" fan and a huge fan of the other Larry David show "Curb Your Enthusiasm." They are my two favorite TV shows of all-time. Bar none.

So even though I hardly watch anything on TV these days, my interest was peeked when I heard Jerry Seinfeld was going to have another show called "The Marriage Ref," which would premiere right after The Olympics closing ceremonies Sunday.

The show’s premise was to have celebrities critiquing arguments made by real-life married people. Yeah, not exactly something that excites the Seinfeld fan within me, but it’s Seinfeld. If Will Ferrell makes a movie that gets terrible reviews from your friends, a Will Ferrell fan will still go watch it, because it’s Will Ferrell. Same deal.

I watched about as much of it as I could handle last night. Just not my thing. Joe Posnanski of Sports Illustrated agrees in his review.

My problem with the show is it focuses around something that’s just not funny at all. In real life, nobody wants to be around a married couple when they’re arguing. It’s uncomfortable. Why would I want to watch that on TV? 

The comments made by the celebrities are kind of funny, enough so to make you appreciate their abilities as comedians. But in the end, the show’s about something I’d rather not see any more of in my life than I already do.

So I apologize to Seinfeld. Gave you the benefit of the doubt, despite a premise I didn’t think I would be into anyway. I’m not saying it’s a bad show. It’s just not a show for me.