by John Walters

Here’s an excerpt from what I wrote my class this morning. They’re beginning to understand that they have a cynical professor, but I’ve always believed that a cynic is simply an idealist who’s seen too much.

Films, quality films I should say, have a way of staying with us if they impart lessons that have metaphorical value. In other words, the situations, actions and conflicts of the story are able to be translated into unrelated situations from every day life. Metaphor! Excellent. If you ever hear someone from my generation, for example, saying, “You’re going to need a bigger boat,” that’s a reference to Jaws. In the film it meant that the boat they had was not large enough to deal with the shark they were hunting; since the film it has come to mean that you’ve bitten off more than you can chew (a metaphor to explain a metaphor, oh my) in the task you’re about to undertake. It’s also wonderful as an understatement.

All of the above to introduce a film metaphor below, from The Perfect Storm. Have you seen this movie (from 2000), starring George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg and John C. Reilly? Based on a true story (the book is incredible, by the way), it’s the tale of the ill-fated fishermen of the Andrea Gail.

So it’s October of 1991 and the captain and crew of this boat have had a poor summer, financially. They’ve got one more chance to head out into the Atlantic before winter comes. And now they’ve made a big haul and they’re hundreds of miles out in the Atlantic, east of New England. The problem? The biggest storm in decades sits between them and home port.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsARVzxeZms

So here’s the captain’s dilemma: 1) If he sails out further east, the ship and crew are safe but they’ll run out of ice to keep the catch fresh and hence will lose their small fortune. 2) If he sails home, he’s headed headlong into a terrible storm (a “perfect” storm, in fact) but if they make it back to port, the catch will be saved and they’ll have full pockets of cash.

The captain thinks, and what follows are seven of the most destructive words ever strung together, What’s the worst that could possibly happen?

Why bring this up? I think of these characters and this dilemma as I assess the upcoming abbreviated MLB season and resuming NBA season. Here are how the fundamentals of each story overlap:

1) You have a group of individuals who are fully aware of the potential consequences of taking the prudent action (losing money) versus taking the risky action (illness or death).

2) Those same individuals choose the latter action, the risky action, due to a single motivating factor (money). Please, kids, you’re not eight years old any more: when league commissioners tell you they’re bringing back their sport for the morale of the country, because people miss sports, remember, this is a business. There are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake here in terms of putting product (games) on air.

3) George Clooney or Adam Silver or Rob Manfred are all taking the same, in my opinion, foolish gamble: Thinking that the worst cannot happen simply because it is inconvenient. That’s poor logic.

Should the NBA or MLB not resume? That’s not the question I’d pose to them. The question I’d pose, which no one has adequately answered, is, What happens when players begin testing positive (you probably know that Russell Westbrook has already tested positive)? The follow-up would be, Do you really expect fans to believe that superstars are going to sit out the conference finals or NBA Finals because a swab test says they have symptoms even though they do not feel sick? Do you expect us fans to believe that the NBA, which has an inherent conflict of interest, is going to truthfully report the results of these tests?

Consider: It’s shortly before Game 5 of the NBA Finals, 2-2 between the Bucks and Lakers (sorry, Clippers fans). And Giannis tests positive for Covid-19. Series over… even though Giannis feels great. Unless, the NBA chooses not to report the results of the test. There’s a huge ratings difference between having Giannis available for Games 5, 6 and 7 and having no Giannis for Games 5 and 6. And there’s a lot of money left on the table all because Giannis has the virus but still feels healthy? I don’t see it.

One person’s suggestion for how these leagues should be handling this situation, as opposed to producing 100-page protocols that no one will ever be able to follow (those are simply legal documents to protect the leagues against lawsuits from the unions down the line; they serve little practical purpose) and blowing sunshine up (certain orifices) to appease fans and media: You have two choices.

A) Cancel the season(s) until an effective vaccine is produced or

B) Proceed full-steam ahead with the seasons, BUT, inform fans that players will be allowed to play even if they do test positive. It will be the player’s option. And any player who does not want to participate in the league will be excused without penalty. And that player may leave at any time (before or during the season). But a player will not be held out simply for testing positive. It will be up to him.

Because, let’s face it: If the NBA and MLB really wanted to be safe, they’d stay as far away from continuing or starting a season as possible right now. So since we know that they’re committed to sailing through that storm, we deserve their honesty. Preventing the spread of the virus is really not a priority, so please don’t pander to public relations by saying that you’ll pull players who test positive. Let them play, if they want to.

The captain of the Andrea Gail knew that he could not both be safe and keep his haul. He had to make a choice and he rolled the dice that the storm would not overwhelm him. The boat was never found. All eight or so aboard were lost. Adam Silver and Rob Manfred are facing the same dilemma and making the same choice. Maybe, probably, no one directly dies. But let’s not pretend for one moment that that’s their overriding priority. The money is.