Thursday, June 21, 2012

MKMOT (June 21, 2012)

Hey, jerks!

I'm touched by the show of solidarity you guys put on by not showing up yesterday. Consider it an excused absence. Where was I, you ask? Let's just say someone wanted to get in Marv's skivvies, nahmean??? That's right, an emergency enema.

So flush out some shit below, won't you? It's soothing. It's cleansing. And it's open.



Also- See IMG's piece below. Oh, and CJ- Thank you for your service.

52 comments:

  1. It looks like CJ's post yesterday reformatted the home page. The column that used to be on the right hand side of the page is now underneath the main column.

    What kind of ship are you running here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I noticed that, too. And I didn't like it.

      I checked the template layout page several times and it was still showing all of the gadgets on the right, and they are currently showing there for me right now.

      Long story short, I have no idea what's going on. And I'm glad to see that apostrophe glitch I set up is still in effect. LOVE that! Toodles!

      Delete
    2. /sets out orange construction cones and "MEN AT WORK" sign
      //heads "down under"

      #nailedit

      Delete
    3. If you're trying to insinuate that my absence had something to do with an overnight stay in Sillycone Valley, YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING!

      But you can approve my expense report.

      Delete
    4. /fixed
      //shoulda been you, Skeevy

      Delete
  2. So, earlier this week, I referenced the fact that Luke hadn't been around much lately. I am informed it is because he no longer works at Deadspin. This is very sad news. It would have been nice to get an official going-away piece, which, knowing Luke, would have been a 7-parter, each of which was over 30,000 words long.

    You were great, Luke, and you will be missed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh. You know where he went?

      Delete
    2. As I remember hearing it explained, he was something closer to a freelancer, and did magazine writing here and there too. I don't think he was necessarily "an employee" of Deadspin, as much as "regularly employed by Deadspin" which is surprising that their relationship wouldn't continue in some manner. Too bad, he was very good.

      Delete
  3. One of the Guys WhoJune 21, 2012 at 10:45 AM

    It's sort of amazing that Rovell got this deal, especially from a news outlet. (Does anyone want to re-read his interrogation of a teenager who claimed to run an escort service?)

    Let's see. Deadspin writer cashes $2K monthly check, and immediately puts two-thirds towards his journalism degree. Sees Rovell got about 20x that for being, you know, interesting and having put in his time. Looks self in mirror. Tells himself "I'm smart and people like me." Writes article about Darren Rovell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or, the writer realizes what the entire rest of the world knows - Darren Rovell is a self-important blowhard.

      I would have expected that you, of all people, recognize the type.

      Delete
    2. Well, I'm ready for a "Delete all anonymous comments automatically" policy.

      Delete
    3. @BronzeHammer Agreed.

      Delete
    4. Not to sound like a dick or anything, but does anyone else find $500K to be shockingly low for a recognizable personality on a major network? I mean, that's not chump change, but it's decidedly middle class (albeit upper middle class) if you have a family and live in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, or about a dozen other major metro areas in the US. And it's not like Rovell will be working when he's 80, so he's got to get while the getting is good, and get out.

      Sure, he's a no talent hack, but so are most TV personalities. I just assumed they were rich no talent hacks.

      Delete
    5. Sources say I'm rich, bitch!

      Delete
    6. Guy Who thinks IMG is just bragging about his own incomeJune 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM

      @IMG, the top 1% starts at $380,000. So, over 99% of people are middle class or lower?

      Yes, you sound like a dick.

      Delete
    7. He said "decidedly upper middle class" in a few very expensive markets. Having lived in several different markets, I'm certain he's correct. $500,000 a year means two different things in, say, Tampa and Chicago. National statistics aren't relevant to his point.

      [shoots self for defending IMG]

      Delete
    8. The top 1% nationwide may be $380,000, but in Manhattan, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and other places, it isn't. This is one of the big complaints about using national statistics to drive the tax code. In Texas, you might be rich making $150,000 a year. In Manhattan, you would have trouble renting a nice one bedroom apartment on that, especially if you're carrying any sort of student loan debt.

      I know plenty of people in LA who make more than $500K a year and who can't afford to buy a house that has enough room for their kids in a part of town with good schools. Let's start with half of that gone in taxes. Now add in private school tuition (because you can't afford to live in Pacific Palisades) of $30,000 - $40,000 a year for two kids, if not more; rent of $60K a year; health/car/renters insurance (maybe $10-20K a year); day care, family vacation(s), food (and you're probably eating out a lot if both spouses work), cars, etc., and you're lucky to be socking aside $30-40K a year for your kids' college funds and rainy days. Now, that hardly makes you poor, but it's not like you're killing it either. And, multiply those costs significantly if you're in Manhattan. It's what I would call being upper middle class. It's not how I would expect major television personalities to live.

      Delete
    9. Oh, fuck, Raysism agreed with me?

      Okay, I am a dick. Sorry.

      Delete
    10. Also, it's not like Rovell got a 500K annuity. He probably has one or two more contracts of this size, and then it's over for him. That was part of my point. It's like when people bitch about "rich" athletes blowing $5 million and winding up broke. But that's $5 million to last a lifetime, and they get destroyed by taxes, agent fees, etc., not to mention that most don't have a lot of skill in financial planning (which is reasonable since their entire lives have been committed to perfecting their skill that places them in top .00001% of human beings athletically). If you make $500K a year and have a reasonable expectation that you'll make that or more until you retire, that's one thing. Rovell, and other middling TV personalities, will probably all be washed up and unemployable by age 50 or so.

      Delete
    11. Guy,

      How is that not a valid point to make? The guy was exposed as what can generously be described as sort of lazy in reporting a story that was sensational. Then a couple weeks later ESPN and a legitimate news organization give him a big contract (though I agree with IMG and Raysism that it's not nearly as "big" as it sounds and I, too, was a little surprised)?

      But, I think the larger point is that Rovell, while he has created niche for himself with his stupid twitter persona, has probably reached his ceiling--unless he undergoes a drastic change in what it is he actually does. He's like a male Erin Andrews, really, and that's probably where the "amazing" vibe came from. I'd think a guy like SVP would be a better fit for a deal like that. He at least has a personality.

      Delete
    12. For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with IMG. $500k for Rovell seems low.

      I know it's easy to hate Rovell, but it certainly seems like the guy works his ass off and he has a relatively high profile which will help expand the ESPN/ABC brand.

      I am one of the few idiots who actually read the entire oral history of ESPN book, and one of the big takeaways from it was that from an organizational perspective, they try not to let their TV/Radio/etc. personalities become too big of celebrities. The primary reason for that is because they have to pay more to keep them when this does happen. (Berman was the primary example cited in the book) It seems like ESPN is traditionally cheap when it comes to paying their employees, and this might just be another example of their frugality.

      If I recall correctly, Jim Rome makes somewhere in the neighborhood of $25-30 million a year for his radio show. I know that's not exactly an "apples-to-apples" comparison, but yeah, 500k for Rovell seems low by comparison.

      Delete
    13. Guy Who is not a New Yorker with his head up his assJune 21, 2012 at 12:58 PM

      You people really have no idea what you are talking about.

      16% of people in Manhattan make over $200K. $500K is twice that, so maybe 3-5% meet that threshold, at most?

      But, let's go on believing that LA and NY are some special enclaves of the super rich while the rest of the country can live like kings on our paltry $150K salaries.

      On the other hand, I'll grant you that those locales encourage the super whiny. Let's take your example, IMG. $500K - 1/2 taxes - $40K private school (which is, as we know, a mandate for privileged white kids) - $60K rent = $150K. I'll give you $2k/month food. So, call it $125k free and clear.

      Now, you want daycare on top of your private school? And, despite your claims of being damn near poor, you want family vacations and fancy cars? No, no and no. Put the money towards college and stop bitching.

      Delete
    14. $500K doesn't seem low to me, unless Rovell is going to have a bigger role this time around. My memory of him on ESPN is as more of a bit player who only appeared for occasional feature pieces. I'm sure the "hours" he'll be putting in have a lot to do with the compensation he'll receive.

      Delete
    15. Wondering about a specific contract amount being kind of low for a specific person in a specific industry, especially in a specific locality and saying a person is "damn near poor" are, obviously, the same thing. It's almost crazy that you even had to spell it out like that.

      Delete
    16. Mr. Guy,

      This is patently absurd. IMG's original comment was that he was surprised that Darren Rovell made relatively little by celebrity standards (e.g., Hammerclaw's point that Rome makes something like 50 times as much for spewing recycled 'takes' for 3 hours a day). Instead of addressing that, you turn it into a class war discussion with, of all things, an argument that location is irrelevant when addressing income. (By the way, did you know that half the world lives on less than $2/day, so you're all selfish pigs for buying a coffee at Starbucks!!1!)

      I'm going to go back to the first intelligent post in this thread and ask that anonymous accounts be banned.

      And, Sean, thank you for coming by and please use whatever influence you may have to ensure that Tommy, Nick and co witness what might become of Deadspin once burner accounts go live.

      Delete
    17. I also thought it was low, but not based on a calculation of how much I expect to see Rovell on TV (I don't remember him even being on ESPN) but I think I just have a bias that makes me think anyone "famous" outside of local news anchors makes $1M or more. Maybe you guys know for sure, but just thinking of a random guy, what about Peter King? He probably makes like $5M right?

      I could just be stupid, but just as another example, I'm always shocked about how poor Drew claims to be. I just think to myself, damn, he's got a book, and writes everywhere and he's worried about health insurance? Why isn't he driving two BMWs on top of each other?

      Anyway, I don't buy the "$500k is not rich in certain places" arguments from you big city dudes. Granted, I don't know anything about why private schools are considered reasonable expenses, or why rent is $5k/mo, but that math does seem pretty specious to me.

      Delete
    18. @Bronze:

      Loudoun County, Virginia is the wealthiest county in the United States, by a fairly wide margin. The median household income there is $119,540 annually.

      Either there are tens of thousands of households drawing no income whatsoever (juuuuuust a tad hard to believe), or $500,000 per year is a ton of money, and not remotely "middle class" anywhere on earth.

      Delete
    19. Regardless of the stats and official definitions of "rich" and "middle class," so much of this has to do with subjective perceptions of rich. I worked in a national firm where the local office's managing partner lived in a ridiculous neighborhood in a wealthy town, in a house the size of a Target, drove a brand new Benz and sent his kids to the local private school, and was in my law clerk eyes extremely rich. One afternoon he returned after visiting the NYC office and meeting a client at his house in the Hamptons and moped around, tripping over his frown, complaining that he'd "never be rich."

      15 years later, I sort of get how compared to some guy living in a $20 mil pad in Seabonkanosset, his $1 mil pad in the 'Burbs was just so drearily middle class.

      Delete
  4. Holy shit I just realized how poor I am.

    On another note: In the Brandon Jacobs post, did anyone make the connection between the "dirty, sweaty, boys" comment in the Brandon Jacobs post and Jerry Sandusky? No? OK, I'm about to drop the fucking COTY!!!!1!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey, let's all stop rubbing hundred dollar bills on our hogs, and pay attention to this John Owens fellow. He may not be making $400k a year, but is quite funny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi John! Thanks for stopping by. I like the way you make puns out of names in the articles. Keep it up!

      Otherwise, you'll be owens us an apology!1!

      [puts on sunglasses]

      Delete
  6. Am I the only one who finds it a bit of a stretch to call the Brandon Jacobs story "touching"? I hate to be "get off my lawn" guy or an eternal cynic, but I'd personally be mortified if a little kid used his piggy bank to illuminate my 6-figure contract squabble over playing a game. And I'd be equally mortified if I repaid him $5, or really anything under $1000, after the story had gone public. Cute play date that may or may not have been largely set up by my PR guy aside.

    Now tell me how wrong I am.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anything under $1,000? More like "IMG Posing As A Guy Who Because It Seems To Be The Thing To Do When Posting Mildly Controversial Statements."

      Delete
    2. R.A.Y. is going to rock youJune 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM

      You are very wrong.

      Your opinion is not wrong, but you used the word "eternal", which put that song "3 A.M. Eternal" in my head, which is just wrong.

      Delete
    3. You're idiots. ALL OF YOU!

      I accept buffoonery as agreement.

      /An-cients of Mu-Mu!!!

      Delete
    4. I thought the same thing. But that doesn't mean you're in great company. Because it was a bunch of great publicity for $1.64 plus two hours in a bounce house with your kids.

      Delete
    5. I feel like a day spent playing with Jacobs and his kid (even if it is a PR stunt...and what isn't?) was worth way more to this kid than a grand would have been. And I think it's more touching that he took the time to do that than just writing a check.

      If I had gotten an afternoon playing with my Viking hero and son as a kid (Carter), in a bounce-house no less, I would have lost my goddamn mind.

      Delete
    6. But, I'm kind of a sucker.

      Delete
  7. Hey, that Testy Mets post is full of brilliant comments. Can't wait to let the boss know how about some of these gems!

    /scribbles notes furiously
    //tries to not spill any of the boss's gin again

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, we can all agree that some asshole at Bleacher Report is going to get much richer than he deserves to be.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Boy, that is one misleading headline. Or I'm not understanding it.

    -8½. Woody Allen’s To Rome With Love, Reviewed.

    That looks like "negative 8 and a half" to me. Am I missing something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the anti-8 1/2, as in the Fellini movie.

      Delete
    2. Ahhh...thanks. I wasn't familiar.

      Delete
  10. Oh good, someone brought the n-word to the Red Sox thread (and a picture too!)

    So, everyone freaking out about powwow, relax. They're already here...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, no. It's okay because he starred out a few letters.

      Whatever, it'll be gone momentarily.

      Delete
    2. Just horrendous.

      Delete
  11. Please don't ban anonymous comments. Not every "Guy Who" is an asshole trying to troll you guys. I would respectfully ask you to appreciate that Deadspin is a well-read site and there are plenty of readers (not that I could quantify it) who follow MKMUB and MBA and hunt for the great comments; they don't necessarily all have the chops or drive to be one of the commenters making the site thrive (until Monday when this is all over).

    Sincerely,
    Guy who is definitely not Supermike

    ReplyDelete