The KIA-SMB trade deal is good as done. There's no way the Picantos will acquire the potential top pick, Christian Standhardinger, simply because they can't afford him. And what better way to not worry about him but by trading him to alleged "sister" team, San Miguel. There are technicalities involved of course - like KIA's declared franchise owner is Columbian Autocar Corporation (CAC) while SMC's 65% ownership, named SMC Car Asia, is through Asian Carmakers Corporation (ACC).
http://business.inquirer.net/233453/san-miguel-take-65-stake-bmw-distributor
The bottomline is that there's a link between SMC and KIA's owner, Pepito Alvarez. And that relationship may actually have a great influence on KIA's decision to trade its first pick with SMB and not with other teams.
But there's no way Commissioner Chito Narvasa can rescind this deal. Unless - the PBA Board on Thursday, October 26, in their meeting, rescinds / vetoes this deal because of the alleged sister team setup. They can't veto the deal if deemed lopsided - SMB will simply offer more sweeteners, not to mention the oft-mentioned "cash considerations" and "salary subsidy." And that's the job of Narvasa, not the Board.
If the Board decides to bring up the issue of SMC's ownership of ACC, expect a heated exchange of words in the conference room. Critics of the deal would claim KIA is now a 4th team of the SMC conglomerate - prohibited in league rules. SMB can argue that the conglomerate's ownership is with ACC, not CAC. Hence, they're not sister teams because ACC has no franchise in the PBA.
And if nothing comes out of this expected discussion and the trade remains, SMB will most likely pick CS as their pick to play #4 alongside 4x MVP Junemar Fajardo, forming perhaps the most feared slot combo in league history. The Beermen nearly won the Slam this year, and if not for import problems in the Governors' Cup, they could've gone all the way. The only team projected to compete against them would be Barangay Ginebra, they with an equally formidable frontline in Greg Slaughter and Japeth Aguilar, plus, Tim Cone of course. In the last PHL Cup, these two tangled in the Finals, a testament to the strength of their local rosters.
No other team would hold a candle against them. Sure, teams like Star, the 3 Metro Pacific teams, and indie teams ROS and ALA, may pull off a surprise or two, but when the dust is cleared, SMB and Ginebra will end up the last teams standing. It's a virtual duopoly in terms of league dominance.
It's a throwback of what the PBA was in its first decade. Two teams, Crispa and Toyota virtually lorded it over the rest, collectively winning the first 10 conferences at stake, and not missing a single Finals appearance until the 2nd Conference of 1984. By this time, Toyota has already disbanded and Crispa was already suffering a financial crisis.
Perhaps, Narvasa has given up hope of coming up with a semblance of parity in the league. Then Deputy Commissioner Tommy Manotoc was the primary exponent of league balance and parity, and he knew what he spoke, having coached U/Tex and San Miguel Beer before handling Crispa in 1983. Manotoc wanted to make sure all PBA teams have the opportunity to win championships - he distributed the Crispa players when the team disbanded after the 1984 season, instead of lumping them all together in the buying team - Formula Shell. He espoused equal opportunity by distributing the top four centers of the league at that time - Ramon Fernandez, Abet Guidaben, Manny Victorino and Yoyoy Villamin. He did away with the handicapping system among imports when many thought it would be disadvantageous to the supposed teams with weaker rosters, but ultimately, it worked out well.
But with SMB and Ginebra ready to flex its muscle on everyone, Narvasa may have conceded that the best road back to relevance for the league is have a dynasty of a rivalry between SMB and Ginebra. Many may argue this won't happen - they're sister teams so how can such a rivalry be possible?
Then again, the biggest rivalry the PBA today is Manila Clasico - aptly called when bitter rivals yet sister teams Ginebra and Star go up against each other. In the 80's and early 90's - when Ginebra and SMB were already sister teams, they had their own heated rivalry as well. So the sibling rivalry argument doesn't hold water.
Hard to argue with those against this looming duopoly because it is counter-productive. So much effort has been wasted already when parity started deserting the league in the early 2000's. Pity Manotoc, the elder Salud (+), and Bernardino (+) who worked hard to giving each team equal chances of winning. Proof? From the period of 1990 to 1992 alone, 7 of the then 8 PBA teams at that time, won championships. Only Pepsi failed to snare a title during that period.
Perhaps Narvasa feels that it's much easier to bring back the fans in the stands when you just need to strengthen the popular teams further and make them form a dynastic rivalry. The more games these two teams play, the better at the tills. Make Star (the other popular team) a perennial darkhorse and Narvasa shoots two birds with one bullet - the popular teams get to dominate and SMC management would be happy.
More than anything, I'm convinced the most challenging in any Commissioner's job description is to keep the SMC owners happy. A couple of years back, SMC threatened to withdraw from the league in the aftermath of the Renaldo Balkman incident (http://sports.inquirer.net/90789/san-miguel-corp-mulls-pulling-teams-out-of-pba). It may have taken a lot of ego-massaging on the PBA's part to appease management. For no matter how one cuts it, an SMC pullout would mean signing the league's death warrant.
So while we all disagree that this potential "dynastic rivalry" will be good for the league in the long run, I won't be surprised if this in the Commissioner's mindset as his way of "saving the league."
No comments:
Post a Comment