i mean...it depends. on whose word you trust on how much it was losing, or whether or not it actually was. and on how you well you think they advertised it. and on what espn wants to do from here on forth. seems they've firmly planted themselves in the blatherblatherblather game and removed just about any substance. we'll see what the undefeated does if it ever comes around.
all of you guys who complain about overpaid athletes: jeremy lamb just got a contract extension for 3 more years for $21M. Another reminder that that's more than isaiah thomas is making.
I mean you didn't think Kawhi deserved max when it was pretty obvious....
But Jeremy lamb? Why....
Also I keep instinctively looking up grantland. I didn't think ESPN would lie about it and I thought everybody was saying grantland loses money for a long time before it got shut down. But yeah. Maybe biased sources Edited by indesertum - 11/2/15 at 6:17pm
it certainly wasn't profitable, that's for sure. but i'm sure both sides were "at fault" for it: simmons wanted more and more and more resources, exposure, and placement, while espn didn't give them the exposure they wanted and played the rest of the grantland staff for fools. meanwhile they keep skip bayless (? million) and stephen a smith (3.5M/yr) and chris berman (3M/yr) employed.
Just got back from the Wolves-Blazers game. Was fucking livid during that last minute. I usually give the refs the benefit of the doubt but that was straight buuuuuullshit. I'm hoarse from booing them.