No, a subscription model is not a sustainable model for any online newspapers. Since there are so many websites, blogs, and news services where consumers can get their news for free, you'll see the majority of readers head to those sites for their news. Sure, there will be handfuls of loyal readers like yourself who are willing to pay a subscription, but the ABJ (or any other paper) would be better served by getting as many possible eyeballs on the site, so they can make more money off advertising. In fact the industry is moving this way as the NYTimes and WSJ recently have/are in the process of making their content free and available to everyone.

The same is true with actual newspapers. Historically, they didn't make money off subscriptions, they made it off advertisers. As the way people got and digested news changed, newspapers lost readers and in turn received less money from advertisers who weren't willing to pay the same prices for less readers to be exposed to their ads.

Newspapers have to get into the 21st century (and fast) or they'll all be extinct. You see a lot of sites recently trying to do that with blogs like these and outlets for readers to comment and share thoughts. I'd argue that going back to a subscription model is an old, antiquated solve and would do much more long term harm than good.

One thing I would suggest that newspaper sites do is to include links which would allow readers to donate a few dollars to the paper. They could be quite creative on this.

Maybe a "contest" similar to the old "vote for your favorite bartender by dropping a dollar in the jar" that is sometimes held in party districts (or so I've heard). But the columnists would be the contestants. The paper would announce only the winner, to avoid disrespecting the non-winners. A portion of the proceeds would go to the United Way.

Personally, I'd be happy to pay $25 for a year's access to this website. I'll bet there are others who would also be willing to pay a subscription fee. Doing this would certainly generate more revenues than are being received now. $25 bucks, and then I don't have to think about it for a year.

Back many years ago (1996 or so), I corresponded several times to the fellow who actually started the BJ on the web. His name was Tom (probably still is). This was back when the Beacon was just starting to acknowledge the usefulness of the www. I'm sure that the pioneering work that Tom did to establish the BJ on the web was undervalued, until someone recognized the impact and value and decided to push Tom out of the way in order to further their own career. I still remember Tom, though, and my kudos go mainly to him. The Johnny-come-latelys are not much better than political parasites, in my opinion.

Ok. I'm stepping down off the soapbox now. Just wanted to add these few comments to the mix here.

And, oh John, the link provided by Pat does indeed resolve to the OBR site. You're both right! It's like reading that the link to ESPN is espn.com and complaining that it is incorrect because it resolves to espn.go.com. Six of one… half a dozen of another.

As for Hickson and having his shots blocked, could it have anything to do with him not being accustomed to playing against teams night-in and night-out who have 3 players on the court at all times as tall or taller than him? Perhaps Campy Russell would be kind enough to work with J.J. on developing a fall-away jumper? Campy was one of the best I've ever seen at that.

I read that Joe Smith has the same agent as AV. Having Joe would mean less playing time for Andy, and will hurt his perceived value come free agency. I do hope the Cavs see that Andy is an above average big guy, and is very valuable to this team.

Ferry may decide that it will be better in the long run to bring in the Joe Smiths and other bigs who are nearing the end of their careers, rather than pay a king's ransom for a young, still developing player like AV. Pretty much what the Bulls did, isn't it? Jordan and Pippin, with the older Cartwright and others to fill a need for a limited time. Seemed to work OK, 'eh?

It's "cle.scout.com".

And thanks, Pat. You know we appreciate the mention, and respect the (bad word) out of the person it's coming from.