Time to Replace the Pro Bowl

I actually watch bits and pieces of last Sunday's Pro Bowl. I never used to watch any of it, but given it's new placement on the week between the NFL's conference championship games and the Super Bowl, I tuned in to wet my football whistle (so to speak). What I saw was laughable. It wasn't football as I have come to know it. It was, basically, flag football without the flags.

I can't blame the players for playing patty cake with each other. Why risk injury in a meaningless game? They were in Hawaii to enjoy the weather, collect their pay, and do a little grab-ass with their peers. At least that's what I could discern from watching the intensity with which the game was played.

If the NFL is looking for a serious game to slot in the week before the Super Bowl, how about this idea, borrowed in part from a caller to a local talk show:

*Each team selects three of its Practice Squad players forming two, 48 man rosters (approximating the gameday active rosters the NFL uses).

*Coaching staffs are picked as they are now.

*Losing team players get $25K (a nice bump for guys on the practice squad) in addition to extended, real game exposure.

*Winning players get a guaranteed roster spot for the coming year. Not necessarily on the active roster, but even if they end up on the PS again, they get the NFL minimum. Their salaries don’t count against the cap.

That should dial up the intensity while giving us a glimpse of the talent that is bubbling under the surface.

Of course, this game is played on a Saturday, allowing the NCAA National Championship game to be played the next day…

Hey, a guy can dream, right?

A Death in Happy Valley

So, Joe Paterno is dead. This time for sure. I was a bit surprised when both ESPN Radio and FoxSportsRadio interrupted their programming and adopted the tones one imagines Radio Moscow took when Stalin died. It was nearly Cronkite telling the nation JFK had passed.

This isn't going to be one of those bitter reflections about a man who ended a notable sporting life with a sour revelation of weakness followed by an ignominious dismissal. Nor is this going to be a mediation about what a great guy JoePa was (although there seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest he was). That's because I didn't really have a sense for the man. His teams won a lot of football games, to be sure. He seemed like an amusing and cantankerousness old dude. But, one way or the other, he didn't really move my meter like, say, his contemporary Al McGuire did. So you shouldn't take what follows as an apology for the clay feet that were revealed toward the end of Paterno's life.

It certainly does seem he should have done more to intervene when the sordid Sandusky business came to his attention. Paterno even said as much in his last weeks. But it is easy for us to sit where we do and pass judgment, confident in our minds that we would have heroically intervened and brought that reprobate to justice. Thinking that way feels very good; moral superiority will do that. And perhaps the best thing that comes of this episode is in giving us a dry run, a test case, so that if we are confronted with something similar some day we might act in a noble manner and not passively as Paterno did.

However, I don't think the taint that has come upon the now deceased coach is altogether merited. Confronted with the facts, he did was he was supposed to do. We now can look at the situation clinically and come to the verdict that he didn't do enough. That seems to be right, but in the context of the moment, I imagine things looked very different to JoePa. I mean, it's not like he ignored the matter--he kicked it upstream, as he should have. If we are honest with ourselves, many of us on our jobs would likely have done the same thing. A few of us might have done more, just as some might have looked the other way entirely. We'd all like to think we are Karen Silkwood, but few of us are.

So I don't think the scorn heaped on Paterno that so colored the coda of Jeremy Schaap's sanctimonious obit on ESPN Radio this morning was appropriate. Nor do I believe that Paterno should have gotten the boot at Penn State as the result of his actions in the Sandusky affair. (JoePa should have been eased out years ago because coaches over 80 should move on in a dignified manner to the next phase of their lives.) The saddest part of all this -- beyond the likely irreparable damage done to the abused boys -- is that his failure to live up to our idealized expectations has taken the shine off of what otherwise seems to have been a remarkable life and a noteworthy career.

Braun & The Juice

Reading this fine entry at Disciples of Uecker today got me thinking about Ryan Braun and the drama that has surrounded him since ESPN leaked the story of his failed drug test. While I tend to believe Braun's contention that he didn't take a PED, I have no illusions that he won't be suspended for the first 50 games of the upcoming season. The rules on this matter are pretty clear--he had a bad test; MLB doesn't care why or what extenuating circumstances there are.

The real shame is that there seems to be a reason why 8 took whatever he took: Some unspecified "medical situation," which I suppose resulted in the high testosterone readings he pegged, might have been for a condition that may be embarrassing to disclose. Still, his suspension will paint him with the Bonds Brush and the general, rank and file MLB fan will believe Braun was juicing last season and will contend that is why he won the MVP.

I have wondered about the whole steroids in sports issue for years. I have been slow to condemn those found using because I've always had a lingering ambivalence about it.  My stance has always been to joke about it, saying that I think all players should be required to go on The Needle because it would enhance their performance and, hence, provide me, the sports fan schmuck who throws down his money to watch them, with a greater degree of entertainment. But the whole Braun thing has caused me to look more closely at my feelings, to take a more serious approach to the subject. I suspect many won't like where I am on the topic right now.

It is my understanding that these drugs are illegal to use for non-medical purposes at the moment in the US. If that is right, MLB rules are meaningless as using them to enhance performance is a criminal activity and users should face prosecution (Hard Time in The Big House trumps a league suspension). But there was a time when these drugs were not illegal to use without a prescription and that might be true again someday. In those instances, I wouldn't have a problem if, in fact, every professional athlete was on them. Why not? Their chosen profession is, by definition, highly competitive. Why wouldn't they look for every edge they can? Actually doing so is, of course, stupid because using PEDs can have nasty side-effects (shrunken jewels, anyone?) including premature death. Not for me, thank you. But, then again, I would never ram my head repeatedly into piles of 300 pound men or train like a freakin' mad man in order to excel at a sport. But for those who want it that bad, who are willing to sacrifice to play their game of choice, I don't believe it is for me to say they shouldn't employ every weapon at their disposal in pursuit of their goal. As long as they are the ones bearing the consequences and are the only person they are hurting, I think they should be allowed to have at it.

I know there is an argument about how using PEDs sets a horrible example for young athletes. But I think the USS Role Model set sail long ago -- these men and women have not been exemplars for the broader society for quite some time. Kids need to be disabused of that notion -- by their families -- early on.

So if it weren't illegal to do so, I can see no reason why any player who is seeking to improve their performance shouldn't be allowed to blow up like Bruce Banner if that is their desire. Professional sports, like swimsuit modelling, is a complete freak show anyway, made up of people who aren't like you and me -- everything about their lives is alien to that of regular people (other than the fact that the Reaper will get them, too, at some point). So why pretend this is something that it's not? After all, if this is a door open to all, it certainly levels the playing field.

Rating the 2011 Brewers

My friend @MilwaukeeBrian asked a number of us who follow the Brewers and write for PocketDoppler.com to offer thoughts on how the team's players fared this past season. Brian asked us to rate players on a 10 scale, with "1" being the low end; he'll add the scores and post the average score. I expect that article to appear later this week, but I thought I would breakout my takes to own my perspective aside from my colleagues:

John Axford    9.5 -- Hard not to give him a 10, but he did blow a couple of saves early.
Marco Estrada    6 -- Filled in well early when Greinke was hurt, and late when Narv cut himself. Mediocre out of pen.
Yovani Gallardo    8.5 -- Often brilliant, but also had periods when he disappeared.
Zack Greinke    8 -- Missed the opening month, took a while to get on track, then outstanding.
LaTroy Hawkins    6 -- Some good innings in low leverage relief.
Kameron Loe    5 -- Best when the stakes were low. Inconsistent.
Shaun Marcum    7.5 -- Carried the staff early, solid in the middle, crashed at the end.
Chris Narveson    6.5 -- Solid #5 starter, but a #5 for a reason.
Frankie Rodriguez   8.5 -- Nearly airtight in setting up Ax.
Takashi Saito    7.5 -- Missed a lot of time with injury, but when given the 7th inning role, usually responded.
Randy Wolf    7 -- Some bad stretches, but a plus #4 starter. Bonus points for his Game 4 NLCS start.


George Kottaras    5 -- Decent back up catcher. Wolf gives him a 10, but the rest of us see a player limited offensively and defensively.
Jonathan Lucroy    6.5 -- Is becoming a good backstop, but took a beating behind the plate that seemed to impact his offense.


Yuni Betancourt     4.5 -- Not as bad as I expected, but below average in the field & at the plate. Bonus .5 for August and playoffs.
Craig Counsell    3 -- Still gave them good defense, but it was painful to watch him hit. Thanks, CC, but it's time to retire.
Prince Fielder    9 -- The team's emotional center, played every day and produced. Subpar defense and AWOL in NLCS.
Taylor Green    4 -- Love his promise and approach, but didn't see what I thought I'd see (albeit in very limited action).
Jerry Hairston Jr.    6.5 -- Exceeded expectations as deadline acquistion. Good postseason diminished by critical errors at 3b.
Casey McGehee    3 -- Kept waiting for him to break out. He never really did. Offered little at the plate or in the field.
Rickie Weeks    8.5 -- Outstanding season ruined by injury. MKE needs more guys with Rickie's heart.

   
Ryan Braun    9.5 -- MVP caliber season sullied by disappearing act in NLCS. Glad he's shut up about shadows at The Keg.
Carlos Gomez    6 -- Made a real impact defensively. Plays hard. Needs to get on base more to be difference maker.
Corey Hart    7 -- Quietly had impressive offensive season. Speed all but gone. Subpar defense costly in NLCS.
Mark Kotsay    6.5 -- Some key hits, nice fill-in when Braun hurt. Defensive liability. Gave them more than I expected.
Nyjer Morgan    7.5 -- Decent defense, several big hits, better than expected offensively. Jolt of energy sometimes double-edged sword.


Zach Braddock    2 -- The talent is probably there, but it was lost in off-field emotional issues.
Frankie De La Cruz    3 -- Glad he got his shot. Hope he enjoyed it as I doubt he will be back.
Tim Dillard    3 -- He wiggled off the hook late in a tense mid-season game, otherwise I didn't see much to be excited about.
Mat Gamel    2 -- Don Money's less than glowing comments combined with consistent underperformance in MLB makes me wonder if Mat is AAAA.
Josh Wilson    3.5 -- A couple of big hits, even a little pop, mediocre defense. He didn't hurt the Brewers but I don't want him back.


Ron Roenicke  8.5 -- People are going to rag on the decision to go with Marcum in Game 6 of the NLCS. But what were the options? Narveson also got lit up that night. Starting Gallardo on three days rest after he got blasted for four in the first inning of his previous outing didn't seem any wiser. There were no good moves to make, yet he had to made a move: In other words, he was in Zugzwang, so I feel a good deal of compassion for him. However, he did lead a team that won a team record 96 games, its first NL division flag and advanced to the LCS for the first time in nearly three decades. Not bad for a first year skipper.

Doug Melvin  9 -- Bold moves to eschew trading Prince in favor of upgrading the rotation and shrewd decisions to bolster the bullpen (e.g. K-Rod, Saito) coupled with acquiring Nyjer Morgan made this stellar year for Melvin. Moreover, it also proved to be astute to deal for Jerry Hairston, Jr. But Yuni Betancourt was more often a weight around their neck than he was a benefit, and thin bench left RR with few desirable options. Still, the bottom line was very good. Melvin would certainly get the blame if the season went badly, so he should get some credit when things go well.

Sadly, the Cards in Six

My distaste for the St. Louis Cardinals has been well-documented, as is my fear that STL presents a highly undesirable opponent for the Brewers in the post-season.   The concerns are numerous:

The Cards surged during September to claim the NL Wild Card and have sustained their good play from the last month of the season. During that time they took five of six from MKE (in addition to taking six of nine from PHL). Not only should they beat the Crew (six seems about the right number of games given the matchups) but the Cards might ride that all the way to a World Series Championship. It's not just the Brewers flaws that will get them, it's that STL is a good team playing great ball right now.

As for the Brewers, their rotation does not seem to be in a good place. Greinke's last start (albeit on short rest) was mediocre. Gallardo battled last time out and was effective, but he struggled, and usually doesn't pitch well coming off games in which he has to labor with high stress innings. Wolf and Marcum are presently a mess. In the bullpen, their closer just blew a save and their set up guy looked to be on the brink of doing the same. Overall, the Brewers staff doesn't seem like it is ready to shut down a Cardinals team that just handled the best rotation in baseball. This is not the kind of group I want to throwing to a brutal middle of the order (plus David Freese, who appears to be emerging as a high quality hitter). Mix in a closer they can't hit (Motte) and a couple of starters who have owned them (Garcia and Carpenter, both of whom they'll see twice) and I don't think the outlook is good for MKE.

 

St. Louis is historically associated with the self-proclaimed "King of Beers." With a handle like that it really is no surprise that the baseball team once owned by the brewery seems to consider itself the arbiter of the game's "unwritten rules" and possessor of the sacred knowledge of "the right way to play the game." This sort of sanctimony is sickening. That is going to make the outcome of this series either completely satisfying (should I be wrong and the Brewers win) or devastatingly disheartening (should my feelings be born out). Either way, it should be good theater.

Favre on Rodgers and Packers

While he has tried to back away from it, Brett Favre can't seem to get out of his own way when it comes to commenting on the Green Bay Packers and the man who replaced him at QB, Aaron Rodgers. Along the way to picking the Packers to beat the Falcons this weekend, NY Times sportswriter Mike Tanier lobbed this perfectly written bomb:

Of course, for some that turning point arrived a little late. “I’m really surprised that it kind of took him so long,” Brett Favre said of the three interminable years it took Aaron Rodgers to lead the Packers to the Super Bowl. Who knew that through all of those quasi-retirements, through his stints with the Jets and the Vikings, Favre was just impatiently waiting for Rodgers to close the deal? Favre did not sound as if  he was trying to insult Rodgers — he has simply lost the ability to compliment people who are not him — but teammates and analysts have rushed to Rodgers’s defense, which he does not really need. It had been peaceful months since the last self-serving Favre rant. What took him so long? 

 Perhaps Favre is just misunderstood. Maybe he didn't mean to insult the Packers or their QB. Perhaps he should offer less ambiguous comments if he's asked again in the future, maybe something along the lines of "I was delighted to see my old team win the Super Bowl. Aaron played well. Their future looks bright." Heck, if he wanted to win back the hearts of the many Packers who have soured on him since he left GB, he might even make that proposed first sentence "I was delighted to see us win the Super Bowl."

Or, perhaps, the best course is simply to decline comment in the future.

It's All Good, Right?

A number of bloggers are responding to an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noting how the Brewers have sucked against decent competition. For example:

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Milwaukee Brewers recent struggles | Miller Park Drunk

As it typically the case with this blog, it's a good piece. But it seems to be based on a belief that all losses are created equal -- I don't think that's the case. I didn’t expect the Brewers to win all three series v. STL and PHL, but I don’t know how anyone can be sanguine when Milwaukee played 2-8 ball over those three sets, especially when seven of those games were at home. I mean, how about going 5-5 against those teams? Not great, but a showing good enough to argue that they are on par with those clubs.

As it is, the evidence suggests that at this time the Brewers are a good team, but not one likely to have a bright playoff future. To me, no amount of cutting the season stats or shaping past outcomes is going to change the results of those recent 10 games played against good teams.

Enjoying the Ride, But Still Tentative About the Brewers

I consider this to be my 43rd season as a baseball fan. While I recall going to see the Pale Hose play at old County Stadium in Milwaukee in 1968 (who forgets their first Bat Night?), I didn't really become a fan until the following season. For reasons that are unclear to me, I chose to become a Cubs fan in 1969. It might have been that the Cubs, unlike the Sox, could be seen regularly on TV in Milwaukee. Also, their radio broadcasts on WGN boomed in clearly on my mom's AM radio, allowing me to follow every game. It also could have been that the Cubs were a much better team than the White Sox.

Whatever the reason, unbeknownst to me, I had purchased a ticket on the Titantic. While that CHI team finished with 92 wins, they aren't remembered for their solid overall performance or quality of their pitching staff or their fine everyday lineup. No, that club is remembered for a monumental collapse that converted a nine game division lead on August 12 to a eight game deficit by the time the season ended just six weeks later.

And herein lies the root of my hesitation to jump out of my shoes about the seemingly commanding NL Central lead presently possessed by the Brewers, the team I cashiered the Cubs for and have followed religiously since they came to Milwaukee 42 seasons ago.

I have been taking a lot of shots (mostly good-natured) from my Twitter tweeps about my hesitation to be giddy about the Brewers current state of affairs. These guys are real students of the game, follow it closely and are extremely knowledgeable--not just about the Brewers, but about the whole professional baseball scene. However, I have at least 15 years on most of them, and that has allowed me to see stories like this unfold in ways that haven't always had a happy ending. Like @BigSnakeMan (who is just three days younger than me), I've been following the game long enough to have experienced a sudden downpour on an otherwise sunny day. In other words, I've seen my team cash in a nine game lead at this time of the year and exchange it for an eight game deficit by season's end. I've seen how a five game winning streak can be immediately followed by losing 11 of the next 13, dropping my team out of the lead and leaving it listing.

I realize that the projections show the Brewers have a better than 90% chance of making it to the post-season. I know that Rickie Weeks is making progress with his ankle injury and will probably be back in the Brewers lineup early next month (just when the team will also be able to bring on some minor league reinforcements when the rosters expand). By then, Chris Narveson will also be back in the rotation and Carlos Gomez will be available to provide defensive help and pinch run in close and late situations. All that is good. But it is hard for me to get too revved up just yet. After all, the Cubs were seven games up on the Mets in the NL East after 125 games in 1969. Interestingly, after 125 games this year the Brewers are 6.5 games up heading into tonight's match up against, of all teams, the Mets. Fortunately, NY won't be sending Tom Seaver to the mound during this series.

What Boehner Can Learn From Radical Extremists

Lane Wallace wrote an excellent piece on The Atlantic's blog today about her experience attending a conference of former ideological zealots. While I encourage people to read her entire post, I'm highlighting what I believe to be the salient points below:

The former extremists at the Google summit had all walked some very difficult roads of hope, anger, naivete, disillusionment, regret, learning, and growth to get where they are today. But many of them spoke of initially being attracted to an ideology that seemed both simple and clear, and which seemed to provide answers to not only how the world was, but also how to fix it. They were young and idealistic. And there is, they acknowledged, a great appeal to simple, black-and-white approaches that reduce messy complexity to something more manageable, with a clear and "simple" fix. 

 

Both the Colombian rebels and the Islamist jihadists had seen real problems and injustices around them and had initially joined activist or resistance groups in the hopes of creating a more fair and better society. That those ideologies were over-simplistic and naive was a problem, of course. But the real problem, many of them now say, was not the ideologies themselves, but when those ideologies became both rigid and sacred. Or when the ideology became not a means to an end, but an end in of itself; a sacred idol that had to be preserved, intact and uncompromising, at all costs.

 

Ideology can be a very helpful in organizing people around a shared set of values or beliefs. And as a starting point, it can be very positive tool. But when any group, whether it's a righteous freshman class of Tea Party diehards or any other offspring of a political or social movement, become not only rigid in their thinking, but also willing to risk recklessly for the sake of keeping their ideological underpinnings intact, we should worry. Because ideology, especially in a democracy made up of differing constituencies and viewpoints, should only be a starting point. When it becomes something more rigid than that, it starts to become dangerous. 

Pope Ted the Assassin

I think it's safe to say that Packers fans found the team's Super Bowl victory over the Steelers last February to be satisfying. For me, there remains a warm glow to this day. But in the wake of the sweet victory there emerged another level of satisfaction for those of us who were patient with Packers General Manager Ted Thompson, who gave him the benefit of the doubt when his personnel moves seemed shaky (or, sometimes, downright puzzling). I cannot say that I always agreed with everything TT did in building the team, but I recognized that my view of things was distant and far less refined that his.

As Ted went about recasting the team with draft choices almost to the exclusion of any free agents, I willingly suspended my disbelief, characterizing Ted's bland and somewhat distant public persona not as that of a nonplussed doofus, but rather glossed him a "steely-eyed assassin." Whether or not I really believed that is less important than the fun Dave and I had with it on the Packers Therapy podcast. The point is, I always believed that Ted, as a professional personnel guy had a much better viewpoint of these matters than any fan, regardless of how engaged and passionate that fan might be about the team. I wanted to introduce the possibility that the way Ted might appear in front of a camera or microphone wasn't necessarily a sign that he was asleep at the switch, and so the  "Steely-eyed Assassin" was born.

However, now that Ted and his methods have been vindicated with a Lombardi Trophy, I am seeing a different bias about Thompson emerging among some bloggers and a number of the Twitterati: the notion that the championship won last season puts Thompson above criticism. Ted has been doing what Ted does during the first days of the new league season--coolly cutting vets, clearing cap space, not signing free agents and eschewing all but a select few of is own team's free agents. Now, I will be the first to say that Ted is probably making most of the right moves; his track record would suggest that he knows what he's doing. However, I don't believe Ted has donned a papal mitre and is speaking ex cathedra on these matters (to the extent he speaks at all, of course). He's earned a good deal of grace, but not to the extent of infallibility.

Besides, just as Ted is doing what Ted does, it should be remembered that fans are just doing what fans do: Second guessing the management of one's favorite teams is our lingua franca. Certainly, it is the mother's milk of bloggers, podcasters and tweeters. How much fun would it be to be a fan if the judgement of the people who ran our teams was deemed so sacred that we couldn't debate the value of resigning Nick Barnett or James Jones?

So it would be nice if those people who are dismissing commentators who dare to question moves TT has made (or suggest hopes for moves unmade) would stop with their "Don't question Ted because he's been proven right" takes. Thompson might have a Super Bowl ring, but the Steely-eyed Assassin does not wear the Ring of the Fisherman.

Country Joe McDonald: Manic Depressive

"Breakfast for Two" by Country Joe McDonald has an excellent, smooth vibe. (If you doubt me, you can hear it here.) It's either the hottest song this side of Heart's "Crazy on You" or it is the most delicious love song to over-eating ever recorded, the sort of thing you might imagine Joey Chestnut and Kobayashi listening to on a date:

We went out to dinner
Boy, what an appetite
We just couldn't stop eating
We stayed up most of the night

And after three or four hours
Our stomachs began to hurt
But everything tasted so good
We didn't stop until after dessert

[CHORUS]

Ooh la la, breakfast for two
Ooh la la, you got me and I got you

I've eaten in Italy
Yes, I've eaten in Spain
I must admit I'd be licking my lips
If I ever was to eat there again

But last night at dinner
You really, really blew my mind
The way we supped just filled me up
I think about food all of the time

Anyway, in hearing the song today, I was struck by this jarring lyric affixed onto the end of this otherwise hedonistically sensual song:

People always come up to me
They say, hey, man
How about a little smile
Don't take life so seriously
Lighten up for a little while

I say that a man's a fool
If he don't know how to cry
When I get down, I sure get down
But when I'm up, I know how to fly

Whoa, dude! I mean, WTF? How does that possibly follow the eating metaphor you hooked me on? All that "excuse me whilst I loosen my collar because it's suddenly hot in here" tastiness suddenly detouring to "oh, yeah, I have bi-polar disorder" is clearly a mood killer, Joe. Hit that with some Lithium and get back in the studio and take another run at what otherwise is a sumptuous song.

This is Still Killing Me

My recent post about the AMC TV show "The Killing" has clearly displayed that I am at odds with many of my fellows when it comes to my feelings about the show. I was ready to put that aside until my Twitter buddy Kenn posted this piece today.

Reading this article, which questions the premise of Clark Kent's employment, reminds me of the arguments surrounding The Killing. Obviously, the point of the Superman story is lost if one questions too deeply--it's for fun, surprises, thrills and entertainment because it is, well, just a story. But as I was reading this article, which is obviously tongue-in-cheek, it occurred to me that we hold so many bits of entertainment up to the mirror of reality these days--it's how we're taught to consume things, we measure them against our understanding of truth and validity.

I wonder if the idea of Superman would have ever taken off (pardon the pun) if it was hatched today? Perhaps something so implausible would be dismissed out of hand for something more real. In fact, as you look at the recent takes on Batman you can see a lot of the magic as been removed in favor of what appears to be a more gritty reality. I get that re-interpretation as it is a reflection of contemporary expectations. However, I fear something is lost in translation and media consumers are missing out on a lot of the fun that the earlier versions provided.

Some will argue that Superman was a comic book, so all bets are off. Well, I would note that Superman was also a TV show (several, in fact) and a series of movies. So it wasn't just a comic book. I would even go so far as to suggest the popular understanding of the Superman story is shaped more by the TV shows and movie interpretations.

To reiterate, I am not a huge fan of The Killing. I like it and will continue to watch it, but it's no Six Feet Under or The Wire. Heck, it's not even Rubicon. But there just seems to be something wrong when we evaluate an artifact based on what we think it should be rather than examine it for what it is, taking it on its own terms.

Said another way, I like allow the storyteller the room to tell their story. But if you don't give them some leash and go with them for a while, you will never get the payoff that is intended. 

For instance, Field of Dreams is one of my favorite movies. The denouement still makes me shiver. And I feel this way even though I remain appalled that they allowed Ray Liota to swing the bat right handed!!!! Argh -- Joe Jackson hit LEFT HANDED. How could they do this? Seeing that was like a fork in my eye. But I suspended my disbelief and was glad I did because I still get chills when I hear James Earl Jones' "People will come, Ray" monologue. I would never be irked that a movie that starts off about a struggling family farm veered so suddenly into fantasy about long dead ballplayers reappearing from a corn field and that somehow saves the farm. It's ridiculous, but its entertainment, a nostalgic story about magic, totally implausible, yet completely enjoyable. So powerful that I have seen the film at least five times and have even visited that farm to see the diamond in the middle of a corn field. The factual problems of the film, while very real, don't detract from my enjoyment and appreciation because I went with the premise and enjoyed the payoff.

Not a CC Reprise

Pardon my skepticism about the Brewers move to acquire Francisco Rodriguez. In the wake of the largely positive response to the deal from most fans and writers, my enthusiasm is tempered. As more and more details of the trade seep out, I am cheered to learn that this does not appear to be another desperate grasp for a reliever, a move Doug Melvin made in 2007 when he reached for Scott Linebrink. Milwaukee ended up getting 25 innings of slightly above average pitching (3.55 ERA/1.5 WHIP) in exchange for three minor league pitchers. While two of those guys have been hurt and not seen the majors, the third -- Joe Thatcher -- gave San Diego 126 good innings (3.27 ERA/1.255 WHIP) over the past four years before getting hurt. While early indications are that this isn't going to be that kind of deal, I am not without concerns:

The fact is, K-Rod has not been that good this season, at least relative to the shutdown guy he was with the Angels. After an terrible month of June, he has a 3.16 ERA, which is fine, and he's converted 88% of his saves, which is good. But a WHIP 1.4+ is not what you want from a back-end of the pen guy. Moreover, as Jim at Bernie's Crew notes, K-Rod has been losing steam on his once-upon-a-time 98 MPH heater. At 29 I'd like not to think Frankie is not in full decline, but the statistical trends are not encouraging. 

Of course, the future really shouldn't matter because I can't see K-Rod being in MKE beyond the end of this season. The only way that happens is if Rodriguez somehow finishes out 21 games, thus vesting his $17.5MM option for 2012. If that happens for reasons other than an injury to John Axford, I might finally join the "Fire Ron Roenicke" crowd. Simply put, that is one poison pill the Brewers simply cannot swallow.

So that puts K-Rod into the ever-popular role of Eighth Inning Guy, and that is another of my concerns. Already, Scott Boras, Frankie's new agent, has said: "Do you want an unhappy setup man in your clubhouse?" (He could have added, "...particularly a guy who punched out his girlfriend's father near there last year.") On this score, Jon Heyman, writing for SI, offered this:

Rodriguez's position now is that he wants to stay as a closer. "He's a closer, he's one of the game's best closers,'' Rodriguez's new agent, Scott Boras, said before the trade to Milwaukee was consummated. "And he wants to remain a closer.'' Brewers GM Doug Melvin made the trade before checking with K-Rod, but Boras and Melvin spoke about the subject shortly after the trade. Boras made the case that K-Rod should close, suggesting he wouldn't do nearly as well setting up, while Melvin apparently made no commitment, suggesting only that things "will work out,'' or words to that effect. This is something the Brewers may need to work on to make it work out. Because while K-Rod has behaved impeccably all year, he has a bit of a reputation, and a player close to him said, "You don't want him unhappy.''

At least John Axford is tweeting tidings of good will about the transaction and, welcoming K-Rod with (seemingly) open arms. So I guess this could be worse.

On the plus side, Brewers fans can feel good about the commitment to winning displayed by the team's ownership and management. Even if they don't reach the post-season and this move is stamped as a failure, fans know that the Brewers truly have gone balls-out during Prince Fielder's last year with the club. That should keep the turnstiles spinning for at least another season.

So the Brewers have added a good arm, although not one as good as it once was, to the back of their bullpen, shoring up one of the teams soft areas. It's a deal that has reportedly given them enough cash to cut in half their exposure on the remainder of Rodriguez's 2011 salary + $3.5MM buyout -- that makes the deal affordable. And based on Doug Melvin's comments at today's presser, it doesn't sound as if the two Players to be Named Later are going to thin an already lean farm system. So it's not all bad.

To be clear, don't mistake my jaundiced eye for disapproval: I'm not down on this trade as much as I am simply not excited about it; there are too many holes to make it anything like the CC Sabathia deal in 2008. Besides, just as "Charlie don't surf," Frankie don't play short. If Milwaukee can find a upgrade there to go with the potential of an improved bullpen, I might be more enthusiastic.

Missing the Point on "The Killing"

The AV Club looked back the the just-concluded first season of the AMC drama "The Killing" and had some significant problems with the show. Meredith Blake makes some good points here, but also some that are, in my judgment, not so good because I think they misconstrue the intent of the show.

While I liked the ambiguity of the season finale, I will concede that I seized upon a number of things noted in the article myself while watching. But in the end I didn't really see the program as a "police procedural" in the way that CSI or Law & Order are, so the plot holes didn't bother me in the same way. I view The Killing as less about the details and nuance of criminal investigation and more like a soap opera where the unpredictable (and far fetched) twists and turns are the point. I think Blake's comparison of the show to Twin Peaks was valid:

This episode once again invited (negative) comparisons to Twin Peaks which, like The Killing, ended its first episode without revealing the identity of Laura Palmer’s killer. Frustrated viewers abandoned the show in its second season, then ran for the hills once the mystery was solved. What I’m wondering is, will anyone watch The Killing next season?

I certainly will, just as I stuck with Twin Peaks. The same thing is true of both shows: It's not so much about the crime and the march to justice as it is about the adventure of the journey. Twin Peaks, to me, was an absurdist comedy, not a cop show. In a similar way, The Killing is less a cop show than it is a thriller, a program more concerned with surprising the viewer than with the details of police investigation. Given that, my suspension of disbelief was broader, taking it out of the context of a standard "who-done-it" and putting in a different class of entertainment. Viewing "The Killing" through the same lens as Blake would be like watching Psych or Monk as procedurals--that isn't the point of those programs and, I think, neither is that the truest intent of The Killing.

Brewers at the Break

The Brewers cruise into the All Star Break in a first place tie with STL, only the third time in their history they've been in such a lofty perch at this point in the season. They finished strong by taking three of four from division rival CIN...and doing it without all-star LF Ryan Braun. So all is good, right?

What tempers my enthusiasm for the Crew winning four of the last five is the tentative nature of the wins, particularly the three v. the Reds, all of which were by a single run. They needed furious bottom of the ninth rallies to win two of those games; that was great theater and highly entertaining, but one might say they were lucky to win. 

 

Even with the strong close to the first half, Milwaukee is just six over in what appears to be a wide-open NL Central. Following the break they begin a brutal stretch, facing what could be a season-determining 11 game road trip starting on Thursday night. While the Brewers have the best home record in baseball, they face the top three teams in the NL West -- AZ, CO and SF -- all away from Miller Park. The road has not been kind to the Crew this season as they've posted just 16 wins and won only 36% of their games.

It says here the Brewers will need to win five of those 11 roadies. If they can do that, they return home five above sea level and probably still in the race with the worst part of their schedule behind them--that should be good enough to give them a chance to reach the post season. But if they pull some sort of 3-8 pratfall, I won't like their chances going forward.

 

Is Casey McGehee on the JJ Hardy Track?

Casey McGehee is having a miserable season for the Milwaukee Brewers. Posting a .586 OPS during the first half of this season (for a nifty OPS+ of 61) is down in the dreaded Bettancourt Zone of Horrid Production. Casey's bad half season cannot be sugar-coated, and I won't try to here. In fact, things have gotten so bad that some observers are suggesting it's time to send Casey down to Nashville (and not so that he can enjoy a fine array of Country Music).

The turmoil with McGehee reminds me of the Last Days of JJ Hardy (which sounds like the title of a major motion picture). You will recall JJ's struggles in 2009 were so hard that he was sent to AAA for a stint. Following the season, Doug Melvin moved quickly -- some would say irrationally -- and dealt JJ to MN for Carlos Gomez, giving the SS position to  Alcides Escobar. It was a stunning move, weakening two positions simultaneously, leaving a lingering stench. As a result, the Brewers are still looking to replace Hardy at short.

The move to Escobar made sense based on AE's good minor league numbers and his play during the period in which JJ was sent down. But it didn't pan out that way in 2010: In terms of WAR (Wins Against Replacement), all AE could muster was a rather limp 0.9; Hardy was at 2.5. JJ's OPS was a full .100 points higher (.714 v. .614).


Defense was supposed to be where Escobar made the difference, but the stats show that the much maligned Hardy was actually the better defender. AE committed 20 errors and logged a .964 fielding percentage; JJ played in fewer games (100 v. 138) but committed just 11 errors and had a .976 fielding percentage. But those fielding stats are not accepted by a lot of fans these days. They prefer UZR (ultimate zone rating), and even on that account JJ was better in 2010: 8.1 v. 3.8. 


So we can see that Hardy was the better overall player than Escobar in 2010 and, by extension, it is clear to me that they made a mistake by trading JJ so quickly after a down season. This year's performance, in which Hardy is rocking a .903 OPS while Escobar is languishing at .598, only underscores that proposition.

That brings us back to Casey McGehee, who seems to be this year's JJ Hardy, in that he has followed up two fine offensive seasons with the aforementioned Half-Season of Stink. This year the cry is for promising Taylor Green who is ripping it up down in Nashville. Actually, I am not against giving the kid a try at third to see what he can do while Casey tries to find himself at AAA (McGehee certainly seems to need a full system reset right now).

What I wouldn't do, however, is put too much stock in Green's performance as they did with Escobar. I wouldn't lose sight of the fact that McGehee has actually produced Big Boy numbers at the MLB level over two full seasons. I wouldn't let my head be turned by a few weeks of good performance by a young player and act impetuously as they did with Hardy. I realize most fans have had enough of Casey and want him gone, but my hope is that Doug Melvin would not repeat the Hardy/Escobar mistake and proceed in a more measured fashion this time.

Why doesn't Fielder lose weight?

I came across this question posted in the post game comments section related to the Brewers 4-3 over the Twins last night. It's a question/comment I see offered frequently by fans of teams playing Milwaukee. Lots of fat jokes and outdated takes about Prince's girth. I've been responding to these jabs via Twitter, but I took the long-form route today when replying to "JasonCG" who, apparently, lives in Forest Lake, MN:

Prince appears to be trimmer this year than in the recent past, possibly eating more celery now to gain more salary in a few months. Having observed nearly every Brewers game this season, I can tell you that he also seems more agile and athletic this season, although he has always moved well for a guy his size.

That aside, I think it is important to note that Prince has lost weight from his teen years when (reportedly) he was pushing three bills. It is possible that given his genetic pool, he is at or near the best shape he can be in.

Whether or not that genetic disposition will hurt him at the bargaining table this winter remains to be seen. But someone will pay him Serious Jack regardless of his body type, and that very likely will be someone other than Milwaukee. Of course, this could be something of a blessing for the Brewers because the chances of Prince performing at his present level or near it for the length of the seven or eight year deal he will probably sign are slim, something Prince will almost certainly never be. And that makes him a risk and a luxury a franchise like Milwaukee cannot afford.

Be that as it may, I am one Brewers fan who will miss the guy. He's been good for the team, both on and off the field. 

 Another peeve of mine is the incessant and out-of-date statements about the Twins payroll. Fact is, the Twins payroll is the ninth largest in MLB this year, $27MM larger than Milwaukee's (the Crew is ranked 16th). Moreover, the Twins opening day payroll was significantly larger than the Brewers in 2010, too. While that hasn't always been the case, for some reason people (and I am looking at you, Mike Heller & Company on WTSO's afternoon show) keep holding on to what was true two years ago even though it is no longer the case.

Your Album Station

College radio changed my life.

The three intense years I spent at WWSP-FM at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point were among the most enriching of my life, helping me acquire skills, both personal and professional, that were every bit as important as what I learned in the classrooms around campus. So it was with admiration and a certain delight that I read this article, Preserving College Radio, in the New York Times. One quote rang especially true for me:

"There’s a false but widespread image of college radio as a pointless, narcissistic exercise — that it’s nothing more than a crew of campus oddballs who like playing D.J., even though no one is listening.

WRVU demonstrated how wrong that image is. Not only did it command respect and interest on campus, but, thanks to a longstanding and farsighted policy, it allowed and encouraged members of the off-campus community to volunteer as D.J.’s — and so drew on the rich cultural heritage of Music City U.S.A. as well."

I am not sure if WWSP filled the sort of local niche in Stevens Point that WRVU apparently did (and does) in Nashville. Although the huge trivia contest we did every year (and still is going strong 30 years later) certainly engaged the local population. And that 54 hour spring ritual has been driven by station staff in collaboration with a local teacher and business owner who started as a community volunteer at 90FM, so there are examples of significant ways in which the station meant more to the town than just being a source of navel gazing for students. But even at that level, WWSP ("Your Album Station") filled a niche on the local airwaves, playing music and covering news/sports that were not available elsewhere on the dial.


I don't know if my experience there is indicative of the majority of student workers who passed through the studios of 90FM over the past 40 years. But the many things I did there were significant in shaping what has become of my life. Of course I played records there back in the late '70s/early '80s -- and that was, indeed, fun. But I also learned to write news copy and figured out how to present it effectively on the air. That led directly to a job in news at the local commercial station, first as a part-timer during school and later as a full-time "news editor" after graduation. Little did I know then that all that writing, which sprang from learning to ask good questions and listen carefully to replies, and all that time spent learning how to smoothly and powerfully present that material, would be the perfect training for my career in fundraising. The development profession is all about building relationships, and the ability to speak and write clearly and affectively, is at the core.

I also served as station manager for a summer and as program director for an academic year while at 90FM. These were my first tastes of management, and with it came the challenges of hiring, firing and coaching staff, representing the organization to outside constituencies; creating a programmatic vision, with procedures, guidelines and standards that would define success; and a chance to learn about my shortcomings and blindspots by making mistakes. It was my first taste of leadership and management training, done on the job in an environment that was stimulating yet safe. It perfectly augmented my classroom college education, giving practical substance to the academic program. On my way to a senior leadership position at my organization, I've been through many training programs, but none finer that those 12 months in those two roles at 90FM.

But there is another element at play, one that might be of even greater value at some level. I was in college at a time when fraternities and sororities were, generally, in a period of decline. Membership wasn't as cool as it once might have been (and perhaps is once again). So having a place like the campus radio station filled for me a much needed place of social connection, a place to hang out with like-minded people, to learn about life from those who weren't from your hometown, to find companions to share the load of a journey through a challenging and, at times, tumultuous period of personal development. In short, I made good friends at 90FM, I was exposed to all sorts new and different things and ideas -- it was a place where, on a human level, I grew up.

So it's no surprise that when I receive those periodic calls from my alma mater, I designate my gifts to support the ongoing program at WWSP. It is important to me that 90FM remain student run because that is where the value to students truly is, even if they get there by playing a stack of their favorite CDs.

Portrait of the Artist While Seated

CyMek, designer of the Packers Therapy logo (which can be seen on the right side of this blog page), recently had a showing of his work at Cornell College. While the show, glossed Stochastic Resonance, is now closed, I wanted to share some of his work here (as I have done on earlier occasions in this blog).

First, here's how the show was described in a news release:

"...a collection of digital collages displayed on posters and televisions, which expose the fundamental dissonance underlying most everyday situations. Each work is intended to contradict itself and break preconceived notions of what it means to be right, inspiring thought instead of doctrines."

Here's a walk through his show, illustrating how the photo collage poster images were mixed with video:

The closing frames of the video are where this blog post gets its name.

Finally, a closer look at some of the images featured in the show:

Tiger Can Still Catch Jack

Tiger Woods' withdrawal from TPC at Sawgrass last week has many commentators suggesting his career is cycling down and that it is now unlikely he will catch, let-alone surpass, Jack Nicklaus' record of 18 professional major championships. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Tiger's chances going forward.

Certainly, years of taking that aggressive slash he calls a swing has taken a toll on Woods' body. He has already had multiple knee surgeries, and he's been dealing with other assorted leg injuries. That's not unusual for golfers as they age; Nicklaus also battled injuries as he grew older, and he was never the physical specimen that Woods' is.

Tiger is now 35; Jack was winning majors until he was 46. So that should give Woods 42 chances to win five more to exceed Nicklaus' standard. It won't be easy given the new generation of fine players on the rise. But it should also be noted that Jack won six of his 18 majors after he turned 35, so I don't think it is out of the question that Woods could do the same.

The Graduation Ceremony

Very glad to see Joseph Arthur's upcoming release getting a lot of note around the Internet. This bit is from American Songwriter:

"Singer-songwriter Joseph Arthur’s new album, The Graduation Ceremony, is currently streaming on NPR Music ahead of its May 24 release date. It’s his first solo album since 2006’s Nuclear Daydream, and the followup to and follow up to Fistful of Mercy, his 2010 collaboration with Ben Harper and Dhani Harrison. Beginning June 12, Arthur will perform for ten straight nights at The Living Room in New York City. He’ll also be performing at Pearl Jam’s 20th Anniversary Festival on Labor Day weekend in East Troy, Wisconsin, on a bill which will also feature Queens of the Stone Age, Mudhoney, Glenn Hansard and the Strokes."

Given the rest of the bill, I doubt I will be going to Alpine Valley to see Joseph. But if he will also be playing solo at a club or other venue in Milwaukee or Madison, I'll be there. At the moment, Arthur is touring in France and Germany, so I will fill the gap by downloading The Graduation Ceremony.

Two Shots to the Face

That's how SEAL Team Six took down Osama bin Laden. The accounts of the raid on his comfortable retirement home just outside of Islamabad are simultaneously chilling, awesome and, ultimately, sobering. I am among those who can't get with the mobs who broke out in celebration when word of bin Laden's death was announced--Osama was a bad actor, but he was also a human being. Somehow cheering a man's execution seemed...wrong. To me it brought back too many memories of my disgust 10 years ago seeing people in parts of the Middle East shooting guns in the air and whooping it up in the wake of 9/11. I was appalled then, so I wasn't going to join that company now.

I shared the article linked above with a couple of people who are very close to me and I received thoughtful replies, comments so worth considering that I feel it necessary to quote them here:

Like you, I would prefer to see the 'flag-waving' kept to a minimum.  I realize there was an imperative to bring Bin Laden to 'justice' and therefore what was done needed to be done.  But I can't look at this as anything to be exalted or celebrated.  As I listened to POTUS recall the innocent lives lost on 9/11, I couldn't help but wonder about the other innocent lives lost over the course of the last 10 years as a result of U.S. operations in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.  The unfortunate side effect of the "war on terror" is the idea that non-American lives somehow have less value than those of Americans.  It is that kind of thinking that will continue to make American interests the target of terrorist campaigns.

I also find laughable the notion that this somehow sends a message to our enemies.  If such a message were delivered, it would be lost on those for whom it was intended, especially 10 years after the fact.  As 'victories' go, this one is hollow and probably short-lived.  The fact that they supposedly found bin Laden in a fortified mansion (as opposed to some Afghan cave) suggests that he had already been marginalized as a terrorist threat.  I don't believe for a second that the demise of bin Laden makes the world any safer and quite possibly could have the opposite effect in essentially making him a martyr for the 'cause'.

Indeed: Killing bin Laden is no more likely to end world terrorism than killing John Dillinger ended crime in America.

From a bit different perspective, another correspondent writes:

Certainly the element in Washington is a symptom of a larger attitude that finds satisfaction in revenge. But I think cheering for the destruction of state enemies is never something we have been immune from. Think of all the tyrants and dictators opposed to this country throughout the years- I doubt news of the death of Stalin, Hitler, or jung-Il at American hands would have been greeted with less schadenfreude.

What I do think is regrettable is that there was no way to bring to bear a more "civilized" form of judgment in a court setting.

I also think much of the reaction we are seeing comes from a disaffected public looking for some validation of this last lost decade. Certainly the Global War on Terror was conceived hastily and without much planning ... is the second most important event in the past ten years (after the financial crisis). Because of the haphazard and poorly conceived nature of that ongoing conflict, we have invested trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, and an inconceivable amount political good will abroad, and for what? A democratic Iraq still suffering the aftershocks of civil war seems to be the only visible if not tangible sign of "progress" for the American public that saw its future mortgaged in costly global pursuit of an amorphous enemy. Even if we are honest and acknowledge that we destroyed only the face of that enemy without changing the larger nature of the conflict with the many who harbour disputes against the US, the tangibility of our "progress" makes the reaction from our citizenry very understandable. At least we have at long last, as Bush said days after 9/11, the "measurable progress" we wanted in reaction to the tragedies of that day. The problem is, as John Hall said, that when you allow your objective, your ends, to be progress itself you often find yourself fighting an incremental conflict that ends up pulling you deeper and deeper into irrational conflict.

As I reflect on these thoughts with Easter just past, it occurs to me that Christian teaching would contend that Jesus died on the cross for Osama bin Laden just the same way he died for Mother Teresa and Rev. King. That notion makes it exceedingly difficult for me to cheer ObL taking two to the face.

Inside the Philly Phanatic's Dome

The Sklar Brothers were in for Jim Rome yesterday, which is "must listen" radio for me. Randy and Jason didn't disappoint.

There might have been something incongruent about listening to the brothers shtick on the way to Good Friday services, but it somehow seemed perfect when they relayed the story of a guy who got the Philly Phanatic to attend his Bar Mitzvah. For some reason dude in the costume popped off the head, revealing the smell of "Doritos, whiskey...and broken dreams."

I am not sure why, but for me this was the prefect preamble for three hours of reflection on injustice, betrayal, torture, death, sin and eternity.

A Holy Thursday

Somewhere along Havey Road, Jesus washed my feet
And when he gave me absolution
I'll be damned if it wasn't Pete Townshend
Singing "A Quick One" coda

Before my eyes were dry
Christ was gone, on his way to other feet:
The hipster sipping a latte at Starbucks
The pastor jacking off in the sacristy
The banker betting against his clients
That dick who cut me off downtown
And the dude who turned Of Montreal
Into shills for Outback Steakhouse

Somewhere a tumor grows in a bladder undetected
While wire holding an anniverary picture slips its nail
I'm still walking that hill on Havey Road
Decoding images in a gray Lenten sky

The Flawed Dustin Johnson

SI's Alan Shipnuck wrote an fine profile of PGAer Dustin Johnson that I think is worth checking out. One of the best moments in the article:

The most treasured correspondence Johnson has received came in the wake of the PGA Championship fiasco. It was from Byron Nelson's widow, Peggy. "You handled the situation at the PGA in such a wonderfully gentlemanly, sportsmanlike way," she wrote. "Byron would have been proud of you. I'm still seething with righteous indignation." She also included a $300 check, passing on a debt of gratitude that extends back to the 1939 Hershey Open. As Peggy explained in the letter, Byron was leading that tournament when he piped a seemingly perfect drive to the blind 15th fairway. Inexplicably the ball could not be found, even after a long search by the gallery. Nelson was forced to declare the ball lost and re-tee, eating the two strokes that ultimately sent him skidding to fourth place. Weeks later an anonymous letter arrived, in which a remorseful fan said that his lady friend had cluelessly picked up the ball and put it in her purse, which the letter writer didn't discover until the train ride home. Included was a check for $300, the difference between first- and fourth-place money. "It's a pretty cool story," says Johnson, with typical understatement.

I have been following Johnson since witnessing him give back the PGA Championship at Whistling Straits last August. I spent most of the day near the 17th Green with my buddy Mike (@BigSnakeMan). When Johnson and the final group came through we watched Johnson lingering for what seemed like an hour on the 18th tee. The article doesn't portray him as a tense guy, but he certainly looked tight as he waited. And the drive he pushed badly right seemed to support that theory. The tough penalty he took while hitting from the "hazard" made him a sympathetic figure to me. The right call was made, but I never thought it was just.

Mike makes the point that Johnson comes off as a slacker in the article and I can't disagree. But to me he also comes off a bit like a young Fred Couples -- digs sports, seems cool, likes chillin'. Those traits attracted me to Freddie, and the same applies to Johnson. However, like Couples, Dustin doesn't seem to work his game and might ultimately wear the "underachiever" tag like Fred has. That would be a shame, but I will likely follow him down that road. linked as we are by those few minutes at the Straits last summer.

A Celebration of Day 2

Required reading for baseball fans from one of the finest observers of the game:


Joe Blogs: A Celebration of Day 2:

"Opening Day is about hope ... beautiful, glorious and irrational hope. And second days are about the slow and irretrievable loss of that hope. Opening Day is about being young. And Day 2 is about getting old. Stadiums in many places are now half-filled ... no child gets to skip school to catch the SECOND game of the season. The lifers remain. Scorecards are creased and smeared and abandoned by the fourth inning. The drumbeat sounds. The long march of the season begins. The three-hit first day, in the slow and sure way of inevitability, morphs into that .263 batting that was preordained by the martial law of 600 plate appearances. The flawed teams begin their steady descent into the standings."

Why I'm Supporting the Billionaires v. the Millionaires

When it comes to the labor dispute between the NFL players and team owners, I am supporting the latter. It's not because I am a shill for management who hates the working man; in fact, this stance makes me uncomfortable at a visceral level. However, I am supporting the owners because players come and go while ownership largely stays around for an extended stretch. I guess when it comes right down to it I am supporting ownership because I care about my team and what is good for it more than I care about what is good for the transient group that are players.

I am unmoved by the fact that player careers in the NFL last only a few years. Yeah, it sucks that they can only pull down mid-six-figure salaries for an average of three and a half years. NFL minimums in those three-plus seasons would amount to about $1.2MM--not bad for a first job out of college. Hell, if they lasted just one year in the NFL, they still earn $325K for that season. I think that would be enough to get most people off to a good start in life, particularly when most players had their education paid for and are positioned to cash in on their athletic exploits as they enter the regular work force.

I am no fan of many of the guys that own NFL teams. Frankly, a lot of them seem pretty slimy. But for better or worse, owners represent the teams and, collectively, the league: as a fan, the health of those organisms matter more to me than the employment issues facing a highly paid work force. So just as I don't care what kind of guy Steve Jobs is when I buy an iPad, I don't care what sort of labor issues Apple has to overcome in order to keep producing iPods and iPhones. In the same way, I just want the Packers to remain financially healthy enough to be able to compete on Sundays in the fall; whatever the league's owners have to do assure that is fine with me.

Is that fair to the players? Maybe not, but it seems they are getting well compensated for the "injustice" they face. I would tend to care more about how Apple is dealing with its employees -- a group I am guessing is largely ununionized and compensated at a much lower level than NFL players.  But, in all honesty, I don't think about them when I fire up iTunes; I just want the software to work. I feel pretty much the same when it comes to the NFL labor dispute.

Wisconsin Budget Crisis Solved: Sell the Green Bay Packers

Finally, a reasonable solution to the Wisconsin budget crisis:

"Walker could start by selling the Green Bay Packers. Decades after Akron and Pottsville and Kenosha dropped out of the football business, Green Bay is still, somehow, in possession of an NFL team. It makes no sense. An outdated system of socialized public ownership has enabled an obscure small city to occupy a place in pro sports that by all economic logic should go to a wealthy metropolis.

The average estimated value of an NFL team is already more than $1 billion, but the sale of the Packers should be worth far, far more than that. They are the league's reigning champion, with a stellar young quarterback. If the team were to be condemned and put on the open market, it would be the object of a bidding war, with would-be buyers unrestricted by location. The sales price might even clear the $1.8 billion estimated value of the Dallas Cowboys—eliminating more than half of Wisconsin's budget shortfall instantly."

Validating Bo

The conversation took me back more than 10 years, to the Spring of 2000. Listening to Madison sports talk on the way home from work on Friday the question was being debated: Does Wisconsin Basketball Coach Bo Ryan need to take a team to the Final Four in order to validate his career? I found the question jarring, but having heard similar talk about Dick Bennett 11 years ago, I chuckled this time instead of being irked like I was a decade ago.

Back in those days, fans were complaining about the Badgers style of play under Bennett, that is was solid and all, but not much fun to watch and probably not going to result in much major success for UW. Of course, famously, Wisconsin made the NCAA Tournament as an eight seed a few weeks later and drove all way to the Final Four.

Right on cue, just as some are questioning Bo Ryan, his Badgers take down top ranked Ohio State on Saturday at the Kohl Center, the first time UW has managed to beat a Number One since 1962. Even before this stunner, I believe Bo's record at Wisconsin (and at UW-Platteville and UW-Milwaukee) speaks for itself; he needed no validation, least of all from me. The guy is one of the game's best coaches, with several Big Ten titles and an uninterrupted string of NCAA Tournament berths since coming to Madison. But if this win over the OSU doesn't clarify that in the minds of basketball observers in this city -- or anywhere else for that matter -- then they just don't want to face facts and accept the truth.

And on the subject of truth, I will confess: I was among those who cashiered this team in December. I watched a number of early season games and came away totally unimpressed. With the Big Ten seemingly loaded with a half dozen very good teams, it looked like a down year for Bucky to me. I was hoping they might win seven conference games and go deep enough in the post-season tourney to sneak in to The Dance as a low seed. More likely, I thought this was an NIT team.

But somehow, as he always seems to do, Ryan has his team in contention for the conference title and on the cusp of 20 wins. Now, I don't think they will win the Big Ten, especially with some very tough road games upcoming. But what Bo has done with the collection of players he has, a group that outside of Jon Leuer and the terrific Jordan Taylor is pretty much unproven and/or nondescript, is nothing short of outstanding. Ryan should be beyond questions of the sort being tossed around the airwaves on Friday. The proof was on the floor of the Kohl Center Saturday afternoon.

...and so it begins.

Word out of Green Bay yesterday was that Jimmy Robinson was hired by Cowboys to coach their WRs and be Assistant Head Coach. This might not seem like a huge deal, but, as noted in the media account, "Robinson was responsible for coaching different aspects of the passing game as well as developing the wide receivers. He is considered meticulous and a perfectionist and does not bend an inch on demanding his receivers follow the design of the offense." The Packers had one of the best, if not the best, WR corps in the NFL under Robinson. The talent of those players is, without question, the most important factor in their success. But it sounds as though Robinson was also a fine molder of that talent. I have to wonder if that is going to impact the Packers passing game going forward.

One of the ways championship teams fall back is by loosing a few coaches here and a couple of players there. That process has now started in Green Bay. I expect other coaches to be in play, and Tom Silverstein of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel considers at least four players -- Bigby, Colledge, Spitz and Jackson -- to be "as good as gone" with two others -- Jones and Crosby -- 50/50 propositions. Some might argue that losing a few of those guys would be addition by subtraction, and it would be hard to disagree. However, the slow erosion of championship teams, even at the edges, is an important factor in what makes repeating so very difficult in professional sports.