Carlos Gomez? Really?

I was more than a bit nonplussed when I learned that Milwaukee Brewers General Manager Doug Melvin had dealt former starting shortstop JJ Hardy for...Carlos Gomez? I know the Twins CF and prized Mets farmhand is thought to have huge potential, but little of that has been on display during his 1100+ MLB at-bats. So, taken in isolation, I don't find much to like about this deal (unless the Gomez they picked up was really Morticia Addams' husband; then I am loving this acquisition).

I understand Carlos Gomez is fast, but as the wags say, you can't steal first base. A sub .300 OBP isn't going to get it done. And a sub .400 SLG leaves a huge production gap from their previous CF, the much unfairly maligned Mike Cameron, and is multiplied by Hardy's departure.

That said, this deal might make more sense if it is part of a larger strategy that has yet to play out.

The obvious corresponding move is not to bring Cameron back -- that amounts to a salary savings of around $15MM when added to what they will save on JJ (although that figure might not be as great given Gomez's Super Two status). Apparently Doug will use the budget room for pitching, but perhaps he will not work via the obvious route (free agency); maybe he is looking to make a deal with a team interested in trimming salary? It could be that a team seeking salary relief would take a number of prospects combined with a cheaper vet (e.g. Corey Hart) in order to get rid of an expensive pitcher.

As losing Cam and Hardy while adding Gomez amounts to less offense, perhaps there is another, deeper plan here: Maybe Melvin is clearing budget not just for pitching but to make a move to extend Prince Fielder. I wonder about this because I don't see much offense for MKE after next season if they let Prince go. (My guess is that without an extension, Prince gets dealt next off-season. Therefore, I think as a practical matter he is really under team control just for this coming season.) There are few real offensive difference makers in the upper minors for the Brewers, and other than Ryan Braun, there are serious production questions at the MLB level without Prince. If Melvin is seeing the same thing, maybe he not only wants to acquire an arm or two, but have enough room to make a credible offer to secure the middle of the line up beyond 2010.

Of course, that raises another question: Should the Brewers extend Prince? Heredity is probably working against Fielder, so I think there are risks in keeping him past age 30 -- I suspect injury caused by his size might limit him, thus lowering his production. But I can see the argument for keeping him, too: Dude is a draw at the gate and very popular with the fans -- and attendance matters in MKE. Coupled with Braun, they provide a potent punch in the middle of a line up that just lost a 20+ homer a year SS and is probably about to lose a 25ish HR a year CF. I don't think they can count on Hart, Casey McGhee or Rickie Weeks to pick up that slack, as Corey has been inconsistent, Casey might be a fluke and Weeks is beginning to look like an injury waiting to happen. The Brewers need some pop in their line up and there is precious little of that on the farm. Like it or not, Prince might be a "must sign" for this team.

So before I damn the Hardy-for-Gomez sway (as much as I want to) I am going to wait until the music stops playing before I come to a final conclusion.

Searching for the Magic Bullet

In an around Green Bay and throughout Packer Nation, there is mutiny in the air. Since the loss to Minnesota last Sunday, the talk shows and message boards have been filled with calls for the scalps of Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy. I guess sacking Mike Sherman might not have been the magic bullet after all.

Here's a prediction: If they remove TT and MM, we will be right back to this same place four years from now. As fans I think we under-estimate the value of stability for a team. Not that management should never be turned over--the mess in places like Cleveland is an example of that, and on the other end of the spectrum, the Titans have had the same leadership so long that they might benefit from refreshing themselves. But when competent people are in place -- and say what you might about Thompson and McCarthy, they might not be brilliant, but they most certainly are competent -- I believe that teams are advised to keep them there, even a bit longer than seems appropriate. Because once a team starts panicking and firing the coach and GM when things look tough, a losing death spiral often follows, a cycle of partial rebuilding and redirection that is truncated before it can develop; sort of like planting seeds and digging them up before they can sprout. Exhibit A of this in full bloom is the Milwaukee Bucks.

I think we shouldn't loose sight of the fact that the Packers currently have a winning record and are less than two seasons removed from being in the NFC championship game. To me, that doesn't signal that it is time to fire the coach and GM.

The New Brett

Where did this version of Brett Favre come from? I'm talking about the one we see this season in Vikings purple, the careful game manager, the guy who has thrown just three INTs through eight games? He certainly looked familiar physically on the field last Sunday in Green Bay, but his style of play appears to have changed notably.

Perhaps the 2009 version of Brett Favre doesn't feel he needs to take the team on his back in order to win, so gone are the WTF throws, passes wedged into triple coverage, tossed underhand, thrown from his knees, back across his body or to the right side of the field while rolling left. Maybe now, with renewed confidence in his offensive line, he feels more comfortable. It could be that having Adrian Peterson in the backfield eases the burden of being Brett Favre and the expectations that came with it in Green Bay. Or it might be as simple as believing that he doesn't need to do more than take the safe play because he trusts his defense will give him the ball back later.

After seeing the New Favre play so well against the Packers twice this season, I have come away believing that both the Packers and Favre came out ahead in their divorce: The Packers have found a QB who is capable of providing them above average play for the next seven or more years while Favre has landed with a team that doesn't require him to be all that had become a burden for him in Green Bay. Now seemingly relaxed and comfortable, Favre can be a different sort of player, the kind of QB that he probably thought he couldn't be with the perennially young team on the Bay.

Yes, the Packers and Favre probably got what was best for them, and, while it might not seem that way to some, I suspect Packers fans did, too: I doubt that the Favre we are seeing this season in MN would be present had he still been laboring under the burden of being the face of the franchise in GB, under an administration that had the team headed in a direction that he apparently didn't want to go. Instead of seeing the Old Brett we are now witnesses to the emergence of a new order, one that might be lacking in sentiment for days gone by, but one that signals a change that needed to happen.

Taking Sacks Might Help the Team

On Thursday evening, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel writer Greg Bedard conducted a chat with those who subscribe to paper's "Packer Insider". Along the way, Bedard offered this:


"I think Rodgers' high passer rating has at least some to do with his almost refusal to throw the ball away (how many times has he done that in 22 games?) and his preference to take sacks than throw interceptions. Passer rating is skewed towards passers that don't throw interceptions. Rodgers said he hopes he never throws another one. Sometimes interceptions aren't all bad considering the risk/reward sometimes associated with them. Rodgers doesn't risk much unless he absolutely has to."


I have often seen it written and heard it said on the radio and TV that turnover differential is THE key stat in the NFL. Given the importance of turnovers, and assuming Bedard's take on Rodgers is correct, I am happy Rodgers prefers the sack to taking risks.

Conversely, Brett Favre was OK with taking risks. That has elevated him to Legend status, a pile of records and a ticket to Canton. Sadly for Packers fans, one of those records he holds is for most INTs, and it was his penchant for getting rid of it quickly that resulted in six INTs in the playoffs v. STL and overtime INTs in the post-season v. PHL and NYG that ended promising seasons.

Packers fans realized that we took the good with the bad with Favre, but in retrospect I wonder if Brett had taken a second or two more before getting rid of it, and maybe taken a few more sacks as a result, if consequences for the team would have been better. Maybe playing that way would mean less gaudy stats, and perhaps taking more sacks would have ended his consecutive start streak. But it might have resulted in deeper playoff runs and more Super Bowl appearances.

Holding It Too Long

Those who are critical of Packers QB Aaron Rodgers claim that he doesn't make quick enough decisions and, consequently, holds the ball too long before passing, contributing to the NFL leading 25 sacks he's taken so far this season. I find this contention curious because I don't recall hearing it much last year, Rodgers first season as the starter. So these critics would have us believe that Rodgers has regressed, gotten slower and less decisive after a year of full time experience? That doesn't add up to me. The real problem, I believe, is that the Packers have a crappy offensive line that is not giving Rodgers adequate time to pass.

It Was Nearly The End

I was very close to putting a stake through the heart of this blog. There are a variety of reasons I was contemplating this, but for now, I've pulled back. It's not that I have discovered that I have so much to say (or as much to say as I once believed I did), but the idea of just trashing the work that has populated this blog, humble as it is, was difficult for me. So I have opened the doors back up and will probably throw something against the wall every now and again.

Why was I contemplating termination? Simply put, it takes more time and energy to maintain this space than I am willing to give, at least on a regular basis. Other matters in my life are more important and require attention; time and energy I was giving to this project was detracting from those things.

Moreover, I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with exposing myself in this manner. Not only was I discovering that my musings were sometimes being misunderstood (requiring me to spend more time and energy restating and clarifying my comments), but it occurred to me that it is rather immodest (if not arrogant) to expect that others will want to spend time reading what I have to say.

However, at the end of the day, when rereading some of my old posts, I decided that those were honest statements of who I was at that moment. It may or may not be who I am now or what I am thinking today, but as a snapshot in time they are a part of me and I didn't want to throw that away. Nor did I want to permanently cancel an outlet for stating what is on my mind at any given point in time. Although I expect I will be much more judicious, circumspect and sparse in my comments in the future.

The Enduring Popularity of the Ball-and-Glove Logo

An interesting blog post about the persistent appeal of the Milwaukee Brewers old ball-and-glove logo appeared on SportsBubbler today. I suggest that Brewers fans check it out.

While it might be true that the author has over-thought the logo issue, I applaud the exercise. It is refreshing to me to read a piece that puts sports issues into a larger context and move away from simple explanations. The spectator sports that so many of us enjoy so thoroughly grew up in the context of an increasingly complex society where people needed relief from the encroaching tension and anxiety of everyday life. So I don't think it is inappropriate to try to link the enduring popularity of the old Brewers logo to larger societal factors. Whether this thesis is right or wrong matters little to me; I congratulate the writer for taking the time to consider this matter so deeply.

WTF, Doug Melvin?

After the Milwaukee Brewers fired Ned Yost with a dozen games to play last season, the team's fans had to look for another whipping boy to blame for the shortcomings of the club. With the team three under .500 and 9.5 back of STL as of this writing, it seems the focus has been shifted onto Brewers General Manager Doug Melvin. This is unsurprising; now that Yost is gone the ire falls on the next longest tenured official. I suppose once Melvin is removed, the torches-and-pitchforks crowd will be coming for owner Mark Attanasio.

But for now, Melvin is in the crosshairs. Of particular ire to many fans is Melvin's in activity in the free agent market last off-season and at the trading deadline this summer. On the other side of the debate, the cooler heads are wondering just exactly what the irate wanted Melvin to do given the limitations of a small to medium sized budget and market. The fact is, none of us understand the details, nuances or constraints Doug Melvin faces. That makes it very difficult for anyone to know who was truly available for Melvin to acquire, nor do we know the real market value of the chips Doug has to dangle in trade.

So while it might be ridiculous to ask the critics who they would have acquired had they been in Melvin's position, if they can't come up with solid, rational, realistic ideas in this regard then all they are doing is venting, and as far as I am concerned, that doesn't do much to advance the conversation. Asking what others think should have been done does more in this regard because it required people to use the available data and formulate a thoughtful case (a much more difficult task that just bemoaning that something better wasn't done). To me, that sure beats assuming that better options were certainly out there and then whining that these mystical, magical and mysterious paths weren't taken.

Doing something, taking action for the sake of taking action, is rarely the best course. Sometimes it is best to wait for deals that make good sense and not jump impulsively in reaction to present circumstances. Emotional moves might be fine in New York or Boston where large budgets can cover a multitude of mistakes. But in MKE a more dispassionate, rational approach is necessary because of the need for a higher degree of accuracy in transactions. In this way, I think Doug Melvin is playing his cards appropriately.

Brewers on the Brink

Yes, things appear to be cycling down the toilet for the Milwaukee Brewers -- it isn't hard to see what is going on and and I understand why some want to throw in the towel and sell. I don't think that is an unreasonable stance given the present circumstances.

But when I check the standings and see that they are just 4.5 back with two months to play, it just seems silly to cash in the chips. While they probably need to add two credible starting pitchers to really be competitive, I wonder if adding just one guy would do? Coupled with Yo Gallardo, Braden Looper and Manny Parra, perhaps one decent starter could help stabilize things for a couple of weeks until they get Dave Bush back.

Of course, that assumes Bush will be ready to come back in mid August -- I have read or heard nothing that leads me to believe that timetable is anything more than a guess. Moreover, Jeff Suppan sounds like he is headed to the DL with an injury that usually takes a month to heal. That makes those four games appear much more insurmountable.

However, as those are unknowns, I think they have to go with what they do know, and that is that the team is just 4.5 back with 62 still to go. From the standpoint of someone who has tickets to five more games, I would like to see the Brewers do what they can to stay in the race as long as possible.

More Waffling from Favre

So now Brett Favre isn't so sure he wants to play for the Minnesota Vikings after all. As hard as it is to believe, it seems ol' #4 is dithering yet again, wringing his hands at the 11th hour about his decision to return to the NFL. This should be a very instructive period for Vikings fans, giving them an opportunity to experience the anxiety Packers fans lived with annually from their Hall of Fame QB during the last four or five years of his tenure in Green Bay.

While I think Brett will decide to play for MN, it would be great if Favre decided not to, saying something like: "The more I thought about this, the more I realized what it would do to the fans in Green Bay. I cherish my relationship with that franchise and those fans. I don't want to do anything that would drive a wedge between me and that team and the people that support it."

I think that sort of play might redeem him to many GB fans who have been put off by his antics over the past year. I don't think this is how things will come to pass, but as someone who wants to feel good about Favre again, I would be delighted to see it happen.

Depressed Ballplayers

Noted today by Jim Breem at SportsBubbler.com:

Much has been made of the Pirates' demotion of Ian Snell to Triple-A Indianapolis. It turns out that Snell has been battling severe depression, which has been a common theme throughout the 2009 season. Perhaps this is a turning point for Major League Baseball and the recognition of depression as a major player in today's game. With all the pressure placed on such young kids, early failure to live up to expectations can easily drive a player into doubt and depression. Joey Votto, Khalil Green, and Dontrelle Willis have also been connected to depression this season.

When word of Green's struggles first surfaced, I was dismayed to hear Brewers iconic broadcaster Bob Uecker sort of clowning this situation during the Brewers broadcast -- clearly, Ueck didn't "get it." But to his credit, Bob had a fresh take a few nights ago and he admitted that he didn't understand what it is like to suffer from depression. His whole tone was changed, perhaps because of the number of guys hitting the DL with this disorder. Props for taking a second look at this, Ueck.

To me this situation is another reminder that ballplayers are, at the end of the day, real human beings prone to the same sort of stuff that can plague anyone else.

Packers Therapy Now on Twitter

For those so inclined, you can follow the Packers Therapy podcast on Twitter. Dave and I hope that you will sign up, sign in and follow us.

Forty Tales From the Afterlives

During Lent I spend a good deal of time pondering the Hereafter, the notion of Eternal Life that is mentioned in the New Testament. I even posted here a time or two about it earlier this year. So I was intrigued when I saw a book on the subject had come out, earning a favorable review in the New York Times:

But speculating about who, if anyone, created us and what lies ahead of us can be intellectually engaging and, as David Eagleman shows in his new book, “Sum,” very entertaining too. The author, a neuro­scientist with literary leanings, has set out a series of possibilities for the afterlife, described in 40 vignettes, each of which presents a different explanation of who God is and why he or she (or, in some cases, they) chose to create us, and what might be planned for us on our demise. And, for the most part, these intentions are very different from what conventional religion would have us believe. Most of these future options are extremely amusing, highlighting our self-importance and subjecting us to an astonishing range of humiliations, disappointments and surprises. If you are thinking of dying, this book may not exactly increase your peace of mind.

Consider some of Eagleman’s playfully inventive possibilities. One is that we are, in fact, immense beings tasked with the physically demanding job of maintaining and upholding the cosmos. However, God entitles us to a vacation from time to time, and this we take as tiny, insignificant human beings, born into a resort called Earth. While here, we enjoy parochial pleasures, interesting ourselves in very small matters like watching movies, falling in love and so on. At the end of our lives, we return to work, terribly disappointed to be leaving our tiny earthly bodies.

I don't expect to be reading Eagleman's book anytime soon. I just simply don't want to ponder the subject right now (hey, it's summer -- it's all good, right?). But I did find Alexander McCall Smith's review to be provocative and intriguing enough to get me thinking about the subject again.



----------------
Now playing: Bush - The Chemicals Between Us
via FoxyTunes

Confession of a Twitter Apostate

My friend, Peter Wallace, is a Twitter apostate. You can read his confession here. I offered some comments on his blog, but as of this writing they haven't shown up there, so I provide them again below:

You are not alone -- many of my friends (50-somethings, a bit younger that you, but of the same generation) don't play the Twitter game, either. Same for my wife, who -- like you -- signed up and never really gave it a go.

On the other hand, I like the technology. But, like sex, to enjoy fully it is helpful to do it right. For openers, Twitter really isn't for sending banal "I'm grocery shopping" tweets; the idea is to offer something of substance that might reveal a bit of your personality and suggest something about your current situation. This takes some time and some thought, hence the best users of Twitter aren't posting a dozen times a day about subjects of narrow interest. In fact, the limitation on the number of characters is downright Pascallian: "I am sorry this letter is so long; I didn't have time to make it shorter." It is a wonderful discipline and, like haiku, it takes time to construct something of meaning in such a tight space.

The best Twitterers are those who make glib observations, link ideas to other media or "retweet" the posts of others they find insightful or otherwise of interest to their network of followers. For instance, I am a Brewers baseball fan and so are many of those who follow me. Today I read on a blog that the team is supposedly in the process of making a major trade. I passed along this information via a "retweet" with a comment from me.

So while I rarely post "what I am doing now" I often do post about the things I am reading, music I am listening to, and films I have seen while passing along tweets from others that I find particularly interesting (funny, insightful, etc). What this does is paint a picture of me, revealing who I am and what I am doing indirectly by the sum of the things I post.

I went on to note that most of those I follow aren't individuals but news sources (CNN, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Capital Times, Brewers Assistant GM Gord Ash, Market Watch, Paste Magazine, etc). I also offered that I have two Twitter accounts, one for things of personal interest (the latest entries are listed at the top right of this blog) and the other using my professional identity (for following those in my industry and where I post only for business networking purposes). I think, if used this way, Twitter can be more than just time-wasting silliness. Although that has its place, too.



----------------
Now playing: Oasis - Wonderwall
via FoxyTunes

I Drink Your Milkshake

Let's talk about evil, shall we? Evil, in this case, as portrayed on film in the dark, gripping There Will Be Blood.



The character played by Daniel Day-Lewis, Daniel Plainview, is terrifying in this clip (the climatic scene in the movie), the psychopath in full bloom. Making this scene even more disquieting to me is that the sniveling wimp he is beating the hell out of is a preacher, Eli Sunday (played brilliantly by Paul Dano) -- a "man of God," if you will. So, Satan prevails over God in a walkover.

Of course, in the context of the film, that interpretation is rather simplistic as the preacher is shown to be rather venal, hardly laudable, and in many ways as corrupt and morally bankrupt as Plainview -- the kind of guy that some might think deserved the good whacking he got. So perhaps it is more a case of one bad ass prevailing over a weaker, more watered-down version of evil. I guess you might say it is a movie largely devoid of heroes.

In any case, while this film is compelling, it is anything but uplifting. It is a sad, ugly statement about greed and selfishness, one that I found totally engrossing. Maybe that's because I believe the art of living involves balancing the struggle to get what we need but to do it without screwing each other over. The acting in There Will Be Blood is superb and the film-making first rate. I recommend seeing it, but you will want to prepared for a rather grim glimpse of human nature.



----------------

Now playing: P.T. Walkley - Daydreaming
via FoxyTunes

Econ and the Market

You will be delighted to know that this detour into economics and the financial markets will be brief. I know little about the subject even though I read a fair amount about it. My mind has never worked well when in close quarters with "the dismal science," so I won't pretend to be an expert on such matters. But on the advice of Mike Knetter, Dean of the Wisconsin School of Business at UW-Madison, I read an interesting piece in Slate, an excerpt from which appears below:

...the notion that the market is telling us something—anything—ultimately rests on the erroneous assumption that financial markets represent the collective wisdom of rational actors processing information efficiently. There are plenty of cool-minded forward-thinking investors in the markets. But there are also a lot of lunatics, fools, sharks, widows and orphans, government actors with ulterior motives, algorithmic traders, greedy speculators, and whack jobs. The markets resemble the Star Wars bar scene more than they do the economics faculty lounge at Princeton.

I like it when intellectuals get down and dirty, so this piece appealed to me. I also like it when someone is bold enough to note that we really don't understand financial markets because they are essentially irrational and, therefore, all but unknowable. I think it is worth remembering that economics is, after all, a social science, not one of the physical ones that can be broken-down and largely understood in a lab.

A frightening thought when one considers that most of us are rolling the dice on our financial futures by investing our life's savings in something so volatile.

Barneveld Tornado Anniversary

A while back I wrote about my visit to the small southern Wisconsin village of Barneveld and reflected on the tornado that forever scared that community, now a quarter century ago.

Today is the anniversary of that horrific event, and I wanted to share a newspaper account marking the occasion.

I Never Heard of This Guy...

...but now I wish I had.

I had no idea who Jeff Hanson was until Sunday morning when I saw a bit on the 'net noting that he had died in a fall at his apartment. Seeing that he was a singer-songwriter from Milwaukee who had gotten favorable notices, I clicked on the video. Almost immediately I understood why his passing was enough to grab the attention of All Songs Considered:



So I am looking around for tracks from the now late Jeff Hanson to add to my library. I hear a lot of Elliot Smith in Hanson's music. Now, sadly, they also have something else in common -- a way premature death.

On Booing (con't)

For a long time I felt abandoned and alone in my feelings about the absurd stupidity of booing at sporting events. (Well, "alone" except for by buddy Mike, but like me he is old and fossilized and, therefore, doesn't count.) So I was heartened by seeing this exchange between the owner of the Miller Park Dunk blog and Al Bethke, the guy behind the Al's Ramblings blog. MPD starts off:

To me, you should never boo your own team under any circumstances. Boo your umpires. Boo your Barry/Manny/A-Rod’s of the world. Boo your Sheffields. Leave your own team alone. It’s almost like people who beat their dog for going to the bathroom in the house. It does absolutely nothing to change things and just makes your dog hate you. What I’m wondering is how you feel on the subject of booing and why do you think that so many casual Brewers fans think it’s okay? I don’t see how Mike Cameron striking out three times in a game is worse than their beloved Brett Favre throwing 15 interceptions in the first half.

AL: I agree completely. The only time I feel it is at all acceptable to boo is when you see a complete lack of effort. Even then, however, casual fans don’t “get it”. To me, a lack of effort is walking back to the dugout on a routine ground ball to short. To Joe Talk Radio Guy, it’s having a ball drop within 50 feet of them. I remember last year, Cameron made a great play on a base hit in the LCF gap, came up firing, and held the batter to a long single. Despite this fine play, I see on the message boards that fans were critical of him for not firing to the plate to get the runner on 2B. Roberto Clemente did not have the arm to make that throw, and certainly no one playing today does. But, to some, any single should result in a play at the plate. ... So, to make a long comment a bit less long, I would say I agree with you, to boo the home team is pretty much always wrong. I don’t really get booing the opposition either, as it’s fun to be booed, because they only boo the really good players. Indifference is properly shown by silence.

Ah, the sweet sounds of mature sanity -- thanks, boys! I now only feel slightly less alone in the cold, dark void that is June in Wisconsin. (At least this June, anyway.)

----------------
Now playing: Joe Jackson - Sunday Papers
via FoxyTunes

Song of the Day: Crazy on You

I am not sure I have ever encountered a more passionately erotic song than this classic by Heart.





Ann Wilson's vocal is, just, well...stunning: Powerful and intense, on the verge of going completely over the edge, yet restrained at the limit, running a full emotional range--I have always found it moving and authentic. The guitars (perhaps by sister Nancy?), from the acoustic intro, to the quick fills that punctuate the lyrics, build the emotional tension.

I get the shakes every time I hear this song...

Maybe I am not alone in this. Perhaps The Decemberists do, too.

Good Advices*

Some seek wisdom in the works of French philosophers. Others look to the Bible or further East for the direction of yogis -- while others seek answers from Yogi. Personally, I'm a Satchel Paige man, myself:

• "Avoid fried meats which angry up the blood."

• "If your stomach disputes you, lie down and pacify it with cool thoughts."

• "Keep the juices flowing by jangling around gently as you move."

• "Go very light on the vices, such as carrying on in society — the social ramble ain't restful."

• "Avoid running at all times."

• "Don't look back — something might be gaining on you."

Yeah, that sounds about right to me.


______________

*With appropriate respects to REM.

"Sprockets" Revisited

One of my favorite bits on Saturday Night Live past was the continuing "Sprockets" sketch series that Mike Myers conceived, wrote and acted as the character "Dieter." The material was a perfect send up of the intellectual art scene, particularly as it was evolving in Germany in the 1980s, featuring Dieter welcoming guests to his show "Sprockets" in this manner:

It has been a very busy week here in Berlin. Jourgen von Keitel's exhibit "Scabs On Canvas" opened at the Schussel Calle, the Gertrude Bromf troupe previewed their performance in wax at the Theater of Unhappiness, and the Berlin wall was dismantled. For the masses the wall's collapse represents freedom and opportunity. But for me, it is a chance to meet the most brilliant countercultural filmmaker in the East, Gregor Voss. Seen here on East German television last year, Voss, the suppressed visionary whose films include "The Dead Coat", "Irritant Number 4", and "Here Child, Finish Your Nothing", he entered the West three days ago, and has agreed to appear on Sprockets and speak with me, his greatest fan.

I found this stuff, and other sketches like "Germany's Most Disturbing Home Videos" to be brilliant. Unfortunately, it is hard to find clips of "Sprockets" on the Interweb (at least for me). But CyMek -- now home for the summer -- was able to dig this one up.

Hijinks on the Bases

In Monday night's game at Land Shark Stadium in Florida, the Brewers made two egregious baserunning errors in the same inning. It was a classic "WTF" moment, turning a two on, nobody out situation into a two out one on situation. In the process, the gaffes turned a promising inning into a blank frame for Milwaukee, runs they could have used in the 7-4 loss to the Marlins.

The first mistake was when 260 pound Price Fielder got it in his head that it would be a nice idea to steal third with nobody out. It ended predictably, when Prince was an easy out at third. Then Mike Cameron, who moved to second when Prince tried to swipe third, attempted to advance to third on a ball hit to the shortstop. He was easily trapped in a rundown.

When Ned Yost was managing the Brewers those things were put on him and his staff as examples of how poorly they taught/prepared their teams. But my perspective then, as now, is that players are largely formed in such fundamentals before they get to the big leagues. For instance, every high school player knows you don't run from second on a ball hit in front of you. But human beings make mistakes -- they forget the game situation or how many runners are on base, and they do this regardless of who is manager. Likewise, they sometimes think they see an opportunity when one really isn't there--this is poor judgment, but not necessarily evidence of poor coaching.

In the end, the game is played on the field, not by managers or coaches. So I won't be laying this off on Ken Macha or his coaching staff.

Appreciating Steve Stricker

There was a lot going on in sports over the weekend, but my favorite moment was Steve Stricker finding a way to get it done at Colonial.

After coming out 63/63 to grab the lead on the first two days, Stricker fell back on the weekend. It was painful to see him gag short putts early in the round on Sunday. But a magnificent chip in on 17 and some dicey play by the leaders set up a three way playoff. Thanks to Tim Clark pulling a seven-footer that would have sealed his victory on the last, Stricker found his way into the playoff. Once there, he stuck his approach on the second playoff hole inside five feet and rolled the putt in for his fifth PGA Tour win.

I read some things today calling Stricker the least-known best player on Tour. That is probably right. Despite his five wins, Ryder Cup team membership and $18MM in winnings, the low-key Stricker is all but invisible to most golf fans. But I think it is important to note that this Wisconsinite has finished in the Top 10 in majors 10 times, and has four Top 5s and six Top 10s this season. He’s won the Comeback Player of the Year…twice! Moreover, he is ranked eighth in the World and has twice finished a season 4th in the World Rankings.

Most importantly, published accounts confirmed by my personal observation, show Stricker to be a kind and thoughtful human being. Given all that, I just wanted to give the guy his props.

Song of the Day: She Paints Me Gold

Actually, this is the song of yesterday. But since Twittering about Joseph Arthur's "She Paints Me Gold" on Friday, this track has been haunting me. So with that kind of staying power, I offer it here...





It is the guitar solo that begins at about 2:20 into the track that really sends me over the edge. It's simple, but it builds with such power that it never fails to put a catch in my throat.

Gaffigan's "Hot Pockets"

I've always loved stand-up comedy. When the material kills, there aren't many forms of show business that are more entertaining for me. Heck, even when the shtick is weak and the comic is bombing, it can be fun to watch the flame out (I recall that some of Johnny Carson's best moments were when he was not getting traction and had to ad lib...and sometimes even dance).

I had never heard of Jim Gaffigan until my wife shot me a couple of YouTube clips. I am not sure how I missed this guy for so long. This bit in particularly is inspired:



His, ah, "meditation" on Christmas and Easter is also sharp. In it he accomplishes something difficult and rare: He clowns the traditions surrounding these Holidays without trashing the underlying religious beliefs that inform them, a delicate balancing act also perfected by Stephen Colbert.

It's odd: A day ago I didn't know who Jim Gaffigan was. Today I am hunting around for his video collections and hoping I can find one of his shows "On Demand" or a rerun on cable.

Sorry Nick

In what seems like another lifetime, I remember sitting in a light rain down the rightfield line at County Stadium in Milwaukee, watching the second game of a doubleheader between the Brewers and the Boston Red Sox. It was August 5, 1979 (thank you, baseball-reference.com and wunderground.com), and me and my buddies were giving Dwight Evans hell.

Why? Because he was an outstanding player who was having a huge game. Because we were young and drunk, and that is what Wisconsin boys in their early 20s did during a long day at the ball yard, at least in those days. It was because we happened to have front row seats. And mostly because Dewey was handy.

We certainly weren't riding the guy because he deserved it. He was just proximate, so we pummeled him with all manner of abuse--even more so as he and his teammates opened a complete can of whoop-ass on the Brewers. Finally, late in game, Evans looked over at us, and with the outcome well in hand for the BoSox, he shook his head, made a face...and flipped us off. Looking back now, 30 years later, I wonder what took him so long. A greater act of discipline and professionalism one might never see.

This might be the end of humorous memoir except for something I learned about Dewey a couple of years later. As it turns out, the guy we were lighting up for no good reason other than that he was close by and was playing for the visiting team, also turned out to be a real, live human being, in this case a parent of two boys who were suffering from a serious illness called "neurofibromatosis." And when he wasn't dealing with nonsense from yahoos like me, I came to learn that the rest of his life was like this:

Evans has always been a private person. Even during his career, he rarely talked about what he was going through off the field. He never used the fact that (his son) Tim went through 36 major surgeries during his lifetime as an excuse after an 0-for-4 night at the plate. When Justin almost died on the operating table as a toddler, Evans and his family didn’t make it a public matter...

".. It wasn’t easy. To see your children go through something like that...it’s heart wrenching. I would stop in and see them at the hospital on the way to the park and on the way home. There were times I was so mentally exhausted I had to come out of the game. A couple of times I left the park before the game even ended to go to the hospital. I’d be sitting in that room as the game was still going on, with the light of the CITGO sign flashing in the sky, saying to myself, “Why?" ...I guess sometimes baseball was actually an escape. I just had to learn to cope with it because what else could you do besides pray?"

Needless to say, hearing this put my antics from 8/5/1979 in a completely different light. If you are thinking "Way to go, asshole!" I wouldn't blame you. I feel pretty much the same way.

This whole episode came to rushing back to me when my boy Mike (who was not among the drunken at County Stadium cursing at Evans) noted that I had once again stepped in it, this time with regard to Packers safety Nick Collins. This time I can't fault youth or too much Pabst Blue Ribbon. This time it was sober cynicism that led me to light him up on this blog earlier this month. Now it seems that there was a good reason for Collins to be missing off-season workouts, a very good reason, in fact: His dad was dying.

These are the kinds of things that happen when one removes the humanity from people; they become objects, one-dimensional "things," who exist for my pleasure and entertainment, rather than living and breathing fellow humans struggling through life. So today I apologize to Dewey Evans and Nick Collins, and as I do, I wonder if it might be a good time to take a step back from this whole Brett Favre circus, too.

What's the cushiest ambassadorship in the world?

Not sure the rest of this article is necessarily worth a close reading, but this snip is priceless!

via www.slate.com on 5/28/09

Ronald Spiers, former ambassador to Turkey and Pakistan, remembers a conversation with a Navy admiral, who told him that after retiring he'd like to serve as ambassador to Spain. To which Spiers, a lifelong diplomat, responded that upon retiring he would like to command the Sixth Fleet. "He didn't think it was funny," Spiers says. The admiral did, in fact, become ambassador to Spain. Spiers did not become an admiral.

The Man from Uncle

This morning I heard it suggested, perhaps in jest, that the Brewers should flip in-game TV analyst Bill Schroeder for post-game TV analyst Davey Nelson. I can only hope this was meant facetiously.

The Rock is fine where he is in my estimation. The major problem with such a grave notion, for me, is than I wouldn't be able to inhale Davey's definitively avuncular face to encourage or console me after the game ends. There is something particularly comforting about Davey's visage--he looks like the nicest man on God's Green Earth. Insightful about the game -- I suppose. Warm, charming and soothing -- definitely.

The wins are sweeter and the losses easier to bear when Uncle Davey is looking back at me. I hope he rocks that post-gamer forever.

Birds Chirping in Early Light

As I type this, it's still dark, but I can hear the birds singing. To this day, among my fondest memories are the pre-dawn moments at this time of the year when I was up finishing a college project or studying for a final exam, knowing that soon the sun would be up, I would be completing the work and heading into summer. Of course, by late May I was already done with school, but the feeling I get at the chirping of birds in the early half-light remains the same.

A Right Good Thrashing

Since 2005 I have produced a podcast (Packers Therapy) with Dave, my friend and a colleague from work. It grew out of our frequent arguments about the team -- one day Dave suggested we record our disputes and put them on the Internet. My reaction was, "Yeah, sure, whatever. You get the mics, software and set up a site to host it and I am there." I never really thought it would go beyond that, but Dave called my bluff, bought the gear, made the arrangements and it was Showtime.

That's how it started -- as a lark, not a carefully planned business venture. We had no pretensions about professionalism; we even billed it simply as two Packers fans sitting around and discussing the most recent game. That was all it was and ever intended to be. We both have full-time jobs and families, so we weren't looking to spend a lot of time on this side project. I sort of figured it would go away after a year or so.

But even as the team sucked in 2005, we had a good time doing the podcast and grew to be good friends. So we decided to do it again in 2006, and that's when an odd thing happened: We got noticed by a Packers fan site, a large, well-known one called PackerChatters.com. They asked us if we were interested in joining their site to provide them with exclusive content. Not only did this put the show in front of a lot more people (and jacked up our listener numbers considerably), but we no longer had to pay hosting fees and there was the potential that we might even get sponsored (something that actually happened for a while last year). Packers Therapy was still a lark, but one that no longer cost us money to support. It was all good.

Of course, with a larger audience would came those that didn't like the podcast. I guess I never really thought about it, but the more people that listen the greater the chances that someone is not going to like it. I suppose that is particularly true if one has a competing website and produces a competing podcast. So, had I really thought about such things, this blast should not have come as a surprise.

As for defending Packers Therapy, why bother? Some people like it, other people don’t. Based on the stats there seems to be a lot of people who like it. At the same time I suppose there are legions of people that don’t care for it, although most of those folks don’t feel it is necessary to defecate all over us publicly. But if the podcast was really as sorry as it was portrayed, then why would anyone waste time trashing it? So if it is worth eviscerating on a website, then maybe the damn thing matters more than I imagined.

In any case, I am glad Aaron and Corey were part of those 19,000 hits to the podcast's RSS site in April. It would have been nice if they enjoyed it, but at least they are listening. Maybe someday I will listen to their show, too.

Clearly our show is not for everyone, and that's OK with me. It's not great to be on the receiving end of a public thrashing, but I suppose it is better than our first couple of years when we were generally unnoticed (and largely unheard).

We keep on doing it because there are a good number of people that seem to like what we do. Our podcast is not high gloss or tightly produced, so it is probably good that there are options out there for those that prefer that sort of thing. But we will be around for those who are looking for something more basic -- two life-long Packers fans just sitting around after a game and talking it over.

Brett Favre about to destroy your football-related memories with child-like enthusiasm

Not a completely fresh take on the Favre Soap Opera in this post from Decider Milwaukee, but I think the title of the piece says it all and I liked this excerpt:

There was a time not so long ago when Favre could have literally burned down Lambeau Field and been forgiven, but someone needs to grab him by his washed-up shoulders and tell him his childish feud with Ted Thompson is a slap in the face to every Packers’ fan who’s ever supported him. At this point, we’re simply tired. Just do it and put us out of our misery, but know that those Vikings games October 5 and November 1 are already circled on our calendar in the fattest, blood-red Sharpie we could find.

A Combustive Mix

I had lunch with my friend Peter yesterday. Like me -- heck, like many of us -- Peter has a job that provides income to support his passion, and for Peter that passion is writing. He writes a weekly column for a couple of local papers, which he feeds to his blog.

Not long ago he sent me a draft of a piece he was preparing and asked my opinion. In my judgment, the best writers know who they are and explore that territory fully and rarely wander too far off that reservation. Peter has a gift for light humor and slice-of-life whimsy; I think that is his sweet spot. Yet he also feels very strongly about some political matters and sometimes they find their way into his work. This was one of those instances and I suggested that the piece might be better if they found their way out (or if the ideas in question were reworked to have the edges smoothed).

I mention this now because, just a day after lunching with the friend to whom I had offered such sage counsel, I came across a piece that makes my advice seem totally hack. This article, by political columnist John Kass, works in light family humor and somehow makes a point about Nancy Pelosi. I was awed. I suppose this is why I make my living doing something other than literary editing.

While much of our time together at lunch was spent catching up on shared experiences, we did talk about the book Peter is writing and I offered a couple of comments on a few chapters he had given me to read. Although he seemed satisfied (and perhaps even pleased) with the suggestions I made, I now wonder -- after reading Kass' triumph -- if I steered Peter in the right direction. Thank goodness he picked up the check before more deeply considering the value of the commentary I offered!

The Arrogance of Growing Older

I used to marvel at the confidence of older people. How could anyone be that sure about anything? I chalked it up to life experience -- wisdom, perhaps -- and figured that it would come together for me someday, too.

But now that I am getting older, looking 50 right in the eyes, I am having a different perspective. At least in my case, I am wondering if what seemed to be confidence is actually just laziness setting in, a sense that I know what I know and others aren't going to move me off of it. In fact, I am feeling a growing tendency toward not even trying to figure out other viewpoints because others just don't have the benefit of my half-century of experience (and, besides, it just takes too much damn energy to figure others out).

Maybe this is the root of what has come to be known as "becoming set in one's ways?"

This thought crossed my mind today while I was out doing my Brewers walk. I had been disagreeing with some of the guys on a discussion forum prior to heading out and thoughts of those arguments were still kicking around in my mind. Rather than refute what I believed (and still do believe) were weak takes and ill-formed perspectives, I moved toward an arrogant and condescending attitude: Those kids (yes, most of the players on that forum are 20+ years younger than I am) just don't get it, so why bother getting down in the dirt and wasting my time trying to straighten them out when they probably won't get it, at least until they have experienced as much as I have?

When I thought about my stance, I was appalled at my high-handed yet lazy attitude. But I also found myself in a cognitive bind: If I was to take their comments seriously, show them the respect of giving them the benefit of the doubt, trust that they come from an honest place where they would be open to debate in good-faith (rather than having no interest in giving ground and moving toward another position), then that would require me to be willing to open myself to deep examination of my own position about the issues at hand and explore the perspective of another, all with the willingness to concede my previous feelings should reason suggest otherwise.

Whew! That is not only more work than I want to do concerning issues related to sports, but it is probably more effort than I want to expend on most matters. So if that is at the core of my position on things, is that really the confidence that comes with opinions filtered through years of experience or a sign of someone that has become intellectually sluggish?

I am troubled by the implications.

I suppose I might just console myself with the notion that dismissing different viewpoints removes me from the soul-corroding strife of the snarky, ad hominem attacks common on the Interwebs. Yeah, that "above the fray" posture sounds mature...until it is exposed as mask for sloth and hubris.