I love baseball and I love capitalism. But the two mix together like two cats in a sack.
When the Patriots won the Super Bowl, I briefly mentioned how financial parity – notably a salary cap on player payrolls and equal TV profit sharing between all 32 teams – has brought joy and hope to NFL fans everywhere. Because of parity, every NFL team has a chance to sign the same players and small market teams like Green Bay are on the same footing as big market teams like New York. Free agent players can sign with the team that offers them the best financial package (if they wish) but careful bookkeeping will assure owners that no player eats too much of the salary cap. With each club having equal share of the pot, every team has a chance of making the playoffs each year, and worst-to-first scenarios happen every year.
Not so in Major League Baseball. While there is a luxury tax in place for teams with sky-high payrolls that are supposed to be allocated to other teams, baseball is a case of haves and have-nots. If you support a team like New York, Boston, Anaheim or another team that has deep pockets from local TV contracts and other revenue sources, your team has a chance. But if you like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay or a similar team, you’re out of luck. There is no way your team will ever compete in an environment where richer teams – almost all in larger cities – have the resources to sign the best players and you don’t. And when you’re watching games that take place in Pittsburgh, Detroit and other cellar dwellers, nobody is at the game. Fans won’t come out to see a bad team, and owners won’t raise their payroll because they’re not getting cash from ticket sales, concession stands and TV ratings. It’s a vicious Catch-22.
MLB has reaped what it has sown. When I was a kid, baseball was the most popular televised sport. Now it is the fourth most popular, behind the NFL, NASCAR and basketball. Yes, people would rather watch cars drive in a circle for three hours than watch baseball. But if you live in Pittsburgh, your team stinks and ALWAYS WILL STINK, unless a rich owner buys the team or MLB changes its payroll disparity. The former will happen long before the latter.
Every year I make baseball picks because I like baseball and it’s fun. To be honest, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Every year, there’s almost no change in the final standings. Last year a book called “Moneyball” came out about the small-market, low payroll Oakland A’s, who always managed to field a competitive team thanks to their great General Manager Billy Beane. While Beane is a smart guy with a good eye for talent, I won’t subscribe to his philosophy until one of those teams wins the World Series. And last year Oakland lost their two star pitchers because they couldn’t afford them, and probably won’t make the playoffs this year because the Anaheim Angels are outspending them on player salaries.
I haven’t even talked about steroids, but baseball will ultimately weather that scandal while a few players go down in flames. The lack of a salary cap and huge financial disparity between teams is a much more serious issue that will only exacerbate in the coming years.
I’ll have my annual baseball predictions tomorrow, but here’s some information to chew on:
Largest Team Payroll: New York Yankees – $204 Million
Smallest Team Payroll: Milwaukee Brewers – $27 million
Why Baseball Teams are Facing a Big League Payroll Debt
Complete 2004 Team Payroll and Player Salaries
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Friday, March 18, 2005
Freedom of Speech - Just Watch What You Say
Another week, another contretemps over freedom of expression. As usual, this First Amendment assault is not limited to the right or left wing. While the courts almost always end up affirming free speech rights, watching both sides of extremists grapple over words they find unacceptable is painful to watch and witness.
Here in Massachusetts, Harvard President Larry Summers is under siege from students, faculty and self-appointed politically correct police because of some disparaging comments he made about women in math and science. In Washington, Republican Senator Ted Stevens made a complete fool of himself when he wanted to extend indecency standards to satellite and cable television. Both of these attacks, and these narrow-minded assaults happen all the time, share a puritan obsession of not only imposing the dissenters’ viewpoints on others, but a thin-skinned intolerance to any differing opinion. I wish I could remember who said this quote that I heard in college and never forgot: “Liberals and conservatives are all for another point of view, until someone comes up with one.”
Harvard first. Harvard has always been portrayed as a left-wing hotbed, although I never think it was more liberal than other university towns (most of Cambridge, Mass., is actually a blue-collar neighborhood). Summers made some well-documented remarks about genetics possibly being a reason why there are few women in research science. Disparaging? Perhaps. Controversial and worth investigating? Maybe. Worthy of widespread protest and a non-binding no confidence vote? No way.
A university, especially one as esteemed as Harvard, should be an exchange of ideas and a place where research and debate are encouraged. If Summers’ theory is wrong (and he prefaced his comments by hoping he was), it can then be logically disproved. But I’m surprised at the knee-jerk hostility and lingering vitriol to Summers’ comments. He was discussing science and genetics, not political or social issues where gender equality is a right in this country. And in this country, President Summers, you and I have the right to hypothesize and pontificate whatever we want without fear of reprisal.
Even if you completely disagree with his comments, there is absolutely no reason to crucify Summers with a no confidence vote. Any faculty member who voted yes is basically saying, “You’re not fit to run this university because we don’t like what you said.” This wasn’t hate speech – it was a theory (arguably based in scientific fact that there are mental differences between men and women). But when you’re dealing with a rabidly partisan liberal body that values emotion over reality and science, you’re not going to get a rational reaction. They are welcome to protest Summers without fear of punishment – just as he should be welcome to present an important subject for debate without fear as well.
As for Senator Stevens, this is another example of an extreme viewpoint – in this case the right-wing – pushing for government censorship against free speech. I’ve ranted below in this column about Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who turned his regulatory agency into a nanny state that is deciding for you what is and is not indecent. Now the Republicans, who are supposed to be for less government interference are asking why cable is unregulated. Stevens, who is from Alaska, must have hit his head on the top of his igloo. Cable is SUPPOSED to be unregulated, you dope. That’s why people pay for it. It’s a voluntary service. Even Powell said the FCC shouldn’t touch cable or satellite radio, but don’t think this is over.
You would think that having been burned by trying to regulate the Internet in the 1990s, Congress would have learned more about the First Amendment, not to mention how not to waste taxpayer dollars in court. But what both the Summers and Stevens episodes illustrate is how overzealous and hyper-emotional partisans on both sides of the political aisle want to slice free speech off at the knees and punish anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their narrow viewpoints. You may not always agree with the ACLU, but at least they don’t discriminate when it comes to upholding your right to speak your mind no matter what you may say. Free speech means free speech for everyone.
Voltaire said, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That’s what Freedom of Speech is all about. And it’s in the First Amendment as a non-partisan issue. Case closed.
Here in Massachusetts, Harvard President Larry Summers is under siege from students, faculty and self-appointed politically correct police because of some disparaging comments he made about women in math and science. In Washington, Republican Senator Ted Stevens made a complete fool of himself when he wanted to extend indecency standards to satellite and cable television. Both of these attacks, and these narrow-minded assaults happen all the time, share a puritan obsession of not only imposing the dissenters’ viewpoints on others, but a thin-skinned intolerance to any differing opinion. I wish I could remember who said this quote that I heard in college and never forgot: “Liberals and conservatives are all for another point of view, until someone comes up with one.”
Harvard first. Harvard has always been portrayed as a left-wing hotbed, although I never think it was more liberal than other university towns (most of Cambridge, Mass., is actually a blue-collar neighborhood). Summers made some well-documented remarks about genetics possibly being a reason why there are few women in research science. Disparaging? Perhaps. Controversial and worth investigating? Maybe. Worthy of widespread protest and a non-binding no confidence vote? No way.
A university, especially one as esteemed as Harvard, should be an exchange of ideas and a place where research and debate are encouraged. If Summers’ theory is wrong (and he prefaced his comments by hoping he was), it can then be logically disproved. But I’m surprised at the knee-jerk hostility and lingering vitriol to Summers’ comments. He was discussing science and genetics, not political or social issues where gender equality is a right in this country. And in this country, President Summers, you and I have the right to hypothesize and pontificate whatever we want without fear of reprisal.
Even if you completely disagree with his comments, there is absolutely no reason to crucify Summers with a no confidence vote. Any faculty member who voted yes is basically saying, “You’re not fit to run this university because we don’t like what you said.” This wasn’t hate speech – it was a theory (arguably based in scientific fact that there are mental differences between men and women). But when you’re dealing with a rabidly partisan liberal body that values emotion over reality and science, you’re not going to get a rational reaction. They are welcome to protest Summers without fear of punishment – just as he should be welcome to present an important subject for debate without fear as well.
As for Senator Stevens, this is another example of an extreme viewpoint – in this case the right-wing – pushing for government censorship against free speech. I’ve ranted below in this column about Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who turned his regulatory agency into a nanny state that is deciding for you what is and is not indecent. Now the Republicans, who are supposed to be for less government interference are asking why cable is unregulated. Stevens, who is from Alaska, must have hit his head on the top of his igloo. Cable is SUPPOSED to be unregulated, you dope. That’s why people pay for it. It’s a voluntary service. Even Powell said the FCC shouldn’t touch cable or satellite radio, but don’t think this is over.
You would think that having been burned by trying to regulate the Internet in the 1990s, Congress would have learned more about the First Amendment, not to mention how not to waste taxpayer dollars in court. But what both the Summers and Stevens episodes illustrate is how overzealous and hyper-emotional partisans on both sides of the political aisle want to slice free speech off at the knees and punish anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their narrow viewpoints. You may not always agree with the ACLU, but at least they don’t discriminate when it comes to upholding your right to speak your mind no matter what you may say. Free speech means free speech for everyone.
Voltaire said, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That’s what Freedom of Speech is all about. And it’s in the First Amendment as a non-partisan issue. Case closed.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Independent Minded vs. The Sheep
I started this blog for a few reasons. One is I have two wonderful young children who have robbed me of any social life, so I’m now online as much as the guys in my company’s web development staff on Friday nights. But the second is that I appear to be a freak of nature. I have the nerve to think Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are both full of shit. Am I all alone here?
I can’t seem to read any other blog or listen to any so-called pundit who is incapable of shilling their respective party line. Is everyone a Democratic or Republican sheep who thinks the other side is the root of all evil? I can’t tell you how many liberals I’ve met who think all the people that live in “red” states are gun-toting, wife-beating, chew-dipping yahoos that haven’t changed since the 50s – the 1850s! And there are plenty of conservatives who think the exact same way.
I have news for all you partisans: START THINKING FOR YOURSELVES. If you’re so impressionable that you parrot everything you just heard in Fahrenheit 9/11 or Fox News, DON’T WATCH IT. And show some respect for anyone who doesn’t tow the party line you’re clinging to, for God’s sake.
Here’s an example of how people latch onto partisan ideas instead of just the ideas. In 1992, a presidential candidate proposed a flat tax idea. I’d just suffered through doing my taxes myself and I thought it was a great idea. What candidate proposed this? None other than Jerry Brown, former California left-wing governor (and budget hawk). When Jerry actually started doing OK in the primaries, Republicans shouted down his flat tax as wacky. Then in 1996, Steve Forbes runs and starts plugging the flat tax. LO AND BEHOLD, the Republicans have changed their tune. And wouldn’t you know it, the Democrats are bitching about the flat tax. Did it occur that having Jerry Brown and Steve Forbes pitch the flat tax together would make truly bipartisan viewing?
In my home state of Massachusetts, it’s been fascinating to watch Governor Mitt Romney walk this tightrope of listening to his constituents and do about-faces when it comes to the national Republican party, where he clearly has higher ambitions. Romney won the election by being a typical moderate Northeast Republican governor – the same type that run or have recently run states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and New Hampshire. They’ve all been socially liberal and accepting while fiscally conservative. But while this adheres to the Northeastern and New England mindset, it’s totally out of whack with the big boys in D.C. Romney has been caught in some “contradictions,” to use a polite word, on stem cell research and other issues, which you can read about when you scroll down to some of my earlier essays.
And guess what? If Romney truly wants to run for national office, this is necessary. It doesn’t matter that he’s a Republican (or that Massachusetts has elected a Republican to the corner office since 1990). In today’s Globe, a conservative group has said Romney will never be endorsed by them because he comes from Massachusetts – a blue state. How myopic.
Anyone else think this is crazy?
I can’t seem to read any other blog or listen to any so-called pundit who is incapable of shilling their respective party line. Is everyone a Democratic or Republican sheep who thinks the other side is the root of all evil? I can’t tell you how many liberals I’ve met who think all the people that live in “red” states are gun-toting, wife-beating, chew-dipping yahoos that haven’t changed since the 50s – the 1850s! And there are plenty of conservatives who think the exact same way.
I have news for all you partisans: START THINKING FOR YOURSELVES. If you’re so impressionable that you parrot everything you just heard in Fahrenheit 9/11 or Fox News, DON’T WATCH IT. And show some respect for anyone who doesn’t tow the party line you’re clinging to, for God’s sake.
Here’s an example of how people latch onto partisan ideas instead of just the ideas. In 1992, a presidential candidate proposed a flat tax idea. I’d just suffered through doing my taxes myself and I thought it was a great idea. What candidate proposed this? None other than Jerry Brown, former California left-wing governor (and budget hawk). When Jerry actually started doing OK in the primaries, Republicans shouted down his flat tax as wacky. Then in 1996, Steve Forbes runs and starts plugging the flat tax. LO AND BEHOLD, the Republicans have changed their tune. And wouldn’t you know it, the Democrats are bitching about the flat tax. Did it occur that having Jerry Brown and Steve Forbes pitch the flat tax together would make truly bipartisan viewing?
In my home state of Massachusetts, it’s been fascinating to watch Governor Mitt Romney walk this tightrope of listening to his constituents and do about-faces when it comes to the national Republican party, where he clearly has higher ambitions. Romney won the election by being a typical moderate Northeast Republican governor – the same type that run or have recently run states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and New Hampshire. They’ve all been socially liberal and accepting while fiscally conservative. But while this adheres to the Northeastern and New England mindset, it’s totally out of whack with the big boys in D.C. Romney has been caught in some “contradictions,” to use a polite word, on stem cell research and other issues, which you can read about when you scroll down to some of my earlier essays.
And guess what? If Romney truly wants to run for national office, this is necessary. It doesn’t matter that he’s a Republican (or that Massachusetts has elected a Republican to the corner office since 1990). In today’s Globe, a conservative group has said Romney will never be endorsed by them because he comes from Massachusetts – a blue state. How myopic.
Anyone else think this is crazy?
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Democracy Rising in the Middle East
It's nice to be correct. Scan down to my January 28 column ("A Great Day for Iraq") and you'll see how I believed that the war in Iraq was correct because a democratic Iraq could be the catalyst for democracy throughout the Middle East. And when Middle Eastern people see they have the power to change their government, they're less likely to get corrupted by radical Islamis and try to change their own system.
The successful Iraqi election has done just that -- a slow but steady toppling of dominoes that has already caused ripples of democracy across the region.
First, the Palestinians democratically elect a leader who is truly committed to the peace process and neutralizing terrorist organizations. Then Egypt allows opposition leaders to run for the first time in modern history. And now, demonstrators have brought down Syria's puppet government in Lebanon after former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated.
A quick aside about Hariri: He was also a former trustee of my alma mater, Boston University. President Hariri was a decent man who started a scholarship fund that helped thousands of Lebanese students receive a BU education, and also helped finance a new business school that BU desperately needed. He understood the importance of attracting business and investment to his country that was necessary in reconstruction. And he also knew Syria was another Baathist dictatorship whose occupation of his country destroyed the infrastructure and economy of his once-vibrant nation.
What's happening here? Arab leaders across the board have seen the writing on the wall. People are not only willing and able to vote, but also rejecting terrorists in their midst by doing so. The Middle East won't fall overnight like Eastern Europe did, but we are starting to see real change here. And, like it or not, it was all made possible by toppling Saddam Hussein.
The successful Iraqi election has done just that -- a slow but steady toppling of dominoes that has already caused ripples of democracy across the region.
First, the Palestinians democratically elect a leader who is truly committed to the peace process and neutralizing terrorist organizations. Then Egypt allows opposition leaders to run for the first time in modern history. And now, demonstrators have brought down Syria's puppet government in Lebanon after former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated.
A quick aside about Hariri: He was also a former trustee of my alma mater, Boston University. President Hariri was a decent man who started a scholarship fund that helped thousands of Lebanese students receive a BU education, and also helped finance a new business school that BU desperately needed. He understood the importance of attracting business and investment to his country that was necessary in reconstruction. And he also knew Syria was another Baathist dictatorship whose occupation of his country destroyed the infrastructure and economy of his once-vibrant nation.
What's happening here? Arab leaders across the board have seen the writing on the wall. People are not only willing and able to vote, but also rejecting terrorists in their midst by doing so. The Middle East won't fall overnight like Eastern Europe did, but we are starting to see real change here. And, like it or not, it was all made possible by toppling Saddam Hussein.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)