Is the A Rod Suspension too much?

I am not a fan of Alex Rodriguez.  I have little sympathy for someone who has made hundreds of millions of dollars playing baseball and who, by his own admission, broke the rules.
But, I think the 162 game suspension is too much. The suspension is not truly tied to baseball's new steroid testing policies. Rodriguez has never flunked a test.  Rather, the now affirmed 162 game suspension rests within more esoteric readings of baseball's Collective Bargaining Agreement. 
While one's first impulse is "get that cheater", one has to wonder exactly what they are punishing Rodriguez for? Again, he did not fail a test which would have brought a 50 game suspension. A second failed test would have meant 100 games.  The number of the original suspension, 211 games, is not referenced in the potential penalties contained in baseball's collective bargaining agreement ("CBA").
So how was the number arrived at?  The Commissioner of Baseball's sense of an appropriate penalty.  The Commissioner's office believes it has evidence that not only was Rodriguez guilty of using banned substances and consorting with a distributor of those substances, he also actively impeded baseball's investigation.  So while Jhonny Peralta and Nelson Cruz got 50 games for consorting with the same clinic, Rodriguez gets 162.
Yes, Ryan Braun got a little more (64 games) than some of the others, but he failed a test and impugned the integrity of the test handler. 
So why does Rodriguez get hit with a suspension three times longer than others involved in the same scandal?
Could it be that Major League Baseball, while drawing some satisfaction from the lack of Hall of Fame votes for alleged steroid users, wants to try and emphatically slam the lid shut on the "steroid era" with a long high profile suspension?  Bonds and Clemens retired before baseball could hand down any discipline.  By effectively kicking Rodriguez out before he can leave on his own, MLB can say "mission accomplished" (although the political junkies among us know that phrase hasn't always worked out so well).
Or could it be that Major League Baseball wants to lend a hand to one of its glamour franchises, the New York Yankees, by giving them some payroll and soap opera relief? The suspension could allow the Yankees to move on from the A-Rod saga and rebuild their lineup (although there is the pesky matter of A-Rod's guaranteed contract for the 2015, 2016 and 2017 seasons).
So what should become of Alex Rodriguez? A-Rod says he is going to seek an injunction and pursue a lawsuit. The lawyer in me recognizes that there are millions of dollars in contractual obligations at stake.  The baseball fan in me sees little way that A-Rod, with declining bat speed and limited defensive value, will be at all effective as a 39 year old player returning in 2015 from a one year layoff. 
So settle it.  Convince A-Rod to retire but make sure he gets his money. Maybe they can structure the payments out over several years to afford the Yankees some payroll relief and A-Rod an income stream into middle age.  I am not worried about either party's finances in this situation, but a contract exists and the money needs to be addressed. It's not going away. Baseball cannot wave a magic wand and make Alex Rodriguez disappear.
But maybe, just maybe, if he gets his money, Alex Rodriguez will.

Parenting advice 101: teach them to throw left handed

I have made a few mistakes as a parent and still have time to make many more, but I already know what my biggest one is: not forcing my sons to throw left handed. 
A left handed pitcher can earn a seven figure salary well into his forties. What other skill promises that type of economic return? We send our children to school with promises of a better future with an education. We gear up to spend hundreds of thousands on college and graduate educations, but it all could be taken care with more time in the yard developing the ability to throw strikes from the left side.
And you don't even have to throw that hard. Sure, it's fun to see Aroldis Chapman hit 105 mph. on the radar gun. I love watching Clayton Kershaw throw a curve ball that looks like it will cross the plate at eye level and ends up being a called strike at the knees.  Yet, Jamie Moyer was able to pitch until he was 49 years old with a fastball that might have been respectable at my son's Little League field.
Even if you can't make it as a starting pitcher, MLB will have jobs for lefthanders requiring them to only face one batter. The Dodgers just signed J.P. Howell, an effective but somewhat nondescript left handed reliever, to a two year $11 million contract.  Jesse Orosco was a one out specialist until he was 47.
Do you still think baseball is not in love with lefthanders? Take the case of Mark Mulder. 
Mulder is a relatively young 36 years old. He just signed a one year contract with the Los Angeles Angels (I still have trouble calling them that).  When I first read the story, I remembered Mulder had some pretty good years with the Oakland A's and the St. Louis Cardinals.  I also had not heard his name in a bit.
Why? He has not pitched in the major leagues since 2008!  He has not won a game since 2006.  For the last several years he has been working as a TV analyst.  He apparently decided this winter that he still wanted to play and auditioned for two or three teams. Presumably when those teams realized he was throwing the ball with his left arm, offers materialized.  He could make up to $6 million this season.
Little League seasons are starting up all over the country. Moms and Dads will head to the backyard or the local park to play catch and get their kids ready. For me, my sons seem stuck throwing right handed. However, for many parents it is not too late: put the ball in their left hand and fabulous riches will come your way.

Bush v. Clinton: The Dodgers and the Yankees of American Politics

One thing baseball and politics have in common is that certain names, or "brands", are almost always more interesting.  A Japanese pitcher might come to the U.S. at a cost of $100 million, who might be involved? The Dodgers and the Yankees.  At the recent winter meetings one of the big topics was whether the Dodgers would trade an outfielder.  Isn't the Alex Rodriguez mess more intriguing because it involves the Yankees?
Oh, but the Red Sox and the Cardinals played in the World Series? How quaint. Now get me some Dodgers or Yankees news.
Politics is much the same. Soon we will be entering the "exploratory" phase of the 2016 presidential campaign.  Sure, there is the sitting vice president who has run twice before.  Yes, there is a Latino Senator from Florida who may make a bid, but who are we interested in? The two current name brands of U.S. politics: Clinton and Bush.
Yes, they may be back and, for the sake of our entertainment, let's hope so.  While both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are more than qualified to be President, that is not really important.  What is important is a 2016 rematch.  It's the Dodgers and Yankees in the World Series. Yes, we've seen it before, but we want more.
Some may say a 2016 Clinton-Bush election won't be a brutal battle. Bush 41 and Bill Clinton have become friends. Jeb Bush once jokingly referred to Bill Clinton as his "brother from another mother". George W. Bush cracked that his father was at Bill Clinton's bedside following heart surgery. Jeb even annoyed some Republicans by giving an award to Hillary Clinton. While the Clinton/Bush friendship has been a bipartisan and heartwarming story that has raised millions for charity, we want the rematch.
What a rematch it would be.  These families have had the White House. Like the Dodgers and the Yankees, they know the joy of winning and the agony of watching the other guys celebrate.
And let's face it, Bill Clinton has issues.  He still hasn't gotten over impeachment (hopefully he's over Monica).  Then President Obama beats Hillary in 2008 and many people blame Bill. Hillary being elected President would be verification, vindication, and validation. 
The Bushes? Well, Barbara Bush did say that the country has had enough Bushes, but have we really? Even if we have, wouldn't it be fun to come back to the White House after George W. Bush left with an approval rating in the 20s?
Think of the campaign sidebar stories. Will Bill behave himself and not act as though he is the candidate?  Will Jeb even be seen with his brother?  How many great one liners will Barbara Bush let fly?
The Dodgers and Yankees. The Bushes and the Clintons. Let's face it: we want to see it again. 

Phil Robertson is not a First Amendment Champion

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty sure stepped in duck "you know what" this week.  What is even more amazing to me is the politicians who are jumping in to defend him and criticize the A&E Network for suspending him.  Somehow our constitutional freedoms are at risk? Really?
An Illinois Republican congressional candidate actually compared Robertson to Rosa Parks.  Other than the fact that both of their names contain the letter "R", I don't see that one.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal also jumped to Robertson's defense. Granted, the Duck Dynasty folks are his constituents, but does Governor Jindal really believe that standing by Phil Robertson  will launch his campaign for the White House?  Yes, John F. Kennedy did make a well timed call to Dr. Martin Luther King in the midst of the 1960 campaign but, again, I am having trouble seeing the similarity.
Talk radio hosts have tripped over themselves trying to ratchet up this "Phil Robertson vs. the politically correct liberal elite" conflict, but again I don't see it.
Far be it from me to advise Governor Jindal or a candidate for Congress in another state, but let me suggest that Phil Robertson's plight is not going to help you get elected.  His comments were incredibly ignorant.  Attempting to defend it as an inarticulate statement of his religious beliefs doesn't help matters.  Politicians might want to actually read what he said before they run out and defend him.
But Phil Robertson certainly had a right to say it. We have heard a lot about First Amendment rights and how the A&E Network is taking away Phil Robertson's, but I think this represents an overly expansive view of this constitutional right.  Yes, he has a First Amendment right to say whatever he wants about whomever he wants.  No law can prohibit that. But A&E also has a business to run.  If one of their employees says something that hurts their brand or casts the company in a bad light, they are entitled to take action.
Is what Phil Robertson said bad for business? I don't have access to A&E's ratings demographics to know whether they think they will lose viewers or sponsors because of him. I suspect the audience for Duck Dynasty does not skew too heavily towards liberal, gay or African American viewers, but that's just my supposition.  Are they caving in to pressure from certain interest groups? Maybe.
The point is, A&E can protect its brand when employees do or say stupid things.
They can also reinstate Phil Robertson when they think that is good for business.
The First Amendment protects our free speech rights, but it does not protect us from the consequences of exercising that right. 

No, Republicans weren't "for" apartheid

The recent events in South Africa surrounding the passing of Nelson Mandela reminded me of an event from my days at Occidental College in the 1980s.
At the time, Mandela was still in prison and apartheid still ruled South Africa.  Many colleges debated the idea of "divestment": having their endowments sell off any investments in companies that did business in South Africa.  At Occidental this was a hot topic. 
The campus anti-apartheid activists planned to hold a rally in the Quad.  One night I got a call in my dorm from one of the event organizers asking me if I would speak at the rally.  I was  known as one of the active Republicans on campus (I think there were six of us). This earnest organizer assured me that they wanted to allow the "opposing viewpoint" to be heard.
I asked him if he thought that meant I was going to speak in support of apartheid? An awkward silence followed which said to me that was exactly what he thought I was going to do.  Clearly he assumed that Republicans are for apartheid, aren't they?  I agreed to speak at the rally but warned him that he would probably be disappointed.
When I was introduced as a representative of the College Republicans, I was not booed, but boy it was quiet.  I spoke in support of President Reagan's policy of "constructive engagement" i.e. using economic ties as leverage to force change in a society.  If this seems like a nutty right wing idea to my liberal friends, read President Obama's statements on the loosening of sanctions against Iran and you'll feel better about the idea if you think it came from him.
My remarks received polite applause. A professor who followed me launched into a diatribe about how we had apartheid in America when Dan Quayle could be nominated for Vice President, but not Jesse Jackson. I wanted to grab the mike back and point out that it was the Democratic nominee for President who passed over Jesse Jackson, but I resisted the temptation. Why interrupt a good diatribe against racist Republicans with facts?
But it does point out something about the history of our political parties and race.  We all know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and the post-Civil War Amendments ending slavery were pushed through Congress by Republicans.  100 years later Lyndon Johnson would not have been able to sign the Civil Rights Act if Republican votes in the House and Senate had not ensured its passage.  Yet 20 years after that, a well educated young activist and one of his professors still assumed Republicans were pro apartheid racists.
Today, 25 years after that, after Colin Powell becoming the first African American Secretary of State in a Republican Administration and Condeleeza Rice serving a Republican President as the first female African American National Security advisor and Secretary of State, we hear of "racist" (i.e. the Tea Party) elements in the Republican Party.
Why? After assuring the passage of constitutional Amendments and laws that opened the doors of access to all Americans, Republicans have not signed on to the broader expansion of the welfare state in the name of "civil rights".  Republicans have favored policies that would lead, perhaps too gradually for some, to change. Constructive engagement with South Africa was an example of that.  Rhetorical flourishes in the name of "civil rights" have not been in the Republican playbook. Branding other issues such as minimum wage or education funding, as civil rights issues have not been the Republican way. Republicans have made our arguments on policy grounds, not emotion.
That is why, even today, I think if Occidental College held a tribute to Nelson Mandela on campus, some young Republican will be getting an invitation to present the "opposing viewpoint".

The $240 million reason why Dad wanted me to play Second Base

As a kid, my Dad encouraged me to bat left handed. I learned to do it and hit from the left side all through Little League and High School.
My Dad also convinced me that I was not a shortstop or a pitcher. He made me learn to play second base. I did that all through Little League and for the better part of my high school days (apparently I got older and slower earlier than most and moved to first base my senior year).
On Friday a left handed hitting second baseman signed a 10 year $240 million contract.  Dad was 40 years ahead of his time!
I feel a kinship with Robinson Cano in that neither of us is worth $240 million.  He's probably a little closer at this point, but my goodness, a 42 year old second baseman that the Mariners will be paying $25 million...how is that going to work out?
Cano has had a solid career.  According to baseball reference.com his career averages are 24 home runs, 97 RBIs and a .309 batting average   Good, but $25 million good? 
Cano will also be moving to a hitter's graveyard in Seattle.  A text or phone call to Adrian Beltre might have spooked Cano. Beltre followed a 48 home run year in Dodger Stadium, which is not known as a hitter's park, with a 19 home run season in Seattle. Beltre's career seemed doomed even as his numbers improved slightly over the next three seasons. Ultimately, an escape to Boston followed by a free agency move Texas put Beltre back on the road that may lead to Cooperstown.
Why would the Mariners do this? Can't they look down Interstate 5 and see how well a 10 year $240 million deal is working out for the Angels?  Didn't the Tigers just hit the eject button on their $200 million deal with Prince Fielder?
The Mariners are seeking relevance. Attendance in Seattle has cratered. Safeco Field is a beautiful ballpark.  The area around the stadium is vibrant.  The team inside has been terrible. The Griffey Jr./Randy Johnson days are long gone, replaced by dwindling crowds.  Attendance in 2013 was half of what it was in 2002.
Does Robinson Cano fire up the Emerald City and put people back in the seats? That seems hard to believe. What is more likely is that a lot of Dads will be taking a cue from mine and turning their right handed hitting shortstops into left handed hitting second baseman.  

Hall of Fame

The 2014 Hall of Fame ballot went out last week.
One of the debates in the Hall of Fame voting process is the accumulation of statistics vs. domination for a short period of time. Sandy Koufax dominated, but for only 6-7 years. Nobody disputes his status in the Hall.  Last year's "missed it by that much" candidate was Craig Biggio. Biggio racked up 3000 hits in 20 seasons with the Houston Astros.  3000 hits generally assures election to the Hall, but some seem to doubt Biggio's credentials.  Accumulation rather than true dominance.
Biggio belongs in the Hall of Fame. Aside from the 3000 hits, he was a starter at three different positions and an All Star at all three of them.  Moreover, the positions were all very different: catcher, second base and the outfield.  To play any one of those spots at the major league level is something, to play them all and be an All Star is Hall of Fame stuff. 
Biggio didn't change positions because the Astros were trying to figure out ways to keep his bat in the lineup in spite of a weak glove.  He did it because it helped the ball club win. 
3000 hits, 20 years with one team and nobody alleges that any of Biggio's 3000 hits were aided by performance enhancing drugs. He belongs in the Hall.
Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux are also on the ballot. 300 game winners, multiple post season appearances, Cy Young and Silver Slugger Awards, and no allegations of PEDs.  Maddux' fastball was thrown at the speed of a good Little Leaguer late in his career, yet he was still winning games. Glavine squeaked across the 300 win finish line, so there may be some resistance in his first year on the ballot. Maddux should be a no brainer.
Short term dominance? Well, I noticed that Eric Gagne is on the ballot. The most dominant closer in baseball for three years. 84 consecutive saves before blowing one.
BUT...he went from a mediocre fastball, barely hanging on starter, to a mid 90s flamethrower in one offseason. Oh, he looked a tad bigger while doing it.  No plaque in Cooperstown for you Eric.
Then there are the names that are just fun to see again. Richie Sexson, Ray Durham and Jacque Jones. Hey, getting to the major leagues is an accomplishment.  Actually having a "career" is even more impressive, but none of these guys' names scream "all time great".  
This summer look for Biggio, Maddux and Glavin to be taking their rightful place in Cooperstown.  All time greats, all of them.