Every Rose Has Its Thorn

Junior year has been a bear to say the least. A lot has changed since my last few posts, granted they are growing even fewer in number and further in between. I've been named the Sports Editor of my school newspaper, gotten a 220 on the PSAT, decided to go into cardiology, won awards for outstanding mock trial work as an attorney, and begun to question my formerly staunch libertarianism. That being said, I am still a passionate sports fan, and though my time here grows less and less, I appreciate whoever still reads these posts. Here is a persuasive essay--forced to be in the Rogerian format--I have written for my English III class, with a few extra paragraphs split up for ease of reading, which will be followed by an opposing view by the end of the week.

“The man I marvel at is the one that’s in there day after day, and night after night, and still puts figures on the board.  I’m talking about Pete Rose.” 

--Sparky Anderson

    On August 24, 1989, then-MLB commissioner Bart Giamatti delivered an edict that would forever change the face of professional baseball: Pete Rose, manager of the Cincinnati Reds, was forever banned from the game he loved. Baseball’s hit king had been swiftly and unceremoniously dethroned. Gone were the cheers, the certain Hall of Fame induction, and his career, all, of course, for betting on his team to win the games in which it played. Though this was a clear violation of the written rules all players and managers must abide by—as supporters of the punishment often cite---a lifetime ban, especially in light of recent developments, is quite clearly too severe a penalty. The man that played the most games in league history, collected the most hits, a 1900s All-Century selection, two Gold Glove awards, three batting titles, and an MVP award, deserves better. It is time for the ban to be lifted and to release Pete Rose from his prison without bars.  

     Though Rose admittedly did break rules, it is important to note that his gambling never actually affected the outcomes of games, which was the intent behind the rule itself. The stated goal of a manager is, quite obviously, to win games. And considering the fact that Rose almost exclusively bet on the Reds, always to win, he was only providing himself another incentive to do so. There were not instances of point-shaving, spread covering, or game-throwing—such were insults to the man’s competitiveness. His goal was to win every game, every season. Further, the punishments for actually affecting games by means of PEDs, scuffing baseballs, or impeding runners—the largest of which being a 162 game ban held by Alex Rodriguez—pale in comparison to Rose’s which obviously did not affect his managing as it only further incentivized him to perform at  a high level.  "I bet on my team to win every night because I love my team, I believe in my team," Rose said in an interview with ESPN. "I did everything in my power every night to win that game.” Is that not the true meaning of competitive baseball?

     The man has been punished for supporting his team, while others have comparatively walked away unscathed for deliberately affecting games, and many have walked right into the place Rose will never be: The Hall of Fame. The most obvious symbol of Rose’s punishment, the Hall of Fame markets itself as a testament to the history of Major League Baseball. Outside of a performance-based election by either the Veteran’s Committee or the Baseball Writers’ Association of America, there are no real standards for entry. Yet, interestingly, a large majority of the proponents of Rose’s suspension act as though it is a cathedral and that he is stuck at the gates. He is, many claim, morally unfit for the honor. By violating the rules of the game, he knowingly sacrificed his chance at immortality. However, many other players of dubious character have been allowed on the ballot and have actually been enshrined in Cooperstown. 

     To name a few: Ty Cobb was a racist, Don Sutton doctored baseballs, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron used amphetamines, and John McGraw even tripped baserunners while the umpires were distracted. Goose Gossage even wrote a book about his illegal escapades. Further, the Hall already profits from his contributions to the game. There are over twenty pieces of Rose memorabilia in the Hall of Fame. Why they cannot enshrine the man who gave those pieces meaning is beyond comprehension. If the Hall truly serves to memorialize the history of the game, “Charlie Hustle,” a man who has admitted his wrongdoing and repented, deserves to be a part of it. 

     The most obvious contribution Pete Rose made to baseball was his superlative work ethic. Though some believe that by gambling he violated the central tenet of the game, that he sold baseball’s soul for personal gain, it is quite clear that he actually supported it. Rose embodied the ideal competitor. He ran to first base on walks, slid headfirst into bases, and took the competitive spirit and fire the game cherishes to an entirely new level. He never took a play off. He even took an exhibition game—the All-Star game—and turned it into a lesson on hustle, separating catcher Ray Fosse’s left shoulder in a successful effort to win the game for the National League. Winning was all that mattered. And though Rose was not the most gifted hitter, nor the best fielder, nor even the best athlete, he was the best hustler—the central dogma of the sport. Enshrining Rose, or at least lifting his ban, would represent a symbolic return to the fundamental values—grit, competiveness, hustle, and a “win at all costs” attitude—of the sport that supporters of the ban say he somehow violated. It is quite obvious that a league without Rose is a league without its soul. 

     Pete Rose is the victim of an unfortunate double standard. “…to be honest with you, I picked the wrong vice. I should have picked alcohol. I should have picked drugs or I should have picked up beating up my wife or girlfriend because if you do those three, you get a second chance,” he said in an interview. Though tactless, he might be right. Though some believe Rose deserves a ban for violating the rules of the game, such a view is misguided. By supposedly degrading the integrity of the game, Rose brought forth one of its greatest attributes—will to win honestly. He never threw a game. He never artificially boosted his performance with PEDs like Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, or Barry Bonds, all of whom are still in good standing with Major League Baseball. He never deliberately or directly affected the outcomes of games. All he did was be the 28^th greatest hitter in league history. Should he have done any of these despicable actions in place of betting on his own team, ironically, he would have a place in Cooperstown by now.  And that has to change. Let the king return to his throne. 

 

Images retrieved from: realclearsports.com, intoon.com, gifsoup.com, and
latcrossword.blogspot.com

Dodgy Moves

Before I begin, I would like to thank you for your continual support and views despite my lack of posting. This was a piece done for my school newspaper The Blueprint. 

   On December 11, 2012, the Los Angeles Dodgers ruined Major League Baseball. The ownership’s free spending attitude and overall disdain for homegrown talent has dramatically changed baseball’s landscape from one of patience, persistence, and, save for a few teams, frugality, to one where the teams who have money dominate the ones who do not. When the storied franchise signed right hander Zack Greinke to a six year deal worth nearly $150,000,000, it dramatically increased the already inflated value of good pitching to a record high. 

     From a business perspective, such a move is crucial to establishing credibility to an ownership group lacking experience. Signing Greinke gives the impression that the team now has two top of the rotation starters, the other being Clayton Kershaw, and will generate more revenue for a team in dire need of it. While the Dodgers shocked the league by accepting the brunt of some of the most disgusting contracts in baseball history in a trade with the Red Sox, giving such a large contract to such an average player signified the final blow to the baseball establishment. Maybe I’m overreacting. It’s a distinct possibility when sports are involved. The Dodgers merely took advantage of their large market surroundings and played to their strength-money, and to an extent that’s true, but the team’s blatant disregard for the salary cap and ensuing luxury tax sent a message-that mere fines are no deterrent, and championships can and will be bought in the near future, and that parity as we know it is dead. Baseball doesn’t need any more organizations like the Yankees. It needs more like the Reds, Cardinals, and Athletics, teams that actually have a budget. 

     Only from a performance perspective does this deal show signs of backfiring. Besides the inevitable issue of a decline in production towards the end of the deal, Greinke will get paid $26,000,000 at age 34, it is important to note that he is hardly better than Homer Bailey. The man is talented, no doubt, but statistically, he is only slightly above average. His career ERA is 3.77, far from meriting title of ‘ace,’ or a contract worth five times the GDP of Tuvalu. He also only wins three more games, on average, than a league average, replacement level player, making his very expensive impact negligible. While Greinke had an exceptional season in 2009 that won him the AL Cy Young award, his performance as of late has shown such a feat to be unrepeatable. Furthermore, his off the field issues may prevent the right hander from having any productive years at all. He has been diagnosed with severe Social Anxiety Disorder, and putting him in the spot light of Los Angeles is unfortunately a disaster waiting to happen.  

     Greinke’s contract exposes a growing problem in baseball. The decision to sign a league average pitcher to the richest contract at his position in history is absurd in principle, but in terms of simple economics, justifiable. There is always a large demand for quality pitching, but this year, there were very few pitchers who fit the profile. High scarcity and even higher demand makes for dramatically inflated prices, regardless of how much the item in question, in this case starting pitching, is actually worth. The fact that the Dodgers were willing to put themselves far into the luxury tax to have an average pitcher creates a bubble that will never burst-just get bigger, unless something is done to change it. Maybe I’m overreacting. But I do not find it fair. Something has to be done, one option being a ‘harder’ salary cap and a more harsh system of fines and draft pick compensations. However, December 11, 2012 will forever be known as the day that the Los Angeles Dodgers ruined baseball.  

Image Retrieved From: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NLW-LAD-Insignia.png

The Game of Politics

     Throughout this election season, we have seen too many endorsements by celebrities in an attempt to bring the brains and/or beauty to the candidate’s ticket, using fame rather than facts for political gain. But who brings the brawn to the ticket? Whose endorsement will, in all honesty, draw men to a ticket? Athletes may let their play do the talking; however, they are often unafraid to voice their opinions with their money and platforms.

     Recently, two of the most influential people in the NFL, Broncos Vice President and legendary quarterback John Elway and New York Jets owner Woody Johnson have come out in support of Mitt Romney, both donating to his cause. Romney, interestingly, is named after a 1920s football player, perhaps that is why he has a lead over Barack Obama in NFL-related fundraising and donations! Among NFL owners, the Republican challenger and his party receive roughly 58% of all NFL political donations, most of it coming from Houston Texans owner Robert McNair Sr., the aforementioned Johnson, and the Chargers’ Alex Spanos. Among supporters of the President is Steelers Owner Dan Rooney. Rooney was actually an ardent conservative, until he, true to devious Steelers form, was offered a position as the Ambassador to Ireland-suddenly prompting a massive, Romney-esque, shift across the political spectrum. Among players however, it is important to note that the incumbent has an advantage. Despite that, many of the most talented players in the league have come out to support the GOP. Quarterback Tom Brady is believed to sympathize with the political right, and his rival, Peyton Manning, has actually donated to Republicans running for office in the past and may continue to do so. However, while the GOP, true to the stereotype, receives most of their football donations from the uber-rich, the sport leans right nonetheless.

     The NBA, on the other hand, leans farther right than any other major sports league in the United States of America. Barack Obama, who has been known to play basketball with NBA players on a court in the White House, reaps the benefit of the donations from the likes of future Hall of Famers LeBron James and Chris Paul; even playing with James midway through his term. The president also has supporters in the NBA’s administration, with commissioner David Stern among his biggest donators. Stern, despite his far-left beliefs, was surprisingly tough against the union during last year’s labor negotiations, and made waves intervening into the trade market in a way some may say Obama has with the private sector, striking down a trade sending Chris Paul to the Lakers. Obama even attended some of the US Olympic team’s games. However, among the owners, the Republican Party has received the lion’s share of contributions, though the total amount is dramatically smaller than the NFL’s. Mark Cuban, never a stranger to controversy, commented that the US was better off than it was four years ago and voted for the President in 2008, despite his admiration for conservative hero Ayn Rand. 

 

     Major League Baseball, like the NFL, leans to the right of the political spectrum. While both candidates are fans of their hometown teams, the Obama prefers the White Sox, and Romney the Red Sox, the bulk of funds the two receive are from other organizations. The Yankees, Giants, Rangers, Reds, Braves, and Tigers are all among most generous to politicians, and they all give at least 75% of their total donations to Republicans. Teams like the Cardinals and the Oakland Athletics embody the GOP ideals of doing more with less and efficiency as well. Taking low-cost yet effective teams to the playoffs despite claims of claims that ‘you didn’t build that,’ the Cardinals and Athletics give 98% and 74% of all donations to Republicans respectively. It is also interesting to note that the teams that lean right are also the teams that go deep in the playoffs, while the teams on the left, get knocked out early. 

     This election is likely to be the closest in decades. In a nation where conformity is key, one man’s, or woman’s, endorsement may be the key to victory. Neither candidate is a stranger to athletics; Romney ran the 2002 Winter Olympics and, true to form, turned a deficit into a surplus, and even held a football game between his staff and media reporters, while the President plays basketball with supporters and was photographed holding a baseball bat while talking to members of the Turkish Government. Romney heads into November 6, 2012 with the support from the NFL and MLB, and fittingly, the PGA, a league in which personal responsibility and honesty are key. Obama is popular among the ranks of the NBA, and even a Chicago ping-pong company. This election will be a turning point for the nation, and athletes are among the most popular and scrutinized supporters, but ultimately, their vote is no more important than anyone else’s, and we can only hope that they, and the citizens of the United States of America make the right choice this year.

Philosophical Differences

     In politics it has been shown that different philosophies can work. The same has been proven in baseball. In America's favorite pastime, there are those who desire to win now, and those who desire to win later. Believers in the former are usually marketable high-rollers, winning by using their unparallelled assets to simply outspend the competition. Those following the latter are usually small market teams possessing a smart front office and a revolutionary way of looking at free agents. They also keep talent in the organization by good drafting. When the Yankees reload, the Cincinnati Reds refill.

     Teams with higher salaries are usually the teams with the rings. That is undeniable. As mentioned above, they can simply outspend the competition. While the strategy of going out and signing high-profile free agents is exciting, it is very difficult to keep doing. The signings have to work well, for if they do not, then the team loses and attendance sinks, therefore limiting profits and eliminating the possibility to give a competitive offer or provide a stable, winning environment. However, the few teams that use said philosophy are very good at it. The New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, and Boston Red Sox built up a strong core with players they developed in-house, then reaped the benefits and using the newfound cash to buy championships. The Yankees had their "Core Four" in Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, and Andy Petite. They won A LOT with them. This enabled them to trade for, and later resign Alex Rodriguez to one of the largest contracts in baseball history. After first baseman Jason Giambi left in free agency, rather than using one of their developed and relatively cheap Triple-A prospects, the signed Mark Teixeira to a very large contract. A similar situation developed when catcher Jorge Posada began faltering behind the plate. Rather than use talented Jesus Montero, who was traded to the Seattle Mariners during spring training, they went out and got Russel Martin. On opening day, only three of the Yankees starters came from their farm system. A similar scenario has shown itself in Boston. Behind Theo Epstein, the Red Sox were very good at evaluating talent. They were also good at offering big contracts, as shown by their recent signings of Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford. The Red Sox won the World Series in 2004, and again in 2007, and both of those teams' key players were acquired through trades and free agency. The Philadelphia Phillies are no different. They exploded on to the MLB scene in 2008 by beating the Tampa Bay Rays to win the World Series and returning the following season, albeit losing to the New York Yankees. The front office proceeded to open up the checkbook, trading for expensive but talented veterans like pitcher Roy Halladay, and signing Cliff Lee. While they may have developed players like the injury prone Chase Utley and Ryan Howard, the impact of what they have done in free agency and trades far outweighs the impact of developed players.

     The other side of the spending spectrum contains winners as well. Penny-pinchers like the Tampa Bay Rays, Cincinnati Reds and, to an extent, the Texas Rangers are perennial "Next Year Is The Year" teams, as their star prospects always seem to take longer to get to the big leagues than necessary. The Rays were, and still are contenders with a very low salary. They developed talented players like third baseman Evan Longoria, and outfielders B.J. Upton and Carl Crawford, and still managed to win games, even if they were in the same divisions as the aforementioned Yankees and Red Sox. They have faith in their general managers and in their ability to draft well. These teams are often very efficient with costs and players. When players become stars on cost-effective teams, they either have become attached to the area, like Reds first baseman Joey Votto, or leave for bigger markets, like Crawford, but that is an obvious risk with prospects, as they can quickly become expensive luxuries and sign elsewhere, whereas a free agent is a known value and is signed to a longer deal that is generally more team-friendly in the long run, for a prospect's price goes up when an older free agent's goes down. The Cincinnati Reds, like the Rays, have consistently had one of the lower payrolls in Major League Baseball. They traded big stars like Ken Griffey Jr. and Adam Dunn, who was developed in the system, for prospects, to make room for players they drafted. Griffey Jr. made room for slugging outfielder Jay Bruce, who was drafted and developed in the Reds farm system. Then, Joey Votto, was drafted, signed, and resigned to be a career Cincinnati Red. On opening day, five of the nine starting players were drafted by the Reds. When these prospects become too expensive, as Bruce and pitcher Johnny Cueto might, there will be others waiting at the doorstep to step up. A similar situation unfolded in Texas, as the Rangers lost one of the most popular players in baseball, pitcher C.J Wilson to the Angels. Wilson was brought up by the Rangers, as were potential-laden players like Neftali Feliz and Elvis Andrus. Wilson's free agency was a hot topic, as he was very expensive but not necessarily worth the money he was demanding, so those who wanted to win now campaigned for a new deal, while others realized that a prospect like Feliz could fill the void without much of a drop in performance, if at all.

     Different teams have different philosophies. The big spenders have to win now, and their method of acquiring players or filling needs reflects that attitude. Rather than wait for prospects, teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies attack the free agent market with reckless abandon, while other teams like the Rays, Reds, and Rangers are more patient and fill their needs with players they drafted and nurtured. Both philosophies have a proven track record, as every team mentioned, save the Reds, though they may get there soon, has been to the World Series in the last five years, regardless of whether or not they got there with players they bought. Some teams choose to spend; others have to to maintain a steady fanbase and revenue source. Some teams choose to stick with their own players; others have to due to a lack of resources. The only question is, which do you prefer?

Images retrieved from: www.bleacherreport.com