Latent (and Sometimes Not-so-Latent) Racism in Sports Media (It's Boring Title Week)

While researching (barely) a different yet-to-be-posted entry, I came across another example of something that has bothered me for some time. I watched the NFL draft last month, and while I was flipping through on Saturday, I saw Riley Cooper, the 6-3 receiver from Florida get drafted. Cooper is obviously a big target and he has good hands, but scouts have questioned his speed and quickness. If you’re a draft analyst looking for a current NFL player to use as a comparison to describe Cooper’s skillset, who would you pick? I’m not a draft analyst, so I can’t tell you off the top of my head who the best comp would be. But I can tell you who it wouldn’t be: the short but lightning quick Wes Welker. But that’s who this analyst (I can’t remember which one, but I laughed out loud when it happened) chose. What do these players have in common? Well, they’re white. That’s all.

It happens in football all the time, for sure. (Cooper was next compared to Matt Jones, another big white receiver, but Jones was a freak athlete with no hands and, it turns out, a drug problem, basically the opposite of Cooper.) But basketball is a worse offender. College basketball and NBA draft analysts refuse to compare players of one race to players of another. All season and tournament, anyone referencing Gordon Hayward’s pro potential name checked Mike Dunleavy Jr. This completely ignores huge aspects of Hayward’s game. He’s not as quick as Dunleavy, but he’s as good or better a shooter, and a much better defender. But that’s not what I’m referring to. Hayward is a fantastic athlete. Commentators all season would be surprised to see him take off and dunk with ease over taller defenders. He’s also a great rebounder, and a skilled offensive facilitator, neither of which would be used to describe Dunleavy, but all of which are extremely important when it comes to Hayward’s ability to succeed at the next level. Why isn’t he Carmelo Anthony? Good outside shooter, can post up, finish with authority, runs the floor, good rebounder. Where’s the difference, right down to the national title game appearance? In fact, the only real difference is scouts have seen his ability to guard in a man-to-man defense against high-level opposition, and they know what Hayward can do on that end, which is more than they could say about Anthony after his season in the Jim Boeheim scheme. (This is an underrated flaw in Syracuse’s philosophy, and has to hit them when Jimmy’s trying to sell recruits on being developed for the league. Anyone who goes to Syracuse will only practice and play in a defensive scheme that will be of no use to them in the NBA. It’s wasted developmental time.) Moreover, though I love Butler’s team and Hayward’s surrounding teammates, Dunleavy’s Duke teams had 5 other potential pros for the defense to worry about. Open shots were plentiful. Hayward’s efficiency should go up at the next level. (This isn’t to say he should go now, if he comes back he’d be a top-5 pick next season, but he’s a smart guy, he’ll make the best choice.) And then there’s my last measure, what I like to call the Dane Fife test. Fife was 6-4, generously. And he was one of the best perimeter defenders in the country, and routinely shut down opposing guards for the Indiana team that went to the championship game in 2002. And on that run, they played Duke, and Fife held Dunleavy to 17 points on 5-16 shooting. That’s a bit misleading, since Dunleavy was 3-8 on three pointers, and therefore 2-8 on two-point field goals. He had no interior game to punish his smaller defender, and had to play to Fife’s strength on the perimeter. If Hayward had Fife on him, he’d take him inside and punish him on the block. He’s far more versatile offensive player than the Dunleavy comparison gives him credit for being.

So why is that the default comparison? Well, they’re both white. There you go. It’s a never-ending story, really. Go to nbadraft.net and take a look at their mock-draft lottery for 2010. There are 3 white players on the board. If you check their comparable players by clicking their names, it comes back as white as an Augusta National board meeting. (That joke courtesy Rick Reilly’s Greatest Hits Ltd, all rights reserved.) We’ve covered Hayward (I'm not even going to respect the fact that along with Dunleavy, Hayward is compared to Luke Jackson, a smaller, much less athletic player with less shooting ability. But hey, he's white and within 6 inches in height! Close enough!), but what of Cole Aldrich? Surely a 6-11 shot-blocker/rebounder with the ability to run the floor and an effective offensive game would garner comparisons to players like Dale Davis, maybe? Try Joel Pryzbilla/Eric Montross. Both back to the basket centers who never flashed Aldrich’s athleticism, or offensive ability. And, of course, both white. The third white player is European, which stereotypes him differently. His name is Donatas Motiejunas and I’m not going to repeat that, but he’s a 7 ft power forward with a mostly back to the basket game, the ability to run, and shoot a little. His comparable? Andrea Bargnani, the first overall pick of the Raptors a few years ago. Also a white European. Donatas’s review goes on to say that if he works hard he may get his game to the level of Pau Gasol or Dirk Nowitzki.

That statement alone is doubly offensive; Gasol and Nowitzki are also white Europeans, but more importantly their games couldn’t be any more different. Gasol is a post-up center who makes his living in the lane, Nowitzki a forward who also happens to be one of the best outside shooters in the league. Donatas could develop into one of the NBA's best players and he still wouldn't be similar to both Dirk and Gasol, because they're not compatible! How does this make any sense to anyone? And this is a website that devotes its entire mission to comparing basketball players and projecting how they’ll perform in the NBA. It’s offensive, but I haven’t covered it all. (Sorry if you were really hoping I was done.)

There’s another side to the equation. Black players are never compared to white players. Every one of the eleven black players on the mock draft lottery I sent you to earlier is compared to a black player for reference. Now, for all I know, that’s the most accurate description for these players. I haven’t seen them play enough to be able to disprove the comparisons. But fortunately for me, they left their archives up, and last year’s draft also featured their pro comparisons. I stuck with the lottery because I didn’t want to give this site the page views they would have received from more research (and because I’m lazy.) Only one white American player was taken (Tyler Hansbrough) and true to form he was compared to Mark Madsen, another white player, despite the fact that Hansbrough is known for his relentless effort and drive and Madsen was known for dancing at Lakers championship celebrations. I’ll say this, though. Hansbrough was also compared to Eduardo Najera, who’s Hispanic. It’s a start, I suppose, and when I discovered James Harden, who’s black, compared not only to Brandon Roy but to Manu Ginobili, I thought maybe I was going to have to rewrite this whole thing. But that was the end of the breakthrough. Digging further, every other player was black but one, and every black player had a black comparable in his profile. The other non-black player was Spain’s Ricky Rubio, a player known for his ball handling, playmaking, and ability to run offense and run the fast-break. However, he can’t shoot. He really can’t shoot. Not at all. I’m confident I could beat him at a three-point contest, although I’m from Indiana so it wouldn’t really be a fair fight. Anyway. Taking into account his skills, who would be a good comparison? Derrick Rose comes to mind, although Rubio isn’t the freak athlete Rose is. Chris Paul maybe? That may be a slight on Paul’s shooting, but it’s not a bad comparison. Who’d nbadraft.net pick? Steve Nash. Steve freaking Nash. One of the best shooters, if not the best shooter, of the past ten years. Nash shot 47 percent from three point range in the playoffs, and over 90 percent from the free throw line. What’s the similarity? Well, Nash is a foreign white player (Canadian, but still.) The site also lists Jose Calderon, another Spanish point guard who shoots better than Rubio, but hey, he’s European right? They’re all the same.

As before, there’s another side to the equation. Let’s look at Stephen Curry. The website lists his best pro comparison as, and I’m not making this up, you can see it for yourselves, Mahmoud Abdul –Rauf. Seriously. Stephen Curry, a great ball handler and offensive facilitator, and more importantly one of the best college shooters of the past ten years, who went on to have a fantastic rookie season in the NBA. Abdul-Rauf’s career three-point percentage? 35 percent. Curry’s rookie season percentage? 43 percent. Abdul Rauf’s career points per game? 14.6. Curry’s rookie numbers? 17.3. It’s the same across the board, and Curry’s rebound/assist numbers (4.5/5.9 per game, respectively) are especially impressive, and easily eclipse Abdul-Rauf’s career line of 1.9/3.5. It seems to me the only real similarity between the two is their skin tone.

And, actually, you know who the perfect comparison for Steph Curry was? Steve Nash. Even I knew that at the time, although no one will believe me now, I’m sure. They’re both listed around 6-3, 180, so the physical aspects are there. Neither is lightning fast, but they’re both quick on their first step, both adept at getting into the lane, and both are amazingly quick to get their shots off, from anywhere on the floor, against any defender. And how’d the stats from last season compare?

Steve Nash

Points per game: 16.5

Assists per game: 11.0

Rebounds per game: 3.3

Steals per game: 0.2

Field Goal%: 50%

3 Point%: 43%

Free Throw%: 90%

Stephen Curry

PPG: 17.5

APG: 5.9

RPG: 4.5

SPG: 1.9

FG%: 46%

3P%: 44%

FT%: 89%

The numbers sure are similar. Nearly identical three-point and free throw percentage, while Nash’s ridiculous field goal percentage only eclipses Curry by four percent. Nash definitely plays more of a pure point position, and his assist numbers back that up. But Curry is a better defender (his 1.9 steals per game was third in the NBA) and rebounder. So their strengths are similar, and their weaknesses (if you want to call them that) offset. And if I could see the comparison when Curry was coming out of college, why couldn’t anyone else get past the idea that a black player and a white player can have similar games? In fact, I still haven't heard anyone make this comparison, even after a year of watching them play the same game. I'm just a guy who doesn't even like the NBA that much, and I can break down the obvious similarities. But if you watch draft coverage for the NFL or NBA, listen for the number of times a black player’s game is compared to a white players, and vice versa. And if it happens at all let me know, because I’d love to hear it for the first time.

(As an afterthought, why was Tim Tebow never compared to Vince Young? Everyone acted as if a big, athletic, winning, legendary college QB with delivery and release point issues who hadn’t played in a pro-style offense and made a lot of plays with his legs had never tried to make it in the NFL before. It’s too much of a stretch to imagine the differences in how the debate was framed had Vince Young been white, or Tebow black, but it’s fact that that comparison wasn’t brought up nearly enough considering the obviousness of it. Even if an analyst were to bring it up and tell me why it wasn’t true. That never happened. Why? I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.)

(Hint: it's race. Have I taught you nothing?)

A Morning of Modern Country

I came into work the other day, already in a less-than-stellar mood thanks to my newly semi-regular 7 AM start time. The morning hours would be bad enough, but that day, the musical selection was worse. I hate modern country music, so it really shouldn't have been a surprise that I hated the "Modern Country" section. At first I wasn't so concerned. I liked Nickel Creek, after all, and when they were at their peak they had videos played on CMT. Garth Brooks was always good, although I don't know how "modern" he'd be considered right now. And Tim McGraw and Alan Jackson come through for me now and again, with songs that are at the very least listenable. But the tipping point came early, with one extremely easy to hate song. (Note: I don't go into detail with the lyrics I'm talking about. If you click the links, you can take a quick look at them yourself. I promise you, it won't be too taxing or time consuming.)

Song 1- Jason Aldean, "Big Green Tractor"

http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858776734/

I actually saw this come up on the little music view screen in the Ace office as I got a radio. It wasn't promising from the start. To be honest, my dislike for this song is fairly straightforward. It's stupid. There's no intelligence to it. The guy is reveling in the fact that he has a tractor, and he wants to take his girl with him. If this were a middle-school FFA talent show, then I could see these lyrics being considered, at the most, passable. Sadly, he's a professional "musician" who's making real money with this song. Sometimes the world is a strange, sad, terrible place.

Song 2- Justin Moore, "Small Town USA"

http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/moore-justin/small-town-usa-27207.html

This was a ridiculous waste of time spent in a recording studio. If they'd propped the decaying corpse of Frank Sinatra in front of a microphone, they'd have gotten something more musically rewarding for their efforts.

(Bonus: That song was by Justin Moore, who's only had 2 singles. I had to include the lyrics of the other song, just to give you an idea of his track record.

http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/moore-justin/back-that-thing-up-25921.html

Song 3- Josh Turner, "Firecracker"

http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858695893/

Apparently the current hot country trend is finding a none-too-subtle metaphor for sex, and driving it into the ground, and Firecracker makes full use of that MO. (As did "Back That Thing Up, if you were paying attention. And even if you aren't paying attention, these songs do everything they can to beat you over the head with the "hidden" meaning, a la 50 Cent's "Candy Shop" http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858529579/ ) In that regard, maybe two of today's most similar genres are mainstream country and mainstream rap/hip-hop, a connection perhaps best exemplified by Trace Adkins characteristically mailed-in effort "Honky Tonk Badonkadonk". http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858536710/

It's not the most encouraging of fads. Nor the most creative.

Song 4- Sugarland, "It Happens"

http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858732651/ (Note: Change "flay" to "flat" when you read it, lyric transcription error)

This, really, is just terrible. It's the worst kind of bad, in that it's not only horrendous, but pretentiously so. Based on this model, the key to profundity is to throw in as many adverbs as possible, and to try and pass yourself off as an "everyperson" to dispense advice on how to view life. Yeah, it's easy to say "It Happens" when you've sold ten million records and don't have to worry about these sorts of events, for which regular people would probably go to jail. Idiots.

(While I'm writing this, I thought I'd point out another couple of distinguishing factors I've picked up on. First, the song structures. Pretty much every one follows the basic Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Chorus, Chorus setup. Apparently they do this because it's much easier to write one catchy line and beat the absolute shit out of it than to try and balance and fill out an entire song. The other characteristic is the lack of imagination when it comes to song titles. All the songs played at work were new to me, so I jotted down the string of words I felt would most easily identify the song for a later lookup. And, without fail, I hit on the title, or at least a portion of it. (For example, instead of "Firecracker", I came up with "She's a firecracker". This, I think, hits on a more underlying feature of modern country, in that it's trying to be easy to remember, easy to request when you call in, easy to find on a jukebox. But that's all it's trying to be. It's not trying for any sort of redeeming artistic meaning. In this respect, once again, it's similar to modern rap/hip-hop. I can't deny the financial sense in this, it's the same type of thinking that allows James Patterson and Dean Koontz to sell 8 million books a month. And I'm sure the artists themselves don't care too much, because they're famous now, and they'll be rich until they die. But what I'm not sure they realize (or do realize, and ignore) is that when they die, or retire, that's it. They're gone. There won't be any retrospectives talking about how much Gretchen Wilson meant to modern pop culture, or music, or even modern country music, because she doesn't mean anything. For reference, compare the media coverage and public response to the deaths of Michael Jackson and Heath Ledger to the potential response should, say, Jason Aldean's plane go down. (God forbid. I already jinxed Bernie Mac on this blog.) The country stars of today are trading longevity and legacy for easy money and a performance at the CMA's. To each their own, I suppose.)

Song 5- Tim McGraw, "Back When"

http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858525361/

This was perhaps the most disappointing, because it's Tim McGraw. Sadly, it's the worst version of Tim McGraw, the ridiculously nostalgic kind, combined with racism. What this song seems to be saying is, "Man, it sure was better way back when. People were nicer, and them Negros couldn't influence our culture, language, or hell, even our elections!! What a world that was." I hate these types of sentiments, because they're always so completely wrong, yet voiced with a tone so confident as to suggest that no one could possibly disagree. And the lyrics are terrible. How does Timmy cash his royalty checks from that Nelly song with a straight face anymore?

Song 6- Rascal Flatts, "Summer Nights"

http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858771207/

Unsurprisingly, it was Rascal Flatts that finally forced me to change the channel. There are many, many things about this song that contribute to it's absolute God-awfulness. First of all, it's Rascal Flatts. There's nothing about them that doesn't annoy me. And, to be honest, while researching this song, I learned more things about them that I hate.

Most of my hatred is reserved for the lead singer, Gary LeVox. First of all, he's 39, and he looks like this.

http://i08.bdbphotos.com/4L/65/0000224465-86468L.jpg

The list of things that offends me about that picture alone would probably be longer than this entire exercise. (I still can't decide if it's the hair, the necklace, the shirt, the fact the shirt isn't buttoned all the way up, or the fact that he's holding the microphone like a total pussy that offends me the most. But it's disgusting.)

(Bonus- Here's a picture of Nate Torrence, the guy from the Capital One commercials with David Spade. I've always thought they look alike.

http://z.about.com/d/movies/1/0/w/c/R/getsmartprempic3.jpg)

As I looked into Gary LeVox, more and more details emerged, and they all offended me on a deeply personal level. First, LeVox isn't his real name. Because nothing's more authentic and American than a vaguely French sounding stage name. But what's even more offensive than his deciding that Gary Wayne Vernon, Jr. wasn't good enough to make country music is the inspiration for his new moniker. He took it from the studio console that controlled his lead vocal-track, i.e., "Vox". Wow. What a man. So, Gary the Voice, which theoretically could be cool if it was describing a mob member played by James Caan, is actually a white, 39-year old, multimillionaire country singer who doesn't play an instrument. Actually, there's one thing in there that's not true.

He can't fucking sing. Can't do it. What he does with his voice (which, just to remind you, he thought enough of to name himself after it) produces sounds not unlike a garbage disposal running with the water off. Unless he's trying to hit a high note. When he tries to hit a high note (which, since he only goes for two notes, both through the top part of his nose, is pretty much all the time), it sounds just like a sound I heard when I was little. There was a small cat stuck in a tree outside our house. It was there all day, crying, and we couldn't figure out how to save it. My mom actually called the fire department, and they laughed her off the phone. That night, it continued to cry, until we heard a shriek, the sound of an owl taking it. That shriek is what the lead singer of Rascal Flatts sounds like, and it's all I can think about when I hear their music. (My mom called the fire department the next day, told them what had happened, and basically berated them. They seemed to feel bad.)

So, Rascal Flatts is terrible. And this song is worse. First, the lyrics are downright bad. There's nothing good about the choice of words, or the order in which they're arranged. No redeeming artistic value. Or value of any kind. But it gets worse. It's one of those songs released at the beginning of May that just begs and begs to be the "Anthem of Summer". Previous such songs that have earned my ire include "Soak Up the Sun" by Sheryl Crow, the Ataris covering "Boys of Summer" pretty much note-for-note and changing "Deadhead sticker" to "Black Flag sticker", and "All Summer Long" by Kid Rock, which ripped off an acceptable (though racist) summer song, turned it into something awful ("We were trying different things/Smoking funny things" has to be one of the best couplets this side of a Shakespearean sonnet. Who knew that "things" rhymed with "things"? And he used it in a ripped off song, no less. And it managed to squeeze in the ever-present Kid Rock scream-sing line, always accompanied by some studio distortion. (Featured here during "ALLLL SUMMER LONGGG!!!", another example is "I was off to DRINK YOU AWAYYYyyyYYY!!!" in "The Picture" with Sheryl Crow. Deep.)

But not only did it beg to be a summer song, it begged to be a song of the everyperson. This is one of the stupidest modern country conceits, exemplified by these songs (off the top of my head, I remembered the titles but had to look up the artists.

Unsurprisingly, Jason Aldean makes an appearance with "Hicktown".

http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858549353/

Craig Morgan, "Red Neck Yacht Club"

http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/morgan-craig/redneck-yacht-club-15287.html

There are more, (including previous entry "Small Town USA) but this is long enough. Suffice to say, I hate the idea of artists who are worth millions, and who would never be seen on a sandbar (outside the video shoots), trying to pass themselves off as "one of you guys", even though it's really just a calculated effort to pander to the crowds, so, for example, "Red Neck Yacht Club" will be played on boats all summer. It's pretending to celebrate the virtues of the types of people it's actively exploiting. That bothers me a lot.

So, "Summer Nights" features everything I hate about a country song, or a song in general. When I first realized that it managed to play on pretty much every one of my triggers, I wondered how it was possible that such a song was even created. And then, I found it's Wikipedia entry, which featured this line about it's origins.

"Summer Nights" was co-written by singer Gary LeVox.

And it all made sense.

Thanks for reading.

Let's Fix The Cubs

Yes, I know they're in first place. Yes, I know they've played better lately. Yes, I know that the odds of any huge, landscape-shifting deal is extraordinarily unlikely given the deadly combination of an in-flux ownership situation and a dearth of highly-regarded minor-league prospects. But this isn't a team needing a complete makeover. The core is intact from a 97-win season in 2008. The problem all year has been that the offseason strings pulled by GM Jim Hendry were the wrong strings. Trading Mark DeRosa, signing Aaron Miles and Milton Bradley. That's his offseason. (The Kerry Wood-Kevin Gregg deal has been somewhat of a wash so far.) Milton has been terrible, not only on the field, but off. It's never a good sign when even the media are tired of reporting how much of a headcase a professional athlete is. (Usually there's nothing they love more. Witness: "The T.O. Show")

So, my point is that the Cubs are so, so close to being in a position to call themselves legitimate championship contenders. But you'd have to be wearing some fairly heavy-duty Cubbie Blue glasses to suggest there aren't a few places for improvement. Let's take a look at the current first choice starting lineup.

1. Johnson/Fukudome-CF

2. Theriot-SS

3. Lee-1B

4. Ramirez-3B

5. Bradley-RF

6. Soriano-LF

7. Soto-C

8. Fonenot/Baker-2B

Soto has been injured, but is progressing, and should be back by mid-August. Lee's been a rock all season, as has Theriot. Ramirez is just getting healthy, and Soriano is starting to go on a hot streak, and his move down in the order has greatly helped balance the Cubs lineup. Based on the season's performance, there are three spots that could be improved. Let's take a look.

Center Field-The least concerning position. Kosuke Fukudome has recovered from his apparently annual June nosedive, and Reed Johnson is a gamer, a veteran player who can contribute. This isn't a real position of worry, and Kosuke probably isn't going anywhere, so the only way another player becomes an option in center is if the Cubs move Milton Bradley. Which brings us to our next, and slightly more concerning, trouble spot.

Right Field-Milton Bradley has been a disaster on all fronts. I'll never know why the Cubs sold the farm to get him, trading away Mark DeRosa being the biggest mistake. The stated reasoning was a desire to get more left-handed after watching the Dodgers right-handed pitching completely fool the Cubs en route to a sweep in the 2008 NLDS. That led to a desire to bring in a left-handed run producer. There's one giant flaw in that logic, however. Mark DeRosa hit .275 against right-handed pitching last year, with 16 homers and 64 RBI. His replacement, Bradley,

hit .312 with 12 homers and 52 RBI. He also struck out 79 times against righties (compared to DeRosa's 73) in 75 fewer at-bats. And anyone who watched the Cubs all year, including the playoffs, could have told you that the problems with the bats in the playoffs were there all season. They have a streaky offense, built around the home run. They average 5 runs a game, sure, but they get there by scoring 10 one game and 0 the next. And in the playoffs, when Soriano and Ramirez started swinging for the fences every at-bat, they collapsed. (Ironically, DeRosa's Game 1 home run was the offensive highlight of the series.)

So, instead of fixing the actual problems (which they only just recognized a month or so ago, when they fired hitting coach Gerald Perry) they switched out DeRosa for Bradley. This was the worst possible direction to go. Jim Hendry took an anchor in the clubhouse, a player who provided average to above average defensive cover at 6 positions, and a value guy ($5.5 million in 2009) and turned him into a clubhouse nightmare, a player lacking any semblance of focus (just ask him how many outs there are), a player who's average to below-average in his one position, a player who's played more than 100 games three times in his career (including last year, when he primarily DH'd for the Rangers) and a player who's never driven in more than 77 runs in a season. And he paid him $7 million this season, with even more coming the next two years. And, in an amazing turn of events, it's blown up in his face. Bradley is so bad from the left side that Lou Piniella has been forced to address questions about Bradley sticking to the right side only. What a disaster that would be. To make matters worse, three other options the Cubs should have considered have been great. Adam Dunn, Bobby Abreu, and Raul Ibanez were all available. Abreu would have been the best value, eventually signing for $5 million. He's better defensively than Bradley, is a more steady clubhouse presence, has hit .314 with 66 RBI, and with 20 steals would be leading the Cubs by a large margin. Plus, his reasonable contract would have allowed the Cubs to keep Mark DeRosa at 2nd, and by extension, keep him out of the Cardinals lineup.

Imagining this as the Cubs opening day lineup in 2009 is tough to stomach, knowing what the reality is.

1. Fukudome

2. Theriot

3. Lee

4. Ramirez

5. Abreu

6. Soriano

7. DeRosa

8. Soto

Wow. Hurts to think about, to be honest. It would have made the Cubs a much deeper team, keeping Fontenot as a bench player (which his 2009 performance suggests he's best suited for) and would have eliminated the need to sign Aaron Miles, whom the Cubs are currently paying $2.2 million to stay on an "extended rehab assignment" at AAA Iowa, where he's 13-59, and at that rate, looks to stay on the 15-day DL for about 100 days. (And, let it be known, I'm completely fine with that. He hurts the team by being on the roster. How Tony LaRussa got anything out of him I'll never know.) DeRosa also would have provided cover when Aramis Ramirez missed two months. And it would have worked on the payroll side, since the Abreu/DeRosa total ($10.5 for just 2009) is far more manageble than the Bradley/Miles combo ($9.2 for 2009, but Miles is due $2 million more in 2010, while Bradley has $23 million coming over the next two seasons.) The Cubs could have swung $1.3 million.

But anyway. That's where they went wrong. As for what they can do to fix it, well, that's a problem. It's hard to imagine them moving Bradley, because it's hard to imagine anyone wanting him. But if they could find a way, one of the three players I mentioned earlier would be a great fit. Adam Dunn. The Nationals are offloading veterans like crazy. Dunn is a huge left-handed bat that does nothing but drive in runs, he's hitting .278 with 25 homers, 73 RBI, and a hefty .405 OBP/.959 OPS. Plus, he does his best work against righties, with 20 of his homers and 50 of his RBI coming against them, to go with an OPS of 1.041. Wow. Sure, he's a butcher in the outfield, but Bradley's not exactly Clemente, and at least Dunn would make up for the runs he allows in. But, as I said, it's hard to envision Hendry giving up on Bradley, and it's hard to see the Cubs dealing for a player like Dunn with Bradley still on the roster.

Second Base-The Mike Fontenot/Jeff Baker platoon hasn't been great. Fontenot has regressed with more playing time (although his forced shift to 3rd base, thanks to Hendry's failure to acquire a backup that had actually played third base, probably had something to do with his slump) and it's too early to judge Baker, but it's hard to get excited about a 28 year-old whose previous organization gave up on in exchange for a 23 year-old single-A pitching prospect. That's what makes the DeRosa decision so tough to take, along with the sight of 2008 free agent Orlando Hudson lighting it up for the Dodgers. (For the record, the Cubs could have had Hudson/Abreu for $8.3 million in 2009, almost a million cheaper than the Miles/Bradley duo. Fantastic.) As for what's out there now, Freddy Sanchez of the Pirates would be a great get, but the asking price is steep. Orlando Cabrera may be a good fit, and would elminate the need for Aaron Miles altogether with his ability to play short and second. (Crowd cheers wildly). That would give the Cubs Baker and Fontenot on the bench (assuming neither is dealt) and add versatility there. And the red herring of spring 2008, Brian Roberts, would still be a great fit. But, if it couldn't happen then, it won't happen now.

Pitching

Here's the tough side of the equation. The Cubs, when healthy, have the best rotation in the National League. But they're never healthy. They need another reliever, maybe two, with one being left-handed. This provides cover should Sean Marshall (quietly having a great year) be forced into the rotation. With Ted Lilly out until the middle of August, the Cubs probably need to deal for two pitchers. Either one starter (a veteran number 4/5 guy, Doug Davis, Jon Garland, Zach Duke) and one reliever (lefties available include Jon Grabow, George Sherill, and Joe Beimel) or two relievers (one of the previous lefties, and another solid veteran, my dream being Chad Qualls of the Diamondbacks.) So. Having said all this, let's look at the potential moves that I would try to make as GM.

Move 1-Roy Halladay. He's fantastic, good enough to compensate for all the Cubs problems elsewhere, and getting him to the North Side means keeping him away from the rest of baseball's contenders. (Especially St. Louis and Milwauakee.) Of course, the Cubs have no chance of getting him. (Jake Peavy would also be in this category, but his injury has derailed his trade chances.)

So, moving past the pipe dream above. Any of the following moves would be a positive.

Any one of these hitters: Adam Dunn, Orlando Cabrera, Freddy Sanchez, Brian Roberts

Any one of these pitchers: Joe Beimel, George Sherill, Jon Grabow

Or, assuming the Cubs won't add a bat (and it looks unlikely), any two of these pitchers: Beimel, Sherill, Grabow, Chad Qualls, Jon Garland, Zach Duke

How likely are any of these moves? I think Hendry will trade for a lefty reliever. And considering that Beimel/Dunn, Sanchez/Grabow, and Sherill/Roberts are all combinations that play for the same team, it's easy to wonder if a package deal would be possible. Any of those combinations would make the team better, considerably so. None of them are likely. But I would almost guarantee at least one of the names I mentioned above will be a Cub before Friday. If not, that's probably okay. Just as long as they do something, I'll live with it. The only way I'd be disappointed is if they didn't try to add something.

Or if they recalled Aaron Miles. He really is terrible.

Another List

Things bothering me lately (self-indulgence to follow):

1. I like Christmas. I really do. I'm a nostalgic person. Charlie Brown and Linus, Jimmy Stewart, Ralphie and his BB gun, Bing Crosby, snow, trees, family, all of it good. Yet that stuff can quickly become quite, quite annoying if done too soon. For example, radio stations are, and have been, playing strictly Christmas music. Why? Pretty soon we won't bother having other holidays; we'll be too busy planning next Christmas to worry about Thanksgiving. Or Labor Day. Or any of the other holidays. In fact, eventually we might start sandbagging one Christmas just to make the next Christmas even better. This is all very similar to the opening scene of "Nightmare Before Christmas", where everyone gets all excited for one night celebrating Halloween, and then the next day they're back planning next year's Halloween. Now, I didn't watch the rest of the movie to see how it worked out for the stop-motion characters, but when we changed the channel it was looking fairly grim. So, my point is, can't we wait until December, at least? Please?

2. Holidays in general. Way too many. I propose we limit our holiday calendar to these choice few: New Year's Day, Mother's Day, Memorial Day, Father's Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. And, if possible, I'd add one we don't celebrate: Boxing Day, because it's British, it gives you two days off for Christmas, and allows you to sit around playing with gifts and arguing about whether Tyson in his prime beats Ali in his prime. (At least that's what I assume Boxing Day involves. And no, no he doesn't.) There. Ten holidays. A nice, round number. These are the official, government sponsored ones. Everyone gets Labor Day off if they want it. And veteran's get a paid day off for Veteran's Day, because they deserve it. Obviously Halloween, Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Flag Day, Earth Day, Let's Have a Random Holiday Day, those would still be around, but I'd have government support to ignore them if I so chose. In fact, there's only one holiday I'd get rid of altogether. See #3.

3. President's Day=ridiculous. Come on, how needy are Presidents? They all were the most famous man in the country for at least 4 years, or were assassinated, or died because they were too stubborn/dumb to wear a coat outside in January, although really, I kind of think that's the final test to see if you have even the base level of competency required to govern. Sorry, William Henry Harrison; if your judgment was so terrible you couldn't see that if it was cold and wet in January, you should either wear a coat or trim your 2-hour address, then it was probably for the best that you were only in office for 30 days. But in any case, these are 42 (43 starting this January) of the most well-known men in history, deserved (Lincoln, FDR) or completely undeserved (Franklin Pierce? Really, American voters of 1852? That's the best you could do?) as that fame may be. They are all, in varying degrees, canonized, lionized, ridiculed, studied, and debated. Their faces are on stamps and coins and mountains, their names on libraries and airports, their stories and policies covered in classrooms everywhere, and often these classrooms reside in schools named after Presidents. They really need a whole damn holiday as well?

"But Jay, it was originally a combination of Lincoln and Washington's birthdays, shouldn't they get a day?"

To you I say, first of all, how do you know my name? And second, no, no they shouldn't. Why? Because Lincoln's on the penny and the $5 bill, and Washington's on the quarter and the $1. Then you have Jefferson on the nickel and the $2 bill (and doesn't the $2 seem weirdly appropriate for TJ? It just seems like the best fit somehow.) I'd argue for FDR to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20, because if you're going to have a President on the $20 who made extremely questionable decisions about forced relocation of certain racial groups, you should pick the one who also solved the Great Depression and won World War Two. (In essence, anyway. Also, I'm not entirely sure Andrew Jackson could read.)

4. Headaches. No fun. Also, sentence fragments. Lazy.

5. Blog posts that go on too long. That's all.

Once Again

My apologies for being late with this. Well, not really, because when you think about it, apologizing for not writing is quite the presumptuous thing to do, since it's latently saying that me not writing is depriving others of something good, when really, I highly doubt anyone's emotional well-being is riding on me cranking out 7 snarky paragraphs in a semi-timely fashion. And if that is, somehow, the case, then that person has problems, because no one's emotions should be tied up in something so trivial. Which segues nicely into why I've been a bitter, bitter man over the past month.

I hate the Chicago Cubs. I hate everything about them, a hatred which has expanded to include baseball, and by extension all competitive sports. To illustrate: Isaac (my brother) told me he was cheering for the Rays, and I said I wasn't. He asked who I was cheering for, and I said no one, and that I hoped they all lost. He said that didn't seem possible, to which I responded "Well, then I'm not going to be happy." And I'm not, although the possibility of rainouts extending the World Series into November is somewhat positive for me, since at least the members of the winning team will have suffered for their success. I hate winners.

As I look back over my first blog post, I said on August 7 that the Cubs were likely to come away empty handed unless they scored runs with any sort of consistency. They were absolutely shut down in the playoffs by a very average Dodgers pitching staff. I really wish I wasn't right. It's such a burden, not being blinded by my fan's passion. I wish I could have drank from the Cubby Blue Kool-Aid like so many bloggers, fans, and writers (Not to mention ESPN) when they predicted a Cubs World Series victory. Instead, back in August, I was already talking about how it'd be more impressive if (when) they didn't win. Ah well. I now have ZERO expectations for next year. And I'll be doubting everything they do all regular season, as will many others, which will lead to a bunch of stories about how the Cubs are tired of everyone not believing in them, which will lead to stories questioning whether they can finally translate their regular season success into postseason success, which will lead to a bunch of pressure before the playoffs (though not from me, as I once again will not be sucked into the hype), which will lead to them failing again. These things are too easy to predict.

Actually, the only thing that would keep that from happening is if they change the roster, significantly. And if they get an actual manager. Lou's not the right man to win in the playoffs. At least not last year's version of Lou. Unless he reinvents himself, they're not going anywhere. So that's my post-mortem, as well as a season preview, as well as next year's post-mortem. Which gives me license to not write again until next October, really. But I'll be back before then. I think. (In fact, I know, since I have another idea, but I'm too tired/busy to write it now. Be back soon.)