Spring Training in Nuclear Winter

It's not the best time to be me as a sports fan right now. My Syracuse Orange went down to defeat in the Elite 8 of the NCAA Tournament, a profound disappointment for a team that was expected to at least make the Final Four, if not play for the national championship this Monday night. My Sabres spent much of the winter at the bottom of the Eastern Conference standings after coming into the season as a Stanley Cup contender. They finally got the wake-up call to start playing hard in mid-February, and have been the hottest team in hockey since... and with 4 games to go, they are STILL on the outside looking in as far as the playoffs go. And the worst part is that despite the clear evidence that the team's lackluster play for the majority of the season came from the fact that Lindy Ruff just cannot motivate them like he used to, this hot streak will justify keeping him on as coach for another year. So we can look forward to Buffalo again being around 13th in the standings next January.

In years past, the optimism of the new baseball season would be a good tonic for all of this... but speaking of being at the bottom of the standings, there is really no reason for optimism when all signs point to your team spending the year in the cellar. The last time I felt this down about my Mets was 2003 (ironically just as SU was winning its only national championship), because the team had crashed and burned and the wrong man (Bobby Valentine) was thrown under the bus for its failures. At least when they did end up in last place, the right man (Steve Phillips) finally lost his job, so there was the promise of things changing... which they did... after another GM and manager had to be fired following another last place finish...

Now, the problems start at the very top, with the ownership. Sued for $1 billion by the trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims, Fred Wilpon assured us all that the Mets had no ties to the century's most despised financier. And then Wilpon settled... paying millions in "phony profits" and agreeing to pay millions more to the trust. No, that was not an admission of guilt, but it may as well have been. With the franchise and owner hemorrhaging tens of millions of dollars, the Mets have had to slash payroll, sign nobody who could provide much help, and put the team in the incapable hands of manager Terry "I've Never Won More Than 85 Games" Collins and pitching coach Dan "We Play In a Gargantuan Ballpark But Still Manage to Give Up a Shit-Ton of Homers" Warthen. That this team won 77 games last year was nothing short of miraculous, all things considered, but they were capable of finishing above .500 and maybe even contending for a wild-card. Most of that was because of Jose Reyes.

But Reyes is gone now, signed with the Marlins, and the diminished payroll had us spending the offseason hearing rumors about an imminent trade of David Wright to the Phillies. Thankfully, that never materialized, but with the team unable to spend money for several years because of the Madoff settlement, there is really no reason to believe this team will contend at any point in the near future. When the "best-case scenario" provided by ESPN is that they manage to avoid losing 90 games, you know that this is a franchise in nuclear winter. Things weren't all that good the previous few years, with the back-to-back chokes of '07 and '08 and the injury-plagued '09 and '10 seasons, but the last year in Metdom have pretty much been the baseball equivalent of a mushroom cloud going up over Citi Field.

Let's look at what we're left with amidst the fallout... an offense whose 2011 leader in home runs and RBIs (Carlos Beltran) was TRADED IN JULY. That's right, no player could put up the numbers over a full season to eclipse Beltran's 15 HR and 66 RBI in 2/3 of a year. Granted, Ike Davis missed most of the season, so if the Mets get him back at his rookie year productivity, things will look better. If Wright can bounce back, if Jason Bay can finally live up to that contract he signed 2 years ago, if Lucas Duda can build upon his solid rookie year... That's a LOT of "ifs." And it still doesn't hide the fact that the most exciting offensive player in baseball is no longer in your leadoff spot.

So what did the Mets do as a solution to these offensive woes? They moved in the fences at heretofore-cavernous Citi Field. And every opposing team's hitters started licking their chops because Dan Warthen is STILL the pitching coach for the Mets. Don't get me wrong, there's a pretty decent starting rotation in place. Johan Santana looks to be back from his year-plus absence, Dillon Gee established himself as one of the good young pitchers in baseball before hitting the wall late in the season, R.A. Dickey rode his knuckleball to a 3.28 ERA, and Jonathon Niese still has potential. However, Niese suffers from poor tutelage (Warthen), Santana's a gamble as to whether he will ever be a Cy Young-worthy ace again, and Mike Pelfrey started last season as the #1 starter and 365 days later, is the 5th-starter-by-default. As in he got knocked around all spring like he did all last year, but there's nobody else who can do the job. So Big Pelf may well continue to be Big ERA until Collins hands the keys to 41-year old Miguel Batista or a rehabbed Chris Young. Top prospect Zack Wheeler, acquired for Beltran, is still at least a year away.

And then there's the bullpen... the main reason why when the Mets COULD score runs last year, they often found themselves still losing by scores of 10-9 or 9-8. The Mets' brass took the few free agent dollars they did have, and used them to lock up Frank Francisco and Jon Rauch, who traded the Blue Jays' closer job back and forth last season... because neither pitched well enough to keep it. The hope is that they will return to early-career form. Ramon Ramirez was also brought in and he has some pretty good career numbers from his time with the Giants. We keep being promised that Pedro Beato and Bobby Parnell will round into form with time... and somehow DJ Carrasco, who could not get ANYONE out last year (ERA over 6) managed to make the team again.

In short, it's UGLY. And god love Sandy Alderson, he was brought in to oversee this mess and somehow make it respectable, but when he says things like, "If the guys develop to their capacity this year, it's not a long-term proposition, it could be a lot of fun this year," you wonder if he's either praying for a miracle or is running the biggest PR scam since "Baghdad Bob" (speaking of 2003). Because there is one thing Alderson cannot change: the fact that the Mets play in the best and deepest division in baseball, the National League East. In that division, you have the Phillies who are beat up offensively but still have the best pitching in baseball and DID win 102 games last year; the Marlins who have Reyes and Hanley Ramirez and lots of young offensive talent and Ozzie Guillen managing; the Braves who were waltzing into the playoffs until the bottom dropped out last September; and the Nationals who are primed to finally post a winning season this year. What happens when you have incompetent ownership and play in a division with 4 solid teams? Ask the Baltimore Orioles... they've had to deal with this for nearly a decade now.

So what are my expectations for the 2012 Mets? I'm afraid to answer. Because they have underperformed according to my expectations 5 years in a row now. In 2007, I said that the Mets would win the NL East by 10 games... they choked. In 2008, I said the Mets would win the NL East... they choked again. In 2009, I said the Mets would win the NL Wild Card... they finished below .500. In 2010, I expected the Mets to go .500... they did not. In 2011, I expected the Mets to go .500... they did not. So does it really make any difference whether I predict 90 or 100 losses?

Having said all of this, and yes I'm really "burying the lead" here, the Mets are my team. Sure, this means I must root for them in secret while living in Philadelphia because I would otherwise put my life in danger (just ask that NY Rangers fan who got the crap beat out of him after the Winter Classic). It also means that I take online punishment from Phillies fans. But they are my team. Loyalty above all else. And as a loyal fan, I can look at the situation and see it for just how desolate it is, and yell and scream for Fred Wilpon to sell the team... and not just parts of the team at $20 million each. Incidentally, how does SNY own part of the Mets... when the METS OWN PART OF SNY? Talk about a Ponzi scheme. And don't get me started on Clear Channel CEO Bob Pittman now owning part of the team... No, I want Fred Wilpon to sell the WHOLE FRANCHISE to someone who can actually afford to make the Mets into contenders. Someone not tainted by financial scandal. Someone who is embarrassed by us being the laughing stock of baseball, and on track to have a season this year that would make us worthy of that title.

Mark Cuban, are you listening? Make Wilpon an offer he can't refuse. But bring a hazmat suit.

As Rush Goes...

As I watch the Super Tuesday results start to come in, I think it's remarkable of anyone to actually have remembered we still have primaries going on. After all, the "horse race" that is the GOP nominating process has suddenly taken a back seat to the mess created by The Leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh. Then again, with the media narrative shifting back to "Romney is inevitable" after his narrow win in Michigan, I guess we can divert our energy to talking about other things, right? Oh wait, Romney just lost Georgia...

Anyway, there's a reason I hung that tag on Limbaugh not too long ago... say what you want about him being an "entertainer", the guy's words carry a ton of power with Republican voters. When a GOP leader slams Limbaugh on some issue, Rush takes to his microphone, eviscerates said leader, and said leader usually comes crawling back and apologizing, then probably kisses Limbaugh's ring for good measure. That people like him have the power to declare who is a "real Republican" and who isn't is why I left the party. I got sick of having my identity defined for me.

So let's get to the meat and potatoes of the situation. As most people know by now, this is all about what Limbaugh said concerning Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown, who was denied a place at the House hearing on birth control (you know, the one that produced the embarrassing photo of 5 men testifying on proper women's health procedures). She mentioned that contraception is quite expensive and can set a grad student like herself back a good chunk of change, and that therefore, there should be a way to receive coverage for birth control. Now, considering this rule requiring insurers to cover birth control has actually been on the books since an EEOC ruling in 2000 (President Obama's proposed rule tweaks it, and it's really the tweaks that are the source of all the hand-wringing), I personally think that the only reason Sandra Fluke should be criticized is because she goes to Georgetown (sorry, obligatory Syracuse fan joke...)

Limbaugh stated that because she ostensibly wants other people to pay for her contraception, that means she wants people to pay for her to have sex, thus making her a "slut" and a "prostitute". When people started responding angrily to these comments, Limbaugh doubled down and said that if other people were going to pay for her contraception, they should get to watch her have sex. To say that these remarks are beyond the pale is an understatement. And we know what has followed... howls of outrage from a lot of people, many sponsors dropping Limbaugh's show, 2 affiliates so far dropping his program, and Limbaugh issuing an apology, first a statement over the weekend and then on his show yesterday.

Now the responses of some on the Left to this apology are a little ridiculous. These people compared Limbaugh's apology to that of MSNBC's Ed Schultz when he made the equally despicable remark of calling radio talk show host Laura Ingraham a "slut" last year. Because Schultz was suspended for a week and was more verbose with his apology, many considered Limbaugh's apology not good enough. I think that trying to turn this into a rhetorical apologia pissing contest is only for those who seek to get the most political advantage out of the matter (but I'll get to them later). Others have compared Limbaugh's remarks with Don Imus's "nappy-headed hos" comment that got him fired from CBS Radio in 2007. The major difference is not in the apology or the punishment, but who signs the check. In the case of Schultz and Imus, both worked for major multimedia players with lots of different assets (NBC and CBS); suspending or firing these people would not harm their "brand", so to speak; if anything, it would improve things. Limbaugh's program (and many of his affiliates) are owned by Clear Channel, a radio-only company whose biggest entertainment assets at the moment are Ryan Seacrest and... Limbaugh. The two are inseparable, especially when you consider how committed CC is to trying to construct a nationwide programming model in which "quality" national talent trumps catering to the local communities these stations are supposed to serve.

Unfortunately today, Limbaugh was at it again, criticizing an "authorette" (his word) for her book about food, and in doing so saying, "What is it with all of these young single white women, overeducated... doesn't mean intelligent." At a time when his words are going to be so closely monitored, you'd think he would try to watch what he's saying. Of course, some local hosts are giving Limbaugh cover by attacking those who have brought Limbaugh's words into the limelight. The "local" afternoon host in Syracuse, Bob Lonsberry, is just one example. I put "local" in quotes because he is actually broadcasting from Rochester, knows very little about the area, and demonstrated as much with his recent slice-and-dice of County Executive Joanie Mahoney.

This whole issue gets right to the core of two topics you often see me writing about in this blog: radio and politics. The political angle has been well-documented. The whole birth control "debate" has been seen by both sides as a ploy to distract attention from the economy, and the use of such acerbic rhetorical phrases as "war on women" does little more to help our national discourse than Limbaugh's remarks. However, considering the moves being made currently by several states' legislatures about abortion and contraception, it is a little disturbing, not to mention Rick Santorum's insistence that a president's agenda should be "based on the Bible." As someone who is pro-choice and knows about women's health issues from the large number of women I am proud to call my friends, I know the importance of the issue and why the GOP's insistence on making is an issue does nothing but harm the party and its chances in November. Ultimately we know how this ends... at the ballot box in November, people will voice whether or not the views and intents of these Republicans are bad for the country.

In the case of radio, money is the bigger issue. I believe that the marketplace will dictate whether or not things that are said will fly. I believe in the First Amendment, and ultimately, it is up to the listeners and advertisers to vote with their feet. These sponsors bailing on Limbaugh's show hurts, and at a time when Clear Channel is barely hanging onto financial viability, this cannot be good for their bottom line. And unfortunately, CC is the standard-bearer for radio as an industry. As Clear Channel reportedly covets Comcast to absorb their billions in debt and swallow them up (and Comcast is reportedly less-than-eager at this prospect), they have so much to lose from this situation. I don't quite agree with some radio pundits' views that radio is hurt from a listener standpoint over this... although they claim that people who shut off Limbaugh and talk radio are shutting off the medium itself for good, I don't think we can really make that presumption right now, and since this situation is limited to CC, you can't presume that the hit CC takes will also lead to a hit in revenue at Cumulus, CBS, Cox, and the rest. But the concerns are enough to give radio backers like myself pause, and considering that the talk radio model has been largely built on giving the most prominent voice to the loudest people in the room, you can't help but consider a possible spillover effect of protests directed at other hosts. It may turn out that as Rush Limbaugh goes, not only the GOP goes, but radio as well.