So Max Kellerman was back at it this morning, offering a tepid defense of Michael Vick. Basically, I think Max subscribes to the theory that certain behavior can be excused if it is condoned within a person's local culture. he refers to it as cultrual relativism and this was my pointed critique of his view.
Cultural Relativism
Max
I am tired of you and some of Michael Vick’s defenders attempt to excuse his behavior on grounds that it is understandable, and even permissible, because of his cultural upbringing. Because number seven was raised in a community where a small group thinks it is okay to maim and torture a dog, we should look the other way and give this guy a pass?
Listen, as I explained in a recent essay, an overwhelming number of people in this country think dog fighting is bad and therefore we, as a people, have collectively decided that it is unethical to engage in such behavior. That is the standard – PERIOD! You can try to confuse and obfuscate this debate by discussing deer hunting and the pork industry, but at the end of the day, the people of this country recognize and support the idea that there is a special relationship between dog and animal. Is that standard completely consistent? Perhaps not but this standard is informed by four thousand years of social history and it is a standard that is nearly universally supported in this country
So Americans have collectively concluded that dog fighting is unethical - that is hard to challenge. But some, including yourself, Steph and Roy Jones, now want to excuse Vick, claiming that his actions were in some way defensible since they complied with a reprehensible local custom. “Poor Michael Vick, we can’t punish him – he doesn’t know any better. He grew up in a community where this is permitted so we have to be more understanding. We need to account for his upbringing. We need to cut him a little slack.” What a bunch of crap!
We should cut this guy some slack because dog fighting is somehow accepted in very small pockets of the country? And we should cut him some slack even when that accepted practice is completely at odds with this nation’s ethics? That is a bit like abolitionists looking the other way in the 1850s and saying: “you know what, these Southerners were raised on Slavery and it’s all they know. As such, we can’t assume the moral high ground and demand that Slavery be abolished.” Similarly, under this model, how can you criticize someone who grew up in the South who may have racist thoughts? After all, that is how he was raised and that is all he knows.
Excusing racism because it is engrained in some local custom is preposterous and so is excusing dog fighting because some yocals have long got-off watching dogs tear each other apart. There is simply no room to condone this behavior. You and Steph can argue all you want about hypocrisy and double standards and whether deer deserve additional protection, but at the end of the day, those arguments fail to recognize that dogs have a special place in our society. That is the case and no local custom can supplant that fact. Its time for some of Vick’s supporters to either accept this view or start cutting racists a bit more slack.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
A Salary Cap in Baseball? What About a Salary Floor?
I think most people would agree that there is something wrong in baseball when one team has a payroll of $210 million and others spend less than $30 million. It’s hard to argue that there is equity in the sport when there is a seven-fold difference in the amount that teams spend on major league talent. Ok Ok, so there is a problem. Most everyone outside of New York (and perhaps Boston) agree there is a problem but what could be done to remedy these inequities?
Well baseball tried to remedy the problem when it came up with a revenue sharing program that was intended to put some cash into the hands of the cash-challenged. Has the program sparked spending by the have-nots? I suspect in some situations it has led to some higher spending but given current payroll statistics, its pretty clear that some teams are just pocketing the revenue sharing money instead of putting it back into major league payroll. That certainly is the case in Florida where the Devil Rays had an opening day payroll of just $24 million and their brethren in Miami were spending just $30M. At those spending levels, it is unfathomable that these teams are spending their subsidies.
So what could be done to remedy this situation? Well, the knee jerk reaction is simply to limit spending by imposing a payroll cap on the top teams. But would this have the intended affect? Sure, it would reduce the ability of those in the "hundred million dollar club" to recruit, assemble and hoard expensive talent. And I guess it would increase accountability for those teams who rely on fiscal largess and expensive band-aids. But it would not address the fundamental problem in the sport. That problem is not only that the Yankees spend too much, but that the Devil Rays spend too little.
So this is my solution. The player’s union will never go for a plan where there is a spending cap. After all, why would they accept a plan that just cuts a hundred million dollars out of collective payroll spending? But what if the teams agreed to make it up on the back-end? Specifically, what if the owners proposed a cap to go along with a spending floor? In other words, what if the owners proposed to knock out a hundred million of spending at the high-end and make it up by forcing teams to boost spending on the low-end?
I was curious about the feasibility of such a proposal so I took a look at the numbers. This is basically what I found.
On opening day, MLB’s 30 clubs collectively spent roughly 2.53 billion dollars on their 25-man rosters. Seven teams spent more than $100 million (Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Angels, Mariners, White Sox and Dodgers) while seven teams spent less than $60 million (Devil Rays, Marlins, Diamondbacks, Rockies, Padres, Nationals, Pirates).
So what if you capped spending at $140 million dollars? Well, that would cost the players roughly $71 million in lost wages. If you knocked the cap down to $120 million, the forfeiture would come to $111 and a $110 million cap would lead to a loss of $136 million. So could these losses be made up elsewhere? Absoutely! If one were to impose a spending floor of $60 million, then overall payroll spending would be increased by $125 million. Moreover, a $65 million floor would lead to $163 million in additional spending while a $70 million dollar floor would net $208 in additional spending.
So this is the Holic’s proposal. It would be pretty hard to force every team to spend $70 million. That may be a stretch without some tinkering with the revenue sharing program as there is probably no way that Tampa could afford such a commitment. But what about $60 million? That seems eminently fair to me and as a result of that floor, the union would be enriched by $125 million. Those additional revenues would enable a cut at the high-end. I am proposing that the new limit be $130 million. The union would lose $90 million at this point, but still be up $35 million because of the new spending floor. That seems like a decent trade-off to me.
Would this proposal help competitiveness? It certainly wouldn’t hurt as it obviously would allow (force) some teams to retain their talent and bid for the talent of others. No longer would teams be able to pocket their revenue sharing dollars while their home-grown talent walks out the door. Conversely, a $130 million dollar cap would reign in the free-spenders whose consistent success is due in large part to their financial prowess. I realize there are some problems with this proposal. One being that it might bankrupt, or at least strain some of the teams being asked to spend more dollars. That in turn might limit their ability to throw dollars at scouting and drafting – an area that has been a great equalizer for some. I also understand that sixty million may be a problem for the Florida teams and the revenue sharing program might need to be adjusted a bit to assist these economic laggards. But there is no reason why San Diego and Colorado and Arizona are currently spending so little.
So there it is – my proposal to save baseball and douse one of baseball’s most hotly debated issues.
Well baseball tried to remedy the problem when it came up with a revenue sharing program that was intended to put some cash into the hands of the cash-challenged. Has the program sparked spending by the have-nots? I suspect in some situations it has led to some higher spending but given current payroll statistics, its pretty clear that some teams are just pocketing the revenue sharing money instead of putting it back into major league payroll. That certainly is the case in Florida where the Devil Rays had an opening day payroll of just $24 million and their brethren in Miami were spending just $30M. At those spending levels, it is unfathomable that these teams are spending their subsidies.
So what could be done to remedy this situation? Well, the knee jerk reaction is simply to limit spending by imposing a payroll cap on the top teams. But would this have the intended affect? Sure, it would reduce the ability of those in the "hundred million dollar club" to recruit, assemble and hoard expensive talent. And I guess it would increase accountability for those teams who rely on fiscal largess and expensive band-aids. But it would not address the fundamental problem in the sport. That problem is not only that the Yankees spend too much, but that the Devil Rays spend too little.
So this is my solution. The player’s union will never go for a plan where there is a spending cap. After all, why would they accept a plan that just cuts a hundred million dollars out of collective payroll spending? But what if the teams agreed to make it up on the back-end? Specifically, what if the owners proposed a cap to go along with a spending floor? In other words, what if the owners proposed to knock out a hundred million of spending at the high-end and make it up by forcing teams to boost spending on the low-end?
I was curious about the feasibility of such a proposal so I took a look at the numbers. This is basically what I found.
On opening day, MLB’s 30 clubs collectively spent roughly 2.53 billion dollars on their 25-man rosters. Seven teams spent more than $100 million (Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Angels, Mariners, White Sox and Dodgers) while seven teams spent less than $60 million (Devil Rays, Marlins, Diamondbacks, Rockies, Padres, Nationals, Pirates).
So what if you capped spending at $140 million dollars? Well, that would cost the players roughly $71 million in lost wages. If you knocked the cap down to $120 million, the forfeiture would come to $111 and a $110 million cap would lead to a loss of $136 million. So could these losses be made up elsewhere? Absoutely! If one were to impose a spending floor of $60 million, then overall payroll spending would be increased by $125 million. Moreover, a $65 million floor would lead to $163 million in additional spending while a $70 million dollar floor would net $208 in additional spending.
So this is the Holic’s proposal. It would be pretty hard to force every team to spend $70 million. That may be a stretch without some tinkering with the revenue sharing program as there is probably no way that Tampa could afford such a commitment. But what about $60 million? That seems eminently fair to me and as a result of that floor, the union would be enriched by $125 million. Those additional revenues would enable a cut at the high-end. I am proposing that the new limit be $130 million. The union would lose $90 million at this point, but still be up $35 million because of the new spending floor. That seems like a decent trade-off to me.
Would this proposal help competitiveness? It certainly wouldn’t hurt as it obviously would allow (force) some teams to retain their talent and bid for the talent of others. No longer would teams be able to pocket their revenue sharing dollars while their home-grown talent walks out the door. Conversely, a $130 million dollar cap would reign in the free-spenders whose consistent success is due in large part to their financial prowess. I realize there are some problems with this proposal. One being that it might bankrupt, or at least strain some of the teams being asked to spend more dollars. That in turn might limit their ability to throw dollars at scouting and drafting – an area that has been a great equalizer for some. I also understand that sixty million may be a problem for the Florida teams and the revenue sharing program might need to be adjusted a bit to assist these economic laggards. But there is no reason why San Diego and Colorado and Arizona are currently spending so little.
So there it is – my proposal to save baseball and douse one of baseball’s most hotly debated issues.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Santana in Sox?
So you want to get a Twins fan exercised? Just go ask him about Johan Sanatana and what the left-hander might fetch in a trade this off-season. This issue gained some attention that other day when Buster Olney penned a piece for ESPN.com and based on his reporting, Buster feels that Santana could net four or five players, presumably a couple already big-league tested and a couple top prospects. Well, this seems a bit rich to me but it got me thinking about my Sox and what they could do to snag Johan.
So what about this proposition: Coco Crisp, Jon Lester and Kevin Youkilis. In Coco Crisp, the Twins would be getting a great defensive center-fielder to replace Tori Hunter when he walks after the season. Now Crisp’s numbers have hardly been scintillating in Boston but he is hitting .273, he will wind up with 25 steals and his OBP since the break is .370. He has the makings of a decent leadoff guy and he is under contract thru 2010 at relatively reasonable prices – about 10.5M over the next two years and an 8M option for 2010. The Twins could do much worse than to replace Hunter with Crisp.
With Lester, the Twins would be getting a 23 year-old lefty who has shown glimpses but probably has a ceiling that is lower than previously thought. It’s a bit hard to tell what to make of Lester since he was pitching with cancer last year but he is still pretty well-regarded throughout baseball and he is under control for five more years.
In Youkilis, the Twins would finally be filling a hole at third base that has been a black hole since Corey Koskie hit lotto in 2001. The Twins have tried guys like Brent Gates, Nick Punto and Tony Batista over there and I am sure they would love to have a little more production from that position. Now I am not a huge fan of Youkilis, but he can catch, he can hit .280 with perhaps a slight upwards bias, and he has fifteen home run power. Plus, he is still three years away from free-agency.
So if the Twins made this deal, they would go into 08 with Crisp in center, Youkilis at third, Mauer behind the dish, Cuddy in right, Morneau at first, maybe Kubel in left, Bartlett at short and maybe Casilla at second. The staff would be composed of Garza, Lester, Slowey, Bonser, Baker and perhaps Francisco Liriano. Plus, assuming they don’t plan on materially increasing their payroll, they still would have some of Hunter’s 12M dollars and all of Johan’s 10M dollars to sprinkle around on Morneau, a platoon type in left, a second baseman and/or a DH. Granted, Youkilis and Crisp will eat up some of this money but there should be some money there for the Twins to bring in a few mid-priced free agents. I don't think that is all that bad a team. In fact, if Liriano comes back, I think it could be better than this year's team.
While the above lineup might not sound like a championship club, what is the alternative? Short of dealing Santana, the Twins will go into 08 with a huge hole at third, a huge hole in center, a problem at second, a ballooning contract at first, a closer coming up on free agency and just Hunter’s 12M to pay for it all? Yes Santana is great, but the Twins have to find a way to fill some of these gaps and I don't see it happening without them trading Johan or boosting the payroll by ten million dollars (from 70 to 80). Seemingly, the answers do not lie within as the Twins system is hardly stocked with everyday regulars who are ready to step up. In that vein, doesn’t the Sox deal seem attractive?
My gut tells me Twins fans don’t see it this way. They think that the Twins could recover much more talent for the best left-hander in baseball. I’m not so sure that is the case despite what Buster may think. I mean, do you think the Yankees will give up Melky and Chamberlin for Santana? What about the Angles? Do you think Bill Stoneman will ever part with anything? And the Mets? Would they be willing to deal Milledge and a couple pitching prospects, assuming they exist, for Johan? I think the Mets might be the Twins best hope although I am not sure a Mets package will be much better that the Sox package I proposed earlier.
Perhaps the best thing for the Twins to do is just suck it up and go for it next year. Boost the short-term payroll, sign Kenny Lofton to play center, pick up Mark Lorreta to play second, give Justin his money and hope Nick Punto can hold down third until the trade deadline. Oh yeah, pray Liriano comes back and throws bullets. I am of the mind that the Twins are unlikely to do too much better than what I proposed and if that’s not enough, they might as well just go the 1997 Florida route, boost the short-term payroll and shoot for the moon in 08.
So what about this proposition: Coco Crisp, Jon Lester and Kevin Youkilis. In Coco Crisp, the Twins would be getting a great defensive center-fielder to replace Tori Hunter when he walks after the season. Now Crisp’s numbers have hardly been scintillating in Boston but he is hitting .273, he will wind up with 25 steals and his OBP since the break is .370. He has the makings of a decent leadoff guy and he is under contract thru 2010 at relatively reasonable prices – about 10.5M over the next two years and an 8M option for 2010. The Twins could do much worse than to replace Hunter with Crisp.
With Lester, the Twins would be getting a 23 year-old lefty who has shown glimpses but probably has a ceiling that is lower than previously thought. It’s a bit hard to tell what to make of Lester since he was pitching with cancer last year but he is still pretty well-regarded throughout baseball and he is under control for five more years.
In Youkilis, the Twins would finally be filling a hole at third base that has been a black hole since Corey Koskie hit lotto in 2001. The Twins have tried guys like Brent Gates, Nick Punto and Tony Batista over there and I am sure they would love to have a little more production from that position. Now I am not a huge fan of Youkilis, but he can catch, he can hit .280 with perhaps a slight upwards bias, and he has fifteen home run power. Plus, he is still three years away from free-agency.
So if the Twins made this deal, they would go into 08 with Crisp in center, Youkilis at third, Mauer behind the dish, Cuddy in right, Morneau at first, maybe Kubel in left, Bartlett at short and maybe Casilla at second. The staff would be composed of Garza, Lester, Slowey, Bonser, Baker and perhaps Francisco Liriano. Plus, assuming they don’t plan on materially increasing their payroll, they still would have some of Hunter’s 12M dollars and all of Johan’s 10M dollars to sprinkle around on Morneau, a platoon type in left, a second baseman and/or a DH. Granted, Youkilis and Crisp will eat up some of this money but there should be some money there for the Twins to bring in a few mid-priced free agents. I don't think that is all that bad a team. In fact, if Liriano comes back, I think it could be better than this year's team.
While the above lineup might not sound like a championship club, what is the alternative? Short of dealing Santana, the Twins will go into 08 with a huge hole at third, a huge hole in center, a problem at second, a ballooning contract at first, a closer coming up on free agency and just Hunter’s 12M to pay for it all? Yes Santana is great, but the Twins have to find a way to fill some of these gaps and I don't see it happening without them trading Johan or boosting the payroll by ten million dollars (from 70 to 80). Seemingly, the answers do not lie within as the Twins system is hardly stocked with everyday regulars who are ready to step up. In that vein, doesn’t the Sox deal seem attractive?
My gut tells me Twins fans don’t see it this way. They think that the Twins could recover much more talent for the best left-hander in baseball. I’m not so sure that is the case despite what Buster may think. I mean, do you think the Yankees will give up Melky and Chamberlin for Santana? What about the Angles? Do you think Bill Stoneman will ever part with anything? And the Mets? Would they be willing to deal Milledge and a couple pitching prospects, assuming they exist, for Johan? I think the Mets might be the Twins best hope although I am not sure a Mets package will be much better that the Sox package I proposed earlier.
Perhaps the best thing for the Twins to do is just suck it up and go for it next year. Boost the short-term payroll, sign Kenny Lofton to play center, pick up Mark Lorreta to play second, give Justin his money and hope Nick Punto can hold down third until the trade deadline. Oh yeah, pray Liriano comes back and throws bullets. I am of the mind that the Twins are unlikely to do too much better than what I proposed and if that’s not enough, they might as well just go the 1997 Florida route, boost the short-term payroll and shoot for the moon in 08.
Max Kellerman and Dog Fighting
So in recent weeks, Max Kellerman of ESPN radio has been belaboring the following point. His view is that dog fighting is "bad" but it is hypocritical for people to claim it is "morally reprehensible" and also support the pork industry. His view - pigs are a higher life-form than dogs and therefore it is hypocritical for humans to support the torture and slaughter of pigs while maintaining that dog fighting is immoral. I called in this morning to offer a rebuttal and what follows is a more exhaustive follow-up . . . ..
Max
I’d like to expand upon the point I made this morning . . . .First, I find dog fighting to be morally reprehensible. Second, I also eat plenty of pork. Third, I don’t find these positions at odds and I certainly don’t think I am being hypocritical. And this is the crux of my argument
The relationship between man and dog goes back at least 4000 years when man brought the wolf in from the wild and domesticated it. As such, there is now a “social contract” between man and dog. We brought dogs into our lives to hunt, to protect, to herd, to retrieve, to aid in transport, and most importantly, to be our companions. And over the years, man and dog have developed a special relationship that is built on trust and loyalty and love. In exchange, we have a duty, in fact an obligation, to protect these animals. It’s basically an iron-clad contract that reveals itself in both western ethics and the law of this land. Period. You know why we don’t have laws against pig fighting or seal fighting or hawk fighting? It’s because man doesn’t have a contract with those groups. That is not the case with dogs who have a long-lasting and contractually-protected bond with humans.
So on to your argument. You claim that it is hypocritical for me to claim dog fighting is a moral outrage yet also passively support the pork industry. And why is this? Well, according to you, it’s because pigs are smarter than dogs and therefore they deserve at least the same protections. Well, I obviously disagree. First of all, I don’t necessarily agree that pigs are smarter but that is neither here nor there. Second, I define morality differently than you. In this instance, I find dog fighting to be immoral because it breaks the social contract that man has with dog. In my book, it is immoral to break a contract, regardless of whether it is a social contract like the one before us or a commercial contract. As such, I have no problem finding it immoral to torture dogs yet permissible to slaughter pigs. Show me the contract that pigs have with man and I might sing a different tune.
So on to Vick. Number seven’s crime is not necessarily immoral. I personally think his actions are immoral but that is neither here nor there as it’s not for me to export my morals into this discussion. What is important here is that Vick’s actions are clearly in conflict with western ethical standards and the laws that flow from those standards. Western ethics, as they pertain to dogs, flow from the long history man has with canine and the social contract I discussed above. There is no ambiguity here. Simply stated – westerners have long held that it is UNETHICAL to mistreat dogs. If there wasn’t a super-majority of people who agreed with me, than perhaps we might have a debate. But that is not the case. Our ethics come from our popular and cultural beliefs and in this case, the citizenry overwhelmingly feels that dog fighting is wrong. Moreover, there is no room for cultural relativism in this debate. I don’t care where Vick was raised and what standards apply in that zip code. It simply doesn’t matter. Western ethics trump any local ordinance and claims to the contrary are simply misplaced and smack of apologism.
Max
I’d like to expand upon the point I made this morning . . . .First, I find dog fighting to be morally reprehensible. Second, I also eat plenty of pork. Third, I don’t find these positions at odds and I certainly don’t think I am being hypocritical. And this is the crux of my argument
The relationship between man and dog goes back at least 4000 years when man brought the wolf in from the wild and domesticated it. As such, there is now a “social contract” between man and dog. We brought dogs into our lives to hunt, to protect, to herd, to retrieve, to aid in transport, and most importantly, to be our companions. And over the years, man and dog have developed a special relationship that is built on trust and loyalty and love. In exchange, we have a duty, in fact an obligation, to protect these animals. It’s basically an iron-clad contract that reveals itself in both western ethics and the law of this land. Period. You know why we don’t have laws against pig fighting or seal fighting or hawk fighting? It’s because man doesn’t have a contract with those groups. That is not the case with dogs who have a long-lasting and contractually-protected bond with humans.
So on to your argument. You claim that it is hypocritical for me to claim dog fighting is a moral outrage yet also passively support the pork industry. And why is this? Well, according to you, it’s because pigs are smarter than dogs and therefore they deserve at least the same protections. Well, I obviously disagree. First of all, I don’t necessarily agree that pigs are smarter but that is neither here nor there. Second, I define morality differently than you. In this instance, I find dog fighting to be immoral because it breaks the social contract that man has with dog. In my book, it is immoral to break a contract, regardless of whether it is a social contract like the one before us or a commercial contract. As such, I have no problem finding it immoral to torture dogs yet permissible to slaughter pigs. Show me the contract that pigs have with man and I might sing a different tune.
So on to Vick. Number seven’s crime is not necessarily immoral. I personally think his actions are immoral but that is neither here nor there as it’s not for me to export my morals into this discussion. What is important here is that Vick’s actions are clearly in conflict with western ethical standards and the laws that flow from those standards. Western ethics, as they pertain to dogs, flow from the long history man has with canine and the social contract I discussed above. There is no ambiguity here. Simply stated – westerners have long held that it is UNETHICAL to mistreat dogs. If there wasn’t a super-majority of people who agreed with me, than perhaps we might have a debate. But that is not the case. Our ethics come from our popular and cultural beliefs and in this case, the citizenry overwhelmingly feels that dog fighting is wrong. Moreover, there is no room for cultural relativism in this debate. I don’t care where Vick was raised and what standards apply in that zip code. It simply doesn’t matter. Western ethics trump any local ordinance and claims to the contrary are simply misplaced and smack of apologism.
The Greek God of Walks?
Kevin Youkilis received his first taste of celebrity back in 2003 when Oakland GM Billy Beane labeled Youk as the Greek God of Walks. Well, I have a great deal of respect for Beane but in hindsight, I have to now question whether it might be more appropriate to call Youkilis the Greek God of Whiffs. For those of you haven’t noticed, Youkilis is in a terrible funk and has now whiffed in twelve consecutive games and thirty-six times since the all-star break. Moreover, he has just ten extra base hits since the break and over the past two months, Youkilis is hitting a scintillating .218. You think Youkilis and his agent will mention these numbers when they hit arbitration this winter? Making matters worse, at least in this scribe’s eye, is the fact that Youk’s on-field antics are childish, grating and completely misplaced. This is a guy who waves his arms, drops his jaw and rolls his eyes every time he takes a called strike. Watching Youkilis is like watching a guy who just lost the World Series of Poker to a miracle card on the river. The big difference? Youkilis acts that way four times a night and sometimes twice in the same at bat. It’s almost as if he thinks he is a breathing questech machine who is entitled to a strike zone the size of a shoe box. Message to Kevin: Just because you got some kind words from Billy Beane five years ago does not make you Ted Williams and it does not entitle you to call your own game. Greek God of Walks? Hardly. Greek God of Sour Faces? Now that’s more like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)