"Love on the rocks!
Ain't no surprise.
Just pour me a drink,
And I'll tell you some lies.
Ain't got nothin' to lose,
So you just sing the blues,
All the time ...
Gave you my heart!
Gave you my soul.
You left me alone here
With nothing to hold.
Yesterday's gone.
And now all I want
Is a smile ..."
-- "Love on the Rocks" by the great Neil Diamond. You want to know what's wrong with "American Idol" this year, I can sum it up in four words. No Neil Diamond Week. Well that, and a complete lack of compelling talent to tune in and watch on a weekly basis ...
* So here's my issue with the whole "Royals fire Trey Hillman" debacle from last week.
I don't care that Trey was shown the door. At all. I've been calling for his head since last July, at least.
No, what bugs the hell out of me, is that this wasn't done last October.
Seriously, what the hell was upper management (and by "upper management", I mean the "increasingly likely to be as qualified to be a GM as I am" Dayton Moore), what were they thinking by giving this guy a third shot to screw the proverbial pooch?
There's a reason why the Colts and Patriots have dominated the NFL the last decade. Ditto why the Lakers rule the NBA most of the time. Because those three franchises, more than any other, "get it". You ALWAYS let a guy leave a year too soon, than keep him a year too long.
The Royals don't understand this basic concept. They sign guys that are over the hill, that are useless in the long-term vision of the franchise. And expect that somehow, they'll improve on their sh*tty performance elsewhere because of a "change of scenery", or "getting more playing time".
Really? I loved Sam Mellinger's Upon Further Review post this morning, pointing out that not one, but BOTH, catchers the Royals let walk last offseason, so that they could sign Jason Kendall to a multi-year, multi-million dollar deal. Both John Buck and Miguel Olivo are outslugging Kendall, and its not even close in the comparison. (To say nothing of the fact that Jason Kendall couldn't throw out me trying to steal second base at this point, and I don't exactly have Dave Roberts-type speed on the bases).
Furthermore, while I'm glad we're 3-1 post-Trey, the real issue plaguing this team hasn't been addressed yet.
When is GMDM going to be held accountable for the trainwreck this franchise has remained since he took over?
May 30, 2006, GMDM was hired. Here's our starting lineup from that day, courtesy baseball-reference.com:
CF David DeJesus
2B Mark Grudzelanick
DH Reggie Sanders
RF Emil Brown
3B Tony Graffanino
LF Esteban German
1B Doug Mientkiewitz
SS Angel Berroa
C John Buck
Amazingly enough, that crappy lineup won 8-7 in ten innings that night against a team that would reach the ALCS that year (Oakland).
Here's your lineup from last night's 4-3 victory over Baltimore, the team with the worst record in baseball:
LF Scott Podsednik
2B Mike Aviles
RF David DeJesus
1B Billy Butler
DH Jose Guillen
3B Alberto Callaspo
CF Mitch Maier
SS Yuniesky Betancourt
C Jason Kendall
I ask any objective, impartial Royals fan to ask themselves one question: is the lineup from 5/17/2010 better than the lineup from 5/30/2006?
Four years out, and there's no marked improvement ANYWHERE in the lineup, save at first base.
We are worse at all three outfield positions. Significantly worse at shortstop and catcher. And a coin flip at DH, 3B and 2B. That's not Trey Hillman's fault. That's Dayton Moore's fault.
Furthermore, where's the help coming from this revamped minor league system? I know I've vented about this before, but Moore's first pick with us was Mike Moustakas, who is still at least a full season away, and probably two, from reaching Kansas City. Meanwhile, the guy selected right after him, started against us last night (C Matt Weiters). You think we couldn't use him at this point? The guy picked 9 slots after Moustakas, is dominating the National League right now (OF Jason Hayward). Yeah, we have NO visible need for a young stud at a corner outfield position, we're just loaded with prospects out there. Like Mitch Maier.
But look at the turnover in the lineup. We've downgraded from bad major league ballplayers to ... what? Journeymen? There's no young studs in that lineup that you can project to be here in five years, save for Butler. The talent isn't there. That's on GMDM's shoulders, squarely and exclusively.
In the end, Hillman was doomed to fail, both because he wasn't qualified for the job, and because his general manager is clueless when it comes to acquiring major league talent. I'll give GMDM credit for Gil Meche. He saw something noone else in baseball saw, and its by in large worked out for the Royals. But what other signing has? There isn't one talent acquisition, save for Meche, that can be counted as a success on GMDM's resume. And its been four years.
If you can't field at least a .500 team in four years, you don't deserve a fifth at the helm. It never fails to amaze me how smart, competent, qualified businessmen and businesswomen who run professional sports teams, can be so good at their "day job", and so utterly inept at their "hobby". Dayton Moore has as much business running a major league team right now as I do. Which is to say, none. Four years is long enough. If you can't at least field a mediocre squad after 600 plus games at the helm, it just isn't going to happen.
Its my biggest pet peeve in sports. This idea of "sticking to the process", that "we can build this from the ground up". Really? I'd argue there have been three truly spectacular rebuilding jobs in the 2000s in MLB. The Twins, the A's, and the Rays.
The Twins hit rock bottom in 1999, finishing with the major's worst record and getting no-hit twice. They won the division in 2002, and have only missed the playoffs once since (2005).
The A's hit rock bottom in 1998, finishing with the major's worst record. They won the wildcard in 2000 to set up a solid seven year run of postseason play.
The Rays were awful for a decade, before finally dumping their incompetent GM Chuck LaMar in 2006. They were in the World Series two years later.
You don't "rebuild" for the long haul anymore in sports. Either you get it right away, and show marked improvement, or you never will. Dennis Dodd of sportsline.com has noted, and for what its worth I completely agree with him, that if a school hires a new head coach, and he doesn't win a championship within five years, he never will at that school. That's just the nature of the sport now. You look at teams on the upward trajectory, such as Nebraska. They tried it the "traditional way", in terms of giving the coach a full recruiting class to get his system into place. It was a collossal failure. Two years removed from the "Sur" William Callahan era, the Huskers are a preseason top ten pick, the overwhelming favorite to win the Big XII North for a second straight year, and a darkhorse candidate to play in Glendale come January for the national championship. Two years after rock bottom, they're back.
GMDM doesn't get this. Apparently Royals management doesn't either. Either the guy you hire "gets it" and shows marked improvement virtually overnight, or it just isn't going to happen. We've got four years of ironclad evidence that Dayton Moore isn't going to get the job done. Its time to clean house. Yet again.
Until and unless the Royals change their hierarchy at the top, it doesn't matter who manages this team. I meant what I said after leaving the Red Sox game opening weekend -- until this squad gets over .500, I will not step foot inside that stadium. I'll show up and tailgate the afternoon away, as I did on Saturday. But I will NOT give this team any more money than what it costs to park. They have to earn my cash this year. And every season to follow. If more Royals fans would adopt this approach, perhaps regime change would come to One Kauffman Way faster than what it needs to.
Moving on ...
* State Senator Matt Bartle (R-Lee's Summit). Sir, I don't know you from a bum under a bridge, but your crusade against the adult entertainment industry really rubs me the wrong way. (Pun intended).
As reported in The Star on Friday morning, Senator Bartle's eight year crusade against adult entertainers passed the Senate 27-4. The bill bans full nudity at adult establishments, bans alcohol sales at adult establishments, and basically raises two gigantic middle fingers to a perfectly legal (albeit sleazy) profession that brings millions of Americans a little happiness into their lives. (And millions of dollars into the state treasury that Senator Bartle has no way to offset the loss of).
Sir, you cannot legislate morality. Or at least, you shouldn't. Bartle's comments in the article really, really anger me. Right off the bat, Senator Bartle notes that "most human beings understand that if you mix alcohol and women dancing in the nude, that's a tough combo. Bad things happen".
Really? First of all, speaking as a guy, I really don't get how mixing "alcohol and women dancing in the nude" is a "tough combo". A "pleasant combo", a "total freaking turn-on", absolutely. But a "tough combo"? What is this guy smoking, and can I have some when he's done?
Furthermore ... when was the last time there was an attack, a rape, an indecent act, a drunken brawl, any type of crime for that matter, was committed at one of these adult establishments? Have you heard of any? Because I sure as hell haven't. Senator Bartle and his misguided followers are confusing their attempt to legislate morality with being a moral cause. Its not, Senator. What you are doing is so wrong, is so over the line, that I am absolutely astonished that only four Senators from my state had the balls to oppose this heinous piece of legislation.
What Senator Bartle and his band of zealots fail to grasp, is that what works for them, can also be used against them. Let's role play here for a moment. As most of you know, I am a staunch liberal when it comes to personal freedom. A proud liberal, to be honest. I would much rather err on the side of allowing too much personal expression and liberty, than not allowing enough. As such, I tend to strongly support positions that go against my religious upbringing, and my own personal viewpoints in some cases. (Example: I am personally staunchly anti-abortion ... and yet I oppose any efforts to overturn Roe v Wade, or to limit access to the procedure. Why? Because I believe the decision of how to deal with an unplanned or abnormal pregnancy is a personal decision between a woman, her partner, and her doctor. Nowhere in that discussion should be a thought of "what does Steve think about this". Unless I'm the partner. And even then, I should be the minority party in that discussion).
So let's say the day finally arrives, where the citizens of this country, more and more waking up to the reality that organized religion is the cause of 99.99% of the world's problems, let's say the day finally arrives where the folks here say "enough is enough", and begin to demand legislation to limit the Church's influence in our daily lives. (And that day cannot arrive soon enough). What will Senator Bartle say then? Either he has to support the "will of his constituents", as he is claiming to do by backing this anti-lifestyle bill, or he has to be exposed as the fraud, phony, and hypocrite that he is, and oppose the legislation because it targets a single segment of society for extinction.
For all the conservative side of the argument's anger over the "abridging of freedom" we are allegedly suffering under in the Obama years ... what the hell is this? Its not Democrats, its not liberals, seeking to take away our right to have a good time on a Friday night. We aren't the ones seeking to limit freedom. Its folks like Senator Bartle that are.
(Its the whole argument behind the left-wing position on the war on terror, a position I happen to pretty much support. You can have freedom, or you can have security. You cannot have both. I'd rather life in fear of a terror attack, yet know that I am free to come and go as I choose, than to fall asleep at night thinking all is right in the world, yet have armed guardsmen patrolling the streets of my neighborhood).
Of course, being the fine, upstanding legislator that he is, Senator Bartle is "not seeking re-election". He's a coward of the Dennis Moore type. He rams through what he wants, a key there -- not what the people want, not what the majority wants, but what he personally wants -- he rams it through, then flees for the hills rather than stand on his beliefs and his legislation. And to think people wonder why there's such an anti-incumbent mood in this country right now. Senator Bartle is the embodiment of all that is wrong and broken with government. He's a joke. And his legislation, this un-Constitutional pile of crap, is an even bigger joke than he is.
Look it, I hate being put in the position to defend the adult entertainment industry. On one point, the Senator and I agree -- there's nothing good that happens in a strip club. I've long argued that other than military fly-overs at sporting events, there is no bigger waste of money known to man than visiting a strip club. You drop hundreds of dollars to get a rise and nothing else. (Well, except at everyone's favorite "steakhouse", then at least you get to lay on stage to give the "waitress" her tip. But even that's a total letdown -- you can smell, but not kiss / touch / play / enjoy. Total and complete waste of money).
The Senator and I agree on a few things. Adult clubs are a total waste of money, and there isn't much good that comes from visiting one. You're better off finding a toilet and just flushing your money down the drain. But, and here's what Senator Bartle apparently doesn't understand -- entering a strip club is a choice. Nobody is holding a gun to the patrons heads and demanding they enter and spend money on the entertainers. (Unless you're in Tijuana of course, then all bets are off).
Furthermore ... what in the hell is the state legislature doing debating this at all? See, this is the problem with religious conservatives as I see it. They would rather deal with an issue that doesn't exist, except in their own minds, rather than deal with the REAL issues facing the state. Its called unemployment. Its called budget deficits. Its called collapsing roads and bridges, failed public schools, sky-rocketing costs for secondary education, lack of funding to help special-needs citizens. THOSE are the issues the legislature should be dealing with. Of course, they aren't, because clearly, why actually address the budget when you can take a ruler out to measure whether someone is six feet (and a few inches) from the stage instead?
Senator Bartle can't see the tree from the forest at this point. Nor, do I believe, does he care to. Because again, he's a coward of the worst kind, because he refuses to stand for re-election and let his constituents, of which I am one, vote yay or nay on his job performance. He's a coward. I'm going to keep hammering that home. Senator Matt Bartle is a mother f*cking coward. Perhaps he and Congressman Moore can open a business together, Cowards R Us. Or Chicken Sh*t Congressmen. Because anyone who says that targeting a legitimate, for profit business for extinction, anyone who does that and justifies it by saying "This is a reasonable, rational step. It reflects where our people are, both Republican and Democrat", anyone who says that, needs his head examined.
* Congratulations to NBC, for once again proving that PTV is a better thought out, planned out, laid out network than they are. And PTV's Tuesday night anchor was "Dogs Humping". (And yes, I still believe "The Side Boob Hour" would draw a 5.5 rating / 8 share even today).
What in the hell is NBC thinking by cancelling the one flagship show they have left? In case you missed the news, "Law and Order" was cancelled by NBC this weekend. Which is a shame -- this year has been phenomenally good. What's really puzzling about this move, is that next year, "Law and Order" would have broken prime-time television's record by becoming the longest-running drama in television history. You mean NBC couldn't gin up a 6 episode closing run to draw in old viewers who abandoned the show years ago to celebrate its final record-setting season? Even if it was a truncated one?
I swear, untrained alcoholic chimps would do a better job of running NBC than the human beings that are in charge have done. The same idiots who brought you "The Jay Leno Show" five nights a week, are still in charge. That pretty much says it all.
* Speaking of television I love, it wouldn't be a post without a "Lost" thought. I thought last week's episode was neat, and I did enjoy it ... but why the hell was it aired now? This was an episode that should have aired early in the season. After the mind-blowing and game-changing episode two weeks ago, why stop and ruin the momentum building to the finale by airing an episode that yes, is heavy with answers and mythology, but does nothing to advance the story? Oh well, what's the point of complaining, there's only 3 1/2 hours of "Lost" left, and I intend to thoroughly enjoy every second of that 3 1/2 hours.
* Its NBA Draft Lottery night! The Draft Lottery never fails to humor me. Its not the same without the "Veteran of the Lottery Process", Elgin Baylor, sitting at the podium in one of those hideous late 80s/early 90s sweaters ... but the Clippers will be represented. Part of me wants the Timberwolves to win this thing, just so they can waste yet another first round pick on a point guard. But I'm really rooting for Houston to win it. Yes, longest odds possible ... but you add John Wall to that team, with Yao coming back? The Lakers might finally have a threat to their dominance!
* Finally, coming soon (as in, the next few days), I'll start soliciting ideas for when to hold the 375,001st ounce tailgate. With summer just around the corner, its time to plan the Second Annual Tribute to Alcoholism. And yes, I know last year was only 300,001. Its been a rough year. That, and I have no doubt we undercounted the ounces last summer ...
No comments:
Post a Comment