Bargain Shopping

As Jason Stark reports on ESPN.com, there’s still a glut of unsigned, experienced free agents looking for work.  And this close to Spring Training you can bet at least a few great deals will emerge.  The erstwhile-Braves GM John Schuerholz used to love making low-risk, high-reward bets on players just like this.

One recent signing that deserves attention is the Red Sox signing of Sean Casey, a productive bat over the past 10 years, for the measly sum of $700,000.  Casey won’t be much more than a back-up at first base, but he’ll be a talented, modestly priced option for the World Champs.  What happens if Casey has a resurgent year or spells the team during an injury to Youkilis?  The deal will look like a stroke of genius. If Casey bombs, no one will remember it.  It’s win-win for Theo Epstein.

Returning to our cocaine comparison, you can see that Casey’s value doesn’t even approach the immoderation seen in the bigger-name deals.

Kilo of Carlos Silva, average year	$107,512.20
Kilo of Sean Casey, 2008	$6,509.70

Of course the Red Sox are not known for their thriftiness and there’s very little chance that this deal will end up being important for the team.  But we should keep our eyes on those unemployed players over the next few weeks, because chances are some team is going to bring in a big prize on the cheap.

Addicted to winning?

In baseball there has never been more lust for the marquee players and consequently there have never been larger undeserved paydays.  For some extraordinary players, the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in salary can be justified or at least rationalized. Whether the Yankees should have offered anything close to the staggering $275-million contract they used to lure A-Rod back is open for debate.  But, the logic goes, that’s the sort of gamble you can make on a man currently on pace to be the greatest homerun hitter of all time.  (It’s also the sort of exuberance with a checkbook that only the bottomless-bankroll Yankees, and a couple other teams, can afford.)

These wild spending habits have bled over, unfortunately, into the hunt for lesser players too.  Witness the recent Mariners acquisition of the middling Carlos Silva for the bargain price of $48 million.  Sure he doesn’t walk people (36 BB in 202 IP in 2007) but he also doesn’t stop them from scoring (4.31 career ERA), hitting homeruns (1.3 per nine innings over the last three years), or getting base hits (226 hits last year).  Why pay an average of $12 million a year for, at best, a number three or four starter?  Why give him such a large pay boost from the $4.3 million he made in 2007?  Sounds a little desperate to me.

But just how out of proportion is this spending?  Well consider the rising price of cocaine.  In November John Walters, director of the drug policy office, reported that depressed supplies of cocaine had led to a rapid increase in the price of the product.  Coke formerly cost $96 a gram in the U.S. but has jumped to approximately $137, an increase of 44 percent.  Which calls to mind the obvious question: are baseball players worth their weight in blow?

My highly scientific analysis used the average annual salary of these players and compared them to what their weights would fetch, on average, were they pushing weight instead.

Kilo of Cocaine, Nov. 2006	$96,000
Kilo of Cocaine, Nov. 2007	$137,000
Kilo of Alex Rodriguez, average year	$296,377.78
Kilo of Carlos Silva, average year	$107,512.20

What does this tell us?  Maybe that the mutually abusive saga between Alex Rodriguez and the Yankees, with its operatic highs and mind-bending lows, owes more than I thought to that strange New York addiction to winning—tolerance of greatness causing intolerance of anything less.

Regardless the fact that the spending habits of drug addicts are closely mimicked by sober-minded baseball executives is unsettling.  A little salary cap sanity might be a good thing.

The Price of Admission

Andy Pettitte vs. Roger Clemens.  Here’s a fight I never thought would happen.  Until recently both these guys represented pretty much the same thing to me: fiery competitors who anchored several Yankee pitching staffs together.  But as Andy Pettitte’s deposition date Monday approaches, a couple of AP sportswriters suggest Pettitte’s account of how he came to use Human Growth Hormone in 2002 may in turn implicate Roger Clemens.

Clemens has been at the center of a firestorm of accusation and speculation since the Mitchell Report first emerged in December.  He is by far the most prominent player accused of using performance enhancing drugs in this round of investigation.  Clemens has sought to clear his name through a bizarre series of stunts that includes an interview on 60 Minutes and the production of a secretly-taped phone conversation between him and, until now, his only official accuser, Brian McNamee.  None of this has quieted his critics.

Pettitte, on the other hand, has admitted to malfeasance.  He acknowledged his past use of HGH, in part confirming McNamee’s account, and has agreed to testify about it before the House committee investigating this mess.  Now the speculation has turned to what Pettitte might say about his former teammate and the role Clemens may have played in Pettitte’s dalliance with chemical supplementation.

If we’ve learned one thing over the years of these painful and painfully slow investigations into the integrity of baseball, it’s that players will never turn on each other.  They are phenomenally gifted and tremendously hard-working, but they are also the world’s richest frat brothers.  And you have to protect your brothers.

When it comes time for Pettitte to bare his soul, expect gaps to appear in his memory or certain facts or events to have faded with time.  He’ll know what he did, but he won’t be too sure exactly where everyone else fits in.

Even if he weren’t put in a position to protect his long-time friend he’d still be under intense pressure to forget.  Pettitte has signed a deal to pitch for the Yankees again this year, and no one wants a snitch as a teammate.

I hope I’m wrong about this.  I hope Pettitte doesn’t have to rely on an unreliable memory to get through his testimony tomorrow.  But whether he does not or not we should thank him for advancing this dialogue about performance enhancing drugs in baseball.

Chuck Knoblauch cannot tell a lie

My friends and I have revered Chuck Knoblauch for years now.  Maybe it had something to do with his scrappy demeanor—the way he often seemed overmatched on the field but never let that bother him.  The thrill of the underdog is one of those great features of following athletics.  Still I’m guessing it was mostly how fun it is to say his last name: knob-lock.  Go ahead.  Try it. I’ll wait.

Well, we’re all in luck.  He’s been out of the game for more than five years until recently.  In December his name appeared in the now infamous Mitchell Report on the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional baseball.  Knobby then took the most logical course of action and failed to respond to an invitation to testify before a House committee investigating the Mitchell Report.  He was hit with a subpoena and then conceded to appear.  He made his first appearance this past Friday in a closed-door session to answer questions in preparation for a Feb. 13 hearing before the media and general public.

While details of Knoblach’s testimony were not revealed, he did make some comments after leaving the session.  “That’s why I have [my son] here today, to learn a very valuable lesson: If you do something in life, be prepared to talk about it open and honestly,” offered a harried-looking Knoblach.

I hate when people read more into statements than is warranted, but I can’t help myself here.  If Knoblauch had not admitted to some sort of drug use, why would he have said that?  If he told the committee that he had never taken performance enhancers, what sort of lesson is he insinuating that his son should learn?  That it’s OK to talk about having played professional baseball once you’re done?  Who would be ashamed of that?  If I’d ever been called up to the Bigs, even just for a day, you’d never be able to shut me up about it.  No, those sound like the words of a guilty but unburdened man.

If I’m right, Knobby has reclaimed his spot in my heart.  The only way to restore integrity to the sport is for its ambassadors, the players, to take some responsibility at last.  In return we fans must offer our forgiveness too.  Absolution takes two.

An Efficient Market?

My uncle is a communist.  He is also a Yankees fan.  I guess we are all full of contradictions, but this is one I don’t think I’ll ever be able to square away.  How can a man whose guiding principles in life center on the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, capitalism and all its associated strictures be such an ardent supporter of Steinbrenner’s ruthless crew of financiers?  How can he stand behind the main cause of salary inequality in baseball—the team that makes competition between New York and Tampa Bay as impossible as a game of nuclear war between the U.S. and Iceland?
 

Even their GM is named Cashman for goodness sake.
 

All these questions came to mind this week after reading through Maury Brown’s insightful piece on the 2007 year-end payroll numbers from MLB.  In comforting analytical tones Brown sets out to determine which teams spent efficiently (and inefficiently) this past year as measured by wins.  Unsurprisingly those free-spending Yanks came in last in efficiency, spending roughly seven times more per marginal win than their division-mates in Tampa-St. Pete.

Congratulations goes to the Rockies and Indians who each performed best in their respective leagues in cost per marginal win while still making the playoffs.  They also give me hope that profligacy is not the only way to get business done on the diamond.
 

But there’s still nothing sexy about smart moves made with marginal players and young talent.  It’s much more fun for the fans when you land famous free-agents with their attendant hefty contracts.  This is a habit of sad desperation. Once a team is saddled with the flashiest player on the market, the situation, in the words of Norman Mailer assessing Tom Wolfe’s novel A Man in Full:
 

“resemble[s] the act of making love to a three-hundred-pound woman. Once she gets on top, it’s over. Fall in love, or be asphyxiated.”

Change of Pace

Given difficulties stemming from the original subject matter of this blog, an executive decision has been made to change its content.  Coverage of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will now cease, and coverage of Major League Baseball will begin.  See if you can keep up.

The African Connection

In the Bosede case, the original immigration judge considered Bosede’s potential to bribe his persecutors before deciding to send him back to them. But Judge Ilana Rover’s opinion, which corrected the immigration judge, exhibited disgust over the suggestion that the opportunity for bribery in foreign nations should ever be taken into account at immigration hearings.  Many people will find their consciences agreeing with her.  There is recent case law to back her up too.

After calling the prospect of “bribery…an irrational and altogether improper consideration in deciding a claim for asylum or other relief,” Rovner cites two 7th Circuit Cases from the past two years: Oyekunle v. Gonzales (7th Cir. 2007) and Giday v. Gonzales (7th Cir. 2006).

Curiously both the cited decisions serve to correct immigration judges’ rulings to deport African nationals seeking to remain in the U.S.  And in all three cases, the subjects of the proceedings sought refuge in the U.S. to avoid serious threats—including imprisonment and female castration—in their birth countries.

This collection of improperly adjudicated African immigration cases is a small but disturbing trend within the greater Chicago community.  Immigration judges in these cases underestimate the severity of the circumstances in places like Ethiopian, Eritrea and, particularly, Nigeria.  These underestimations lead, in part, to the erroneous rulings.

Until these African immigrant cases become more common or word of the difficulties faced in certain African countries reaches more ears, it looks like the risk of insensitive and incorrect rulings of this sort may continue into the future.  The good news is that at least some of the judges at the 7th Circuit are on the lookout to protect the victims.

There are also community groups to provide legal and other services to African immigrants.  One such Illinois-wide association is the United African Organization.  Its website has an excellent resource center where immigrants can find the legal assistance they need.

Corrections Department: Bribes for Justice?

An aggravated Judge Ilana Rovner delivered a sharp rebuke on Jan. 14 to Immigration Judge Robert D. Vinikoor.  Rovner’s opinion rejected a flawed Vinikoor decision to deport Stephen Bosede, a Nigerian citizen.

“Our reading of the administrative record leaves us convinced that the [Vinikoor] cared little about the evidence and instead applied whatever rationale he could muster to justify a predetermined outcome,” Rovner wrote.

Vinikoor was unswayed by evidence on record that deportation could mean arrest, hardship and possibly death for Bosede.  For instance a State Department finding that under Nigerian law Bosede would be subject to incarceration if he returned was insufficient to convince Vinikoor of the threat.

But Vinikoor’s most objectionable implication was that Bosede might be able to bribe his way out of any trouble he encountered from Nigerian authorities.

“We are appalled that [Vinikoor] would rest his decision on the absurd proposition that Bosede could evade imprisonment, mistreatment, and possibly death by…trying to buy his way out,” Rovner fumed.

This is the second time the 7th Circuit has sent this case back down with instructions on how to handle it properly.

After finding that Bosebe’s right to due process had been violated, Rovner remanded the case with some a harsh directive.

The flaws in [Vinikoor’s] opinion call into question the fairness of the proceedings…Bosede is entitled to a new [hearing],” wrote Rovner.  “And to avoid repetition of the same mistakes the third time around, we urge the agency to refer this case to a different immigration judge.”

Bosede’s status remains in legal flux as it has since 2000.

The case is Stephen Bosede v. Michael B. Mukasey, 06-1625.

Not a Chance

Apparently in the 7th Circuit an unsubstantiated claim of gambling addiction will not do much to excuse stealing more than $300,000, conducting wire fraud and failing to pay income taxes on the monies obtained.  Still Nassim Tahzib’s initiative is almost admirable.

Tahzib, a luxury car salesman, had argued that the 30-month sentence resulting from his crimes should be reduced.  He cited a supposed gambling addiction and a variety of other reasons to explain his actions. 

Judge Evans wrote the opinion, released Jan. 17, 2008, upholding the original sentence.

“This is the kind of case that could give car salesmen a bad name,” Judge Evans wrote.

Tahzib offered another bizarre excuse for his crimes.  He claimed to suffer from bipolar disorder or depression (neither of which had been diagnosed by a psychiatrist) resulting from his father’s death.

It’s unclear why these conditions, if they exist, should be considered mitigating circumstances.

In addition Tahzib’s father died twenty-five years before the crimes took place.  If these ailments are strong enough to drive him uncontrollably to crime, why would it take decades for him to succumb?

No matter.  It remains illegal for depressed, bipolar or other types of individuals to help themselves to hundreds of thousands of dollars belonging to others.

What has this country come to when an embezzling tax evader can’t rely on his father’s mortality to get out of a mild sentence—the lowest available within the sentencing guidelines?

This is a tough way for Tahzib to learn that there are only two certainties in this life: death and taxes.

(Note: Depression, Bipolar Disorder and pathological gambling are all serious conditions, and those genuinely suffering from them should seek professional help.  Those not suffering from them shouldn’t exploit them to excuse reprehensible behavior.)

Live from Death Row

The legacy of Attorneys General during the G. W. Bush years took another beating Tuesday.  A panel of 7th Circuit judges ruled against officials—including erstwhile-Attorney General John Ashcroft—defending a Bureau of Prisons rule denying federal death row inmates all but the most restricted access to members of the media.

 

The court was not persuaded by official contentions that the restrictions, which included a ban on face-to-face interviews, were justified by prison security concerns.  Instead Ilana Rovner, a judge on the panel, found “a general issue of material fact as to whether [the rule’s creation] was motivated by a desire to prohibit a disagreeable viewpoint.” 

 

The prisoner challenging the rule, David Hammer, had been subjected to milder restrictive policies regarding his contact with reporters since Dec. 2000.  But on April 12, 2001, then-Attorney General Ashcroft voiced his disapproval of the controversial 60 Minutes interview of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber.  “As an American who cares about our culture, I want to restrict a mass murderer’s access to the public podium,” Ashcroft said.

 

Three days later, the BOP adopted a set of severe restrictions curtailing first amendment rights of death row inmates.  This change was supposedly aimed at “maintain[ing] safety, security and the good order of the [federal prison facility].”

 

While the ruling in Hammer v. Ashcroft et al. does not decide whether the restrictions were specifically aimed at silencing prisoners instead of bolstering security for the correction facility, it does characterize Hammer’s position as being backed by “admissible evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that an illegitimate reason lies behind the interview ban.”

 

The ruling is also a victory for the Society of Professional Journalists, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Hoosier State Press Association, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Radio-Television News Directors Association, the all of whom filed a friend of the court brief in the case. 

 

The case is David Paul Hammer v. John Ashcroft et al., 06-1750.