I’m Cook-ed

Today, I am going to completely shift gears.  All eight of you who check this blog at least semi-regularly, if you have come to read about the campaign or sports, you are S.O.L.

Instead, I am going to make a stunning confession.  Fed up with my slow start in fantasy baseball, bored/overwhelmed with school, and with no new House episodes to distract me, I have turned to the unthinkable: America Idol.  Yes, Simon Cowell and I have become close over the last month.

How did this happen?  I wish I could simply claim that law school has put me in some sort of delusional state where I am not responsible for my actions.  However, I can only blame myself and one other man: David Cook.  I was surfing YouTube and came across him singing Chris Cornell’s (of Soundgarden and Audioslave, two of my favorite bands) version of Billie Jean.  It was great.  I was shocked.  So, I found another clip, this time of him singing Day Tripper by the Beatles.  Now, the Beatles should almost always be left alone, especially by the Fox network.  But again, it was very good.  So, I checked out a couple of the other singers, and they were good, or bad, but I was hooked.

Until last weekend, when I was reminded why I never started watching in the first place.  There were six contestants left: the cute one (David Archuleta), the phenom (Cook), the big voice (Syesha Mercado), the saucy rocker (Carly Smithson), the coffeeshop act (Brooke White), and the dude with dreads (Jason Castro).  I still watch via YouTube, so I got the rude surprise of just clicking on a clip and finding that it was musical week, and the contestants will be singing the works of Andrew Lloyd Webber.  Great.  Then, Cook was decent, but it wasn’t his thing.  Archuleta was fine, but I keep thinking he should be headlining some sort of Christian rock, Worship ‘08 tour.  Smithson was strong, and Mercado seemed like a Broadway pro (plus she was hot!).  Castro, according to Randy Jackson, was a “trainwreck,” and White actually stopped a few seconds into her song and started over.  Based on the performances, Castro and White should have been in the bottom two, and only difficult choice was between the lame performance and the amateur one.

Yet, Smithson and Mercado were in the bottom two.  Jackson said that it was a popularity vote that week, which I guess means that people were voting based on something other than talent.  Idol, however, is not about talent, but who the audience wants to see.  This is the reason I can’t stand it, because it masquerades as a talent show when the final criteria for winning is something else entirely: the size and rabidness of your fan base.  That’s why the three guys are going to be the top three, and probably why Archuleta will win.  The other part of this is that popularity is fleeting (see: Taylor Hicks), and someone who is fifth in this competition can very well become the best-selling artist.  The Idol criteria, however, will give us Castro and White, and Mercado will soon be gone.  And that will be that, for the season and for my brief foray into watching Idol.

Hillary’s Eye of the Tiger

There is a YouTube video floating around with the title Baracky. It plays like a long movie trailer, with real clips from Rocky with Obama’s head pasted over Rocky’s. I don’t have to tell you who “plays” Apollo Creed.

With the current tenor of the campaign, however, it is HIllary Clinton who has seized the role of Rocky, and the similarities go well beyond differences in skin color and stature between the two prizefighters. Barack has become the loud-mouthed, overconfident favorite who treats his opponent more like a pest than a formidable rival (just look at his “concession speech” following his loss in Pennsylvania, when he almost exclusively focused on John McCain). Clinton, meanwhile, is the salt-of-the-earth underdog who is determined to take the fight all the way to the finish. She is also now a favorite of Pennsylvania… although not Philly, but that’s a minor detail.

Unfortunately for Clinton, she has another similarity with Rocky: she can’t win. For Rocky, a “win” was to be on his feet at the end of the fight, but even the Italian Stallion knew there was no hope of knocking out Creed. Clinton still thinks she can still deliver the big right hook to Obama’s chin and send him to the canvas for good. Hanging on until the end will be just a more devastating loss. She doesn’t have the strength, or enough primaries, left to hurl that crushing blow, and barring a self-inflicted injury, Obama will be the nominee. So, she should get out of the ring. Clinton is not Huckabee, and just glad to keep fighting, so there is little realistic incentive for her to continue.

Problem is, Clinton can’t leave, which is why the results from Pennsylvania are so damaging to the Democrats. Her opportunity to bow out with grace was Wisconsin; she had suffered 12 straight primary losses, and the electoral math had become so overwhelming that she was left with almost no path to the nomination. Clinton hung in, claiming that wins in Texas and Ohio would revitalize her campaign. Once she picked up those two states, any rationale to leave the race vanished. If Clinton would not concede after she lost 12 straight primaries, how could she then justify conceding after two straight wins?

Clinton also couldn’t get out because a concession following Texas and Ohio would alienate potentially millions of predominately female voters who supported Clinton. If she were to leave after picking up two key states, the perception of many Clinton supporters would be that the woman had gotten forced out by a bunch of men in favor of one of their own. The trick of the calendar left six weeks between her last stand and Pennsylvania allowed the campaign to drag on, get chippy, and bloody both candidates.

Now, the more wins she pockets, the more her supporters will believe she can make a comeback, and the less likely her supporters will accept defeat before the votes are counted. In other words, Clinton supporters would be just as angry if she were to bow out now as Obama supporters would be if the superdelegates went against the popular vote, pledged delegates, and states won, and nominated Clinton.

Her victory on Tuesday will harden her position as the Rocky of this race: sticking it out until the end, but with no hope of leaving the ring with the title belt.

What the Sonics Gave Me

Last week, by a vote of 28-2, the NBA Board of Governors (read: owners) voted to allow the Seattle Sonics to relocate to Oklahoma City. The mood here in Seattle, whether angry or sad (or ambivalent), is that the Sonics will not be around for long. There are still court battles, and the city could very well end up with the right to force the Sonics to remain in Seattle through the 2009-10 season. After that, though, they will head south, and the NBA will be gone.

I will hopefully discuss the merits of the case (and my hatred of Clay Bennett, David Stern, etc.) another time. I want to use this post to talk about the memories the Sonics have given me, and the power of sports in general. These memories will forever be tainted by how the Sonics have been taken from us, and a bitterness will linger until the NBA rectifies the injustice Seattle basketball fans have suffered. It will also be tainted because my future children will not have the same opportunities that I had to lose themselves in professional basketball, and share that moment with their father or their friends.

A few games immediately come to mind when I think of the Sonics.  One is when I was almost eight, and Eddie Johnson hit a 35-foot three-pointer to beat the Clippers.  Watching as Sasquatch, the team mascot, unveiled a life-size poster of a woman in a bikini behind the basket as the Suns’ Charles Barkley tried to shoot free throws.  Getting to watch Michael Jordan dominate, and the Sonics still scrape by for the victory.  Going with high school friends and getting my picture taken with announcer Kevin Calabro as the Sonics and the Celtics battled for who was the least mediocre.  My first game when Xavier McDaniel and Tom Chambers were their best players.  Derrick McKey, Dana Barros, Hersey Hawkins, Michael Cage, Frank Brickowski, Ervin Johnson, Nate McMillan, Ricky Pierce, Steve Scheffler, and all of the other players that you knew because you grew up watching the Sonics, or got paid to follow the NBA.

It’s not just going to the games, though, where the Sonics had their impact.  I was the oldest kid in my neighborhood, and often acted out a whole NBA game, five-on-five, to get through the day (12 minute quarters, and I announced).  In kindergarten, my dad used Sonics hypotheticals to teach me multiplication, and eventually averages, when I wasn’t getting challenged in the classroom.  I got to meet my favorite player, Dale Ellis, outside of a Sesame Street performance, and my parents stopped him cold so I could meet him.  And I listened to Calabro, night after night, driving my brother insane as he tried to sleep in our shared bedroom.  Although baseball would eventually overtake basketball, until I was in my teens the Sonics were at least as important in my life as the Mariners.

I have been a fan of the Sonics for over 20 years, and have too many fond memories to count. They have given me is a closer relationship with my father and brother, because we were able to share so many of those moments together. Professional sports has a special power to forge and enhance the bonds of family, friendship, and city pride that no other means of entertainment can match.  Not only can you share a moment with those closest to you, but you can share that same moment simultaneously with 20,000 strangers.

These memories will not be lost, but they will cease.  Hopefully, this post helps explain why us fans continue to hurt as we watch our team fade away.

Veepstakes Part IV – Obama

I have had many, many more conversations about who Obama should pick for his running mate than for any other candidate. Being a graduate student in a heavily pro-Obama area has a lot to do with that, and Obama’s frontrunner status makes his decision more intriguing than, say, Romney’s pick. I also think my strong support of Senator Biden’s candidacy has made talking to me particularly interesting, because several pundits have suggested that Biden would make an excellent pick to combat McCain’s foreign policy experience in the general election.

I bring this up because, despite all of these conversations, I have struggled more with who Obama should pick than any of the other candidates. There are several rationales that Obama could use, some of which I have discussed in previous Veepstakes posts for other candidates. This means that Obama will have more realistic options than either Clinton or McCain. It also means that who Obama chooses will say more about his candidacy, and will have a greater impact on whether or not he is successful in November.

I see three main rationales for Obama’s choice, and will discuss those below. However, Clinton will hover over any choice Obama makes, and party unity will be a clear concern the longer the primary process moves forward (Note: If Obama wraps up the nomination within the next month, he should delay on completing the ticket until he is fully able to get a read on the level of discontent among Clinton supporters). If Obama has the greater number of pledged delegates, number of states, and number of overall votes at the end of the primary process, there is less of a chance that Clinton supporters will boycott Obama en masse, or even in a significant enough percentage to affect the general election outcome. The reasoning behind this is that Clinton supporters will be bitter, but that level of bitterness will not differ greatly from, let’s say, Biden supporters who feel that the best candidate did not win. At least Obama would have won the nomination, as opposed to having the nomination taken from Clinton, and that will go a long way to assuaging Clinton supporter anger to the point where they won’t vote for McCain or stay home. Therefore, I don’t believe that Obama will have to pick Clinton as his VP, because there is not a significant risk of the party fracturing if he gets the nomination.

So, let’s take a look at the three rationales Obama could employ when deciding who to choose as his VP nominee:

Fill the Gaps: The primary rationale for picking someone like Biden. Obama has a lot of strengths, but experience is not one of them. Picking some like Biden to fill in the experience gap rounds out the ticket, and the voters know that Obama will have someone close by who knows the world/economy/Congress/etc. The fill in the gaps method largely led Bush to pick Cheney, someone with a lot of experience in multiple branches of government who could ease voter concerns that Bush was too green to be commander-in-chief (never having been to Europe, for example).

However, this approach also has a number of drawbacks, especially for an Obama candidacy. Someone who fills in the gaps naturally will be very different from Obama himself, and Obama has been running a theme candidacy. How much of a “change” from typical Washington politics can a Biden, a senator at 30 years-old who was first elected during the Nixon administration, provide? In fact, a Biden candidacy undercuts Obama’s “change” message, weakening his chances overall. Voters will feel somewhat better about the experience problem, but Biden still will not be making the decisions, whereas McCain will be, so the experience advantage remains with McCain. The hit Obama’s main theme will suffer could overtake the benefit of a more well-rounded candidacy.

Pick-a-State: This strategy looks at the electoral map from the last two elections, which were very similar, targets either a state or a region that could swing the outcome if it switched from red to blue, and picks a popular politician that could “deliver’ that state. This is a very, very dangerous proposition, and one I have never liked. First, it assumes that voters choose local politicians using the same criteria they choose their presidents, which is simply untrue. Just look at how states vote for president, then look at the party breakdown of their governor and senators; a great example would be Maine, which has two Republican senators, but the GOP would still write it off as lost even if Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins ended up as McCain VP pick. A candidate who focuses on one state also assumes that the map will remain similar, which is unclear at this point because the last two elections had Bush as the Republican nominee, and McCain is no Bush. Finally, there is still a theme problem, because a Democrat from a swing state will not necessarily represent the kind of change Obama has been pushing since he became a prominent politician.

Keep the Theme: This rationale basically assumes that if Obama can simply stay on message, he will win. It also assumes that the main threat to his candidacy is the possibility that he will get sidetracked, and voters will become less confident that he is truly the “change” candidate. Therefore, the main theme of his candidacy must be protected, and the VP pick should, above all else, bolster Obama’s main argument that he is a diverse, post-partisan, anti-lobbyist agent of Change and Hope. A pick based upon the Keep the Theme rationale must also have been against the Iraq war from the beginning, which is a strong subtext for Obama’s support amongst many who may otherwise be in favor of Clinton or McCain.

Obama’s best asset, his main commodity, is his theme. You see it on every yard sign, bumper sticker, and stump speech. It must be protected at all costs. If it is lost, not only is the justification for and Obama presidency reduced, but Obama’s weaknesses in experience and political liberalism will move from the back-burner to the forefront. A strong theme blurs these weaknesses, giving voters an incentive to look beyond policy disagreements and concerns over inexperience because he offers something great and unique that no other candidate can. He should therefore make sure his VP pick accents, instead of dulls, his candidacy’s theme.

Notice that John Edwards and, to a lesser extent, Joe Lieberman both fail to fit into one of these rationales.

Obama Pulls a Biden

As The Daily Show put it last night, one of three things can intervene and take the Democratic nomination away from Obama: electoral shift, rewritten arithmetic rules, or a catastrophic gaffe.  Obama’s “bitter” comment and his statement that Smalltown, USA clings to God, guns, and nativism because of a bad economy is not that gaffe.  Not quite.  It is such a poor choice of words, however, that it will affect his ability to go into these rural areas and court votes, especially since he will get a question regarding this statement at every town hall-style meeting that takes place at the local high school, rotary club, or union hall.

So, why do I bring up Biden, and why is this gaffe not more along the lines of Senator George Allen’s “macaca moment,” which cable news has deemed Obama’s San Francisco foray?  A quick disclaimer: I am a Biden supporter.  I have a Biden for President sticker on my truck and my laptop.  I spent part of my winter vacation volunteering for Biden in Iowa.  I desperately hope he becomes Secretary of State, or both nominees completely implode and the Party turns to Biden to take on McCain (dream sequence complete).  So, when I bring up Biden, it is out of love.  This gaffe reminded me of Biden, however, because the gaffe had more to do with a disconnect than malice.  Macaca was malice, a racial epithet Allen gleaned from his North African heritage.

When Biden called Obama “fresh” and “clean” he meant them as a compliment, but did not realize that by using those words he was condescending to African-Americans and black politicians who had come before, and that “clean” was a very loaded word.  Biden grew up in white, middle-class Pennsylvania and Delaware, however, and was rarely exposed to a racial dialog that included multiple races.  Certain assumptions, like Chris Matthews’s assumption that blacks are not “regular people,” seep into these one-sided conversations with very few participants realizing that this insidious, inadvertent racism has become part of their lexicon.  The combination of condescension and subtle racism gives these gaffes additional power in part because we are often shocked by who the speaker is.

Likewise, Obama’s gaffe probably is born out of a similar, one-sided dialog.  Instead of race, however, Obama’s experience since college has largely been either the insular world of the university, or the busy, crowded city.  Universities and major cities are not exactly bastions of small-town values, and there is often ridicule of evangelism and gun rights within these circles.  It is accepted as truth when someone says we need to get guns off the streets, or that fundamentalist Christianity is more cult than legitimate faith, or that immigrants are to be protected.  It becomes comfortable when in these circles to make such comments, because they will be met with affirmation.  This is why it is important to look at where Obama made these statements: in a closed fundraiser in San Francisco, exactly the group that would probably agree with these sentiments.

I don’t think, however, that Obama actually believes Americans from rural communities are a bunch or dumb, racist, gun-toting hicks.  One of Obama’s greatest assets is that he genuinely attempts to look at the world through different sets of eyes, and empathy for those not like you is a trait that has been sorely lacking for the last seven years.  Empathy was what made his speech on race so poignant.  What was striking was that Obama’s comment was such a poor attempt at empathy, which denotes ignorance as opposed to anger.

Therefore, a mea culpa is in order, and Obama should come out and say that he will do more to understand small-town America.  He will have to make real, long-lasting efforts to reach out to those he demeaned, whether or not it was intentional.  More small meetings, more concentration on industrial and agricultural issues, more appreciation for gun rights in low-population areas.  He can’t win with rural America, but if he can show he respects it, he should be able to minimize the damage from this significant misstep.

My Life As a Delegate

I got the experience Saturday of being a delegate at the 46th Legislative District in Washington. Our precinct had elected four delegates and four alternates for Obama (two each for Clinton) to go to our Legislative District convention. I had run for alternate, and piggy-backing on my brother’s strong speech and Seattle liberals’ environmental tendencies (I said we could carpool), I won the top alternate spot. However, looking at the four delegates, all younger than me, I was sure they would show up for their hero, Barack Obama.

Alternates were still strongly encouraged by the Obama campaign to go to the convention anyway. The convention was supposed to last six hours, but it could be very short for an alternate if all the delegates attended, as their jobs would be done. Alternate check-in time was at 9:30 am on a Saturday (crazy early for me on a weekend, especially after I spent the night out on the town). I arrived at 9:40, and many delegates had yet to check in themselves, even though their time was at 9 am. Two of my precinct’s delegates had already signed in, so if the other two came my day was done.

Now, I get to wait. In the meantime, my parents had arrived (our precinct’s delegates for Hillary), and we hung out and watched as local politician after local politician gave speeches about how great this election has been, how important it was, the perils of disunity… and how much Republicans suck.  Also, why we should vote for them, unless their upcoming election was virtually guaranteed.  More and more politicians spoke as the leaders of the convention stalled.  Why stall?  Because we did not have a final tally on who the delegates were, and who were the alternates that would get seated.  So, I got to stay and watch with the fam.

Finally, at about 11:15, the convention was ready.  There were roughly 20 alternates from the 1st Congressional District, and over 150 from my 7th Congressional District that would be seated.  And they were going to read off every name.  And the woman who did it was missing her voice that day, so it took her three or four times to get a name out every ten names or so.  My name was read, so I got to be a delegate!  Yeah.

Finally, it was lunchtime, provided by Subway.  I’m sorry, provided by Subway at a cost of $4 a sandwich.  My parents and I had six inch subs and stayed out of the high school gym for awhile, until there was nothing left to do except go back in.  When we went back in, the gym was half full, and there was an older man at the podium talking to a single person at the microphone, while a line had formed behind her.  My parents had I had no idea what was going on, but went took our seat and watched the spectacle unfold before us.  It turned out that part of the LD convention is to put the LD party’s platform up for discussion.  Anyone can flag a portion of the platform for discussion, and several people offered amendments, all of which were eventually ruled out of order, which made every amendment a waste of time.  My parents and I made it in as our fellow delegates were about halfway through.  It took another hour to get through which parts of the platform were going to be discussed, and another hour to discuss three sections of a roughly ten section platform.  The crowd had already turned on the speakers by the time we had reentered the gym, and it got progressively worse as the discussion went on.  I never thought Democrats would roundly boo their own for simply speaking, but they wouldn’t shut up!  ARRGH!  Just go sit down so we can get on with it!  Man alive!

Finally, we were mercifully saved by the final delegate count going to the next level, the Congressional District Convention, based on the proportion of delegates at the LD convention for each candidate.  Obama 41, Clinton 14 (plus 4-1 Obama in CD 1).  Next up was electing the delegates to the next level.  I had little interest in going through the process again, and there were several hundred people running for those 45 slots, all of whom had been told they were getting a 30 second speech on their candidacy.  Especially after the platform fiasco, no thanks.  So, I found a proxy, signed off on my credentials, and left.

Democracy at work!

Kansas v. Memphis

If Kansas wins, I get major bragging rights over all y’all.  If you cared, which you don’t.  But I will pretend that you do.  So… HA!

On a side note, I am going to quit making promises about the blog, since life often intervenes, as it did over the past week.

AL West Preview

Here is the obscenely long MLB Preview, as promised. Today and tomorrow, the AL will come out in drips. The NL will come later in the week, most likely Thursday. Quick note: X-factor is the somewhat unheralded player that I believe needs to perform well for his team to reach its potential.

AL West

1. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Last Year: 94-68 This Year: 88-74

Key Addition: OF Torii Hunter Key Loss: Orlando Cabrera

Starters: C Mike Napoli, 1B Casey Kotchman, 2B Howie Kendrick, 3B Chone Figgins, SS Maicer Izturis, OF Garret Anderson, OF Torii Hunter, OF Vladimir Guerrero, DH Gary Matthews, Jr.

Top Pitchers: SP John Lackey, SP Jered Weaver, SP Joe Saunders, SP Jon Garland, SP Ervin Santana, CL Francisco Rodriguez, RP Scot Shields, RP Darren Oliver

X-factor: Kendrick

This prediction is with the understanding that SP John Lackey will be out for roughly a month, while SP Kelvim Escobar is done for the season. The fact that the Angels’ top two pitchers are already on the shelf, and possible out for significant amounts of time, raised a huge red flag about their prospects this season. Shields is also hurt right now, Anderson has a history of getting banged up, and Guerrero runs like my dad. In other words, if the breaks go the wrong way, it could be a long season of heartbreak in Anaheim. The Angels have also picked up the bad habit of overpaying outfielders in their 30s coming off of contract years where they performed… above expectations (see: Hunter, Matthews, Jr). However, the offense remains potent, and Kendrick seems about ready to explode. The Angels also have a deep bench, and should be able to withstand injuries to the role players in their lineup. I don’t like the Angels that much, but just enough to make it through the season as division champs.

2. Seattle Mariners Last Year: 88-74 This Year: 86-76

Key Addition: SP Erik Bedard Key Loss: OF Jose Guillen

Starters: C Kenji Johjima, 1B Richie Sexson, 2B Jose Lopez, 3B Adrian Beltre, SS Yuniesky Betancourt, OF Raul Ibanez, OF Ichiro Suzuki, OF Brad Wilkerson, DH Jose Vidro.

Top Pitchers: SP Erik Bedard, SP Felix Herndandez, SP Jarrod Washburn, SP Carlos Silva, SP Miguel Batista, CL J.J. Putz, RP Eric O’Flaherty, RP Sean Green, RP Mark Lowe.

X-factor: O’Flaherty

Bill Bavasi has staked his job on Bedard, Wilkerson, Silva, Sexson, Vidro, the bullpen sans RP George Sherrill, etc., etc. The GM of the M’s has overhauled the roster largely through free agency and trades to bring in veterans and the price of the future. If Bedard is merely decent, or gets hurt, there is no way the Mariners are able to capture the division, and giving up stud OF Adam Jones and Sherrill and pitching prospects for him will be a waste. The M’s must win now. A look at their lineup, however, shows major holes. There is little power in the middle as Sexson continues his end-of-career slide, which may culminate in the first baseman getting cut before the trade deadline. The outfield is also poor defensively, and there is little speed outside of Ichiro. I believe that, once the Reds fall out of contention, OF Ken Griffey, Jr. will be on the block, and will want to come back to Seattle. If healthy, it may be the move that gets the M’s from an anemic offense to an average one that could combine with their strong starting pitching and top end of the bullpen to win a weak division.

3. Oakland Athletics Last Year: 76-86 This Year: 80-82

Key Addition: RP Keith Foulke Key Losses: SP Dan Haren, OF Nick Swisher

Starters: C Kurt Suzuki, 1B Daric Barton, 2B Mark Ellis, 3B Eric Chavez, SS Bobby Crosby, OF Jack Cust, OF Emil Brown, OF Travis Buck, DH Mike Sweeney

Top Pitchers: SP Joe Blanton, SP Rich Harden, SP Justin Duchscherer, SP Lenny DiNardo, SP Dana Eveland, CL Huston Street, RP Keith Foulke, RP Alan Embree

X-factor: Crosby

Come on, Steve. Oakland was ten games under .500 last season, and they just traded away their best starting pitcher and their best hitter. How are they better this season? First, there is no way the A’s are as injured as they were last year. Oakland only had four hitters qualify for the batting title, and only six played in 100 games. Chavez and Crosby missed 141 games between them. Harden was also living on the DL in 2007, pitching in only seven games, starting four. If Harden starts at least 20 games and the A’s are able to run the same starting lineup out on the field for 100 games, this could be a dangerous team. Barton is the real deal, and others like Buck and Cust are power guys who should become quality hitters soon (Buck hit 39 doubles in 84 minor league games in 2006). Oakland, mark my words, is one year and some health away from becoming a major force in the West, and two years from challenging for the pennant. All hail Billy Beane.

4. Texas Rangers Last Year: 75-87 This Year: 71-91

Key Addition: OF Josh Hamilton Key Loss: Akinori Otsuka

Starters: C Gerald Laird, 1B Ben Broussard, 2B Ian Kinsler, 3B Hank Blalock, SS Michael Young, OF Marlon Byrd, OF Josh Hamilton, OF Milton Bradley, DH Frank Catalanato

Top Pitchers: SP Kevin Millwood, SP Vicente Padilla, SP Jason Jennings, SP Kason Gabbard, SP Luis Mendoza, CL C.J. Wilson, RP Joaquin Benoit, RP Eddie Guardado

X-factor: 3B Hank Blalock

Texas gave up the third most runs in the American League last season, and addressed their clear pitching need by… trading away one of their top pitching prospects for Hamilton. Hamilton may be one of the ten most talented hitters on the planet, and if he can stay healthy will be a superstar, but it was still an odd trade for the Rangers. Also, “key losses” is misleading because Texas dumped a number of players at the trade deadline last season, including 1B Mark Teixeira. For Teixeira, the Rangers received C Jarrod Saltalamacchia, who will start the season in AAA despite vying for the starting catcher position against Laird.  Further complicating matters for Texas is their porous infield defense, especially if Blalock goes down again, and a pitching staff that will desperately need strong gloves behind it will go wanting.  Texas will continue to score, and if Blalock is able to return to form this will be one of the most potent offenses in baseball.  I just don’t see how Texas is going to keep other teams from unloading on their undermanned rotation.

Blog Preview

I have been away from the blog, as paper writing (42 pages over the last two weeks) has largely dominated my life.  So, here is a preview of what is coming over the next week:

MLB Preview – It will be big, long, and right.

Campaign 2008 – Veepstakes for Obama, plus my pick for who John McCain should take

Bracket Update – I have six of the eight Elite Eight teams, and it could be more – I’ve gone 1-4 in overtime this tournament.

Miscellaneous – Stay tuned!

Go Toreros!

 Sometimes, you just gotta love March Madness!

Then again, I had USC in the Elite Eight, Baylor and Drake (oh, man, what a game) in the Sweet Sixteen.