The Wild, Wild South

As some one who does not own a gun, I, like many in my position, have mixed feelings about our Second Amendment rights. In theory, I strongly support our right to arm ourselves as a means of defense. However, when that theory becomes a practice, things can get complicated.

Especially when alcohol is involved.



What's more frightening than the prospect of inebriated gun owners acting as unofficial "deputies" is the unspoken precedent this law sets - which is "take the law into your own hands."

Again, as some one who does not own a gun, I'm in no position to dispute Ms. Goesser's implied statement that, in the hands of a trained owner, a gun can be used to disable a perpetrator - not simply kill them. The real problem is that gun training alone does not substitute for law enforcement training.

The Democratic sponsor of this new legislation, State Senator Doug Jackson, states "People are fearful about tomorrow. They feel insecure. And the Second Amendment right is something that they cherish and it's a means of protecting themselves and their family and defending what they have. It provides security in troubled times."

Well, as of July the 14th, you're going to have plently more fearful citizens on your hands, Mr. Senator.

Triple Play

Time for another first on Within Reason: a three way conversation. Well, sort of. Today I spoke separately with our friends "Smack" and Randy; identical questions, unique responses. As always, feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.

Within Reason: Okay, here are the players who have hit 30 or more home runs prior to the All-Star break since 1998 (the year it got out of control):
1998 - Greg Vaughn, Ken Griffey, Jr., Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire

1999 - Jose Canseco, Sosa

2000 - McGwire

2001- Luis Gonzalez, Barry Bonds

2003 - Bonds

2006 - Jim Thome, David Ortiz

2007 - Alex Rodriguez

2009 - Albert Pujols

In light of the names on this list, I think this feat can now be described as almost a 'dubious' accomplishment. Yet today, ESPN.com's lead story is "Albert Pujols: The Perfect Player?"

Of course, this piece was written by Tim "I would have no problem with cyborg outfielders" Kurkjian. Can it be agreed upon, though, that the sports media has turned a corner, and is now just setting these players up for falls? Prior to this spring's "bombshell" about A-Rod, he was 'the great hope.' He (A-Rod) was bestowed this honor after the shaming of McGwire and Sosa (the 'saviors of the game') and the downfall of Ken Griffey Jr, who put on 25 pounds and blew out every ligament in his body beginning around 2001 (hmmm...).

So, how many months until Pujols is A) named as one of the remaining 103 "names on the list" B) is linked to the physician who prescribed Manny Ramirez his PEDs, or C) both?

Smack: Everyone is just scrambling to find one player to cling to in the aftermath of all the PED outings. Your notion that it’s only a matter of time before Pujols’ name gets dropped is one that is likely shared by a lot of fans, and it’s a sad commentary on the state of MLB. This notion won’t go away until the rest of the list gets out. (I’m not necessarily arguing for its release but I think that’s the way it is.)

Randy: So while I am a Griffey apologist (I think his body changed with age more "normally" than most), I totally agree with the premise.

I don't get how for the past few years I have heard that we were all guilty for glorifying Bonds, Mac, Sosa, A-rod, etc...and now it is even worse for Pujols! If it's too good to be true, it usually is!!!

Some Doctor (or more likely a "best" friend) will hold Pujols hostage for millions...

WR: Do you think that, like NASCAR with wrecks (and, to a lesser extent, women's sports with sex appeal), MLB is playing up the 'you can't look away/disaster waiting to happen' side of their sport in order to compete with an NFL that gets more and more popular every year?

R: not sure...

I think it's funny that people believe him (Pujols) because he speaks out on steroids! hahahaha
Can you say Rafi (Palmeiro)?

They are in a tough position in that they need to market players and God only knows who is clean or dirty. I mean...I would not suspect Pedroia or Lincecum given their body sizes, and yet I would not be shocked if I heard some link to PEDs.

S: I hope not. The optimist in me thinks this is a legitimate attempt at finding a hero among cheaters.

WR: It does make one wonder why the Pedroias, Lincecums and Brauns of the world are not taken up by MLB as "The New Faces of Clean Baseball." Could it be, that in the world of Mammoth Sluggers and Raging Texan Hurlers, that these more diminutive, "everyman" players should be under at least as much suspicion?

S: Wouldn’t you agree that no one is above suspicion?

R: I ran into (Peter) Gammons at Best Buy once, and if I were to see him again, I would ask why the lovefest of Pujols given how the story ended for Arod, Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, Mac, etc.

WR: I think we just have to acknowledge that "The Steroid Era" has given way to the "Age of Suspicion."

R: Well said. See Raul Ibanez...

I would rather be JD Drew. Predictable stats, nothing crazy. $14 M a year! Nice gig if you can get it!

S: At the same time, though, we should be careful not to veer into “everyone is guilty” territory.

WR: Well maybe I'm just jaded, but I think that everyone - the fast, the slow, the injured, the healthy, the singles hitter, the slugger - everyone - is under suspicion, and will remain so until MLB institutes a thorough, plausible and transparent testing and punishment policy.

We Don't Need Another...

The wait is finally over - more "Smack" talk. This time, Smack and I reminisce on g'days gone by...

Feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.

Within Reason: Alright, random question that hit me driving home the other day: Has any definable entity, i.e. a person, place, object, etc, had a bigger pop culture decade than Australia did in the 1980s?

Smack: Let’s start with a list of their 1980’s pop culture phenomena:

Fine Young Cannibals

AC/DC

Crowded House

INXS

Men at Work

Air Supply

Rick Springfield

What else are we looking at besides music?

WR: A few tweaks to your list - Fine Young Cannibals were British, and I would put AC/DC in the 1970s pop culture category.

Your list alone is impressive, but let's throw in:

All of the Mad Max movies - especially Beyond Thunderdome

Crocodile Dundee

Midnight Oil

Jacko (best known for the "Energizer! Oi !!!! Commercials)

Yahoo Serious (of Young Einstein "fame")

It got to the point that, by the late 80s, it seems that the idea - "just do (X), and make it Australian!" was the key marketing pitch of the times. I mean, Yahoo Serious was pretty much Australia's answer to Weird Al, or Pauly Shore. When a pop scene is at the point of lifting C-list ideas and making them their own, you are at a saturation point. America inventing The (curiously fronted by a Brit) Monkees as their 'answer to The Beatles" is one thing, but coming up with Jacko as you answer to Hulk Hogan PLUS Max Headroom is quite another.

S: Well now that we’ve established Australia’s credentials, we need to address whether that’s ever been topped.

Since you bring up the Beatles, how about England in the 60’s? You had countless big name bands, i.e. Beatles, Kinks, Led Zeppelin, Cream, Rolling Stones, The Who, Bee Gees. Then you had the whole mod subculture, free love, etc. Figure in James Bond and I think we might have Australia beat.

Britain had a competitive 80’s too, music wise.

WR: Touche with Britain in the 60's - I had figured they'd be Australia's toughest opponent. (Side note - The Bee Gees are Australian)

I think the knock on Britain would be that a good deal of their pop culture impact was summed up as "The British Invasion." Well, maybe that's not a knock, because it points to a similar sort of 'just make it British' marketing in the 60s that was became (to a lesser extent, maybe) the 'just make it Australian' by the late 80s. Perhaps Australia can be given a nod, since they had made major inroads into pop culture prior to the 'sell out' point of Jacko and Yahoo Serious. It took about 9 months for "The Second Wave of the British Invasion" to come about, while Australia was just consistently churning out pop culture dynamite for several years before it veered off into C-list land...

Look at it this way - the Austin Powers franchise acts as a sort of synopsis of the entire British cultural phenomenon of the 60s. Not that it's complete - but if, in 10 years or so, some one tried to do the same with Australia in the 1980s, would the main character hunt crocs in the outback, hunt post-apocalyptic petrol bandits, and play the didgeridoo in a strange, quasi pop band who sings about famine and equality?

It was a pretty diverse, yet strangely identifiable 'scene.'

S: I like it. Let’s get this movie made. Sponsored by Vegemite.

I think The British Invasion wins. Australians are just British vagabonds anyhow.

Do you think we can include in this discussion Microsoft in the late 80’s – mid 90’s or Apple in the 00’s? I think the iPod has become a substantial pop culture icon. iAnything for that matter.

WR: Ooooh - good call. I say Macintosh gets the nod there. The 'i' prefix has totally consumed the tech / branding segment of pop culture. Sometimes I feel as though I should spelling my name iAN.

As far as Microsoft, not so much, I think. To say that Microsoft had a pop culture presence in the 80s/90s is kind of like saying the CIA had a presence in Central America in the 50s - the 80s. Sure it was around, but the point wasn't necessarily to grow brand appeal - not that there was a choice.

Back to the movie: It's growing on me, too. What could we call this, and how could we avoid having this become a rip-off of The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzai Accross the Fifth Dimension (which is about a near apocalyptic scientist/stuntman who hunts aliens in the American West, and sings in a Culture Club-meets-that band playing at the fair in The Lost Boys) - which, now that I think of it, is another example of 80s Australian influence...

S: Well I think the Austin Powers movies did a good job encapsulating the British Invasion. It would have to be something like that.

I found our main character: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2EDtxEumFI

It will be called “Joe Bloggs, Bonzer Bloke.” All we need is a premise.

WR: Hmm...I'm struggling with the idea of incorporating humor into the post-apocalyptic outback.

How's this: It's called "The Super Bonzer Mates" - and it's essentially a live action remake of Super Mario Brothers, but Australian. Bindi Irwin gets kidnapped by some bonkers Aborigines, and a couple of Aussie Rules footballers are 'ired by The Croc Hunter's wife to gather 'er up. They 'op in the ol' Leen Rovah, cruise the outback - jam out at night to groups of atomic orphans, and when they finally encounter Bindi, she's turned into a younger version of Tina Turner's character from Mad Max: Beyond ThunderDome. They return the secret boomerang to it's rightful kangaroo owner - and BLAMMO! No more global warming!

S: Good on ya, mate. There would have to be a high speed dune buggy chase scene, and a tussle with rabid koalas and/or dingoes. But the rest of it sounds good.

WR: Too bad it will only ever exist in Tomorrowmorrow Land.

Head to Head

For the latest round of banter on Within Reason, we'll be checking in with our friend Randy again, to talk a little NFL, a little MLB, and for a quick round of "Over rated, Under rated, Spot on."

As always, feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.

Within Reason: Alright Randy, let's get to it. If The Steelers win the next Super Bowl, and The Patriots and Steelers end this decade with 3 Super Bowl wins a piece, who would get the nod as 'the team of the decade'?

Randy: So let me set the record straight about my allegiance first. I'm a Seahawks fan first and foremost. Ever since the Mayflower moving van moved the Colts from Baltimore, the Hawks are my team. But when I moved to Boston in '01, I did get swallowed up in the whole hoopla. My issue with the Pats is their fans and their blind allegiance (see Spygate - though I think this was far overblown).

With that said, in my opinion, the Pats would be the team on this decade. My four main reasons are:

Only 1 year of 8-8 or worse (Steelers had two years)

16-0 in a year that they did not even win the Super Bowl (but were clearly the best team)

They have the best QB of the era

They have the best coach of the era

And the "Bettis" Bowl still haunts me with all those brutal calls against my Hawks!

No knock on the Steelers, but they just aren't the team when I think of this decade.

WR: Absolutely agree. There is only one kink that could potentially arise - and that's if The Steelers go through The Patriots to win next year's Super Bowl. That would still put the Pats ahead in head-to-head AFC Championship showdowns (2-1) - but in the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately world of sports opinions, it would be a big step towards The Steelers laying claim to the crown.

The other, uglier side of the debate is Spygate. Regardless what you think of the events that transpire, you cannot ignore the fact that - if we encounter the scenario of a third SB title for The Steelers - Pittsburgh fans will by crying at how their team won "fair and square", etc. I personally think it's hooey - but it would be an interesting debate nonetheless.

Let's move on to a related topic and play a little OUSO: Ben Roethlisberger.

R: Big Ben, huh.

Ok, here is my take. Unlike Brady and Manning (the two best QBs of this era), Ben is a truly a system guy. I honestly don't think he is all that different from a lot of QBs out there. I think he is solid, but given the praise he has received of late, I would say he is overrated. I dare anyone to watch the "Bettis" bowl over again and tell me that he is as good as Brady or Peyton.

Straight up, with all things equal, I would take Brees, McNabb, and even Rivers over him. May sound crazy. To be fair, I did think Ben took steps forward last year. So this year will be critical in how I look at him in terms of the all-timers of this day and age.

WR: Once again, we agree - but would use different examples to illustrate our points.

I certainly place Roethlisberger in the second tier of NFL QBs, just below 'elite' status. The way I determine 'elite' is as follows: If you took QB 'X' and placed them on a bottom level team - we'll use St. Louis as an example - would the addition of the QB instantly turn the team into a contender?

I think there are only a few QBs who can be placed in the "yes" category. First on the list is Tom Brady, slightly ahead of Peyton Manning. Reason for Brady getting the nod is his record of performing well not only when surrounded by a very good to great offense - as Manning has for nearly all of his career - but also doing well when surrounded by average, to slightly below average offensive talent. While Manning might be the best pure QB in the league, Brady tops my list for his ability to elevate those around him. I'm going to reserve judgement on Drew Brees until he puts up solid numbers for 1 more year. While I think Reggie Bush was over-hyped, he is certainly a QB's best friend - a la Marshall Faulk (see Kurt Warner and Peyton Mannin) - in that he is such a threat to receive the swing pass out of the backfield. McNabb has consistently been the most under appreciated QB in the league, but I think he's past his prime, and has fallen from the ranks of the truly 'elite.'

Roethlisberger fits somewhere in here. I don't think if you placed him in St. Louis, the Rams would contend - at least not any more so than if you placed Philip Rivers or Matt Hasselbeck there. Even on his own team I don;t think Big Ben is irreplaceable. When Byron Leftwich got snaps last year, The Steelers looked fine to me.

Trent Dilfer is probably the best analogy I can cone up with. When people call Dilfer the worst QB to ever win a Super Bowl, I always think "How was he any different than Big Ben? The 2000 Ravens were, essentially the model upon which the Steelers of this decade were built - and both Ben and Trent are game-managers with pedestrian stats who's best attribute is avoiding catastrophic mistakes - they are virtually the same to me..."

I think we both agree that Ben is a fine QB, and if we weren't lucky enough to have Brady, we'd be happy to have him. The problem with calling some one over-rated is that it's perceived as a knock on their ability - but when Michael Wilbon, or any other talking head calls Roethlisberger "the best QB in the league right now" - it can't be taken seriously.

One more OUSO: Derek Jeter

R: So I agree with your comments below, but be careful about burying McNabb. I think the 2009 season may be his final shot...and I am rooting for him in a weird way (yes, Westbrook went to Villanova, and that may be the reason!).

Jeter? Really? This may sound like sour grapes coming from Boston, but here goes.

First off, he is a smart, heady player who I respect for the way he plays the game and carries himself.But the gushing over the almighty Jeter is to quote Lee Elia "sickening". It's not that I can't see past pinstripes either. I mean I think Mo is the best closer ever (even with a blown World Series on his record). It's just that those 90s teams were STACKED. I am left wondering if Michael Young played in the Bronx, would he be destined for Cooperstown?

Well you are looking for a rating right...I would have to say overrated. But I would take him on my team in a second...just like I would with Paul O'Neil.

Back to Jeter, can we agree that he has a sub-par arm and limited range. Only some of that goes away with his ability to "read" the game. And while HRs are not the end all, he is a singles/doubles hitter. Personally, I think Ichiro is far less appreciated for having more talent.

But seriously, I am not bitter...

WR: Here goes; well, first a disclaimer: Where I consider myself a rational enough football fan to feel comfortable that there is concrete reasoning behind my giving Brady a nod over Manning, when it comes to the Yankees, an intense dislike for the organization has occasionally blurred my judgement. That said...

I think Derek Jeter is the single most over-rated athlete of all time. In 15 seasons - on the STACKED teams you mention (come to think of it, The Yankees are still stacked now, they just don't win titles...) he has cracked 100 RBI once. He has cracked 20 HR only 3 times. I agree with you, HR are not the be-all, end-all, but still...

Here's an interesting view of Derek Jeter: According to Baseball-Reference.com (using Bill James' system of similarity scores, basically the most statistically similar batters to any given player), here are the 10 players to whom Derek Jeter most closely compares (in order): Barry Larkin, Alan Trammel, Ryne Sandberg, Roberto Alomar, Ray Durham, Lou Whitaker, Julio Franco, Joe Torre, Johnny Damon and Bobby Doerr. While that's certainly a decent list, it's not chock full of Hall of Famers (only 2, Sandberg and Doerr) like you would expect to see if you believed all of the Jeter-buzz.

If you took Jeter and put him in any other market, he toils in relative obscurity - unless you put him in Boston, they'd just trade him.

R: Like the list of comparable players. I think Trammell is a perfect comparison. SOLID player, just not a lock for the Hall. Nevermind their own wing for God's sake!

Straight-up, and I have no issue saying this, Robbie Alomar is a much better all around player than Jeter. The eye-test does not lie. Just don't ask Susan Waldman!

So how much do his looks play into his appeal? If he looked like Lugo (not picking on Julio, just the first SS I thought of...sadly enough), would he have the same appeal.

p.s. Why didn't Jeremy Giambi just slide??? Just saying!

WR: We could go on and on, but he's a New York pretty boy who's managed to find himself on several champions over a 15 year period.

To draw one more analogy - Troy Brown is not one of the great wide receivers of the last 15 years, but if he played in New York, and The Giants or Jets had played in 5 Super Bowls since 1996, and won 3 - he would probably be a Gatorade sponsored Hall of Famer.

Again, just saying.

R: I really don't like that he is baseball's version of Federer and Tiger. They are all-time greats and he is not even close! Then again, he is from NY and with limited power comes less steroid noise.

WR: And here's the other thing - you know that The Yanks will coronate his successor as soon as he has his tearful goodbye...so who is next in line to be 'Mr Yankee'? Should we be preparing ourselves for the onslaught of "Brett Gardner is among the greatest outfielders in the game" era?

R: Or Joba the putz?

WR: Man, I really do hate The Yankees.

What's My Age Again?

The time has come, yet again, to check in with our friend "Smack", and address what is always a hot-button issue with the key demographic of this website: Aging drivers.

Please feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.

Within Reason: Alright, Smack, what have you got?

Smack: It might be overblown but it’s a hot topic… How about delving into the elderly driver thing?

WR: Sure. Here's my opinion: Instead of looking at this as a case of "Old drivers need to be tested every 'X' years" just have everyone tested every 10. That way, no age-ism, no discrimination - and as an added bonus, you're more likely to get other, younger dangerous drivers off the roads as well.

S: This might get lengthy, but here goes…

This call for elderly driver testing is a knee jerk reaction to the ridiculous amount of media coverage the topic has been receiving lately. It’s definitely an issue, but it’s hardly a new one. Old people have always mistaken gas pedals for brake pedals. The stats show that as life expectancies improve elderly drivers are becoming a larger demographic, so this does deserve attention but not the kind that it’s been getting.

Exhibit A: http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/hartford_cty/news_wtnh_easthartford_behind_the_wheel_elderly_driver_200906171702_rev1

This is a suit designed to give the wearer a firsthand experience of what it’s like to be an elderly driver. It makes your legs heavy, your hands arthritic, and your neck stiff. It reminds me of the “beer goggles” that your high school health teacher had that were supposed to show you what it’s like to be drunk. Give me a break. Goggles can’t give you the same sensation that a fifth of vodka can. To be accurate they would have to make a simulator that drops 20 lbs off of female frames, makes Wendy’s taste exponentially better and makes your jokes at least twice as funny. Likewise, a suit can’t give you the same sensation that 85 years of life can. If they really want to take this route I want to see them add loose dentures, loose bowels and an inability to open jars of pickles and/or spaghetti sauce. It really wouldn’t be any more ridiculous.

Exhibit B: http://www.libertymutual.com/driverseatThis is an online “senior driving simulator.” If you don’t have time to try the suit in person you can simply surf your way to an elderly driving experience on the web. You’ve got to try it to believe it. It starts off with an overhead, 3rd person view where you control the vehicle with arrow keys and there’s no button for a brake. Seriously. Then in level 2 you get the 1st person view. You don’t get the luxury of mirrors or the ability to look side to side, and the outer range of the vision you don’t get is totally blurred. As you drive, animals, pedestrians and other vehicles just appear in front of you and you hit them. It’s just asinine. This isn’t even made by the DOT or the NHTSA; this is an insurance company with elderly customers! How do you not alienate people with this crap? Unless they’re under the assumption that old people don’t use the Internet…

You and I are in agreement about testing across the board. It’s best to avoid the ageism and just test everyone every so often. The under 25 demographic has to be a huge percentage of accident-causers as well. How about a driving suit that gives you growing pains, acne, and an erection? How about a driving simulator where you have to drive to cheerleading practice while bumping the new Black Eyed Peas song and simultaneously txting your BFF about the new Twilight book?

I also feel that the vision testing at the RMV is an absolute joke. I have personally seen an RMV employee give someone 4 or 5 chances to pass the test. Why even administer it if you’re not going to do it seriously? I mean, that was one opportunity right there to force a driver who couldn’t see to get corrective lenses.

WR: Okay - we are in 100% agreement on the "simulator" examples you give. There is no way to accurately simulate anything - there is always an 'X' factor.

Where I start to disagree is when the focus shifts to the 'challenges' facing younger drivers. Apart from the basic learning curve - so say, a year at most to "get the feel" of driving (and even this, I would think, would account for more dings in the parking lot and "I'm going, NO I'm not, YES I'M GOING, WAIT...I'll just stop in the intersection and look scared...why are you beeping at me...?" incidents than it would true wrecks), I think the problems you list - loud music, txting, heavy petting, etc. - are all behavioral in nature. A 37 year old soccer mom who's trying to load Harry Potter and the Clearasil Curse into her Dodge Durango's DVD player while on the phone with a more-than-a -little-stoned 17 year old pizza shop employee trying to secure food for the softball team cookout, all while asking little Emily in the back seat "Sweetie, which one is your street?" - is just as dangerous as the little Black Eyed Peas fan you reference. The common thread is that all of the extraneous activities can be avoided.

There is nothing behavioral about senility. My general rule of thumb is - if the world starts moving too fast, you are moving too slow. Old Mr. Jenkins, on his way to open up the same hardware store he's run since 1951 - when bread cost a nickel and those dang kids weren't trying to commit dang suicide by rolling on their dang skating boards on the sidewalk - can't just say "Hmmm, for this ride to work, I'm going to put my aging brain on 'vibrate' and not let my deteriorating reflexes affect me until I get to work."

Where I really disagree is where you contend that this is a knee-jerk reaction to recent events. Calls like these have gone out before, and - if this bid is unsuccessful - they will go out again. I agree that the flutter of recent news attention focused on this issue has served to escalate the debate - but as some one who worked in a pharmacy for years, I can tell you - as long as there have been old people and cars, there have been people who are too old to drive.

S: I think we’re both uniquely qualified to opine on this. I’ve been dealing with auto accident claims for at least 7 years now and I have a good feel for who should and shouldn’t be driving. I’ve seen plenty of accidents where old drivers have hit the wrong pedal. Sometimes they’re serious accidents; sometimes they’re dings. Young kids cause big wrecks, too. At a certain point the old folks need to call it quits. But there are plenty of old drivers who are still sharp and have no trouble behind the wheel. I do think, though, that however avoidable the behavioral issues may be, young drivers are still more susceptible to fall into the bad habits. And some drivers never grow out of them which is why you see the Volvo-driving-soccer-mom-phenomenon that you so vividly describe. Distracted drivers, old drivers and drunk drivers can be equally dangerous. At least you can test people’s BAC, vision and reaction time. What can you do about the teeny boppers; endorse their licenses with a Ritalin requirement?

This is by far the biggest uproar I’ve ever experienced with this. When I say knee jerk, I’m talking about the driving suit and the online simulator. It’s way over the top and unnecessary. Something does need to be done but a lot of people seem to be too quick to want to pull everyone over 85 off the road. Just test everyone.

WR: Well, it is a bit over blown - but this whole idea of ours behind testing everyone sort of points to why: It would be fully expected that the vast majority of those failing their re-tests would be older drivers. Just think of the scenario of the test itself. If you are a younger, easily distracted driver - what are the chances you'll be texting with a Statie in the passenger seat (and if you do: FAIL) - and if you're a soccer mom (or dad, I guess) - you're not going to have the kids in the car with you - it will be Officer Timilty. But older drivers will stil have their aging retinas, their atrophied arms and legs, and - most importantly - their diminished mental capabilities.

Obviously, I'm not pointing to all older drivers - just like I'm not pointing to all Moms. I still do think the focus needs to be on the older drivers, whether that fact ends up at the forefront of any solution or not. Testing everyone is just a nice compromise - with minimal downside - that achieves this objective without being 'agist.'

S: I think it’s important to be fair regardless of who the real target is. If you’re going to have physical requirements to be on the road then they need to be universal.

And unless Liberty Mutual comes out with a “female driver suit” and an “African American driver suit” or a "white businessman driver suit", etc… They need to cut it out. Side note: I’m finding it hard to resist the temptation to imagine these suits.

WR: I agree. If we're going to treat driving like a de facto right, we need to apply equal protection to all drivers. Not that I think that driving is a 'right' - but convincing folks otherwise gets increasingly difficult as we all become more and more entitled.

Drunken Style

North Korea launched something other than a missile last week: Their first beer commercial.



A translation is not yet available online, so we'll just have to guess at what is being said. Probably something along the lines of "Reward youself for best duty to North Korea! Manufacture confidence! Imbibe thorough beer ration at the request of this advertisement! To do any less will ensure defeat! Refresh your taste for beer by showing respect to your ancestors in the fields! Pyongyang is full of the pride and carbonation of beer! Taedonggang beer is a victory mountain!"

This mildly offensive commentary has been brought to you by
Mr. Sparkle Dish Detergent.

Cap & Trade

At the suggestion of a reader, Within Reason has decided to tackle the topic of a potential salary cap in Major League Baseball. This is a hot topic in the world of sports talk, and pops up every time the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets set new payroll records while low payroll teams like the Pirates, Royals and Nationals continue to dwell in their respective division cellars.

For this topic, I decided to reach out to my friend Randy, a knowledgeable source for all things sport, and fellow Fantasy Baseball addict.

Please feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.

Within Reason: It was suggested by a commenter that I write about the issue of a potential salary cap in MLB - where do you stand on the issue?

Randy: Oh my. My neighbor and I had a huge discussion on this. He knew more about the compensatory draft picks than I do, but we both fell on the side of wanting a cap. However, I will say that I also want a minimum team salary number as well.

You?

WR: Is there a particular reason you think a cap is necessary?

R: I tend to like competitive balance and while there are examples that this already exists (the Twins, A's, etc.), I think those teams are extreme exceptions. And don't get me started on Tampa...they were AWFUL for all those years and are finally reaping the benefits of all those drafts because the new owner decided to spend some money. A team should not expect to get top 5 picks every year for a decade.

Anyway, my main issue is that this pattern looks to be taking over for some teams:

1. Team with under $60M in salary ends up below 0.500
2. Team then drafts early, but can't pick a top pick for fear of signability/long term costs
3. Even if they do sign their top picks, they often have them for their 1st contract only
4. So unless you can have your young guys sign a "Longoria" contract (and not all will do this), they have, in essence, become the minor leagues to about 8 teams
5. And if you can't sign "your" guy, you get the reward of a compensatory pick that you can't afford...ouch!!!

WR: All good points.

Let me ask a hypothetical: If you had to choose between a salary cap OR draft reform - wherein a rookie cap would be put in place, and teams would be given the opportunity to trade future picks (which they cannot do now), which would you pick?

R: Good question.

My gut response (and I will think more about this) is that I would choose the draft reform that you spell out below. But I really want a minimum team salary number too. I think some owners take the luxury tax "check" and just pocket it. I think that is junk!

As an aside, I think the NFL needs a rookie cap too.

WR: Okay, another hypothetical:

Should the luxury tax be redesigned so that the revenue it generates must be applied to the payroll of the recipient teams? This would have a two-fold effect: First, it would aid the payroll of the lower tier teams that draw your concern. Second, it would bring about a situation where the Yankees are actually funding a portion of the Rays salary - which may cause them to think twice about oh, say, A.J. Burnett...

I know it sounds too simple to work, and - as anything more than a hypothetical - it is. However, you brought up the NFL, just as I was about to. Here's why I think the NFL is a nice example of why a salary cap may not be all it is cracked up to be: Realistically, you have the same number of contenders now as you did pre-1994, the year the cap was put into place. Remember, salary cap does not mean "required payroll" - it's just a cap. The management of personnel is the biggest factor in manufacturing and maintaining a successful franchise.

Since 1995 17 different MLB teams have appeared in the World Series. In that same span, only 2 more NFL teams (19 - if you're keeping score), have appeared in the Super Bowl. If the NFL has used a salary cap to achieve "parity" - it could be argued that this sort of parity already exists in MLB.

R: 2 follow-up points for me:

1. How could you distinguish between salary tax money and owner money? Better stated, an owner could spend "xxx" less than normal (where "xxx" is the salary tax money)...this is why I want a minimum team salary.
2. In the NFL, every fans thinks that within a 4 year span, anything is possible (see Seattle, Arizona). I don't think Kansas City or San Diego or Pittsburgh baseball fans have that feeling)

WR: On your first point - you're totally right. That's why it will stay a hypothetical, destined for the bargain bin sports domain of talk radio and blogging (I feel dirty). Your second point I have a bit of an issue with, because I do not think that if I ever get around to completing my time machine, and go back to N'Orleans in 2004, I could convince Saints fans that they were 3 years out from a shot at the NFC Championship. For that matter, I could not go back and convince the August 2001 version of myself that The Patriots were 6 months away from a Super Bowl championship.

There are a few things that make this analogy less than rock solid - the most important being the proportional impact that one player can have on a football team as opposed to one player having on a baseball team, but surprises still happen in baseball, and I still feel comfortable saying that in all sports, talent management is at least as important as team's salaries - and the discrepancies between them.

R: So if you live in Kansas City and both of your teams are awful as of today. Who do you think has the best chance to turn it around in the next 3 years...and actually WIN a title?

I do agree with you on the talent management side of things with baseball, but like we discussed yesterday, the small market teams need to win on almost every early draft pick. And baseball is far and away the hardest sport to draft in. Just think that there are 7 rounds in football, 2 in basketball, and 30+ in baseball (where a much bigger percentage of the players are under the age of 20)...

WR: If I had to gamble, I'd go with The Chiefs. Matt Cassell is a definite upgrade over Thigpen and Croyle - Vrabel will add leadership to the defense, Larry Johnson has a year or two left in the tank - all good positive signs. Pair that with the fact that they play in a sub par division - won last year by an 8-8 team - and you can't count them out.

As far as the Royals, who saw Zack Greinke having the kind of season he's having? Who saw Luke Hochevar developing into a solid #2 outside of Kansas City (excluding fantasy geeks - of whom plenty probably went with Hochevar over Greinke anyway - but that's another discussion)? Point being, they're a bat or two away from contending. If they can develop some talent through their farm system, they may be able to do so without breaking the bank, and enjoy a run like Detroit did 2 years ago. Or they'll just just stink.

Saving the biggest point in my argument for the Chiefs for last - I'll point to their most important off-season acquisition: Scott Pioli. Having a GM like that will perk the ears of even your most pessimistic fans for 1 or 2 off-seasons, while Pioli brings in "his guys." This is the case regardless of sport - get a solid GM, and wins will come.

R: Agree that Pioli was the Chiefs biggest addition, but even if you are considered to be a great GM (see Billy Bean), you need to spend money to keep a team together. Here is my best broken record interpretation...baseball needs a salary minimum.

There definitely are examples where great management overcomes cheap/poor owners, but if you spend money, you are almost guaranteed to be in the mix (unless you are the Mets). To be fair, I think the Giants and their limited bankroll are a real threat this year. But I really think that is due to one draft pick that they hit on...Timmy (Lincecum)!

WR: Okay - I think we agree. There should be a minimum team salary. However, I would not put it past certain owners (and by extension, their GMs) to use 1 or 2 high profile, fan attracting free agent signings to gobble up too much of that $$, and keep the team sub-.500 for years.

Let's say MLB institutes a $54 million salary minimum for 2011. Kansas City gives aging, embattled slugger Manny Ramirez - coming off 2 decent years in L.A. - a 2 year, $28 million contract, and signs closer Jonathan Papelbon to a 4 year, $60 million deal. However, they lose Greinke in the process, because The (insert Mets, Yankees, Red Sox or Angels here) offer him a staggering 6 year, $148 million. That leaves roughly 46% of the salary to account for the remaining 92% of their roster - this assumes tthe Royals are going to keep it close to the minimum, so the figures are give or take a few million.

In "example land" - where every other roster in the game remains unchanged (we'll say Bowden or Tazawa turns into a closer for the Sox) - do the Royals compete?

R: Like the example...interesting.

So, for me, I want a minimum of 60-75M, but that is splitting hairs isn't it.
If this example plays out (and it might), 2 things should happen:
1. The GM should be run out of town
2. The fans would lose interest watching (or not watching) a high-profile closer sit in the bullpen.

At least it would be a fair fight. We can't solve the issue that some owners would rather look good and lose...but it would be a start!

WR: Agreed. There will always be owners looking to turn a buck at the expense of winning. I guess it just comes down to how much of our own personal values we place on, or within, the sports we love to watch. If it's just entertainment, then you'll enjoy Mannywood, the Favre saga, and don't really care about steroids. If you look to sports as an outlet within which to validate your beliefs in hard work, integrity, and honest emotion - well, lately you're S.O.L.