The View from Right Field

Break

I will be on vacation for six weeks.  I may post an occasional item now and then while I'm gone.  I'll be back, more or less regularly, the middle of March.

Greg Maddux's Hat

Sorry.  One more post on the Cubs before break.  What does it say about the Cubs' offseason, that the best feel-good story for Cubs is that Greg Maddux decided to go into the Hall of Fame with no logo on his cap instead of an Atlanta Braves logo?  

Still, I’m really happy about it.  Having seen Greg Maddux’s last game with the Cubs twice (September 30, 1992 and July 29, 2006), a victory both times, I am glad he is doing this.  It validates the importance of Chicago to him.  (As Paul Sullivan tweeted, "Tie goes to the Cubs.")

After Ron Santo’s induction in 2012, I thought it would be a long time before another Cub got into the Hall.  I guess I was wrong.  I’m looking forward to seeing Greg’s plaque the next time I am in Cooperstown.  Cubs fans are lucky that Greg Maddux is such a classy guy.

Two Comments on the Cubs: Tanaka and the Rooftops

Two final comments on the Cubs before I leave on a little break.  First, not getting Masahiro Tanaka.  I am fine with it.  One hundred fifty-five million dollars is too much money for a guy who hasn’t proven that he can pitch every five days.*  In spite of what some people seem to think, it’s not how much you spend.  It’s what you get.  Unlike Greg Maddux in 1992, Masahiro Tanaka is not a proven quantity in the major leagues on an every-five-day schedule.  It’s fine the Cubs didn’t get him for that price.

Second, the Cubs need to suck it up with the rooftops.  The rooftop owners have a contract for another ten years.  Why should they agree to let their view be blocked?  What's in it for them?  The Cubs (and Tom Ricketts) need to stop whining about the rooftops, and they need to stop making disparaging remarks about the rooftop owners, as Mr. Ricketts did at the Cubs Convention last weekend.  The rooftop owners have a contract.  Cubs need to redo their plan to avoid blocking the rooftops’ view – or pay them off so they don’t complain (or sue) – and get on with the renovation.
----------
* According to a tweet from Jayson Stark today, in 2013, Tanaka made one start on four days rest, four starts on five days rest and 22 starts on six or more days rest.

Obamacare: Where Are All the Uninsured People?

The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend that at least two-thirds of the 2.2 million people who have enrolled in new health insurance plans through the Obamacare marketplaces (through December 28) previously had health insurance, either through a job or a private insurance policy.  In other words, at most one-third of the enrollees were previously uninsured.  And the percentage may be even lower than that.  A McKinsey & Co survey said it might be as low as 11%.

The Congressional Budget Office had estimated that the Obamacare marketplaces would, in the first year, sign up 5 million people who were previously uninsured.  Based on the Journal’s estimates, at most 700,000 uninsured people have signed up so far.

Some previously uninsured people have now signed up for Medicaid, but even the Administration doesn’t know how many it is.  Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics estimates that the number of people getting Medicaid because of the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare, is considerably less than 500,000 people

When this all this started, there were roughly 40 million American adults without health insurance.  Obamacare has reduced that number by maybe a million or a million and a half people.  We have gone through all of this for that?  Why?

Vietnam; Iraq; Now Afghanistan: “It's in our national character that we turn our back on our allies.”

With Joe Biden, et al, pushing for a total withdrawal from Afghanistan this year (in effect) and President Obama having already done that in Iraq, I thought this quote seemed appropriate:

“Zach Iscol was a Marine captain in 2004 when his platoon – a combined unit of 30 Iraqis and 20 Americans – seized the railroad station on the first night of the bloody battle of Fallujah.

They spent a week kicking in doors and fighting house to house, block by block, in some of the toughest urban combat of America's eight-year war in Iraq.  Half a dozen of Iscol's men were wounded, but dozens of Marines in other squads were killed. …

“‘We used to plant the flag in the ground and say, “These are our allies,”’ said Iscol …..  ‘Now I'd say it's in our national character that we turn our back on our allies.’”

Once more on that last sentence:  “Now I'd say it's in our national character that we turn our back on our allies.”  If we do leave Afghanistan as Vice President Biden wants, is there any reasonable way to argue that Zach Iscol’s statement is not true?  How many of us care?

The 29th Annual Cubs Convention – January 17-19, 2014

Those of you interested in the Cubs, and what happened at the Cubs Convention this past weekend, have probably already read a lot about it.  (If you aren’t interested, you probably aren’t reading this post.)  Therefore, instead of doing an in-depth report of what happened, let me mention a few things that struck me, from a fan’s point of view, and might be of interest.

1.   I really do think the Cubs are on the right track.  I think they are going about things in the right way, and I think they are succeeding.  Trading veterans for prospects does hurt at times, even when the veteran is new, but I understand why the Cubs are doing it, and it’s okay.  When I will have a problem is if they get to the point where they start trading today’s prospects, after they get better, for another round of younger prospects.  The Pirates did that from 1993 to 2010 (or so).  If the Cubs start doing that, then I’ll have a problem.

2.   Re “Clark,” the new Cubs mascot, the stated purpose is to make the Cubs more kid and family-friendly.  Maybe that works for some kids, but I know kids who became fans because they went to the park and watched the game and paid attention and had fun.  Maybe some kids need “Clark”.  I can assure that many don’t.

     Also in terms in making the Cubs kid-friendly, the best thing the Cubs could do would be to play afternoon games on WGN.  That’s how kids get hooked on baseball.  I understand the finances of the game today may not allow that, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t keep it in mind.  It might give you some ideas on real baseball ideas to attract the kids.  (It was also suggested to me that the best way to be kid-friendly would be to win.)

3.   Last year the Convention was all about the plans for renovating Wrigley Field.  Virtually none of those renovations has been started.  What was supposed to take five years will now take at least six (counting from last year).

     The holdup, of course, is objections (and threats of lawsuits) from certain rooftop owners.  Tom Ricketts likes to compare the rooftop owners to a neighbor who watches Cinemax on your TV through the windows between your two houses.  Your neighbor even invites people over to his house to watch the shows on your TV – and charges them.  And he gets mad when you try to lower your blinds.  The story always gets a little applause.  Mr. Ricketts, however, misses a couple of things.  First, your neighbor may be charging people to watch your Cinemax shows, but you agreed to let him do it.  Also, your neighbor is paying part of your Cinemax bill.  Mr. Ricketts may not like the arrangement with the rooftops, but the agreements were in place when the Ricketts family bought the team.  The unspoken “elephant in the room,” with respect to the rooftops, is that they have contracts with the Cubs, and the Cubs are trying to get them to give up something that I am not sure the Cubs can force them to give up.

     One other thing:  I don’t know if Mr. Ricketts realizes it, but he sounds a lot like Andy MacPhail did twelve years ago when he talked about the rooftops. 

4.   Laura Ricketts answers questions like a graduate of the Crash Davis school of answering questions from the media (and fans).

5.   Rick Renteria sat in on the “Meet Cubs Baseball Management” session with Theo and the boys.  Rick said that, if a player shows that he understands he messed up and he is apologizing, you, as manager, don’t need to yell at the player.  If you do, the player will shut you out, and instead of remembering his mistake, he will remember you yelling at him.

6.  Shiraz Rehman, Assistant to the General Manager, said that the idea is to be in the playoffs every year (or almost every year) because you can only win a World Series if you are in the playoffs.  The best team doesn’t always win the World Series.  But if you are in the playoffs all the time, then you will be there when you get one of those magical runs to the World Series.

7.  Jed Hoyer said that the straight-line decline in offense over the last several years shows that baseball is getting cleaner (in terms of drugs).  Tied in with that, younger players are more important than older players in the new, drug-free environment.

8.   In response to a question, Assistant General Manager Randy Bush said that it easier for players to learn in the minor leagues than the major leagues.  He said it is better to make mistakes before 4-5,000 fans than 40,000 fans.  [Warning: Sarcastic comment coming.]  That shouldn’t be a problem.  Another season or two like the last couple of years, and there will only be 5,000 people at Wrigley Field.

9.   Jed Hoyer said that the clubhouse renovation (at Wrigley Field] is “incredibly necessary”, which raises a point I made in my pre-Convention rant:  Why not do the clubhouse now?  I asked Crane Kenney that question after the “Cubs Business Operations Update” session.  His answer, which convinced me (gosh, I hate to admit that), was that the clubhouse is not a one-off project.  To do the clubhouse, you have to rip up the concrete in the lower deck, which is big part of the renovation project.  If you do all that, you are reducing your leverage in the negotiations with the City/Alderman/rooftops, etc.  And, as I indicated above, you need as much help as possible in beating on the rooftops because they really do have a contract for another ten years.

10.    In “Cubs Business Operations Update,” Crane Kenney spent way too much time on his presentation (40 minutes).  He needed to shorten it up and get to the questions from the fans.  (At times Crane seems to be a little too full of himself.)

11.   The Cubs will be experimenting with digital ticketing (on smartphones, etc.).  While there was no mention of it, I cannot help but wonder if part of the reason for this is to make it harder for fans to re-sell tickets.  (I find that, when it comes to Cubs business management, being cynical is the best approach – and the mostly likely to be correct.)

12.   In the “Ricketts Family Forum,” a fan said he hoped that the Cubs would do something for Andy Pafko and that they wouldn’t ignore him like him like they did Phil Cavarretta when he passed away.  Tom Ricketts gave some gobbledygook answer about how they need to not forget people who aren’t around.  I don’t think Tom Ricketts realizes how many Cubs Conventions Andy Pafko came to (I counted 19 and I’ve missed five conventions), but then I don’t think the Ricketts ever came to the Convention before they owned the team.

13.   Sunday morning I went to “30 Year Anniversary: 1984 Team”.  They had eight players from the ’84 team there: Bob Dernier, Tim Stoddard, Steve Trout, Jay Johnstone, Rick Sutcliffe, Gary Matthews, Scott Sanderson, and Lee Smith.  Wayne Messmer (one of my favorites) was the host.

     I am now going to say something that some people may consider sacrilegious.  Because time is passing, and we are all getting older, I think the 1984 team is replacing the 1969 team as the favorite team for many Cubs fans.  After all, a lot of fans weren’t alive in ’69.  The ’84 team was the team of their childhood.  (I remember the ’63 team, the first team in my lifetime to finish above .500, but I’m going to leave it at that.)  The ’84 team was a team that had fun and that was fun for the fans to watch.  It was also our first post-season in 39 years.  The players all liked each other then, and they like each other.  (You can tell by the way they joke around, and the way they all have each other’s backs.)

     Gary Matthews said that he was talking to Ryne Sandberg around the batting cage this year in Philadelphia.  (Ryno is the Phillies manager and Sarge broadcasts for the Phils.)  Matthews asked Ryno if he still thinks of the last game in San Diego in 1984.  Ryno said, every day.

     According to Gary Matthews, Jim Frey’s idea was for Rick Sutcliffe to start the first game of the World Series, which is why Sutcliffe did not start game four of the NLCS.  Gary asked Frey: “What if we don’t make the World Series?”  Matthews said that, to this day, San Diego players say that they are glad they did not have to face Steve Trout’s sinkerball again in the series.

    Bob Dernier said that the guy who has taken an undue beating is Leon Durham.  In an otherwise right-handed lineup, Bull was our lefty.  Also, Sutcliffe noted that Durham hit a two-run home run in the first inning of game five.

     At the end of the panel, the audience gave the panel a standing ovation – and the panel gave the audience a standing ovation.

14.   Finally, as I said last year, the only reason the Sheraton works for hosting the Convention is because the Cubs are bad and the crowds are down.  When the Cubs get good, the Sheraton won’t be able to handle it.

Robert Gates Is Right Again: Joe Biden Is Wrong Again

In his book, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, Robert Gates said this about Joe Biden:

“I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

An article in this morning’s Wall Street Journal shows Vice President Biden is at it again:

“Vice President Joe Biden has resumed a push to withdraw virtually all U.S. troops from Afghanistan at year's end, arguing for a far-smaller presence than many military officers would like to see, said officials briefed on the discussions. …

Mr. Biden has lost previous debates on Afghanistan, but his arguments for a smaller force, likely of 2,000 to 3,000 troops, have gained traction within an administration increasingly frustrated by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.  Mr. Karzai has refused to sign a security agreement allowing American forces to remain in small numbers after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission there formally ends this year.

Some U.S. defense officials, preferring a remaining post-2014 U.S. force of 9,000-12,000, are skeptical of the smaller troop presence Mr. Biden and others advocate.  Such a force would be so limited that a full pullout would make more military sense, the officials said. …

‘Pulling the rug out from under Afghanistan really risks collapse,’ said Andrew Wilder, vice president of South and Central Asia programs at the United States Institute of Peace.  ‘We're in the endgame with Karzai, hopefully, and we really risk blowing it by announcing a “zero option” based on our frustrations with negotiating with a president who should soon be gone.’”

As I have argued before (and do not need to repeat here), we still have a chance (not a guaranty, a chance) to accomplish something in Afghanistan.  Clearly, mistakes have been made by both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations in policy with respect to Afghanistan.  At this point, however, all we can do is figure out what we should do from this point forward.  Leaving, whether totally or virtually totally (which is what 2,000 to 3,000 troops would be), is not a good idea.  I hope we don’t do it, though I am not surprised, per Secretary Gates, to see Vice President Biden supporting the idea.

Save the Warthog

I haven’t written much lately (except for my pre-Cubs Convention rant of yesterday) because things are getting so repetitious:  the Administration extends another deadline for Obamacare; the economy is improving but not too much (in December the unemployment rate dropped 0.3% but the number of jobs increased way below expectations); the President of France has a mistress (just one?); President Obama will be giving a speech on Friday; John Kerry is going to the Middle East; etc.  Congress is passing the appropriations bills needed to follow through on the Ryan-Murray budget agreement of last month, which is good, but that is about it.

Still, there is one thing I wanted to write about.  It is a little obscure, but I think it’s important.  With defense spending being cut back, each of the services has to come up with its own reductions.  The Air Force’s plan includes the elimination of the A-10 Thunderbolt II, also known as the Warthog.  This from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:

“For more than two decades, the A-10 Thunderbolt II has provided aerial protection to ground troops, a task it has performed from Iraq's ‘Highway of Death’ in the first Gulf War to the Taliban strongholds of eastern Afghanistan.  Few people at the Pentagon challenge the plane's reputation for providing forces with the best support possible.

Eliminating the Warthog – so named because of its ugly, snub-nosed design – is one way the Air Force is looking to deal with its need to trim more than $50 billion from its budget over the next five years as part of a broader congressional mandate that the Pentagon cut $500 billion over the next decade.  Air Force officials say retiring the entire fleet of about 300 A-10s by 2020 would save a total of $3.7 billion. …

‘Is the A-10 the best airplane to perform close air support?  Absolutely,’ said Maj. Gen. Paul T. Johnson, the Air Force director of Operational Capability Requirements.  ‘Do we want to get rid of the A-10 performing close air support?  No.  But it's a measure of where we are fiscally.’

The A-10 may be the best at what it does, he argued, but ‘in the age of austerity we can't afford that.’  Other planes and helicopters are still able to provide the same kind of protection as the A-10, he said, even if they aren't as effective.”

A couple of thoughts.  First, you have to wonder how much the Air Force cares about saving an airplane whose main mission is to support another branch of the military.  Is this maybe about the Air Force wanting fancy fighter jets, like the new F-35, instead of old, rather pedestrian planes like the A-10?

Second, I have gotten the feeling, from other articles on the Warthog (see here and here), that the theory is we don’t need the Warthog because we aren’t going to be fighting wars like Iraq and Afghanistan again.  If that is part of it, then that is dumb.  After Vietnam, we said we would never fight another war like Vietnam, and so we promptly forgot all we had learned about counterinsurgency warfare.  When Iraq turned into an insurgency, we weren’t ready or prepared, and it took us way too long to re-learn what we had forgotten after Vietnam.

We can’t say we’re never going to fight another war like this or that.  We don’t know what or how we are going to have to fight until we know what our enemies decide to do.  The one sure way to have to fight a particular type of war is to not be ready to fight it. 

The Warthog does a great job.  It protects our soldiers while beating the other side.  I understand that, in a crunch, we could use helicopters and fighter jets to do the same job.  You can use a wrench to hit a nail, but that doesn’t make it a hammer.  We could use other planes to do what the Warthog does, but they wouldn’t be as good and they would be more expensive. 

It is sort of amazing.  We have a great weapons system that does its job and doesn’t cost a lot – and the Air Force wants to get rid of it.  That seems a bad idea to me.  It could be an even worse idea the next time we have to fight a war.

Cubs Convention: Questions for the Ricketts

With the 29th* annual Cubs Convention scheduled to start Friday, it seemed appropriate to come up with a few questions it would be nice to ask the Ricketts Saturday morning:

1.  Why are there still rooms available two days before the Convention starts?  Similarly, why are you still selling weekend passes to the Convention today?  (Actually, I know the answer, but you still want to ask.)

2.  Why can’t you start some parts of the renovation, like upgrading the clubhouse, now?  If it’s important to improve the clubhouse, and add things like bigger weight rooms, batting cages, etc., so the players can do better, why can’t you start them now?

3.  If you need money, why not go ahead with the jumbotron, etc., in left field (which isn’t blocking any of the rooftops), and wait on right field until you get agreement?

4.  Why do you think the rooftop owners in right field should allow you to block their view of the field?  They have a contract that goes another ten years.  What are you going to give them to get them to agree?

5.  Didn’t you realize, when you bought the Cubs, that there was a binding contract with the rooftop owners?  It was in newspaper; you had lots of time to do due diligence.  Didn’t you figure it out?

6.  Finally, given the apparent lack of interest in the Convention this year (see #1 above), how long do you think the fans are going to wait, when you keep announcing big plans and don’t seem to start on them?  When are you actually going to do something?  (Clark, the mascot, doesn’t count.)
----------
* Given that it’s the 29th, I’m considering it the Doug Dascenzo memorial convention.

One More Time: A War Doesn’t End Just Because We Leave

I know I have mentioned this point before, but it needs to be said again because it’s important and because too many people, including people in important positions, don’t seem to understand it.

In responding to former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ new book, the White House released a statement, from National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden, which said in part:

“The President deeply appreciates Bob Gates’ service as Secretary of Defense, and his lifetime of service to our country.  Deliberations over our policy on Afghanistan have been widely reported on over the years, and it is well known that the President has been committed to achieving the mission of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda, while also ensuring that we have a clear plan for winding down the war, which will end this year. …” (emphasis added)

No, the war in Afghanistan will not end this year.  We don’t get to decide, by ourselves, when the war in Afghanistan will end.  Wars end when both sides agree that they are over.  Our help to the Afghan forces and to the Afghan people may end this year, but that doesn’t mean the war will end – unless you have such a self-centric view of the world that, if the United States isn’t involved, then the war isn’t happening – or at least doesn’t count.

This is important to say because too many people, including a lot of people on the liberal/Democratic side, seem to think we can end wars by just getting out.  Maybe we can end our involvement by getting out, but that doesn’t mean the war is over.  The war still continues.  Fighting still happens.  People still die.  Saying the over is over just because we left is a pretty selfish view – and wrong.
---------
ADDENDUM (1/10/14 1:40 pm): At the same time I was writing this post about Afghanistan, Peter Baker of The New York Times was writing this about Iraq:

“For two years, President Obama has boasted that he accomplished what his predecessor had not.  ‘I ended the war in Iraq,’ he has told audience after audience.  But a resurgence by Islamic militants in western Iraq has reminded the world that the war is anything but over.

What Mr. Obama ended was the United States military presence in Iraq, but the fighting did not stop when the last troops left in 2011; it simply stopped being a daily concern for most Americans.  While attention shifted elsewhere, the war raged on and has now escalated to its most violent phase since the depths of the occupation.”

UPDATE (1/11/14 11:15 am): I corrected a typo in the third setnece of the third paragraph by adding "mean".