Fantasy Baseball Update

I won the first week, despite my opponent having the red hot Vernon Wells.  There have been several roster changes for my team.

With Cliff Lee on the DL, there was a free spot, and, in an attempt to beef up the outfield, I tried to get Nick Swisher, but lost out on him to another team with higher waiver priority.  So I picked up Milton Bradley, a high-risk, high-reward player.  Right now he's looking just high-risk.

Another team then dropped Carlos Gonzales, and I snapped him up, dropping Matt Diaz who hasn't played much this year, and likely won't with Heyward in the Atlanta outfield.  So now my outfield is Holiday, Manny, Juan Rivera, Heyward and CarGon, with Bradley in reserve.  That seems like a good mix of two excellent veterans, a solid performer, two exciting young talents, and a complete wildcard.  I also dropped Kevin Gregg, the non-closer in Toronto, to pick up Franklin Morales, the interim Colorado closer, pending the return of Street.

And I had one fairly big trade.  Another team needed infield help, and Scutaro was largely sitting on my bench.  So I traded Scut and Roy Oswalt for Brett Anderson.  I'm hoping that this is a pitching upgrade for me, and Oswalt is bit of an injury risk playing for a bad team.  But Oswalt has looked pretty good so far this year.  I think it's a fair trade that should help both teams, but time will tell.  Last year this league had very few trades, it will be interesting to see if the two additional teams change that.

My "problem" of having two good catchers was quickly solved when Miguel Montero, my round 12 draft pick, went down for at least six weeks, probably longer.  The bad news is he's no longer worth anything in a trade.  The good news is that I had one spot open on the DL, and this opened up a spot to take a gamble on Justin Duchscherer, a two start pitcher for this week.

The other "interesting" news is that Neftali Feliz will, for the time being, close for Texas.  The rate closers have been blowing saves and losing games this year, that may not be a huge benefit.  But I now have three closers: Qualls, Morales and Feliz.  One of them (Qualls) is pretty solid.  This is still an area of concern but hopefully one of the others will pan out.

Baseball (and Fantasy Baseball) Returns

It has stopped raining here in California, it's getting warmer, and baseball has started, meaning that, for a short while, all will be well in the world.  Right now the Giants are in first place and the A's only a half game out.  :-)

Last year I played in my first fantasy baseball league and had a great time.  I joined the league in the third week, so last year I wasn't involved in the draft.  This year I was.  It was an automated "make your list" draft, so the results were, let us say "interesting".  Overall, I'm very happy with how it turned out, but the ESPN computer made a few choices differently than I would have made in person.

Last year pitching was very important in this league, with fairly standard head-to-head (not 5x5) scoring rules.  We tweaked the rules (e.g., dropping a win from +10 to +5 points) in an attempt to make pitching less important, but it looks like it was still highly valued by the participants.  Originally, I had bumped starting pitchers up the list, but then dropped many back to end up slightly above their normal slots.  I also downgraded any first-baseman not named Albert, figuring that if I didn't get him there were plenty of good 1B options available, mentally targeting Kendry Morales.  I downgraded most catchers not named Joe - figured if I didn't get him I'd target Montero or Suzuki.  I bumped up Pablo Sandoval, Ben Sheets, Ben Zobrist, Jason Hayward, Cliff Lee and Tommy Hanson.  For each round I said "pick best available" instead of targeting any special position.

Here's a link to the results.  I'm "Boomers Wallbangers" picking 6th. 

Round 1: Lincecum going #1 was a surprise.  Fred Lynns picking King Felix is a minor surprise, but she won last year with pitching, so I bet she ranked him and Timmy in the top three.  I know I had ranked A-Rod, Halladay, Braun and Mauer in the top-10, and A-Rod fell to me.

Round 2:  Verlander and Votto seem a bit of a stretch here.  My computer somewhat strangely picked yet another third basemen, Evan Longoria.  Hey, I grew up loving Brooks Robinson and Mike Schmidt, so having the two best third-basemen in the game is cool, if a bit redundant.  If I were picking, I'd probably go with Teixeira or Upton here for better balance.

Round 3:  I'm a bit surprised that Wainwright went here, before some other pitchers like CC and Greinke.  And, IMO, drafting K-Rod here is too early.  I'm very happy with Matt Holliday.

Round 4:  Three elite pitchers this late are good bargains.  Glad I got one.

Round 5:  I'm happy with Cliff Lee here, and Chris Carpenter and Victor Martinez also look like a good picks.  The Detroit Comets are clearly going for relievers early, which might be interesting in a year when Nathan, Lidge and and Street are hurt, but why aren't they picking Riviera or Papelbon?

Round 6: I'm happy with Zobrist.  A good hitter and love his positional flexibility.  McCann and Ethier also seem like good picks.  Mariano Rivera might be a bit early, but at least he's an elite closer.

Round 7: I get Kendry Morales, somewhat as planned.  Lets hope he lives up to his "undervalued" rep.  If I had been picking in person I'd be pissed that Matt Cain went two slots before.  Broxton goes before Papelbon.  Peraps reasonable, but a surprise cause many in the league are from Boston.  Or maybe they are sick of Papelbon?

Round 8: Apparently I rated Tommy Hanson above Ubaldo Jimenez.  I like both and am glad I got one.

Round 9:  Derrek Lee is o.k., one of the last "good, reliable" 1B.  In person, I might have gone for Soria instead, and would be upset that Torii Hunter went just before.

Round 10: Feels about right for Manny.  In person I might have tried Bailey, but the outfield needs bodies.

Round 11: We will see if Wieters or Suzuki plays better this year.  As an As fan, I probably rate Kurt too highly, but last year I pointed another team towards him (I had Victor Martinez) and he killed me in the playoffs.  In person, with relievers going early in this league, I would have been tempted by Heath Bell.

Round 12:  O.K., this is a computer mistake.  Miguel Montero is a fine catcher, perhaps even better than Suzuki, but I don't need two "top-seven" catchers, only one.  Peavy and Lackey, who go just before me,  look like good picks.

Round 13:  I like Asdrubal Cabrera here.  In person, with relievers going early, I'd probably have picked Brian Wilson instead, or maybe Carlos Gonzales for the outfield.

Round 14:  Yunel Escobar is good.  My infield is looking solid.  Sorry I missed Brett Anderson.  IMO, the last two Detroit Comets picks are excellent.

Round 15:  I like a lot of the picks this round.  In person, I'd be pissed that yet another reliever went one pick before, but Shields is a good pick this late.  Be interesting to compare him, Garza and Jair Jurgens at the end of the year.

Round 16:  Several good pitchers go here.  Again, be interesting to compare how Jered Weaver, Burnett, Hudson, Oswalt and Harden end up.  (I predict Huddy)

Round 17:  Relief!  I finally get Qualls, a decent quality closer.  Nice to have at least one.

Round 18:  I'm very happy to get an exciting Jason Heyward here.  If he flops, who cares, I got to follow him anyway.  I don't win any money in Fastasy Baseball, may as well get some players you love.  In person, I would have considered Francisco, but my outfield is still thin, so Heyward is, hopefully, a good pick.  I can understand Fuentes falling so low with Rodney in the wings, (I think he's a good pick this late) but its interesting that Ryan Franklin has also fallen so far

Round 19:  Hard to argue with Porcello as another good young pitcher with upside.

Round 20:  Several more decent pitchers.  As an As fan, I rated Sheets higher, but, objectively, De La Rosa, Lilly and Jackson may turn out better.  Again, wait till the end of the year!  Cody Ross seems a good pick here.

From here on out, it's mainly the computer rankings in action, as I didn't tweak the bottom of the draft list very much.

Round 21:  In person I would have considered Martin Prado, but the computer probably felt the infield was full and I do need bodies in the outfield.  (but see round 23)  Rivera is o.k. for an Angel.  :-)

Round 22:  In person I probably gamble on Matusz.  Apparently Kuroda is rated higher on the standard points.

Round 23: Scutaro?  Well, I like him, but not like I need a spare middle infilder.  I hope!  Maybe somebody else will.

Round 24:  In person, at this point I like my starters, so I would take a "high-upside" gamble on Liriano or Chapman.  But Niemann seems a solid, "o.k." pick this late.

Round 25:  Here random relievers go and you may not know who has won the closer role.  Neftali Feliz is one of the few non-closers who are worth having, so I'm vaguely o.k. with the pick  Joel Pinero looks to be a good pick.  Darned Fred Lynns, despite their name, have an eye for good pitching.  But, it's interesting that Chapman is still available till next round.

Round 26:  Kevin Gregg will probably be a complete waste unless he wins the closer job at Toronto.  In person, I either pick Franklin Morales as a temporary closer, else I gamble on Bedard.  Aroldis Chapman is a great "high gain, little to lose" pick.

Round 27:  Apparently, Matt Diaz is the highest rated outfielder remaining, and I need one.  Doesn't look like I missed out on anybody else.

Catholic Church Hierarchy turns Easter into "All About the Pope"

Easter, to believers, should be a profoundly sacred day celebrating the miracle of Christ's Resurrection and His gift of Grace.  Instead, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church turned it into a celebration of the infallibility of the Pope, "the unfailing rock of the Holy Church of Christ".


Whatever the facts of the case, they have failed their religion.  Their self-centered focus on maintaining power and hierarchy disgusts me.  It's not a surprise to any who study their history.


O.K., hopefully no more religious posts for a while...

Brief Commentary on The Church Scandal

Just remember that Thomas Becket was sainted largely for his insistence that priestly offenders be tried in ecclesiastical courts, not civil courts.  (see also here)

In late 1163 Henry decided to abolish certain privileges enjoyed by the clergy, which exempted them, when they were accused of crimes, from the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Criminous clerks, as they were known, were instead allowed to stand trial before a bishop in the ecclesiastical (church) courts, which usually resulted in much milder punishments.

So the Catholic Church has been defending it's criminals for thousands of years, while granting its highest honor to those who protect them.

We Have Eaten the Low-Hanging Fruit. What Next?

The Health Bill is now Law.  I'm not sure how it will work out.  I think it will benefit me personally.  The rest of us may have to wait to find out.

One thought that I haven't seen anywhere else.  Let's be generous and assume that the deficit reduction mechanisms actually work, and this bill is deficit neutral (or even slightly beneficial as the CBO claims).  Now, I don't really believe it will work that way, but let's say they do work.

The mechanisms involve roughly one trillion dollars in higher taxes on the rich, and savings in Medicare.  No skin off my back (for now).  These are, to some extent, the easy fixes, the most politically palatable, the "low hanging fruit" in the battle to decrease our deficits.

One trillion dollars is a lot of low-hanging fruit.  Instead of using them to pay down the deficit, we have eaten them.  Eaten them for a reasonable cause, but eaten them.  They are gone.  When the time comes to really tackle the deficit, we will have to reach higher.  One trillion is "easy" deficit reduction is gone.  Get ready for higher taxes that impact the middle class, and large cuts in other government programs.


Upon further searching, I noticed that Greg Mankiw makes a similar point here.

Clever media reporting on the CBO numbers

Most of the news articles say something like:

"cut federal deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade. 

Congressional analysts estimate the cost of the two bills combined would be $940 billion over a decade."

Now, maybe I'm missing something, but the only way this math works is if the bill involves a tax increase of 940+138 billion.  Which is 1.078 trillion. According to the WSJ,

        "The answer lies mainly in new taxes and curbs on Medicare spending."

Duh, so I was half right.  Wish the rest of the media would be more honest.  The New York Times does mention, in passing

"it would reduce projected federal budget deficits by $138 billion over the next decade, with additional tax revenue and Medicare savings."

I like their use of "revenue" and "savings".  Next time Republicans want to cut a government program, I assume the Times will call that "savings", not a "cut".  Sure they will.  Buried near the bottom are the hard figures of $438 billion in new taxes.   (Same for the Yahoo article)  The L.A. Times, somewhat more honestly, calls them "cuts in federal Medicare expenses", which, of course, are certainly not cuts in your Medicare benefits.  No sirree Bob.  Nice spin by the mainstream media.

Anyway, hope that clarifies things for anybody else who was confused.  Now, the benefits of the bill and greatly increased coverage will, all in all, likely be worth the extra taxes and Medicare cuts.  Especially for those of us who aren't rich and aren't on Medicare.  :-)  I just wish both sides could have a serious discussion of these vital issues and act like grownups.

re: Jim Bunning. Paul Krugman, like many is wrong

Paul Krugman writes an editorial that can't get two sentences without being wrong.

"For days, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky exploited Senate rules to block a one-month extension of unemployment benefits"

Jim Bunning did not exploit some obscure Senate rule.  The Senate asked for unanimous consent on a bill and he said no.  Surely well within his rights - if all Senators are required to unanimously support all bills, there's no point in having them.  Apparently, Krugman is unaware of the whole purpose of the Senate, to vote yes or no on things, and thinks that voting no in itself is an evil, exploiting a Senate rule.

Actually, Bunning wanted the Senate to follow it's own rules, "PayGo", and pay for the$10 billion expense.  Note that one of those links leads to the Democratic Senate Budget Committee website, which says:

However, this point of order is not self-enforcing like the sequestration process; a Senator must raise the point of order against any violating legislation.

In other words, Bunning followed precisely the rules, as created by the Democrats, to raise the point of order about Paygo.  To balance the cost, he proposed, quite reasonably, using some TARP funds.  He also proposed removing the "black-liquor" tax-credit.  But this was nixed on a procedural issue by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif).   Nobody is writing how she exploited Senate rules to block his bill.

Some of the angst was that the benefits were about to expire in days.  True - real people would be affected, and that would be painful.  Harry Reid decared it an "emergency", as one of his aides wrote:

“The short term extension of expiring provisions is designated emergency spending because in economic downturns of this magnitude the Senate has traditionally treated extraordinary assistance to the unemployed as an emergency,”

Now, the Senate knew a long time ago that unemployment was running out for some recipients.  Was the Senate suddenly surprised that the economy is in bad shape?  Did they have a mass fantasy that millions of new jobs would be created in February?  No, they are too lazy to plan ahead, and rushed through some last minute bill.  Hmm, that does sound "traditional" for our representatives, so I agree with that part of the statement.

All Harry Reid had to do was

1. agree quickly to spend TARP funds
2. agree quickly to allow Bunning's black-liquor amendment to proceed
3. Call for a cloture vote.  Presumably, it would pass about 98-2, and the Bill would then get passed.

But the Senate leader chose to try to make a political point, trusting the press to misreport the facts.  As Paul Krugman, unsurprisingly, did. See here for a blog about more misreporting of Bunning's actions as a "filibuster".  But it may have backfired - enough people are getting the truth to realize that Bunning may have picked the wrong time and place for his solitary stand, but he definitely had some right on his side.

One later addition.  As part of his column, Krugman writes that Republicans are in a weird moral universe, and that extending unemployment is "textbook economics".  However, as James Taranto points out, in Krugman's own textbook, Krugman wrote:

"Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect"

 Now, these are unusually tough times, I don't think that this one instance of extending unemployment insurance will cause structural unemployment, but a good find by Taranto.