David Wadler’s Assorted Thoughts

Today, New York Yankee stalwarts Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera issued support for their beleaguered teammate, Jason Giambi. Jeter’s comments were fairly run-of-the-mill, but Rivera�s were interesting: “I always support all of my teammates. He made a mistake, but he was man enough to admit it.”

Man enough to admit it? This is the same Jason Giambi who, in February, was asked if he had ever taken performance-enhancing drugs and replied thusly, “Are you talking steroids? No.”

In recent weeks, some of the details regarding Giambi’s drug regimen have been leaked to the public. Among other things, he reportedly injected HGH into his abdomen and steroids into his buttocks. In light of this of these revelations, perhaps Mariano Rivera should have said something like this: “I always support all of my teammates. He made a mistake and lied about it repeatedly, deceiving the media, the fans, and his teammates. However, he was man enough to realize that perjuring himself in front of a grand jury was not a good idea, so he told the truth rather than face the possibility of prison.” Clunky, huh? I guess that’s why Mariano opted for the shortened version.

I hate to pick on Sports Illustrated�s Peter King because every Sunday night, I find myself looking forward to his MMQB column. However, I was dismayed to see yet another major publication allow the incorrect usage of the word “nonplussed” to bubble up from writer, to fact checker, to copy editor without anyone’s applying the dreaded red pen.

In a section of his article that focused on Eli Manning’s improvement, King wrote the following:

Then Accorsi wrote about how glad he was to see Manning bring the Giants back after the Steelers kept scoring, and about how he liked how a nonplussed Manning dealt with the Roethlisberger comparisons.

“Nonplussed” is not synonymous with “undaunted”. In fact, while its meaning is not quite the opposite of undaunted, its usage contradicts all of the accolades heaped on Manning earlier in the piece. What then does nonplussed mean? Someone is nonplussed is bewildered, flummoxed, puzzled, or confused. I’m glad that I’m not the only one who has noticed the evolving neo-connotation (bad pun, my apologies!) of the word. Almost five years ago to the day, this commentary on nonplussed appeared on Random House’s website.

A problem that continues to plague the Mets is the spending of good money after bad. Take, for example, the case of Kris Benson. Sports Illustrated had this to say:

They overpaid, but they had to. The only way to save any face from last season’s disastrous trade deadline deals was to lock up Benson to a long-term pact.

This is exactly the type of reasoning that’s prevented the Mets’ front office from digging itself out of trouble. There is little disagreement that 2004’s trades for Victor Zambrano and Kris Benson — for whom the Mets gave up their top two pitching prospects and a top catching prospect — were ill-conceived. Why compound the issue by overpaying? I realize that the front office didn’t want to enter the 2005 season with nothing to show for parting with Matt Peterson and Justin Huber, but couldn�t the management find a smarter way to spend $22.5 million?

Benson is a solid number three pitcher and a good number four. However, this is a guy who hasn’t had an ERA under since his second year in the league. His career ERA is 4.28 and he hasn’t shown himself to be a dominator. At 30 years of age, Benson is unlikely to improve dramatically. Both Shea Stadium and Rick Peterson have been good for pitchers in the past and it’s possible that a favorable park and an excellent pitching coach could help Benson squeeze a bit more out of his talent.

Victor Zambrano, who will turn 30 this season, missed a good portion of the 2004 season with elbow problems. When healthy, he had electric stuff — so electric, in fact, that he often didn’t know where his pitches were going. Despite never having started as many as 30 games in a season, Zambrano has twice walked more than 100 batters. Although his contract is far better than Benson’s, the consensus is that the Mets sacrificed too much (Scott Kazmir) in acquiring him. And with Tim Hudson � an established, but still young ace, on the market, the Mets lack the pieces to acquire him. Had they approached Billy Beane with Kazmir, Peterson, and Huber, perhaps Hudson would have called Shea home.

To add insult to injury, reports indicate that the Mets are on the verge of signing Pedro Martinez. (The latest update: Pedro will sign a 4-year contract for $56 million if the Mets don’t insist on an MRI during his physical.) A few years ago, this would have been a coup for New York. But in recent years, Pedro’s performance has declined from historically great to merely better than most of his contemporaries. More worrisome is that he is 33 years old with a flayed labrum and a sensitive temperament.

A couple of years ago, the Mets overpaid for another Hall-of-Fame quality pitcher. In 2005, Tom Glavine, a 39 year-old southpaw coming off two mediocre years, will earn close to $11 million. Just 38 wins from 300, he will be backed by a Mets offense that was one of just five to score fewer than 700 runs in 2004.

The 2005 incarnation of the Mets will be young on the left side of the infield and grizzled everywhere else. Just a year ago, the team committed to rebuilding, but the front office seems to have changed course. This constant changing of direction has left the organization in flux with a roster stocked with a bunch of overpaid veterans, each of whom was signed to “put the team over the top.” The Mets fans, like any fans, want a competitive team. However, the fans seem far more willing than the management to endure a few tough seasons watching young players establish themselves. Management’s efforts in recent years have done nothing to improve the team though, and fans suffer through terrible seasons watching declining veterans take the field.

A year ago, the Mets offered a 28 year-old outfielder entering his prime a 3-year deal between $35 and $40 million. They refused to go higher because there was concern about this player’s back. In 2004, a healthy Vladamir Guerrero won an MVP for the Anaheim Angels. Were the Mets wise to be wary of Guerrero’s back problems? Absolutely. However, if the rationale for not offering a fourth year or paying a bit more was fear of injury, why are they willing to give an older player — who isn’t even an everyday player — a bigger, longer contract? In a perfect world, or at least a world in which the Mets have a good GM, the Mets might have Tim Hudson heading their rotation and Vladamir Guerrero in right field. For the same price, it looks as if they’ll have Kris Benson, Victor Zambrano, and Pedro Martinez.

Countering claims that his perceived association with the Democratic party helped cost John Kerry the election, Michael Moore asserts that his involvement (combined with other celebs) was actually helpful: “…what we did was we prevented a Bush landslide.”

“For the last month, we’ve had to listen to a lot of conservative pundits talk about how Democrats need to run away from Hollywood,” Moore said. “It’s actually the opposite. Democrats need to embrace Hollywood because this is where they need to come to learn how to tell a story.”

Moore’s experience is different than mine. Most of the conservatives I know are licking their chops at the prospect of the Democrats’ continuing to court celebrities. On the other hand, those who supported Kerry’s candidacy think that the Democrats need to fundamentally change the way they approach the public. In a country that had endured horrible terrorist attacks, an economic downturn, the disappearance of a balanced budget, and a war whose end the President celebrated with the “Mission Accomplished” landing, but that threatens to be a long-term quagmire, stories are unnecessary. The Bush Administration’s less-than-stellar record needed not the Hollywood touch, but rather some simple clarity. One of the reasons for the mixed message was doubtless the myriad talking heads from Beverly Hills, who for much of America, were de factro proxies for the Democratic party. Moore suggests that Bush “had a more compelling story to tell and the Democrats didn’t.” Interesting, isn’t it? The party that eschews Hollywood was able to develop a clear, consistent narrative, ultimately turning four years of lemon policy into lemonade.

Moore points to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in California as proof that “America loves Hollywood. America loves the people in the movies and on TV. And the thing that the Republicans have already figured out is that America likes to vote for Hollywood…” Perhaps the rabble-rousing filmmaker failed to note that the Governator now leads a state that was handily won by Kerry. California and New York were not in play in the last election; pandering to two coastal powerhouses is not sufficient to elect a president. An inability to recognize that his approach was fundamentally flawed resulted in Ralph Nader’s 2004 candidacy, forever tarnishing his reputation as a force for positive change in the U.S. Michael Moore seems destined to join Nader among the ranks of the American political undead. These vampires stare into the mirror, they remain unable to see what is reflected back.