Yanks to Play Red Sox 162 times in 2006

Major League Baseball announced today that the Yankees and Red Sox would square off 162 times in the 2006 season, up from the 19 games the teams will play against each other this year.

The league hopes to capitalize on the success of the 2005 matchups, in which the two teams faced each other on opening day and in the first series after the All-Star Break.

“The TV ratings for Yankees-Red Sox games are so much higher than Yankees-Devil Rays or Red Sox-Blue Jays,” said commissioner Bud Selig. “We figured ‘why not do this every day?’”

Since the two teams have met in the American League Championship series for the past two years, the 162 contests in 2006 will eliminate the need for all the other teams in the American League to play the regular season. Players on those teams will, however, be allowed to purchase up to six (6) tickets for any Yankees-Red Sox game in 2006.

“We think it’ll be fantastic,” said Selig. “There will be a playoff atmosphere all year long.” Selig said the league owners had considered a similar schedule for the Dodgers and Giants. But it was rejected because both teams were so lame.

In other news, Selig announced that the St. Louis Cardinals will advance straight to the National League Championship Series in 2005, since all the other teams in the NL are so lousy. “The Cardinals are head and shoulders above all the other NL teams. We thought it appropriate that they receive a first-round bye,” Selig said.

A Simple Solution for Eminent Domain

The Supreme Court’s puzzlingly odious decision on eminent domain allows governments to condemn private property in the name of the public good, and then turn that property over to private developers who can use the land to generate more tax revenue.

While it’s not likely, on its face, the decision means that the government can seize your home and put a Starbucks on it.The concept of eminent domain was tricky enough when it was limited to public use projects. But extending it to private development is even more dubious.

So here’s a simple solution that might make eminent domain more palatable in all instances: double the market value for any property condemned in the name of eminent domain.

Currently, owners of property taken by eminent domain are paid market value. This is paltry remuneration for a home or business owner who is usually given 90 days to evacuate. For starters, who’s to say what market value is these days. Here in Southern California, houses in prime neighborhoods are known to inspire bidding wars that push their selling price as much as $100,000 over asking.

For another, many property owners do not want to move at all. The costs of breaking up neighborhoods, finding new places to live or do business, and moving at a time that may not be convenient cannot be measured in dollars.

Also, there is tax creep. In California and many other states in the country, property tax is based on the sales price of a home. A house that was purchased in 1980 for $200,000 may now be worth more than $1 million, but the taxes are probably still only around $4,000 a year. But even if the owner is paid $1 million to get out of the way for a football stadium, he will have to spend that $1 million to get a house of equal value. And the taxes on that house will be more than $10,000 a year.

Doubling the market value of condemned property solves these problems. If a project is so important to the government that it has to force people from their homes and businesses, it should be profitable enough to afford twice the payouts. If there isn’t that kind of money in the development budget, it’s not worth doing. This would be an excellent deterrent to using eminent domain willy-nilly.

Property owners are satisfied as well, since the additional dollars makes up for the inconvenience of having to move on short notice and pay more in taxes. If the feds offered me “market value” for my house or business, I’d be angry about it. But if they offered double market value, I’d have no regrets.

All the Stars

As long as we’re letting the players choose the reserves for the All-Star games, why not remove even one more of the manager’s jobs: choosing the starting pitcher. The fans get to choose all other eight (or nine) starters, why not the starting pitcher?

I know, I know—because you can’t ever tell which pitchers will be available up until game time. So what. A pitcher who goes to the game has to expect to pitch at least an inning. So even if the guy pitched Sunday, let him go out and pitch the first inning. Nobody expects a complete game out of him. And in the “everybody gets to play” era, having a pitcher go more than one inning means one of the other ten guys on the staff probably doesn’t get to touch the grass after the opening ceremonies.

The All-Star game is an entertainment, not a contest. The fans should get to choose who they want to see on the mound.

While we’re at it, can we get rid of the “Every player gets a representative” rule for all-star rosters. Does anybody think that the folks in Tampa Bay have more interest in the game because Danys Baez is on the team? Are people in Oakland going to rush home to catch the one-third of an inning in which Justin Duchsherer pitches? Would viewership in Colorado suffer if Brian Fuentes were left off the roster?

No. Of course not. This rule stinks of third grade competitions in which everybody gets an award.

Wake up, baseball! The All-Star Game is not the Special Olympics. If a player isn’t good enough to be chosen by the fans or his fellow players, nobody outside of his family wants to see him play on the national stage.

Tempest in a Clubhouse

Johnny Damon and the usual gang of self-described idiots in the Boston Red Sox clubhouse are concerned that Curt Schilling doesn’t deserve to be the team’s closer, a role management has chosen for him in the wake of Keith Foulke’s knee injury. Damon worries that Schilling, who takes forever to warm up, will be an ineffective closer.

Schilling, meanwhile, can’t return to the starting rotation at the moment because he can only pitch an inning at a time. He has dreams of being John Smoltz, a guy who became a standout closer upon returning from injury that prevented him from being a starter. He claims that he just wants to help the team however he can.

They’re both wrong. Schilling’s Messianic complex (give him props: he was the difference between the 2003 wild card team that lost to Aaron Boone and 2004 world championship team) prevents him from continuing to pitch in Pawtucket until he’s healthy enough to start again. And Damon’s public criticism of management eats away at the notion of the Red Sox as a 25-man team.

Schilling can be a pill, but he delivers in big situations. If he has the stuff to be a closer, why not let him try. If he’s terrible, the front office will learn that soon enough.
Then again, if Schilling had any humility, he would accept a role other than closer, especially since Mike Timlin has been a closer before and has had a stellar first half.

In fact, Schilling might even invent a new role: The stopper. Not a reliable starter, not a closer, but a guy who comes in in the middle innings and makes sure no more runs are scored until the closer comes on to finish the job. This was a role Mariano Rivvera filled for the Yankees in 1996, and a key reason they won the world series.

A stopper is the first guy out of the bullpen, not the last. He does what relievers were originally called upon to do when they were invented half a century ago: put out the fire. Schilling could pitch the sixth and seventh innings of any close game, ensuring that the bullpen didn’t blow it before the closer even had a chance to come in.

SMOLTZ V. SCHILLING
The comparisons between Smoltz and Schilling are extremely interesting. Both pitchers started their careers in 1988; Smoltz has pitched 2/3 of an inning more than Schilling. Schilling’s record (185-125) is slightly better than Smoltz’ (172-126) but Smoltz’s ERA is 3.25 compared to Schilling’s 3.35. Schilling has more strikeouts (2,765 to 2,496) but Smoltz of course has more saves (154 to 13). Schilling has two World Series rings compared to Smoltz’s one.

But Smoltz leads in Cy Young Awards. He has one, Schilling has none. Despite putting up seasons of 23, 22, and 21 wins, Schilling has never been the best pitcher in the league. Randy Johnson bested Schilling in 2001 and 2002 (Schilling wasn’t even the best pitcher on his team!) and Johan Santana outpitched him last year.

So who gets into the Hall of Fame? My guess is both, even if they both retired right now. (Schilling turns 39 in November; Smoltz in May of 2006). Schilling is the Juan Marichal of his era, always second to Gibson or Koufax, but never the best. Still, his numbers are impressive and his two rings will push him over the top. Smoltz has the ring, the award, the ERA, and a unique combination: 150 wins and 150 saves. The only other pitcher with that mix is Dennis Eckersley, just recently elected to the Hall.