The Great Rivera: 3000, 500 and 1

Congratulations to Mariano Rivera, The Great Rivera, for recording his 500th career regular season save last night. He also has 34 post-season saves (next best = Dennis Eckersley with 15).

The three numbers in the title have this significance:

3000 is the number of dollars in Rivera's signing bonus in 1990. He was a 20-year old beanpole from a fishing village in Panama who was expected to do very little as a starting pitcher, but the Yanks took a chance on him. Credit to scout Herb Raybourn, who signed the future Hall-of-Famer. What a bargain.

500 is obvious -- the save total he reached yesterday. Fittingly, in this age of three-out closers (*cough*Frankie Rodriguez and Eckersley*cough*), Mo came into last night's game in the eighth inning to secure the Yanks' win.

1 is his RBI total. Last night, in one of the worst pitching sequences possible, K-Rod (the aforementioned Rodriguez) walked Mo (career 0-for-5 including postseason) with the bases loaded to give the Yanks an insurance run in a 4-2 win.

In 1995, the Yanks called up Rivera to pitch in the major leagues as a starter. Other than an 8-inning, no-run, 11 K performance against the Chisax, he was an awful starter (3-3, 7.07 ERA). He fared better as a reliever -- after a rough first outing, he held down a 3.00 ERA over his final eight appearances. In the 1995 ALDS, he was a revelation: whiffing 8 Mariners in 5.1 IP and not giving up a run. As closer John Wetteland flopped, and the Yankees' staff as a whole bombed (5.94 ERA), Mo was brilliant.

In 1996, Rivera was THE bridge to the closer -- 107 IP, 130 K, 2.09 ERA and 1 HR allowed as the set-up man for Wetteland. Rivera finished third in the Cy Young Award voting as a set-up reliever, and 12th in the MVP ballot. That 2.09 ERA is great . . . but he has eight sub-2.00 ERA seasons.

The list of Mo's accomplishments as a player is long and The Monk would miss too many spots just trying to hit the highlights. The career statistical record says it all.

Congrats to Mo.

Buyer's remorse

The Monk would hope that PaMonk would be feeling some, at least at the same level that Marty Peretz does.

Peretz is the publisher of The New Republic, a political mentor of Al Gore, Jr., and strongly pro-Israel. Even as his magazine has become intellectually more akin to extreme left-wing periodicals like Mother Jones and The Nation, thanks to John Judis, Jonathan Chait, and Michelle Cottle (to its credit, TNR has also continued to print moderate liberals like Anne Applebaum, Leon Wieseltier and even moderate conservatives like Alvaro Vargas Llosa), Peretz is at minimum a voice of reason on Israel issues.

Or so it seemed until he famously wrote that friends of Israel and Jews could trust Obama. Peretz came to that conclusion in early 2008, and campaigned for Obama. Now, after Obama's speech in Cairo last week, Peretz seems to realize he screwed up. Some of Peretz's analysis of Obama's mythmaking:

When Obama attributes the establishment of Israel, and also Israel's fear that the Iranian government and many Arabs would quite happily visit another devastation on it, to the Holocaust, he is in fact accepting [Iranian Pres.] Ahmadinejad's analysis of the Zionist triumph and also one of the tenets of Palestinian rejectionism, which is that the Palestinians are correct in their phobia that they have paid the price for what the Nazis did to the Jews.

If the president does not grasp Israel's history, he should be more modest in his judgments. Here's just one huge fact that does not fit into the president's sweeping explanation for the success of the Jewish state: Why did more than 800,000 Jews return to Zion from their thousands of years of exile in the Muslim world beginning with the very morn of independence? Surely this rupturing of communal life dating back, in some cases, three millennia was not Holocaust-related.

* * *

I, too, am for a two-state solution. I always have been. As the president said, "many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state"; he should have said "most" rather than "many." . . . Alas, Obama cannot and does not say that most or even many Palestinians recognize the need for a Jewish state or even, for that matter, the Israeli state. Here there is no symmetry, alas, that will serve. The most he can say is that, "privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away." Why does he not say "many Palestinians"? Perhaps because it would be stark deception. So which Muslims? The democratic but, alas, irrelevant and tolerant Muslims of Indonesia? Or Cairenes, especially the intellectuals, who have lived under a peace treaty with Jerusalem for all of three decades, but have not quite accommodated themselves to the existence of Israel?

* * *
So, in the end, the grand conciliator violated his own principle and spoke asymmetrically: He was very tough on Israel, but he was vague to the Palestinians and to the Arabs. The president was not at all specific about what he wished from people who are still enemies of the Jewish state. Every Israeli concession requires a reciprocal concession, and not just words. But even words are difficult to extract from the Palestinian Authority, the so-called moderates. Mahmoud Abbas said only a fortnight ago that he had only to wait on what Israel surrenders. . .

Marty, and you too Dad:

I told you so.

Snakebit? More like suck

The Yanks aren't snakebit against the Red Sawx, they just suck. The problem is the Yanks like their shiny baubles -- the high-ceiling emotional flakes; the Red Sawx are tough. This has been the tale of the two teams since 2004, when the Yanks procured A-Rod, Kevin Brown, and Sheffield and let Pettitte go, while the Red Sawx obtained Schilling and dumped Nomah in mid-season. Since the 2004 ALCS, the Yanks have lost all three playoff series they've played; Bahstin has won the 2004 and 2007 World Series.

The Yanks have lost to the Sawx in nearly every way imaginable: they've blown 8th and 9th inning leads (game 1, game 8), they blew a 6-0 lead to lose a slugfest (game 2), they've been outpitched (game 3), they've been dominated (games 4, 5, 6) and from the fourth inning of game 2 until the 7th inning last night, they NEVER EVEN LED after the completion of an inning for five straight games against their biggest rival.

The Redsax toughness is now the stuff of legend: they scraped by the Yanks in games 4 and 5 of the '04 ALCS (one of which Mo blew, one of which Joe Torre blew) and never trailed in games 6 and 7; they fell behind Cleveland 3-1 in the '07 ALCS, then pounded the Indians 7-1, 12-2 and 11-2; they fell behind Tampa 3-1 in the '08 ALCS and 7-0 in the 7th inning of game 5 and extended that series to seven games. This is the toughness that the Yankees had from 1996-2001 -- the teams that were on the brink of defeat against Texas (1996, down 1-0 and trailing in the 9th in game 2 of a best-of-five series), Atlanta (1996, the '96 Yanks were the first team to win the World Series in 6 games after losing the first two at home), Oakland twice (2000 ALDS game 5 in Oakland, trailed 2-0 in ALDS in 2001), and even Arizona (ninth-inning miracles in games 4 and 5).

This is why signing AJ Burnett was a mistake (high-ceiling, Yankee-killer, injury-prone, complete flake) and the Yanks should have signed Derek Lowe (7-3, 3.44 with the Braves), who has started 32-35 games in each of his seven seasons as a full-time starter, cracked 200 IP five times, has five seasons of 14+ wins (Burnett has one) and who pitched six innings of one-hit ball in Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS on TWO DAYS' REST. That's the kind of toughness the Yanks used to display.

The Yanks made two good moves this offseason by signing Teixiera (1.081 OPS, 3 HR, 7 R against the Sawx this year) and Sabathia. Tex is tough and has singlehandedly improved the Yankee defense by an order of magnitude. Sabathia pitches long, well and hard. He stayed in a batter too long last night. Burnett is going to be a 16.5M/yr bust, even if he averages 13-11, 4.60 each season. Joba has the requisite toughness to win (see his 1-0 win at Fenway last year), but the team as a whole is in a morass thanks to too many flakes (Cano, Cabrera, A-Rod) and bouts of plain stupidity (Swisher).

The Monk worried less when the Yanks fell behind Bastin in their season series 1-5 (2007), 1-4 (2006), and 1-5 (2004) because those teams tended to start slow, always played well against the Sawx the third time around (the Yanks won 9 of 10 v. Bastin at one point in 2006), had Torre at the helm (who managed every regular season game [tho' in 2004-07 not every playoff game] as if the Yanks needed the win; Girardi doesn't do that as well), and had taken their pound of flesh from the Sawx before the All-Star break. This year, the Yanks stink against Bahstin and won't get another change at redemption (the past three days were supposed to be the redemption) until August. At least in '97, when the Orioles were good and beat the Yanks like a drum, it was only 4-0 O's before the break and, even after the Orioles ran that series to 7-0, the Yanks immediately thrashed the O's four times in the final five games in the following 10 days (the one other loss was the two-game difference in the final standings).

There's no way to spin this -- the 0-8 start is a complete disaster.

Wongdoer is right about one thing, that ball two call on Pedroia last night changed the game a bit, but borderline calls are 50-50 propositions. Bad managing, bad execution, and bad character are not.

Snakebit

The Yankees are snakebit against Boston in 2009.

I'll leave the hard analysis to Monk who is good at this sort of thing. A few thoughts:

1. The Yanks need to IGNORE that they've been swept in Boston. NY, with the exception of the that five game Boston massacre, has completely lost its mojo/confidence/edge against Boston since the 2004 disaster. Take 2 out of 3 or sweep the Mutts and get on with life. Unless in the unlikely event that there is a tie for a playoff spot getting to and winning in the playoffs trumps even being 0-19 v. Boston

2. If CC had gotten that inside fastball call against Dustin Pedroia, it would have been one down and man on first. That should have been a strike. Compare that with the high strike on Teixeira in the 9th. That was very, very high.

3. A gripe that I've long had about the Yanks is how they went down in the 9th: 1-2-3. No fight. Can't blame Tex for that really because that should have been a double if it was hit four feet on either side of Youkilis. The Yanks are terrible at extending at-bats...except...

4. in the top of 8th in that bloody squall when the Yanks half took FOREVER and my continuing thought was get out of there and let CC come in before he gets cold. Can't blame the guys for fighting in the 8th but it was just bad timing.

Go Hoos II!

The Monk is a bit remiss (workload) and a bit late with this:

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE VIRGINIA CAVALIERS BASEBALL TEAM -- COLLEGE WORLD SERIES BOUND!

Virginia not only swept through the Irvine regional, as I discussed last Monday, it won its Super Regional and will now participate in the College World Series for the first time in school history!

Last weekend, Virginia had to travel to Oxford, Mississippi for a best of three series against the University of Mississippi. Ole Miss had received a #1 seed from the NCAA, which was appropriate (#9 or #11 ranking, top 16 RPI); Virginia had been screwed and given a #2 seed (#11 or #7 ranking, top 10 RPI). So Ole Miss hosted as the higher remaining seed.

Virginia bonked game 1, squandering a 3-2 lead entering the 9th with an error by the secondbaseman and a questionable pitching decision (not bringing in the team's lock-down quality closer to start the inning). Ole Miss won 4-3 on a leadoff homer in the bottom of the 12th.

In game 2, Ole Miss returned the favor, bonking a 3-2 lead entering the 8th with a terrible error by its secondbaseman (Chuck Knoblauch-ish throw) and the Cavs rallied for a 4-3 win.

In game 3, Ole Miss scored one in the first inning and nothing else. The Cavs' top-notch pitching carried the team; its hitters scraped together a three-run, error-aided rally in the fifth to take a 4-1 lead and Virginia coasted to the 5-1 win and a celebratory pile up in Oxford. Virginia is the only CWS team this year to lose its first game of the Super Regional.

On to Omaha, site of the College World Series and even tougher teams. The eight-team field is separated into two sub-brackets (basically teams seeded 1, 4, 5, 8 in one bracket; 2, 3, 6, 7 in the other). Virginia is essentially the #6 seed in the CWS, it faces national #3 seed LSU in its first game. The other teams in the sub-bracket are national #2 seed Cal-State Fullerton (the runner-up to UC-Irvine in the Big West Conference, but CSFU actually had a better resume because it fared better against non-Big West teams) and upstart Arkansas, which dropped Florida State in the Super Regionals.

This is the bracket of death: LSU is excellent again and is coached by Virginia coach Brian O'Connor's mentor, CSFU is a powerhouse, and Arkansas has feasted on good teams (5-0 against Florida, swept FSU, drubbed Oklahoma twice in Norman). Unlike Irvine or Ole Miss, Virginia's next opponents can BASH, which will be a big test for the Cavs' pitchers (who held UNC to 13 runs total in their four games this year -- a great total in high-scoring college baseball). Sub-bracket winner plays the survivor of Texas, North Carolina, Arizona State and darkest of dark horses Southern Miss (a #3 seed in its regional).

So this will be interesting. The semi-unknown Cavs on the biggest stage in College Baseball against two perennial powers (LSU has five titles, CSFU has four) and the "other" team from the nation's strongest conference, the SEC.

Go 'Hoos!

The Gipper

The Monk hoped that Mark Steyn would post his excellent eulogy to Pres. Reagan last week, but in the absence of Steyn doing so on his own website, The Monk found the eulogy on Free Republic.

Five years and three days ago, Ronald Reagan died. His public life came to an end 11 years before that. But his legacy still endures, despite the current president's efforts to defenestrate it. Here is the importance of Reagan:

[The 1970s] was the era of “détente”, a word barely remembered now, which is just as well, as it reflects poorly on us: the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the free world had decided that the unfree world was not a prison ruled by a murderous ideology that had to be defeated but merely an alternative lifestyle that had to be accommodated. Under cover of “détente”, the Soviets gobbled up more and more real estate across the planet, from Ethiopia to Grenada. Nonetheless, it wasn’t just the usual suspects who subscribed to this grubby evasion – Helmut Schmidt, Pierre Trudeau, Francois Mitterand – but most of the so-called “conservatives”, too – Ted Heath, Giscard d’Estaing, Gerald Ford.

And Reagan confounded those, like his misbegotten "biographer" Edmund Morris, who could not understand that certain evils had to be confronted, not cozened.

“The Great Communicator” was effective because what he was communicating was self-evident to all but our dessicated elites: “We are a nation that has a government - not the other way around.” And at the end of a grim, grey decade - Vietnam, Watergate, energy crises, Iranian hostages – Americans decided they wanted a President who looked like the nation, not like its failed government. Thanks to his clarity, around the world, governments that had nations have been replaced by nations that have governments. Most of the Warsaw Pact countries are now members of Nato, with free markets and freely elected parliaments.

The paramount success for the sportscaster, actor, governor of California and President is that he succeeded in ultimately making unfree people free.

Unlike [Heath, Ford, d'Estaing, et al.], unlike most other senior Republicans, Ronald Reagan saw Soviet Communism for what it was: a great evil. Millions of Europeans across half a continent from Poland to Bulgaria, Slovenia to Latvia live in freedom today because he acknowledged that simple truth when the rest of the political class was tying itself in knots trying to pretend otherwise. That’s what counts. He brought down the “evil empire”, and all the rest is fine print.

65 Years

Omaha Beach today.

65 years ago, on June 6, 1944, an estimated 4,500 Americans spent died here establishing the first beachhead against Hitler's 'Atlantic Wall'.   A first hand account of the assault is available here.

Note the width of the beach, its about 200 yards.   The fastest runner in the world trained and unencumbered can sprint that distance in about 20 seconds.   American GI's had to land on a sandbar 50 to 100 yards in the surf, wade to the edge of the water and make those 200 yards again a wall of enemy fire.  

20 Years

20 years ago this past Thursday a student-linked insurrection against the totalitarian government in the People's Republic of China was crushed by tanks. The photo above of a student with a shopping bag standing in the way of column of tanks is perhaps the most indelible memory of June 4, 1989.

China economic progress in the past twenty years has been nothing short of stunning. In fact fears of Chinese economic power today rightfully overshadows concerns about Japan's 20 years ago. The last ten years has made China rich and a creditor to many nations most notably somewhere near a trillion dollars of the United States. Folks treat China like fine china these days and many are selectively choosing to overlook the hideous warts of the government of this country who consider liberty as anathema as it ever has.

While we admire their single minded dedication to economic superpower status and their superb management of the economy (even this author will grudgingly admit) let's not forget this government rules from the memory and stands on the shoulders of the bloodiest murderers in human history.

A highly negative comparison

Losing out in a comparison of (political) courage* to former Pres. Jimmy Carter is a mark of Cain. And to Holman Jenkins, Pres. Obama is so marked.

In his column, Jenkins notes the perilous political path Carter navigated to push Congress to pass the Staggers Act, which deregulated the freight railroad industry and effectively saved it from mass bankruptcies. Compare that to Obama's sop to the UAW that constitutes his GM rescue plan:

Rail executives and economists had been arguing since the 1920s, when competition from trucks and planes began to emerge, that comprehensive federal regulation had only distorted the industry's pricing, driven away investment, and made competitive adaptation impossible. But the argument had a new ring now that Washington would have to bear the political risk of operating and subsidizing the nation's rail services.

It still took some doing on Mr. Carter's part. When the bill stalled, a hundred phone calls went from the White House to congressmen, including 10 by Mr. Carter in a single evening. The bill essentially no longer required railroads to provide services at a loss to please certain constituencies. It meant going up against farmers, labor, utilities, mining interests, and even some railroads -- whereas Mr. Obama's auto bailout tries to appease key lobbies like labor and greens, which is why it can't work.

In his message to Congress, Mr. Carter warned of a "catastrophic series of bankruptcies" and "massive federal expenditure" unless deregulation was allowed to "overhaul our nation's rail system, leading to higher labor productivity and more efficient use of plant and equipment."

* * *

In 1980, Congress passed the Staggers Act, ending a century of federal regulation and leading to the railroad industry's renaissance. Leo Mullin, then a young Conrail veep, would later look back and praise all involved for having the fortitude to recognize that salvaging the taxpayer's investment in Conrail meant more than fixing a single broken company -- it meant fixing a defective regulatory environment.

Carter also deregulated the airline industry. This is a far cry from Obama's plans to regulate the pharmaceutical (through health care reform) and automotive industries nearly to death.

* -- Despite innumerable political disagreements with the man, The Monk will not question Carter's personal courage. Carter served on submarine duty in the US Navy during World War II, and served under Adm. Hyman Rickover in the Navy's pilot nuclear submarine program.

Go Hoos!

For the first time in its previously far-from-illustrious history, the Virginia baseball team has moved past the regional round. Congratulations to the Cavs.

When The Monk and his friend Luskerdu were at Virginia, the team struggled to maintain a .500 overall record and never even sniffed the NCAA Tournament, which at that time had 48 teams split into eight 6-team regionals with the regional winners advancing to the College World Series. After we graduated (and I think there's documentary proof that Luskerdu did graduate), the Cavaliers caught lightning in a bottle for a year in 1996 led by the quite mortal Seth Greisinger, who played in the majors for the Tigers, Twins, and Braves (he was a first-round pick, he flopped) before going to Japan.

In 2003, the 23-year coaching term of Dennis Womack ended and Virginia hired Brian O'Connor, a Creighton grad who played in the College World Series, coached for his alma mater, then gained national recognition as an assistant at Notre Dame. Since hiring O'Connor, Virginia has been a top-flight baseball program: five 40+ win seasons in his six years, six straight NCAA Tournament appearances (compared to three in Virginia history before O'Connor arrived), an ACC championship and constant success in the ACC -- one of the better baseball conferences in the country considering its plethora of national powers (UNC, Clemson, Ga. Tech, Florida State, Miami).

O'Connor was a pitcher and his knowledge of pitching has been the key to Virginia's baseball success. The Cavs play at the cavernous Davenport Field and consistently have one of the better pitching staffs in college baseball. And it's not just at home -- the Cavs rarely play those 17-15 aluminum bat-aided slugfests (or 37-6 slugfests -- see the beating FSU put on Ohio State) on the road either, even in Atlanta or Chapel Hill or Miami.

The NCAA Tournament now has 64 teams split into 16 regionals with teams seeded 1-4 and eight teams seeded as overall Nos. 1-8 (like seeded players in tennis). The winner of the double-elimination regional goes to a Super-Regional to play a best of three series against another regional winner. The Super-Regional winner goes to the College World Series.

Two years ago, Virginia was up 3-1 and six outs away from its first-ever trip beyond the regional round against defending champion Oregon State. The Cavs threw away that game (four errors) and lost the rematch; Oregon State didn't lose again on its way to another national title.

This year, the Cavs got a complete screw-job from the NCAA Tournament committee. After winning the ACC Tournament (beating UNC, Clemson and Florida State in the process, all of whom received #1 seeds), Virginia's RPI was #6 and its national ranking was #7 or #11 (depending upon the poll). Instead of hosting a regional as a #1 seed, the Committee sent the Cavs across the country to Irvine to the regional with the No. 6 overall seed (UC-Irvine), the best pitcher in college baseball (San Diego State's Stephen Strasburg -- the upcoming No. 1 pick in the baseball draft who throws 98-102 mph with a fantastic curve and slider), and the defending NCAA champ, Fresno State. If the NCAA does the snake-seeding method of the basketball committee, UVa was rated as the No. 27 team in the country. A ridiculous notion.

And yet . . . the team turned that chickens**t seeding into chicken salad. The Cavs took batting practice from 40 feet against pitching machines at top speed to prepare for Strasburg, flew out to Irvine without much talk of their bad draw, and performed. They touched Strasburg (ERA 1.24) for two runs and outpitched SDSU in their first game, 5-1. They shut down Irvine on Saturday 5-0. Last night, the Cavs again stifled Irvine on its home field -- a 4-1 win that sends Virginia to its first-ever Super Regional to play the winner of tonight's Mississippi-Western Kentucky game.

Congratulations to the Cavs. You're moving near the big stage now.

Sotomayor not a bipartisan pick

Ed Whelan has this note regarding how Judge Sotomayor was selected by the George HW Bush White House to be a district court judge:

. . . when President Bush nominated Sotomayor to the district court in 1991, the New York senators, Moynihan and D’Amato, had forced on the White House a deal that enabled the senator not of the president’s party to name one of every four district-court nominees in New York. Sotomayor was Moynihan’s pick. I am reliably informed that Bush 41’s White House nonetheless resisted nominating her because she was so liberal and did so in the end only as part of a package to move along other nominees whom Moynihan was holding up.

So not only did Bush put Souter on the Court, he paved the way for Sotomayor. And Whelan indicates she will be a far left-wing voice.

But as I said before, her lack of intellectual firepower compared to Scalia and Roberts means she won't be an influential one (*cough*Stevens*cough*).

Easy confirmation, no superstar

Pres. Obama took the quick and easy path by nominating Hon. Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court.

First, she's a two-party appointee. Pres. Bush (I) appointed her to a Federal district court bench during his sole term in office, Pres. Clinton appointed her to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (which handles appeals from cases filed in district courts in New York, Connecticut and Vermont).

Second, she is female. As only the third female nominee, she'll receive great deference from the Senate (only three Senators total have voted against a female Supreme Court appointee -- the three dissenters to Justice Ginsburg).

Third, she is Latina. This is the minority category du jour that "deserves" a place on the Supreme Court. Miguel Estrada would have been the first undoubted Latino to serve on the Supreme Court if the Democrats had not filibustered his Court of Appeals nomination under Pres. Bush (II). Whether Justice Benjamin Cardozo (served 1932-38) was Hispanic is an open question.

Fourth, her paper trail, while not overwhelming the average Rhodes Scholar for its intellectual content, is not overly controversial. For a Democrat's nominee to be "controversial" to the media, the nominee would have to take opposite positions on Iraq War or War on Terror issues (Elena Kagan) or have doubts about the legality of abortion. For such a nominee to be controversial in general, the nominee would have to espouse a judicial philosophy that questions whether the law should be applied as written. Her comments that a wise Latina woman with the experiences of growing up poor, female, and Latina should reach the right conclusion in a case more often than a white male who was never poor nor Latino, is nonsense and preposterous on its face. It's the same "empathy" quality that elevates the feelings of the litigants over the rule of law. But it's less easy to challenge her dedication to the rule of law than Obama's alleged favorite.

Obama had a Supreme Court candidate whose dedication to the rule of law is highly questionable. That candidate was Diane Wood, a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She seemed to be the favorite of liberal interest groups and the professoriat because she supposedly has the intellectual candlepower to go toe-to-toe with Scalia and Roberts. That's highly unlikely. But Wood was also the most controversial candidate possible precisely because her dedication to the rule of law is more open to question than any of the other rumored candidates (Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Sotomayor). After Sen. Jon Kyl said Republicans would fight any nominee who placed empathy over analysis (a shot at Wood), Sotomayor became the most logical pick.

Possibility of her nomination passing the Senate = 100%.

Possibility of her appointment passing without dissenting votes = 45%.

Possibility of her reasoning in decisions ever being equally persuasive as Scalia's = 0%.

Why Government Can't Run A Business*

John Steele Gordon's column today in the Wall Street Journal on why government cannot by its nature run businesses efficiently is the best I've ever read. The piece requires very little commentary but if there is one fact to take away it's: 

Governments make political decisions whereas running a business requires sound economic decisions.

By all means read it all but here are the bullet points:

1) Governments are run by politicians, not businessmen.

2) Politicians need headlines.

3) Governments use other people's money.

4) Government does not tolerate competition.

5) Government enterprises are almost always monopolies and thus do not face competition at all.

6) Successful corporations are run by benevolent despots.

7) Government is regulated by government.

Obamessiah is Wrong

Cliff Asness, founding principal of AQR Capital Management which runs $20 billion, savaged President Obama for his attack on hedge funds during the Chrysler bankruptcy process. It's exceptionally well-written. The key point:

The President's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to "sacrifice" some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power.

As for the arrogance of this administration I would draw attention to the comment by White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs this week: "We cannot rule out management changes after the stress-tests."

Specifically as Obamessiah executed Rick Wagoner at GM, they won't hesitate to execute bank and finance company CEOs.

Arlen Ambushed

My initial reaction on learning that Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania had crossed the aisle to become a Democrat was something like "That EFFING TRAITOR!!#$" in large part as Specter would give the Democratic caucus cloture proof sixty votes in the Senate which is in reality the last real obstacle to a liberal President and liberal Congress running rampant.

For many conservatives Specter has been a RINO (Republican In Name Only) for some years now in particular on his judicially activist views specifically calling Roe v. Wade and its subsequent survival a super-precedent. There were also those rancid "Kerry/Specter" lawn signs from 2004. On the other hand he did shepherd though the not particularly easy appointment of Samuel Alito the high bench.

It was amusing and a pleasant surprise this week when it turned out that the Senate Democratic leadership led by the sanctimonious snake Harry Reid that they essentially screwed Specter. Specter, who apparently was promised that he would maintain his Senate seniority if he switched parties, found himself treated as the most junior Democrat on Senate committees. This is a deep blow to Specter who attempted to sound Reaganesque on the reasons for his switch, i.e., "I didn't leave the Republican Party, THEY left me" but admitted that the catalyst of his switch was the fact that conservative Pat Toomey would run against him in Republican primary in 2010 and that the likelihood of him prevailing in that contest was bleak.

Essentially he switched parties, a month after stating unequivocally that he would not, to save his exalted seat in the Senate.

There may a silver lining somewhere in all of this.

2010 is a long way away but assuming that Pat Toomey is the Republican candidate, Specter is more likely than not to be a Democratic candidate. A Specter left out in the political cold is likely a very disgruntled Specter (remember his nickname IS Snarlin' Arlen) who won't get many Republican votes at all and might see the most liberal Democrats too disgusted to vote for him. A well run campaign by Toomey and a dulling of the gloss of Obamessiah may be enough to put this seat back in Republican hands. Even if Specter won, he would be a moderate to conservative Democrat rather than perhaps a liberal Democrat so this switch, while not a good thing, may not be such a bad thing after all.

Reid and the Democrats despite Specter's orneriness (still supporting Norm Coleman in Minnesota) should have welcomed Arlen with open arms and just bit their tongue and make sure Specter was in the tent p*ssing out.

Just Watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAfJyzN3ak

No idea if there is a backstory to this; e.g., perhaps Bush asked the White House press corps NOT to stand.

I am an Occam's Razor guy and seems to be me that the press has found their Messiah. Just hope it's not the false Messiah from Revelation.

Socialist Meddling

Why did stocks drop sharply yesterday? A pullback after an improbable six week advance? The immediate driver was the leak over the weekend that the Treasury was considering exchanging its preferred equity in US banks into common equity AND SecTreas' Geithner's comment that health of individual banks may not be the SOLE criterion for repayment of TARP money.

Healthy banks, some of whom had TARP money forced on them for the sake of the overall financial system last fall, want to pay it back as quickly as possible to get the government of their boardrooms. Goldman, Sachs and JPMorgan are at the head of the pack.

The Obama Administration likes to meddle and would like to do indefinitely. There's been a largely unspoken fear that healthy banks would not be permitted to pay TARP back. An excuse that it would be better for the financial system was likely or perhaps even more fearfully a diktat that said no one would be allowed to pay it back until all the banks can pay it back to assure a level playing field. Citigroup and Bank of America will take YEARS to pay it back.

If the House's 90% punitive tax plan was any indication, neither the Administration or Congressional Democrats (and the 80 or so idiot Republicans who voted for this bill), government in the boardroom is a bad idea. This is why financials took a tumble yesterday with financials leading the way.

A season in an inning?

That terrible ACK ACK sound you heard yesterday afternoon was the Yankees bonking an eighth inning lead by allowing three two-out runs to the woeful Royals (eight runs in previous five games). And the loss is ultimately Girardi's fault -- too much tinkering at the margins.

Girardi put Brian Bruney in for the 7th inning. Bruney is now being counted upon as a bridge to Rivera, and he responded with an easy 14-pitch inning. Then Girardi put Damaso Marte in for three lefties in the 8th. When the Royals pinch hit with two outs, Girardi lifted Marte.

And that's where the Yanks lost the game. Marte is getting serious money (> 15M/3 years) to pitch 60-70 innings a year and he has the experience and capability of getting righties out. That said, the otherwise underwhelming Billy Butler does hit lefties hard (.983 OPS v. lefty, .649 OPS v. righty). Once Girardi lifted Marte, he brought in Jose Veras. Veras walked Butler. That's inexcusable. But it's not reason to lift Veras to bring in the less experienced Phil Coke against a switch-hitter. Coke is a lefty-specialist; Veras was a general reliever who has a sufficiently effective breaking ball to get lefties out. And Veras has more experience both as a reliever and a major leaguer (Coke was primarily a starter in the minors). Bad move.

The Mess lost nearly 30 games last year that they led in the 7th and 8th innings because their bullpen stank. The Yanks cannot win the most competitive division by over-thinking the matchups against a stiff team.

Ultimately, there will be two repercussions -- more Joba-should-set-up nonsense from the fans, and more questioning of Girardi's handling of the bullpen (which had its own issues last year).

The possible solution is in Scranton -- Mark Melancon. He tore through A, AA and AAA ball last year and is a candidate to take over for Rivera in 2011. He throws hard, and is a career reliever, not a starter who can be converted like Joba. He'll be with the big club before June, especially if Veras and Coke can't find the plate.

Pres. Obama does the right thing

Pres. Obama passed a major test of will -- he ordered the dispatch of the USS Bainbridge and its Navy SEALs who effected the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips of the Maersk Alabama after the ship had been captured by pirates, the Captain had exchanged himself for his captured crewmen, and the crew had retaken the vessel whilst Phillips remained captive of Somali pirates for more than two days.

Obama needed prodding -- the military reportedly urged Obama to act before the president did so, and only when it was apparent that the pirates would kill Phillips did the rescue occur. Indeed, Obama seems to have limited the SEALs' authority to act such that they did not initiate rescue attempts when Phillips sought to escape on Friday. And there had to be some embarrassment level within the administration as Obama dithered Thursday and Friday as the Maersk crewmen took matters into their own hands and retook their ship.

Kudos to the Navy SEALs who gunned down three pirates including the one with a rifle aimed at Phillips. And ultimately, the best outcome occurred -- Phillips was rescued, the pirates were killed and the SEALs' tremendous competence was displayed. This will be a triumph for Obama, which would become a greater one if the president took some initiative and ordered strong action against Somali pirates, who continue to hold more than 200 hostages.

Bad Journalism 101

Read the story linked above and you'll think the Obama State Department is hopelessly cheap -- giving just $50,000 to Italy for relief assistance for the earthquake that hit L'Aquila.

But, as Instapundit noted thanks to one of his astute readers, the US isn't being cheap at all. The chief of mission in Rome immediately granted that 50K and that's the maximum the chief of mission may disburse without additional approval.

The Agence France Presse, which carried the story, should have made that fact apparent.

PECOTA Projections for 2009

Baseball Prospectus has run its PECTOA (Player Empirical Comparison and Optimization Test Algorithm) projections for 2009 and come up with the following division winners: Yanks, Indians, A's, Mess, Cubs, Dodgers with the RedSawx and D'Backs as the wild card teams.

These projections are interesting for various reasons, not least of which are that BP has a good track record for picking sleepers (they had the Rays with 90 wins last year).

But some of the numbers they come up with are weird. They had only two AL teams hitting better than .265, which was below the league average last year (.268). They had the Yanks at .264/.337/.413 for average, OBP and SLG but the '08 Yanks were .271/.342/.427 with a weak year from A-Rod, too many at bats for Jose Molina and no Texeira. And BP predicted the Yanks would allow just 634 runs -- the last time the Yanks allowed less than 656 (the 1998 total) in a full season was 1978.

BP also predicted that the three best overall batting teams would be from the National League and even predicted the Rangers would score fewer than 800 runs, something they've never failed to do since The Ballpark in Arlington opened in 1993.

Review the numbers . . . and have some salt grains handy.

Seasons change in early April

College basketball season ends tonight (men's) and tomorrow (women's [yawn, another UConn rout]) and baseball season is underway. And for the first time in about five years, the Yanks are built for more than just the regular season -- they have the starting pitching depth to win a post-season series.

First, the end of the college basketball season. Even though my prediction of where it would finish was wrong, my comment about Michigan State was right -- it's the only Big T(elev)en team capable of succeeding in a non-Big T(elev)en style game against top teams. Big Ten basketball is dreadful: the game resembles a rugby scrum -- low scoring, jaw-smashingly physical, slow paced. Three teams play a style that resembles decent basketball: Minnesota, Ohio State and Michigan State. On Saturday, Michigan State did the same thing to UConn that it did to Duke in reaching the 2005 Final Four -- outran the opponent in the full court and outbanged it in the half court. UConn made the fatal mistake of continually pounding the ball inside and seeking no offensive balance. Michigan State had breakouts with the four players who had jammed the middle of the defense turning and running full court the other way for transition baskets. And Izzo just outcoached Calhoun.

Ultimately, MSU's win is a good for college hoops as a whole -- UConn is in line for some severe sanctions from the NCAA and the worst outcome would have been for a UConn title to be vacated by the NCAA. Other Final Four teams have had their appearances vacated by the NCAA -- officially removed from the records -- but not a champion. The roll of dishonor: runner-ups Villanova ('71), UCLA ('80), Michigan ('92, '93) and semifinalists Memphis State ('85), UMass ('96) and Ohio State ('99).

As for the other national semifinal -- UNC has shown throughout the Tournament that its pre-season #1 ranking is well-deserved. UNC has faced two mild tests in five games -- from LSU in the second round before Ty Lawson took over, and early in the second half Saturday, before the team regrouped and throttled overmatched Villanova. UNC whupped Michigan State 98-63 at Ford Field earlier this year and no matter what other extenuating circumstances existed (tired MSU team after early-season tournaments, center didn't play), it's hard to envision MSU reversing that result. If Carolina rolls again by 10+, it will be the first team since 2001 Duke to roll all six Tournament opponents by double digits -- and with a 21-point win over Gonzaga, not-that-close 12-point win over OU and yawner of a 14-point win over 'Nova, ROLL is definitely a proper term.

Second: it's time for some baseball. The Monk likes three decisions the Yankees made in the offseason: (1) sign Sabathia; (2) sign Texeira; (3) move Gardner into centerfield. The Monk is completely neutral to displeased about the signing of Burnett -- a prima donna who is prone to getting hammered and who performs best in his walk years. The Yanks are old with some rare spots of youth (Gardner, Joba, Hughes, Cano), have solid overall talent, and have the other two best teams in baseball in their division. Yipes.

Think about it: the Rays, RedSawx and Yankees are the three best teams in baseball. The Mess? Starting rotation is too weak. The Phillies? Same issue. Cubs? Same issue. Dodgers? Hitting is weak. D'Backs? Also weak hitting. Twins? Lack of hitting, lack of pitching depth. Angels? Bullpen now worse, getting old, lost Texeira, play in crappy division (just ask how that helped them prepare for another beating from the RedSawx). This makes the road to the World Series easier for every team in the playoffs because one of the three best teams in baseball will be eliminated by October 4 -- the last day of the season. Think 1978, when the second-best team in baseball didn't make the playoffs.

Predictions? Yanks, RedSox and Rays will finish within 5 games of each other and I think the Rays will be the odd one out -- the Yanks won 89 after losing Wang before the 1/2 way point, lacking #4 and #5 starters, and with weak hitting years from their regulars and a loss of Posada. Think about all that went wrong for the Yanks and realize this: they would have won the AL Central with their record. Add CC and Burnett and a full season from Wang and Pettitte as a No. 4 starter instead of an overworked No. 2, and the team should be in the 95+ win range. The RedSawx have the top 1-3 rotation in baseball and added depth in the off-season (Smoltz, Penny). I don't think they need Manny to compete, especially because his absence in left field constitutes a defensive upgrade.

Twins should win the Central. They have good defense as always and four young starters who are capable. The ChiSox go three deep in the rotation and fall off. The Tigers are a dumpster fire, mentally, but may have added character to the clubhouse by dumping Sheffield. The Indians' No. 3 starter is Carl Pavano.

The Angels have enough ability and talent and managerial skill to win the West, but the Rangers and A's will improve a lot. And the Mariners will still stink.

In the NL, the Mess and Phils should take two playoff spots. The Marlins have the capacity to do more than just beat the Mess in September and allow the Phils to take the NL East crown; ditto the Braves (added Lowe and Vasquez -- and the AL to NL switch for Vazquez should cut his ERA from 4.67 to the 3.80-3.90 range, especially with those spacious NL East yards).

The Cards are the best challengers for the Cubs, but the Broohas have two solid young pitchers in Gallardo (the next Lester/Beckett?) and Bush and decent vets like Suppan and Looper -- they could challenge and pull in 85-90 wins. The Reds are improving; the Astros and Pirates stink.

The one team I'd like to see do well is the Giants: they're in a socialist country (California) but privately financed their own stadium. They have good young starters (Lincecum, Cain), a veteran retread (Johnson), a refurbishment project that may work out (Zito -- from 3-12, 5.99 on June 30, 2008 to 10-17, 5.15 overall), and Sanchez could be serviceable if he finds the strike zone. The Dodgers have Manny -- a reason to root against them. But they have Torre, who is a master of getting as much as he can from questionable players even if they're not his "guys". The D'Backs have serviceable No.3 and 4 starters after a dynamic top two, and good young talent.

Divisions: RedSawx/Yanks, Twins, Angels; Phils, Cubs, DBacks
Wild Cards: RedSawx/Yanks, Mess

Just beautiful -- Obama's fascism with a friendly face

Because in reality, that's all Obama is: a genial, pleasant-looking, young, liberal fascist. He is so far to the left of any other President we've had that it is actually frightening.

Today's editorial from the New Hampshire Union Leader says it about right:

For months, this newspaper has opposed President Obama's bold, forward-thinking agenda. What a colossal mistake.

We realize now that we were merely clinging to the discredited ideas of the past. Holding on to disposable relics like tradition, religion and the Constitution only delays the glorious new world that awaits us all.

President Obama has shown America a bright, glimmering future full of widely shared prosperity and national nice-to-each-otherness. Only by universally embracing the President's vision can this nation succeed and prosper. Resistance will bring nothing but social distortion, widespread panic and madness.

President Obama has shown us all that to achieve the unrealized promise of this great nation, we must transcend outdated values such as public thrift, individual liberty and restrained government. All power must be shifted to Washington and deposited in the hands of a wise and benevolent ruler whose will is never questioned . . . To do anything less is to guarantee disaster.

The road to prosperity, President Obama has shown, is traveled by high-speed rail and government-mandated hybrid automobiles, powered by wind, water and air, subsidized by gargantuan energy taxes and paid for by borrowing trillions that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will never be able to repay. It is a road that can be constructed only by an energetic national government unconstrained by law, tradition or actual cash reserves.

* * *

So let us all stand idly by, mouths shut in obedience to our new rulers, and watch the traditions that hold up our society, like pillars of a great temple, crumble and collapse from the force of great, howling winds that sing hauntingly of a future filled with consequences none of us understands.

Let's all do this until at least midnight tonight. Then April Fool's Day will be over.

P.S. -- He brought the Queen of England an iPod as a gift. Seriously. And Bush was a doofus? Get real.

Don't blame them a bit

White House staffers park on West Executive Drive next to the White House. In the parking lot, Politico found 23 cars recently; only FIVE were American nameplates.

The Monk has owned four cars in his life (technically five, because I'm the listed owner of Monkette's car) and all four (five) have the same common trait -- I did NOT buy American.

Car 1 = used '88 Nissan Sentra. That was the college car and the only American car that was competitive with the Corolla/Sentra/Civic class was a Ford Escort . . . which looked terrible. The Monk's progenitors extolled the virtues of Japanese compacts and, in the '80s, the Japanese compacts far outperformed American cars in quality.

Car 2 = new '96 Passat. The Monk didn't even consider an American car -- I looked at cars for about 12 months before purchasing and each of the relevant Consumer Reports car issues had nasty black marks for the reliability ratings of American cars in the Passat's category with one exception, the Ford Taurus. The Taurus' handling (I rented plenty of the dang things on trips) was too loose for my taste and I wanted a little sexiness in the vehicle. The Taurus was Madeleine Albright on the sexy scale. I checked out the Accord, Camry, Maxima, Taurus, 3-Series, 5-Series (boy, those Beamers are overpriced!), Acura TSX, and wound up with the Passat due to price and handling -- it handled like a German car and was priced less than similarly loaded Hondas, Toyotas or Nissans.

Car 3 = barely used (< 14K miles) Saab 9-5 Aero. I'd liked Saabs since riding in my college roommate's duckmobile (the old Saab 900) and the Aero got better mileage than comparable cars because of its Turbo engine. Got it at Carmax while there to look at a 9-5 SE. There was no American car that could compete in that class -- Lincoln is for old people; Ford has no high-end sporty sedans; and I wouldn't be caught dead buying a Cadillac because the fecking things are wholly unreliable and fugly. And all that conventional wisdom about how a turbo is good only until the warranty runs out is rubbish: I never had an engine problem with the Saab; it was a pretty reliable machine and it kept my family safe during the crash that totalled it. The worst injuries we suffered in a bad wreck were burns from the airbags and an impact injury to Monkette from the airbag whacking her arm. The baby was unscathed (and a nod to Chicco baby seats too).

Loved that car.

Car 4 = even less used than the Saab -- a Volvo S80. No turbo, so the mileage isn't good. But it's steady and has both the 5-star safety ratings from NHTSA and top ratings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (whose tests are probably better than NHTSA's). Again, why even look at an American car? The Caddies are ugly and unreliable, Lincolns are still for oldies and concentrating on their gargantuan SUVs, the high-end Chryslers are thuggish (and sluggish). The competition was Acura, Infiniti and Lexus but none had the right combo of same size as the Saab and unbeatable safety ratings. No repeat on the 9-5 because its safety rating was lower than the Volvo by a lot (the Saab 9-3 safety ratings are excellent across the board, but that car is too small for me, wife, small man, and hopefully additional critter).

Car 3a = Monkette's VW Jetta TDI. No vehicular problems in the 3 years she's had it. She wanted a top car for fuel efficiency and manual shift. This thing gets 35-40 mpg in the city and is more fun for her (TURBO) than the poncy Prius or some Fusion like vehicle that takes 10 minutes to reach highway speed. And the safety ratings are top-notch.

So, The Monk bought non-American cars for their looks, cache, performance, and safety. Seems like a lot of people have made the same calculus as The Monk. And at least 18 of them work at the White House.

NCAA Tourney Weekend 2 = what we learned

For the first time since 1987, the Big East has two Final Four teams. It was favored to have three -- but Louisville lost to Michigan State with an awful performance. Since the last time the Big East actually had two Final Four entrants, the Big Eight/12 has turned the trick three times, the SEC three, the ACC four, and the Big T(elev)en five times. So now, we can welcome the Big East back to the group of MAJOR major conferences and raise it from the second tier major status it had held with the Pac-10 and the C-USA (before Louisville, et al. left for the Big East).

As for the stat geeking -- a neutral result this year. The offensive efficiency ratings for UNC, UCon, Villanova and MSU are 1, 12, 19 and 23; their defensive efficiency ratings are 18, 3, 15 and 9. That's a slight edge for defense, but not much because once again all the Final Four teams are Top 25 offenses. Contrast that with the fluke year of 2006 when three of the Final Four teams were outside the Top 25 in offensive efficiency.

As for The Monk: any year whose final two digits are divisible by 3 is just a disaster. In '03, I went 1-for-4 (Texas, although I got 6 of the Final Eight), in '06 I went 0-for-4 (no mitigating factors) and this year I hit just 1 of 4 Final Four teams (UNC, but I hit five of the Final Eight). Yeesh.

Some quick hits for the coming weekend.

(1) Carolina should win. It has the best team and the most talent. Oklahoma was a #1 seed threat all year, and the Tar Heels dismantled the Sooners just as much with Tyler Hansborough on the bench as it did with Psycho T on the court, and also stretched its lead from 19-12 to 61-40 while Blake Griffin took over for OU and scored 23 points in the last 28 minutes of the game. BTW, Carolina shelled Michigan State 98-63 at Ford Field, the Final Four site, earlier this year. And no, you should definitely not expect Villanova to come out and run UNC off the floor like KU did last year.

(2) I'm officially tired of UCon -- that's one "n" not two. If the Huskies don't get a year in the NCAA brig for their recruitment of Nate Miles, I'd be very displeased considering that the hands of their coaching staff are dirtier than Syracuse's when the Orange went in the dock for 1993 for recruiting violations relating to the recruitment of (the late) Conrad McRae. Unlike SU, a UCon (former) assistant coach (Tom Moore, now Quinnipiac's coach) has not only been caught with recruiting violations, but admitted them. And I'm tired of Jim Calhoun being a perpetual grump.

(3) This is the third straight year that all four #1 seeds survived to the Final Eight. That also happened in 2003 and 2001. But don't bet the straight #1 seed line for the Final Four in the future. In 2001, '03, '07 and '09, only 7 of the 16 #1-seeds won their regional final and those #1 seeds are just 5-9 against teams seeded #3 or #2. Add in last year's all #1 Final Four, and the #1 seeds are 11-9 in those seasons, but 8-9 against teams seeded #3 or #2 (in '01, Mich. State beat a #11; in '03, Texas beat a #7; in '08 KU beat a #10).

(4) If you needed any reinforcement even after UNC's Tourney title in 2005, the top team in the ACC is North Carolina. Not Duke. This reality had been in the works from the day Roy Williams took over at UNC, but the turnaround is complete. Carolina is a choked lead in the 2007 regional final away from this season's appearance being its third-straight in the Final Four. Duke hasn't escaped the third round since Williams' first year at UNC. And next year, Duke's main recruits are . . . a big white beanpole center and a face-up power forward, the exact type of players that the Blue Devils have not won with for five years running.

Ron Silver, 1946-2009, RIP

Hollywood character actor Ron Silver died on the ides of March at age 62 from esophageal cancer. I remember Silver from his role on Blue Steel opposite Jamie Lee Curtis. A talented character actor, Silver was one of the very, very few in Hollywood for whom September 2001 was a life changing event.

A liberal Democrat for many years, his vocal support of the struggle against Islamofascism won him the admiration of many Americans including the President but cost him jobs and friends in Hollywood.

Requiescat in pace.

Orange crushed

As I said yesterday, if you're gonna go down, might as well be in flames.

Exhibit 2: SU's loss to Oklahoma.  SU knew OU wanted to get its top shooter to hit 3-pointers and have Blake Griffin dominate inside.  And sure enough, Tony Crocker shot like a top marksman after about 9 games where he'd been slightly better than Betty Crocker.  Griffin had a 12-15 shooting night on layups and dunks.  Overall, the best laid plans of the Orange disintegrated as OU rolled off a 20-2 run spanning the half that blasted a 28-24 lead into 48-26 with SU bricking three-pointers (0-10, first half) and Jonny Flynn hampered by an injury.  

It really sucks to watch when you know exactly what the opponent wants to do and your team can't prevent it from executing its game plan.

Overall, however, it was a nice season for the Orange: 28 wins, a return to prominence, victories over KU, Memphis, UConn, Marquette and a Sweet Sixteen berth.  Hopefully, they can improve their defense (40th in defensive efficiency = not a Final Four quality team) and build on this season.  The biggest offseason question: will Flynn be back?

As for the other games: UNC and Louisville look like title contenders, don't they?  Especially the Heels after a rout of the perennially overrated Zags.  And that KU-MSU game reminded me why I hate the brutal bloodsport that is Big T(elev)en basketball.  

Downgrading Duke and Tourney notes

The Monk's bracket went down last night. And as long as you're going down . . . FLAMES it is!

My two semi-upset picks for the Final Four got whacked. Memphis lost its defense somewhere between the C-USA tourney and last weekend, and allowed Mizzou to hang 100 on it. And Duke looked like crap. The Monk thought that Villanova would be the biggest hurdle for Duke in the region, and Duke didn't even compete. That game may have been just a 26-23 'Nova lead at the half, but it felt like all one team needed to do was start hitting some shots and it would become a blowout. And, while watching that game, The Monk thought 'Nova would be that team.

For all The Monk's NCAA Tourney stat-geeking, the one that got past me was this: since it won its national title in 2001, Duke has NOT defeated a team seeded higher than #5 in the NCAAs. In the eight Tournaments from 2002-2009, Duke has been a 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 6, 2, and 2 seed. In the last eight Tournaments, Duke's elimination has come against a lower seeded team SEVEN times (exception: '03, when second-seed KU beat 3-seed Duke). A couple of the losses have been pure choke jobs where Duke should have won ('02 loss to Indiana, '04 loss to UConn), but most just occurred because Duke got beat by a team that could run, jump and defend better than it even though the opponent had a lower seed ('05 Mich. State, '06 LSU, '08 WVa, '09 'Nova).

Colin Cowherd called Duke the Notre Dame of college basketball (gaudy record against familiar competition, getting beat by the big boys) and there is now truth to that. In 2001, Duke had five SOLID NBA players starting for its national title winner: Battier (top defender), Boozer (all-star), Dunleavy (11-14 ppg in NBA), Williams (a star to be until he crashed his motorcycle) and Duhon (starting pg). In 2004, its Final Four team (the only Duke team to even beat a team seeded as high as a #5 since 2001) was led by JJ Redick and Shelden Williams (combined ppg in NBA = < 11). The talent dropoff had begun.

Duke's biggest problem has been recruiting players for today's game -- bigger, stronger, heavier. Duke has always been a finesse team that relies upon speed and skill. It still recruits the quintessential BigWhiteStiff -- the overrated white power forward or center who gets his lunch handed to him by more athletic African-American players (Bryan, Bilas, Palmer, Newton, Beard, Meek, Domzalski, Burgess, Randolph, McRoberts, Singler). There was only one Christian Laettner among that dross. And those stiffs have hurt Duke's recruiting because it gets labeled as a program that cannot develop these players -- all of whom were highly rated (and usually McDonald's All-Americans) coming out of high school. Notably, since 1995, Duke's three Final Four teams have all featured a large, powerful, African-American back-to-the-basket post player (Brand, Boozer, Williams).

Its preferred lineup has consistently been one power forward who can play facing the basket, not just a post player, surrounded by three wing players, and a point guard. Often, the power forward wasn't that powerful (Ferry, McRoberts, Randolph, Newton, Singler). The combination of speed, skill, Coach K's coaching and the fear factor of other ACC teams has allowed Duke to continue its conference success (but notably, not against UNC since Roy Williams' arrival) even as it falters in the NCAA.

Today's top teams have more bulk, more length and more athletic ability than Duke. Villanova is smaller than the other top Big East clubs (Louisville, UConn, Pitt), but still had a size advantage over the Dookies last night. Big guys who can run and jump will beat on skill guys who cannot.

The Duke for the Final Four pick was the one I doubted the most. And with good reason. Should've listened to my doubts over my hopes for a UNC whupping of Duke in the Final Four.

Some quick notes:

(1) Memphis' defense crumbled in the Tournament. Coach Calipari will have to figure out why, but 70, 70 and 102 are not the points allowed levels that team is accustomed to.

(2) Oklahoma's top three-point shooters are better than Syracuse's, the Sooners shoot over 35% as a team from 3-point range, and Blake Griffin is the best player in the country. But in 2003, Oklahoma shot 39% from 3-point range, and both its top guards -- Hollis Price and Quannas White -- shot better than 43% from 3-point range. In the East Regional Final, SU held OU to 5-for-28 from 3-point range and won by 16. Then again, OU didn't have a Blake Griffin.

(3) Syracuse has caused 15 turnovers total in the NCAA. A good turnover rate for a defense is about 15 per game.

(4) The Big East is guaranteed to have a Final Four team for the second time in three years and the fourth time in the past seven years. Other than 1982-87 and 1984-89, the Big East has not had at least four Final Four teams in seven Tournaments. Remember, but for Syracuse's breakthough in 1996, which broke a six-year Final Four drought for the conference, UConn's 1999 title would have been the first time in 10 years that a Big East team had reached the Final Four. And this will also change: since 1990, Big East teams other than UConn and Syracuse are 1-9 in the Final Eight; including UConn and SU raises the record to 5-14 (UConn 2-5, SU, 2-0). Pitt/Villanova will give the Big East a 2-10 record in the Final Eight for non-UConn/SU Final Eight games, which will improve to 3-10 or drop to 2-11 depending on what Louisville does to Mich. State/KU.

(5) If the seeds hold, the Big East will have one-half of the Final Eight. If SU upsets OU, it will have five of the Final Eight (Louisville is going to beat Arizona -- bet your mortgage on it). I don't care if UNC runs through three Big East teams to win the title, the Big East is still the best conference in the country and there's no arguing otherwise.

(6) UNC's biggest question: can Ty Lawson handle two games in 1.5 days on his bad toe? UNC has the late game tonight and an afternoon game on Sunday (if it wins).

(7) The Monk frequently prefers the Final Eight to the Final Four. The Final Four has been accorded such a mythic quality that reaching it seems to be more important to some teams than winning the title. We heard a week's worth of hype when Marquette made the Final Four in 2003, only to see the Warriors flop miserably and lose in the first ten minutes. Last year, it was all about UNC/UCLA or UNC/Memphis . . . until KU ran out to a 40-12 lead against the Heels. And no matter how pretty Cinderella looked at the ball, George Mason got wiped out early by Florida in '06. In '05 and '06, the Final Four matches were dreadful, but in '05 three Regional Finals were classics and the fourth merely a great game. And the Final Eight consumes a whole weekend, the Final Four is just one night.

Clean-up items

Some items on various topics.

First, the famile du monq went to New York last weekend and The Monk saw the three sides of his family -- the Jews, the Chinese and the Italians. The Jews are MaMonk's side, the Chinese are Wongdoer & brood (the kids call me "uncle" so he's my brother from another mother), and the Italians are PaMonk's group (my sibs, niece and bro-in-law).

The big news is a new addition: MonkCuz1 is pregnant. Actually, she's been for a few months and the debut of the new one is set for late June/early July. Evidently 'e (sex unknown, so not he, not she) has great antioxidant qualities because MonkCuz1 calls h(im/er) the Blueberry. Monk et al. expect to see smallish nonblue human when next we go to the sizeable apple. [Funny thing that -- Monk has neighbor who used to be colleague of Monkette, live down the street, have son three weeks younger than Monkling and never seen the kid even though Monk walks around neighborhood with Monkling on his shoulders about 3-5 times per week and they're on Monk's most common route. Monk famous in neighborhood for that -- neighbors say "oooooooooooh, I've seen you lots of times with Monkling on your shoulders. So, Monk sees cousinish child before neighborish child in all likelihood.]

More interestingish is that Blueberry will surpass Monkling in German blood level in family. MonkCuz1hubby is German (yeah, like you're perfect) and looks it. Monkette is about 1/2 German (see? that's love -- Monk marrying Monkette despite definite personal flaw). So that's two Jews marrying 1.5 Germans. Only in America.

Second, The Monk hit 14 of 16 Sweet Sixteen teams in his pool. I went more conservative in my pool picks than in my pre-Tourney post because I only submit one bracket and there's STUFF at stake. The misses = Arizona (had Utarr) and KU (had West Va.). So the two I whiffed on gave two of the WORST performances in the Tourney to date. And yes, I did have the stones to pick Cleveland St. over Wake in my pool (Western Ky. over Illinois was a given -- Illins had no point guard).

Third, how would it feel to be a boy completely eclipsed by your younger brother's abilities? The Monk had a friend in elementary school whose younger brother was usually viewed as much brighter. The younger one got into Monk and Wongdoer's high school (must pass admissions test), the older wasn't close. Think about David Cone (borderline Hall of Famer) and his older brother, or Cooper Manning and his two younger siblings (names are Peyton and Eli, at last check). Or worse: have an identical twin who is a star while you struggle, even as you take the same steroids (Ozzie and Jose Canseco).

The Monk asks because it must have been an interesting life in the Griffin family. Both sons play for Oklahoma, but older brother Taylor is a support player (9.8 ppg, 6.0 rpg, season high = 22 points), while younger brother Blake is the best player in college hoops (22.4 ppg, 14.4 rpg, .646 FG rate). The Monk reviewed Blake's game-by-game stats and said to himself "self, that Griffin kid doesn't seem to shoot the ball very often." And he doesn't -- no 30 shot chuck-and-duck Allen Iverson specials for this kid. So he's as efficient as he is proficient as a scorer. Plus, his field goal rate is astounding -- 64.6% when Griffin is the focus of every defense he faces.

Finally, The Monk is quite glad that the Monkling is so dang cute. He will personally restore UK-US relations in the wake of Pres. Obama's disdainful treatment of Gordon Brown. Monkette said today that Obama looks positively disinterested and dismayed to be present when dealing with foreign dignitaries -- the complete opposite of how he is around sycophants like the women on The View. The Monk is convinced that Pres. Obama is ultimately an arrogant and self-righteous person who presents himself exceedingly well because he is tall, thin, and superficially engaging.

Wongdoer = 39

Happy belated birthday to Wongdoer, who turned 30 for the tenth and final time on Sunday.

All this remains true (and no, he didn't produce new issue before his 39th birthday, there are just three Wongdoerlings to date), so why not re-run what I continually re-run -- previous birthday salutes:

Wongdoer
turns 38 today. My birthday salute from last year worked so well, I
should re-run it. Unlike last year, Wongdoer had no happy additions to
the Wongfamily, but thankfully no unhappy losses either. Perhaps he'll
announce before his 39th birthday that Wongling 4.0 is on its way . . .
Here's last year's entry:

Today is Wongdoer's 37th birthday. That means he caught up to both me and his cradle-robbing wife (who's 47 days older than him). It's also the Silver Anniversary of the day both he and I received our admission
letters to our magnet high school in NYC. Here's what I wrote last year and it holds true today, nearly 25 years after I met the little bugger who would greet his classmates in 7th grade with the salutation "Vote Republican!"

Today is Wongdoer's 36th birthday, so he's now caught up to me (3-3-70) and his wife (2-3-70). Twenty-four
years ago today, Wongdoer received a letter from the admissions department at our magnet high school informing him that he had passed the admissions test and could matriculate in the Fall of '82. Imagine:
a 12-year old child who hadn't even learned English until six years before had passed the most difficult test in the City -- the admissions test for our high school, a one-time opportunity for sixth-graders to
gain admission to the most exclusive magnet high school, which ONLY allowed matriculation into the seventh grade, no transfers in at any other time. It was just what his parents had worked for: toiling at
various jobs in the Chinese community of NYC to ensure that their lone son would have great educational opportunities. They succeeded: he did. More importantly, he took advantage of it: best high school in NYC,
ridiculously high grades, SAT scores that qualified him for MENSA, Harvard grad, then legal money-launderer (currency trader) for various major banking institutions. And a good son: he takes care of his ma and
pa, and they take care of his kids during the day -- a level of access to grandkids that makes other retirees (or general oldies) weep in jealousy. So here's to Wongdoer, whom I've known for nearly 24 years, on his 36th birthday. Happy Birthday.

Last year I also noted "the rich life of Wongdoer (college sweetheart wife, three Wonglings, six built-in babysitters between his mom, her parents and her sisters, numerous friends -- all he needs is henchmen and
sycophants and he'll take over the world soon). And as always, there's our good friend and basically our brother, Wongdoer."

And it remains true.

Happy Birthday.

NCAA Tournament Weekend #1 -- no spoilers need apply

Unless you're a dope like Seth Davis (WAKE for the Final Four? Seriously?), all your Final Four teams should be alive and kicking today after the most upset-free NCAAs in recent memory. Only two of the top 16 seeds (the 1-4 slots) are out (the dishonor roll = Wake, Washington, both of whom The Monk said would bonk early). And the Thursday/Friday games this week have many top-notch matchups: UNC-Gonzaga, Villanova-Duke, Michigan State-Kansas, Syracuse-Oklahoma, Pitt-Xavier.

Some quick notes:

(1) The best team over the weekend was Connecticut, and it's not close. UConn drubbed the obligatory first-round fodder and then crushed Texas A&M by 26. Compare that with Pitt (combined margin of victory, 18 points) and Louisville (27). Even North Carolina needed Ty Lawson to take control to overcome LSU, the regular season champ of the worst major conference. Such first weekend dominance doesn't necessarily translate to ultimate success. After all, UNC averaged winning its four East Regional games by 22.8 points last year, and Kansas killed it quick in the Final Four. (Even harder fall from grace: 1993 Kentucky rampaged through the Southeast Regional by 31 ppg and lost in OT to Michigan in the Final Four.)

(2) The worst team to survive the weekend, or more appropriately, the biggest underperformer, was Pitt. Villanova won its two games by 33 points, including a 20-point thumping of UCLA; Syracuse won its two games by 26. Those are 3-seeds. Pitt was neck-and-neck with 16-seed ETSU in round one and barely beat mid-Big 12 entry Oklahoma State in round two.

(3) The best performance to save a team's collective season: Robert Sallie. He had never topped 13 points in a game before, but in Memphis' first-round game against Cal State Northridge, he hit for 35. That's ridiculous. And the only reason Memphis won.

(4) Worst performance of the weekend: Wake. Bad enough that it was the only 1-4 seed not to win a game, the Deacons got whupped by Cleveland State by 15. Honorable mention to Utah (blown up by 12-seeded Arizona) and West Virginia (only Big East team to lose in round one, and to a lower-seeded stiff from the A-10).

(5) Best conference: Big East. After all the hype, the Big East performed. The three #1 seeds did what they're supposed to do, Villanova regained its footing against American then waxed Maryland, and Syracuse had only a minor challenge from ASU. The Selection Committee could have come under some fire for seeding Syracuse with a 3 (SU's RPI was 12, its ranking was lower), but SU performed well.

(6) Most overrated conference: ACC. Four first-round losers among its seven entrants and then Maryland was done by the end of the first half in its second round game against Memphis. That's the same Memphis that would've lost to a 15-seed. Worse yet, all four first-round losers were higher seeds. Two were blown out (BC, Wake) and two lost to lower-seeded Big T(elev)en teams (FSU, Clemson) and the Big T(elev)en is supposed to suck worse than the ACC. If Duke and Carolina do make the Final Four, that means nothing about the strength of the ACC -- this year, they're just two good teams who happen to play in that conference.

(7) Team I'd least like to be in the next round: Purdue. That flat-footed Big T(elev)en style is no way to prepare for a team with the speed and strength of Connecticut.

(8) Intriguing matchups: (a) Duke/'Nova -- they're similar outside-oriented teams with similar styles; (b) UNC-Gonzaga -- put up or shut up time for the Zags after surviving Western Kentucky in a near-home game (Portland, Oregon); (c) Michigan State-Kansas -- MSU is one of the few Big T(elev)en teams that can run to any degree; (d) Oklahoma-Syracuse -- a rematch of the '03 East Regional Final when SU thumped the Sooners by 16 (and SU could have won by 25 if it hadn't been sloppy -- 24 turnovers); this OU team has the best forward in the country and a much better coach than its '03 counterpart (Jeff Capel, whose dad was a coach and who played for the nation's best coach, Coach K; versus Kelvin Sampson who left sh-tstorms in his wake at OU and once-proud Indiana), and SU doesn't have Carmelo Anthony . . . but Jonny Flynn doesn't stink.

Responsible Journalism 101

Compare and contrast two columnists and their profiles of Syracuse guard Eric Devendorf. Devo is the new antichrist of college hoops -- a white trash-talking tattooed thug-looking player for SU who has been voted the most hated college hoops player by The Big Lead (whatever that is).

Devendorf is a college senior with junior eligibility who missed most of last season with an ACL tear (he applied for and received a medical redshirt exemption for the season). That cost SU about three wins and an NCAA berth. He's a decent outside shooter, playmaking ballhandler and one of the better fast-break finishers in the game (especially considering he doesn't dunk). In December, he was suspended and the SU student judicial committee recommended tossing him out of school for the rest of the year after an altercation involving a female student.

In Pat Forde's column (linked above), we learn that the woman recanted. In Jeff Passan's column, that wee bit of information is absent.

So Passan allows the unchallenged view that Devendorf is a misogynist who smacks women around. Forde gives context (Devendorf says he acted in self-defense [yeah, sounds odd]) and given the recantation there is no unchallengeable claim that Devendorf smacked the woman around.

The relative quality of the reporting speaks for itself . . .

Bracket Breakdown, Monk-style

Because Wongdoer needs so much help, The Monk sets out his annual what will happen in the NCAA Tournament post today. To understand just how lucky you are, consider The Monk's record:

2008 - picked three of the Final Four.
2007 - picked whole Final Four, would've won Wongdoer's ginormous pool if OSU had topped Florida.
2005 - picked three of Final Four, co-champ of Wongdoer's ginormous pool
2004 - picked three of Final Four, third place in Wongdoer's ginormous pool

We don't discuss 2006. Freak-a** year.

And picking far into the future of the bracket is key. Your buddy's 5-year old daughter may have shocked the world by nailing all five of the first round shockers in the tournament, but if you hit all Final Four, you're in good shape because the point values are higher.

So here are some keys to consider.

(1) More than one team from the same conference will make the Final Four. This is a 70% bet -- 17 times since the field expanded to 64 teams (24 years), there have been two (or more) teams from the same conference in the Final Four. Only five times in those 17 years have two teams from the same conference played in the national semifinals: 1985, 1987, 1989, 2000, 2001. On four of those occasions, the better seeded team won (Georgetown > St. John's, SU > Providence, Mich. St. > Wisco, Duke > Maryland; 1989 is the outlier because Michigan beat Illinois; and yeah, I know GTown and St. John's were #1 seeds, but St. John's was shipped west, GTown stayed in the East). Double entries for a conference in the Final Four occurred every year from 1999-2006. In the 12 years that the two teams from the same conference made the Final Four and didn't play in the national semis, only ONCE has there been an intra-conference national title game -- 1988, when Danny and the Miracles upset Oklahoma. By contrast, on five occasions, the national champion had to beat the double entries: 1990, UNLV beat Ga. Tech and Duke; 1992, Duke beat IU and Michigan; 2003, Syracuse beat Texas and Kansas; 2003, UConn beat Duke and Ga. Tech; 2005, UNC beat Mich. State and Illinois.

So who will have two Final Four teams this year? Either the Big East or the ACC, and it all depends on the Villanova/Duke game in the Sweet 16. You heard it here first.

(2) Don't be stupid. Only three teams seeded lower than a 2 have won the Tournament since 1990 - Arizona ('97), Syracuse ('03) and Florida ('06). And I had SU winning its regional that year (in my head, not on paper because I never do that -- SU's 1-seed scored 12 points in the second half of the Big 12 title game, and its 2-seed sucked). So go with the major trends -- top schools win NCAA titles. The selection committee may screw up seedings in the middle, but rarely does so at the top (*cough*2006 Kansas*cough*).

(3) Don't ignore efficiency statistics -- teams in the top 25 in offensive and defensive efficiency (basically, points per possession) win the tournament. This is a stat mathematically tracked by Ken Pomeroy and it is a good predictor of possible Final Four teams.

And now, on with the show.

The Midwest is the Louisville Invitational. The Cards play the usual #16 stiff before they dump either a young Ohio State team or feisty Siena. Thereafter, they play in Indianapolis, which is 115 miles up I-65 from Louisville. The dingdongs who think Wake (no defense, surprisingly inefficient offense) or Michigan State (lost by 35 to UNC in Detroit) have a chance are just wrong. The best challenge for Louisville would be Kansas, the defending champ, which has the guards to pull an upset. But KU faces West Virginia in the second round, and that's no fun for the Jhawks. If Louisville does the expected, it will be only the fourth Big East school to reach the Final Four since 1990 (SU, 1996, 2003; UConn, 1999, 2004; Georgetown, 2007) and only the sixth Final Four appearance for the conference in 20 tournaments.

Monk's Sweet 16: Louisville, Utah, West Virginia, Michigan State.

No shock if this upset happens: Cleveland State beats Wake (it beat SU on a freak shot in the dome earlier this year).

Regional disappointment: Boston College to bow out in the first round.

Burn the bracket if . . . Dayton makes a run -- injury problems should forestall that.

The West will be a Memphis-UConn showdown. The others are just playing bit roles. UConn should win the region. It's easily the best team even injured. And the Huskies certainly had enough rest after the 6 OT game against Syracuse. But The Monk did not like Calhoun's reaction to that loss and wonders if the team's psyche is where it should be. I think not, just as the Huskies were just a wee bit off in 2006 when they bonked in OT to George Mason. They can be had.

Memphis is the top defensive team in the country, but its offense is weak. This region has three of the top eight defensive teams in the country (Memphis, UConn, Mizzou). And Memphis' defense is really an order of magnitude better than anyone else's. Yes, basketball is an offensive game, but considering the issues UConn is having, Memphis should win the regional if it gets past Mizzou.

Sweet 16 entrants: UConn, Memphis, Mizzou, Mississippi State

Shock and awesome: Mississippi State to biff both Washington and Purdue.

Stiff of the region: Washington to lose in the Pacific Northwest

Burn the bracket if . . . Cornell wins its opener.

The East is usually a tough region and this year is no different. Pitt is a Big T(elev)en team that plays in the Big East, Duke is the ACC champion again and Villanova is probably the best #3 seed. In overall balance, Duke is the best of the bunch -- #4 in offense, #17 in defense. And Pitt is surprisingly low in the defensive stats (#34). Duke and Villanova are similar: drive, draw, dish, pop the three, etc. I'd trust Coach K with extra planning time for Villanova. If Duke can get any rebounds against Pitt, it can reach the Final Four. I especially don't like Pitt's collapse against West Virginia in the Big East tourney. And number of 1-4 seeds that Pitt has ever beaten in the NCAA Tournament: zero.

Sweet 16: the top four seeds

Shock and awesome: I have the region following form until the Sweet 16, with Xavier to top Pitt.

Bonk of the bracket: either VCU to fail in its bid to upset UCLA (a favorite pundit pick) or the thrashing Wisconsin gets from FSU that begs the question why the h--l did the Big T(elev)en get seven bids?

Burn the bracket if . . . the two Big T(elev)en stiffs make the Sweet 16. Then again, one is coached by Tubby Smith (Minnesota), so a half-burn is possible.

Finally, the South should be the Carolina Invitational but for Ty Lawson's injury. Two years ago, I said the East would be the Carolina Invitational but for Hansborough's broken beak and predicted Georgetown to win. I was right. This year . . . Carolina will win. Here's why: (a) #2 seed has been off its game for weeks since Blake Griffin's concussion; (b) #3 seed (SU) is defensively porous due to severe rebounding deficiencies; (c) #4 seed is Gonzaga, the perennially overhyped; (d) Lawson's injury should be vastly improved by the second weekend of the Tourney; (e) Um, talent -- it helps teams win and UNC has tons of it.

Oh yeah, the last time UNC bonked in the ACC semis was 2005. The 2005 NCAA champion was . . . UNC.

Sweet 16: UNC, Oklahoma, Syracuse (dang well better be), Western Kentucky (you heard it here first)

Surprise, surprise, surprise: W. Ky to beat Illinois and Gonzaga.

Bonk du draw: the Illins. Another Big T(elev)en stiff that can't score (lost one game 38-33!)

Burn the bracket if . . . Michigan makes a run. John Beilein has made chicken salad out of his chickencrap talent level, but if this team gets past both Clemson and Oklahoma, then one of Beilein's counterparts needs to be fired.

There you have it: Louisville, Memphis, Duke, UNC. With UNC over Louisville in the Final.

Man, I'd love to see Duke-UNC 3 in the Final Four. I just keep thinking . . . it won't happen.

On Bonuses

A quick primer on Wall Street bonuses:

1. Normal 'bonus'

For revenue generators, primarily sales and trading, the bonus is the prize for which folks work. Wall Street base salaries typically run from $100,000 to $250,000 but the bonuses can be, well, zero to multiples and sometimes many multiples of that. These bonuses are DISCRETIONARY and PERFORMANCE BASED. Depending on the specific market, e.g., interest rates, equities and specific products, e.g., cash, derivatives the bonus is typically a percentage of what you produce for the firm. A 5-10% payout would be typical so revenue production of $1 million would net the employee $50,000-$100,000. $20 million in production would beget $1-2 million.

Remember that these bonuses are DISCRETIONARY which means that number is decided by the firm and the number will be affected by how well the group, the section and the overall institution performs. This is generally a tax, i.e., subtractive.

2. 'Guaranteed' bonus

Guaranteed bonuses are typically offered to entice the employees of a competitor to come work for you. These are often guaranteed for one to two years and is likely a premium over what the target had been earning at his previous job. For instance if a trader had a total compensation of $500,000 the previous year and was considered a strong producer a competing firm may offer $750,000 guaranteed for one or two years. There are two important things to note about these types of guarantees:

i. they are typically paid in the same way the firm pays the rest of its bonuses- specifically if the firm decided that 60% of payout would be in cash and 40% in deferred shares over 3 years, unless it is otherwise written, the guaranteed would be paid this way.

ii. the bonuses are not paid if the employee is fired FOR CAUSE which would include going over risk limits, leaking information, sexual harassment etc.

Why guaranteed bonuses? Generally guarantees pay for the risk of moving firms AND must make up for FOREGONE DEFERRED BONUSES from the previous firm. Let's treat each in turn. Firms typically pay bonuses between January 15 and March 15. Assume February 15, assume also a minimum of 30 days of gardening leave (during which the departing employee cannot work for the new firm while he is being paid base salary by the old firm) so essentially at the minimum the transferring employee has lost three months of the year. In practice a transferee loses 3-6 months and would want to be guaranteed compensation for that. Not to mention the additional risk of going to a new shop.

Secondly, any deferred compensation not yet vested will be lost and is typically repaid either in cash or equivalent value in shares by the new firm.

Finally, if the new firm goes bankrupt, e.g., Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers the employee becomes simply AN UNSECURED CREDITOR OF THE BANKRUPT FIRM. Oops.

3. 'Retention' bonus

These tend to be quite a bit more infrequent than the first two and are typically given to keep key employees after a merger or as a counter to an employee who is about to leave to join a competitor. These can be paid upfront (now more valuable than ever) with a clawback provision should the employee leave before the covered period.

I don't know the details of the bonuses that were paid out to employees of AIG Financial Products but it is very likely that they involved contracts that were previously agreed and perhaps spanned more than one year. If any of the employees were involved in a fraud they should be terminated for cause and not be eligible. However in most of these cases this comes down to the sanctity of the contract. If you do not honor contracts, you do not honor property rights and without property rights we are finished as a functioning free society.

On a smaller scale any firm that doesn't honor contracts will find it very difficult to hire good talent in the future without ever larger more airtight contracts.

The fact that [mostly] Democrats and Republicans are trying to legislate a gigantic surtax on bonuses > $10,000 at AIG FP is truly a joke. It's the same lack of understanding that bemoans that a lot of the bailout money [WHICH ARE LOANS CONVERTIBLE INTO EQUITY NOT GRANTS] went to other banks. AIG sold insurance to those banks and is bound to honor those 'contracts'. If AIG defaults to its counterparties then we negate the value of the entire bailout to begin with.

Congress will legislate punitive surtaxes on AIG and others. And the Obama administration will only be too happy to sign it.

It was a great Republic while it lasted.

AIG money and the bonus fiasco

Let's set aside AIG's devotion to the inviolability of contracts and the government's idiotic populist furor over the $165M (out of $170B bailout, less than 1/10 of 1%) that AIG paid to certain senior executive as bonuses. Instead, assuming that AIG does have contractual obligations it is adhering to, let's ask the real question:

Why are these people entitled to the money?

In other words, what bonus system is so perverse that it effectively rewards colossal failure? How are such bonuses calculated? Is the incentive only to make a deal, without regard for whether the deal financially benefits or harms the company? Did the employees of AIG's financial products unit only have incentive to churn financial products without regard for whether those products benefited the company?

Wongdoer supposedly could shed light on some of this -- he's been a Wall Street stooge for decades. But the fundamental issue remains: how bad are these contracts that the executives can be contractually entitled to large bonuses when they affirmatively harm their employer?