Shorebird of the Week – July 31, 2014

After beginning the season at Frederick and finding little success, Creede Simpson has returned to Delmarva to try and get his batting stroke back and some regular playing time. Mission accomplished on both ends; in fact, since trading places with the promoted Trey Mancini back in June the offensive production at first base is remarkably similar – Mancini had a .317/3/42/.779 OPS before moving up and Simpson is at .314/2/17/.796 OPS since arriving.

Simpson is the Auburn University product who earned his initial promotion after compiling a .248/9/49/.719 OPS for Delmarva in 2013. But at the midway point of the season he was hitting just .214 in 58 Frederick games (albeit with 7 home runs) so the change was made and Simpson is finding much more success here the second time around.

Granted, Creede is a little old for this level as he will turn 25 just after the season ends although this is only his 3rd pro season. He also has a strike against him as a 25th round draft pick, but there are players who have succeeded after a demotion and Creede hopes to be another example. Since his overall trend is on the upswing, there’s the chance he could return to Frederick later this season or start again there next year.

In the meantime, Simpson has just become another link in a Shorebird offense more potent than originally thought when the season started. Compared to last season, when just one player (Christian Walker, who’s now up at Norfolk) had an average over .300, Simpson is one of four active Shorebirds with a mark of .314 or better – the others are previous 2014 SotW winners Anthony Caronia, Chance Sisco, and Drew Dosch. Mancini was also over .300 when he was promoted as was Mike Yastrzemski.

It should be noted as well that, with win number 56 last night, the Shorebirds eclipsed the seasonal win totals of our last three Shorebird squads (55, 52, and 54 in 2011-13) with over a month left in the season. If they can hold on to a winning record it would be the first one since 2008. End of tunnel, meet light.

Thoughts on the Rascovar column

I’ve seen a lot of discussion about a anti-Republican screed reprinted on the Maryland Reporter website, so I’ve decided to add my two cents.

I have plenty of respect for Len Lazarick and his fellow writers at Maryland Reporter. While conservatives read his site, though, I don’t necessarily consider it a liberal or conservative news outlet, aside from the fact they link to a variety of news sources from around the state. Most of them are left-leaning but they’ve also linked to a few conservative bloggers in the search for political news. Thus, its content is generally either a daily news aggregation roundup or more in-depth reporting by its contributors. And I’m cool with that.

Having said that, it really doesn’t bother me that Maryland Reporter uses the columns penned by Barry Rascovar, who I’m told has been covering Maryland politics since, oh, about the Mesozoic Age. If Len Lazarick thinks it’s a good way to get eyeballs, well, have at it. So I don’t agree with those who urge people to boycott the Maryland Reporter site (although I don’t see evidence that Dan Bongino specifically asked for a boycott as Lazarick alluded to) based on the “outrageous and slanderous” column, as MDGOP Chair Diana Waterman described it.

One bad column does not a bad website make. The best approach is to ignore Rascovar just like people seem to be ignoring his home website, Political Maryland, where he wrote a companion piece yesterday. (It has an Alexa rank of 5,069,099 which leads me to think he gets his readership from the 224 subscribers and that’s about it. I’ll add to your total, so you’re welcome.)

Many of you probably know I wrote columns for a time for a small syndicate called Liberty Features, so I have an idea of how to work in the format. You have 600 words to grab the reader’s attention and make your point, and it can either be done with a dash of humor or a serious discussion of issues. If Rascovar were any more shrill with his column it would have broken glass, and I’ve read much better from him.

Now let’s talk about the situation at the border. I thought the idea of a border was to have a secure perimeter with only certain checkpoints to allow people in or out. Obviously in this day and age of air traffic our borders extend to international airports and harbors but for the most part people who cross do so by land. It gives those in charge of our security an opportunity to check if the person seeking entrance has permission and wishes to do so for a valid reason.

What bothers me about this situation is that it seems to be encouraged by our current administration, which couldn’t get amnesty by legal means so they’re trying an end run around the law by abusing the designation of “refugee.” It’s the complicit assistance of their host nations and Mexico that’s also troublesome – once Mexico was upset enough about the drain of their best and brightest to call for their return but now it seems too many nations to our south depend on remittances from those who have made it here, legally or not.

Back in 2007, Mexican President Felipe Calderon stated:

I am from Michoacan, and in Michoacan we have 4 million people – 2 million of those Michoacanos are in the States. We want them to come back, we want them to find jobs here in Mexico. We miss them. These are our best people. They are bold people – they’re young, they’re strong, they’re talented, they have overcome tremendous adversity – who are working so they can come back to their country someday.

Seven years later, it seems now that the United States is a dumping ground for youth, a group for whom the leaders of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras can’t attract the investment to create jobs. They would rather depend on the chances their “children” – many of whom are teenagers – can stay in this country and either find menial work or receive some sort of government aid, enough to send back to their families who will eventually be allowed to follow this generation. The only “someday” they’re waiting for is the day they can re-create their squalor here, on the backs of taxpayers.

The problem is that we simply can’t afford it. The best thing for these children is to send them back home with a message for their leaders to reform their systems and build their own economies.