Class Dismissed

Firing an employee is a difficult task that should be handled with care and dignity. The New York Mets organization botched manager Willie Randolph’s termination.

Willie Randolph was fired after meeting with General Manager Omar Minaya at the latter’s hotel room hours after the Mets defeated the Los Angeles Angels.

The Mets organization released an email indicating Jerry Manual replaced Mr. Randolph at 3:18 AM Eastern Time.

The ineptness of New York Mets front office is matching the ineptness of the roster. The players embarrassed themselves at the end of the 2007. The Mets front office embarrassed themselves by firing Mr. Randolph in such a clumsy manner.

Mr. Randolph could have been fired after the Mets collapsed in late September, losing the division on the last day of the season to the Philadelphia Phillies, after blowing a 7.5 game lead with 17 games left to play in the season.

Fortunately for Mr. Randolph, Omar Minaya had faith in the embattled manager’s abilities. But Mr. Randolph’s status as Mets manager was tenuous.

The Mets organization wanted to mute any potential backlash. Firing New York’s first African American manager and a beloved New Yorker was going to draw criticism. But firing the manager at 3:00 in the morning, after press deadlines, is a cowardly act.

Mr. Randolph was showered with sympathy – even from fans who wanted him fired after last season’s debacle.

The actual time of the dismissal and the method used to announce it were not the only mistakes the Mets organization made.

Mr. Randolph and the two coaches were allowed to get on a plane, traveled 3,000 miles to California, and were whacked after the Mets won the first game of a west coast trip. Whacked, because that’s what it appears to be – a botched hit job.

Mr. Randolph understood he was in danger of losing his job. “Sunday night before we left to fly to California, Omar and I had a heart to heart [conversation] near the trainer’s room,” Mr. Randolph recollected. “I know you are under a lot of pressure, that there’s stuff going on. If you feel you want to do this now, go ahead and do it. But don’t make me get on that plane if I’m not the guy you want.”[i]

The Mets organization actually decided to fire Mr. Randolph and the two coaches three weeks ago, but the organization was unable to decide on the appropriate time to fire the manager.

But the Mets were about to play six games against two last place teams. The front office falsely believed the Mets would play better against the Colorado Rockies and the Seattle Mariners and were worried about the repercussions of firing Mr. Randolph during a winning streak.[ii]

Firing Randolph was not a surprise. Sources within New York Mets front office leaked news items to the press indicating Mr. Randolph, pitching coach Rick Peterson and first base coach Tom Nieto were the verge of losing their jobs.

The front office source named their replacements. Jerry Manual would be the eventual replacement. The new pitching coach would be Dan Warthen. Luis Aguayo and Ken Oberkfell would be added to the Mets coaching staff.

Firing Mr. Randolph during the current baseball season is debatable. But the Mets were not performing to expectations. It was not entirely Mr. Randolph’s fault.

The New York Mets are a poorly constructed team. The Mets are counting on major offensive production from Moises Alou – a 41-year-old, injury prone leftfielder.

Rightfielder Ryan Church suffered a second concussion during this season, but was allowed to travel by plane to Colorado before he was fully recovered. That was the first mistake. The second mistake was not putting Mr. Church immediately on the disabled list when it became apparent he was not in any condition to play baseball.

Mr. Randolph was managing a baseball team with 23 players because the Mets refused to place Alou and Church on the disabled list. Instead, management hoped both outfielders would recover immediately.

Mets first baseman Carlos Delgado’s offensive production has declined over the last two seasons. In addition, he is a defensive liability at first base.

During the off-season, the Mets signed Luis Castillo to a four-year contract even though Castillo had bilateral knee surgery. Mr. Castillo is 32 years old. He can no longer play a day game after a night game.

Shortstop Jose Reyes has been an unproductive leadoff hitter since Willie Randolph removed him from a game because Reyes did not run hard to first base after hitting a routine ground ball to an infielder. Not hustling was becoming routine for Reyes. The manager attempted to instill discipline. Instead, the young shortstop stopped producing.

Left-handed pitcher Oliver Perez reverted to his inconsistent form after a solid 2007 season. Mr. Perez was wildly inconsistent prior to joining the Mets. He is an unrealiable starting pitcher.

The Mets bullpen has been effective. Aaron Heilman has blown two saves, has allowed 55 baserunners to reach base in 39 innings. His ERA is 5.03. Billy Wagner has blown five saves this season.

The Mets have a thin bench. The current roster includes three catchers. Robinson Cancel is the third catcher. The last time he played in the Major Leagues was in 1999. He appeared in just 15 games.

Fernando Tatis is a utility player. He has not played a full season since 1999. He was out of baseball during the 2007.

General manager Omar Minaya did not help Mr. Randolph. Mr. Minaya made several bad trades, for example he made the mistake of trading a starting pitcher for a relief pitcher.

Right-handed starting pitcher Brian Bannister was traded to the Kansas City Royals for right-handed relief pitcher Ambriox Burgos in December 2006.

Bannister is a successful pitcher for the Royals. Burgos appeared in 17 games during the 2007 season, but is currently recovering from elbow surgery. Burgos will not be available for the 2008 season.

Mr. Minaya traded right-handed relief pitcher Heath Bell to the San Diego Padres for outfielder Ben Johnson and right-handed pitcher Jon Adkins in November 2006. Bell is a successful relief pitcher for the Padres. Johnson is in the Mets minor league system. The Mets released Adkins. He is currently in the Reds minor league system.

In addition, the New York Mets have had several unsuccessful drafts. Their minor league system lacks players who are ready to play in the major leagues.

The problems within the Mets organization are not Mr. Randolph’s fault. The problems are system wide.

Willie Randolph was not the Wilpon’s first choice to manage the New York Mets, but the decision to hire a manager belonged to Omar Minaya. He was given complete autonomy over personnel.[iii]

The Mets organization did not have confidence in the new manager. Randolph was the lowest paid manager in baseball.

Usually, managers are allowed to assemble their coaching staffs. Mr. Randolph was not allowed to assemble a coaching staff with the exception of hitting coach Rick Down – who was fired during the 2007 season.[iv]

Mr. Randolph sought a contract extension after the successful 2006 season. Contract negotiations were contentious. Jeff Wilpon “told Randolph’s agent, Ron Shapiro, that the Mets ‘could just go out and get another manager’ – his way of telling Randolph that the Mets won the National League East in spite of him.”[v]

Mr. Randolph had an enemy within the Mets organization – Vice President of Development Tony Bernazard. Mr. Bernazard spent a lot of time with the players in the clubhouse before and after games. He used this time to tell the players about Mr. Randolph’s unflattering personnel evaluations.

In addition, “Bernazard was only to eager to point out Randolph’s faults to the players, while privately assuring them in the last year that a manager change was coming.”[vi]

Bench coach Jerry Manual also betrayed Mr. Randolph. Understanding the power structure within the organization, Mr. Manual began confiding in Mr. Bernazard. “On numerous occasions, Manual was said to have complained to other members of the organization about Randolph being late with the lineup every day. According to club sources, Manual also wasn’t shy about suggesting that Randolph was overmatched in game situations and that he refused advice from his bench coach.”[vii]

During his tenure as manager of the Mets, the media and fans constantly criticized Mr. Randolph for his strategic moves during a game.

The Mets organization is in turmoil. Ownership is inept. The front office is operating in a Shakespearean world of betrayal and dishonesty. The players are unmotivated and ineffective. The farm system is a barren wasteland. Any class the Mets had was fired at 3:00 AM.




[i] Willie Randolph and Wayne Coffey, “Willie Randolph Opens Up After His Recent Firing As Mets Manager,” New York Daily News, June 20, 2008.
[ii] Bill Madden, “Willie Randolph Had No Chance With Mets’ Owners and Undermining Coaches,” New York Daily News, June 21, 2008.
[iii] Bill Madden, “Willie Randolph Had No Chance With Mets’ Owners and Undermining Coaches,” New York Daily News, June 21, 2008.
[iv] Bill Madden, “Willie Randolph Had No Chance With Mets’ Owners and Undermining Coaches,” New York Daily News, June 21, 2008.
[v] Bill Madden, “Willie Randolph Had No Chance With Mets’ Owners and Undermining Coaches,” New York Daily News, June 21, 2008.
[vi] Bill Madden, “Willie Randolph Had No Chance With Mets’ Owners and Undermining Coaches,” New York Daily News, June 21, 2008.
[vii] Bill Madden, “Willie Randolph Had No Chance With Mets’ Owners and Undermining Coaches,” New York Daily News, June 21, 2008.

Less Than Ideal

Senator Barack Obama inspired millions with his accomplished oratory skills during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, but his recent actions speak louder than his elegant words, threatening to undermine the potent message of change. Mr. Obama is demonstrating strong political survival skills, but it is not meant as a complement.

The first clue was during the controversy over Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s inflammatory sermons at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Senator Obama claimed he was not aware of Reverend Wright’s controversial sermons.

Mr. Obama’s claim is disingenuous. Not attending the church during the sermons is a plausible excuse, but a fellow parishioner would have immediately informed Mr. Obama of the incendiary sermons, at least in the context of, “Did you hear what Reverend Wright said on Sunday?”

When asked about Senator Obama’s comments about his sermons, Reverend Wright said Mr. Obama was acting like a politician. Mr. Wright displayed amazing insight.

Recently, Mr. Obama decided to forego public financing system for the general election in November. Granted, Senator Obama said he would participate in the public financing system if the Republican presidential candidate also agreed to use public financing.

Early in the Democratic presidential campaign, Senator Obama answered a questionnaire. “If I’m the Democratic nominee,” wrote Mr. Obama, “I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”[i]

According to the Republican presidential nominee’s campaign, “there were never any real negotiations.”[ii]

The pledge was made months before Senator Obama realized he could potentially raise the unimagined sum of 200 to 300 million dollars for the presidential campaign.[iii]

Under the public financing system, Senator Obama would have received “84 million dollars … from federal taxpayers.”[iv]

Flush with cash and relinquishing public financing will allow Senator Obama to campaign in 50 states, an advantage no other Democratic presidential candidate ever had.

During a campaign rally in Michigan, Senator Obama’s staff made a campaign faux pas when two Muslim women were removed from their seats behind Mr. Obama “because they were wearing head scarves and campaign volunteers did not want them to appear with him in news photographs or live television coverage.”[v]

In the era of Islamophobia, Senator Obama has been fighting the perception he is a Muslim. Having two Muslim women in the background during a campaign rally could ignite further speculation.

What makes this incident disappointing is Senator Obama’s constant admonition to ignore Republican smears tactics designed to instill fear in Americans. The mere mention of his middle name, Hussein, is used as a smear tactic.

The Obama campaign caved in to fear. Although he did not make the decision to remove the Muslim women, I was disappointed Mr. Obama did not demonstrate leadership and allowed the Muslim women to sit in the background. Mr. Obama’s staff acted politically, not with integrity.

In addition, Senator Obama sounds and acts like current President Bush when the latter ran for president in 2000.

Mr. Obama claims he is able to work with Republicans, using his experience in the Illinois State Senate as a reference. Governor Bush said he was a uniter, not a divider and he was able to work Democrats in the Texas legislature.

Senator Obama delegates responsibilities to his campaign staff. President Bush also delegates responsibilities. Vice President Cheney has taken advantage President Bush’s lack of initiative.

Issues do not matter in a political campaign. Universal health care has been a campaign issue since the Truman administration.

Equal pay for women has been a campaign issue since the Kennedy Administration.

Overturning Roe V Wade has been a campaign issue since the Reagan administration.

The names change every four to eight years, but the same issues remain constant. Issues do not matter. Character matters.

Senator Clinton displayed some disturbing character flaws during the Democratic presidential campaign. It was enough for this page to endorse Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has the luxury of running against an unappealing Republican candidate. However being disingenuous, reneging on a campaign pledge, and allowing fear to impact judgment raises character issues.

Mr. Obama’s argues he wants to transform politics. It appears politics is transforming Mr. Obama and that would be unfortunate.


[i] Michael Luo and Jeff Zeleny, “Obama in Shift, Says He’ll Reject Public Financing,” New York Times, June 20, 2008.
[ii] Michael Luo and Jeff Zeleny, “Obama in Shift, Says He’ll Reject Public Financing,” New York Times, June 20, 2008.
[iii] Michael Luo and Jeff Zeleny, “Obama in Shift, Says He’ll Reject Public Financing,” New York Times, June 20, 2008.
[iv] Michael Luo and Jeff Zeleny, “Obama in Shift, Says He’ll Reject Public Financing,” New York Times, June 20, 2008.
[v] Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny, “Obama’s Campaign Tightens Control of Image and Access,” New York Times, June 19, 2008.

A More Perfect Nomination Process

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean exhaled at the Democratic Party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on May 31st. “It’s extraordinary,” Mr. Dean said. “Thirty-five million people have come out to support Democrats in every state and territory in America.”[i]

It is a proud moment in the history of the Democratic Party, but the lengthy process is due Senator Obama’s unexpected success and Senator Clinton’s endless determination, not the result of a carefully constructed process.

The primary system is rigged to favor the candidate with the most money and the most name recognition. It is also rigged to establish a presumptive nominee as early as possible in order for the Democratic candidate to concentrate on raising money for the general election.

Senator Clinton was the inevitable Democratic candidate. Barack Obama was not considered a serious contender, but the Illinois Senator scored a surprising victory in the Iowa Caucus. Senator Clinton placed third, setting off a contested and contentious Democratic presidential campaign. The rigged primary system did not serve Senator Clinton’s interests.

The states recognize the primary system is rigged. Iowa and New Hampshire’s influence in the nominating process is disproportionate to their amount of Electoral College votes - seven. States with larger Electoral College votes are irrelevant because the field of candidates is significantly reduced after the first two contests, and the nomination is settled early in the campaign.

Iowa and New Hampshire nullified California’s diverse electorate. In the past, California held its primaries in June, at the end of the process. California voters could not influence the selection of the Democratic candidate because the nomination was secured during the early stages of the primaries.

Before the 2008 primaries and caucuses, states leaped over each other front-loading the process. Unwilling to surrender their traditional roles in the primary process, Iowa and New Hampshire followed suit. Traditionally, Iowa is the first caucus. New Hampshire is the first primary.

Michigan moved its primary to January 15, forcing Iowa and New Hampshire to schedule their contests to January 3 and January 8 respectively. The Democratic Party penalized the Michigan delegation by removing their delegates from the process.

Florida scheduled its contest on January 29, however the Florida Democratic Party was not at fault. Florida’s Republican governor and Republican legislature scheduled the new primary date, but Florida’s Democratic delegation was penalized when their delegates were removed from the process.

The primaries in Michigan and Florida were meaningless. Eventually, their delegates were awarded half a vote for the Democratic convention.

To avoid these scheduling problems in the future, the Democratic Party should adopt a hybrid of the Delaware Plan and American Plan. The Delaware-American hybrid would eliminate the constant battle for position in the primaries.

The Delaware Plan consists of the smallest 12 states scheduling primaries and caucuses in March, the next 14 in April, the next 13 in May, and the rest of the states in June.[ii]

The American Plan primaries would start in March and end in June, with ten contests. Every two weeks contests would be held beginning with a “combination of very small states with a total of eight or fewer Congressional districts – such as New Mexico with five, Maine with two, and the District of Columbia with one.”[iii]

The Delaware–American hybrid would consist of 14 contests. Iowa and New Hampshire would retain their traditional roles in the process. The Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary would be scheduled in February. The next twelve contests would be scheduled from March until June starting with the states with the lowest number of Electoral College votes.

For example, the contests after Iowa and New Hampshire would be: Delaware, Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont and the District of Columbia. The second group would be: Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana. The primaries would be scheduled in March.

To prevent an East Coast bias, each group would alternate every four years. In 2012, the Delaware group would participate first, the Utah group would participate two weeks later. In 2016, the Utah group would participate first, then the Delaware group two weeks later.

Candidates who lack name recognition and campaign funds would be able to compete in the early primaries. Hopefully, under this system, the primaries would become a contest of ideas instead of a process that rewards celebrity and financial excess.

The third group would be: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon. The primaries in these states would also be scheduled in March.

Delegates would be awarded to the winner of the congressional district. Candidates who succeed in the early contests would not accumulate large amounts of delegates, thus insuring more competition.

The fourth group would be: West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Mississippi. The primaries for this group would be scheduled in April.

Voters would have an opportunity to make sound judgments because candidates would be forced to campaign in the smaller states.

The fifth group would be: Connecticut, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama and Louisiana.

The sixth group would be: Colorado, Minnesota, Arizona, Wisconsin and Washington. The primaries for the states in the fifth and sixth group would also be scheduled in April.

The seventh group would be: Missouri, Indiana, Tennessee and Maryland.

The eighth group would be: Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia and Massachusetts.

The ninth group would be: Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania. The primaries for the seventh, eighth and ninth groups would be scheduled in May.

The tenth contest would be New York and Florida. The last contest would be Texas and California. The primaries for the last four states would be scheduled in June.

To prevent an east coast bias, New York and Florida would alternate with Texas and California. In 2012, New York and Florida would be scheduled first. In 2016, Texas and California would be scheduled first.

The original 2008 field of candidates would have been able to compete through the first five contests under the Delaware-American plan hybrid. States are placed in regional groups saving campaigns traveling costs, thus reducing campaign expenses.

Iowa and New Hampshire’s influence would be reduced because the winner of the first two contests would not be considered the presumptive nominee.

However, the impact of winning Iowa and New Hampshire is a myth. Bill Clinton lost the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary in 1992. The early defeats did not prevent Governor Clinton from winning the nomination.

Primaries would be limited to four, five or six contests in one day instead of twenty. Candidates would be able to effectively manage their campaigns, and maintain a comfortable pace throughout the nomination process.

Furthermore, the larger states would impact the nomination process. New York, Florida, Texas and California voters would determine the winner of the primaries.

This is not a perfect system. The Democratic Party needs to make further reforms in the nominating process to avoid chaos in the future. It can start by modifying the role of the super delegate.

The Democratic Party does not trust the voters. Super delegates were created to correct potential mistakes made during the primaries. Or more aptly, to overrule the will of Democratic activists who participate in the primaries. Democratic Party leaders are afraid activists will nominate a candidate who will lose the general election – like George McGovern in 1972. Such lack of faith in the democratic process is insulting.

Instead of overruling the will of the voters, super delegates should become involved in the process if the primaries do not produce a nominee. However, super delegate should not cast their votes until the end of the Democratic presidential campaign, otherwise the super delegate is casting two votes in the same election, violating the one person, one vote clause of the Constitution.

In the 2008 primaries, as an example, the super delegates would have decided the contest between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama after the last primary.

Second, eliminate the caucus system – except for Iowa. Caucuses are too complicated and limits voter participation.

Third, eliminate Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa from the primary system. The citizens of these territories cannot participate in the general election, therefore their influence in the general election is limited.

Fourth, only voters from Democratic Party should be allowed to participate in the primaries. Independents and Republicans should not be allowed to participate.

Republican mischief-makers, such as conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, encouraged registered Republicans to vote for Senator Clinton in open primaries to create dissent in the Democratic Party. In the Texas primary, 119,000 Republicans voted for Senator Clinton providing her with the margin of victory.[iv]

Through May, 2008, 863,113 Republicans and independents voted for Senator Obama creating a substantial lead in the popular vote.[v]

The 2008 Democratic presidential campaign may have been compromised. We will never know the true intent of the thousands of registered Republicans who voted for Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Locking out independents and Republicans in the future will restore integrity to the process.

Finally, if the Republican Party refuses to endorse the reformed primary process, then Congress should intervene. Congress cannot allow the Republican Party to sabotage the primary process as it was done in Florida. The integrity of the nominating process must be defended against mischief and inherent bad faith.

The 2008 Democratic presidential campaign was exciting and heartbreaking, but the primary process should not be compromised to determine an immediate winner. In politics, ideas should matter most, not political or monetary expediency.


[i] Adam Nagourney, “A Primary Calendar Democrats Will Never Forget,” New York Times, June 2, 2008.
[ii] John Nichols, “The Mad Money Primary Race,” The Nation, January 3, 2008.
[iii] John Nichols, “The Mad Money Primary Race,” The Nation, January 3, 2008.
[iv] Hardball with Chris Matthews, March 18, 2008.
[v] Michael Saul, “Without GOP Backers, Bam Would Be Behind,” New York Daily News, May 4 2008.