Delicate Flower?

Phillies' reliever Pat Neshek has come under fire in the past few days for being unable to pitch in a game.  He's a side-armer/borderline submariner speciality reliever who can't always "go" even when he hasn't pitched much recently.

Phils' manager Gabe Kapler, when interviewed by 94.1 WIP's Angelo Cataldi this morning, said that it was his choice not to put Neshek in during a critical late-inning situation in which another less-bankable Phillies reliever coughed up the lead.  It was obvious to discerning listeners, however, that Kapler was covering for Neshek, and that Neshek had advised Kapler he couldn't go.  Why is that obvious?  Because no manager would ever not put the right guy in that spot unless the manager was told the pitcher couldn't do it.

Armchair baseball experts cried foul across the Delaware Valley.  C'mon, they screamed, we only needed him for one inning, and he hadn't pitched an inordinate amount of innings recently.  What's the big deal?

Newsflash:  The big deal is that we are dealing with a professional baseball player playing at the top of his game against the best hitters in the world.  We're dealing with strict game-day routines and off-day workouts that run like clockwork.  For whatever reason, Neshek knew something was off and he just couldn't pitch effectively.  And for him to have pushed himself in that situation, barely 1/4 of the way into a long season, would have been baseball malfeasance.

Another tidbit that factors in here:  the reason Neshek utilizes an awkward-looking sidearm throwing style is because of an arm injury he suffered in high school.  This is a guy that knows his body and knows how to bounce back from a serious injury effectively.  He's very likely also a guy that knows how to avoid future injuries, or at least minimize their likelihood.

When Neshek talks, we should listen.

And try to understand.

Fighting for Camden

     There's been a lot of smoke, but no fire, concerning the State's Economic Development Authority and its awarding of tax credits to businesses.  Most of the bluster has been centered around businesses relocating to Camden, New Jersey, one of the poorest and most crime-ridden cities in the Country.  And most of the attention has been focused on George Norcross.  For the uninitiated, Norcross is the State's strongest, albeit unelected, political and governmental figure.  If Norcross wants something to happen, it happens.  If he doesn't, well....it doesn't.  Period, full stop.  

     As the argument goes, Norcross and those aligned with him have reaped a large share of the available tax credits.  These tax credits were designed to help impoverished cities like Camden, but have done little to help the city, the naysayers allege.  While the businesses relocate to Camden, they simply import their suburban workers into Camden from 9am - 5pm weekdays, and the workers do little to little to help the City like eat there, play there, and live there.  

     The doubters and naysayer's arguments are totally off the mark.  

     First, George Norcross has done more to advance the cause of the City of Camden than any single man in history.  He has invested his time, his money, and his reputation on the City.  He has supported charitable endeavors in the City.  He has focused on what he states are the two most critical areas of success:  lowering the crime rate and increasing the graduation rate of Camden's students. And he has done so successfully, from the takeover of the City's former ineffective police force by the County to the statistics that demonstrate that Camden's students are performing and now graduating at a rate not seen in decades.  

     Politicians on both sides of the aisle, from former Governors Florio and Corzine to Christie, have all lauded the tax incentive program and Norcross' role in shepherding Camden's renaissance. Critics point to the past investigations into Norcross (his phone was tapped by federal authorities as recently as a few years ago) and his vast control of party politics in New Jersey as reasons we should question the doling out of these tax incentives, but, as the saying goes, to the victor goes the spoils....and no one likes a rotten loser.  

     Perhaps it would be worthy of our time to focus on and question the tax incentive critics and Norcross enemies, and ask why they would be opposed to incentivizing businesses and people to work in Camden?  The answer is simple:  because they benefit from the old status quo of a Camden mired in corruption.  

     These people are picking a fight with the wrong guy for two reasons:  first, because Norcross is someone they should be lauding for his work to help Camden.  

     Second, because, as the axiom goes:  Never bring a knife to a gun fight.