My Crumbling Marriage With the St. Louis Rams

For the last twenty years, I have been married to the St. Louis Rams. The Rams have been my heart and soul. To borrow a phrase I’ve used myself many times, possibly in something many of you have read before: The Cardinals are their team and the Rams are my team. In this marriage, I’ve had to put up with my share of annoyances—the first three Rams seasons of my adulthood garnering a combined record of 6 wins and 42 losses was not pleasant, for an obvious example. But they were still my team. A good marriage doesn’t end because one of its members doesn’t age gracefully because the other member shouldn’t care. That’s not what it’s about. Marriage is about undying loyalty; it’s about being there for somebody when things are rough for them and it’s about them being there for you when you need somebody by your side.

And the sad reality is that my marriage with the St. Louis Rams is crumbling.

That is not to say that the marriage is over, but it’s getting there. And now, I must come to terms with what this marriage is and what it will be going forward. This isn’t about what it was in the past—I will always love Super Bowl XXXIV and will try to at least be civil enough with the Rams to retain some kind of joint custody for the sake of Vince.

The truth of the matter is all that I can ask of the Rams is loyalty. I was amped from the get-go before 2010, coming off the single worst three year stretch in NFL history, because I was enamored enough with the very idea of my relationship with the Rams that I was willing to accept something that others won’t accept. And the Rams gave up on that. And you know what? They don’t deserve me. I’m better than that.

And now that the Rams are openly cavorting with somebody else, I need to do one of three things. The first thing is something that I will tell you right off the bat will not be happening—ignoring it. Plenty of people have ignored adultery in their marriages or, worse, have rationalized that it’s their fault. And you know what? It’s not my fault. The Rams are cheating on me because they think they can do better. They’re wrong, but what do I know about marriage? Less than the Rams owner, whose marriage is the greatest business move he ever made, that’s for sure.

The second thing I can do is leave the marriage. It’s unhappy; my partner seems unwilling to change; this makes sense. In a lot of ways, I wish I had the strength to do it. But I don’t. I keep coming back to the happy memories and stupidly telling myself that things can be as good as they were years ago, even as the rational part of me knows that this is an impossibility. I won’t discount the possibility of divorce, but for better or worse, I’m not quite ready emotionally to go there yet.

The third thing I can do is accept that I am in an open marriage. I can accept that the Rams only care about me to the extent that I benefit their bottom line. I can accept that the only reason the Rams haven’t left me is because they don’t yet know for absolute certain that they can do better than me. And I can react by cheating right back on them. Now, I don’t want to cheat on them for revenge, but rather as a way to quell my own general lack of fulfillment. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to be told that I can’t.

I’m not investing another penny in the Rams until they show the loyalty they haven’t showed in me since the end of the Georgia Frontiere era. And while I fear the unchartered territory of NFL courtship, it may be the only realistic option for me to ever feel what I once felt (and sometimes, against my better judgment, still feel) with the Rams. And although my potential suitors aren’t perfect, they may indeed be a viable alternative to staying the course with the current state of heartache and misery.

Why I Hate Fredbird

I went to an elementary school that is across the street from a Veterans Administration hospital. And when I was in sixth grade, my class would often volunteer at the hospital.

One of the days we were volunteering, there was an assembly--I don't recall the exact reason why, but those at the hospital got a catered lunch and there were some patriotic bands that performed. It's essentially a smaller version of how I've always imaged a USO show goes. But one of the guests was Fredbird.

Before the show began, the Star Spangled Banner played. The 11 and 12 year olds volunteering stood and looked at the flag. The patients who could stand stood and looked at the flag while those confined to wheelchairs looked in hushed awe. The teachers and parents, including my mother, who were also at the hospital, stood and looked at the flag. The caterers and hospital employees stood and looked at the flag.

Fredbird, as seems to be his only basic move, jumped around like an imbecile. As the song played, he (I've heard that a majority of the people who portray Fredbird are female, but for simplicity's sake, I refer to Fredbird simply as "he") danced around and did that thing where he chewed on people's heads with his oversized peak, including veterans. 11 and 12 year old kids are among the dumbest people in the world and every single one of them, without having to be asked twice, knew to be quiet and respectful, and Fredbird did not.

Not long after his buffoonery began, my mother ran up to Fredbird and told him to knock it off. She told him the obvious--that he was being disrespectful to the anthem and that it was particularly insensitive to act in such a manner at a VETERANS HOSPITAL.

This took place in (estimating on month, not on year) April 2001. Certainly, after 9/11, people got more cautious. But Fredbird should have known better. And I recognize that perhaps a different actor may have acted more wisely but when it comes to it, being maniacal is Fredbird's only move. This isn't the Phoenix Suns Gorilla dunking on trampolines or something like that--all Fredbird can do is be obnoxious. I realized this quite clearly at twelve and have not backed down from my opinion since.

Three Things I Learned from Giving Up Meat for Lent

For the first time in my life, in 2015, I gave up something for Lent. Like, actually gave up something for Lent. Not like a facetious “I’m going to give up cocaine for Lent” kind of thing but an actual, conscious attempt to give up something that I was probably going to do during that period if I didn’t make a specific effort to not do it.

I gave up meat.

To be specific (and pretentious, if inadvertently), I adhered to a lacto-vegetarian diet. I did not eat fish, as is so common on Lent Fridays, nor did I eat eggs (I made an effort to avoid eating foods in which eggs were used as an ingredient, though admittedly this wasn’t a part I went super out of my way about), but I did consume dairy. Anyway, I’ve made some observations about it so, yeah, here they are.

1. Giving up meat is surprisingly easy to do: I guess before I go any further, I should explain why I gave up meat. As far as Lent goes, I’m not Catholic, nor even particularly religious, but I have plenty of family and friends who are, and I do respect the tradition. Even if you don’t believe a word of the Bible, I do think it’s a pretty solid humanist value to be moderate and to break free of your own vices. It’s something I’ve done a lot lately in my life.

As I’ve written about before, I reached a peak weight in late 2013 of what I approximate to be somewhere in the range of 260 to 270 pounds. As of Saturday morning, at my now-weekly weigh-in, I weighed 157 pounds. I did this essentially through cold-turkey dieting—I ate a huge amount of food on a Sunday, felt bad thinking about it throughout the day on Monday, stopped off at Schnucks for a bunch of Slim Fast and Lean Cuisine meals on the way home from work, and didn’t eat fast food for nearly six months, haven’t had a non-diet soda since, etc. After I got my weight under control, in September 2014, I recognized that I had become addicted to caffeine. Not “I like caffeinated drinks”, as I’d previously rationalized it, but that I needed it to function. I had a Diet Mountain Dew on a Thursday, suffered through a long weekend of headaches and rough sleep, didn’t have a drop of caffeine for a month, and have reached what I consider a respectable point of moderation (it’s currently been 22 days since I had caffeine and when I do have caffeine again, I’ll be sure to not have it the next day—simple things like that to avoid a relapse).

Anyway, I thought meat was going to be like my psychological addiction to junk food or my physical addiction to caffeine. Not that I’m particularly carnivorous by nature, but I’ve never been one to necessarily avoid meat. I even tried to wean myself off meat a little bit before Lent started, going a few days at a time without eating it. But I figured a week or so into it, I’d really be craving meat. But…nope. Not really.

I had more vegetables than I normally did but I also ate a bunch of other foods, too. The notion that you need meat for protein in the 21^st century is completely insane, and the notion that you need meat in order to eat enjoyable food is even crazier. I still ate fast food—somewhat less, but when the weather got nice, I enjoyed walking the mile-plus to Taco Bell for bean burritos or to Subway for a Veggie Delite sandwich. I enjoyed taking advantage of the Blues scoring three goals and winning and thus allowing for half-priced Papa John’s, and thus allowing me to spend four bucks on a small cheese pizza. I also drank as much beer as I damn well felt like. Throughout the process, in contrast to the majority of the preceding fifteen months, I wasn’t losing substantial amounts of weight. I ate a pretty fair amount. It wasn’t the healthiest vegetarian diet, sure, but it’s not like I was going to be super-healthy around the construct of omnivorism, either.

There was occasional “event food” that I missed. I went to a couple family gatherings with ample appetizers I could not eat. But really, that was about it. As a decidedly not picky eater, any meat I briefly desired was quite easy to replace in my diet.

2. People care if you eat meat and I’m not sure why: I told as few people as possible that I was giving up meat for Lent. This was largely because my least favorite part of vegetarianism is the smugness associated with it. Like I said, it’s not difficult to do. But it was also because people resent vegetarianism. Like, not resent people who brag about being vegetarians—these people are objectively annoying. People resent people for their diet.

I’ve read comparisons of the social norm of eating meat to the social norm of being religious and, really, how crazy is that? You shouldn’t discriminate against somebody for being nonreligious but I guess I get it—religious beliefs often form one’s worldview and sense of ethics, so a person fears somebody does not adhere to their sense of right and wrong because of their religion. But how shallow is a person who considers their eating meat to be a fundamental part of who they are? How is it not just a pretty minor attribute? To quote humorless vegetarians The Smiths, “What difference does it make?”

My mom was extremely worried about my brief flirtation with vegetarianism. Mind you, my mom was not worried when I was, as is categorized by the World Health Organization, “severely obese”, at least not vocally. I got more than a few blank stares if somebody heard about my diet. The idea of being “other” scared people, even though there are many, many, many people I saw multiple times during Lent that noticed nothing different about me because they didn’t know I wasn’t eating meat because, again, it doesn’t really matter.

3. I guess I’ll eat meat again…if I feel like it: I think the ethical arguments against eating meat are strong. But I don’t necessarily think they are irrefutable. Let’s put it this way: I find zoos far less ethical than eating meat. I place more of a premium on treating animals in an ethical way than on keeping them alive, though I can understand if the nuts and bolts of this philosophy raises a few eyebrows.

Anyway, after the last forty days, I’m willing to at least consider placing more stock in the ethical dilemma of eating meat if for no other reason than it’s kind of easy to do. The modern world has made a wide variety of food so easy, so convenient, and so cheap that I’m willing to actually consider the world at large because, frankly, it doesn’t inconvenience me too much to do so, as horribly selfish as that may sound. In the meantime, I’m in no rush to eat meat. I’m not going to spend my afternoon downing beef jerky. I didn’t spend last night giddy with excitement that once midnight struck, I could hit up McDonald’s and just go to town on it. I’m not going to do it for the sake of doing it. If I decide I really want to cook a nice chicken breast to go with broccoli for dinner, I suppose I will. If I decide I want the whole wheat penne with meat-free pasta sauce that I ate even more than usual (which was often) since Ash Wednesday, I’ll do that too.

I can’t imagine any of you care what I’ll eat for dinner tonight, but then again, I’m often amazed what people bother to care about.

2015 MLB Predictions

Nothing too fancy here.

AL East

1. Orioles--They won 96 games with a suspended/ineffective Chris Davis and a hurt Matt Wieters and their only major loss is Nelson Cruz. Pecota has them finishing in last and this division is a crapshoot but I don't get why.

2. Blue Jays--They added Russell Martin and Josh Donaldson and for some reason the friggin White Sox got more attention for their offseason.

3. Red Sox--Their lineup is really good, even though Hanley Ramirez could be a mess in left field, but their third starter is still Joe Kelly and he isn't even healthy.

4. Rays--They weren't great last year and they no longer have David Price and Ben Zobrist, who were replaced with very little of note.

5. Yankees--They could be pretty good if everybody stays healthy, but everybody is old and they have no depth. Brian Cashman is so terrible at his job.

AL Central

1. Tigers--In a few years they're going to REALLY suck but they still have enough. Yeah, they lost Scherzer, but we all picked them to win the Central last year when they didn't have David Price.

2. Indians--Jonah Keri picked them to win the World Series but he also thinks Montreal is a good baseball city so take it with a grain of salt. Could be pretty good if Bourn and/or Swisher figure something out.

3. Royals--James Shields isn't THAT big of a loss. They're taking a step back but not that far back.

4. White Sox--They won 73 games and they added Jeff Samardzija and Adam LaRoche. They also added a superfluous closer for way too much money. People are picking them to win the division and I don't get it.

5. Twins--Buxton and Sano are probably a year away.

AL West

1. Angels--People really quickly soured on a 98 win team that didn't lose anything major. Their rotation is shaky but it was shaky last year too.

2. Athletics--Never doubt Billy Beane Devil Magic. Aside from Donaldson they have most of the core from before they loaded up on rentals last year (and were in first place) and added Zobrist and Brett Lawrie and they're good baseball players.

3. Mariners--They have Robinson Cano, Felix Hernandez, and Kyle Seager. Who is their fourth best player? They're a vogue division pick.

4. Rangers--I picked them to win the division last year because I'm stupid and could've rationalized them as a Wild Card threat before Darvish got hurt. But he did and so now they're resigned to merely be better than Houston.

5. Astros--Jeff Luhnow passed on Kris Bryant for Mark Appel.

NL East

1. Nationals--Anybody who doesn't pick the Nationals to win this division is a hipster attention whore.

2. Mets--Young pitcher injuries but, like, they have several good young pitchers.

3. Marlins--They have an exciting young core with Stanton, Yelich, Jose Fernandez, Henderson Alvarez, etc., but I do think they're a few pieces away from being a true playoff contender.

4. Braves--I don't think they're going to be the disaster a lot of people think they're going to be, but they may have the lowest upside in the majors. We know their players and we know what they are--they aren't a 100 loss team but they aren't good either.

5. Phillies--I think the 2008 Phillies could beat the 2015 Phillies in a game, and several players on the 2008 Phillies have been retired for years.

NL Central

1. Cardinals--Their worst position last year was right field and now they have Jason Heyward playing there. No reason they shouldn't be favored to repeat as division champs.

2. Pirates--Cervelli is worse than Martin but the young core is a year more seasoned and as a whole, they're probably about as good as the team that pre-2012 would've been a Wild Card last year.

3. Reds--Billy Hamilton will mature, Jay Bruce can't be that bad again, Todd Frazier and Devin Mesoraco appear to be bona fide studs, a healthy Joey Votto is healthy, Aroldis Chapman is probably the best reliever in the game, and people need to start acknowledging how good Johnny Cueto is. With that said, Jason Marquis is in their rotation.

4. Cubs--I feel like a lot of people are going to want me to defend why I picked a team that won 73 games last year and added Jon Lester and an average catcher to finish in fourth this year.

5. Brewers--They fell apart down the stretch last year and they traded away their ace.

NL West

1. Dodgers--They are relying entirely too much on Brandon McCarthy and Brett Anderson to stay healthy (relying on the former is fine, relying on the latter is insane) but you're just trying to be cute if you don't pick them to win the division.

2. Giants--I don't think a team that lost Pablo Sandoval and nothing else of consequence goes from an 88 win team to mediocre overnight, especially when their rotation looks straight up good if either Tim Lincecum or Matt Cain regain their old form (I would never bet on both to do so, but one seems plausible enough).

3. Padres--Wil Myers is playing center field for them. Their infield is abysmal. They have a couple good starters and then nothing much beyond that. They have the talent that I could see them finishing 2nd but I could also see them disappointing a whole bunch of people.

4. Rockies--Their lineup is actually quite good and interesting when healthy, even if their rotation isn't great. I could see a scenario where they finish ahead of the Padres but this requires them to all be healthy, which means depending on Troy Tulowitzki and Carlos Gonzalez to remain healthy, which is not generally a good bet to make.

5. Diamondbacks--Not that anybody is saying they are good but I think you should look at their roster and digest just how unimpressive it is. The four worst teams in the NL by a mile are the bottom two in the East and West.

Awards

AL MVP--Mike Trout. He's really good and I think his team is going to win its division so yeah.

NL MVP--Yasiel Puig. He keeps getting better and will combine the exciting narrative elements with being a really good baseball player.

AL Cy Young--David Price. In picking awards, I always pick a good player on a good team and of my division winners, he's quite clearly the best pitcher among them so yeah, okay, sounds good to me.

NL Cy Young--Clayton Kershaw. Well, he won MVP last year, so I guess technically I'm predicting regression.

AL ROY--Daniel Norris. He lives in a van down by the river and people like stories.

NL ROY--Kris Bryant. Have you heard about him.

Playoffs

AL Wild Cards: Athletics, Blue Jays

NL Wild Cards: Pirates, Giants

AL Champion: Angels

NL Champion: Nationals

World Series Champion: Nationals