Mike Lupica droppin' mad knowledge.

Revisiting an article Lupica wrote just eight days ago:

"Does that mean that it is impossible for Johnson to end up with the Yankees?

Absolutely not. Johnson is greedy, the Yankee are pigs when it comes to a payroll that might end up $100 million clear of the field before Steinbrenner and his money spenders are through this winter, maybe this thing is as inevitable as the Yankees wanted it to be. But it will not be as easy, especially if the Yankees have to get a third team involved.

Because getting a third team involved means finding a general manager willing to be as stupid as DePodesta nearly was."

The Yankees got it done eight days later, without a third team, and without demanding the back page coverage that Lupica seems to think they crave so much.

You know, that Johnson trade was kind of easy after all, and it only took eight days. Including time off for Christmas.

Common sense would tell you that the Yankees were going to get Randy Johnson soon, I never doubted it for a minute, I thought the roller coaster fake drama coverage was quite comical.

So why does Lupica paint such a dire picture? An embarrassing and difficult scenario for Cashman and Steinbrenner? This is man who's paid cash money to specifically know about the Yankees and NY sports in general. This is a man who cites seemingly made-up baseball "sources" to push a non-existent point with which to argue or just to support his own anti-Yankee views. This is a man who -- guaranteed -- will be mocking Cashman on April 20th if Vazquez starts off 3-0, but conveniently change the topic as Javy's ERA approaches 5.00 in August. (I broke my promise! I mentioned his name!)

Why does Lupica ignore common sense so frequently? I know why. Because Lupica is rooting so hard against the Yankees that his judgement is deluded. He hopes that Cashman will struggle to get Unit; he writes that Cashman will struggle to get Unit; he thinks by virtue of writing it down, that it makes it true. It doesn't.

Theo Epstein is a $134.5 million genius.

It's a nine-page article about the "Bostonian of the Year" and there may be no mention of the Red Sox payroll. Before I criticize the article, I suppose I should read it in its entirety, but it's really all too exciting to me and I'm not in a private, comfortable place. Maybe Theo Epstein really is a genius, but his genius is helped a wee bit with the $134.5 million payroll.

I'm left wondering who the other candidates were and if Tom Scholz and Bradley Delp even got one nomination.

Mike Lupica is on Joe Torre's side.

"This isn't some big shot at Torre, just the facts of his situation. I have been on Joe Torre's side since Frank Cashen fired him from the Mets a million years ago."

Phew. Joe Torre can now sleep at night.

Now, when Lupica uses the phrase "a million years ago," we know he is exaggerating. But I'm forced to wonder why he seemingly presents the following as fact:

'Torre's payroll was $130 million bigger than the Marlins' was. He was nearly $70 million clear of the Red Sox."

Why lie? Lupica can make his argument without exaggerating (lying). The Yankees spend more money than other teams and this is the primary reason the Yankees win. Not just in 1998 or 2000 or the 100+ wins the past three seasons. Since they stole Babe Ruth in 1920. The Yankees haven't bought one or two titles, they've bought 26.

So one can make this argument fairly easily without lying about it.

The Yankees are not going to lap the field in 2005 by $100 million, not even close. The Yankees didn't spend $70 million more than the Red Sox last year, not even close. In Lupica World, if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes fact.


"You know, sometimes I can go a whole day without worrying myself sick over whether or not Randy Johnson is happy or not.

No kidding, I loved the way we kept getting told in the sports section last week that Johnson still had a good attitude about everything, even though that big deal with the Yankees and Diamondbacks and Dodgers had fallen through.

The guy is so brave.

Especially when he's looking to get paid again."

This attempt at sarcasm falls flat because a dork like Lupica probably can't go an entire day without wondering whether or not Derek Jeter is happy, whether or not Joe Torre is happy.

Lupica is so in love with Theo Epstein that he can never write anything flattering about Brian Cashman. If he did, it would be like cheating on his True Love.

That pitcher from Montreal.

"According to a source involved in the discussions, Vazquez's declared refusal to play for the Dodgers was the primary impetus for the action by Los Angeles. Vazquez, a native of Puerto Rico, considered the West Coast to be too far away from his home. The righthander refused to fly to Los Angeles this week to undergo a physical examination."

If this is true, I shall never speak his name again.

Actually, I put that rule into effect after the grand slam to Johnny Damon.

Actually, I hated that piece of garbage pitcher since around mid-August.

The Unmentionable One was even the starting pitcher in that 22-0 loss to Cleveland, and I was in attendance. Fun times. I think I started booing on pitch #1. I think I started booing before pitch #1.

It reminded me of the time I went to see Showtime at the Apollo. (With the same folks who went to the 22-0 loss to Cleveland, actually.) All I wanted to see was Amateur Night. Specifically, all I wanted to see was one of those amateur poets. I started booing before the first word was spoken because I knew ... I knew ... his poem was going to suck.

Homeboy starts with some ridiculous nonsense: "My love is like a word / It flies to the sky like a bird." Before long, the entire crowd had joined the Felz. Sandman Sims had him outta there before the third verse amidst a chorus of boos. Change "third verse" to "third inning" and you see the connection.

Come to think of it, my two friends and I were lucky enough to witness two of the worst performances by the worst entertainers in modern history. The all-time nadirs of 21st Century pop culture. We were there, man.

At least that amateur poet guy didn't get paid to suck.

Play "Pick the Psychosis" with Mike Lupica.

Is he a schizophrenic who lives in a fantasy world? Did any of this actually occur in the real world?

"The Yankees are always supposed to get whatever they want whenever they want it, so of course they ran around telling people they had Randy Johnson before they actually did ... You better believe Yankee executives were bragging about that all over the place, making it sound as if they'd done something important ... All weekend long, we heard that this whole thing was the kind of slam dunk that Shaquille O'Neal makes when he tries to break the backboard."

Is he living in a time warp fantasy world, stuck in 2001? Or just in a fantasy world where the Yankees and Diamondbacks are rivals?

"And have them explain at the same time that they are willing to basically give away the single most important sports star in Arizona state history, the guy who started and won Game 6 the year the Diamondbacks beat the Yankees in the World Series, then was the winning pitcher the next night when he closed Game 7."

Does he suffer from megalomania? Because he seems convinced that the Yankees are obsessed solely with getting on the back page of newspapers. That's the real reason they want a five-time Cy Young Award winner on their team.

Does he suffer from Napoleonic complex? Because now he has resorted to picking fights with the Yankees even when they do nothing.

Paranoia?

All of the above?

Unit a Yankee.

I started watching "40 Days and 40 Nights" the other day on Comedy Central. I didn't see the ending, but I'm kinda sure that the guy wins the bet and finds a deeper love with that one chick. Since I knew what was going to happen, I lost interest and flipped the channel to the Erik Estrada infomercial about cheap property in an up-and-coming Florida paradise. (Did you know that Florida will be the third-most populous US state by 2025? Did you ever notice how much Erik Estrada resembles Hideki Matsui?)

If the Dodgers back out of this particular deal, then the Yankees and Diamondbacks will just find another team. Or the Yankees will sweeten the pot with Arizona. It is kind of boring to revisit this story every day, trying to create some sense of drama when we all know the eventual outcome.

When I heard that the loss of Beltre changed the Dodgers' perspective on the deal, I thought that couldn't possibly be correct. Unless the Dodgers were getting another 3b in the deal or trading their potential Beltre replacement at 3b. What does Beltre have to do with anything?

"We're holding it up," DePodesta said in a Los Angeles radio interview. "We want to make sure the trade is in the best interests of our '05 club. As it stands, the only way it's attractive is if we do other things alongside."

It's his prerogative to decide how he wants to run his team. But a good deal is a good deal is a good deal, regardless of other things you may do alongside.

Don't think, just pitch.

Added reliever Mariano Rivera, who was also on hand: "I always support all of my teammates. He made a mistake, but he was man enough to admit it."

True. He was man enough to admit it secretly, while under oath, to a grand jury, with perjury charges hanging over his head like the Sword of Damocles.

What's the Sword of Damocles? Well, in ancient Greek mythology ... you know what? ... on second thought, don't clutter your head. Just work on that cut fastball of yours.

It will be amusing to watch the Defenders of the Game and Yankee fans in general about face and follow their spiritual leader -- Derek Jeter -- off the cliff of moral ambiguity.

Steroids Sometimes Bad.

"It had been widely suggested that the steroid fury in baseball would scare the Mets away from Sosa, even though he hasn't been implicated in the scandal. That clearly isn't the case."

After widely suggesting that Jason Giambi's steroid use disgraced the Yankees, one would imagine that the Daily News is similarly outraged by the Mets' pursuit of Sammy Sosa. That clearly isn't the case.

Money. You use it to buy things. Things that you like.

"Guys like Clemens come to the Yankees for the same exact reason Willie Sutton robbed banks. Because this is where the money is."

Is that meant to be an insult? When Lupica refers to "guys like Clemens," does he mean "guys who win Cy Youngs and World Series rings"? If that is what he means, then there have not been too many "guys like Clemens," on the Yankees or any other team. I can only pray that Randy Johnson is a guy like that.

If he means that Clemens came to NYY solely for the money, the implication is that other players on the Yankees don't play solely for the money. Name one.

Is Lupica fooled by Jeter? Was he fooled by Cone? Wells?

Sure, they all might love the idea of playing for the Yankees, I don't doubt that some players truly embrace the tradition and pride ... as long as the price is right. Boil it down and it's just playing for the money.

Was Lupica fooled by Andrew Eugene who loved the Yankees and their fans so much that he took less money to go play for Houston? Loved the Yankee Tradition and bled Pinstripe Blue so strongly that he supposedly felt snubbed because George Steinbrenner didn't call him on his cell phone?


"Maybe there were a few other places where Clemens could have gotten money like that at the time. There would eventually be a dim bulb named Kevin Malone running the Dodgers, a dimwit who actually paid Kevin (Game 7) Brown $15 million a year. ... When it is all said and done, the New York Yankees are the last place in big-time sports where there is no salary cap, other than perhaps some of your big-time college football programs in the South and Midwest."

So ... the Yankees are the only team that can afford Randy Johnson ... except for Arizona and Los Angeles and a few others?

Look, there is no doubt that the Yankees have a payroll advantage over other teams and this is the primary reason for their sustained success. If Lupica is unimpressed with Cashman, that's fair (though, at the same time, he's inexplicably enamored with Theo Epstein).

But I'm not sure what Lupica thinks would happen if there was a salary cap. If there is an individual salary cap of, say, $10 million, then why wouldn't the Yankees get Randy Johnson? The Yankees could still offer intangibles that other teams could not and nobody would be allowed to lure him away with additional money. As a bonus, the Yankees pay Randy Johnson the same money that the Dodgers pay Darren Dreifort and the Rangers pay Chan Ho Park?
Sounds fair to me!

A team salary cap would obviously preclude the Yankees from obtaining all of these players at the same time ... maybe. It might just put more money in Steinbrenner's pocket. A team salary cap would not stop the Yankees from offering the best advertising market, the best facilities, the best support, the best intangibles. That's not Tradition and Pride, most of that translates into Cash Money that you can put in a bank and then it can accrue interest and you can buy another car.

Can MLB stop the Yankees from paying ARod $1 million towards the cap while Adidas pays him $20 million? Maybe so, maybe not. Take half of Unit's salary and use it on Loophole Lawyers.

Is Lupica so sure that the Yankees can't pull a Lakers? Get the MLB equivalent of Malone and Payton to take less money at the end of their careers in the hopes of winning a ring?

Maybe that particular scenario is a tough sell, but there is no reason to think a salary cap would stop the Yankees. They would just have to operate a little differently.

Boston Columnists Rip Edgar Renteria's Greed ... Or Not.

"All-Star shortstop Edgar Renteria said yesterday what he 'most wanted was respect and to be to be valued as a player.'

As important as the multimillion-dollar pay raise the Red Sox offered in a four-year, $40 million contract with an option for a fifth year, was the dogged determination with which Sox management wooed him away from St. Louis, the softspoken Colombian said in a lengthy interview in Spanish peppered with English here in his seaside hometown, where he spends December and part of January.

'When they want you and they try everything to get you -- it could be economic, it could be calling and showing a real interest in you -- that's what makes the difference.' "

I wonder what Dan Shaughnessy must think about a player leaving a team that won 105 games and made the World Series.

Naturally, I expect Shaughnessy's reaction to read something like this:

"Respect? Value?

Maybe if St. Louis put his statue on top of the golden arch. Maybe if St. Louis had changed its name to St. Edgar.

He doesn't need the money. He has more money than anyone ever could spend. The Cards have paid him $20+ million over the last four years. But in Edgar's mind, the Sox respect him more simply because they are willing to pay him twice that."

Also, it took about five seconds to find a mirror image of Shaughnessy's article in a St. Louis newspaper, with Bernie Miklasz wishing Renteria a fond farewell:

" 'I don't know what else we could have done to make Edgar feel appreciated,' Jocketty said. 'We'd been trying for a long time to get him signed. We tried in spring training, and he didn't want to talk about a contract at that time. We tried again at midseason, and he didn't want to negotiate then. We've stayed in contact with him. (Manager) Tony (La Russa) talked to him several times this week. We made every attempt to negotiate a deal. I don't know what else we would have done to show him we want him back.'

The Cardinals offered Renteria four years, $36 million but increased the value to $39 million with deferred money. So, technically, Boston did put a more substantial offer on the table. But Boston GM Theo Epstein's payroll was $130 million last season, and might approach $140 million or so in 2005. Jocketty has been limited to an $85 million payroll by Cardinals ownership, and he has several holes to fill. If Renteria wanted the Cardinals to blow away Boston in a financial duel, it wasn't going to happen. Not with the resources Jocketty has available to him.

The Captain will be missed, but if the Red Sox stumble and fans and media in New England start howling during one of Renteria's slumps, I wonder if he'll miss St. Louis. Edgar could have stayed in his comfort zone for $39 million, but took the $40 million in Boston. If things don't go as well as planned, at least he'll have an extra million to spend on headache remedies."

Word.

Harvey Araton of the New York Times somewhat restores my faith that sportswriters can also be good writers.

If the link doesn't work, here are some highlights of his remarks regarding Pedro leaving the Sox:

"So people ask: how much does this idiosyncratic ingrate need?

When these deals go down, this is typically what "the deserting player" is accused of. No matter where he goes, what he says, greed is the stated motivation. There is too much of the one-sided version of the story going around, especially in Boston, now that Martínez has said he is on his way to Shea Stadium, pending agreement on a thorough physical examination the Mets had better make sure he has.

...

As a franchise that is too often broad-stroked as the epitome of throwback quaintness, the Red Sox are just getting a taste here of the same bottom-line medicine they have been spooning out.

In the mythologized sports world we wish could still exist, if it ever did, Martínez would remain in Boston with all the others who undid 86 years' worth of October disillusionment ...It just does not work that way, in any sport, on any team, least of all the Boston Red Sox under the calculating leadership of Larry Lucchino and Theo Epstein. Loyalty? Where is it for Derek Lowe, who has averaged 17 victories for them over the last three years, who saved Game 5 of the division series against Oakland in 2003, who won Game 7 against the Yankees last October and closed out the Cardinals in the World Series?

To this point, the Red Sox have offered Lowe arbitration or an escort to the Rhode Island border, cast him as an unwanted party boy, and turned around to hand a fat contract to the bloated and the injury prone bar-hopper David Wells, age 41. Loyalty? This time last year, the Red Sox put Martínez's good friend Manny Ramirez on waivers, and plotted to unload Nomar Garciaparra, finally dealing him last summer to the Cubs.

Loyalty? The other day, the word out of Boston was that the Red Sox were firing Bill Morgan, their 2004 postseason most valuable physician, whose improvisational suturing of Curt Schilling's right ankle kept the World Series dream from rupturing altogether.

In Garciaparra's case, he was in his final contract year, so the Red Sox jettisoned a popular player who all along maintained that he did not wish to leave. Similarly, I remember being in Fort Myers, Fla., last spring, when Martínez sat down with reporters and deflected the question of his expiring contract and management's unwillingness to extend it."

The only comment I would add is that, while it surely does not work that way, in any sport, on any team, it also does not work that way in any human endeavor. There might be some human endeavors which reward loyalty over bottom-line performance, I just can't think of any off the top of my head.

I guess I have another comment: Free agency rules. Free agency saved this damn sport. Free agency is the best thing to ever happen to baseball. Loyalty never existed in the first place, it was faux loyalty that was a by-product of the shameful reserve clause.

What did people do in the Hot Stove League before free agency, anyway? "Do ya think the Yankees will trade Mickey Mantle?" "Nope." "Do ya think the Yankees will trade Yogi Berra?" "Nope." "That is good, because I like Mickey and Yogi."

I mean, I sort of understand the emotional connections fans can form with players, cities can form with players ... sort of. In the long run, I think fans are more interested in winning than in loyalty to any particular player.

But the Pedro Martinez off-season saga is a very beautiful thing. The tension that developed between the Red Sox, Yankees, and Mets. The fourth-year trump card the Mets were willing to play. If you want a player as good as Pedro Martinez, you should be willing to pay. It is only fair that Pedro makes more money than, say, Kris Benson. He'll proably win more games and potentially generate more revenue for the Mets than a lot of other pitchers. Everybody is looking out for themselves.

Oh, and to all the Sox fans who are calling Pedro greedy? We'll see if Varitek signs for $1 less than Jorge Posada.

The Day After for Ken Davidoff.

Pedro off the Red Sox, Schilling hurt worse than thought, Yankees get closer to Randy Johnson.

It took one whole day for Davidoff to look kinda stupid. But he probably wouldn't be happy unless the Yankees somehow got Andy Pettitte back.

All free agents who leave your team are ungrateful and disloyal.

Shaughnessy seems to misunderstand some very important points:

1) It's a free country.

2) Pedro can pitch.


"He doesn't need the money. He has more money than anyone ever could spend. The Sox have paid him $92 million over the last seven years and were set to pay him another $40.5 million for the next three years. But in Pedro's mind, the Mets respect him more because they are willing to guarantee a fourth year at those rates.

Four years guaranteed, $54 million. This is what makes him happy. This is what makes him feel wanted."

Ummm, yeah ...

" Now he gets to compare his salary next to Schilling's and be happy about it. He gets the same years and more money than Carl Pavano. With Pedro, it's not about winning championships, or lifestyle, or fan appreciation. It's about wallet-measuring. Whose is bigger?

Pedro's decision to join the Mets is rooted in either greed or insecurity. I know some of you think it's easy for me to casually dismiss a fourth-year guarantee of so many millions, but what difference does that last year make? If you already had more money than you ever could spend, why would you leave for more money?"

It's amazing to me that this question would even need to be asked.

Why wouldn't you leave for more money? What is so great about playing for Boston or even winning World Series rings? How does Dan Shaugnessy know if Pedro was "happy with his job," anyway?

You know, it's really funny when a team like the Red Sox builds a WS title with free agency and robbing low-budget teams like the Expos. I am well aware that the Yankees use the same tactics, by the way, I'm not criticizing the tactics.

But Your Team and Your City are not the Center of the Universe. A player is not Loyal when he comes to your team and Disloyal when he leaves.

As if to underscore the point, Shaugnessy seems to completely forget that Pedro once pitched for the Expos, as he wonders how he'll manage in the NL:

"It's going to be fascinating to watch him in New York. He gets to pitch in a pitcher's ballpark and he gets to strike out the opposing pitcher once every three innings. ... Oh, and he'll have to walk to the plate after buzzing the other team's No. 3 batter in the top of the first. No more diplomatic immunity supplied by the designated hitter. Another weapon lost. Pedro's head-hunting days are endangered.

It's lose, lose, lose all around. The Sox lose. The Mets lose again when the contract becomes an albatross. And Pedro loses everything that worked for him in Boston.
But he's got the four years. He's got the $54 million. And you know what that is? That's respect. And that's the only thing that matters to Pedro Martinez."

No, only the Red Sox lose. Pedro gets his $, the Mets gets their ace. It's win, win, lose.

By the way, I'm not sure what planet Dan Shaugnessy has been living on, but on this planet, Money absolutely is Respect. For you, me, baseball players, sportswriters, and everybody else. If the Globe is unhappy with one of their curly-haired sportswriters, they can fire him. If the Herald offered him twice as much, he'd probably accept. Then he could use the extra money to find a good barber.

Mike Lupica almost reaches an epiphany.

As expected, the Yankees are stupid and the Mets are smart.

Why do I get the feeling that the Mets would have been smart if they had signed Carl Pavano and the Yankees would have been "weird" and stupid if they had signed Pedro Martinez?

Then, Lupica actually states that "the only people rooting against [Pedro] will be all those who want the Mets to be wrong so they can be right."

Connect the dots, Lupica, connect the dots. You can do it. You're almost there!

Replace the word "Mets" with "Yankees" and replace the words "all those" with "Mike Lupica."

Now it makes sense. You're not a journalist, you're not even a reporter. You just want the Yankees to be wrong so you can be right.

Peter Gammons is Always Wrong.

Sportswriters need to have short memories. They make a lot of predictions and a lot of those predictions are wrong. The trick, I guess, is to maintain your confidence, act like you know what you're talking about.

Think of all the time and mental energy which goes into these NFL picks every week. Everybody said the Seahawks could not rebound from their Monday night defeat and the Cowboys could not lose following their Monday night comeback. Everybody was wrong. Everbody is always wrong.

Not always wrong, but it's just 50%-50%. Yet every week, they do it again. Confidently and passionately explaining why the Colts will cover the spread, or whatever. Tracking trends and making bizarre connections between modern-day teams and players from the past who just happened to wear the same uniform: "The Packers are 2-5 against the spread since 1975 following a Monday Night loss by ten points or more." Huh?

Over the course of time, they have no more success than a blindfolded monkey throwing darts at a board. I don't gamble on the NFL, but if I did, I'd have stopped paying attention to these self-proclaimed experts a long time ago.

Peter Gammons is not always wrong, it's impossible to be always wrong. But his supposed insights into the inner workings of baseball have about the same hit rate as a blindfolded monkey reporting on the Hot Stove League. Pick a random team, pick a random player, report the player might be going to the team. You can literally pick just about any Gammons archived article and laugh about how incorrect he was.

So where does this kind of sloppy reporting get you in sportswriting? The Hall of Fame.

Bet your job on it.

That may have been what happened to Lawrence Rocca over at the Star-Ledger, I don't really know. Maybe the editors got a little tired of too many of his foolish anti-Yankee predictions.

The NY press lost its credibility a long time ago. Maybe not Ken Davidoff specifically, but after predicting the demise of the Yankees for so long, it's just the boy who cried "wolf!"

To be fair, Davidoff isn't clear about what he means by "sinking ship." I'd agree that the pitching staff is relatively subpar since Cashman is loading up on all these NL pitchers who aren't used to the AL lineups. But the Yankees will still cruise to 100 wins, more or less, and I don't see how that can be considered a "sinking ship."

I wish Davidoff would predict a specific number of wins and then put his reputation on the line. I'll give him +/- 5 wins, maybe even +/- 10 wins. But if he's predicting 79 wins and a fourth-place finish, then he doesn't know what he's talking about.

A few of my favorite parts:

"Go ahead and replace Vazquez with future Hall of Famer Randy Johnson, who is 41, has no cartilage in his right knee and is only slightly more affable than Brown. How much better does that make you feel?"

How much better would it make me feel? Is that meant to be humorous or ironic? It would make me feel like Rudolph when Clarisse says he's "cute."

The Sox have Curt Schilling in surgery, 41-year-old non-future-Hall-of-Famer David Wells, and (most likely) the cagey veteran Pedro Martinez. Not that I'm personally worried about their age or injury potential -- all three of them can replace Javy Vazquez on my team any day. But if you're going to rip Randy Johnson due to his age and injury potential, then Ken Davidoff must think the Red Sox are doomed.


"Then there's Pavano, whom Cashman described yesterday as the team's top target from their October organizational meetings. Pavano has a modicum of postseason experience, having pitched well against Clemens in World Series Game 4 in 2003.

But really now: What's more pressure? That start, or a potential Opening Day 2005 assignment against the Red Sox at Yankee Stadium? That would happen should Mussina - who, we're finally getting around to mentioning, recorded his worst season as a Yankee last year - experience elbow problems."

Again, what kind of an analysis is that? You're looking for young pitchers with proven big-game experience, and then you dismiss Carl Pavano? He might be the only young free agent pitcher available with big-game experience.

Golly, I sure hope Mike Mussina doesn't experience elbow problems. What if that happened to Mike Mussina?

What if that happened to David Wells, Curt Schilling, John Halama, and Bronson Arroyo? Who's pitching pressure-packed game #2 for the Sox? Bob Gibson?


"Those Yankees thrived because they built their pitching staff with home-grown products who grew up in their pressurized atmosphere (starter Andy Pettitte and relievers Mariano Rivera and Ramiro Mendoza) and complemented them with veterans (starters Roger Clemens, David Cone, Jimmy Key, Mussina and David Wells and relievers Jeff Nelson and Mike Stanton) who had clocked plenty of big-game experience elsewhere. Rivera's October failures in 1997 and 2001 notwithstanding, you always felt those Yankees teams would win when they had to."

This is simply factually inaccurate. It holds up under no scrutiny whatsoever. A simplistic analysis of "those Yankees," and also every other World Champion since then, reveals this statement to be completely absurd. Well, it's not absurd, perhaps, but it's just focusing on the facts which support his theory.

For one thing, Mendoza & Nelson & Stanton had very little to do with Yankee postseason success. Go ahead and look it up, puh-leez. They all built their reps on the back of Mariano. Nelson comes into a game with a four-run lead and walks two batters, strikes out one, then turns over the ball to Mariano.

Just start with the '96 Yankees. It's true that Jimmy Key and David Cone had playoff experience. But who else was on that team? Andy Pettitte had no big game rep yet (and he got shellacked in game one of the WS); Dwight Gooden was hurt; Kenny Rogers stunk; John Wetteland was shaky the year before vs. Seattle (before winning the WS MVP in 1996); David Weathers and Graeme Lloyd were the kinds of players who always made you feel like you could win?

So ridiculous. After a team wins, then you knew they were going to win all along?

I want to use his logic and get Denny Neagle, Hideki Irabu, Jason Grimsley, and Orlando Hernandez. Wait a minute. The Yankees already have Orlando Hernandez. So what does Davidoff think of that? He must approve; talk about your proven winners!

Davidoff simply describes El Duque as "enigmatic." My favorite word. It's the all-purpose sportswriter adjective when they don't know how to describe a player.

Hey, man, you're the sporstwriter. If a player is really an enigma, use your talents and perceptive insights to solve the riddle. I'm 9-to-5'ing it at my own job, so I don't have time. That's what you're there for.

Though I wish I could use that word at my job.

Those specs? Are they good or bad? Well, let's just say they're "enigmatic."

The start time of the meeting? Is it 9:30 or 10:00? My sources say it could go either way.

The expense report? It's a riddle wrapped in a mystery.

Phil Pepe's got Giambi's back.

I happened to be watching that NFL show on HBO for about a minute last night (the one with Costas, Collinsworth, Marino, Carter) and they said the NFL steroid policy was a proven success. With a straight face, Cris Carter said that only four people in the NFL were caught using steroids last year. This with random testing of every team every week.

You have eyes. Why do you think the number of 300-lb. lineman has increased 100-fold in the past ten years? Evolution?

It does not take a cynic to claim that the NFL policy doesn't work, it's just common sense. The NFL steroid policy is considered a success because the players have effectively figured out how to trick the testers.

Phil Pepe is definitely on the pro-Pinstripe side of the spectrum:

"It’s naïve to think that Jason Giambi is alone here, the only liar, the only cheater, but he made a critical mistake. He got caught. He didn’t have the guile or the skill to tap dance around the questions put to him by a federal grand jury as others did, and he’s the one left twisting in the wind.

Giambi is baseball’s worst nightmare, but who among us is without sin in this drama? Not baseball, which exploited him. Not his employers, who gave him that fat contract. Not fans, who cheered him. Not sportswriters, who extolled his accomplishments. Not his teammates, some of whom admitted knowing of his steroid use, even injecting himself through his pants leg on a team flight when he was a member of the Oakland A’s."

I don't think I'm to blame for anything just because I cheered Giambi. I also don't know if it's fair to blame everyone who ever met the guy or knew about his steroid use.

I'm just not quite understanding why the public feels comfortable focusing their scorn on Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds.

Much of the commentary is so obviously hypocritical that it's pointless to point out the hypocrisy. I'm more interested in why the general public hates Bonds and Giambi so much while they don't seem to hate all the others cheats and liars.

Pushover.

That was quick.

Mike Lupica's righteous indignation quickly turned into rosy-cheeked optimism:

"In the process yesterday, the players really told their own leaders they were wrong about drugs in baseball, and that the time has finally come to make things right. This was a big agreement in one of those rooms that was about something even more important than money."

It's definitely not about money. It's definitely not damage control for a corporation (baseball) and its commodities (players).

"Money?" What's "money?"


"It resulted in a historic day, the players taking this sort of action in the middle of a CBA. It means the players have finally tired of a drug policy - one primarily shaped by Fehr and Orza - that not only protects the guilty, but allows the guilty to take the innocent right down with them. Maybe they have finally realized that the health of their players, the integrity of the game and its records, is something more than a bargaining chip, like luxury taxes and revenue sharing.

Or maybe the players did finally realize Fehr and Orza work for them, not the other way around."

Maybe so, maybe not. Mark me down on the "maybe not" side.


"The time for posturing is over, and publicity stunts. Baseball has always gotten this wrong, until now. The players finally figured that out yesterday. Everybody comes to New York next week to start making things right. Giambi may end up a baseball hero after all."

This whole thing is a publicity stunt.


"We were all seduced by the home-run summer of 1998, when baseball picked itself off the mat once and for all, came all the way back from the strike of 1994."

At least Lupica sort of admits that he was wrong in 1998. But don't include me in that "all." I thought the entire Great HR Race of '98 was farcical. I didn't write a freakin' book about it.

Not that I have ever been particularly outraged about steroid use -- in 1998 or in 2004 -- I am just amused that a journalist who thinks he's such a keen observer of the sports world couldn't tell that the emperor was wearing no clothes.


What exactly happened yesterday? Nothin'. Sorry, folks, but nothin' happened at all. A bunch of words that probably will have little action behind them. It's just more proof that the solution to these kinds of P.R. crises is to appear to do something rather than actually doing something.

The players show some contrition when they finally, officially get caught. They promise to get tough and Mike Lupica buys it hook, line, and sinker. Maybe in retrospect it's not so surprising that Sherlock Holmes over here never noticed the peculiar expansion of Mark McGwire's biceps, the sudden minotaur-like appearance of Sammy Sosa's face.

Womack, Stanton, F-Rod.

Off of steroids and back to baseball for a moment.

Minor upgrades by Cashman so far this off-season, and every Yankee fan respected the season that Cairo had in 2004, so 2b might not even turn out to be an upgrade. But I'm just happy that the Yankees replaced one player named Felix with another player named Felix.

Now all we need is another Cecilio or Celerino.

The Governor of Colorado.

At least it's not the revered Governor of California speaking out against steroid use.

But is anybody concerned in the least that the Governor has nothing better to do than host a monthly sports and highlight show on a regional network? Do you really need Uncle Floyd as your state's Governor?

Anyway, the Governor is wrong:

"It's clear some of them don't want this," he said of players. "The union has been dragging its feet for reasons that are hard to understand."

It's very easy to understand why the player's union does not trust the owners. Aaron Boone's contract was voided because he broke his ankle (fairly, I suppose); Denny Neagle's contract was voided because he got a hummer (fairly, I suppose); the Yankees are trying to void Giambi's contract because of steroids (fairly, I suppose); the classy Steinbrenner was also suspended from baseball for a while because he paid a criminal to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield, hoping to void Winfield's contract. Winfield's beef with Steinbrenner was how much money should go to Winfield's charitable organization. Classy.

I will now paraphrase the language from Giambi's contract, and you will not believe your eyes. The NY Post summarizes it as: "The player agrees to keep himself in the best possible condition." I also recall reading that the contracts typically have such language as "represent the team well" and "properly prepare for practice," that sort of thing.

I'm not a contract lawyer, and perhaps it's the player's fault in the first place for allowing such vague language to exist in their contracts. But it seems fairly obvious to me that the union is afraid that owners will start voiding contracts left and right for any player who isn't in "peak shape" or isn't a proper "representative of the team."

David Wells has a higher ERA than you expected, go ahead and void his contract. I'd like to see the lawyer argue the case that he's in "best possible condition."

Ken Rosenthal gets the Felz treatment.

I realize I'm being kind of unfair. I'm not against the concept of cleaning up baseball from steroids, that would be like being against sunny Sunday afternoons.

But while Ken Rosenthal accuses the "clean" MLB players of just not "getting it," maybe he doesn't really "get it":

"Now that the world is aware of the grand jury testimonies of Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds, aware that recent MVPs have used performance enhancers, many believe the onus is on commissioner Bud Selig to act boldly and clean up the sport."

Even though "such a program won't eliminate the use of performance enhancers because the cheaters always stay ahead of the testers" and "the time for Selig to act was a decade ago or more ago, when the threat of performance-enhancing drugs first became apparent."

Which is it? Were performance-enhancing drugs first apparent ten years ago, or just last week, with the revelation of Giambi's testimony?

I think this is a somewhat interesting conclusion by Rosenthal, that Selig must act boldly to clean up the sport and save the game. The MLB steroid policy is often unfavorably compared to other programs, such as the NFL's. But how could the NFL policy be considered a success?

Or the NBA: "Fans might want to see him make like NBA commissioner David Stern and drop Ron Artest-like suspensions on Giambi and/or Bonds."

These leagues are notorious for their inability to clean up drugs "and/or" steroids. The NBA is infamous for touting its zero-tolerance (more like zero-conviction) drug policy. But when you're finding zero failures of your drug tests, it merely indicates ineffective testing. Nobody has his head in the sand more than David Stern.

Rosenthal isn't telling MLB players to cease using steroids, he's just telling them not to get caught anymore. Getting caught is bad for the game.

"The union always has been star-driven -- the top salaries set the salary structure -- but the rank-and-file needs to seize control." It's not a huge point, but I completely disagree. The MLB player's union seems to benefit the so-so players with nice benefits and enormous minimum salaries. If you think a player like ARod is overpaid as a result of the free agency bonanza, take a look at Eric Milton's offer.

"To you, though, it all should be very clear. This is about your survival. And you're on your own to effect change.

The fans? They've already spoken -- they're not going to boycott the sport. They like it too much."

Again, make up your mind. If the fans like the sport too much and are never going to boycott ... then why is this about the sport's survival?


"Don't you guys get it? Fans and media lump you all together, cheaters and noncheaters." Definitely not true.

"They have little confidence in the current testing." True.

"And your sport is suffering." Not really true, though it's a bit hard to quantify.


Overall, it's not a bad idea ... let the "good" players stand up and flush out the "bad" players ... even if the notion seems highly unlikely.

Just because the MLB steroid policy can not be perfect, it's important to make it better. I completely agree. I think steroids have small short-term performance benefits and have a tendency to break down the body in the long run (Giambi, Sosa, Caminiti, Dykstra, Canseco). The owners should insist that the players stop taking steroids because it ruins their investments. The players should realize that it's just not worth the health risks -- at the very least, maybe Giambi can serve as a sacrificial lamb.

Unfortunately, what history tells me is that it's only important to appear to clean up the sport. The genie isn't going back into the bottle and the difference between a legal performance-enhancing substance and an illegal performance-enhancing substance is not going to make much difference when Javy Vazquez hangs another curveball. Selig, MLB players, and Congress can all get together to enforce harsher rules and harsher penalties, but it amounts to nothing more than a shinier facade.

David Boston Ruins NFL Integrity Forever; Nobody Cares.

Maybe John McCain had $fitty on Buffalo last week, so he's not too worried about it.

In order or importance: War in Iraq, $500 billion deficit, Jason Giambi on steroids, unemployment, education of our kids, Janet Jackson's boobie.

Another Felz observation is that a wide receiver is primarily taking steroids to increase his speed. Same with Marion Jones and other track and field stars.

Only point is that, while the steroid scrutiny focuses on homeruns, maybe we should look at stolen base records. Maybe Dave Roberts and Tony Womack are juiced up, too.

Also, nobody ever talks about the pitchers. I'm just as certain that Roger Clemens has gotten some "help" as I am that Sammy Sosa has gotten some "help." Not that my finger-pointing would pass any legal test, just based on what I see with my own eyes.

I agree with Mike Lupica.

Overall, I agree with his angle in this story. The overall angle being that Giambi's biggest crime is his stinking on the baseball field. Does this mean Hell has frozen over?

But I'd pose a couple of questions to Lupica:


I. Why did he write a book called the "Summer of '98" which glorifies the McGwire / Sosa HR race?

On the Sports Reporters yesterday, Lupica actually stated that now the '98 HR race now comes under question.

Now? All of a sudden? What was he watching in 1998? It was obvious to anybody with eyes and a brain that McWire and Sosa were both juiced.

Please understand that this does not necessarily mean they were using illegal steroids. They may have been using substances that were not-yet-illegal (which is exactly what McGwire admitted to). Plus, they both undoubtedly trained very hard and took advantage of watered-down pitching staffs, smaller strike zones, lower mounds, smaller ballparks.

It's obvious to me that a fairly large percentage of baseball players have been juiced for a while. I am surprised by magnitude of the anti-Giambi reaction mainly because I thought we all understood and sort of shrugged our shoulders. Like we basically do with the NFL and its 350-pound linemen running 3.9-second 40-yard dashes, the Olympics where fooling the drug testers may as well be a medal event, Gaylord Perry spitballs.


II. Just in general, this is not directed solely at Lupica: Why aren't we similarly angry with Randy Velarde? I honestly don't quite understand this.

We're angry at Barry Bonds because he's on the brink of taking over a "sacred" baseball record from a "dignified" player. (Well, Aaron is dignified, Ruth not so much.)

We're not angry at Randy Velarde. He cheated, he put his health at risk, he tore down everything that is pure and good about baseball. Except nobody weeps for poor Tom Paciorek when Randy Velarde passes him on the all-time HR list.

I don't know about this attitude. We all ought to stop assigning levels of guilt based upon a player's ability on the baseball field.

Scott Miller attacks Barry Bonds, English language.

"And while Friday's Bonds Bombshell is as different from the Jason Giambi revelations as a flu shot is from a testosterone booster in the butt, at the very least, the Big Man now is in the same deep, dark patch of woods as Giambi."

Say what?

Ballplayer gets hummer in Hummer.

That's right, I said it. I have no shame.

Maybe a few Congressmen can drop everything and try to get Denny Neagle's records banished from the record book, in an effort to save everything that is pure and wonderful about America's Game.

Better sign Delgado then, because Olerud won't cut it.

Can't say I'm surprised by the Yankees' swift action to void Giambi's contract. That's why I envisioned all the #25 jerseys on the discount rack.

But I have little doubt that if Giambi had hit .308 last season instead of .208, they'd be demonstrating all that Yankee Pride and Class by supporting their teammate, their family member, a young man in need, who made a mistake, who deserves a second chance.

The hand-wringing Defenders of the Game are basically letting Steinbrenner off the hook. Dumping Giambi is not classy at all, it's lame and weak, and it just clears up some more cash for George to sign a productive player or two (or three or four).

Also, the Yankees (and MLB and the fans) should be very careful when they start sliding down the slippery steroid slope. If they seriously are going to suspend all the players who have ever used steroids, there won't be much of a game left.

I wouldn't even expect too much mid-season help from the fresh-faced and exuberant 'Roid Heads in the minors.

As for Moral Outrage, that's an even slippier slope. Steroid suspensions would knock out a significant number of players (10%? 25%? 50%?). If you start going after all forms of outrageous or supposedly immoral behavior (Newsday suddenly attacks Giambi for partying too hard), you might be left with season tickets just to watch Derek Jeter and Scott Rolen playing catch in the World Series.

Giambi never played me for a fool.

I am actually a bit taken aback by the sudden outpouring of outrage and anger, the steely resolve to kick Giambi off the team because he admitted to using steroids. Is anything really all that different today than it was yesterday? Didn't you already know that Giambi took steroids and lied about it?

A month ago, Gary Sheffield admitted to using steroids, claimed preposterous doe-eyed "Who me?" innocence, and the majority seemed to buy that load of garbage.

Mark McGwire admitted to using now-banned substances when he broke the hr record and Mike Lupica writes lame poetic odes about the Summer of '98.

You're going to hear a lot about "blame" and "hypocrisy" as the list of admitted users grows, but I have little doubt that the Giambi's biggest crime is hitting .208 last season. Sheffield had 120 rbis, so when he lies to Yankee fans, it's okay. The Yankees aren't clamoring to void Sheffield's contract, they probably want to extend it.

I must have a different emotional relationship with my team than lots of fans, different expectations. For instance, I don't really relate to the editorial staff of the NY Post, which joins the chorus with this over-the-top analysis:

"He has disgraced the Yankee pinstripes and made a mockery of everything that is wonderful and good and pure about the game of baseball.

So now it's up to George Steinbrenner. Say what you will about the man, he has only ever put one thing above winning: class. And now Major League Baseball and the fans - indeed, the nation - need to know what class really means."

Everybody point and laugh at the people who just said that Steinbrenner puts "class" above "winning."

"As you ponder your decision George, think of Lou Gehrig, think of Thurman Munson, think of Derek Jeter. What would decent men like that have you do."

Just don't think of Luis Polonia, Dale Berra, Mickey Mantle, Billy Martin, Babe Ruth, Whitey Ford, Wade Boggs, Steve Howe, Darryl Strawberry, Gary Sheffield, Ruben Rivera, Raul Mondesi, and those guys in the '70s who swapped their wives. Alcoholics, drug abusers, wife beaters, racists, cheaters, steroid users, adulterers. Some are good ballplayers, some not so good.

Frankly, I'm not really sure what Thurman Munson would have done. He might turn his head away and say nothing if Giambi can hit fitty dingers and three in a World Series game. While it's not the same thing because Reggie was never accused of breaking the law (that I can remember), Thurm seemed to get along a lot better with the hotdog loudmouth after they won a couple of Championship rings together.

In my estimation, Dave Winfield was more humble and classy than Reggie Jackson. Odd that Winfield isn't similarly revered by the NY Post and Yankee fans in general. Since we put class above winning and whatnot.

Personally, I don't see the big deal. Athletes are humans, the Yankees are bound to be a 25-person cross-section of society, both good and bad.

Maybe that's why folks are outraged. They really think the Yankees are "wonderful and pure and good." Sorry to break the news, but they're not, and they never were. They have just won a lot of baseball Championships over the years. You may take pride and glee in that fact, but winning doesn't make one virtuous.

Unit a Yankee.

This is one instance where I am not singling out the Daily News. Everbody is reporting that the hunt for Unit is dead.

Yeah, right.

I've heard that one before.

Now they're "focusing their attention" elsewhere. Because it's too difficult to focus on Randy Johnson and Al Leiter at the same time.

It's amusing to me because last July, everybody insisted that Unit was coming to the Yankees, and everybody was wrong.

Leaking to the press is just a negotiating tactic. I don't know that the Yankees are getting Unit for sure. I wouldn't bet my life on it. But the more the Yankees feign outrage, the more they feign disinterest, the more reports I see that the talks are dead -- the more certain I am that the press conference is scheduled for Sunday afternoon.

Get your #25 jerseys for 75% off.

A few years ago, a friend of mine got married in Seattle. My first stop out of the airport -- even before I got to my hotel room -- was a tour of Safeco Field. Naturally, this tour included a visit to the gift shop (in fact, the tour begins and ends in the gift shop, nudge nudge, wink wink).

The Mariners had traded David Bell to the Giants earlier in the year. The Ichiro stuff was hot. The David Bell stuff was on the discount rack. Just cracked me up, for some reason. The vexing problem for the sales guy as he tries to unload the merch of a not-so-popular player who's no longer even on the team.

The first thing I thought of when I read that Giambi had admitted to steroid use? The David Bell Discount Rack.

Mets: Smart. Yankees: Stupid.

"George Steinbrenner talked to Pedro and his agent, at their request. Maybe there is real interest there, maybe not, no one knows what Steinbrenner thinks anymore, certainly not anybody outside the Yankee bunkers in Tampa and the Bronx; the only time he talks to the public is through Howard Rubenstein, mouthpiece to the stars. More likely, Steinbrenner thought a meeting like that would make the people running the Red Sox go all weak at the knees. And Martinez must think that having the Yankees in play gives him more leverage with the Red Sox, which it surely does not.

Into the middle of that action comes Minaya, a GM on the make, one who clearly wants everybody to know he is in town. Does he look a lot like Steve Phillips on this one, going for a big name and a big headline? You bet. You know what Minaya thinks? He is going for the best free-agent pitcher out there and who's Steve Phillips?"

Do I even need to comment on this? It basically speaks for itself. In two simple paragraphs, Mike Lupica just codified his own stupidity and hypocrisy.

Steinbrenner is a clown with ulterior motives when he speaks to Pedro (he thought it would make the people running the Red Sox go all weak in the knees?), Minaya is a genius (he wasn't merely trying to intimidate the Red Sox or the Braves, he's just a kewl kat doin' his Shizea thizang).

Lupica is not the sole voice to okay the pursuit of Pedro, but he was the sole voice to praise the Kazmir trade and he was the sole voice to praise the alleged pursuit of Sammy Sosa. Hmmm ... that's kind of odd. I think I figured it out. The Mets GMs are smart no matter what they do. It's a corollary to the Lupica theory that the Yankees are always stupid.


I'm also amused by the following:

"They didn't want to hear all the reasons why the Mets couldn't afford A-Rod, or why they didn't think one of the best players in the world would fit in at Shea Stadium." ARod is suddenly one of the best players in the world? Hasn't Lupica spent the last year explaining how ARod is an overpaid sissy who strikes out too much (and who shouldn't bat second)? How can Lupica's opinions change so effortlessly when it suits his needs?

"I think he'll stay in Boston, unless he leaves a great situation over money the way Jason Giambi did." The way Jason Giambi did? You mean the way Tom Glavine did. The way Ivan Rodriguez did. The way David Cone did. The way Miguel Tejada did. The way Roger Clemens did. The way Mike Piazza did. Too many to mention, actually. Just about every free agent over the past few decades is all. Let's single out Jason Giambi because he's a Yankee ... and he'll therefore have to endure the Scorn of Lupica.

Winning cures all ills.

The Red Sox are the first major professional squad and just the third team overall to win the annual award "for symbolizing in character and performance the ideals of sportsmanship."

Ummm ... what?

Is it really necessary for Felz to find all the SI articles that rip the character of Pedro, Manny, Lowe, etc.?

The Red Sox won and winning is good. But I fail to see how the 2004 Red Sox symbolized the ideals of sportsmanship.

Isn't there a one-armed mountain climber somewhere who's more inspirational than a $130 million team winning the World Series?


"We are naming the Red Sox the Sportsmen of the Year because of the way they underline the connection between a team, a franchise, a town and the fans," SI managing editor Terry McDonell said.

Fair enough, I suppose. It was probably the biggest story of the year in sports, the Sox certainly have a lot of devoted fans.

But ... you know ... I still ain't seeing the whole "character" and "sportsmanship" angle.

Dirty helmets? Check.

Came back to beat the Yankees? Check.

Long hair? Check.

Character and sportsmanship? Nope. Still don't see it.

Pedro suddenly "worth a short risk."

The schizophrenic New York Daily News is officially on record as pro-Pedro if he comes to the Mets and anti-Pedro if he comes to the Yankees (no word on their position if Pedro returns to Boston, which seems the most likely scenario).

I find it difficult to read the following without laughing out loud:

"But let's take the emotion out of the question of whether Pedro would be worth the headaches he'd cause, not to mention the money he'll command over the next three years, and examine it objectively."

Examine the issue objectively? What a freakin' concept for a newspaper. These New Yorkers with their high-fallutin' so-called jernylists and whatnot.

Can you imagine? A sportswriter who gets paid actual money to write about baseball? Performing an objective analysis of a baseball issue? Provide a more thoughtful analysis than some housewife from Kew Gardens who watches 15 games per year and hates Pedro becaues of his hairstyle?

You know, I'll admit that I hate Pedro. But it's for different reasons. I hate good players on non-Yankee teams, basically. Rick Helling, I don't hate so much, he can pitch against NYY any time.

As for all this "Who's Your Daddy" nonsense, open up your eyes. Pedro always pitched well against the Yankees, regular season and playoffs. The Yankees find a way to beat him because they match his excellent pitching performance. It's just obvious if you watch the games.

Maintaining their high journalistic standards, the News then conducts a poll of a handful of anonymous baseball people that basically concludes that Pedro is among the top 10 or 15 starters in baseball. Which you knew already. Unless you only receive your baseball information from the New York Daily News.

Conclusion:

"In other words, baseball people seem to agree that Pedro is still one of the elite pitchers in baseball. But perhaps not for much longer."

Well, gee. Thanks for the news flash, newspaper. Same can be said for Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling, for what it's worth.

In any case, it's pathetic that the Daily News won't even bother conducting such a simplistic Pedro analysis until the Mets get into the discussion.

Why does the Daily News wait so long to perform this baseball-oriented analysis? Because they have to build some sort of foundation for their pro-Pedro platform, in case the Mets actually sign him.

I understand the different approaches to covering the Yankees and the Mets, the different expectations of the fans. It's fair to reflect these differences in the general coverage of the respective teams. The Yankees get more back covers, the Yankees get more scrutiny. Though I think the anti-Yankee, anti-George, anti-payroll (anti-ARod?) angle has warped much of the coverage to the point where it loses its credibility and usefulness, I am not expecting a World Without Bias.

But it's completely nonsensical to evaluate Pedro Martinez differently depending upon which team is talking to him. It's stunning, actually, to witness the Daily News embarrass itself in such a manner. By simply talking with King Midas Minaya, Pedro Martinez is no longer a cancer in the clubhouse.


"Still, who's kidding whom? If this were just two years ago, and Pedro was a free agent coming off a season in which he went 20-4 with a 2.26 ERA, those same Yankee fans surely would be more forgiving. "

This is not true. Because if you're the type of fan who favors personalities over performance, then you hated Pedro two years ago. Deep down, I don't believe that fans really value personalities over performance. But if it's your shtick, it's always your shtick.


"Perhaps they'd be thanking Alex Rodriguez for trying to recruit Pedro over dinner in Miami recently rather than gagging over the very thought of it."

I wasn't gagging over the very thought of it, but that's just me.

Who knows? I can't say I speak for every Yankee fan, but certainly most Yankee fans I know. We weren't gagging over the thought of Pedro Martinez off the Sox and on the Yankees; we were salivating over the very thought of it. It's better than Thanksgiving turkey.

Crazy Mets GM Makes Outrageous Offer to Over-The-Hill Prima Donna.

That's odd.

When George Steinbrenner meets with Pedro Martinez, Pedro Martinez is a washed-up worn-out five-inning pitcher who's a head case.

When Omar Minaya meets with Pedro Martinez, Pedro Martinez is transmogrified into a three-time Cy Young Award winner world champion with marquee panache.

Now, when Alex Rodriguez meets with Pedro Martinez, Mike Lupica is outraged, naturally:

"We find out now that Alex Rodriguez was recruiting Pedro Martinez in Miami not long ago and I guess my question goes something like this:

Who asked him?"

Who asked Alex Rodriguez to meet with Pedro Martinez? My guess would be Brian Cashman, Joe Torre, or George Steinbrenner. Or perhaps he met with Pedro without being asked, hoping to recruit him for his team.

Who does Alex Rodriguez think he is? A True Yankee? How dare he try to recruit players for Mike Lupica's team.

Mike Lupica's Brain Just Exploded.

"Alex gave Pedro the pitch, he told him what the Yankees are about, how Joe Torre runs things, about the clubhouse atmosphere and what's expected," Martinez' agent Fernando Cuza said.

Now there's a real five inning pitcher.

It wouldn't shock me if the Yankees signed Leiter and tried him out of the bullpen instead of starting. Or maybe they'll start him, though I don't know who he'd replace in the rotation at this point.

But the next time somebody tries to convince you that 217-IP Pedro has been reduced to a relatively ineffective five-inning pitcher ....

Bob Raissman's "well-embedded moles" reveal good news and bad news.

Speaking of broadcasters, one of the best parts of watching YES, even in the offseason, is just to hear Phil Rizzuto call some classic Yankee moment. Just the other day, I happened to see Mattingly homer in his seventh consecutive game. Scooter's call went something like this:

"The Angels missed a good chance to score last inning and ... did he get all of it? ... Holy Cow! ... Holy Cow! ... Holy Cow! ... Mattingly is unbelievable! ... Holy Cow!"

Then, Bill White has to interject what is actually happening in the game. You know, stuff like Mattingly hit a homerun and the score is such-and-such and the homerun went to left field.

Damn, I miss the Scooter. Great stuff.

Anyway, on to the revelations of Raissman's "well-embedded moles":

Good news ... "Steiner, the Yankee radiocaster whose contract has expired, has emerged as the leading candidate to replace Ross Porter in the Dodgers' broadcast booth."

Actually, I'm being unfair. I kind of like Steiner. I don't mind his Rizzuto-esque flubs, and he's definitely less irritating than Michael Kay (Poor Michael Kay can no longer bore us with his detailed descriptions of team uniforms, since he's on television). In fact, like a lot of baseball fans, I prefer to turn down the volume on the TV and listen on the radio.

Unless ... "Suzyn Waldman, YES' Yankees reporter, likely would move into the WCBS-AM radio booth to work with John Sterling."

Yikes!

If that occurred, then I'd have to turn down the volume on the TV and also turn down the volume on the radio.

I'd have to watch the game on TV and, for commentary, listen to the voices in my head.

Don't forget Dick Howser in 1980.

I thought the Great Bob Klapisch was finally ready to open up his eyes and see the Truth:

"Against a back-drop of November-angst, Steinbrenner has shocked the baseball world by firing ... no one."

Didn't shock the Felz. I know that the Fonzbrenner is one kewl dude in a loose mood.

Maybe The George deserves some criticism for firing / hiring Billy Martin a million times, or maybe for firing Down / Showalter, but even those moves did not really smack of desperation or wild-eyed fury.

That's about it, though. Dick Howser was unfairly fired for sure, but that was 24 years ago.

Wow, how refreshing. Bob Klapisch is a good man to lead the Revolution in NY sportswriting. The tired, ancient, absurd angle that Mt. Steinbrenner always overreacts is finally ready to be buried forever.

Klapisch, I knew I could count on you.

Next sentence?:

"The Yankees' owner has instead chosen to redirect his frustration into his bank account. Although no final budget has been approved yet, team officials are resigned to the inevitability of a record-setting $200 million payroll. Of course, obsessive spending is nothing new to Steinbrenner; it's written in his DNA coding."

Blink.

"The Boss' firing-muscles may have atrophied, but Cashman is nevertheless bracing for a familiar offseason sensation -- being squeezed by the Boss' long, decision-making tentacles. Which begs an obvious question: is keeping one's job always a reward in the Bronx?"

Sigh.

Back to Square One.

Klapisch, what are you doing, man? New rule: If it sounds like Mike Lupica would have wrote it, then write the opposite.

It's unanimous! We Hate Pedro!

I'm still waiting for the first writer to rip John Olerud for sitting out the last four games of the ALCS. Why isn't Olerud a warrior? Paul O'Neill would have played.

Anyway, John Harper leads the anti-Pedro charge with this incredibly nonsensical article.

Here are some annotated lowlights:


"Business is business, and all that, but shouldn't the current crazed state of the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry count for something with the players? It did for Andy Pettitte, who admitted he couldn't have looked his old Yankee teammates in the eye if he had taken the Red Sox up on their offer for him last winter."

Mr. Pinstripe Pride had no problem turning down $42 mill and jumping ship for Houston. But that's, you know, a different way of expressing loyalty.


"Even Yankee fans would have more respect for Martinez if he said he couldn't switch sides now, not after all these teams have been through the last two years."

Speak for yourself. I respect winning.


"It's more than fair, considering that Pedro is little more than a six-inning pitcher anymore, as his post-100 pitch meltdowns the last couple of years are by now as much a part of the Boston culture as Paul Revere's ride. Or that his history of arm injuries over the years says he'll break down at some point before his next contract runs out."

Is he still talking about Andy Pettitte?

Seriously, you take that chance with just about any pitcher. It's quite likely that Pedro would break down at some point. Duh. Like Kevin Brown, Mike Mussina, Curt Schilling, Randy Johnson, Eric Milton, Jon Lieber, or practically every pitcher in MLB.

Also, just examine the facts. Pedro threw 217 innings last year and came through like a champ in the playoffs.

His legendary "post-100 pitch meltdowns" includes one legendary post-100 pitch meltdown, in another game where Pedro pitched like a champ, at Yankee Stadium, Game Seven of the 2003 ALCS (we all remember that game, don't we?).

Now, revisionist history aside (Pedro "melted down" in Game Seven? Please.), I think it's fair to say that Joe Torre would handle Pedro Martinez a little differently. You know, the same Joe Torre who never allows his starters to finish a game and whose bullpen set every record for "appearances" that you can think of.


"People who know Pedro believe he is really just trying to jack up his price with the Red Sox by meeting with the Yankees. But either way it's a less than honorable way of doing business."

Heaven Forfend. Less-than-honorable negotiation tactics in major league baseball. John Harper blanches at the thought.


You know what? This is dumb. I could criticize just about every sentence in Harper's stupid article.

If you don't want Pedro on the Yankees, at least make a decent argument that has something to do with baseball.

Think of Boston's starting rotation without Pedro, without Lowe, with Schilling on the DL. Yankees sign Unit and Pedro, maybe they lose Vazquez and Brown in the process (Boston can have 'em for all I care). But the Yankees refuse to do this because Pedro is a prima donna and he sometimes doesn't talk to the press? Then John Harper has the nerve to call George Steinbrenner an obsessive idiot?

Let me be the alternative voice of the True Yankee Fan. I don't care about personalities and clubhouse chemistry and whether or not a player talks to the press. If you pitch well, you are my hero. I am not inviting you to a tea party, I am watching you on the TV screen. When you play well, I am happy. When you play poorly, I hate you.

Now, shut the heck up, sign Pedro, and win the World Series.

2004 AL MVP Comparison

At last, We vote differently than Them.

I think We were better.

I'm also wondering why it takes so long for MLB to announce the awards. Just announce all the awards on one day.

Them		Us
Name....................	Points..........	Name.....................	Points..........
Vlad Guerrero	354	Manny Ramirez	17
Gary Sheffield	254	Miguel Tejada	11
Manny Ramirez	238	Gary Sheffield	9
David Ortiz	174	Vlad Guerrero	6
Miguel Tejada	123	Ichiro Suzuki	6
Johan Santana	117	David Ortiz	3
Ichiro Suzuki	98	Michael Young	2
Michael Young	92	Johan Santana	1
Mariano Rivera	59	Jason Varitek	1
Ivan Rodriguez	36
Curt Schilling	14
Joe Nathan	12
Derek Jeter	11
Mark Kotsay	8
Alex Rodriguez	8
Johnny Damon	7
Paul Konerko	7
Hank Blalock	5
Melvin Mora	5
Mark Teixeira	5
Torii Hunter	4
Victor Martinez	4
Erubiel Durazo	3
Francisco Cordero	2
Lew Ford	2
Carlos Guillen	2
Travis Hafner	2
Hideki Matsui	2
Chone Figgins	2
Eric Chavez	1
Jason Varitek	1

217 innings is a lot.

Too funny. When the Yankees go after the best free agent pitcher available, a pitcher who also pitches for their arch rival, then "It's a situation that probably concerns some Yankees officials: At a time when the club needs to get younger and is locked up in long-term contracts with older players, Steinbrenner is wooing a 33-year-old right-hander who has shown signs of wear-and-tear in recent years."

How many Yankees threw 217+ innings last year? Zero.

How many AL pitchers threw 217+ innings last season? Eight.

How many MLB pitchers threw 217+ innings last season? Fifteen.

Oh, and his ERA would have been the best ERA on the Yankees last season.

There is no doubt that Pedro has shown "signs of wear-and-tear" in recent years. Compared to, say, 1999 Pedro, which might have been the best season a pitcher ever had.

While Boston's offer of two-year, $27.5 million presumably demonstrates Theo Epstein's business acumen, the thought of Steinbrenner possibly offering four years demonstrates Steinbrenner's madness.

Forget ERA, forget innings pitched, forget strikeouts, forget baseball entirely.

Olney thinks the only reason that the Yankees would go after Pedro is because "Steinbrenner loves stars, has always been enamored with the idea of taking stars away from the rival Red Sox"

Ignoring the facts even further, Olney thinks that Pedro would merely be another feather in Steinbrenner's cap: "based on his record of dominance, he is virtually a lock to be voted into Hall of Fame one day."

You know, Steinbrenner probably lays awake at night trying to get NY on as many Hall of Fame caps as possible. That's the ticket.

2004 NL MVP Comparison

Some pointless Felz observations:

• Juan Pierre comes in sixteenth in their poll, fourth in our poll.
• Mark Loretta comes in ninth in their poll, fifth in our poll.
• The guy with the most strikeouts in MLB history got 2 MVP points.
• Jeff Kent, Jeromy Burnitz, and Armando Benitez combined for 24 MVP points while no current Met got any.
  

Them		Us
Name....................	Points..........	Name.....................	Points..........
Barry Bonds	407	Barry Bonds	21
Adrain Beltre	311	Adrian Beltre	5
Albert Pujols	247	Scott Rolen	5
Scott Rolen	226	Juan Pierre	3
Jim Edmonds	160	Mark Loretta	2
J.D. Drew	114	Jack Wilson	1
Lance Berkman	100
Roger Clemens	61
Mark Loretta	50
Aramis Ramirez	42
Eric Gagne	30
Carlos Beltran	20
Jeff Kent	18
Steve Finley	15
Moises Alou	15
Juan Pierre	9
Todd Helton	9
Johnny Estrada	8
Randy Johnson	7
Jim Thome	7
John Smoltz	6
Miguel Cabrera	5
Armando Benitez	3
Jeromy Burnitz	3
Bobby Abreu	3
Vinny Castilla	3
Roy Oswalt	3
Adam Dunn	2
Carlos Zambrano	2
Phil Nevin	1
Jimmy Rollins	1

Phil Pepe always good for a laugh.

Bigmouth David Cone is hardly the first person to suggest that Roger Clemens is the greatest pitcher of all time. (By whom, where, why, when, and how is David Cone always being asked his opinion?)

It's very difficult to compare the stats of the modern-day, 200-inning, five-man rotation starter to the old-school, 1,000-inning, one-man rotation, both-games-of-a-doubleheader, no-bullpen starter. But when you're trying to figure out the greatest pitcher of all time, that's what you have to do.

Clemens did all of his work (prior to 2004, of course) in the modern-day AL. Low mounds and steroids and DHs and small ballparks. It takes about five seconds of research to conclude that the past 20 years have been a high-scoring era in baseball, but Pepe dismisses all of these factors because "his entire career occurred when competition was watered down by the era of expansion." Yeah, expansion of the hitter's biceps is more like it.

Which is fine, I suppose. It's an odd opinion to suggest that Clemens barely belongs in the top ten, but opinions regarding this matter are bound to vary wildly.

But guess who's the greatest pitcher of all time? Sandy Koufax and his 165 wins.

"Koufax was the unwitting victim of a nonsensical rule in baseball at the time that sought to discourage wealthier teams from cornering the market on talent. It was decreed that a player signed for a bonus of at least $4,000 had to remain on the major league roster for two years, thereby taking up a valuable spot on a team's 25-man roster, and at the same time, depriving the young player of plying his trade in the minor leagues.

Koufax never pitched in the minors, and it took him three years to become a serviceable major league pitcher. Once he did, he was the most dominant pitcher of his time and he finished his career with what may be the greatest six-year stretch in history."

What was the question, again? Pepe seems confused.

Brian Cashman on Bernie Williams.

Cashman being brutally honest: The Yankees hold a 2006 option on Williams for $15 million, but GM Brian Cashman said yesterday "it's unrealistic that that would be exercised."

Cashman being brutally dishonest: "Right now, we don't anticipate reducing his role anyway, so that's hard for me to speak to."


One of Cashman's jobs is to spin and he has no particular obligation to talk to the press. But I just find it very curious that, with all the attention being paid to Beltran & Bernie, everybody seem to ignore the 500-pound elephant follow-up question.

Bernie is going to play a major role on this team? Okay.

Ummm, where?

2004 AL Cy Young Comparison.

Even though I think it's amusing that Mike Lupica rips the Yankees for being patient ... and predicts the firing of Brian Cashman for the hundredth time ... and inexplicably worships Theo's one big money ring while ridiculing Cashman's four big money rings ... and sticks with his Crazy Steinbrenner angle even though Fonzbrenner keeps acting differently ... I've decided to post the AL Cy Young results instead.

Stupid Lupica. You won't get to me this time. You won't make me point out how stupid it is to compare ARod to Soriano when ARod is clearly better in every way ... always has been and always will be ... maybe Gary Sheffield is not better than David Dellucci if that's your logic ... how stupid it is to claim reclamation project Jaret Wright is a "star" (even though he got beeyotch slapped in the playoffs) while you ignore reclamation projects El Duque and Jon Lieber ... how stupid it is to praise the Dave Roberts acquisition when you claimed that the mid-season Yankee trade for Aaron Boone sucked the joy out of the entire season.

I'm not making it up. In this article from August, 2003, Lupica actually claimed that the acquisition of Aaron Boone "sucks the joy out of the season, whatever Yankee fans say" and incorrectly predicted that "if the Yankees don't win, one of the suck-up guys from the Crack Baseball Committee, Tampa branch, will have the title of general manager before next season."

A year later, he's recycling the same article, and he still doesn't understand anything about baseball or the Yankees or Yankee fans.

Like I promised, I'm not going to talk about Mike Lupica, I'm just going to talk about the AL Cy Young:

Them		Us
Name....................	Points..........	Name.....................	Points..........
Johan Santana	140	Johan Santana	25
Curt Schilling	82	Curt Schilling	13
Mariano Rivera	27	Mariano Rivera	6
Pedro Martinez	1	Felix Heredia	3
Joe Nathan	1	Pedro Martinez	3
Frankie Rodriguez	1	Orlando Hernandez	1

Trade Bernie.

Actually, I don't think I want the Yankees to trade Bernie, he's probably my favorite player of all time.

But what choice do they have if they sign Beltran? Isn't anybody giving this any thought whatsoever? Causes and effects?

So they have the same agent. So what? Who cares? I've read it in three NY papers now.


I'm reaching this conclusion based on the following assumptions:

1. Giambi will not be able play first base full time.
   
2. Giambi is untradeable.
   
3. Bernie is worth more in trade value than he is sitting on the bench as a fourth outfielder and occasional DH.
   

If Giambi can play 1b full time, then it's a non-issue. Beltran cf, Bernie dh, Giambi 1b. Even when completely healthy, Giambi is a pretty bad fielding 1b. Torre sticks him out there because he thinks that it keeps Giambi's head in the game and helps him at the plate. Whatever. I can't seriously foresee Brain Tumor Giambi returning to full time 1b.

Giambi will not be traded. He has 4 years and $80 million left on his contract. Assess the situation. You think it's a big risk to wait and see if he gets healthy and partially lives up to his big contract? You think it's a big risk to wait and see if he ever returns to form? It's a much bigger risk to trade him and pay $60 or $70 million of that contract just so he hits 45 hrs and drives in 120 for another team.

Most realistically, Beltran will play cf, Giambi will dh, Olerud or somebody else will play 1b. So where does that leave Bernie? Fourth outfielder and pinch hitter? Is that really what the Yankees want? Is that really what Bernie wants? What's the point?

Oh, and let me add another bullet point: 4. Bernie can not play first base.

Holy moley. What the heck have you people been watching the past ten years? Look, I love Bernie, but this guy plays with his head in the clouds. The idea of Bernie Williams in the infield, a mere 90 feet from the batted ball ... I shudder to think.

How's this for a realistic win-win: Bernie, Vazquez, and Brown to AZ for Unit and Quinton McCracken.

I don't know about the legalities and no-trades that would have to be waived, but I think that's a somewhat realistic trade. Bernie has slipped noticeably from his prime, but he's still a very good offensive cf. AZ wouldn't want Giambi, he clearly belongs in the AL, and they've already got Richie Sexson.

Emotionally, I have mixed feelings about the notion (yes, I really do have "emotions" sometimes). Bernie belongs in Pinstripes. But does it do anybody any good to put Bernie in Pinstripes and give him 150 at-bats over the course of the season?

If you love something, set it free. If it comes back, it's yours to keep. If it doesn't come back, it was never yours in the first place.

Born free / As free as the wind blows / As free as the grass grows ...

Fly, Bernie, fly! Spread your wings and fly!

2004 NL Cy Young Comparison.

The baseball writers vs. a poll of me and my friends:

Them		Us
Name....................	Points..........	Name.....................	Points..........
Roger Clemens	140	Roger Clemens	16
Randy Johnson	97	Randy Johnson	8
Roy Oswalt	19	Jason Schmidt	8
Jason Schmidt	13	Eric Gagne	3
Carlos Zambrano	8	Ben Sheets	3
Carl Pavano	6	John Smoltz	1
Eric Gagne	3
Brad Lidge	1
Ben Sheets	1

The table looks sloppy, I don't quite get how to format a table on this thing. Me and my friends voted in a similar manner as the sportswriters. It was very close.

Gosh. I never knew me and my friends were such idiots.

Mt. Steinbrenner Erupts!

The much-anticipated fallout from the ALCS defeat: "Rob Thomson is a candidate to replace Gary Tuck as catching instructor."

For the Millionth Time, Eric Milton is Overrated.

Why won't anybody listen to Felz?

My hunch is that Eric Milton is overrated because he's an ex-Yankee prospect, his status partially the result of an unending desire to ridicule Steinbrenner, in this case for the Knoblauch trade. Steinbrenner panicked and ruined the team, like he always does, like he's going to do again.

He traded away "all stars" like Guzman and Milton. Boy, the Yankees could sure use Milton now!

I don't even particularly want Milton back on the Yankees. He's 29 years old and his career stats are 71-57, 4.76 era.

Not that baseball-reference.com has the answer to everything, but if you don't think Milton's overrated with his $9 mill contract, take a look at the players to whom he's "Most Similar":

Brett Tomko
Armando Reynoso
Chris Carpenter
Mark Clark
Curt Young
Sterling Hitchcock

Laugh at the guy from the '86 Mets.

2-for-25 is not gritty, but it's something that rhymes with gritty.

What is "2-for-25"? You don't remember?

That's odd, because you probably remember Winfield's 1 hit in the 1981 World Series that the Yankees lost. "Mr. April" and such.

You probably remember ARod's 2-for-17 or so in the last four games of the ALCS this year. It's big news.

You probably scorn Scott Rolen for his oh-fer in the World Series, and perhaps he deserves your scorn.

Because we're all about the playoffs in New York. "Eleven wins in October."

But you say you don't recall Tino going out like a punk in 2002 with the Cardinals? 0-for-11 vs. Arizona and 2-for-14 vs. the Giants? Gritty. Is this really the "type of player" the Yankees need?

But we don't care about the Cardinals, we care about the Yankees. Right?

Well, this is where I lose faith in my fellow Yankee fans. I remember Tino, I liked Tino, I rooted for Tino when he replaced Mattingly. Tino was a great player for the Yankees, almost won the MVP in 1997, probably has a six-year period with the Yankees that matches up quite nicely with Mattingly's best six-year period with the Yankees. (In fact, talk about a guy who deserved a couple of gold gloves, especially while diving all over the place after Knoblauch "throws" ... )

But Tino consistently stunk in the playoffs and it was a big deal. He tightened up, the theory went, and maybe it was a valid theory. Tino was even benched in favor of Fielder in the 1996 playoffs and that was a pretty big deal at the time, though apparently completely forgotten now.

Tino had two big playoff moments: The WS grand slam vs. SD and the ninth-inning hr off Kim (who didn't hit a ninth-inning hr off Kim in that WS?).

It does not change the fact that Tino stunk in the playoffs. Give a guy 350 at-bats and he's bound to have a big hit or two.

Tino's overall playoff career is bad, and it's right there in black and white for all to see: 348 at-bats, .239 ba, 9 hrs, 38 rbis. The worst stats might be the .326 on-base% and .359 slugging%. For a first baseman, in particular, that's downright awful.

Jason Giambi has a bad rep, but his playoff stats are much much much better (.421 on-base% and .481 slugging%, as a quick comparison).

But my gripe is not with Tino or even the notion of bringing Tino back to the Yankees. He's still a good player, he could definitely be a good backup to Giambi, maybe even a preferred starter over Olerud. I'd have been happy in 2002 if the Yankees had just signed Tino long-term to play 1b and Giambi long-term as a DH.

My gripe is with the notion that his presence on the field (or even on the bench?) could somehow magically restore Yankee Magic and help them finish out in October and win some more rings. Tino has a good glove, but he's not going to reel in Johnny Damon's grand slam in game seven.

My gripe is the inconsistent application of "True Yankee" criteria.

Giambi's a bum for not winning a ring? Fine. Then Mattingly's a bum for not winning a ring, and he had thirteen years to do it.

The 2004 Yankees are stat compilers in the regular season who squeeze the bat too tightly in the clutch? Fine. Then so are Tino and Girardi, who are your Favoritest True Yankees this side of Paulie.

It's very unfair and stupid to assess Tino's entire career and character because of his last 25 playoff at-bats ... and it's similarly unfair and stupid to assess ARod in a similar manner.

If anybody thinks that Tino is the answer just because he won some rings, then they may as well propose bringing back Andy Fox to restore that '96 Magic. AFox has more Championship rings than ARod and he also has a nice, gritty jawline.

Spike Owen wins a gold glove.

Despite the fielding stats, Derek Jeter is still a great fielder. This fairly common and fairly ridiculous notion is presented this morning by the Daily News:

"Jeter rarely has gotten much praise for his fielding, perhaps because there have always been several other slick players at his position. Omar Vizquel had a nine-year stranglehold on the Gold Glove award before A-Rod won it in 2002 and 2003, while Nomar Garciaparra and Miguel Tejada have - at points in their careers - been perceived as better fielders than Jeter.

Statistically, Jeter was fourth among AL shortstops in fielding percentage and errors, though he did record the most putouts. Critics often point to his rank in categories such as range factor (putouts plus assists divided by innings, in which he was ranked eighth) and zone rating (the percentage of balls fielded in a player's "zone" as defined by STATS Inc., in which Jeter finished sixth) and say Jeter does not field his position as well as many believe. But the managers and coaches who voted on the award apparently ignored those theories."

Stats are not theories. They are a good reminder and a good gauge of a player's abilities over the long run. Jeter's thrilling catch vs. Boston on July 1 does not mean he deserves the Gold Glove. That would be like marvelling at Mark Bellhorn's game-winning homerun vs. St. Louis in the World Series and concluding, "Did you see that homerun? Mark Bellhorn is ... he's the ... he's the best homerun hitter in the American League!"

Look, Jeter is a great player, blah blah blah, nobody is disputing this. Start molding the Cooperstown plaque. But why do "managers and coaches who voted on the award" need to throw him a gold glove bone, thereby (further) corrupting the veracity of the Gold Glove award?

It's hardly the first time this has happened, it happens all the time, perhaps most notoriously when Rafael Palmeiro won the 1b gold glove despite playing most of the season as a DH. Bernie Williams won undeservedly a few years ago, as another example.

The AL gold glove middle infield for 2004 is supposedly Derek Jeter and Bret Boone. Think about that for a minute. Imagine being the GM who's trying to shore up his infield defense in some kind of imaginary fantasy draft and you had to scout the best middle infield in the whole league. You can pick anybody you want and you decide to go with Derek Jeter and Bret Boone instead of, say, Bobby Crosby and Orlando Hudson. You'd be fired on the spot.

It's the Gold Glove. It's supposed to reward good fielding. Why bother if you're just going to vote for the best overall player, or the most popular player, or the best offensive player? That approach is downright stupid and it's the main reason the Gold Glove award is basically meaningless.


Steven Goldman of the Pinstriped Bible is pretty darn good.

Here is what he said about Jeter on October 20th:

"Finally, for those who have argued about whether the statistics that showed Jeter to be a poor shortstop were actually true, his play in this series has amply demonstrated that the emperor has no clothes — or at least needs a new glove."


This is Goldman on October 25th, and I could have written this gem myself:

"It's okay if you don't accept the stats. Fielding stats are notoriously unreliable. Just use your eyes. Jeter misses many balls that more rangy shortstops reach. His intelligence and instincts on the field only make up for so much. The concession the Yankees made to Jeter's ego in keeping him at short when A-Rod came aboard was the first nail in the championship coffin."


Goldman wrote these criticisms before Jeter won his Gold Glove, but it's not Goldman who looks ridiculous, it's the managers and coaches who voted for the Gold Glove in the AL.

"Just use your eyes," indeed.

Hear! Hear!