That's weird. Even though Lupica is obsessed with the Yankee payroll -- it's almost impossible to find an article where he doesn't mention Yankee payroll, even an article about the Olympics -- what does he think of Theo Espstein as his $130 million payroll team battles for the wild card with teams with half the salary?
Epstein isn't a lapdog with deep pockets. Epstein is a "tough, smart kid who builds a Red Sox team that can win a World Series for the first time since 1918."
Epstein's $130 mill team is not underachieving at all. They didn't blow an early 4 1/2-game lead against the Yankees and inexplicably play about .500 for three months. They're survivors. "They might not make October. But if they do, if they somehow survive the long haul in the American League, ask yourself a question: Who's built better this time for the short run?"
Neither I nor Lupica can be sure who will win the AL wild card. But I do know that the A's, Rangers, Angels, White Sox, Indians, and Twins will also have to "somehow survive the long haul in the American League" -- probably a lot like that movie where the plane crashed and they had to eat dead people -- except the other wild card contenders will have to do it with a lot less cash than the Red Sox.
While the fat cat Yankees probably get pedicures and eat caviar in their limousines during their post-game rides back to their Park Place penthouses.
I'm not even sure what his point is regarding the "short run."
Okay, I'm asking myself, as instructed: "Who is built better this time for the short run?" Since Lupica leaves the question unanswered, he obviously thinks the answer is Boston and that he has proven his case. Huh?
With the Yankee improved lineup, improved defense, good-enough starting pitching, and improved bullpen ... I'd have to pick the Yankees.
The assumption is that Pedro and Schilling (and Foulke) will crush the Yankees. (Oh, and don't forget the unhittable Scott Williamson, who was "supposed to be their Flash Gordon," just without the 1.78 ERA and .163 BA against, I can only assume ... despite an excellent 21 whole innings to start the season.) The Yankees instantly fall behind 2-zip and then they're doomed.
Could happen, I don't know, let's play the games. Schilling gives up just as many gopher balls -- well, almost as many -- as the disappointing Javier Vazquez. Schilling's season ERA is 3.60, not 0.01. A few ill-timed hanging curves to ARod could end up in Monument Park and Lupica's whole theory is shot to heck right away.
How much baseball does one have to watch before one concludes that baseball is unpredictable in the short run? It's predictable in the long run, but completely unpredictable in the short run. In the short run, Ty Wigginton outplays Alex Rodriguez over the weekend and the Mets sweep the Yankees.
Lupica might want to review last year's ALCS when he gets a chance. Just about every game was won by the team that was the "underdog" based on the starting pitching matchup, at least in my estimation of which team was the "underdog."
Did Lupica think the Sox would beat Pettitte in game six with Burkett on the mound? Guess what? They did. But they lost all the games that Pedro started. That's the short run for ya.
Yankees have done well against Pedro over the years, they scored seven runs off of Schilling the last time they faced him. That's Jose Contreras territory, but nobody seemed worried. The Yankee lineup is a lot tougher this season (even though Lupica is, ummm, "exaggerating" a wee bit when he claims the 2004 Yankee lineup was "supposed to be the most powerful lineup ever assembled.")
Besides, after what I just saw, how are the Red Sox even going to get past Radke and Santana?
No comments:
Post a Comment