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.