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.