You could make an argument that the Earth is flat.

"The Red Sox will be just fine." I happen to agree with Matt Waxman.

The easiest way to support this proposition is to list the Red Sox roster: Manny, Ortiz, Varitek, Beckett, Foulke, etc. Further, consider their enormous payroll and revenue streams.

The worst way to support this proposition is with pointless anti-Yankee "arguments":

"Conversely, you could make an argument that the Yankees have but two players (Robinson Cano and Chien-Ming Wang) on their 25-man roster whose best years are ahead of them."

Well, sure. You could make that argument.

You could also make the argument that a dozen players on the Yankees 25-man roster will have their best season ever.

(Robinson Cano, Chien-Ming Wang, Johnny Damon, Mike Mussina, Derek Jeter, Andy Phillips, Johnny Damon, Alex Rodriguez, Shawn Chacon, Aaron Small, Bubba Crosby.)

This scenario is not likely. Those Everybody Having Career Year seasons only happen once every 1998. But I could make the argument.

In fact, I could make the argument that Robinson Cano and Chien-Ming Wang have peaked and Jason Giambi will win the AL MVP, leading the Yankees to the playoffs, and saving the skins of all these young, athletic, fresh whippersnappers.


"Conversely, the Yankees average age keeps going up like George Steinbrenner's blood pressure every year his team doesn't win the World Series."

Conversely to the converse, the Yankees average age went down this off-season.

The age of the remaining individual players has gone up from last year. Every player on every baseball team has aged exactly one year since last year.

But the overall age of (John Flaherty) the (Mike Stanton) Yankees (Kevin Brown) has (Tom Gordon) gone (Tony Womack) down.


"New York's rotation is a strained back and a pulled oblique away from being in shambles."

This is obviously true.

But get a list of all 30 major league teams. Now look at their rosters. Now take away their top two starters due to injury.

Is that rotation now in shambles? Yup.


"Let us not forget that if Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke give the team anything in 2006, that'll be an improvement over their contributions to last year's team, which still made the playoffs."

Let us not forget that Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke are a strained back and a pulled oblique away from giving the team nothing in 2006.

What good is an analysis if it merely consists of best-of scenarios for one team and worst-of scenarios for the other team?

Because, you know what, Matt Waxman? The Red Sox will probably be just fine in 2006. but so will the Yankees.


Rant Number Two

Why does every conversation about the Red Sox have to include a conversation about the Yankees?

The Red Sox will play the Yankees 19 times in 2006 and they'll probably win 9 or 10 of them, like they usually do.

Apart from these 19 games, how would a Yankee collapse help the Red Sox? If the Yankees really collapsed, then somebody is beating them. That somebody could be the Blue Jays or the Orioles. If Unit and Mussina go on the DL, what's stopping the Blue Jays from winning the AL East? Or at least from challenging the Red Sox in the AL East?

The Jays added Ryan and Glaus, they'll get contributions from Halladay, and Schilling and Beckett might pull their obliques. There ya go! That was easy!

The Red Sox will be good not because of who they lost, but because of who they kept. The Red Sox will be good if they stay healthy, not if the Yankees get hurt.

Chicago White Sox are Favorites to Win the World Series.

"Every single time the Yankees make a big free-agent play like Johnny Damon, the rest of the American League is immediately supposed to call off the season."

No, they're not.

"It happened when they got Mike Mussina."

No, it didn't.

"It happened when they got Jason Giambi."

No, it didn't.

Even though the Yankees had three straight 100+ win seasons, won the division four years in a row, and made the World Series once. Not too shabby.

"Go back to February of 2004, when Cashman made the deal for Alex Rodriguez.

People were saying the same things about the Yankees that they are saying now, how the addition of A-Rod would make this batting order the most unstoppable fighting machine in the history of sports."

Is that so? Is that what "people" were saying? Were these "people" anonymous sources, an AL "scout" or a "trusted executive" who magically created quotes for Lupica to put in his column?

See, what I remember is "people" saying is that the Yankees lost Pettitte and the Red Sox added Schilling and Foulke.

"But just remember:

The Yankees basically taking A-Rod away from the Red Sox wasn't just supposed to hurt the Red Sox.

It was supposed to destroy them forever.

Eight months later they won the World Series."

Only Lupica, with his misplaced boxing metaphors about "getting off the mat," could have concocted the absurd propostion the Red Sox with their $100+ million payroll and sold-out Fenway Park were Destroyed Forever by Aaron Boone's homerun and ARod's addition to the Yankees.

Besides, if Johnny Damon is supposed to make the Yankees an unbeatable team, then why are the White Sox the favorites to win the World Series in '06?

Lupica, you can ask just about "anybody." Johnny Damon does not even make the Yankees the best player in the AL, much less the most powerful entity in all human history.


It is true that I've read a few fringe opinions that are way pro-Damon, including a Joel Sherman article which asks if the Yankees will score 1,000 runs in 2006. (Quick Felz analysis: "No.")

But these are the extreme opinions and Lupica knows better. Lupica may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but he's intelligent enough to operate a keyboard and he's intelligent enough to read the English language.

Lupica knows the reaction to the Damon signing has been lukewarm. So why is Lupica pretending that General Consensus is presenting Damon as a Yankees savior? Because Lupica is just setting himself up to be the Sole Voice of Reason when the Yankees fail to win 120 games.

You'll see. July 15th and the Yankees are playing .540 ball and Lupica will write an article that claims "everybody said" the Yankees were going to win 120 games this year! That's what "everybody said."

Fitty mill buys a lot of tires.

"Damon will regret this. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but as soon as he gets his tires slashed in Boston."

Caple, get over here.

Somebody slashed my tires.

I'll give you $25 grand right now if you get down on your hands and knees and change my tires for me. That's a good boy.

I'll be inside watching the Bloomberg Channel. I made more in interest today than you made all year. Isn't that funny?

Actually, I have to go inside anyway to try and make some change. Sheffield usually carries small bills. I've got nothing smaller than a $100,000 bill on me. Can you believe that? Stupid ATMs!

Tell you what: If you do a good job, I'll sign a program or something that you can give to your wife.

Don't book the parade for the Red Sox just yet.

"Johnny Damon has a throwing arm that makes Bernie Williams' appear Ichiro strong. In the vast wilderness that is center field at Yankee Stadium, Damon and that wet noodle attached to his left shoulder will make Derek Jeter run out to the warning track to take the cutoff throw.

...

Is this four-year, $52 million transaction a good deal for the Yankees? Yeah, it's good. Just not Babe Ruth-for-a-few-bucks-and-a-Broadway-song good."

Johnny Damon isn't as good as Babe Ruth? Are you sure about that? You must know a lot about baseball history to make a wild claim like that.

I think most observers believe Damon is an upgrade that addresses the Yankees' specific needs. In terms of blockbuster signings, it's fairly minor and nobody was jumping all over themselves planning a parade.

As for the throwing arm, I keep hearing about the importance of the outfield throwing arms, and all I see is Championship rings on the fingers of the hands which are at the end weak throwing arms.

Get the best arm in the league. Heck, get the best arm in the history of baseball. If the Yankees rely on that arm throwing out runners on the basepaths, then they've got big problems.


"The Yankees made a smart deal last night because they stole from the hated Red Sox a leadoff hitter and star center fielder, not to mention the lifeblood of Boston's Idiot movement. The Yankees made a smart deal because their own void in center was bigger than the old courthouse beyond the outfield wall, and because they needed more speed on an otherwise lumbering, oafish team."

I don't know if the Yankees are exactly oafish, but are you for the deal or against the deal? According to you, it's a good, smart deal that made the Red Sox weaker and the Yankees stronger.

So what's the beef?


"It's about the pitching, stupid, and everyone knows the Yankees would trade Damon for Boston's prize catch, Josh Beckett, in a New York minute. Joe Torre isn't winning one for his thumb because Damon can score 100 runs in his sleep."

Good idea. Get Cashman on the phone and see if he can trade Damon for Beckett.

Of course it's about the pitching. I damn sure know it's not about the centerfielder's throwing arm. What, did the addition of Damon's hurt the Yankee pitching staff somehow?


"This free-agent score makes the Yankees a little faster, and the Red Sox a little weaker. But even with Damon last year, the Yanks would've lost the Division Series to the Angels."

That's quite a definitive statement from O'Connor, speculating about something that never happened.

I say Damon would've hit 3 homeruns in game five vs. Anaheim. You can't prove that he wouldn't have. Go ahead and prove that he wouldn't have.

I say Damon catches the ball that Crosby dropped when he collided with Sheffield.

There you go. I just proved the Yankees would've won the Division Series to the Angels.

Heeere's Johnny.

I think this is a great signing for the Yankees. Not to exaggerate Damon's abilities, and I'm not sure how spry he'll be when he's 36 years old and has one year left on his contract, but it's still a great signing for the Yankees.

My gripe is not with the announcement, it's with Ronald Blum's report. Actually, the first sentence of Ronald Blum's report:

"Johnny Damon gives the Yankees their first big-time leadoff hitter since Chuck Knoblauch was at the top of the order a half-decade ago -- an era when New York won three straight World Series titles and four consecutive AL pennants."

I may be the biggest Chuck Knoblauch fan in existence. I think his contributions to the Yankees are underrated and the throwing errors never bothered me. He had some big playoff homeruns and only lost one playoff series in his entire career.

However ...

1) Knoblauch was basically benched in the playoffs in 2000, the last time the Yankees won the World Series, a whole "half-decade" ago. Let's not go crazy, Ronald Blum.

2) Derek Jeter is a big-time leadoff hitter.


Predictably, Mike Lupica embarrasses himself with his knee-jerk anti-Yankee article.

"The Yankees got their leadoff man last night, the first leadoff man they have had since Chuck Knoblauch." (See above.)

"They get Johnny Damon to lead off and play center field, and that solves two problems they had to solve in this offseason. But ..." Okay, the Yankees solved two problems with one move. Plus, they weakened their chief rival in the AL East. Plus, they absolutely got younger and faster and more athletic. Plus, the terms of the contract are relatively cheap and short-term.

No "but." You can't solve all these problems with one move and focus on the "but."

Does it really matter, anyway? What course of action could the Yankees have taken that would have pleased Lupica?

Find a leadoff hitter and a centerfielder, but don't spend any money and make sure the player is very young. What alternative does Lupica propose? Go in the Wayback Machine back to 1986 and sign Andruw Jones?

First Base is Slightly Tougher than DH.

"Garciaparra said he looks forward to the challenge of playing first.

'I'll probably be working on it prior to spring training,' he said. 'Breaking in a new glove, that will be a challenge. You embrace them, you welcome them.' "

Yes, I'd agree with that. Breaking in a new glove probably is the most challenging aspect of playing first base.

My advice for Nomar is to buy some linseed oil, put a ball in the center of the glove, wrap it in rope, and put it under the mattress. Don't put it under Mia's side of the bed, of course.

Tell me all about Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly, and Joe Pepitone. Call up WFAN right now and wax poetic about Hernandez racing in on the bunt and of Mattingly deftly turning the 3-6-3. But before you finish your point, let me remind you of George Scott, John "Da Butt" Mayberry, and Ed Kranepool.

First base is a hitter's position. In fact, my only gripe with signing Nomar is that his offensive output probably won't be that great for a first baseman. Defensively, he has played positions that are obviously a lot tougher than first base.

If first base is a challenge, then everything is a challenge. If everything is a challenge, then nothing is a challenge. Other than designated hitter, I can not think of any position in any major sport that is less athletically challenging than playing first base in Nine-Man-Stand-Around.

I don't know, does the NFL have a guy whose sole purpose is to hold the ball during kickoffs so it doesn't slip off the tee? That's probably easier than first base. As long as he never has to tackle or block.

Daily News sportswriting staff needs to get younger and more flexible.

"The Yankees continue to make phone calls, not news."

Then why are you writing about the Yankees in a newspaper? If they're not making news?

Maybe it's just a pointless article in which you can make a gratuitous dig at AL MVP Alex Rodriguez.

"Joe Torre called Brian Giles, when the Yankees were interested in Giles. Now he places a call to Nomar Garciaparra and does the same with Johnny Damon. The Yankees better sign one of these guys, or Torre's postseason batting average is going to be worse than A-Rod's postseason batting average."

Second paragraph. That didn't take long.

"Around the current New York Yankees, younger in center field could mean 32-year-old Johnny Damon instead of 37-year-old Bernie Williams. And more flexible could mean Nomar Garciaparra to be a DH, play first and fill in if anything happens to A-Rod, Jeter or Cano. Clearly, younger and more athletic are relative terms around these Yankees."

"Younger" and "more athletic" are always relative terms. "Young" and "athletic" are absolute terms.

Not to get all English 101 on Lupica, but you can add "er" to any adjective and make it a relative term. Since "athleticer" isn't proper, you just add a "more" in front of the adjective. Voila! Instant relative terms! Not just around these Yankees, but forever and ever, in any context. If the Yankees replaced a 2,000-year-old man on their roster with a 1,999-year-old man, they just got younger. Not young, but younger.

"So Nomar, who has never played first base, is potentially a Yankee first baseman ... Suddenly a guy who never seems to be healthy and hasn't played like an All-Star in years is in hot demand to handle jobs he has never handled before."

When healthy, Nomar has absolutely played like an All-Star every season he has taken the field. Even last season, he hit .283 with 9 homeruns in 230 at-bats. Of course, if a player is on the DL, he is not playing like an All-Star because he's not playing at all. But it's incorrect to question Nomar's ability and even more ridiculous to question his ability to play first base. Stand around and catch the throws.

Maybe he wore a black knit cap because it was cold in the ice cream store in December.

"The Yankees don't often put their faith in an untested 22-year-old player." Except for the times they do.

"But Robinson Cano was thrust into the lineup last May and charged with helping change the look of a team that was unexpectedly too old and slow to contend.

The second baseman responded well, hitting .297 with 14 homers and 62 RBI as the Yankees finished atop the AL East. Cano was the youngest Yankee regular since 1996, when 22-year-old Derek Jeter became the shortstop." Who just happened to be an untested 22-year-old in whom the Yankees put their faith.

I don't want to make too big a deal out of Abraham's assertion, but the Yankees absolutely have a history of putting faith in young players. Maybe not as young as 22 -- how many 22-year-olds are starters in the bigs? -- but the Yankees have put their faith in a truckload of untested 24- and 25-year-olds.


But that's not really the point. The point is that Cashman's faith in Cano's baseball-playing ability is clearly misplaced because Cano wears knit caps and talks on cell phones:

"General manager Brian Cashman has since declared Cano to be an all-but-untouchable chip in the trade market.

But is that faith misplaced?

Cano didn't look — or act — much like the fresh-faced rookie who captivated the Bronx during an appearance at the Last Licks sports memorabilia and ice cream shop yesterday.

Sporting a beard and wearing a black knit cap pulled down near his eyes, he rushed through hundreds of autographs that eager fans paid $50 each for. At one point, Cano was on his cell phone, ignoring fans who wanted a handshake or picture taken. But the autographs kept flowing.

Officials from Last Licks promised during the week that Cano would be available for a brief interview. But Cano twice ignored requests to speak to a reporter."

First of all, what exactly is an "official from Last Licks"? Did Cookie Puss put on a suit and tie and hold a press conference?

Secondly, when Cano "twice ignored requests to speak to a reporter," which reporter would that be? By chance, would that reporter be Peter Abraham?

I mean, aren't you the only reporter in the place? Or did CNN and the BBC send correspondents down to Last Licks in Scarsdale for the big Robinson Cano autograph session?

Let's see if I can piece together what happened here. Peter Abraham showed up at an autograph session for kids and twice yelled out, "Hey, Robinson!" and was ignored. Feeling dejected and sad, Abraham returned to his computer and took out his passive-aggressive feelings of rejection. Robinson Cano is a poo-poo head whose car screeched away and his friend wore sunglasses even though he was inside at the time. I hate Robinson Cano.

That's the Essence of Sportswriting right there. Next time, buy the reporter a hot fudge sundae and he'll write something nice about you.

Read This! Read This!

Pick a player. Pick a team. Link them together via an anonymous source and you've got a sports headline.

In this case, Michael Morrissey's fantabulous "Mets Mull Tejada," which totally makes sense since the Mets already have a 22-year-old shortstop and Tejada doesn't want to be traded from the Orioles:

"The Mets have been linked to disgruntled Baltimore shortstop Miguel Tejada in numerous reports — a development that one team official refused to comment on last night."


After a lengthy discourse which explains why the bullpen is the priority for the Mets, Morrissey contradicts his own attention-grabbing headline:

"Minaya has shown a roster restlessness vaguely reminiscent of Knicks president Isiah Thomas, so you can't discount him trading for the 29-year-old Tejada. Still, it seems unlikely simply because other teams are more desperate for a shortstop.

Additionally, Jose Reyes would almost certainly need to be the centerpiece of any deal, and that's one rare spot where the Mets struck gold from the farm system."

You know what? Let's go ahead and discount Minaya trading for the 29-year-old Tejada.

It has about as much chance of happening as Clemens returning to Boston.

Good headlines, though.

Two Words: "Julio Franco."

"I know it sounds neat when the Yankees talk about getting younger and more athletic, but I keep looking over their roster and wondering where this is supposed to happen, middle relief?

...

Seriously, where is all this youth and speed going to show up, with a new backup first baseman?

A backup infielder?

With this Yankee team, getting younger for the '06 season is a lot easier said than done."


When have the Yankees talked about getting younger and more athletic for '06? Is Mike Lupica confusing his own "Shootin' From The Lip" columns with Yankee press releases?

But since Lupica posed the question, I'll answer it for him. Bubba Crosby in CF instead of Bernie Williams, Andy Phillips at DH instead of Ruben Sierra, and Satchel Paige in the starting rotation instead of Kevin Brown.

All minor adjustments for sure, but all moves that improve the club with addition-by-subtraction.


If Lupica wants to talk about teams that are old and slow, please talk about the Mets. During this offseason, the Mets got older, slower, less athletic, more expensive, and also a whole lot better.

The Yankee could get faster and younger by swapping rosters with the Columbus Clippers. Kevin Reese is young and Melky Cabrera is quite athletic. "E-8" Cabrera has to be athletic to run down all the fly balls that he misjudges in centerfield.


The goal of any baseball team is not to be young, nor fast, nor "athletic" (whatever that means). The goal is to be good.

I don't really know how good the Yankees will be in '06. Johnny Damon couldn't hurt, that's for sure. But I'd prefer if they added a dumb, old, slow, fat, chain smoking DH who could jack 40 dingers.

Now you've got Terrmel Sledge.

I'm waiting for the Mike Lupica article where he explains how the Rangers are better off since they traded Alex Rodriguez.

Don't forget, Lupica claimed rather voraciously that the Rangers got the best of the Soriano-for-ARod swap.

Don't believe me? Do I sound like I'm making this up?

Just check the archives:

"Now, eight months later, after this collapse against the Red Sox, that same executive said, 'Let me ask you a question: Who's set up better for the future right now: the Yankees with A-Rod or the Rangers without him?' "

The Yankees with ARod. It was true then and it's truer now.


More sweet Lupica knowledge from that fateful column of October 24, 2004:

"Mariano Rivera will still be a great relief pitcher next season ... But he will never be regarded as a sure thing ever again."


Pick a Lupica article, pick any Lupica article. Pick a random sentence. There's a very good chance that Whatever You're Reading + Time = Wrong.

Brian Cashman is a genius.

While Kevin Howard and Ben Himes must forever live with the shame that they were traded for Tony Womack, Brian Cashman can proudly point to the fact that he somehow managed to get more than a box of resin bags back from the Reds.

Take that, Omar Minaya!

Mets Forgetting What It Takes To Win Championships.

"But things may be a little different. The Yankees have committed to about $155 million in salary next year and aren't likely to go much higher. That's a lot and still No. 1 in the league by a fleet of Brinks trucks. But if that is what they break camp with, it is about $50 million less than a year ago.

...

Steinbrenner spent a billion on rotisserie numbers, completely forgetting he won four of five World Series with great talent but greater heart when it was mostly homegrown talent such as Derek Jeter, Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada and Mariano Rivera."

A baseball team has 25 players. Including Ramiro Mendoza and Andy Pettitte, you've got 6 out of 25 players who were homegrown.

What did the '96-'00 Yankees prove?

They proved that you win the World Series by spending lots of money and spending it on rotisserie numbers. That's how the Yankees did it, that's how the Red Sox did it, and that's how the Mets are trying to do it.

That's Myth #1. Please don't use the '98 Yankees as an example of homegrown talent whose biggest asset was a lot of heart.


But let's say you actually believe that the Big Payroll strategy doesn't work, despite its fabulous track record. Then why are you picking the Mets to finish first in their division? Why are you praising Omar Minaya while you're damning Brian Cashman?

Aren't the 2006 Mets nothing more than a hodgepodge of big name free agents with little playoff experience? What about character? What about identity? What about chemistry? What about competitive balance in the NL East?

What exactly are the Mets trying to do? Buy a World Series title? Heaven forfend!


The Mets are going to spend about $120 million on payroll this year and the Yankees will spend about $155 million. The difference is going to be approximately $35 million (which is $100 million using Lupica Math).

Will the Yankees up it to $200 million? I don't think so. In this regard, I agree with Dan Wetzel.

In any case, it's very difficult to take Mike Lupica's anti-Steinbrenner rantings seriously when they are juxtaposed with endless praise of the gritty Mets.

In 2003, Lupica claimed the Yankees sucked the joy out of the season when they added Aaron Boone to their roster. Not solely because of Aaron Boone, but that was the straw that broke the camel's back as Streinbrenner just kept adding soulless all-stars to the roster.

When the Yankees passed $120 million a few years back, it was the end of the world. When the Mets pass $120 million this year, it's because Minaya is a genius and it's still less than the Yankees, so it doesn't matter.

Am I to believe that when a team is spending tens of millions on their roster, that it's the $121st million that is unethical and distasteful?

How arbitrary:

"You hear this in New York these days: The Mets now spend like the Yankees!

Really? On what planet?

The Mets, according to MLB, currently have around $110 million in committed salaries for next season. Yeah, they spend the way the Yankees did in the 2005 season if between now and Opening Day, Omar Minaya spends another $100 million."

The Mets don't always have to be compared to the Yankees. Why not compare the Mets to the Braves? Or the Philles? Or the Cardinals? Or every other team in the National League in which the Mets play their games and stuff?

While it's true the Yankees are one of the few teams -- two, actually -- who will spend more than the Mets on their roster in the 2006 season, it is also true that the Mets will be the Cheapest Team on the Field in only 6 of their 162 games this season. (Disclaimer: I don't know if the Mets play the Red Sox in 2006.)


On the same day the Mets are pillaging the Marlins for a catcher, Lupica is crying about the dismantling of the Marlins ... and blaming the Yankees.

This kind of flexible thinking is easy for a man without principle. Yankee-Hating does not qualify as a principle.

And I thought Jason Giambi was a bad choice.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present Kostya Kennedy's choice for 2005 Sportsman of the Year: Jose Canseco.

Joe Torre Unclear.

"Some debate remains over the context and clarity of Joe Torre's reported remarks concerning a potential move to center field for either Derek Jeter or Alex Rodriguez, but Yankees GM Brian Cashman made it very clear yesterday that - regardless of what Torre did or did not say - neither of the Yanks' superstars is going anywhere."

Joe Torre talks crazy and Sam Borden notices.

So does a guy at Newsday and a guy at the Post and even a guy at the Star-Ledger.

Joe Torre is confusing and contradictory and this is news? Something got "lost in the translation?"


Where was Sam Borden when Joe Torre said that Tony Womack batted leadoff because he can do some things?

Where was Sam Borden when Joe Torre said ARod had to play third base because it was important to show loyalty to the old-time Yankee players and then, in the next sentence, Joe Torre explained with a straight face that Kenny Lofton was starting in centerfield instead of Bernie Williams?

Where was Sam Borden when Joe Torre said he doesn't have to explain his decisions?

Where was Sam Borden when Joe Torre pitched Alan Embree against Paul Konerko?

Where was Sam Borden when Vladimir Guerrero hit a grand slam off of Kevin Brown and Joe Torre said the homerun wasn't really the problem because, if the bases weren't loaded, the homerun wouldn't have been a grand slam?


You have to remember something when you talk to Joe Torre aobut his centerfield options. This is a man who played Tony Womack in centerfield on purpose. Probably had to get Womack's bat in the lineup so he could do some things offensively and he's a veteran and he needs to feel comfortable.

Joe Torre was not misunderstood and his remarks were not taken out of context. Joe Torre just doesn't know what is going on.

Grampa Gets Confused Easily.

"The Yankees are not considering moving shortstop Derek Jeter or third baseman Alex Rodriguez to center field, general manager Brian Cashman told FOXSports.com Tuesday.

Yankees manager Joe Torre indicated that the team was considering the idea in a story by Reuters on Monday, saying, 'We've thought about it. We just haven't made a commitment to that. We haven't broached it with the shortstops.'

...

To which Cashman responded, 'Not true at all.' "

Mike Lupica finally criticizes Cameron-for-Nady deal.

Psyche!

Instead, Mike Lupica praises the presumed pending arrival of Billy Wagner. Since Wagner is lefthanded, it's totally relevant to bring up every lefthanded reliever ever:

"Once it was McGraw at Shea and then it was Jesse Orosco, even in the days when he was on a team with Roger McDowell, then Johnny Franco. None of them could throw fastballs the way Billy Wagner can. The Braves don't have anybody like Wagner, haven't had anybody like him since John Rocker was, well, still on his rocker."

Ha ha ha! When Rocker was still on his rocker!


"If the Mets get Wagner away from the Phillies, the Phillies probably have to go after B.J. Ryan to replace him."

If the Phillies lose their lefthanded closer, then they'll have to replace him with another lefthanded closer. Everybody wants a lefthanded closer. Everybody needs a lefthanded closer. Everybody loves lefthanded closers.

Lefthanded closers, lefthanded closers, lefthanded closers.

Lefthanded closers won every World Series game in the past twenty years.

Lefthanded closers are way cooler than righthanded closers.

Mike Lupica Doesn't Like Good Baseball Players.

Playa hate much?

Mike Lupica doesn't like Brian Giles, Mike Lupica describes Barry Bonds as baseball's worst nightmare, and Mike Lupica still doesn't like Alex Rodriguez:

"There is the amazing notion around that Alex Rodriguez received unfair criticism this week for winning the MVP award.

Not around here he didn't.

More than anything, A-Rod received criticism for suggesting - on the same day he won the MVP from David Ortiz - that 'even if I win three World Series (the criticism) will never be over.'

As if nothing he ever does in that area will be enough."

Again, I think ARod is just making a truthful observation. ARod does not run away from the criticism, he just kind of laughs it off, and rightly so.

Besides, don't make me go through the archives of two years of "Shootin' From The Lip." Not only would that cause my brain to hemorrhage, but it would reveal endless criticisms of ARod for his play on the field and his actions off the field.

"More than anything," ARod seems to have received criticism over the past two seasons for, I guess, not being as lovable as Derek Jeter. Now that ARod has established his superiority as a player, he is being criticized for his interview style.

Seems to me if you are the first Yankee to win the MVP in twenty years, you've got nothing to apologize about.

"He is the one who wanted to talk about the postseason then.

The answer to that is the same as it was a few days ago:

Play in just one Series, then we'll talk."

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Alex Rodriguez will still be criticized by Mike Lupica even after he plays in his first World Series. I don't know much, but I can guarantee that. Alex Rodriguez could hit four homeruns in his first World Series game and Lupica would point out (1) it's only game one, and (2) the Yankees didn't need all four homeruns because it was a blowout victory.

Maybe it's not for me to judge what's "fair," but Lupica-esque criticism of ARod also seem quite stupid and ignorant. We all know that the MVP voting occurs before the postseason, so why are we talking about the ALDS? We also should all realize that plenty of great baseball players miss out on the World Series.

ARod has been with the Yankees two whole seasons. It shouldn't be surprising that the Yankees missed the World Series two whole seasons in a row. The criticism reveals itself as "unfair" largely because it's not similarly applied to, say, Hideki Matsui and Don Mattingly.

"The problem with A-Rod in areas like this isn't that he's too polished, which is something we hear all the time.

The problem is that he's too needy.

Maybe that's why he feels the need to remind us how much time he spent in front of his locker after Game 5, blaming himself for everything except oil prices."

.321 48 130. There's no problem with ARod.

ARod's ALDS was bad and Game 5 was also bad. ARod probably felt genuinely upset about his performance and also took a proactive offensive posture in the interview room in an attempt to deflect the impending criticism. Much of which is, you know, "unfair."

Still, I don't care too much about the interview room. A guy who hits .321 48 130 can answer in haiku or spend his time making balloon animals for all I care.


Alex Belth over at Bronx Banter explained the phenomenon better than I could. He said that guys like Lupica focus on what ARod has failed to accomplish rather than what he has accomplished.

ARod accomplished a lot this season. It was a downright historic season. The Yankees would have undoubtedly missed the playoffs without ARod's historic season. Under normal conditions, that "what-if" success story boosts one's MVP status.

The post-MVP conference call can not change what ARod accomplished on the field. If that's the best criticism Lupica can come up with then, yeah, his criticism is unfair.


There's always a fantastic tension in a Mike Lupica column. It's real-time lying and it's actually quite fascinating.

While Lupica is defending himself against indirect accusations that he has been unfair in his criticisms of Alex Rodriguez, he's unfairly criticizing Alex Rodriguez at the same time.

"I've recently been accused of gossiping, but I never gossip about anyone. For example, I never told anyone that Sally made out with Tommy after the basketball game last Friday. So please stop saying that I'm a gossip."

Newsflash: Red Sox Did Not Win World Series.

Wow-za!

Just when I thought the anti-ARod sentiment couldn't get any more goofy.

If I had me a truck, I could drive it right through the hole in Ian O'Connor's logic. Vroom!

"ARod must not win the MVP for a last-place team, because that team is in last place. Furthermore, ARod must not win the MVP for a first-place team":

"But Rodriguez is no more the MVP of the American League now, as a first-place third baseman with the Yankees, than he was as a last-place shortstop with the Rangers, who finished 25 games off the pace in 2003 — or one game for every $10 million that Tom Hicks guaranteed A-Rod, with a couple million to spare."

Right. Except he was the MVP in 2003, so he doesn't have to be more MVP in order to be the 2005 MVP.


In 2005, ARod's team finished in first place, even though they had the exact same record as Boston.

In an attempt to apply the O'Connor Formula, the Yankees were 0 games up for every $252 million that Tom Hicks guaranteed ARod, with $0 left over.

It's tough to divide by zero, however, so I'm confused. I'm not sure if the Yankees won by 0 games for every $252 million, infinity games for every $252 million, or just undefined games for every $252 million.

You can play all sorts of math tricks. Paradoxes and whatnot. The ancient mathematicians didn't even know about zero, much less how to divide by zero. Which probably made it impossible for them to determine whether or not a highly-paid shortstop for a last-place team should be the MVP.


Ian, if you have a runner who's 100 feet ahead of you, right? Assume the other runner is stationary. It doesn't have to be another runner, but let's go with a runner.

Before you can reach that runner, you'd have to travel half the distance to the runner, right? Ian? Right?

Okay, so you travel 50 feet and then you'd have 50 feet to go.

But before you can travel 50 feet, you have to travel half that, which is 25 feet. Before you travel 25 feet, you have to travel half that, which is 12.5 feet.

Ian, how long does this go on? How many midpoints are there?

Dude, there are infinite midpoints. You can never reach the other runner.

Did I just blow your mind?


Or check this one out. Check it out, check it out, check it out!

I can totally prove that .99999 ... is the same as 1.

Okay, what is the rule when you divide a number by 9? You repeat that number forever.

1/9 = .1111 ...

2/9 = .2222 ...

Ian, you with me so far?

Alright.

So, what is 9/9? It's 1. That's easy enough.

But I also said that any number you divide by 9, you repeat that number forever. Therefore, 9/9 is .99999 ...


That may not prove that ARod deserves the AL MVP, but the Yankees finished 16 games ahead of Texas this season, or one game for every $15 million that Tom Hicks guaranteed ARod, with several million to spare.

That does not signify anything coherent, but I just wanted to make a pointless reference to ARod's salary. Which is $252 million, in case you forgot. Which means he shouldn't win the MVP. Because he makes so much money and, two years ago, his team came in last place.


Okay, let's say you rent a hotel room with two friends. The hotel room costs $30, so you each pay $10. Then, the manager refunds $5 and tells the bellhop to refund the money. Rather than divide by 3, the bellhop gives each customer $1 and pockets the $2.

Each of the three customers have now paid $9. $9 x 3 = $27. $27 + $2 that the bellhop pocketed = $29.

Ian, what happened to the other dollar?


"David Ortiz should've won the award, even if he doesn't play the field. You didn't need to weigh the numbers to know Ortiz made more dramatic contributions to the Red Sox than Rodriguez made to the Yanks. Two out of every three nights, Ortiz was sending some late-season, late-game ball to the moon. That was good enough for me."

Two out of every three nights?!?!?!

Okay, Ortiz hits a late-season, late-game ball to the moon two out of every three nights?!?!

Why did Ortiz only hit 47 homeruns? If I didn't pay close attention to O'Connor's claim, I'd have assumed Ortiz hit, like, 108 homeruns this season. You know, two homeruns every three nights.

108 homeruns! In one season! That would be, like, a record!


There's an enormous fundamental problem with O'Connor's tack. We're talking about 2005, not 2004 David Ortiz did not win the World Series in 2005. David Ortiz did not win a single playoff game in 2005. When it was "close-and-late" in the playoffs, El Duque struck him out on three pitches.

Is O'Connor seriously favoring David Ortiz in the 2005 AL MVP race because Ortiz hit a homerun off of Paul Quantrill in the 2004 playoffs?

Steroids End Now.

"There will always be a steroid era of baseball as surely as there was a dead ball era once. But steroids in baseball end now. They end because in three years, the sport has gone from having no drug policy to having the toughest in major American sports."

Steroids end now because Mike Lupica said so.


I think it may be time for my first blog poll. Maybe I can get it on ESPN's Sports Nation.

What's the largest thing?

a) Grand Canyon.

b) The galaxy.

c) Mike Lupica's Stupidity.

d) Mike Lupica's Arrogance.


I mean, I'm not even sure if this steroid agreement has been ratified, much less enforced, much less enforced over an extended period of time, much less challenged in court, much less expanded to include steroid analogs, much less addressing the decades of improvement in cheating and chicanery, which move in lock step with every improvement in testing.

But Mike Lupica claims the steroid era ends now.

Hey, if Mike Lupica says something, people listen. Like Tony Womack is going to be a fan favorite in New York and the Rangers are going to be better without Alex Rodriguez.

As for myself, if I were Andy Phillips, I still might be willing to risk a 50-game suspension.

Think about it. I know the world only pays attention to Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi, but most of the steroids users who've been caught have been terrible players. A 50-game suspension doesn't hurt Randy Velarde too much. He was sitting on the bench, anyway. He has little to lose and, potentially, $millions to gain. Especially if he can just get to that sweet free agency.

But the steroid era ends now.

2005 NL MVP.

Thanks to all my friends who participated in my polls, even the person who voted for Scott Rolen.


I'm all for fielding. I think fielding is good. Speed is also a good thing, I suppose.

Having said that, I'd like to point out that Jose Reyes had an on-base percentage of .300. He's Tony Womack at shortstop. In the entire universe of major league ballplayers, he's one of the handful of players you'd most want up with the game on the line ... if you're on the opposing team.

Somehow, he received a fourth-place vote in my poll and a tenth-place vote in the writers' poll.

Now, I realize he scored 99 runs and that's pretty good. It's among the top ten in the league, that's true.

However, that statistic does not prove that Jose Reyes adds a lot of value to a baseball team. It proves that just about anybody can score 99 runs if they bat leadoff on a professional baseball team.


I feel compelled to point out that I have no recollection of the existence of Scott Eyre, who received one tenth-place vote. Then, when I looked up Scott Eyre's stats, I found out that he was 2-2 with 0 saves.


Other than the top three, the NL MVP results were all over the map:

Them		Us
Albert Pujols	378	Albert Pujols	39
Andruw Jones	351	Andruw Jones	30
Derrek Lee	263	Derrek Lee	27
Morgan Ensberg	150	Carlos Lee	4
Miguel Cabrera	146	Scott Rolen	3
Carlos Delgado	84	Jimmy Rollins	3
Pat Burrell	65	Bobby Abreu	2
Chris Carpenter	52	Jason Bay	2
Brian Giles	48	Miguel Cabrera	2
Jimmy Rollins	45	Roger Clemens	2
Dontrelle Willis	42	Ken Griffey Jr.	2
Scott Podsednik	15	Carlos Delgado	1
Jason Bay	41	Morgan Ensberg	1
Chase Utley	22	Jose Reyes	1
Lance Berkman	21
Bobby Abreu	21
Chad Cordero	21
Trevor Hoffman	19
Carlos Lee	19
Jeff Kent	18
David Wright	18
David Eckstein	15
Roger Clemens	8
Roy Oswalt	6
Ken Griffey Jr.	5
Andy Pettitte	5
Jim Edmonds	3
Cliff Floyd	3
Marcus Giles	3
Adam Dunn	3
Scott Eyre	1
Brad Lidge	1
Jose Reyes	1

MVP Award Means Nothing to Mike Vaccaro.

All I ask for from Mike Vaccaro is consistency.

1) No more articles discussing the MVP, since it doesn't matter. (If personal awards don't matter around here, why is Vaccaro getting so riled up because Mariano Rivera didn't win the Cy Young? Hmmmmm?)

2) Apply the same logic to Carlos Beltran.

3) Apply the same logic to Don Mattingly.

4) Please, please, apply the same logic to Golden Boy's dubious Golden Glove award. (Why does he feel so "gratified" when his team didn't win the World Series?)


Of course Yankee fans would trade an MVP award for a Championship ring. ARod said the same thing and I absolutely believe he was earnest. Every player would gladly trade an MVP award for a Championship ring, though most players would never receive one MVP vote in their wildest dreams.


"So far, in two seasons, his two signature October moments are these: slapping the ball out of Bronson Arroyo's mitt in 2004 and grounding into the ninth-inning double play that all but turned the lights out on 2005."

You remember what you want to remember.

I remember ARod singlehandedly beating the Twins. I remember the winning run in that series where ARod doubled, stole third, and scored on a wild pitch. I remember his game-tying double in the bottom of the 12th inning in game 2 when the Yankees were down 1-0 in the series. I remember the ball he hit off Wakefield in game 4 of the 2004 ALCS, the one that went onto the street, got thrown back into Fenway, and then Damon angrily threw it back onto the street.

I suppose ARod started getting Playoff Nervous after that at-bat. Or maybe, just maybe, he slumped, like the rest of the team. Or maybe, just maybe, the opposing pitchers deserve some credit.

That's baseball. It's a humbling sport. MVPs slump, too.


The playoffs matter the most. I agree with that. It seems obvious to me that most so-called fans only pay attention when the Yankees are in the playoffs or when they play the Red Sox or the Mets.

But if the regular season means nothing, and if individual awards mean nothing, then maybe Vaccaro should stop wasting his time between April and October.

You've convinced me, Mike Vaccaro. The regular season means nothing. Therefore, I can stop reading your column.

Mike Lupica Doesn't Like Alex Rodriguez.

A celebration of the first Yankee MVP in 20 years!


I think it's hilarious when ARod speaks the truth and Lupica mocks him for speaking it.

Example #1:

" 'We can win three World Series, with me it's never going to be over,' Rodriguez said yesterday. 'I think my benchmark is so high that no matter what I do, it's never going to be enough, and I understand that.'

What a guy."


Example #2:

" 'Maybe when I retire is when the critics and all that kind of stuff will end,' he said yesterday.

Puh-leeze."


But is ARod wrong?

You can't have it both ways, Lupica. You can't spend half your ink ripping Alex Rodriguez and then not own up to it.

Lupica is a constant critic of Alex Rodriguez. Lupica is constantly bringing up the '98 Yankees. There is little doubt in my mind that, if Alex Rodriguez wins three rings while playing for the Yankees, Lupica's first column will point out that Tino has four rings and Jeter has seven rings.

In other words, the benchmark is high and this stuff won't end until ARod retires. Just like he said.


"He isn't the only star Yankee who let his team down in the games I am talking about. No one in this city has ever thought of putting all of this on Rodriguez.

But it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that there were plenty of times over the past two postseasons when one swing from him, one Papi-like swing, could have changed everything for the Yankees."

Huh?

No one in this city is putting all of this on Rodriguez, except in this article which you are reading right now, where I'm putting all of of this on Rodriguez. No one in this city is putting all of this on Rodriguez, except for me, everytime I write one of my scintillating "Shootin' From the Lip" columns.

Lupica, at least be a man and stick with your guns. Don't back down just because ARod calls you out.


"The voters for the MVP award judge the candidates only on what they do during the regular season, not during the playoffs. Good thing. The last big postseason swing A-Rod made for the Yankees was a home run swing in Game 4 against the Red Sox, 2004 ALCS."

This is a curious statement by Lupica. Not the first time I've heard this idea bandied about. But let's think about this a little more carefully.

Does Lupica think that Ortiz's one postseason RBI would have propelled him into first place?

Or perhaps Vlad Guerrero's 1-for-ALCS would have propelled him all the way into first place?

In the American League, the only player who really helped his MVP candidacy significantly in the playoffs was Paul Konerko.

Who else? Jeter and Manny helped their causes somewhat. But it seems to me that nobody would have soared past ARod all the way into first place.

So, yeah, it's a good thing that the MVP voters don't include the playoffs while judging the MVP candidates. If they had, Paul Konerko probably would have finished ahead of Travis Hafner.

2005 AL MVP.

Them		Us
Alex Rodriguez	331	Alex Rodriguez	66
David Ortiz	307	David Ortiz	44
Vladimir Guerrero	196	Manny Ramirez	19
Manny Ramirez	156	Vladimir Guerrero	10
Travis Hafner	151	Travis Hafner	7
Paul Konerko	128	Michael Young	5
Mark Teixeira	106	Mark Teixeira	3
Gary Sheffield	84	Mariano Rivera	2
Mariano Rivera	59	Gary Sheffield	2
Derek Jeter	23	Miguel Tejada	2
Michael Young	20	Paul Konerko	1
Scott Podsednik	15	Scot Shields	1
Johnny Damon	12	Ichiro Suzuki	1
Hideki Matsui	8
Richie Sexson	7
Miguel Tejada	7
Chone Figgins	6
Victor Martinez	5
Jason Giambi	5
Brian Roberts	5
Jason Varitek	4
Eric Chavez	4
Huston Street	3
Bartolo Colon	3
Grady Sizemore	3
Bob Wickman	2
Jorge Cantu	1
Jose Contreras	1

Eric Wilbur's Fuzzy Math.

Look, we've been through this 100,000 times, but I'm forced to question the core of Eric Wilbur's argument:

"In late-inning, close-game situations (seventh inning or later with the batting team ahead by one, tied or having the tying run on base, at bat or on deck), Ortiz came through with far greater efficiency than Rodriguez this past season, batting .346, driving in 33 runs, 11 home runs, and -- get this -- an .846 slugging percentage, almost double A-Rod’s in the same category. Rodriguez, meanwhile, drove in 12 and hit four home runs in late, close games for the Yankees.

Not to place too much emphasis on one set of numbers, but what that tells you is that when the game was on the line, when his team needed him the most, Ortiz came through at a rate about triple that of the Yankees third baseman. Triple."

Not to place too much emphasis on one set of numbers, but let's place too much emphasis on one set of numbers.

"Rate" is an interesting word.

When Wilbur says "rate," he only means homerun rate, which is a very ridiculous argument. I mean, Eric Wilbur is saying that a batter can only "come through" when he hits a homerun. Ortiz wins 11 to 4.

I can not find the actual close-and-late statistics, but I believe Ortiz was 27-for-78 and Alex Rodriguez was 22-for-75.

Which means Ortiz hit .346 in this particular cross-section and Rodriguez hit .293. That's a "rate." While I may not be too familiar with Eric Wilbur's artihmetic, I damn sure know that .346 is not "about triple" of .293.

Over the course of 162 games, Ortiz had 5 more "clutch" hits. (Not my definition of "clutch," Wilbur's definition of "clutch.") Big whoop. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal when the numbers are examined in detail.

I'm also left to wonder what Ortiz was doing in the first six innings. What was Ortiz's batting average when the game was close-and-early? Maybe the Yankee games weren't close when they got late because ARod had already given his team a big lead.


" 'We win games that other teams are going to lose because we have David in our lineup,' Red Sox manager Terry Francona said late last season after a game that featured yet more Ortiz heroics.

Most Valuable? Call me crazy, but that virtually defines the term, no?"

Well, gee. I think it's safe to say that the Yankees won many games that other teams would have lost because the Yankees have Alex Rodriguez in their lineup, no?

ARod played all 162 games and added value in all aspects of the game (besides pitching). I happen to think games can be won in the first six innings. I also happen to think games can be won on the field and on the basepaths.


"Far too many voters merely looked at the 'holy trinity' of batting average, home runs, and runs batted in, saw Rodriguez led in two of the categories, and checked his name off. Simple as that, yet again demeaning the award of what it was intended to be, handed out to the player who meant the most to his team. Is there any doubt on the Red Sox that was Ortiz?"

Huh?

In this case, the voters seem to have looked at the overall game. Hooray for the voters.

Besides, I could make a very strong case for Manny Ramirez as the most valuable player on the Red Sox. Manny had two less hrs, four less rbis, but played the outfield and even led the AL in outfield assists. I even believe Manny had a better close-and-late average, but don't quote me on that.

"Close-and-late" is something that crawled out of the woodwork when it was time to make a case against Alex Rodriguez.

Anybody remember Vlad's close-and-late average from last year? Didn't think so.


"On the Yankees, was Rodriguez really more valuable than Mariano Rivera? Hell, Aaron Small?"

Yes, and yes.

Just a word of advice, Eric. When you suggest that Aaron Small was a more deserving MVP candidate than ARod, you don't hurt ARod's credibility, you hurt your own credibility.

Yankees, Mets Doing Nothing.

According to the Daily News, the Yankees are swinging and missing because they failed to sign a mediocre centerfielder.

:-(

But at least the Daily News clarified an issue for Ken Rosenthal:

"Cashman half-jokingly mentioned to Rafael Furcal's agent, Adam Katz, that the free agent shortstop is so quick he'd probably be a great center fielder but clarified that statement to reporters yesterday, saying that the amount of money Furcal will command would be too much to pay for an 'audition' of a player at a position he's never played. 'We're not pursuing him to be a center fielder,' Cashman said."


Meanwhile, the Mets are off and running because they're talking to a mediocre catcher.

:-)

"General Manager Omar Minaya and aide Tony Bernazard were planning on leaving the GM meetings in Indian Wells, Calif., today and going to Yuma, Ariz., to meet face-to-face with free agent catcher Bengie Molina, according to sources at the meetings. It's believed it's more of a 'getting to know you' session. The Mets weren't expected to make an offer yet."


In summary, the Mets Rule and the Yankees Drool.

Cha-ching!

"He went 18-4 for the Astros in 2004, winning his last Cy Young Award, then became a free agent and re-signed with Houston for $18,000,022 -- the final $22 matching his uniform number."

... and the first $18,000,000 matching 1/4th of Houston's payroll.

2005 NL Cy Young.

Them		Us
Chris Carpenter	132	Chris Carpenter	47
Dontrelle Willis	112	Dontrelle Willis	38
Roger Clemens	40	Roger Clemens	29
Roy Oswalt	2	Pedro Martinez	6
Chad Cordero	1	Andy Pettitte	6
Andy Pettitte	1	Roy Oswalt	5
		Derrick Turnbow	3
		John Smoltz	1
		Jorge Sosa	1
		Billy Wagner	1

Furcal is a decent hitter ... for a shortstop.

Why bother overpaying Furcal to play centerfield when there are plenty of proven centerfielders who can't hit? If the Yankees put Furcal in center, then they would instantly have the worst-hitting centerfielder this side of Willy Tavares.


What are Furcal's fielding credentials, anyway? Does he at least routinely shag fly balls with teammate Andruw Jones and joke about replacing him in center?:

"Furcal, 28, likely will rule nothing out at this early stage of free agency — he routinely shags fly balls with Braves teammate Andruw Jones and jokes about replacing him in center."

Phew.

In that case, perhaps he's the second coming of Paul Blair.


Are the Yankees serious?:

"Even if the Yankees aren't completely serious — and when are they not? — the high demand for Furcal almost certainly will enable him to land a five-year contract and possibly a six-year deal."

What rhetorical question am I being asked here?

"When are the Yankees not completely serious?"

Or "When are the Yankees not not completely serious?"


Let me try to figure out what he's trying to say:

1. The Yankees are not completely serious in their pursuit of Furcal.

2. The Yankees are always completely serious.


So, in answer to his rhetorical question, "When are the Yankees not completely serious," I'd have to say, "In their pursuit of Rafael Furcal." Because you just told me that. In the exact same sentence.

The Case Against Mariano.

Exhibit A in the case against Mariano Rivera for Cy Young is this Mike Vaccaro column. If you vote for Mariano Rivera, then you're agreeing with Mike Vaccaro. See my point?

Anyway, let's see if Vaccaro can make his case:

"It isn't just ridiculous, it's shameful. It's dreadful. It's woeful. And don't think for one second that the fact that Mariano Rivera plays for the New York Yankees wasn't held against him in certain quarters. So that makes it spiteful, too."

Journalistic tendencies for hyperbole aside, I doubt that very much. In my opinion, Mariano Rivera is one of the most universally popular and respected players on the planet. Even in the "certain quarters" where New York Yankees are despised and associated with arrogance and greed, Mariano Rivera is the graceful anti-Yankee.


"That's the crazy part: Colon wasn't even the best starting pitcher in the American League this year; Johann [sic] Santana was."

On my ballot, the battle for first place was between Colon and Santana. I leaned towards Colon simply for the win-loss record.

Is my opinion ridiculous, shameful, dreadful, woeful? No.

Santana's superior ERA and innings pitched simply weren't pronounced enough to sway me. I don't care too much about strikeouts. If strikeouts really matter, then Randy Johnson should have been a candidate.

Even if Colon's 21 wins are largely a product of luck and circumstance, I'm willing to grant the Cy Young Award to Mr. Lucky.


Let's flip Vaccaro's argument on its head: Was Mariano the best reliever in the American League in 2005?

I think he was, but you're also voting for a reliever who blew 4 saves out of 47. Excellent, but not extraordinary compared to the elite relievers in the AL in 2005 or compared to the historically great seasons by relief pitchers.

Mariano wasn't first in the league in saves, he was third.

Mariano pitched 78 innings, which is a lot for a reliever, but it's nowhere near Colon's 220+.

Yeah, I absolutely think 223 innings at 3.48 ERA is more valuable than 78 innings at 1.38 ERA. That's why I automatically put relievers at a disadvantage when I'm analyzing the Cy Young candidates.


So, Was Mariano really snubbed? George King basically disproves his own claim:

"The last AL reliever to win the Cy Young was Dennis Eckersley in 1992. Not even the White Sox's Bobby Thigpen's record 57 saves in 1990 was good enough for the voters who selected Oakland's Bob Welch for his 27-6 ledger and 2.95 ERA.

It was the highest Rivera has finished in the Cy Young voting."

Mariano came in second. It's a great honor for a great year. It's not a snub.

2005 AL Cy Young.

Them		Us
Bartolo Colon	118	Bartolo Colon	37
Mariano Rivera	68	Johan Santana	35
Johan Santana	51	Mariano Rivera	31
Cliff Lee	8	Mark Buehrle	11
Mark Buehrle	5	Randy Johnson	5
Jon Garland	1	Cliff Lee	4
Kevin Millwood	1	Jon Garland	3
		John Lackey	3
		Kevin Millwood	2
		Joe Nathan	1
		Francisco Rodriguez	1

Jim Baumbach Struggles With Single-Digit Numbers.

"In spring training, after countless Red Sox players bombarded him with insults about not being a 'true Yankee,' he bit his lip, refusing to engage in a war of words."

1) Schilling.
2) Nixon.
3) Varitek.

That's three.

Three is a very big number, but it's still countable.

I may have even forgotten a few Red Sox players who bombarded ARod with insults. But even If I did, the number is still countable.

The trick is to use all the fingers on both hands.

'Tis better to have loved and lost than to have ne'er loved at all.

You know, I can be pretty tough on Mike Lupica. But I'm still a human being who can experience sympathy and compassion. I'm practically moved to tears when a man has to say goodbye to the person he loves the most.


But then, pulling me out of my empathetic funk, Lupica has to go and insult my intelligence:

"We were hoping (Epstein) might show up and pull a Macha," he said.

He was talking about Ken Macha, the A's manager, who said he was leaving the A's after the season and then changed his mind a few days later and came back.

Just like everybody else, I was confused by the "Macha" reference. I naturally assumed the Dirt Dog at the tavern was referring to the Irish War goddess.

But he was actually referring to Ken Macha. Of course! The manager of the Oakland A's. This whole time, we were talking about baseball.

NofanofYanksfanofArod13

This culled from a dubious Yankee message boars at Yesnetwork.com:

"To Yankees fans who drool over the vision of Torii Hunter in pinstripes, take a step back. Remember how much Twins general manager Terry Ryan received from the Yankees for Chuck Knoblauch nearly eight years ago. Then consider that Hunter is far more popular than Knoblauch was, both with the fans and in his own clubhouse."

YanksfanofArod13

It's not a major concern, but it seems to be a persistent myth: What did the Twins receive from the Yankees for Chuck Knoblauch nearly eight years ago?

The Twins received Brian Buchanan, Cristian Guzman, Eric Milton, Danny Mota, and cash.

Buchanan and Mota are not worth mentioning.

Cristian Guzman stinks and Eric Milton stinks. Links are provided in case you wish to independently verify this.

Okay, maybe Milton doesn't flat-out stink, but his career stats are 79-72, 4.99 ERA. Shrug.

As for cash, I'm not sure how much cash the Yankees gave up. But I must concede, cash is good.

And I thought the 2004 Red Sox were a bad choice.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present Frank Lidz's choice for 2005 Sportsmen of the Year: Jason Giambi.

Full Disclosure.

When I claimed the Yankees spent less than $100 million on payroll in 2000, I used USA Today's salary database as my source. I'm not quite sure how they figure this out. I'm not sure if it's an Opening Day point-in-time snapshot or if it's an attempt to list every single player the Yankees paid at any time during the season. (David Justice is listed as $7 million on the Indians payroll, but not included on the the Yankees payroll.)

I interpreted it as the Yankees spent $93 million for the entire year. It's quite possible that the Yankees added salary in the second half and the playoff roster actually represented a team payroll of more than $100 million per year. (Who paid David Justice?)

It's also unclear to me how they handle players who shuttle back and forth to Columbus or players who change rosters halway through the season.

So, maybe it was me who was misleading the doting public.


In case you hadn't noticed, I don't personally believe Lupica deserves the benefit of the doubt. I truly believe when he drops a line like that, he is careful with his wording and he is intentionally suggesting that the Yankees vastly oustpent the competition during the '96-'00 run and they often spent over $100 million.

It's really Lupica's use of language that I object to the most. It's a Liar's Language. It's like saying, "The Cubs haven't won the World Series since 1978," which is certainly accurate, but also purposefully misleading.

No-Trade Clause? Schmo-Schmade Schmause.

"Here is where the Yankees have some flexibility to change the personality of their team:

Leadoff.

Center field.

First base.

I will say this again: If there is any way in this world to move either Giambi or Sheffield, now is the time to do it."

(Uh, does Sheffield lead off? Or play center field? Or play first base? No, I didn't think so. Just double-checking.)


Funny Lupica should say "any way in this world," because there probably isn't any way in this world. Maybe Mars doesn't have no-trade clauses and maybe Jupiter doesn't have five-and-ten free agency rules, but the Yankees play on Earth.


But what about the warped reasoning of Lupica's Impossible Dream?

He wants to get rid of Gary Sheffield or Jason Giambi. Sheffield is one of the best hitters on the planet and Giambi's resurgence certainly offers hope for 2006. If Giambi can't quite ever get back to MVP caliber, then at least he'll keep on walkin'.

Lupica somehow wants to make a trade for a first baseman or right fielder (assuming he wants to replace the guy he just traded), and a center fielder, and an effective leadoff hitter.

Hmmm. Nope. I can't think of how this could be worked out, either.

Jeez, Lupica, if you're going to propose some kind of bizarre trade, at least give one plausible example with real-life players. There are 29 teams with whom the Yankees can make a trade and many of them possess centerfielders and leadoff men. Make a proposal that would make sense in exchange for Gary Sheffield or Jason Giambi.

Heck, I'll make this easier on everybody with my own modest proposal: The Yankees acquire a CF/leadoff hitter without trading Gary Sheffield or Jason Giambi.

The Art of the Lie.

While discussing the White Sox World Series victory on ESPN's "The Sports Reporters" this morning, King Liar tried to slide the following, ummm, "misleading statement" past the doting viewing public: "Of the past five World Series Champions, only one has spent over $100 million on payroll."

My first reaction is that this should not be a surprise.

"Only one"? Well, there are only a few teams in the entire league that spend that much money on payroll. Even if those teams have an obvious advantage, it should be just as obvious that those few teams can't win the World Series every single year.

In 2004, for example, only the Red Sox and the Yankees had a payroll of $100+ million. Both the Red Sox and the Yankees are in the same league. Only one team can win the World Series in any given year. Therefore, I can pretty much guarantee that at least one $100+ million team will not win the World Series every single year for the rest of MLB's existence.

It's should not really come as a surprise to anyone that the White Sox could win the World Series while spending "only" $75 million on payroll.


Okay, so I disagree with the substantive relevance of Lupica's assertion. But why am I claiming that Lupica is lying?

Because when Lupica states that "no team since 2000 has spent $100 million and won the World Series," the listener naturally assumes that the team that won the World Series in 2000 spent $100 million.

That would be the Yankees, if you need your memory refreshed. They beat the Mets that year.

Except the listener would be wrong. The Yankees did not spend $100 million in 2000. Only one team has ever spent $100+ million and won the World Series in the same year. That team was the 2004 Red Sox.

It's not your fault if you inferred that the 2000 Yankees had spent $100 million. You were lied to by Mike Lupica.

Technically, what he is saying is correct. "Only one World Series champion since 2000 has spent $100 million on payroll." In fact, only one World Series champion since 1903 has spent $100 million on payroll -- and that team wasn't the Yankees.


Now, if Lupica wants to ridicule the Yankees for spending $100+ million and not winning the World Series -- and he seldom misses the opportunity -- it's a different issue altogether. There's no reason to exaggerate, there's no need to lie.

So why is Lupica misleading the public and suggesting that the 2000 Yankees spent $100+ million? (In fact, a casual listener would probably infer that the Torre-era Yankees made a habit of spending $100 million because, since they stopped winning the title, only one team has been able to duplicate their achievement.)

I think it's simply because Lupica is such a natural born liar that he doesn't know the difference.

The Curse of Carlos Beltran.

Let's review.

The Astros made it further in the postseason in the 2005 season, without Carlos Beltran, than they did in the 2004 season, with Carlos Beltran.

They also made it a lot further in the 2005 season, without Carlos Beltran, than the Mets did in the 2005 season, with Carlos Beltran.

Somehow, Joel Sherman interprets this information and concludes that the Astros are cursed:

"It is not just that Houston failed to re-sign its offensive star from last postseason. It is that the Astros revolved their entire offseason around retaining Beltran, though they knew his agent, Scott Boras, almost always takes star-level players deep into the winter before signing them. When that tactic ended in Beltran signing with the Mets on Jan. 9, Houston was left without viable alternatives.

...

In the end, The Curse of Carlos Beltran caught up to the Astros."

The only curses are coming from Mets fans, sitting in the bleachers, tired of watching their $100 million man bat .260.

.240 Hitter Runs His Mouth.

Under normal circumstances, I'd be giddy if a player ripped the Mets brass.

But this guy?:

"The New York Mets have an option on Doug Mientkiewicz that would pay the first baseman $4 million next season.

'I don't [know] why they would pick up my option, but if they do, I might quit,' he said. 'I'm serious. I don't want to be back there.'

...

'I always thought Minnesota was a great place to play. After a year with the Mets, an organization that doesn't have a clue, I know that for sure.' "

Smallball Small Part of Postseason.

Yet another game-winning homerun in the playoffs followed by yet another essay which concludes that homeruns are relatively unimportant.


The White Sox are not a small ball team The White Sox hit 200 homeruns in the 2005 regular season. That didn't lead the league, it was fourth in the league. But they hit one more than the Red Sox and I'll betcha didn't know that.

The White Sox also stole a lot of bases in the 2005 regular season, 157 to be exact, which was third in the American League.

So while they clearly didn't rely on small ball, it's fair to say they have a "balanced attack." The much-coveted "versatile lineup."

Of course, no team's lineup was more "versatile" than Tampa Bay's with its 150+ homeruns and 150+ stolen bases. Except Tampa Bay sucks, so let's not talk about them. They're the smallball failure that nobody is trying to emulate.


"There is a general perception floating about that these teams have brought honor back to little ball. That a willingness to sacrifice, steal a base and emphasize defense has created the World Series match-up. So perhaps Gashouse Gang baseball will soon be back in vogue."

The White Sox are storming through the postseason by relying on power, not speed and sac bunting. Eighteen homeruns in eleven games, with only seven stolen bases.

Homeruns are good. I'm not sure why so many baseball observers dislike homeruns so much.

Roy Oswalt Effectively Executes His Game Plan.

''After we got a 4-0 lead, I was going to make 'em hit the ball," Oswalt said.

Ken Davidoff Risks His Sportswriter's License.

Most NY writers criticize Steinbrenner for setting unrealistic goals and, at the same time, label the season a complete failure if the Yankees don't win the World Series.

Most NY writers claim the Yankees need a younger, more athletic team and then claim that signing the old and slow Hideki Matsui is a priority.

Do I agree that '05 was their best season since '01? Well, no. But at least they made the playoffs and caught the Red Sox after I'd personally given up on them.

Davidoff reminds any spoiled Yankee fan willing to listen that the Yankees did, in fact, have a pretty good season overall in 2005 and their roster moves provided some hope for the future:

"From their horribly rated farm system, the Yankees found a frontline starting pitcher, Chien-Ming Wang, and a starting second baseman, Robinson Cano. That's a successful year for any organization. The Yankees need to take more chances on homegrown guys, regardless of what Baseball America or competing organizations think of them.

From Shawn Chacon and Aaron Small, the Yanks saw the value of low-risk acquisitions. Incredible, isn't it, that the team spent something like 100 times more to invest in Carl 'Why smile when you can scowl?' Pavano than they did to land the season-saving Small?"

With Kevin Brown and Bernie Williams off the payroll, they're instantly even more young and more athletic.

The Curse of Matsui.

Mark Feisand is forced to explain to so-called Yankee fans why holding on to the AL MVP is a good idea:

"As for trading him, I don't know why the Yankees would ever consider that. And if they did, it wouldn't matter, as he has a no-trade clause. I'm surprised at the number of e-mails I received saying that the Yanks should trade A-Rod. The 'What have you done for me lately?' attitude is overwhelming."


Can so-called Yankee fans truly be that ignorant? Feisand provides a small sample from his e-mail inbox, which is probably a representative sample:

"I believe the Yankees have a curse now, and it is called Alex Rodriguez. Since Alex has been with the team, they have seriously faltered in the playoffs. He is 4-for-32 in his last 9 playoff games and has not performed in the clutch. What is your take on A-Rod's inability to perform when it really counts? Also, would the Yankees be better off trading him for pitching, if that is a possibility? His contract is insane, and he is falling well short of expectations. -- Tony W.

I do not believe Alex Rodriguez should be named MVP this year. Until he can improve his performance in the postseason, he should be overlooked. Has he ever come through when the Yanks really needed him? -- Russ J., Melbourne, Fl."

Feisand dignifies the question by pointing out that there's no curse:

"For starters, there is no curse. Five years without a title can hardly be considered a curse when you think about all of the franchises out there that have never won or have not won for many years."

There's also no green cheese on the moon and Mikey from the Life cereal commercial didn't die from eating pop rocks after drinking soda pop.


But there's an even more fundamental error in the logic of the esteemed Tony W.

The Yankees have "seriously faltered" in the playoffs for five straight seasons. Alex Rodriguez has only been with the team for the last two.

I reckon Tony W. is quite the thinkin' feller. Before the Curse of ARod, it was the Curse of Tino. (Or maybe even Mike Lupica's quizzical Curse of the Bam-Boonie.) But now that Tino is back on the team and the Yankees still "faltered in the playoffs," it must be the Curse of Something Else.


Dear Tony W. and Russ J.:

Has Alex Rodriguez ever come through when the Yanks really needed him? Yes.

Has he been clutch? Yes.

Has he performed when it really counts? Yes.

Should the Yankees trade him for pitching? Ummm, no.

I have one more rule of conduct for you two so-called fans: You don't get to cheer when ARod goes deep three times in a World Serires game.

Also, please stop calling talk radio and asking why the Yankees "traded" Andy Pettitte.

So why did Embree pitch to Konerko?

"Did anyone really think they were going to make Torre look bad?" another Yankee source asked. "Did they really think, after that (Aug. 9) YES question about why Torre let (Alan) Embree pitch to (Paul) Konerko (who hit a ninth inning HR) - that Joe was going to say: 'The hell with it, I just let Embree pitch'?"

Okay. So why did Embree pitch to Konerko? If it's really a dumb, poorly researched question, then Torre (and Raissman) should have no problem providing an intelligent, well researched rejoinder.

"How dare a reporter ask Joe Torre a tough question. He's Joe Torre."

To quote Torre, "I worry about trying to make moves to win a game, as opposed to how to explain it." Which is actually pretty close to, "The hell with it, I just let Embree pitch."


"The sad thing here is despite all the happy talk concerning Torre's meeting with Steinbrenner in Tampa, where the manager brought up the YES fiasco, bet the ranch these "pointed" questions will continue coming Torre's way in 2006 too."

What a tragedy that a reporter would have the nerve to ask Joe Torre "pointed" questions. how sad. What's sad is that Torre can't give any adequate answers.

Kimberly Jones does not make Joe Torre look bad. George Steinbrenner does not make Joe Torre look bad. The YES Network does not make Joe Torre look bad. Joe Torre makes Joe Torre look bad.

This whole time, I thought it was Clemens who had no soul.

"Yankee fans will be a little jealous, if not confused, should Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte end up pitching in the World Series against Jose Contreras and Orlando Hernandez. It's not a question of whom to root for, but figuring out how the Bombers' pennant-winning Class of 2003 was somehow replaced by soul-less newcomers such as Carl Pavano and Jaret Wright."

I think you meant to say, "the World-Series-Losing Class of 2003."


In your own columns, you didn't seem to keen on the "pennant-winning Class of 2003."

This happened because Jesus hates you.

Watch your language! You're on national TV and impressionable youngsters might be swayed by your display of vulgarity:

" 'Oh, my gosh,' Andy Pettitte mouthed after the ball rocketed off Pujols' bat, taking all the noise of 43,000 fans with it, over the fence."

Where's your Gosh now?

Mets Fan Gloats.

Mike Lupica is shooting from the lip and he's got ARod in his sights:

"Mike Lamb of the Astros, who was going to be the Yankee third baseman in 2004, now has more postseason home runs this season than A-Rod, if you're keeping score at home."

Zing! He got you, ARod!

If you're keeping score at home, Mike Lamb has more postseason home runs this season than Carlos Beltran If you're keeping score at home, NY Mets castoff Al Leiter has more postseason wins this season than Pedro Martinez.

If I were Mike Lamb, I'd expect a call any day from Omar Minaya. I wouldn't be shocked if Omar Minaya overpaid him $50 mill, $60 mill, maybe even $90 mill because of a good week in October.

It wouldn't be the first time.

Yankees "stuck" with AL MVP.

Alex Rodriguez had enough big hits this season and has perfomed well enough in the postseason throughout his career that you'd think he'd be immune to this kind of over-the-top nonsense:

"That's the way one American League executive summarized A-Rod's disturbingly uneven performance: good enough for MVP-like numbers in the regular season, but an abysmal failure in October, just like Winfield. 'George is stuck with him,' is what the executive said of Rodriguez.

Five more years, $131 million, to be exact. Steinbrenner is already looking for someone to hold accountable for the way the third baseman has melted since Game 3 of last year's AL Championship Series. In his last 32 postseason at-bats, Rodriguez has four hits, no home runs and no RBI. The trauma was so great, A-Rod never boarded the Yankees' charter flight home Monday night; he stayed in California, according to a friend, to wind down, chill out, sort through the empty at-bats, including the double play grounder in the ninth inning of Game 5 that ruined the Yankees' season.

There'll be some revisionist whispering that it's Torre's fault -that, somehow, he didn't get in A-Rod's face often enough, as if suddenly that was Rodriguez's missing medicine."

Speaking of revisionism, the Yankees do not, "to be exact," owe ARod $131 million over the next five years. The Rangers are picking up about $45 million of that.

Oh, and a double play grounder in the ninth inning of Game 5 can hardly ruin the Yankees' season. That's not even possible. The season lasted 167 games and would have been a complete flop without ARod's production.

Pettitte just wasn't himself.

"On Wednesday, Houston starting pitcher Andy Pettitte was hurt during batting practice before the NL championship series opener.

He pitched, but wasn't himself in a 5-3 loss to St. Louis.

...

Pettitte was going through a traditional batting practice exercise of running the bases when a hard liner struck him on the inside of the right knee. Pettitte, also on the mend from a 24-hour flu over the weekend, made no excuses, but his manager figured the swollen knee was a factor in the worst showing in four months for one of baseball's best October pitchers."

How condescending to the St. Louis Cardinals lineup.

The Premier Postseason Pitcher Who Isn't.

What have I heard or read in the past week regarding Andy Pettitte?

-- The Yankees traded Andy Pettitte.

-- Dan Graziano, a man who is paid money to comment on baseball, incorrectly claims that the Yankees didn't match the Astros' offer.

-- Mike Lupica claiming that Pettitte is the pitcher's version of Derek Jeter and Steinbrenner ought to cry every time Pettitte wins a big game for another team.

-- The announcers on Fox last night describing Pettitte as one of the "premier postseason pitchers of his era."

-- This guy sums up the idiocy pretty well, going into the Wayback Machine and blaming Steinbrenner for the '05 ALDS loss, instead of anybody on the current roster, because Steinbrenner didn't sign Pettitte after the '03 season:

"The Yankees failed to offer Pettitte a contract extension, then low-balled him over concerns with his elbow, and ultimately lost him when he signed a three-year, $31.5-million deal with Houston. Here's what they let go: a left-handed pitcher with a 14-8 record in the postseason, the second-most playoff wins in baseball history."

Funny interpretation right there. In fact, the Yankees offered Pettitte three-year, $39 million, which hardly sounds like a low-ball offer. It's more than the Astros offered, though the differences are less pronounced when state taxes are taken into account.

While Pettitte has the second-most playoff wins in baseball history, he also has the third-most losses in baseball history. This while being surrounded by some of the most successful playoff teams in baseball history (i.e., the '96 - '00 Yankees).

Why did Pettitte leave the Yankees? Maybe he felt disrespected, maybe he wanted to go to Houston with Clemens, maybe he hated playing in NY. It's his right to do what he wants. It's the American Way. Far be it for a Yankee fan to hassle a baseball player for jumping ship and playing for another team.

But let's not lie about the Yankee cash money offer and let's not lie about Pettitte's postseason record.

Andrew Eugene is now 14-9 in the postseason with an ERA over 4.00. Pretty good postseason numbers, no doubt. However, his postseason winning% and ERA are noticeably worse than his regular season numbers.

Clowns like Lupica gloat excessively every time Pettitte wins a game. They try to rub Steinbrenner's nose in it. But don't expect a Lupica column after Pettitte's postseason tank job last night. Lupica is an intellectual coward.

The Disconnect.

Often playing hurt in his two seasons with the Yankees, Gary Sheffield hit 70 homeruns and drove in 244 runs.

Last year, Gary Sheffield was second in the AL MVP voting. This year, Gary Sheffield boosted his clutch reputation by hitting .364 with RISP. Every Yankee fan loves Gary Sheffield.

The sportswriters who cover the team?

Joel Sherman thinks Sheffield's a sourpuss and suggests a trade with Toronto. Jon Heyman, whose personal dislike for Sheffield is well-documented and purt near obsessive, suggests trading Sheffield to Boston.

Good thinkin', guys. You make Dan Graziano sound like John Schuerholz.