Baseall already has a low-revenue division.

It's called the Minor Leagues.

Memo to Pedro: The Yankees are not in the NL East.

It's not just Pedro, of course, it's the entire Mets organization.

I am not denying the existence of a Mets-Yankees rivalry. Trash talking is a part of being a fan, though I think most adult fans who are true fans of the game aren't in it to talk trash.

However, the Battle for New York is largely fictional. The Daily News imagines Torre and Randolph reading the Daily News every day, keeping track of which team is going to get the most free publicity. Then the Daily News decides who wins the Battle of New York by picking which team to put on their back page. While writing a bunch of columns about how important it is to be on their back page. True fans don't really care who gets the back page and they're not going to suddenly switch loyalties because their team has a bad week, or a bad month, or a bad year.

But I guess my overall question is, why do the Mets seem so concerned with knocking the Yankees off their perch? When the Braves have won the division thirteen years in a row? Isn't it possible that this lack of focus at an organizational level hurts the Mets in the long run?

Or not.

Mike Lupica roots for the Mets and against the Yankees. Is this a problem? Why should I care?

It's kind of a problem when it warps his baseball opinions to such an extreme degree: "They think about a batting order of Reyes, Matsui, Beltran, Delgado, Piazza, Wright, Floyd, Cameron and see it as being as good as there is in their division and maybe their league."

Theoretically, Mike Lupica is an observer of baseball, a baseball insider, an insighful observer. Except he just suggested that the Mets are going to sign Delgado (which they didn't) and, when they sign Delgado, they will suddenly have one of the best lineups in the National League.

About a week ago, Lupica also said that the Mets might have the best starting staff in the NL, as long as they remain healthy.

What else? Best defense, best bullpen, and best coaching staff, too? Golly, they'll probably win 125 games.

As for the lineup specifically, why is Mike Piazza even included in the lineup? Is Piazza going to catch 130 games? Lupica is conveniently ignoring Jason Phillips and his intimidating career .389 slugging percentage. Maybe Piazza will make a sudden defensive comeback at the age of 36, but I'd be willing to bet that he's going to catch less than 81 games next season. Now that 1b is open, maybe the Mets will continue to play him at 1b in order to get his bat in the lineup, but had the Mets paid $12.5 million per year for Delgado, they were obviously going to play Delgado every day at first base.

But even with Delgado ... and even maxed out offensively on the day that Piazza is catching ... Reyes, Matsui, Beltran, Delgado, Piazza, Wright, Floyd, and Cameron.

It's not a particularly good lineup. It's not as good as other teams in their division, much less their league. Not even close. (Did I miss the memo regarding the early retirements of Rolen-Pujols-Edmonds?)

The Mets scored just 684 runs last season. I'm not sure how many add'l runs Beltran and Delgado can possibly add to any team ... but they can't be that good. Their presence can't possibly turn a 684-run team into a 800-run team. Unless Lupica just think Piazza, Floyd, Cameron are all going to find their strokes and achieve career peaks at the same time. Or maybe he predicts .350, 50, and 165 from both Beltran and Delgado. I don't really know, it's such a nonsensical idea, I can't figure it out.

But the Mets didn't even sign Delgado, the Marlins did.

Lupica should ponder this lineup and maybe he'd learn something about baseball:

c - Loduca
1b - Delgado
2b - Castillo
3b - Lowell
ss - Gonzalez
lf - Conine
cf - Pierre
rf - Cabrera

Now that's a purty good lineup.

The 2005 Mets might have the best lineup in their division? They might have the worst.

Love.

What is love?

How does one find the words to describe love?

Do you remember the electric feeling in your stomach the first time you fell in love? The first time you knew you were in love?

If you are in love with someone, are you in love with that person as a singularity or are you in love with the qualities that person possesses? Are you in love with the who are the what?

These questions have baffled philosophers and poets for centuries.

For the answer, I'd direct them to Mike Lupica's latest love letter to Omar Minaya, the do-no-wrong GM of the Mets. Lupica knows it takes a do right all night GM to get a do right all day first baseman.

But Omar is really just the new kid in town.

Also tugging at Lupica's heartstrings is Theo Epstein and his stable of impish helpers.

Do you doubt that Lupica's heart is torn? Then read what he said about them in last Sunday's column:

"I saw a picture in the Boston Globe the other day of Theo Epstein's assistants with the Red Sox, and thought for a second it was the cast of 'The OC.' "

Lupica has no idea how that picture got cut out of the Boston Globe and ended up underneath his pillow.

Sigh. Those cold-hearted Yankee fans just wouldn't understand.

Give it back to Cardinals Nation.

"What appears to be emerging as a legal consensus is that the person with the least rights to it is Mientkiewicz himself," said Yale Law School Dean Harold Hongju Koh, who ranked the claims as: "the Cardinals, the Red Sox, major league baseball and then the guy who happened to hold it at the end of the game."

At first, I was very happy that Doug M. held on to the stupid ball. Now, I have second thoughts. He should do the right thing and give it back to its rightful owner ... the St. Louis Cardinals.

Then, they should do one of two things: (1) Burn it, or (2) Sell it back to Red Sox Nation for $250 million.

Did someone say "Edgar Renteria?" Okay, make it $300 million. Now hush up, Red Sox Nation, or we'll make it $350 million.


"Finkelman, who was an expert witness in the court fight over Bonds' 73rd home run ball, said the fact that Mientkiewicz was a midseason addition and a late-inning replacement makes his claim to the ball tenuous. If he had made a leaping catch to secure the victory, been a major contributor during the regular season or even a weathered the franchise's lean years, fans and courts might be more sympathetic.

'The notion that Mientkiewicz did anything is absurd. He didn't do anything,' Finkelman said. 'He caught an underhanded toss from a pitcher. This is what he's paid to do. He didn't win the World Series. It's simply coincidence that it ended at first base.' "

Okay, but is it illegal to be flat-out lucky?

Did the guy who caught Bonds' 73rd homerun ball do anything to earn the ball?

Did Red Sox Nation do anything to earn the ball?

At least he didn't say "Indian Ocean."

ARod puts last year's ALCS loss in proper perspective:

" ... it's kind of like being out on the Atlantic Ocean and having a wave and it just kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger ... "

I want to party with this guy.

Thirty-one years of free agency in baseball, and it finally dawns on Hal Bodley:

"It boils down to this: When revenue goes up, salaries go up."


He also lives in blissful ignorance:

"I can't remember an offseason when owners have spent so much on mediocre talent."

Well, I can't remember an offseason when they didn't.

My mind is still reeling with nightmarish memories of Dave Collins, Melido Perez, Pascual Perez, Mike Witt, Kenny Rogers, Jack Clark, Danny Tartabull, Rick Rhoden, two guys named Niekro, Sterling Hitchcock, Hideki Irabu, Jose Contreras, Javier Vazquez ...

Ouch! I just thought of Steve Sax! How could I forget about that clown? ...

The mind is racing now ... the memories are flooding back ...

Jim Abbott, of course, if am I allowed to criticize the Inspirational Jim Abbott. Yeah, he was inspirational, alright ... to the other team's hitters ... when Abbott was pitching, they hit lots of inspired fly balls that went all the way over the outfield wall ...

Terry Mulholland, who made as much money as Paul O'Neill, if you can believe it ...

Raul Mondesi, Jesse Barfield, Rondell White ...

and those are just Yankees.

I mean, you've got to take inflation into account. Dr. Bodley has surely heard of "inflation." Is Jaret Wright's $7 mill in 2005 really any more ridiculous than Rich Dotson's $900,000 in 1988?

When the Yankees signed Steve Kemp, he was actually among the top ten highest-paid players in the major leagues, and he would have maintained that status ... except he was demoted to the minor leagues.

If Bodley really doesn't remember these offseason signings ... if he really doesn't remember Wilson Alvarez and Darren Dreifort and Jason Kendall and Chan Ho Park and Rick Helling and Bobby Higginson and Edgardo Alfonzo ... then I just have one question for him.

What is he taking, and where can I get some?

MLB vs. MLL.

Chuck Culpepper seems to be discussing Randy Johnson and his salary and his responsibility to the media:

"They make a lot of money because television networks air their games a lot.

That's right: Randy Johnson gave a 'get-out-of-my-face' to the very reason he makes a lavish salary."

It's sort of right.

While it's true that Corporate America generates a lot of the revenue that pays for a player's salary, it's still unclear why a CBS reporter is following Randy Johnson while he's walking down the street. It's also unclear whether or not this really helps Bud sell more beer. I think Mickey D's would have preferred that the reporters just leave Kobe alone and let him sell some Big Macs.

So if Corporate America is truly the Master to whom everyone must answer, I'm not so sure that Stupid Reporting helps them. Therefore, I don't quite see how Stupid Reporting helps pay Unit's salary.

Since we're pointing out ironies and ungratefulness, it's kind of interesting to ponder who is paying Culpepper's salary. Randy Johnson can still pitch for the Yankees if Chuck Culpepper stops writing columns for Newsday, put it that way.

Suddenly, this discussion takes a turn for the bizarre:

"Now, for contrast, I give you Major League Lacrosse. It has elite athletes as in baseball, people who've fine-tuned skills for just about all their lives as in baseball, people who've spent an inordinate amount of time on Earth at - egad - practice as in baseball, and people who average a reported $13,000 per year.

As not in baseball.

The difference? Oh, through a sequence of random events we commonly label as history, one sport became the 'national pastime' while the other became the nation's oldest game.

Soon, TV came along and - boom - let's air the pastime."

Not to blow too big of a hole into Culpepper's theory, but ... let's just suppose that this "sequence of random events" had occurred differently ... that lacrosse (!!!) had become the so-called "national pastime" instead of baseball ... and lacrosse got tv coverage because people wanted to watch it and every time a player scored a goal Phil Rizzuto would say "This Bud's For You."

So now every city has a big-ass lacrosse stadium and baseball has been largely forgotten, only played in sandlots or in ivy league colleges.

Okay, so now we've successfully changed the "sequence of random events" and we're living in bizarr-o Lacrosse World.

Well, guess what really happens?

A 6' 10" monster like Randy Johnson becomes one of the best lacrosse players in the world and rakes it in and still gets mad when reporters follow him down the street.

"Professional" lacrosse player Patrick McCabe ain't good enough anymore since so many world-class athletes want to play lacrosse and make the big bucks.

Alternate Universe Patrick McCabe is stuck playing Alternate Universe wiffle ball with Alternate Universe Chuck Culpepper, and they're both complaining about all the overpaid lacrosse players.

Commissioner Buzz Kill.

"Commissioner Bud Selig expressed some irritation at last week's owners' meetings because of the skyrocketing prices paid for free agents, and the Mets, piloted by new general manager Omar Minaya, are among the worst offenders."

Randy Johnson doesn't like me.

"He does not embrace you, Yankee fans, or anything else about your pastime loyalties. Johnson comes to the Bronx as a fireballing mercenary with a heart as stone-cold as Roger Clemens'.

You remember Clemens, right?"

Yeah, damn straight I remember Clemens. One stone-cold heart, zero friends, one boyfriend/teammate, one Cy Young Award, and two Championship rings with the Yankees. Lord willing, Randy Johnson will pitch as well for the Yankees.


I find Unit's press conference candor amusing simply because Lupica has been pointlessly sneering at Unit for a few weeks now, "accusing" Unit of being greedy. Well, everybody's greedy. But why can't Unit at least be honest about his greed? Like Pedro Martinez?

Then, Unit says the following at his press conference:

"A lot of people were saying that this is something that I wanted all along," Johnson said in his Stadium news conference. "Well if that was the case, I could have been here in '98. Instead I signed with the Diamondbacks - just something, food for thought.

"It's worked out in this situation (with the Yankees) for a few reasons, contract extension, what have you."

My question for Lupica is: When did Randy Johnson ever claim that he cared about Yankee tradition? When did he claim that he always wanted to be a Yankee?

It's a notion that is just completely made up by Mike Lupica. Or maybe Lupica heard it from a friend of a friend of a friend of one of his baseball "sources." I'm sure Lupica will shake it off and find many other reasons to dislike Randy Johnson. He's greedy, he's ugly, he's a hick, he's surly, he's tall, he has a moustache, he's not a Met, he's not Paul O'Neill, he's a dreaded mercenary who doesn't like me.

Am I supposed to care? It doesn't bother me in the least. If I want a friend, I'll buy a goldfish.

Will Carlos Beltran get better?

Can you believe that Carlos Beltran is only the tenth player in MLB history to sign a $100+ million contract?

Most folks seem to agree that Beltran is not worth anywhere near $17 mill (that's the average if you include bonuses; I think his 2005 salary is, like, $2 million). But the idea is that he's young and he's going to improve and eventually earn his elite money:

"With his body type, age (27) and athleticism, you have to think you're buying the best extended years of his career. While he may not be the gravitational center of the clubhouse, he reminds me of Bernie Williams with his quiet dignity, strength and focus on family and faith. And last time I checked, the Yankees won a few games in October with Williams hitting cleanup and keeping to himself with his guitar in his corner locker.

While Beltran's statistics may not be overwhelming, they will get better -- even at pitcher-friendly Shea Stadium -- as he continues to grow into his power. He is also extraordinarily gifted. He may not be a top 50 OPS guy, but he is among the five best overall players in baseball. (You can also throw Rodriguez, Adrian Beltre, Scott Rolen and Jim Edmonds in there for starters and commence arguing.)"

I'm not saying the Mets can't win the World Series during Beltran's tenure, but (a) I doubt if Beltran's game will ever approach Prime Bernie, and (b) Beltran can't expect too many Bernie-esque October successes unless the Mets can also find a Mariano Rivera-esque closer.

Also, I have no idea why Verducci consider Beltran to be among the top five overall players in baseball. Off the top of my head, I'd say he is among the top 25 or 30 overall players in the game.

But top five? Let's see ... Bonds, Pujols, Tejada, Manny, Vlad, Ichiro ... hey, that's six already, and Beltran isn't listed. That notion wasn't too difficult to disprove.

So we end up with the original question: Will Beltran get better? This was the promise with Alfonso Soriano. "If Sori did 40/40 this year, he'll eventually do 50/50." (World-renowned statistical scholar Jason Giambi once came up with that predicton.)

If Verducci is truly convinced that age 27 is the beginning of one's career, he ought to talk to Chuck Knoblauch and Carlos Baerga, among countless others.

That's really the essence of the debate, I think. The Mets paid this man based on potential rather than proven performance. This isn't the first time this has occurred, but it's probably the most money ever paid for potential. Rather then comparing him to Willie Mays, maybe we ought to start with Von Hayes.

Ha ha ha.

"There is no better job than being a gifted young center fielder in New York. It was that way for Willie Mays when he was young, and Mickey Mantle, and Bernie Williams. Beltran, it seemed, was the natural successor to all that, and to Bernie, at Yankee Stadium."

I just compared Carlos Beltran to Willie Mays. Is this microphone working? But seriously, folks.


"The Mets, if everybody stays healthy, are the deepest starting rotation in the National League."

Ba dum bum.

Geez, tough crowd.

I'm here all week, please tip your waitresses.


The following passage reveals Lupica's core misunderstanding of New York sports:

"Of course, the Mets didn't take back New York from the Yankees yesterday. The Yankees will sell nearly four million tickets and continue to be the greatest show on earth with a team that will eventually cost George Steinbrenner, wherever he is, upwards of $300 million."

First of all, we know the $300 million figure is misleading at best (i.e., it is a lie), but Lupica has, once again, started to use the figure without further explanation. He'll just throw the $300 million number out there ... and it goes unchallenged for some reason. Doesn't the Daily News have editors? Fact-checkers?

There is no struggle for the hearts and minds of New York sports fans. You're a Yankee fan or you're a Met fan. The Yankee Machine is rolling along, the Mets can also do quite well, and it won't require a mass exodus of fans from the Bronx.

Lupica really thinks the Mets can "take back New York" if the Daily News writes about them more often. That's his criteria for success.

The Yankees are tired and old, the Mets are fresh and exciting. Randy Johnson is a hick grandpa, Carlos Beltran is rico suave.

The Mets didn't take back New York from the Yankees ... yet. But they will. Why? Because I said so, that's why. Four million Yankee fans are wrong.

Don't you CBS guys have some memos to fact-check?

Surprise, surprise, Mike Lupica doesn't seem to like Randy Johnson ... (call me crazy, but I'll bet Lupica is going to be swept away by the charming Carlos Beltran this afternoon; Carlos Beltran es alto y flaco, Sancho Panza es bajo y gordo) .

This Johnson guy better not front Mike Lupica when it comes to New York City. Mike Lupica belongs to the City. Mike Lupica is New York City.

Mike Lupica clubs 'til 5 am in Tribeca and hobnobs with the celebs at Lincoln Center. Mike Lupica personally picked out the tree at Rockefeller Center. Mike Lupica has a sandwich named after him at Katz's deli. Mike Lupica was covering the Yankees when Paul O'Neill played here. Mike Lupica knows the words to every Billy Joel song. Mike Lupica was the inspiration for Cosmo Kramer. These Johnny-Come-Lately hicks best learn the rules of New York City or Mike Lupica will see to it that they sleep with the fishes. Or worse. He'll write a column and sneer at you.

In this article, Lupica does have a rare moment of lucidity:

"But guess what? Nobody cares how Johnson acts as longs as he pitches for the Yankees the way Curt Schilling, his old running mate, pitched for the Red Sox last season. You saw how it went with Gary Sheffield last season. As soon as he put on pinstripes and start banging the ball all over the place, Yankee fans and Yankee broadcasters made him more heroic than Sgt. York."

Of course! The only thing that matters is what happens on the field. Not press conferences, not ESPN interviews, not commercials for deodorant, not making nicey nice with reporters, not even making nicey nice with family and friends.

But since nobody cares how Johnson acts, why the heck are you writing about it in the first place? Why are so-called reporters following a man walking down the street? I know why, it's for the gossip pages, not the sports pages, though the two functions have obviously been crossed. There may be some legit Yankee fans who actually want to "know about" Randy Johnson, just don't include me among them. It would not bother me if the Yankees never spoke to the press again, just win on the field. Then the entire sportswriting profession would cease to exist and I wouldn't have a blog anymore and that would be ... ummm ... bad?

Ken Rosenthal is right.

Seven years from now, when Carlos Beltran's contract can be fully analyzed, Ken Rosenthal will be correct. Because when one argues both sides, it's impossible to be wrong:

"As good as Beltran was last season, his .915 OPS matched that of the Reds' Sean Casey, tying him for 24th among qualifying major leaguers. Beltran's .844 career OPS barely ranks in the top 50 among active players. It's nearly 100 points lower than Alex Rodriguez's OPS was when A-Rod became a free agent after the 2000 season. In fact, from 2000 to '03, Beltran's offensive value was very similar to Cameron's. Beltran's 2004 breakthrough and monster postseason set him apart.

The Mets, then, could be making the same mistake that several clubs have made with their recent free-agent signings -- overrating a player based on his most recent season, then overpaying him to replace a comparable part.

...

I don't buy agent Scott Boras' whimsical career projections for Beltran, but I do buy the idea that a rising star at age 27 is worth the risk. Give the Mets their due; they've landed a franchise player."


The kind of franchise player who's a minor upgrade compared to Mike Cameron?

If Mike Cameron doesn't work out ...

... spend $100 million on another free agent centerfielder.

Spent $100 million for a near last place team? Two seasons in a row? Make up for your mistakes by building up the farm system? (Nope, the Mets already traded Scott Kazmir.)

I know the easiest way. Spend a lot of money. A lot of money. Just like the Yankees and Red Sox do.

So is Mike Lupica offended? Omar Minaya overpaying like he was using monopoly money? Big Money Musical Chairs at Shea? Luring greedy players and acting like pigs at the free agent trough? Playing Mini-Me to Brian Cashman's Dr. Evil?

Of course not! Not one mention of the Mets' bloated payroll; Omar Minaya isn't even a baseball GM, he's one of the Backstreet Boys. He's doin' it with "brains and nerve and flair."

Yes, I understand that Minaya is trying to correct the mistakes of previous Mets GMs. This mess is not his fault. I'm just pointing out the obvious: Minaya is not accomplishing his goals with imagination or brains. It's with cash money.

At least Lupica understands that the Mets are not the true Yankee rivals, unlike Mike Vaccaro at the New York Post, who seems to have forgotten that (a) the Met/Yankee rivalry peaked just four years ago in something knows as the 'Subway Series," and (b) the Red Sox/Yankee rivalry is at an all-time high.

You know, just about every team seems to think they're a rival of the Yankees.

I promise you, ask any Yankee fan which team is the rival. The Mets are barely on the radar screen right now.

More Lupica Math.

"The Yankees still make boatloads of money, even if no one is exactly sure how much. They will eventually spend, in salary, revenue sharing and luxury taxes, close to $300 million to field their 2005 team. So, from the outside, it still looks like business as usual."

Wait a minute: "Revenue" is not the same as "payroll."

Payroll is an expense. Revenue is income, the opposite of an expense.

The Yankees make a lot of revenue and they share that revenue with other teams, according to MLB rules. How does Mike Lupica possibly include that in Yankee payroll?

Because of the revenue sharing, the Yankees have less to spend on payroll; the rest of the league has more.

Now, technically, Lupica may have tried to hide his lie by using the phrase "field their 2005 team" rather than "payroll," but even that is wildly misleading.

Because if you're going to just add up every expense for the NY Yankees, it's a lot more than salary and the accompanying luxury tax ("luxury tax" doesn't play a position on the field, so it really makes no sense to included it while comparing Yankee payroll to other teams).

If you're going to add up random things, you may as well include everything. Overhead. The Yankee probably have more overhead than any other team. The cost of toilet paper in Yankee Stadium, the cost of hot dog vendors, the cost of the ground crew, the cost of air travel and hotel rooms. Right? The Yankees have to pay hotel rooms and airplanes "to field their 2005 team," don't they? If the Yankees are scheduled to play in Seattle, they don't hitchhike across the country.

All of these are costs of business, of course, not player payroll. But since we're including everything ... I could claim the Yankees spend $750 million to "field their 2005 team." Who knows how much it costs to rent the Stadium and run a TV station?

Now, let's take Lupica Math to an extreme. Say the Yankees spend $1 million on hot dog vendor salary. (Feel free to add that to payroll, since we're including everything.)

But this is where it gets weird and Felz will try to help you understand what Lupica is doing. Suppose those hot dog vendors collectively make a profit of $2 million. With me so far?

Okay, it's a $1 million profit. But the profits are taxed. The IRS takes $300 thousand. This seems easy enough.

Expenses $1 mill, revenues $2 mill, pre-tax profits $1 mill, $300 thousand tax, net profits of $700 thousand.

Basic accounting. Easy enough, right?

What Lupica is trying to pull ... wake up, this is the key point ... is take the $300 thousand tax and add it to expenses. According to Lupica math, the Yankee "spent" $1.3 million on hot dog vendors. It's a flat-out lie and it makes absolutely no sense.

Lupica should just be honest about it. The Yankee payroll in 2005 will be about $205 million. It's the amount of money paid to the players on the field. The so-called "luxury tax" is not spent on the players who actually play on the field and "revenue sharing" is not a part of payroll, it's a tax on income.

That's the reality. Lupica Math suggests that Yankee payroll is $300 million. Lupica Math is a lie.

Is Mike Luipca trying to bait George Steinbrenner?

Is it even possible that Lupica's inflated sense of self-importance has reached these levels? As if Steinbrenner is going to read Lupica's article and respond like a lunatic in order to get the back page of the Daily News? Lupica exhibiting some sort of infantile reverse psychology?

You see, after constantly predicting eruptions of Mount Steinbrenner, Lupica then criticizes Fonzbrenner for playing it cool: "Steinbrenner is still analyzed as some kind of loose cannon, as if he might do anything or say anything, as if he is still the big, bad, back-page Boss. Does anybody still believe that?"

What? Lupica himself just wrote 100 article about the obsessive back-page Boss that only existed in Lupica's imagination.

According to Lupica, Steinbrenner was going to erupt if ....

• the Yankees lose in the playoffs to the upstart Angels.
• the Yankees lose in the playoffs to the upstart Marlins.
• the Yankees lose in the playoffs to the Red Sox.
• the Mets sign Pedro Martinez.
• the Yankees get swept by the Mets, even in the regular season.

Lupica has fired Cashman on Steinbrenner's behalf about 100 times already.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Lupica was insisting that the Randy Johnson talks had heated up largely because the Yankees wanted to steal the back page from the Mets.

Gee, Lupica, "does anybody still believe that?"

Steinbrenner deserves his rep to some degree, but it's been a long, LONG time since he fired Dick Howser for losing in the playoffs and went nuts on Bobby Murcer for popping up a bunt in the World Series. He is still liable to confuse baseball with football or, even worse, the armed forces. He's still willing to mix it up with MLB and other owners with a well-timed press release. But this Mount Steinbrenner myth should have died a long time ago. It's only kept alive by lazy sportswriters. If Lupica is suddenly indicting the press for their "loose cannon" image, then he's the biggest culprit.


Now, as for Steinbrenner's idea of winning, I don't know how any Yankee fan could disagree with this Perfect World:

"And his idea of winning goes something like this: The Yankees win the World Series again, no matter how much it costs. If the Red Sox and Mets suffer along the way, all the better."

Sportsman of the Year.

Hal Bodley needs a hug.

This dinosaur is still complaining about the effects of free agency:

"But for me, aside from all the wonderful things that are happening in baseball, I'm left with an empty feeling. I suspect he feels the same way.

The fans in many of the cities must certainly hurt as they watch some of their heroes pack up and leave.

It was great when the Diamondbacks had Johnson and Curt Schilling, evoking memories of another potent lefty-right duo, Koufax and Drysdale."

Huh? How do you think they got to Arizona in the first place? Why no love for the fans in Seattle and Philadelphia?

Steinbrenner's finances.

Timely article in the New York Times. Undoubtedly, a response to my blog:

"If you do a profit and loss, I don't think there's a plus at the bottom," he said. "But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense for Steinbrenner."


Hey, didn't Felz just say that Steinbrenner's expense ceiling is equal to his revenues? Who is this Zimbalist guy disagreeing with me? But before you think the Felz is completely misguided:

"Zimbalist and other sports business experts said that beyond Steinbrenner's craving for more World Series titles, his goal is to build the value of the team and the YES Network, in which the Yankees and the former owners of the Nets are majority owners. That goal prevails, even if it means operating at a short-term loss. Last May, the Goldman Sachs Group arranged lending worth $225 million to the Yankees to help finance losses, provide working capital and consolidate debt.

The experts saw the acquisitions of Johnson, Alex Rodriguez and other marquee names as a strategy to keep nearly four million fans jamming Yankee Stadium annually, to keep the team winning and to keep YES ratings high."

In other words, an investment.

The Yankees are a $billion corporation and one of most recognizable brands in the world. They have other payroll expenses besides the players, but the players are the engine that drives the whole thing.

Would the CEO of any other $billion corporation skimp on his most important employees?

The year after setting attendance records, would any other owner pull in the reins?

I'm not saying it's "fair" or fosters a competitive balance in baseball. But everybody should stop acting so shocked. It would only be shocking if George stopped feeding the Monster.

I even heard Buster Olney on TV the other day claiming that if the Yankees don't win the WS this year, Steinbrenner will get fed up, make drastic cuts in payroll, and stop going after high-prized free agents. Just because Olney is shortsighted, doesn't mean Steinbrenner is.

Steinbrenner can't lose.

You know how everybody thinks Steinbrenner is obsessed with winning WS titles? He probably is to some degree, but he's undoubtedly more concerned with making money. Winning and revenue go hand in hand, of course, but as long as the Yankees make the playoffs ... ka-ching!

You know how everybody thinks that Steinbrenner has no ceiling to his payroll spending? Of course he does. It's known as "profit." $200 million on player's payroll sounds like a lot until you simply account for Yankee revenues.

It's not all that amazing that Steinbrenner puts his "own money" back into his team, and it's not a gracious gesture to the loyal fans. It's just investing:

"Just reaching the World Series brings the ultimate financial return, which, of course, motivates the big spenders. Not that winning hurts. It must be driving Steinbrenner nuts that the Yankees have gone four years without winning a World Series.

He will reach into his deep pockets to protect a franchise that has won 26 World Series, a record no one threatens. But he's not gambling. Fact is, he doesn't have much choice.

He owns the most valuable franchise in all of sports. The only way to maintain it is with money, and that's not a risk. It's a purely business decision, like selling shoes."

Thank you, Sid Dorfman. That was not so difficult to understand, was it?

Maybe Dorfman can send the memo to Buster Olney and Mike Lupica.


The only point that I would add is that Steinbrenner loves this Evil Empire stuff. He loves fostering Yankee hatred. He loves being Goliath.

Don't believe me? The Stormtrooper theme from Star Wars plays every home game before the Yankees take the field; the bickering press releases directed towards Red Sox ownership, and others; walking around the field in San Diego before the '98 World Series wearing a turtleneck, smiling and waving to the surfers and potheads in the stands.

Why does he enjoy it so much? Because Yankee-Hating just means more money for the George.

You got something nasty to say about George? Just spell the name right: it's "brenner" with two "n's."

Red Sox fans want to bus down to the Stadium and buy $90 tickets and spend $45 on beer and hot dogs? It's a small gesture, but thanks for your support. It won't help all that much in the scheme of things, but maybe we can use that extra cash to shore up the bullpen.

Ka-ching!

Paulie: Good. ARod: Bad.

Where's the love for Chuck Knoblauch? Four rings and only lost one playoff series in his life. Nobody can match that combination of winning% and quantity.

I'll tell you something, Chuck Knoblauch wouldn't let his team blow a 2-0 series lead in the playoffs to the Seattle Mariners like Paul O'Neill did.

Chuck Knoblauch: A True Yankee and a True Winner.

Oh, and at least Knoblauch hit some homeruns in the World Series, with the whole world watching, crunch time, when it all counts. Unlike some ballplayers.

Of course I'm not anti-O'Neill, no Yankee fan could be. I consider the O'Neill-for-Kelly trade to be a godsend, a watershed moment, he was undoubtedly a key figure in the recent Yankee dynasty.

But let's just apply the "Clutch" criteria evenly. O'Neill hit .261 with 0 hrs and 7 rbis in 92 WS at-bats. You didn't know that, you couldn't have. So many writers praise O'Neill so often that you naturally figured he was Reggie Jackson.


Miller's logic is rigged. Why did the O'Neill Yankees win? Guts, talent, and character:

"Oh yeah, and one other thing: Finding the proper, winning mix of guts, talent and character is nearly an impossible task when you're leading with your wallet."

(How does Scott Miller think the Yankees won four World Series in five years? They led with their wallet. How did the Red Sox win last year? They led with their wallet. I'm truly baffled by this pervasive revisionist history. For some reason, the Cone-for-Janzens deal didn't offend Scott Miller.)

When the post-O'Neill Yankees eventualy win the World Series? It obviously won't be because of guts, talent, and character. It's because of the payroll:

"Eventually, the Yankees will win another World Series - because at this rate, they soon will be a barnstorming major-league All-Star team buzzing through a minor-league schedule of Mud Hens, Lugnuts and Beavers each month."


As for the following anti-ARod nonsense? It didn't happen:

"There was a lesson there, one that crystallized when Rodriguez, in the throes of a disappointing October, reached out and feebly -- and illegally -- slapped at Bronson Arroyo on the first-base line as the Yankees were losing to Boston in the ALCS. The guy looked like an old lady slapping at a purse-snatcher."

ARod's "disappointing" postseason included a .421 batting average vs. Minnesota and 2 hrs vs. Boston.

Facts: 11 games, 50 at-bats, 16 hits, 5 doubles, 3 homeruns, 6 walks, 11 runs, 8 rbis.

.320 batting average, .393 on-base%, .600 slugging%.

That's "disappointing" according to Scott Miller. Everybody point at Scott Miller the "Baseball Writer" and laugh at him.

Every baseball fan knows the "slap" was a nice try, a smart play. It was "illegal" like blocking the plate is "illegal," like Reggie standing in the baseline was "illegal." Also, it was obviously a reaction play by ARod and it didn't work, the umps made the right call. But only a playa hata like Scott Miller would think that indicates a lack of character on ARod's part. Or that it somehow cost the Yankees the ALCS. That analysis is pathetic and absurd.

He's entitled to his personal opinions about ARod, I suppose ... "ARod looked like an old lady" ... but can't Miller at least look up the stats? It takes about one minute on the Internet. I know Miller's stupid, but at least be professional about your stupidity.

Jayson Stark's HOF Ballot.

On Boggs:

"We know there were voters who thought he wasn't a complete player, wasn't a team player, wasn't even a dominant player.

Well, luckily for them, this is America. They have a right to their opinion. It just happens to be ridiculous."

Stark makes the case for Boggs so strongly and so succinctly, that you don't have to think about whether or not Boggs wore enough eye-black.

Since this article is on ESPN's Page 2, it's unclear whether it's meant to be taken seriously in its entirety. Some of the candidates have a legitimate shot to make the HOF, some do not.

But if Eric Neel is going to vote for everybody from the '80s who played hard and had a bubblegum card, I would like to nominate Chris Sabo, Wally Joyner, Kent Hrbek, Brian Downing, and Garth Iorg. At the induction ceremony, maybe Mike Schmidt will ask them to polish his shoes.

Wade Boggs is a Hall of Famer, Don Mattingly is not.

It's just that simple, but John Harper doens't seem to think so:

"In fact, [Boggs'] stats are all the more impressive in review, and yet his appearance on the ballot has an impact in other ways.

At least it does for this voter. I've never been able to stretch Don Mattingly's career numbers enough to justify him as a Hall of Famer, even knowing they were curtailed by chronic back pain. Yet, I can't bring myself to vote for Boggs without voting for Mattingly."

That's actually quite an embarrassing admission. John Harper claims that Don Mattingly is not worthy of the HOF ... but now that Harper feels compelled to vote for Wade Boggs ... Mattingly is suddenly worthy of the HOF.

What the heck does Wade Boggs have to do with it? Mattingly is either worthy or he is not.

I personally believe Mattingly has received proper recognition. He has his number retired in Monument Park, which is a tribute to the love that Yankee fans have for him. That's a Yankee thang, but it's not a HOF thang. Mattingly simply did not put up Cooperstown numbers. This discussion could continue at length, and it has, believe me. But it's not the issue tonight.

"Boggs at his best was never as good as Mattingly at his best. When Boggs was hitting .368 in 1985, Mattingly was winning the AL MVP award, leading the league with 48 doubles and 145 RBI to go with a .324 batting average and 35 home runs."

1) That may be true, but Boggs was basically an on-base-percentage weapon. I'm personally a fan of the Big Fly, but if Boggs' two best seasons are examined (1987 and 1988, not 1985), Peak Boggs is pretty darn good. In fact, Mattingly never attained a slugging percentage in a single season that matches Boggs' .588 in 1987.

Don't forget the .461 ob%, 108 runs, 89 rbis, 24 hrs, 40 doubles, and 105 walks ... since we're talking about Peak Seasons and stuff.

2) More to the point, "Boggs at his best" might not have been as good as LOTS OF NON-HOF PLAYERS at their best.

Too many to even list, but off the top of my head: Jose Canseco, Albert Belle, Darryl Strawberry, Cecil Fielder, Juan Gonzalez, Carlos Baerga ... maybe even Lenny Dykstra, Brady Anderson, Jay Buhner, Jeff Burroughs, Mo Vaughn ... depending upon how small of a Peak Period we're willing to look at.

It's just a nonsensical way to compare the relative HOF eligibility of two players.

"As all of New York knows, Mattingly had a run of four years when he was considered perhaps the best in baseball. His brilliant defense maked him the definition of a complete ballplayer."

Dave Winfield once (in)famously disputed the notion that Mattingly was a complete player. Winfield was polite about the whole topic, but there seems to be little doubt that Winfield disliked Mattingly to some degree, possibly because Winfield felt slighted when the Yankee fans chose their Golden Boy in the batting title race in 1984.

Winfield once said that it cracked him up when Mattingly was described as a complete ballplayer. The five tools are hitting for average, hitting for power, fielding, throwing, and running. That is the definition of a complete ballplayer (as all of New York knows).

Mattingly could not run. Though he was a terrific fielder at first base, it's the least important and least difficult defensive position.

Mattingly could rake and he could play a great first base. He was a great ballplayer, an MVP-caliber player for several years, but not a complete ballplayer.


So what is the final decision-making criteria for John Harper? Well, you know, he liked Mattingly more:

"[Mattingly] was everything that was right about the game, from his work ethic to his unselfish style, even to his decision to retire rather than hang on for the sake of hanging on.

Boggs was Boggs - a self-absorbed player determined to leave a mark on the game as a great hitter."

In a nutshell, that's the problem with the Hall of Fame. The voters are not truly interested in voting for the best players or the players who accomplished the most. They just want to vote for their Favorite Players.

I mean, I suppose it's admirable that Harper admits to his own biases, but it's such a slippery slope that it demeans the whole process. The voters should not try to amplify their own biases, they should try to eliminate them. If Harper was writing for the Kansas City Star, does he make a case for for Willie Wilson, Hal McRae, and Larry Gura? They seem like righteous dudes.

Mattingly was a popular guy and a great player. It's okay if the "popular guy" part counts for something when voting for the HOF, I suppose. Subjectivity can't be totally eliminated; style ought to get you a few extra points. But you don't just go putting people in Cooperstown because they strike you as "unselfish."

Harper simply doesn't prove his case. It does not depend upon how one defines a Hall of Famer. Any reasonable way you slice it, it's not that difficult to reach the same conclusion: Boggs is a HOF'er and Mattingly is not.

Mike Lupica flunks arithmetic.

"The Yankees are about to pay a 41-year-old baseball pitcher $57 million over the next three years - that's factoring in the $9 million they had to pay to get rid of Vazquez - and will be shocked, shocked I tell you, if the Big Unit goes down with some big injury."

What does that even mean? Why not factor in the $9 mill per year they save by dumping Vazquez? You know, since we're factoring in things that are not Randy Johnson's salary.

As for the injury comment, one has to wonder why Lupica is so convinced that David Wells is worth $4 mill per year; and Pedro Martinez is worth almost as much as Randy Johnson; and the ever-popular Andrew Eugene Pettitte with the Bad Elbow is worth $13 mill per year.

In reality, the Yankees would not be shocked whatsoever if Randy Johnson gets injured. Everybody gets hurt in pro sports at one time or another, young and old. The question is whether or not Unit is worth the risk. The answer is, "of course he is."


When Lupica the Mentally Challenged claims that "about $125M more [was] spent by the Yankees since the Red Sox last won a World Series," do you believe him? Can you trust his numbers?

I truly wonder if he's remembering to subtract the salaries of Javier Vazquez, Miguel Cairo, Jon Lieber, Kenny Lofton, John Olerud, etc.

Without context ... without simple arithmetic ... Lupica's assertion has absolutely zero meaning.

"You know who can assemble a team the way the 2005 Yankees are being assembled?

Anybody.

You know who ought to get fired if they don't win going away?

Everybody.

That's one way of looking at things, of course.

The other way, the one that gets all Yankee fans to think you're swell (and substantially cuts down on the phone calls to the office from Very Spooky Fans), is this:

Only the United Way spends money in a more noble fashion than George Steinbrenner does."

No, no, no, no, a thousand times, no. There are plenty of other ways to look at it, thank you very much.

Lupica thinks that Yankee fans are supposed to be embarrassed about the team's payroll. In order to deal with this guilt, we're all forced to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that the Yankees are noble somehow (sounds like a Red Sox fan to me, though the phenomenon exists to some extent in NYY fandom, for sure).

Steinbrenner & Cashman aren't "swell" and they aren't "noble." I don't ask them to be, do you? They're just businessmen takin' care of their business.

If the Yankee brass are geniuses in any way, it's in two areas: (1) Understanding their bargaining leverage in certain situations, and (2) patiently and unashamedly exploiting that advantage. But that hardly makes them geniuses, even in MLB GM terms.

If small men like Lupica choose to be offended, Cashmans' job is to offend them (Lupica's hypocrisy makes his faux indignation difficult to take seriously; he's just mad that the big bucks are no longer being spent on his puppy love crushes like Cone and O'Neill and Pettitte).

Does anybody really benefit if the Yankees cut their payroll in half and win 80 games? The Machine grinds to a halt in the name of "fairness" and "parity"? Maybe Mike Lupica would feel some smug satisfaction, but the Yankees would rather win 100 games and draw 4 million ... and make lots of cash money.

If one understands the basics, then one realizes that not everybody can assemble a team like the 2005 Yankees. Why? Because not everybody generates the revenue.

The Yankees are neither noble nor ignoble, they're neither geniuses nor idiots. They're just investors.

See how that works? Assets paired with liabilities, credits paired with debits, income paired with expenses. It's not too difficult to understand, but you'd first have to understand basic math.

Speaking of investing, Idiot George bought the Yankees for $10 mill in 1973. They're now worth about $1 bill (with a "b").

I wouldn't expect Mike Lupica to be able to figure out the annualized rate of return, since he can not even grasp basic arithmetic, but it's even higher than Tanyon Sturtze's career ERA.