Can't argue with Shaun Powell, but I absolutely think Dominant Unit is coming soon.
Unit says he typically gets stronger as the year progresses and his career stats support this notion. Unit's fastball seems to have more MPH each start and he has already shown that his slider can still be unhittable.
So, while Unit has not been dominating against the Red Sox (2-0, 4.26) or the rest of the league (3-3, 3.88), he has been pretty good and better things seem to be on the way.
I'm not 100% sure Pedro would have come to the Yankees. It's impossible to know for sure. I also don't know if the Yankees could have afforded every starting pitcher they wanted.
If forced to choose, I'd have probably taken Pedro over Unit (ignoring all that Who's Your Daddy nonsense).
Then I'd trade Kevin Brown for Roger Clemens and Carl Pavano for Tim Hudson. Now the rotation is set.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Clemens suddenly a big-game pitcher.
In 2001, when Roger Clemens had a record of 20 wins and 1 loss (before finishing the season 20-3 and winning the Cy Young), Mike Lupica tried to convince the reading public that Clemens did not deserve the Cy Young Award and his record was mainly because of run support and weak competition. You remember how Joe Torre supposedly kept Clemens out of the tough games and, besides, Clemens supposedly could never win a big game.
It was one of the most embarrassing displays of so-called sports journalism I've ever seen. I wish I had a blog at the time just so I could look at the archives and get revved up.
Lupica's theory ignored the fact that Clemens ended the season 3-2 vs. Tampa Bay and 17-1 vs. Everybody Else.
It truly was an amazing experience to see Clemens get criticized for receiving run support by the same people who didn't bother checking Mark Mulder's run support and who didn't care about, say, Andy Pettitte's level of competition in 1996.
It was all unheard-of logic because it was created solely by Clemens-Haters.
Mike Lupica was the chief culprit of this diseased thinking. Now he's suddenly Rocket's Biggest Fanboy.
The Yankees are not getting Clemens back. He will be too expensive and, as Lupica himself describes in his article, there is no particular reason to think Clemens can match this kind of success in the American League, particularly against a lineup like Boston's.
Mock Unit all you want for "keeping 'em close" on Friday night. In retrospect, his game looked like a masterpiece compared to Pavano's and Mussina's.
With or without Clemens, the Red Sox are going to be tough to beat. Because the Red Sox are good and stuff.
While it's hard to argue with Lupica's Red Sox accolades -- they are the world champs for a reason -- I'm still forced to take pause and wonder why Ortiz's moonshots get such masturbatory attention:
"Oh, sure. On consecutive at-bats, Ortiz first hit an upper-deck home run that tried to make it out of the Stadium, then hit one into the area in center known as 'the black.' The first one actually was more impressive. Both Ortiz and Jorge Posada tilted their heads all the way back and watched the flight of the ball as if studying some kind of sudden lunar eclipse."
ARod has 17 homeruns and I've only seen Lupica mention them in passing. Last Sunday, for example, while mocking ARod's therapy and graciously comparing ARod favorably to Mike Cameron.
Stuff like "Alex Rodriguez hit a bunch of home runs this week" and pointing out that Mike Cameron has "had a month as good as anybody in town, at least this side of A-Rod."
Ho-hum. Most Valuable Player. Triple Crown Candidate. Possibly the first Yankee in his lifetime to hit 50 homeruns.
Yawn. Let's talk about Jaret Wright or David Ortiz instead.
This sort of blind journalism begs the question: Mike Lupica, do you ... love the Red Sox?
I don't mean love like, "I really love the Red Sox! Go, team, go!"
I mean ... do you love the Red Sox ... in an unnatural way?
In your dreams, do you make love to the Red Sox? Do you accidentally shout out Theo Epstein's name during moments of ecstasy?
One more point:
The Yankees should not be ridiculed for going 16-2 against bad teams. The Red Sox just lost series to Oakland, Seattle, and Toronto. Baltimore just got swept by Detroit after the Yankees swept Detroit -- a virtual three-game gain in the standings.
The Yankees always make the playoffs by beating up on bad teams. These games are very important, especially since the Yankees started off 11-19 and were left for dead.
Before Lupica starts setting the Yankees' playoff rotation, they'll need to make the playoffs first. The only way that's going to happen is if they dominate the bottom-feeders.
It was one of the most embarrassing displays of so-called sports journalism I've ever seen. I wish I had a blog at the time just so I could look at the archives and get revved up.
Lupica's theory ignored the fact that Clemens ended the season 3-2 vs. Tampa Bay and 17-1 vs. Everybody Else.
It truly was an amazing experience to see Clemens get criticized for receiving run support by the same people who didn't bother checking Mark Mulder's run support and who didn't care about, say, Andy Pettitte's level of competition in 1996.
It was all unheard-of logic because it was created solely by Clemens-Haters.
Mike Lupica was the chief culprit of this diseased thinking. Now he's suddenly Rocket's Biggest Fanboy.
The Yankees are not getting Clemens back. He will be too expensive and, as Lupica himself describes in his article, there is no particular reason to think Clemens can match this kind of success in the American League, particularly against a lineup like Boston's.
Mock Unit all you want for "keeping 'em close" on Friday night. In retrospect, his game looked like a masterpiece compared to Pavano's and Mussina's.
With or without Clemens, the Red Sox are going to be tough to beat. Because the Red Sox are good and stuff.
While it's hard to argue with Lupica's Red Sox accolades -- they are the world champs for a reason -- I'm still forced to take pause and wonder why Ortiz's moonshots get such masturbatory attention:
"Oh, sure. On consecutive at-bats, Ortiz first hit an upper-deck home run that tried to make it out of the Stadium, then hit one into the area in center known as 'the black.' The first one actually was more impressive. Both Ortiz and Jorge Posada tilted their heads all the way back and watched the flight of the ball as if studying some kind of sudden lunar eclipse."
ARod has 17 homeruns and I've only seen Lupica mention them in passing. Last Sunday, for example, while mocking ARod's therapy and graciously comparing ARod favorably to Mike Cameron.
Stuff like "Alex Rodriguez hit a bunch of home runs this week" and pointing out that Mike Cameron has "had a month as good as anybody in town, at least this side of A-Rod."
Ho-hum. Most Valuable Player. Triple Crown Candidate. Possibly the first Yankee in his lifetime to hit 50 homeruns.
Yawn. Let's talk about Jaret Wright or David Ortiz instead.
This sort of blind journalism begs the question: Mike Lupica, do you ... love the Red Sox?
I don't mean love like, "I really love the Red Sox! Go, team, go!"
I mean ... do you love the Red Sox ... in an unnatural way?
In your dreams, do you make love to the Red Sox? Do you accidentally shout out Theo Epstein's name during moments of ecstasy?
One more point:
The Yankees should not be ridiculed for going 16-2 against bad teams. The Red Sox just lost series to Oakland, Seattle, and Toronto. Baltimore just got swept by Detroit after the Yankees swept Detroit -- a virtual three-game gain in the standings.
The Yankees always make the playoffs by beating up on bad teams. These games are very important, especially since the Yankees started off 11-19 and were left for dead.
Before Lupica starts setting the Yankees' playoff rotation, they'll need to make the playoffs first. The only way that's going to happen is if they dominate the bottom-feeders.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Who you calling "sensitive," beeyotch?
Kool Willie loses his Kool:
"In a bizarre pregame session, Randolph had chastised reporters for not listening to him and for criticism he believed he has received for sitting Cliff Floyd early this month, when he was riding a 20-game hitting streak. The left fielder was batting .391 when he sat out a May 4 game against the Philadelphia Phillies at Shea Stadium. He went hitless the next night and has struggled since.
'According to certain people, I put him in a slump because I sat him down,' said Randolph. 'Just so everybody knows, just to make it official because you guys run with (stuff) all the time, I didn't sit him down. ... Why would I give a guy with a 20-game hitting streak a day off?' "
Oh, (stuff)!
"Certain people" best not be messin' with Kool Willie!
"I'm not being sensitive either," he said. "Coming in, that was one of my labels. I just want it told straight."
Obviously, you're not being sensitive. Who said sensitive? Did I say sensitive?
We know Kool Willie doesn't care what the press says because he brought in Mr. Koo a week ago and that proved that he doesn't care what the press says.
But, you know, since he wants it told straight, can I ask him one question? Please don't kill me, Mr. Randolph, sir.
If your team just lost four out of five (now five out of six) to the Yankees and the Braves, and your team is now in fourth place ... ummm, how can I put this delicately?
Why the (heck) are you bringing up this Cliff Floyd (stuff) from three weeks ago? You know, since you're not sensitive and whatnot?
"In a bizarre pregame session, Randolph had chastised reporters for not listening to him and for criticism he believed he has received for sitting Cliff Floyd early this month, when he was riding a 20-game hitting streak. The left fielder was batting .391 when he sat out a May 4 game against the Philadelphia Phillies at Shea Stadium. He went hitless the next night and has struggled since.
'According to certain people, I put him in a slump because I sat him down,' said Randolph. 'Just so everybody knows, just to make it official because you guys run with (stuff) all the time, I didn't sit him down. ... Why would I give a guy with a 20-game hitting streak a day off?' "
Oh, (stuff)!
"Certain people" best not be messin' with Kool Willie!
"I'm not being sensitive either," he said. "Coming in, that was one of my labels. I just want it told straight."
Obviously, you're not being sensitive. Who said sensitive? Did I say sensitive?
We know Kool Willie doesn't care what the press says because he brought in Mr. Koo a week ago and that proved that he doesn't care what the press says.
But, you know, since he wants it told straight, can I ask him one question? Please don't kill me, Mr. Randolph, sir.
If your team just lost four out of five (now five out of six) to the Yankees and the Braves, and your team is now in fourth place ... ummm, how can I put this delicately?
Why the (heck) are you bringing up this Cliff Floyd (stuff) from three weeks ago? You know, since you're not sensitive and whatnot?
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Omar Minaya es un genio, parte dos.
Mas prueba del genio de Omar Minaya es el "center fielder" de los Neuvo Mets.
Cuando comparisimo el otro "center fielder" especialamente.
Que tu dijo? .302, 6, 25 y uno base robada es similar a .328, 6, 22 y tres bases robada?
Aye! Carajo! Tu no comprendes beisbol!
Carlos Beltran does so much more than hit homeruns and steal bases. (I should say, "steal base.") Carlos Beltran does something every game to help his team win. He is one of the few true five-tool players in the league and brings instant back-page credibility to the Mets.
So what if Brady Clark and others provide the same offensive production at a fraction of the salary? They didn't hit eight homeruns in the playoffs last year and they don't bring the intangibles of a marquee name. In other words, Brady Clark does not have the latino flava that could lead his $100 million team to a .500 record in a multicultural community like Queens.
Excuseme.
Cuando yo estoy enojado, yo hablo ingles.
Cuando comparisimo el otro "center fielder" especialamente.
Que tu dijo? .302, 6, 25 y uno base robada es similar a .328, 6, 22 y tres bases robada?
Aye! Carajo! Tu no comprendes beisbol!
Carlos Beltran does so much more than hit homeruns and steal bases. (I should say, "steal base.") Carlos Beltran does something every game to help his team win. He is one of the few true five-tool players in the league and brings instant back-page credibility to the Mets.
So what if Brady Clark and others provide the same offensive production at a fraction of the salary? They didn't hit eight homeruns in the playoffs last year and they don't bring the intangibles of a marquee name. In other words, Brady Clark does not have the latino flava that could lead his $100 million team to a .500 record in a multicultural community like Queens.
Excuseme.
Cuando yo estoy enojado, yo hablo ingles.
George Steinbrenner sparks another existential crisis.
I honestly don't get it.
Did people really believe George Steinbrenner was a robot? Hasn't anybody noticed that the Angry Lunatic George has been an outdated paradigm for at least ten years? Were Raissman and Howard clinging to the image of a fiery George ca. 1981, so they were completely caught off guard when they noticed that the man "suddenly" grew old and frail?
Naturally, Steinbrenner isn't as sharp and vital as he was thirty years ago. Nobody is. People grow old and they slow down.
The hairline slowly recedes, the belt buckle slowly expands, you can't remember the name of that guy you were friends with in college.
Snap you fingers and you're old, fat, bald, and stupid.
Life's a bitch and then you die.
But I don't understand why George Steinbrenner, of all people, would be the catalyst for these existential revelations. Why not the President? Or the Pope? Or Supreme Court Justices? I'll bet Steinbrenner could beat them all in a game of bid whist.
Hey, Steinbrenner looks pretty good to me. Don't listen to these young whippersnapper playa hatas, George. You look pretty good to Felz, even if Hideki Irabu was a bad signing and you never should have traded Rickey.
Talk about senile: Luis Polonia, Eric Plunk, and Greg Cadaret? Eric Plunk and Greg Cadaret? You know, we still haven't found a good leftfielder, you putz. You senile old putz! Why'd you trade Rickey?!
But I digress.
If I make it to 74 and can be as healthy and acute as George Steinbrenner, I'll sign up for it right now.
Did people really believe George Steinbrenner was a robot? Hasn't anybody noticed that the Angry Lunatic George has been an outdated paradigm for at least ten years? Were Raissman and Howard clinging to the image of a fiery George ca. 1981, so they were completely caught off guard when they noticed that the man "suddenly" grew old and frail?
Naturally, Steinbrenner isn't as sharp and vital as he was thirty years ago. Nobody is. People grow old and they slow down.
The hairline slowly recedes, the belt buckle slowly expands, you can't remember the name of that guy you were friends with in college.
Snap you fingers and you're old, fat, bald, and stupid.
Life's a bitch and then you die.
But I don't understand why George Steinbrenner, of all people, would be the catalyst for these existential revelations. Why not the President? Or the Pope? Or Supreme Court Justices? I'll bet Steinbrenner could beat them all in a game of bid whist.
Hey, Steinbrenner looks pretty good to me. Don't listen to these young whippersnapper playa hatas, George. You look pretty good to Felz, even if Hideki Irabu was a bad signing and you never should have traded Rickey.
Talk about senile: Luis Polonia, Eric Plunk, and Greg Cadaret? Eric Plunk and Greg Cadaret? You know, we still haven't found a good leftfielder, you putz. You senile old putz! Why'd you trade Rickey?!
But I digress.
If I make it to 74 and can be as healthy and acute as George Steinbrenner, I'll sign up for it right now.
Omar Minaya es un genio.
Los Nuevo Mets son en ... come se dice "fourth place?" ... "cuerto lugar."
Pero, el ultimo prueba del genio de Omar Minaya es el "first baseman" de los Neuvo Mets.
Cuando comparisimo el otro "first baseman" especialamente.
.200 es malo y .322 es bueno? No! Tu no comprendes beisbol!
Doug M. is such a good infielder, he gives the young Mets infielders confidence, and that's important!
Didn't you even watch the Subway Series? Didn't you see how much confidence the Mets infielders possess on ground balls and line drives? Don't you know that if Carlos Delgado was their first baseman, then the Mets would probably make a lot of errors?
Excuseme.
Cuando yo estoy enojado, yo hablo ingles.
Pero, el ultimo prueba del genio de Omar Minaya es el "first baseman" de los Neuvo Mets.
Cuando comparisimo el otro "first baseman" especialamente.
.200 es malo y .322 es bueno? No! Tu no comprendes beisbol!
Doug M. is such a good infielder, he gives the young Mets infielders confidence, and that's important!
Didn't you even watch the Subway Series? Didn't you see how much confidence the Mets infielders possess on ground balls and line drives? Don't you know that if Carlos Delgado was their first baseman, then the Mets would probably make a lot of errors?
Excuseme.
Cuando yo estoy enojado, yo hablo ingles.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
At long last, Bob Raissman, have you left no sense of decency?
Jeez, Bob Raissman, the Michael Kay interview of George Steinbrenner wasn't that bad:
"During his lengthy chat with Michael Kay, Steinbrenner too was a shell of himself. The steely stare has given way to hollow eyes. Arrogance and bluster replaced by the tinny-toned voice of a grandfather suddenly awakened from a nap.
No energy.
No animation.
Steinbrenner was not registering. He seemed incapable of getting in-depth or offering details. This was a session of stock answers and repetition.
...
It did not matter what Steinbrenner was asked. Just hearing him answer the questions and seeing how he looked while answering made this interview eerie and, in a bizarre sense, compelling. This is a man who clearly has lost his fastball.
The interview was revealing, all right.
A revelation in sadness.
...
On Sunday, Steinbrenner's demeanor and performace did not fit that description. There, on the big screen, sitting in a large leather chair fiddling with his glasses, trying to remember moments and answer questions, Steinbrenner just looked small.
And sad. "
Repetitive, nonsensical, insincere, and illogical? Who does George Steinbrenner think he is? Joe Torre?
Seriously, I challenge Bob Raissman to scour a month's worth of Willie Randolph interviews and find a single utterance that makes any sense. Talk about repetitive, Willie Randolph sounds like a man with Tourette's syndrome.
Do me a favor, Bob Raissman: Rent "Rain Man" and closely watch the performance by Dustin Hoffman. Now, next time you hear Randolph give an interview, replace "We played well enough to win" or "We look forward to the upcoming series" with "Wapner on in ten minutes" or "I get my boxer shorts at K-Mart," and you'll see the connection.
What was Raissman expecting from George Steinbrenner during an interview with Michael Kay? Was he expecting Steinbrenner to act like the crazy man? Wild-eyed and belligerent? Play Frankenowner, which is mostly an outdated creation of the NY tabloids?
Then, when Steinbrenner doesn't act like a crazy man, it's "sad"?
Steinbrenner didn't act any more senile than just about every celebrity interview I've ever seen. He didn't act any more senile than Cameron Diaz when she's forced to sit through an interview with Harry Smith. He didn't act any more senile than anything I've ever seen on "The Insider."
I didn't watch the entire Steinbrenner interview on Centerstage, but from what I saw, it just seemed like typical Centerstage garbage. Michael Kay is untalented, boring, and whenever he brings up Don Mattingly, I think he might pull down his pants right there.
If Raissman thinks Kay treats Steinbrenner with kid gloves -- and he does -- then Raissman should watch the Dennis Rodman interview. When it's finished, Raissman might be tempted to nominate Dennis Rodman for Governor.
I challenge any human being on this planet to sit through the Kevin Costner, Red Auerbach, and Chris Evert interviews on Centerstage back to back to back (and a belly to belly to belly). If you can survive this test, you qualify for the Navy SEALs.
Raissman interprets bad TV as biased TV, but that's because he's looking too hard for Al Yankzeera offenses. Centerstage is always bad, but it's equal opportunity vapidity.
Look, it was bad television, no doubt. A bad interviewer and a bad interviewee does not make for compelling viewing. Steinbrenner has been convicted of federal crimes and I'm quite sure that Michael Kay did not deliver a balanced, hard-hitting approach. While being interviewed on the TV station that he owns, George Steinbrenner probably sidestepped questions about Richard Nixon and Howard Spira.
So, while I disagree with Raissman's overall assessment of Steinbrenner's performance, I have a bigger gripe with Raissman:
If Raissman really believes that the Centerstage interview is proof of Steinbrenner's declining mental health and vitality, then Raissman should lay off. Perhaps Raissman should show a little class and respect his elders.
Maybe Steinbrenner has the tinny-toned voice of a grandfather because he happens to be a grandfather with a tinny-toned voice. The guy is 74 years old, for Chrissakes. Lots of 74-year-old men would do a lot worse than fiddle with their glasses.
What was the big revelation that offends Raissman so deeply, anyway? Steinbrenner committed a crime simply by growing old?
Don't take it personally, Bob. If you're lucky, you'll grow old, too. Growing old is not fun for anybody, but it beats the alternative.
"During his lengthy chat with Michael Kay, Steinbrenner too was a shell of himself. The steely stare has given way to hollow eyes. Arrogance and bluster replaced by the tinny-toned voice of a grandfather suddenly awakened from a nap.
No energy.
No animation.
Steinbrenner was not registering. He seemed incapable of getting in-depth or offering details. This was a session of stock answers and repetition.
...
It did not matter what Steinbrenner was asked. Just hearing him answer the questions and seeing how he looked while answering made this interview eerie and, in a bizarre sense, compelling. This is a man who clearly has lost his fastball.
The interview was revealing, all right.
A revelation in sadness.
...
On Sunday, Steinbrenner's demeanor and performace did not fit that description. There, on the big screen, sitting in a large leather chair fiddling with his glasses, trying to remember moments and answer questions, Steinbrenner just looked small.
And sad. "
Repetitive, nonsensical, insincere, and illogical? Who does George Steinbrenner think he is? Joe Torre?
Seriously, I challenge Bob Raissman to scour a month's worth of Willie Randolph interviews and find a single utterance that makes any sense. Talk about repetitive, Willie Randolph sounds like a man with Tourette's syndrome.
Do me a favor, Bob Raissman: Rent "Rain Man" and closely watch the performance by Dustin Hoffman. Now, next time you hear Randolph give an interview, replace "We played well enough to win" or "We look forward to the upcoming series" with "Wapner on in ten minutes" or "I get my boxer shorts at K-Mart," and you'll see the connection.
What was Raissman expecting from George Steinbrenner during an interview with Michael Kay? Was he expecting Steinbrenner to act like the crazy man? Wild-eyed and belligerent? Play Frankenowner, which is mostly an outdated creation of the NY tabloids?
Then, when Steinbrenner doesn't act like a crazy man, it's "sad"?
Steinbrenner didn't act any more senile than just about every celebrity interview I've ever seen. He didn't act any more senile than Cameron Diaz when she's forced to sit through an interview with Harry Smith. He didn't act any more senile than anything I've ever seen on "The Insider."
I didn't watch the entire Steinbrenner interview on Centerstage, but from what I saw, it just seemed like typical Centerstage garbage. Michael Kay is untalented, boring, and whenever he brings up Don Mattingly, I think he might pull down his pants right there.
If Raissman thinks Kay treats Steinbrenner with kid gloves -- and he does -- then Raissman should watch the Dennis Rodman interview. When it's finished, Raissman might be tempted to nominate Dennis Rodman for Governor.
I challenge any human being on this planet to sit through the Kevin Costner, Red Auerbach, and Chris Evert interviews on Centerstage back to back to back (and a belly to belly to belly). If you can survive this test, you qualify for the Navy SEALs.
Raissman interprets bad TV as biased TV, but that's because he's looking too hard for Al Yankzeera offenses. Centerstage is always bad, but it's equal opportunity vapidity.
Look, it was bad television, no doubt. A bad interviewer and a bad interviewee does not make for compelling viewing. Steinbrenner has been convicted of federal crimes and I'm quite sure that Michael Kay did not deliver a balanced, hard-hitting approach. While being interviewed on the TV station that he owns, George Steinbrenner probably sidestepped questions about Richard Nixon and Howard Spira.
So, while I disagree with Raissman's overall assessment of Steinbrenner's performance, I have a bigger gripe with Raissman:
If Raissman really believes that the Centerstage interview is proof of Steinbrenner's declining mental health and vitality, then Raissman should lay off. Perhaps Raissman should show a little class and respect his elders.
Maybe Steinbrenner has the tinny-toned voice of a grandfather because he happens to be a grandfather with a tinny-toned voice. The guy is 74 years old, for Chrissakes. Lots of 74-year-old men would do a lot worse than fiddle with their glasses.
What was the big revelation that offends Raissman so deeply, anyway? Steinbrenner committed a crime simply by growing old?
Don't take it personally, Bob. If you're lucky, you'll grow old, too. Growing old is not fun for anybody, but it beats the alternative.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Mrs. Williams gets nostalgic.
Steve Politi ignores the entire weekend ... no, he ignores the entire season ... in an embarrassing display of nostalgia that supposedly passes for sports journalism:
"And still, there are always moments when the Yankees have a runner on base with two outs in a tie game, desperately needing a clutch hit to bring in the run.
Moments when you ask yourself this: If you are the Yankees, whom would you rather have at-bat?
The washed-up Bernie?
The incredible shrinking Giambi?
Or even the in-his-prime A-Rod?
If you answered Jason Giambi, a representative from Congress is waiting for you in the back room with a sample cup. If you answered Alex Rodriguez, well, thank you for reading, Mrs. Rodriguez.
...
Or Torre could even watch the highlights from this game yesterday, the latest example of Giambi looking small and A-Rod coming up small, and another moment in which Williams -- even with bat speed that might not register on a wind vane -- delivers. "
Alex Rodriguez showed up this weekend, and was the only Yankee batter who showed up.
Alex Rodriguez did not come up small, he just had a bad at-bat in the eighth innning. It was one of his few unsuccessful at-bats of the series so, naturally, Steve Politi chooses to focus on it.
Alex Rodriguez had 5 hits in 9 at-bats and was also walked 5 times. That's a batting average of "damn good" and an on-base percentage of "really damn good."
For the season, Alex Rodriguez is batting .310 and he leads the league in homeruns. Alex Rodriguez also leads the league in runs batted in (like his clutch rbi single off Pedro yesterday). Alex Rodriguez also leads the league in runs scored. So, he's good.
Bernie Williams is hitting .236 for the season and his days of consistenly hitting .300 are long gone. A big hit here and there doesn't change that.
Who do I want batting with the game on the line? Between ARod and Bernie?
The answer is, "ARod, any day of the week."
If you answered Bernie, well, thank you for writing, Mrs. Williams.
"And still, there are always moments when the Yankees have a runner on base with two outs in a tie game, desperately needing a clutch hit to bring in the run.
Moments when you ask yourself this: If you are the Yankees, whom would you rather have at-bat?
The washed-up Bernie?
The incredible shrinking Giambi?
Or even the in-his-prime A-Rod?
If you answered Jason Giambi, a representative from Congress is waiting for you in the back room with a sample cup. If you answered Alex Rodriguez, well, thank you for reading, Mrs. Rodriguez.
...
Or Torre could even watch the highlights from this game yesterday, the latest example of Giambi looking small and A-Rod coming up small, and another moment in which Williams -- even with bat speed that might not register on a wind vane -- delivers. "
Alex Rodriguez showed up this weekend, and was the only Yankee batter who showed up.
Alex Rodriguez did not come up small, he just had a bad at-bat in the eighth innning. It was one of his few unsuccessful at-bats of the series so, naturally, Steve Politi chooses to focus on it.
Alex Rodriguez had 5 hits in 9 at-bats and was also walked 5 times. That's a batting average of "damn good" and an on-base percentage of "really damn good."
For the season, Alex Rodriguez is batting .310 and he leads the league in homeruns. Alex Rodriguez also leads the league in runs batted in (like his clutch rbi single off Pedro yesterday). Alex Rodriguez also leads the league in runs scored. So, he's good.
Bernie Williams is hitting .236 for the season and his days of consistenly hitting .300 are long gone. A big hit here and there doesn't change that.
Who do I want batting with the game on the line? Between ARod and Bernie?
The answer is, "ARod, any day of the week."
If you answered Bernie, well, thank you for writing, Mrs. Williams.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens ...
Awww. Isn't George Steinbrenner the sweetest guy?
Even mean old Bob Raissman's heartstrings are surely tugged as he eagerly anticipates the television event of the year:
Movie: "Pride of the Yankees. I love Gary Cooper."
Song: "Anything by Sinatra."
Food: "Chow mein."
Late-night snack. "A burger at P.J. Clarke's ... calzone and White Castles and Krispy Kremes (which he gets delivered to the stadium.)"
TV show: "Mary Tyler Moore."
Vacation spot: "Florida".
Moment in baseball: "Standing in Cincinnati when we finally made it to the World Series (in 1976, three years after buying the team)."
Even mean old Bob Raissman's heartstrings are surely tugged as he eagerly anticipates the television event of the year:
Movie: "Pride of the Yankees. I love Gary Cooper."
Song: "Anything by Sinatra."
Food: "Chow mein."
Late-night snack. "A burger at P.J. Clarke's ... calzone and White Castles and Krispy Kremes (which he gets delivered to the stadium.)"
TV show: "Mary Tyler Moore."
Vacation spot: "Florida".
Moment in baseball: "Standing in Cincinnati when we finally made it to the World Series (in 1976, three years after buying the team)."
Mr. Randolph brings in lefty pitcher to face lefty batters.
"With the Mets holding a 2-1 lead, Randolph felt it was wrong to bring in Looper to start the ninth, even though such practice has become something of an ironclad rule in baseball over the last 20 years - or since Tony LaRussa and Dennis Eckersley turned the role of closer into a one-inning job.
With three lefthanded hitters due up for the Reds, Randolph thought it was best to go with the lefthander, Koo. It was a risk at least partly because Koo is still largely unproven as a late-inning commodity against major-league hitters.
Let me start by saying that Mr. Harper should not refer to Dae-Sung Koo as "Koo." It's "Mr. Koo," even for members of the big, bad media. If Fran Healy can call him Mr. Koo, then so can you!
I can not believe this managerial move by Mr. Randolph is garnering so much attention and so much praise. It's not as if Mr. Randolph bypassed Grover Cleveland Alexander; he bypassed Braden Looper.
The Eckersley Rule is not ironclad by any means. It's only ironclad if you have a closer like Mr. Eckersley.
The Mets won the game, but Mr. Koo was removed from the game with only one out and two runners on base. That may not be Mr. Randolph's fault, but it still put Mr. Looper in quite a bind. It also made me wonder what the press reaction will be when Mr. Randolph makes a managerial decision that actually works.
With three lefthanded hitters due up for the Reds, Randolph thought it was best to go with the lefthander, Koo. It was a risk at least partly because Koo is still largely unproven as a late-inning commodity against major-league hitters.
...
The fact that it nearly cost the Mets a ninth-inning lead, as Randolph bypassed closer Braden Looper for Dae-Sung Koo, isn't the point. It's that he had the nerve to try it."
Let me start by saying that Mr. Harper should not refer to Dae-Sung Koo as "Koo." It's "Mr. Koo," even for members of the big, bad media. If Fran Healy can call him Mr. Koo, then so can you!
I can not believe this managerial move by Mr. Randolph is garnering so much attention and so much praise. It's not as if Mr. Randolph bypassed Grover Cleveland Alexander; he bypassed Braden Looper.
The Eckersley Rule is not ironclad by any means. It's only ironclad if you have a closer like Mr. Eckersley.
The Mets won the game, but Mr. Koo was removed from the game with only one out and two runners on base. That may not be Mr. Randolph's fault, but it still put Mr. Looper in quite a bind. It also made me wonder what the press reaction will be when Mr. Randolph makes a managerial decision that actually works.
Clemens Staying in Houston.
Mike Lupica ponders what the Yankees will trade to Houston in their obsessive pursuit of Roger Clemens:
"Do they give up Robinson Cano, perhaps the first middle infielder produced by their farm system since Derek Jeter? Do they trade Chien-Ming Wang, who has a chance to be the first starter they have developed since Pettitte was a kid? Just when their farm system seems to have produced at least snapshots of an actual future, do the Yankees trade it away?"
Short answer to these questions: No.
First of all, Clemens is not going to say goodbye to his boyfriend in Houston.
As Lupica points out, the price to get Clemens for half a season -- the payroll price and the trade price -- would be way, way, WAY too high.
Also, as Lupica points out, even the addition of Clemens hardly guarantees a World Series victory (can the Yankees get out of fourth place before we start thinking about their World Series rotation?). No single player guarantees a World Series victory.
Do the Yankees really have a history of trading away their promising youth for expensive, short-term solutions?
"Who's the biggest name? Who costs the most?
Get him.
This time the biggest name out there could be Clemens. Stay tuned. It will be interesting to see if the Yankees look to stack the deck again. And give away young for old. Everybody knows how well that's worked out for them over the last four years, at least in the end."
Who is Lupica referring to? Who is the big name the Yankees have added to their roster in the last four years? Esteban Loaiza? Karim Garcia?
See, I'm trying to be very specific here. Because I think Lupica is talking about mid-season deals, trade-deadline deals. Lupica implies that the Yankees have a habit of trading away their farm system for a short-term, pennant race fix.
But what trades is he talking about? Is he still referring to Ken Phelps?
If Lupica is talking about off-season deals, then it's a different story. Mussina, Giambi, ARod, Vazquez (say, can we get Nick Johnson back?), Contreras, Matsui, etc., etc., etc. Big names, big money.
But from the gist of his article, I think he's talking about mid-season deals. The Yankees could have made many of these types of deals -- Sosa, Griffey, Maddux, etc. -- but the Yankees seldom pull the trigger.
In '95 and '96 the Yankees added two huge players mid-season: David Cone and Cecil Fielder. Pretty big names, pretty big money, the Yankees probably don't win the World Series in '96 without 'em.
So, these mid-season deals worked out fine, even if the Yankees had to face the new century without Marty Janzen.
Since Cecil Fielder, what are the big deadline deals for the Yankees?
I can only think of the 2000 pickups (and the Yankees won the World Series that year, too): Jose Canseco was picked up on waivers, cost the Yankees nada; David Justice was huge in 2000, cost the Yankees Ledee and Westbrook (Lupica wants to throw a nutty about Jake Westbrook? Fair enough, I suppose); Denny Neagle was so-so in 2000, cost the Yankees Ed Yarnall.
Canseco, Justice, and Neagle. Kinda big, I suppose. Kinda expensive, I suppose. But hardly the biggest and most expensive.
Since then? The four years where the Yankee Big Name Big Money Trade Deadline deals supposedly haven't worked out?
They haven't made any Big Name Big Money Trade Deadline deals.
"Do they give up Robinson Cano, perhaps the first middle infielder produced by their farm system since Derek Jeter? Do they trade Chien-Ming Wang, who has a chance to be the first starter they have developed since Pettitte was a kid? Just when their farm system seems to have produced at least snapshots of an actual future, do the Yankees trade it away?"
Short answer to these questions: No.
First of all, Clemens is not going to say goodbye to his boyfriend in Houston.
As Lupica points out, the price to get Clemens for half a season -- the payroll price and the trade price -- would be way, way, WAY too high.
Also, as Lupica points out, even the addition of Clemens hardly guarantees a World Series victory (can the Yankees get out of fourth place before we start thinking about their World Series rotation?). No single player guarantees a World Series victory.
Do the Yankees really have a history of trading away their promising youth for expensive, short-term solutions?
"Who's the biggest name? Who costs the most?
Get him.
This time the biggest name out there could be Clemens. Stay tuned. It will be interesting to see if the Yankees look to stack the deck again. And give away young for old. Everybody knows how well that's worked out for them over the last four years, at least in the end."
Who is Lupica referring to? Who is the big name the Yankees have added to their roster in the last four years? Esteban Loaiza? Karim Garcia?
See, I'm trying to be very specific here. Because I think Lupica is talking about mid-season deals, trade-deadline deals. Lupica implies that the Yankees have a habit of trading away their farm system for a short-term, pennant race fix.
But what trades is he talking about? Is he still referring to Ken Phelps?
If Lupica is talking about off-season deals, then it's a different story. Mussina, Giambi, ARod, Vazquez (say, can we get Nick Johnson back?), Contreras, Matsui, etc., etc., etc. Big names, big money.
But from the gist of his article, I think he's talking about mid-season deals. The Yankees could have made many of these types of deals -- Sosa, Griffey, Maddux, etc. -- but the Yankees seldom pull the trigger.
In '95 and '96 the Yankees added two huge players mid-season: David Cone and Cecil Fielder. Pretty big names, pretty big money, the Yankees probably don't win the World Series in '96 without 'em.
So, these mid-season deals worked out fine, even if the Yankees had to face the new century without Marty Janzen.
Since Cecil Fielder, what are the big deadline deals for the Yankees?
I can only think of the 2000 pickups (and the Yankees won the World Series that year, too): Jose Canseco was picked up on waivers, cost the Yankees nada; David Justice was huge in 2000, cost the Yankees Ledee and Westbrook (Lupica wants to throw a nutty about Jake Westbrook? Fair enough, I suppose); Denny Neagle was so-so in 2000, cost the Yankees Ed Yarnall.
Canseco, Justice, and Neagle. Kinda big, I suppose. Kinda expensive, I suppose. But hardly the biggest and most expensive.
Since then? The four years where the Yankee Big Name Big Money Trade Deadline deals supposedly haven't worked out?
They haven't made any Big Name Big Money Trade Deadline deals.
Monday, May 16, 2005
I gotta talk about a play.
Yesterday's Yankee game had many storylines: Torre's 1,800th managerial win, Randy Johnson's 250th victory, Tino's two homeruns, Cano's four hits, Giambi's go-ahead RBI double.
But I'm still amazed that nobody has mentioned ARod's baserunning play in the top of the seventh.
After walking with one out, ARod was on first base when Tino fouled out to the third baseman.
Oakland's Coliseum has a lot of foul ground and ARod went back to first base to tag up. ARod made it to second base easily when a somewhat surprised third baseman hesitated on his throw.
It's head's up! It's small ball! It's aggressive! It's one of those fundamental little things that don't show up in the box score that us baseball experts love so much and that the Old Yankees did so much and the New Yankees don't do so much.
Posada was intentionally walked with two outs and then Giambi and Cano came through with RBI hits.
ARod is certainly not the only player in the big leagues who'd tag up on a play like that, but he might be the only player with 350 homeruns who'd tag up on a play like that.
I feel oddly compelled to bring it up because I get the feeling that Jeter or Womack would have made the headlines had they made the same head's-up baserunning play. This blog may be the only place on the Internet which reports on ARod when he does something besides ground into a double play, make an error, or hit another useless, quiet, tack-on homerun.
But I'm still amazed that nobody has mentioned ARod's baserunning play in the top of the seventh.
After walking with one out, ARod was on first base when Tino fouled out to the third baseman.
Oakland's Coliseum has a lot of foul ground and ARod went back to first base to tag up. ARod made it to second base easily when a somewhat surprised third baseman hesitated on his throw.
It's head's up! It's small ball! It's aggressive! It's one of those fundamental little things that don't show up in the box score that us baseball experts love so much and that the Old Yankees did so much and the New Yankees don't do so much.
Posada was intentionally walked with two outs and then Giambi and Cano came through with RBI hits.
ARod is certainly not the only player in the big leagues who'd tag up on a play like that, but he might be the only player with 350 homeruns who'd tag up on a play like that.
I feel oddly compelled to bring it up because I get the feeling that Jeter or Womack would have made the headlines had they made the same head's-up baserunning play. This blog may be the only place on the Internet which reports on ARod when he does something besides ground into a double play, make an error, or hit another useless, quiet, tack-on homerun.
Accentuate The Negative.
"So the Yankees scored 30 runs over the weekend, Tino Martinez continued to hit like Barry Bonds, and the hottest team in baseball toyed with the A's in running its winning streak to eight games. Still, you can't help thinking that fans would feel a lot better about this revival if Randy Johnson had struck out somebody, anybody, yesterday.
...
'I've had games when I've struck out 19 or 20 where I've gotten a loss or a no-decision,' [Johnson] said. 'I've said all along that strikeouts don't assure you that you're going to win the game.'
No, but they're a sign of dominance, a dominance this team is going to need if it's going to beat the Red Sox and the Orioles, not just the A's and Mariners."
Randy Johnson was not sharp at all yesterday. He managed to win the game, allowing three earned runs in six innings against a bad offensive team.
But if k's are a sign of dominance, then the Yankees have nothing to worry about. For the season, Unit still has 50 strikeouts in 57 innings. Unit is second in the league in strikeouts, a distant second to Johan Santana.
How is Randy Johnson going to pitch this season against Boston and Baltimore? Well, he has already pitched three games against Boston and Baltimore. Nineteen strikeouts in nineteen innings if that's the kind of thing that gets John Harper off.
Hooray! Nineteen strikeouts in nineteen innings! The Yankees are gonna win the World Series!
The Yankees are still in fourth place and 5.5 games behind Baltimore. A week ago, they lost three out of four to Tampa Bay and fell into last place, eight games under .500. So don't tell me that these games against Oakland and Seattle don't count.
While they've gathered some momentum and shown they can dig out of this hole, they're not out of this hole yet. If the Yankees don't beat up on Oakland and Seattle, then the games against Boston and Baltimore won't matter too much.
Naturally, the Yankees can't win the World Series unless they beat the good teams in October. But beating the bad teams is also important. During the success of the Torre era, the Yankees always win their division by playing so-so against the good teams and pounding the bad teams.
Now, for some much-needed NY Daily News comic relief, please read this article from Sunday where Mike Lupica actually claims that HBO is conceited:
"There is no more precious conceit in the media than the one from the people at HBO Sports, who actually believe they have these special insights into sports that nobody else in the business could ever possibly have.
You know what HBO really does better than anybody else?
Hype.
Now HBO acts if it's discovered amphetamines in baseball, something T.J. Quinn has been writing about in this paper for three years.
No kidding, these guys want you to think they're so cutting-edge, you ought to watch their shows with Band-aids."
Wow! HBO must be really conceited if Mike Lupica says they're conceited. That would be like Oprah Winfrey saying somebody is fat.
You know what would be fun? A reality whow where they put Mike Lupica and Bob Costas in the same house. Both of them could watch television and read newspapers and offer their opinions about everything.
Every week, they could have a contest to see who uses the biggest word. Costas could say sometihng like, "Robinson Cano is an ersatz Bobby Richardson" and Lupica would respond with a witty retort, perhaps a multi-layered pun or portmanteau: "Bob, did you ever hear my line about Curse of the Bam-Boonie?"
As special guests, Billy Crystal and George Will could show up and they'd all talk about who was better friends with Mickey Mantle and who's more outraged about amphetamines and artificial turf.
At the end of the show, America votes and the winner is crowned King Smug.
...
'I've had games when I've struck out 19 or 20 where I've gotten a loss or a no-decision,' [Johnson] said. 'I've said all along that strikeouts don't assure you that you're going to win the game.'
No, but they're a sign of dominance, a dominance this team is going to need if it's going to beat the Red Sox and the Orioles, not just the A's and Mariners."
Randy Johnson was not sharp at all yesterday. He managed to win the game, allowing three earned runs in six innings against a bad offensive team.
But if k's are a sign of dominance, then the Yankees have nothing to worry about. For the season, Unit still has 50 strikeouts in 57 innings. Unit is second in the league in strikeouts, a distant second to Johan Santana.
How is Randy Johnson going to pitch this season against Boston and Baltimore? Well, he has already pitched three games against Boston and Baltimore. Nineteen strikeouts in nineteen innings if that's the kind of thing that gets John Harper off.
Hooray! Nineteen strikeouts in nineteen innings! The Yankees are gonna win the World Series!
The Yankees are still in fourth place and 5.5 games behind Baltimore. A week ago, they lost three out of four to Tampa Bay and fell into last place, eight games under .500. So don't tell me that these games against Oakland and Seattle don't count.
While they've gathered some momentum and shown they can dig out of this hole, they're not out of this hole yet. If the Yankees don't beat up on Oakland and Seattle, then the games against Boston and Baltimore won't matter too much.
Naturally, the Yankees can't win the World Series unless they beat the good teams in October. But beating the bad teams is also important. During the success of the Torre era, the Yankees always win their division by playing so-so against the good teams and pounding the bad teams.
Now, for some much-needed NY Daily News comic relief, please read this article from Sunday where Mike Lupica actually claims that HBO is conceited:
"There is no more precious conceit in the media than the one from the people at HBO Sports, who actually believe they have these special insights into sports that nobody else in the business could ever possibly have.
You know what HBO really does better than anybody else?
Hype.
Now HBO acts if it's discovered amphetamines in baseball, something T.J. Quinn has been writing about in this paper for three years.
No kidding, these guys want you to think they're so cutting-edge, you ought to watch their shows with Band-aids."
Wow! HBO must be really conceited if Mike Lupica says they're conceited. That would be like Oprah Winfrey saying somebody is fat.
You know what would be fun? A reality whow where they put Mike Lupica and Bob Costas in the same house. Both of them could watch television and read newspapers and offer their opinions about everything.
Every week, they could have a contest to see who uses the biggest word. Costas could say sometihng like, "Robinson Cano is an ersatz Bobby Richardson" and Lupica would respond with a witty retort, perhaps a multi-layered pun or portmanteau: "Bob, did you ever hear my line about Curse of the Bam-Boonie?"
As special guests, Billy Crystal and George Will could show up and they'd all talk about who was better friends with Mickey Mantle and who's more outraged about amphetamines and artificial turf.
At the end of the show, America votes and the winner is crowned King Smug.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Bob Raissman warms up.
Jason Giambi is selfish, Jason Giambi took steroids, blah blah blah.
Bob, nobody cares about Jason Giambi anymore. It's old Al Yankzeera news, man. Get hip, get with the times. Jason Giambi is so March.
I know this article is just a warmup to the Greatest Night of Bob Raissman's Life; the Pinnacle of Al-Yankzeera Power; the Reason Tivo was invented in the first place.
It's coming soon, folks. Sunday, May 22nd, at 5:00 pm and an Encore Presentation at 9:00 pm. Don't miss it!
Michael Kay interviews George Steinbrenner on Centerstage: Bob Raissman's head explodes.
The schedule is right here, Bob. You can watch a replay of David Cone's Perfect Game at 9:00 am (while listening to Michael Kay), then watch the Yankees play the Mets at 1:00 pm (while listening to Michael Kay), and, if you haven't heard enough Michael Kay for the day, you can listen to him interview George Steinbrenner at 5:00 pm.
With a replay at 9:00 pm.
Don't miss this special event, Bob.
Can you guess which TV Network it's going to be on? I'll bet you can guess!
I'll give you a hint. Its initials are Y.E.S.
Bob, nobody cares about Jason Giambi anymore. It's old Al Yankzeera news, man. Get hip, get with the times. Jason Giambi is so March.
I know this article is just a warmup to the Greatest Night of Bob Raissman's Life; the Pinnacle of Al-Yankzeera Power; the Reason Tivo was invented in the first place.
It's coming soon, folks. Sunday, May 22nd, at 5:00 pm and an Encore Presentation at 9:00 pm. Don't miss it!
Michael Kay interviews George Steinbrenner on Centerstage: Bob Raissman's head explodes.
The schedule is right here, Bob. You can watch a replay of David Cone's Perfect Game at 9:00 am (while listening to Michael Kay), then watch the Yankees play the Mets at 1:00 pm (while listening to Michael Kay), and, if you haven't heard enough Michael Kay for the day, you can listen to him interview George Steinbrenner at 5:00 pm.
With a replay at 9:00 pm.
Don't miss this special event, Bob.
Can you guess which TV Network it's going to be on? I'll bet you can guess!
I'll give you a hint. Its initials are Y.E.S.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Is anybody still wondering what's wrong with Mariano?
Top of ninth:
- K. Foulke relieved M. Myers
- E. Durazo struck out swinging
- B. Kielty walked
- S. Hatteberg grounded into fielder's choice, B. Kielty out at second
- M. Scutaro doubled to deep center, S. Hatteberg to third
- K. Ginter singled to center, S. Hatteberg and M. Scutaro scored
- J. Clark ran for K. Ginter
- E. Byrnes homered to deep left, J. Clark scored
- M. Kotsay walked
- J. Kendall flied out to right center
- End of Inning (4 Runs, 3 Hits, 0 Errors)
- K. Foulke relieved M. Myers
- E. Durazo struck out swinging
- B. Kielty walked
- S. Hatteberg grounded into fielder's choice, B. Kielty out at second
- M. Scutaro doubled to deep center, S. Hatteberg to third
- K. Ginter singled to center, S. Hatteberg and M. Scutaro scored
- J. Clark ran for K. Ginter
- E. Byrnes homered to deep left, J. Clark scored
- M. Kotsay walked
- J. Kendall flied out to right center
- End of Inning (4 Runs, 3 Hits, 0 Errors)
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Young punk has some spunk.
Columbus Clippers first baseman Mitch Jones is Classiness Personified as he dances on the grave of Jason Giambi:
"They would look at a guy who's excited to come and play, not making a lot of money doing it. I'd bring a rookie atmosphere to it. That's a little of what they're lacking right now. They're trying to find the right mix. They have enough leaders and veterans."
"They would look at a guy who's excited to come and play, not making a lot of money doing it. I'd bring a rookie atmosphere to it. That's a little of what they're lacking right now. They're trying to find the right mix. They have enough leaders and veterans."
Jason Giambi is not a good baseball player.
Joel Sherman adds his voice to the chorus (along with Mike Lupica, George King, and some guy at ESPN).
Fellas, what was your clue? The sub-.200 batting average or the six rbis?
Sherman takes it a bit further, claiming that Yankee fans are stupid for cheering for Giambi in the first place:
"Do the folks who fervently cheered Giambi on Opening Day, trying to forgive and inspire a cheater and a liar, feel stupid now?"
Now that you mention it, "No, not at all."
I don't feel stupid for cheering for Giambi on Opening Day. (I wasn't actually at Opening Day, but I was metaphorically cheering for him on Opening Day while eating cheetos and sitting in a bean bag chair.)
But you want to know from stupid?
How's about Torre letting Giambi bat against a lefty in a tie game in the seventh inning? Forget about Andy Phillips and Bernie Williams sitting patiently in the dugout. I might even take a chance with Rey Sanchez or John Flaherty if I wanted to save the Big Boppers for a later inning.
In fact, at this point, Mike Mussina can probably handle lefthanded pitchers better than Jason Giambi.
Chien-Ming Wang isn't pitching until tomorrow: "Hey, kid! Do they use designated hitters in Taiwan? You look like you can handle the lumber."
Mike Stanton and Buddy Groom were available. If you are a lefthanded pitcher, then maybe you can hit a lefthanded pitcher. You've certainly got a better chance than Jason Giambi.
If you were still convinced Joe Torre was sane, then I challenge you to figure out the logic and intelligence of the following assertion, which sort of sounds like a defense of Jason Giambi's baseball-playing abilities and Torre's own deicision to stick with him:
"This ball club shouldn't rely on one bat. He is a question mark right now because he isn't swinging the bat. If we lose a game, you can't blame it on Jason."
Fellas, what was your clue? The sub-.200 batting average or the six rbis?
Sherman takes it a bit further, claiming that Yankee fans are stupid for cheering for Giambi in the first place:
"Do the folks who fervently cheered Giambi on Opening Day, trying to forgive and inspire a cheater and a liar, feel stupid now?"
Now that you mention it, "No, not at all."
I don't feel stupid for cheering for Giambi on Opening Day. (I wasn't actually at Opening Day, but I was metaphorically cheering for him on Opening Day while eating cheetos and sitting in a bean bag chair.)
But you want to know from stupid?
How's about Torre letting Giambi bat against a lefty in a tie game in the seventh inning? Forget about Andy Phillips and Bernie Williams sitting patiently in the dugout. I might even take a chance with Rey Sanchez or John Flaherty if I wanted to save the Big Boppers for a later inning.
In fact, at this point, Mike Mussina can probably handle lefthanded pitchers better than Jason Giambi.
Chien-Ming Wang isn't pitching until tomorrow: "Hey, kid! Do they use designated hitters in Taiwan? You look like you can handle the lumber."
Mike Stanton and Buddy Groom were available. If you are a lefthanded pitcher, then maybe you can hit a lefthanded pitcher. You've certainly got a better chance than Jason Giambi.
If you were still convinced Joe Torre was sane, then I challenge you to figure out the logic and intelligence of the following assertion, which sort of sounds like a defense of Jason Giambi's baseball-playing abilities and Torre's own deicision to stick with him:
"This ball club shouldn't rely on one bat. He is a question mark right now because he isn't swinging the bat. If we lose a game, you can't blame it on Jason."
Monday, May 09, 2005
Mike Lupica Obsesses About George Steinbrenner's Obsessions.
This from a man who thinks Sheffield misplayed Varitek's double, that ARod shouldn't bat second, that ARod is unhappy playing third base, and who insists that .230-hitting Doug Mintkayvitch was a great signing for Ne'er-Do-Wrong Omar Minaya.
So when Mike Lupica explains the inner-workings of George Steinbrenner's mind, take it with a grain of salt.
Let me 'splain the current Yankee situation to Mike Lupica:
The Yankees are off to the second-worst start in the history of the team. They're practically tied for last place with Tampa Bay.
Baltimore's lead over the Yankees in the AL East is almost double-digit. The Red Sox are not too far behind Baltimore, and they have Schilling and Wells waiting in the wings.
Kevin Brown managed a good outing against a dead Oakland offense. Better than losing, of course, but I'm not convinced about Brown's resurgence.
Giambi is nearing the Mendoza line and looking worse every day.
Bernie Williams has been benched and his career seems to be over for all practical purposes.
Six games is not enough to judge a career on, but Robinson Cano has managed to hit a mere .095 with one RBI groundout and shaky play at second base.
As Lupica graciously admits, "this doesn't mean the Yankees can't get up," but the hole they've dug is deep.
Now, given these circumstances ... do you really think Steinbrenner is worried about ... the Mets?:
"You don't get to own anything forever, certainly not baseball in New York. The old Mets found out. The new New York Yankees are finding out. Before long, George Steinbrenner won't be as obsessed with the Boston Red Sox as he will be with Willie Randolph's Mets."
Maybe so, but Steinbrenner will never be as obsessed with anything as Lupica is with Steinbrenner.
"Davey Johnson's Mets, in those years, were as big a sports attraction as any Yankee team had ever been. People forget that sometimes when they act as if the Yankees will own New York forever."
What can this possibly mean?
What "people" act as if the Yankees will own New York forever?
If I am one of these people, and I "act as if the Yankees will own New York forever," what type of behavior does this entail?
Wearing a Yankee cap on the subway? When I discuss baseball with Mets fans, am I arrogant and snooty? Do the Yankees get more back pages of the newspapers, more participation in talk radio shows, more free advertising by the dopey local TV Sports & Weather crew?
Of course Steinbrenner wants big gates and I'm sure he realizes his competition is not just the Mets. His competition is All The Stuff To Do in The City That Never Sleeps (and the greater Tri-State area).
Someday the Mets will probably outdraw the Yankees. I don't doubt that. But that day sure ain't today. Not with the Yankees drawing 47,973 in the rain against the A's and the Mets drawing diddly any time Pedro ain't pitching.
This Battle for New York is for sportswriters. They're looking for a storyline, a team with some buzz, free pigs-in-a-blanket in the press box. Steinbrenner has more important things to worry about than the Mets.
So when Mike Lupica explains the inner-workings of George Steinbrenner's mind, take it with a grain of salt.
Let me 'splain the current Yankee situation to Mike Lupica:
The Yankees are off to the second-worst start in the history of the team. They're practically tied for last place with Tampa Bay.
Baltimore's lead over the Yankees in the AL East is almost double-digit. The Red Sox are not too far behind Baltimore, and they have Schilling and Wells waiting in the wings.
Kevin Brown managed a good outing against a dead Oakland offense. Better than losing, of course, but I'm not convinced about Brown's resurgence.
Giambi is nearing the Mendoza line and looking worse every day.
Bernie Williams has been benched and his career seems to be over for all practical purposes.
Six games is not enough to judge a career on, but Robinson Cano has managed to hit a mere .095 with one RBI groundout and shaky play at second base.
As Lupica graciously admits, "this doesn't mean the Yankees can't get up," but the hole they've dug is deep.
Now, given these circumstances ... do you really think Steinbrenner is worried about ... the Mets?:
"You don't get to own anything forever, certainly not baseball in New York. The old Mets found out. The new New York Yankees are finding out. Before long, George Steinbrenner won't be as obsessed with the Boston Red Sox as he will be with Willie Randolph's Mets."
Maybe so, but Steinbrenner will never be as obsessed with anything as Lupica is with Steinbrenner.
"Davey Johnson's Mets, in those years, were as big a sports attraction as any Yankee team had ever been. People forget that sometimes when they act as if the Yankees will own New York forever."
What can this possibly mean?
What "people" act as if the Yankees will own New York forever?
If I am one of these people, and I "act as if the Yankees will own New York forever," what type of behavior does this entail?
Wearing a Yankee cap on the subway? When I discuss baseball with Mets fans, am I arrogant and snooty? Do the Yankees get more back pages of the newspapers, more participation in talk radio shows, more free advertising by the dopey local TV Sports & Weather crew?
Of course Steinbrenner wants big gates and I'm sure he realizes his competition is not just the Mets. His competition is All The Stuff To Do in The City That Never Sleeps (and the greater Tri-State area).
Someday the Mets will probably outdraw the Yankees. I don't doubt that. But that day sure ain't today. Not with the Yankees drawing 47,973 in the rain against the A's and the Mets drawing diddly any time Pedro ain't pitching.
This Battle for New York is for sportswriters. They're looking for a storyline, a team with some buzz, free pigs-in-a-blanket in the press box. Steinbrenner has more important things to worry about than the Mets.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Fun with Mel Stottlemyre quotes.
Now you're just trying to get fired:
"I told him that the way to minimize the damage was to keep the ball down," Stottlemyre said.
Brown, according to the pitching coach, responded that Erubiel Durazo had just singled on a low pitch.
"I wasn't going to argue with him," Stottlemyre said. "I said: 'He's a lowball hitter. This next guy's a highball hitter.'"
In truth, Stottlemyre had no idea.
"I was lying," he said, laughing. "He kind of stumped me."
Whom to blame?
Is it "whom?" Or is it "who?"
When I ask that question, does the question mark go inside the quotation mark? Like "this?" Or outside, like "this"?
Blogger needs a copy editor.
Speaking of confused, Dan Graziano on Thursday, pinning most of the blame on Steinbrenner:
"But here's a new thought. If Steinbrenner's looking for a neck around which to hang the blame, he might want to try his own.
At some point in the past five years, as their off-seasons have become more about grabbing for the most expensive All-Stars than assembling a team with complementary parts, the Yankees have lost sight of the principles that made them successful in the first five years of Torre's tenure. And while there's a lot of blame to go around, it's still Steinbrenner who directs the player-acquisition agenda."
Dan Graziano on Sunday, pinning most of the blame on Cashman:
"Cashman is as much to blame as anybody in the organization, and he'll admit that. Playing the company man, he refused to discuss where he had stood on some of the team's most controversial recent deals, offering an honest critique of the organization as a whole."
At least he didn't blame Kenny Lofton.
Hasn't the '05 season provided any perspective?
In the past four seasons, the Loser Yankees did actually experience some success. Especially when compared to the start of the '05 season.
They won 100+ games three seasons in a row, made the playoffs every year, made the World Series twice, and missed the World Series by just one game last year.
Now, if you think Character and Grittiness is the Difference between winning Game Seven against AZ and losing Gave Seven against AZ, then I disagree strongly. That team had Jetes & Paulie & Tino & Scotty, so that may be a bad example. It's just a reminder that Paulie and Pettitte lost some big games, too.
I know I'm in the minority opinion, but even in the post-O'Neill era, I've seen a team that mostly tries hard and copes with the pressure of playing in New York. They won a lot of games but just couldn't close the deal in October.
See, that's my gripe when 100-win seasons are labelled as "failures" just because the team doesn't win the World Series. (Of course, the character of the Jeterrific '97 and '01 teams is never questioned, even though they were failures if we use the same criteria.)
Because the '05 season just might be a legit disaster, with the Yankees finishing under .500 and/or missing the playoffs entirely. If that happens, it will make the teams of Karim Garcia and Dan Miceli look like the '27 Yankees.
What you got against Mondesi and Lofton, yo? Were Mondesi and Lofton ever on an 12-19 team? Thought not.
If the criteria is binary, if they're Failures when they don't win the World Series, then (a) the most successful sports team in sports history is a team that has mostly failed, and (b) what the heck do you call the '05 team? Calling this team a bunch of losers (so far) is an insult to losers.
Take Giambi, for instance. Yes, his career may be shot and it's probably because of steroid abuse. If he doesn't turn it around, his contract is obviously a bust.
But if he's such a loser, why did he hit two HRs off of Pedro in Game Seven of the '03 ALCS? While he's inexplicably criticized for being benched in Game Five of the WS against Florida, he did come off the bench and hit a heroic homerun. "Heroic" if Contreras hadn't melted down or if True Yankee Wells had pitched more than one inning.
'04? Giambi's fault.
Is he now nothing more than a salary drag that prevented good players from joining the Yankees? Yup.
But '02 and '03? Not his fault.
Also, let's clear up the Carlos Beltran nonsense. OF COURSE I wish the Yankees had signed Carlos Beltran, though I also think he's way overrated (bold statement the day after he hit two homeruns).
(On a side note, does this mean Beltran's a True Met finally? Or does he have to do it in October? At least against the Braves? Under pressure? In a big ballpark, like Shea?
Fifth player to sign a $100 million contract? The tough NY press is impressed with Beltran so far? Just checking.)
I wish the Yankees had signed Beltran and Pedro and Unit and Percival and Glaus as a DH.
But Steinbrenner asked a fair question: Beltran or Unit? The correct answer is still Unit.
The starting rotation is bad enough with Unit-Mussina-Pavano-Wang-Brown. Now imagine the starting rotation with Unit out and Javy in. My brain convulses at the thought.
Beltran in CF wouldn't help that much if the starting pitching is pitiful. Beltran would just need a a good chiropractor. His neck would hurt from spinning around to watch the balls sail over his head.
The whole theory is shot to heck if the Yankees miss the playoffs or if Unit gets hurt. But if this team makes the playoffs, Unit is their best hope to win the World Series.
When I ask that question, does the question mark go inside the quotation mark? Like "this?" Or outside, like "this"?
Blogger needs a copy editor.
Speaking of confused, Dan Graziano on Thursday, pinning most of the blame on Steinbrenner:
"But here's a new thought. If Steinbrenner's looking for a neck around which to hang the blame, he might want to try his own.
At some point in the past five years, as their off-seasons have become more about grabbing for the most expensive All-Stars than assembling a team with complementary parts, the Yankees have lost sight of the principles that made them successful in the first five years of Torre's tenure. And while there's a lot of blame to go around, it's still Steinbrenner who directs the player-acquisition agenda."
Dan Graziano on Sunday, pinning most of the blame on Cashman:
"Cashman is as much to blame as anybody in the organization, and he'll admit that. Playing the company man, he refused to discuss where he had stood on some of the team's most controversial recent deals, offering an honest critique of the organization as a whole."
At least he didn't blame Kenny Lofton.
Hasn't the '05 season provided any perspective?
In the past four seasons, the Loser Yankees did actually experience some success. Especially when compared to the start of the '05 season.
They won 100+ games three seasons in a row, made the playoffs every year, made the World Series twice, and missed the World Series by just one game last year.
Now, if you think Character and Grittiness is the Difference between winning Game Seven against AZ and losing Gave Seven against AZ, then I disagree strongly. That team had Jetes & Paulie & Tino & Scotty, so that may be a bad example. It's just a reminder that Paulie and Pettitte lost some big games, too.
I know I'm in the minority opinion, but even in the post-O'Neill era, I've seen a team that mostly tries hard and copes with the pressure of playing in New York. They won a lot of games but just couldn't close the deal in October.
See, that's my gripe when 100-win seasons are labelled as "failures" just because the team doesn't win the World Series. (Of course, the character of the Jeterrific '97 and '01 teams is never questioned, even though they were failures if we use the same criteria.)
Because the '05 season just might be a legit disaster, with the Yankees finishing under .500 and/or missing the playoffs entirely. If that happens, it will make the teams of Karim Garcia and Dan Miceli look like the '27 Yankees.
What you got against Mondesi and Lofton, yo? Were Mondesi and Lofton ever on an 12-19 team? Thought not.
If the criteria is binary, if they're Failures when they don't win the World Series, then (a) the most successful sports team in sports history is a team that has mostly failed, and (b) what the heck do you call the '05 team? Calling this team a bunch of losers (so far) is an insult to losers.
Take Giambi, for instance. Yes, his career may be shot and it's probably because of steroid abuse. If he doesn't turn it around, his contract is obviously a bust.
But if he's such a loser, why did he hit two HRs off of Pedro in Game Seven of the '03 ALCS? While he's inexplicably criticized for being benched in Game Five of the WS against Florida, he did come off the bench and hit a heroic homerun. "Heroic" if Contreras hadn't melted down or if True Yankee Wells had pitched more than one inning.
'04? Giambi's fault.
Is he now nothing more than a salary drag that prevented good players from joining the Yankees? Yup.
But '02 and '03? Not his fault.
Also, let's clear up the Carlos Beltran nonsense. OF COURSE I wish the Yankees had signed Carlos Beltran, though I also think he's way overrated (bold statement the day after he hit two homeruns).
(On a side note, does this mean Beltran's a True Met finally? Or does he have to do it in October? At least against the Braves? Under pressure? In a big ballpark, like Shea?
Fifth player to sign a $100 million contract? The tough NY press is impressed with Beltran so far? Just checking.)
I wish the Yankees had signed Beltran and Pedro and Unit and Percival and Glaus as a DH.
But Steinbrenner asked a fair question: Beltran or Unit? The correct answer is still Unit.
The starting rotation is bad enough with Unit-Mussina-Pavano-Wang-Brown. Now imagine the starting rotation with Unit out and Javy in. My brain convulses at the thought.
Beltran in CF wouldn't help that much if the starting pitching is pitiful. Beltran would just need a a good chiropractor. His neck would hurt from spinning around to watch the balls sail over his head.
The whole theory is shot to heck if the Yankees miss the playoffs or if Unit gets hurt. But if this team makes the playoffs, Unit is their best hope to win the World Series.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Prediction: Yankees Sweep A's.
That's not my prediction. It's the level-headed prediction of shiny, happy Hall of Famer, Ryne Sandberg:
"When a team with high expectations is playing poorly, that's when the manager can really make a difference. He can switch the lineup around a bit and do other things a little differently, like put on hit-and-runs and call for bunts, to get the team going.
Sometimes, a turnaround can happen in one series. Sometimes, one series is all it takes to change a team's attitude and get a team on a roll.
Even when a club is losing more games than expected, you have to remember the bottom line – that a baseball season is a marathon and not a sprint. After six months, the best teams usually rise to the top.
The ascent could begin this weekend for a certain struggling team in the Bronx."
Thanks! I actually feel better now.
I really hope that Torre puts on a lot of bunts and hit-and-runs this weekend. That is sure to snap 'em out of it.
"When a team with high expectations is playing poorly, that's when the manager can really make a difference. He can switch the lineup around a bit and do other things a little differently, like put on hit-and-runs and call for bunts, to get the team going.
Sometimes, a turnaround can happen in one series. Sometimes, one series is all it takes to change a team's attitude and get a team on a roll.
Even when a club is losing more games than expected, you have to remember the bottom line – that a baseball season is a marathon and not a sprint. After six months, the best teams usually rise to the top.
The ascent could begin this weekend for a certain struggling team in the Bronx."
Thanks! I actually feel better now.
I really hope that Torre puts on a lot of bunts and hit-and-runs this weekend. That is sure to snap 'em out of it.
John Harper: Voice of Reason, Torre Pushover.
I always wondered how Chicken Little would react when the sky really fell.
When the Yankees are 30 games over .500 in July, John Harper will worry about the long-relief guy in the bullpen; When Mariano gives up a homerun to Jason Varitek in game #2, John Harper fast-forwards to a potentially disastrous ALCS; When the Yankees win 101 games and miss the World Series by one game, John Harper will try to convince you that they're an awful team.
Remember just three weeks ago, Yankee fans? When you were supposed to worry about pitching to David Ortiz in the playoffs? "How are the Yankees going to get out David Ortiz in the playoffs?"
Now the Yankees are 11-19, way out of first place, and getting Ortiz out in the playoffs is a problem we'd all like to have once October rolls around.
Since Harper has made a habit of creating panic out of calm, he has nowhere to go when the Yankees truly do play poorly. Now, John Harper is forced to be the contrarian calming voice of restraint:
"This is when fans want the manager to scream and yell and turn over the food spread in a show of violent temper. That'll teach the players, right?
It's a natural reaction after seeing the Yankees lose three in a row to the Devil Rays. The Devil Rays. If you're a fan, you want to strangle somebody, and rightly so."
Yes, some of us doting, unwashed fans think Torre is doing a bad job motivating this team. Especially when they respond to another team meeting by zipping through a game vs. Tampa Bay -- plumb full of mental errors -- in 2 hours and 26 minutes.
Are you guys in a rush? Late for a funeral?
Teach me, John Harper. Teach me to elevate my consciousness and stop responding in such a base, violent, reactionary manner.
Because it seems to me that an anti-Torre assessment at this time is quite level-headed and reasonable. I thought Torre would lose his job on the spot if the Yankees lost the series to TB, and I meant it.
"Yet this is when Joe Torre prefers the Dr. Phil approach. He believes his team needs a hug right now more than a kick in the butt."
I happen to disagree, and I know that a new manager is not going to turn back the clock or cure Kevin Brown's back. But this team is clearly not responding to Torre.
"Pretty soon Steinbrenner figures to relieve his stress the way he did in the old days - by firing somebody.
Torre is almost surely safe, at least partly because he's on the first year of a $19 million contract extension, and partly because his star status is still such that it gives him immunity of sorts.
More likely either GM Brian Cashman or pitching coach Mel Stottlemyre would pay the price if this team continues to struggle and Steinbrenner becomes determined to pull the trigger.
...
Is a group hug the answer? Even if it's not, this doesn't fall on Torre. At least not this year.
When the Yankees are 30 games over .500 in July, John Harper will worry about the long-relief guy in the bullpen; When Mariano gives up a homerun to Jason Varitek in game #2, John Harper fast-forwards to a potentially disastrous ALCS; When the Yankees win 101 games and miss the World Series by one game, John Harper will try to convince you that they're an awful team.
Remember just three weeks ago, Yankee fans? When you were supposed to worry about pitching to David Ortiz in the playoffs? "How are the Yankees going to get out David Ortiz in the playoffs?"
Now the Yankees are 11-19, way out of first place, and getting Ortiz out in the playoffs is a problem we'd all like to have once October rolls around.
Since Harper has made a habit of creating panic out of calm, he has nowhere to go when the Yankees truly do play poorly. Now, John Harper is forced to be the contrarian calming voice of restraint:
"This is when fans want the manager to scream and yell and turn over the food spread in a show of violent temper. That'll teach the players, right?
It's a natural reaction after seeing the Yankees lose three in a row to the Devil Rays. The Devil Rays. If you're a fan, you want to strangle somebody, and rightly so."
Yes, some of us doting, unwashed fans think Torre is doing a bad job motivating this team. Especially when they respond to another team meeting by zipping through a game vs. Tampa Bay -- plumb full of mental errors -- in 2 hours and 26 minutes.
Are you guys in a rush? Late for a funeral?
Teach me, John Harper. Teach me to elevate my consciousness and stop responding in such a base, violent, reactionary manner.
Because it seems to me that an anti-Torre assessment at this time is quite level-headed and reasonable. I thought Torre would lose his job on the spot if the Yankees lost the series to TB, and I meant it.
"Yet this is when Joe Torre prefers the Dr. Phil approach. He believes his team needs a hug right now more than a kick in the butt."
I happen to disagree, and I know that a new manager is not going to turn back the clock or cure Kevin Brown's back. But this team is clearly not responding to Torre.
"Pretty soon Steinbrenner figures to relieve his stress the way he did in the old days - by firing somebody.
Torre is almost surely safe, at least partly because he's on the first year of a $19 million contract extension, and partly because his star status is still such that it gives him immunity of sorts.
More likely either GM Brian Cashman or pitching coach Mel Stottlemyre would pay the price if this team continues to struggle and Steinbrenner becomes determined to pull the trigger.
...
Is a group hug the answer? Even if it's not, this doesn't fall on Torre. At least not this year.
...
Is [Torre] right? It's tough to argue with a manager who almost always has had the right touch since he put on the pinstripes 10 seasons ago."
It's not that tough to argue with a manager who has lost his touch.
Primary argument: "11-19." Gee, that wasn't so tough.
Heck, I saw Joe Torre send the runners with Roy Halladay on the mound and Tino Martinez on second base. Tino was thrown out by 15 ft. at third base after Womack struck out, but Hillenbrand dropped the ball. That decision alone was enough for me to question Joe Torre's mental acuity.
C'mon, John Harper. You're John Harper. Big Bad John. You're a grizzled NY writer. You chew up hicks like Randy Johnson and spit 'em out. You run guys out of town on a rail. Don't eyeball me, boy, learn to use your peripheral vision.
But when it come to Joe Towwe, you're just a cuddly wuddly teddy bear.
If Steinbrenner starts firing some of the architects and leaders of this team, it won't simply be an over-reaction and attempt to relieve stress. It will be an attempt to save the season and a $200 million investment.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Torre's last game?
If this ship is going down, it's everybody's fault. It goes without saying that Steinbrenner shares the blame (though I don't really see how it's all Kenny Lofton's fault, or how Sheffield can be considered a bad signing), and Cashman deserves to be on the hot seat. Naturally.
While the typical storyline seems to focus on Crazy George Deathwatch and his horse at the Kentucky Derby, at least Ken Davidoff remembers that Steinbrenner might actually have a good reason to fire Cashman:
"Cashman is far from blameless, though. The Brown and Jeff Weaver trades were his babies, and he, like so many other baseball executives, fell in love with Javier Vazquez's stuff and youth while ignoring Curt Schilling's numbers and heart two offseasons ago. And the only Yankees official who can point to Giambi and say, 'Wasn't my idea' is Joe Torre, who was vocal about his desire to bring back Martinez for 2002."
I'm not really sure how the writers divvy up the percentage of a signing that was George's idea and the percentage that was Cashman's idea. Most of the time, if the player stinks or is surly, it must have been George's idea. While Davidoff may subscribe to that same theory, at least Davidoff spreads the blame around. It's not all George of the Bungle's fault.
Out of 25 players, about 7 have played up to expectations in 2005. The players deserve the bulk of the blame. But it's not the fantasy world and you can't just replace all the players.
My question is: If the Yankees lose tonight, thereby falling into last place and losing three out of four to Tampa Bay, shouldn't Joe Torre also be on the hot seat?
Dan Wetzel anticipates:
"Steinbrenner, who watched the carnage in person Wednesday, will start issuing pink slips soon enough. Brian Cashman may want to update his resume. Joe Torre, new contract or not, may not be far behind."
I don't quite understand the incessant storyline that Steinbrenner is impulsive and impatient.
Why wouldn't Torre get fired? How much slack is Torre cut for winning four rings in New York? Infinite slack?
This team is not only playing poorly, they're flat. Is fiery Art Howe available? This team needs a spark.
While the typical storyline seems to focus on Crazy George Deathwatch and his horse at the Kentucky Derby, at least Ken Davidoff remembers that Steinbrenner might actually have a good reason to fire Cashman:
"Cashman is far from blameless, though. The Brown and Jeff Weaver trades were his babies, and he, like so many other baseball executives, fell in love with Javier Vazquez's stuff and youth while ignoring Curt Schilling's numbers and heart two offseasons ago. And the only Yankees official who can point to Giambi and say, 'Wasn't my idea' is Joe Torre, who was vocal about his desire to bring back Martinez for 2002."
I'm not really sure how the writers divvy up the percentage of a signing that was George's idea and the percentage that was Cashman's idea. Most of the time, if the player stinks or is surly, it must have been George's idea. While Davidoff may subscribe to that same theory, at least Davidoff spreads the blame around. It's not all George of the Bungle's fault.
Out of 25 players, about 7 have played up to expectations in 2005. The players deserve the bulk of the blame. But it's not the fantasy world and you can't just replace all the players.
My question is: If the Yankees lose tonight, thereby falling into last place and losing three out of four to Tampa Bay, shouldn't Joe Torre also be on the hot seat?
Dan Wetzel anticipates:
"Steinbrenner, who watched the carnage in person Wednesday, will start issuing pink slips soon enough. Brian Cashman may want to update his resume. Joe Torre, new contract or not, may not be far behind."
I don't quite understand the incessant storyline that Steinbrenner is impulsive and impatient.
Why wouldn't Torre get fired? How much slack is Torre cut for winning four rings in New York? Infinite slack?
This team is not only playing poorly, they're flat. Is fiery Art Howe available? This team needs a spark.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
He's Harvey Yavener and you're not.
I swear it's true: Trash talking is a very small component of my experience as a fan, even if all the sportswriters and Mets/Red Sox fans don't believe me.
Being a devoted fan is always a rollercoaster experience, even during the successful times of the Torre-era Yankees.
But the low point of my journey as a Yankee fan may be the ignoble experience of being dissed by the likes of Harvey Yavener.
Being a devoted fan is always a rollercoaster experience, even during the successful times of the Torre-era Yankees.
But the low point of my journey as a Yankee fan may be the ignoble experience of being dissed by the likes of Harvey Yavener.
Conspiracy Theory.
The current feeding frenzy is certainly justified when the Yankees are 11-16, but I still think the Yankees will get it together and make the playoffs. My advice is to buy Yankee stock now that it's so low. I still believe they're Citibank instead of Enron.
Predictions are stupid in baseball and in the stock market, but I've got another prediction: Kevin Brown will be released before his next turn in the rotation. While this is hardly an original thought, last night's debacle against the Devil Rays and his season ERA of 8.25 are not the clues.
The clue is that the Yankees decided to pass up Randy Johnson in the rotation, even though he's healthy enough to start. The Yankees are doing this so they can get Sean Henn his "major-league" debut against the Devil Rays.
This is not "playing it safe" with Unit; the Yankees are trying to build up Henn & Wang's confidence (or their trading stock) in low-pressure road starts vs. Tampa Bay. Then, they'll both either join the rotation or be immediately traded while they're still undefeated in the major leagues, before they head down the Ben Ford Highway to obscurity.
The Yankees are paying Brown's salary whether they send him out there every fifth day or not. No sense in throwing good money after bad and losing every fifth day. If he's gonna pull an '00 Cone, the Yankees can't afford it this time. A rotation of Unit, Mussina, Pavano, Wang, and Henn might have sounded ridiculous on April 1st ... but so did Tony Womack starting in left field.
Or maybe I don't have a clue. I also thought Jason Giambi would have a good year.
Predictions are stupid in baseball and in the stock market, but I've got another prediction: Kevin Brown will be released before his next turn in the rotation. While this is hardly an original thought, last night's debacle against the Devil Rays and his season ERA of 8.25 are not the clues.
The clue is that the Yankees decided to pass up Randy Johnson in the rotation, even though he's healthy enough to start. The Yankees are doing this so they can get Sean Henn his "major-league" debut against the Devil Rays.
This is not "playing it safe" with Unit; the Yankees are trying to build up Henn & Wang's confidence (or their trading stock) in low-pressure road starts vs. Tampa Bay. Then, they'll both either join the rotation or be immediately traded while they're still undefeated in the major leagues, before they head down the Ben Ford Highway to obscurity.
The Yankees are paying Brown's salary whether they send him out there every fifth day or not. No sense in throwing good money after bad and losing every fifth day. If he's gonna pull an '00 Cone, the Yankees can't afford it this time. A rotation of Unit, Mussina, Pavano, Wang, and Henn might have sounded ridiculous on April 1st ... but so did Tony Womack starting in left field.
Or maybe I don't have a clue. I also thought Jason Giambi would have a good year.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
As long as he's playin', Cincinnati will be booin'.
Giving up two hrs in the ninth inning doesn't help matters:
"It's frustrating, but what's even more frustrating is hearing the fans boo you in your own ballpark," Graves said. "We're out there trying the best we can. That's not the first time it's happened, and as long as I'll be playing, it won't be the last."
"It's frustrating, but what's even more frustrating is hearing the fans boo you in your own ballpark," Graves said. "We're out there trying the best we can. That's not the first time it's happened, and as long as I'll be playing, it won't be the last."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)