Shame on you, Chris Girandola.

I mean, look, I know it's a tough assignment: "Write about Scott Brosius and his first inclusion on the Hall of Fame ballot."

I also know this article is for the company newsletter.

It's a fluff piece.

But if you want to maintain any shred of credibility for both yourself and your employer, you can't actually suggest that Scott Brosius has a shot at the Hall of Fame:

"It is his clutch hitting in the postseason, as well as his solid and, often times, spectacular defensive play, which may give members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America enough impetus to consider him for Hall of Fame induction in 2007."

Just for fun, I looked up Brosius's stats at baseball-reference.com.

Brosius's Hall of Fame monitor is 19 on a scale where a likely HOF'er is greater than 100.

Most Similar Players are Ed Sprague, Bill Melton, and Mike Pagliarulo.

But the best part is the postseason stats. In 196 postseason at-bats, Mr. Clutch hit .245.


"Considering that since his retirement, the Yankees have reached the World Series only once, losing in six games to the Florida Marlins in 2003, it would seem logical that a strong case could be made for Brosius to fill one of the seats in the Hall of Fame."

Wow.

What a desecration of the word "logical."


Can you imagine? I mean, can you seriously imagine?

Think for a moment about all the mediocre players who'd suddenly have a Cooperstown case if Scott Brosius made it in.

Using Girandola's (ahem) "logic," I think every single player on the 2000 Yankees would have to make the Hall of Fame. If Scott Brosius makes the Hall of Fame, Jose Vizcaino can't be far behind.

The worstest baseball column.

"Santa Claus probably never got a wish list from uberagent Scott Boras. Otherwise, he would have gone out of business a long time ago."

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.


"Boras suckered Rangers owner Tom Hicks into giving Alex Rodriguez $252 million for 10 years, the richest -- not to mention dumbest -- contract in pro sports."

Oh, please.

I could probably think of 100 worse pro sports contracts off the top of my head.

Steve Francis, Allan Houston, Juan Gonzalez, Darren Dreifort, Eli Manning, Adam Archuleta, Ed Belfour, and ARod's teammates Carl Pavano, Randy Johnson, Jason Giambi, Rick Helling, and Chan Ho Park.

What about Chan Ho Park? Certainly, Chan Ho Park's deal was worse than ARod's:

"Then he talked Hicks into an even worse deal, $65 million over five years, for Chan Ho Park."

So, Alex Rodriguez's deal was the dumbest, but Chan Ho Park's deal was worse.


I think we need to review the meaning of the suffix "-est."


You've got three degrees of comparison:

You start with the absolute: "dumb."

Followed by the comparative: "dumber."

After that, the superlative, and there can only be one superlative: "dumbest."


This exercise may help:

Dumb.

Dumber.

Dumbest.

Is Scott Miller an avatar?

A cyborg?

A simulacrum?

A fictional creation of a viral marketing campaign?


On December 24, 2006, "Scott Miller" comes out strongly against Mark McGwire's Hall of Fame credentials:

"McGwire and his fellow Bash (The Integrity of the Game) Brothers have dishonored the sport by dragging it into the worst scandal since the 1919 Black Sox.

They have twisted some of the game's most treasured numbers into an indecipherable maze of voodoo statistics largely devoid of meaning and context.

They have turned on the game's most important natural resource -- Little Leaguers, high schoolers and college players -- to a whole medicine's chest worth of dangerous unnatural resources that can be harmful or, at worse, fatal."


Then, on December 27, 2006, he writes this:

"Know whose box I'd also love to check on my ballot?

The late Ken Caminiti's, as a show of respect toward the one player out of hundreds who had the guts to publicly discuss the game's raging steroids problem.

That it took so long for a player -- any player -- to publicly identify the insidious cancer that was growing inside major league clubhouses is just one glimpse into the union's steely code of silence.

By speaking out shortly before his death -- admitting his own steroid use and discussing the high percentage of others who were using -- Caminiti performed a far greater service to the game and to the future health of his fellow players than anybody had to that point, including commissioner Bud Selig and union chief Don Fehr."

Wow.

I guess Ken Caminiti really cared about the children while he was Bashing (The Integrity of the Game) and winning an MVP with his voodoo statistics and leading his voodoo team to the voodoo World Series.


As for the union's steely code of silence, which players can really claim innocence?

Cal Ripken didn't know what was going on?

Tony Gwynn kept silent while his teammate's head swelled to the size of a Geo Tracker? Tony Gwynn didn't thereby indirectly risk the lives of all the nation's Little Leaguers?


No, I don't think it's a teammate's job to rat out a steroid user. I also don't think it's the Federal Government's job to waste resources hunting down steroid users in baseball, especially while a new NFL player tests positive every other day.

But if steroid use is really ruining our society from the inside-out -- if you really think this is a serious problem -- if this is something more serious than protecting Roger Maris's precious record -- then there's a heckuva lot of blame to go around.

If you're looking for saints on your Hall of Fame ballot, you're not going to find any.

Kaboom!

Steroid Test Results Made Public!

Barry Bonds, 99 others, under suspicion!


I know that post made no sense to anybody else.

It's just that when I read about the reaction to today's court ruling, I instantly thought of the 1984 parody newspaper, the Post New York Post:



Even the local sports talking head said that Barry Bonds obviously tested positive.

Though we don't even know if Bonds was in this batch of testing. Or if he was cleaned out by the time he was tested.

We do have a pretty good idea, however, that 100 players tested positive.

I can guarantee that 99 of them were not Barry Bonds.

Bengie Molina tips the scales.

"The American League has been bashing the National League around for quite some time. The junior circuit hasn't lost an All-Star Game since 1996, went 154-98 in interleague play last season and has won seven of the last 11 World Series.

But the NL has been putting up a better fight of late."

I don't think the World Series or All Star Games are worthwhile indicators, but I think it's clear the AL is currently stronger than the NL.


So, what has occurred this offseason to strengthen the NL and weaken the AL?:

"Heading the list is outfielder Alfonso Soriano, the $136 million man who stayed in the NL when he left the Washington Nationals for the Chicago Cubs."

Soriano was already in the NL.

Soriano was already in the NL when the AL went 154-98 in interleague play and whatnot.


"Right-hander Jason Schmidt, who left the San Francisco Giants for the Los Angeles Dodgers, heads a list of players who stayed in the NL."

Oh, I see the difference. Heading the list is Alfonso Soriano, but Jason Schmidt heads the list.

Whoever heads this particular list, the point is that this list consists of players who were already in the NL.

Only players who switched leagues are relevant to this discussion.

So, what'cha got?:

"Jumping leagues were free agent catcher Bengie Molina (Giants), infielder Mark DeRosa (Cubs) and pitchers Adam Eaton (Philadelphia Phillies) and Ted Lilly (Cubs). The NL talent pool also increased when pitcher Freddy Garcia was traded to the Phillies."

Bengie Molina, Mark DeRosa, Adam Eaton, Ted Lilly, and Freddy Garcia?

That's all you've got?

That's the NL stripping the AL of its talent?

Ummm, no.

The Case for Randy Johnson.

Ken Davidoff:

"There's no disputing that Johnson's 2006 was lousy, especially given his $16-million salary. Yet he still managed to throw 205 innings and win 17 games with a herniated disc in his back.

...

What Johnson shares with Pavano in clubhouse charm (zero), he more than trumps in reliability. He takes the ball every fifth day. Expect motivation to erase last year's embarrassments, as well as build toward both 300 career victories and another contract."

Innings matter.

Randy Johnson is old and his health is a question mark. But Randy Johnson's health issues are minor compared to Mussina's shoulder, Pettitte's elbow, and Pavano's vagina.

What's left for the back end of the Yankee 2007 rotation? A Japanese pitcher, minor-leaguer Phil Hughes, and Jeff Karstens.

I have as much faith in those guys as I had in Shawn Chacon and ... who's the other guy? ... the guy with the big chin who went 10-0? ... oh, yeah ... Aaron Small.

Remember 10-0 Aaron Small?


Tim Marchman:

"The unpleasant fact about Johnson is he may well be the Yankees' best starting pitcher. Take that 5.00 ERA, for instance. It was bad, but Johnson's underlying performance was good. His component ERA — a number derived from the hits, strikeouts, and so on, he allowed — was 3.81 in 2006, 13th-best in the American League. In fact, the disparity between the two numbers was the highest in the league. Component ERA, for a variety of reasons, is a better predictor of future success than actual ERA, and statistically, Johnson looks like an excellent bet to post an ERA of around 3.75 this coming season — a better bet, actually, than any other Yankee starter."

I'd take a good ERA over a good Component ERA, but it should be intuitively obvious that Johnson is set up for a better 2007 than 2006.

Since when is surgery a bad thing? Surgery is a good thing. That's why you have the surgery.

Homeruns make people crazy cuckoo.

"Guy embezzles thousands of dollars from his company. Upstanding member of the community. Donates to charity. Hero to little kids. His life is one long ticker-tape parade of attaboys, promotions and company parties. Few have any idea of what the guy's done, and those who do don't want to believe it."

Why would he embezzle money just to donate it to charity?

Are we talking about Robin Hood?


"Eight years later, his secret life is no longer so secret. Evidence has piled up that he broke the law. Maybe there were multiple co-conspirators driving the getaway car, but the DNA trail leads to our hero.

Because so many years have elapsed, we're just supposed to look the other way and let him slide?"

No.


"I don't think so. Wouldn't happen elsewhere, and it's not happening with Mark McGwire on my Hall of Fame ballot."

What evidence does Scott Miller have that Mark McGwire broke the law?

What evidence has piled up?

I want to know what evidence exists besides innuendo and supposition. Poor showing at a bogus Congressional hearing (didn't Congress have anything better to do?).

Because the hypothetical embezzler sure isn't going to jail based on innuendo and suppositon.


"Don't tell me about the hypocrisy of glamorizing Mac and Sammy eight years ago and then tearing it all down now. We know a lot more now than we did eight years ago. That isn't hypocrisy, despite what simpleton columnists and talk-show screamers say. It's called due diligence. It's called continuing education. Few had even heard of BALCO in 1998, and you can be damned sure that nobody was handing out subpoenas back then."

It's hypocritical because you are only angry at prolific HR hitters in baseball. You are not angry at all cheaters equally. You don't care about football players and you don't even care about pitchers. In fact, you don't even care about Randy Velarde, just because he didn't hit enough HRs.


"Don't tell me that anabolic steroids weren't against baseball's rules in '98, so the players all have Get Out Of Jail Free cards from that period. Anabolic steroids were -- and are -- against the federal law. It's not clearly spelled out in baseball's rulebook that the cleanup hitter can't strangle the batboy to death in the dugout, either."

Your first analogy is embezzlement and your second analogy is murder.

Oh, and amphetamines are also illegal according to federal law and used in abundance everyday in MLB.

Shrug.


"McGwire and his fellow Bash (The Integrity of the Game) Brothers have dishonored the sport by dragging it into the worst scandal since the 1919 Black Sox.

They have twisted some of the game's most treasured numbers into an indecipherable maze of voodoo statistics largely devoid of meaning and context."

I think the HR stats of the 1990s are easily decipherable and meaningful. Subtract about 20%. That wasn't really so difficult.

But even if they were truly indecipherable, they can not be devoid of context. How can baseball statistics ever be devoid of context? The context is 1990s in America with lots of players using steroids.

The entire purpose of Miller's article is to present these numbers in the context of steroid abuse, comparing these steroid abusers to players of previous decades. That's what "context" is.

Other contextual factors include small stadiums, small strike zone, better training techniques, bigger salaries, and watered-down pitching.

But I am still wondering why Miller's anger is directed solely at prolific HR hitters.

Hundreds of major league ballplayers have taken steroids.

Miller has narrowed the problem down to approximately six: Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Canseco, and Giambi. These six players will be eliminated from HOF consideration and that's the big moral stand.

Ivan Rodriguez will make the Hall of Fame.

Mike Piazza will make the Hall of Fame.

Rickey Henderson will make the Hall of Fame.

Roger Clemens will make the Hall of Fame.

Even Gary Sheffiled will make the Hall of Fame.

I have as much suspicion -- and as little proof -- about all of them as I do about Mark McGwire.


"And those who bring Hall of Famer and noted spitballer Gaylord Perry into the equation right about now? That's a completely disingenuous comparison, misdemeanor vs. felony. Last time we checked, Vaseline wasn't an illegal substance."

In baseball, Vaseline is an illegal substance.

In any case, Miller is the guy who just brought up the character/moral clause thingy.

I don't know what kind of moral relativism would allow misdemeanors but disallow felonies. Sounds like a hypocritical morality if there ever was one.

So, what's McGwire's real crime? The real crime is hitting homeruns. Either that or making the writers look like fools in '98.


"Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were the toasts of the town once, too. Enron was a model company and everyone was making gobs of money.

Then the closet door opened and the skeletons tumbled out.

Do you think Lay and Skilling should have walked when their crimes were revealed simply because those crimes had occurred several years earlier?"

Holey Moley. I'm not really sure Enron was ever a "model company." I am pretty sure the whole thing was a house of cards the whole time.

But what is Miller's problem? Embezzlement, murder, and now Enron?

Miller must be really, really, really upset about guys who took steroids.

In one article, Mark McGwire has been compared to an embezzler, a murderer, and the perpetrators of the greatest white collar crime in US history.

I guess you can have too much pitching after all.

"Through his version of events, Newsday's Anthony Rieber fuels speculation about the possibility of having Roger Clemens take RJ's spot in the rotation. It's not a very rational idea; Clemens won't return until after the season starts."

The Yankees are going to replace an old, overpaid pitcher with an old, overpaid pitcher.

At least Unit has thrown 430 innings over the past two seasons.

I agree that it's simply not rational to expect Clemens to be able to replace Johnson.


"More likely, the willingness to trade Randy Johnson means the Yanks are confident that either Carl Pavano, Phil Hughes, or Jeff Karstens will emerge as the fifth starter in spring training. Frankly, we're confident about that possibility too, so to get a prospect -- really, any prospect -- back for a decrepit Randy Johnson would be quite a deal."

This is a person who just said it's irrational to presume that Roger Clemens could effectively replace Randy Johnson in the Yankees rotation.

Then, in the very next sentence, this person proclaims that he is confident that Carl Pavano or Phil Hughes or Jeff Karstens could replace Randy Johnson in the starting rotation.


I wouldn't be surprised if the Yankees have a master plan.

Jon Heyman even says a Zito signing is in the works.

Maybe the Yankees just want to free up some cash for a future signing or maybe they just want to free up some cash for golf junkets and some Derek Jeter fatheads.

But please don't use the words "rational" and "Carl Pavano" and "starter" in the same sentence. When you use the words "Carl Pavano" and "starter" in the same sentence, and then categorize this as a "rational" thought, Descartes spins in his grave.

Subtraction By Subtraction.

"Intrepid Ed Price of the Star-Ledger is reporting the Yankees are talking to the Diamondbacks about sending Randy Johnson back to Arizona.

What a Christmas present that would be for the Yankees, who are on the hook for $16 million for their 43-year-old No. 4 starter."

I'm amused by the fact that Abraham has just moved Pettitte ahead of Johnson on the depth chart. Based on not a damn thing besides the fact that Abraham thinks Pettitte is a nicer guy.

Pettitte is younger than Johnson and that's why Pettitte may be slightly more valuable in the long run.

Pettitte, however, has not outpitched Johnson over the past two seasons.

For the 2006 Yankee depth chart, it's a toss up.


"The Unit is 34-19 and has pitched 430.2 innings in his two seasons with the Yankees. His ERA isn't pretty (4.37) but he has largely done what they expected. It's not a stretch to think he could win 17 or 18 in the National League even coming off the surgery."

Exactly.

So how are the Yankees going to easily replace him?

Why is this a Christmas present?


Maybe Dave-n-Aziz at the nj.com Yankees blog can explain:

"It would rid the Yanks of the question mark of whether or not Johnson could really be counted on anymore."

Yes, and replace it with an even bigger question mark: Ummm, who's pitching?


"We wouldn't have those silly stories about Johnson's mood swings."

No more silly stories on the sports pages.

Check.

It's addition by subtraction.

Ummm, but who's pitching?

There's a game today vs. the Cleveland Indians and, though the NY newspapers are devoid of silly stories about Randy Johnson's mood swings, the Indians are starting C.C. Sabathia and the umpires won't start the game until the Yankees put a pitcher on the mound.

It's in the rules and stuff.


"We'd be rid of caring about whether or not he can handle the NY media."

First of all, speak for yourself. I never cared about whether or not Randy Johnson can handle the NY media and their silly little stories about his mood swings.

Johnson has been a bust, but a minor bust. He has been a major bust in two playoff starts, but a minor bust in the regular season.

Secondly, I'm sure Dave-n-Aziz would suddenly care about whether or not Johnson's replacement, the mysterious Player X, could handle the NY media.

Since the NY media is completely infatuated with the notion of whether or not a player can handle the NY media.


"This would be a great deal, no matter whom the Yanks would get in return."

Especially if No Matter Whom is a pitcher.

So the Yankees' battery is not constantly Posada and TBA.

Cal Ripken Did Not Save Baseball.

If the McGwire/Sosa HR race of 1998 saved baseball, but Cal Ripken had already saved baseball in 1995, I wonder what killed baseball in between?

I say it was Charlie Hayes.

The Black Sox scandal killed baseball in 1919, Babe Ruth saved baseball in 1920, free agency killed it again in 1973, Mark Fidrych saved it again in 1975, the work stoppage killed it again in 1994, Cal Ripken saved it again in 1995, Charlie Hayes killed it in 1996, and then McGwire/Sosa saved it again in 1998.

"On the night of Sept. 6, 1995, Cal Ripken Jr. saved baseball.

The game was flickering when the Baltimore Orioles shortstop broke Lou Gehrig's record of 2,130 consecutive games played."

Do you know why baseball would have survived?

Because baseball is the perfect game. It has something for everyone. It's the game for the proletariat. It sates the vox populi.


"Ripken will easily be elected to the Hall of Fame when voting by the Baseball Writers' Association of America is announced Jan. 9. He and the San Diego Padres' Tony Gwynn are first-ballot shoo-ins.

But if ever a candidate deserves to be a unanimous choice, it's Ripken, something that's never happened in 63 elections held by the baseball writers. (On nine occasions, no election was held).

Tom Seaver came the closest in 1992 when he received 98.84%, missing by five votes of the 430 cast. Nolan Ryan received 491 of 497 (98.79%) in 1999, and in 1936's first election, Ty Cobb got 222 of 226 (98.23%).
...

Why then, shouldn't he be a unanimous choice?"

He should be a unanimous choice.

Why shouldn't Tony Gwynn be a unanimous choice, for that matter?

Is there a sportswriter on the face of the Earth who doesn't think Tony Gwynn belongs in the Hall of Fame?

Why weren't Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth and Willie Mays and Cy Young unanimous choices?


The sportswriters have developed their own dopey protocols as it pertains to HOF voting.

There's the first ballot thing, the silly votes for Jim Deshaies, and there will probably be a holdout who won't vote for Ripken simply because nobody ever gets 100% of the vote.

But, since Bodley posed the question, I'll answer it.

Ripken should not be a unanimous choice because this may present the impression that he's the greatest player ever.

A shorstop/third baseman who hit .276 is not the greatest player ever.

Just say "steroids."

Ask some people for the time and they will give you the history of clocks.

Jeff Passan has been saving up some good stuff, just waiting for somebody to ask him what he thinks about the current state of baseball:

"The game is right. The game will always be right. The game is why baseball now thrives, why it has persevered, why it caught on in the first place. The game is malleable enough -- fast or slow, intense or laid-back, a pitching duel or slugfest -- to sate the vox populi. The game speaks. The game cries. The game invites. The game, simply, is perfect.

Baseball is a dream that can be fulfilled, or at least seems that way, and that gives it a proletariat edge that no other sport can claim. Basketball discriminates by height, football by girth or speed, hockey by coordination or number of teeth missing. Fat or skinny, fast or slow, tall or short, baseball is accessible -- full of choices, indeed, from the game itself to the players to the ways in which one can enjoy it."

I think you had your Pulitzer, until the whole "sate the vox populi" thing.

First of all, vox populi should be in italics. Small matter, but the Committee is keen on details.

More importantly, that's not a proper use of vox populi.

Using the literal translation -- "voice of the people" -- this doesn't make sense.

Baseball sates the voice of the people? Why doesn't baseball just sate the people? "Baseball sates the populi." Or perhaps baseball sates the appetites of the people?

More commonly, vox populi is translated as "public sentiment" or "public opinion." Which means pretty much the same thing and makes just as little sense in Passan's usage.

I know what Passan is trying to say. Baseball sates the general public, the unwashed masses, the doting Johnny Lunchpails.

In other words, "People Like Baseball."

That was easy and written entirely in English, without any Latin.

2-year, $32 million.

Y'all are a few years late realizing that Andy Pettitte is a hypocrite, y'hear?:

"The Astros made one offer here and compared it to the one over there. That's not just smart baseball, it's smart business.

Fans are smart, too, and should realize this was about good, old American greed, nothing more and nothing less.

Pettitte has every right to cash in, sure. Good for him. He had his reasons for wanting to stay, but in the end Pettitte was no different than, say, Terrell Owens.

There were 32 million reasons home is where he'll hang his Yankees cap."

How can Ken Rosenthal and others claim the Pettitte contract is worth $32 million when the rest of the world is reporting 1 year, $16 million?

Because the second year is a player option. It's not guaranteed money. Theoretically, Pettitte could turn down the money and go back on the market.

But, since it's a player option, there's no reason Pettitte won't make at least that much money in 2008.

As a safety net for the Yankees , Pettitte (ahem) has promised (heh heh) that he wouldn't enforce the option (wink wink) if he was not healthy enough (nudge nudge) to pitch in 2008.

Of course, Trustworthy is as Trustworthy does:

"I don't know about you. But if I'm a pitcher who's had elbow trouble two of the past three years and was offered $12 million to pitch, while still getting to tuck my kids into bed, hanging with my lifelong friends and attending my home church, then slap away.

The only slap in the face was by Pettitte. He is a good man. Church-going. Sings in the choir. Brings his best.

But in this case he was at his worst. The advice Pettitte has followed contradicts everything he ever said was most important in his life. It also cast a shadow on all the good feelings he brought his hometown.

'My heart started pulling me, tugging me to come back down here.'

— Andy Pettitte, December 2003, about Houston

Sometimes the best spin is none at all. All Pettitte needed to do was be honest.

Tell us it was about the money. Tell us, yeah, it's going to be tough leaving the wife and kids again for maybe eight months, but $32 million is $32 million. We'd understand.

'My family is the most important thing to me. I think everybody realizes that now. I'm sure everyone thought I'd just go after the money. It wasn't about the money. I could have gotten a lot more money other places.'

— Andy Pettitte, December 2003

Everyone should realize something else now. Team Andy again is talking about it not being about the money, even saying again that Pettitte could have gone elsewhere for considerably more than the two-year, $32 million paid by the Yanks. They've turned the tables. They've blamed McLane. Don't buy it."

Contracts According to Felz.

I learned something new today. The reported figures of baseball contracts only refer to guaranteed money. Though performance bonuses and options abound, these are not included in the reported figures.

I can find no mention of a third-year option in the ESPN article that I linked to, but it wouldn't be the first time ESPN was wrong.

According to this particular article, the first Yankee offer to Pettitte was 3/$30 mill, including a buyout for the 4th year. The final Yankee offer only guaranteed $26 million to Pettitte. The 3rd year, which would have brought the total to $39 million, was performance-based, and there was no mention of 2007.

Was the Yankee offer passive or aggressive? That's an opinion. Compared to a final Astro offer of 3/$31.5 mill, I think the Yankee offer was plenty aggressive, especially since Pettitte wouldn't allow the Yankee doctors to examine his elbow.

but did the Yankees guarantee more money than the Astros? Apparently not.

I still believe that the Yankee offer was more than fair and arguably better than the Astro offer. I still believe that Pettitte would have stayed with the Yankees if he had wanted to. I still believe that it's very misleading to claim that the Yankees "let Pettitte go" without making an offer. I still believe the general perception is wrong.

Okay, so now that that's cleared up, maybe somebody could explain what an "option" is.

It feels weird briefly agreeing with Mike Lupica.

"Andy Pettitte had all those reasons for leaving the Yankees, or so he said three years ago. Maybe he meant some of the things he said when he left. It was about living in Houston full time, that was a big one. It was about family. Okay. You never fault somebody for that. Now it's not just Pettitte, it's his DAD saying in the Times how happy his grandchildren are, because the kids can stay in the Houston schools they're in even.

They couldn't have done that before?

If Pettitte is such a born Yankee, as Yankee as pinstripes and payroll, then what about all the things he told Astros fans?

What was he just saying because it sounded good at the time, what did he really mean?"

Of course he was saying it just because it sounded good at the time. If you think that kind of garbage sounded good at the time.

I think any grown man who refuses $7.5 mill because the boss didn't call him on the cell phone is pathetic.

I think any grown man who thinks a $39 mill offer is insulting is a sissy.

I never fell for Pettitte's pro-family, pro-Christian line of junk in the first place.


"You know why Derek Jeter is my Sportsman of the Year in New York sports this year? It's not just because of the wonderful season he had. It's because he's not part of the constant chatter. It's because he doesn't talk just to talk, say what he thinks people want him to hear, about A-Rod or anybody else. Some of his own teammates call him a phony. There are plenty of those in this town. Jeter isn't one."

Well, it's nice to know I disagree with Lupica once again.

Jeter has made an art of saying "what he thinks people want him to hear" [sic]. (What people want to hear? What people want him to say?)

But you know why Derek Jeter is the Sportsman of the Year in New York sports? It's 100% because of the wonderful season he had on the field. It's not because of any off-field behavior, even if he had discovered a cure for the common cold.

As long as Pettitte can pitch, he can say any b.s. he wants to the press. It doesn't even bother me too much that he's a liar and a hypocrite. I could not care less. As long as he wins baseball games.

I care even less what his father says to the press.

I care even less than that what grades his kids get on their report cards.

A robot programmed to play baseball.

I told you that would be awesome.

The forgotten $39 million.

People believe what they want to believe.

Or, more likely, some people just want to use their newspaper column to deliberately mislead their readers:

"A little more than three years ago, the Yankees decided they had no further use for Andy Pettitte."

The Yankees offered Pettitte $39 million.

The Yankees offered Pettitte more than the Astros offered Pettitte.

One may conclude that it seems that Pettitte decided he had no further use for the Yankees.


"They granted him his free agency and then sat back, not even bothering to make an offer, as Pettitte signed a three-year, $31-million deal with the Houston Astros."

No, Wallace Matthews. That's not the truth.

The Yankees bothered making an offer to Pettitte.

The Yankees bothered with a $39 million offer.

Pettitte turned it down so he could pitch in Houston along with his "special friend" and also so he could pitch for an owner with Christian values. Also, so he could be close to his family.

Not sure how Pettitte could possibly agree to come back and pitch for a secular owner who won't even call him on his cell phone to say "hi." Because that's supposedly why Pettitte left the Yankees in the first place.

I also don't think Steinbrenner became a saint in the interim three years.

I also don't think Pettitte's family has moved to the Bronx.


"The succession of frauds the Yankees brought in to fill the void - Kevin Brown, Javier Vazquez, Carl Pavano, Jaret Wright, Esteban Loaiza and of course, Randy Johnson - fizzled in the regular season and bombed out in October.

Those names are the biggest reasons why the Yankees have not been in a World Series since 2003, have not won it since 2000, haven't gotten past the first round of the playoffs for two years running."

Yes, all of the above-mentioned players have bombed out for the Yankees, to varying degrees. They certainly weren't a suitable replacement for Clemens ... I mean, for Pettitte.

But "since 2000" is an itsy bitsy bit misleading.

None of the above-mentioned pitchers were even on the Yankees in 2001. Or 2002. Or 2003.

In 2001, Kevin Brown was in LA, Carl Pavano was in Montreal, Jaret Wright was in Cleveland, Esteban Loaiza was in Toronto, and Randy Johnson was the pitcher who beat the Yankees in Game Six and Game Seven of the World Series.

Andy Pettitte was the Yankee pitcher who went to Arizona with a 3-2 Series lead and allowed 6 earned runs in 2 innings.


I mean, seriously, think about what Matthews just said: "Esteban Loaiza is one of the biggest reasons that the Yankees haven't won the World Series for the past six years."

Esteban Loaiza, who pitched in 10 whole regular season games for the Yankees, is one of the biggest reasons the Yankees haven't won the World Series for the past six years.

Esteban Loaiza pitched pretty well in the playoffs for the Yankees, actually.

Loaiza pitched 8 1/3 playoff innings for the Yankees and allowed 1 earned run.

The fraud with the 1.08 postseason ERA is the reason the Yankees haven't won a World Series since 2000.


"But they know they were wrong on this one. He may have won some of the biggest postseason games in their recent history - only Orlando Hernandez had a better record in October - but "they" (read: George M. Steinbrenner III) didn't think three more years of Pettitte was worth $31 million."

Give me a minute to get my calculator.

Sure enough, 39 is more than 31.

Using the transitive property, I can prove that George M. Steinbrenner III actually thought Pettitte was worth more than 3 years and $31 million.

Though George M. Steinbrenner III did not think Pettitte was worth 4 years and $52 million.


"Still, he remains one of the 10 best pitchers in baseball and the Yankees' best hope of regaining, even for a year, the spark that has left them over the past couple of years."

Andy Pettitte is not one of the 10 best pitchers in baseball.

If Andy Pettitte was one of the top ten pitchers in baseball, then I could not create the following list, which I call, "Ten Baseball Pitchers Who Are Better Than Andy Pettitte":

1. Johan Santana.
2. Mariano Rivera.
3. Chien-Ming Wang.
4. Curt Schilling.
5. Roy Halladay.
6. Jeremy Bonderman.
7. Barry Zito.
8. Scott Kazmir.
9. Justin Verlander.
10. Francisco Liriano.
    

That was easy. I didn't even have to look up the stats. That was just off the top of my head. Heck, I didn't even get out of the American League.


I don't think Wallace Matthews is this stupid or this forgetful. Matthews has to know that Pettitte is not one of the top ten pitchers in baseball and Matthews couldn't have possibly forgotten that the Yankees offered Pettitte $39 million.

Matthews does this on purpose.

For some unknown reason, it's important for Wallace Matthews praise Andy Pettitte and criticize George M. Steinbrenner III.

I know one American League executive whose team is going to lose.

It's that time of year again.

Time to feign outrage about the cold weather, the commercialization of Christmas, and the "skyrocketing" salaries for major league baseball players:

"Baseball's most valuable players this season raked in a combined $740,000 in salary, which is approximately what the Chicago Cubs plan to pay Alfonso Soriano every time he sneezes the next eight years."

In 2002, Alfonso Soriano was third in AL MVP voting while only earning $630,000. Then he became a free agent. Now, he's the poster boy for $100 million club.

This is how free agency works. This is how free agency has worked for 35 years. Stop acting all surprised.


"If there seems an incongruity with Justin Morneau making $385,000 and Ryan Howard getting $355,000 while Jamie Walker signs for $4 million a year because he happens to throw his 50 or so innings with his left hand, there is."

It's called free agency.


"It's such a deal, in fact, that the under-control player – preferably one with less than three years of service time, though fourth- and fifth-year arbitration-eligible players qualify, too – no longer is simply a luxury. With free-agent salaries filling with helium leading up to this year's Winter Meetings and showing no signs of abating, a quality zero-to-five player is now the most desired commodity in the game."

Well, duh.

But then they become free agents and, if you want to keep them on your team, you have to pay them $20 million per year.


"Forget the $20 million-a-year guy and forget prospects," one American League executive said. "Now it's guys who have established themselves who you can control for four or five years."

Justin Morneau and Ryan Howard are prospects and $20 million-a-year guys. It just depends of when.

First, they're prospects. Then, they're "under control." Then, they're $20 million-a-year guys.

If you forget the $20 million-a-year guys, then you're soon saying goodbye to Morneau and Howard.


"Flexibility comes with cheap contracts, and even though the minimum salary was raised 16 percent in the new collective-bargaining agreement, it's still $380,000, pennies compared to the long-term deals free agents are snagging."

Without prospects or expensive veterans, you can have a whole team of minimum wage rookies and mediocre talent.

Yes, your team will also have quite a bit of flexibility.

Some days you will lose by a lot and some days you will lose by a little.

Some days you will lose because of mediocre hitting and some days you will lose because of mediocre pitching and some days you will lose because of mediocre fielding.