Some analysts don't like statistics. Some analysts REALLY don't like statistics.

"Again, not that A-Rod can’t or won’t be a productive player in the future; it’s just that his days as A-ROD, THE ALL-TIME GREAT (you know, 50 homers, 140 RBIs, .325) are over."

.325, 50 homers, 140 RBIs? In one season? ARod has never done that.

He batter over .325 one time and that was in 1996. (This was arguably his best year, but it depends how you look at it. I'll take .358, 54 doubles, 36 HRs. I think he simply changed his style and focused on HRs. But, wow: .358, 54 doubles, 36 HRs.)

140 RBIS? Twice in his career. Yankee fans were treated to one of these seasons, in 2007: .314/54/156.


"Plus, there was that interesting play in the bottom of the fourth when, with A-Rod on second and one out, Jorge Posada (boy, is he going out with a bang) lined a hard single to center. A-Rod, rounding third, was held up by third-base coach Robbie Thomson. The Yankees wound up not scoring in the inning."

Right.

ARod is hurt. He basically can't run, field, or hit.

I really don't think a 36-year-old world-class athlete is finished physically. This is actually the first season in his MLB career that ARod wasn't productive and this lack of production was mostly due to injury.

"After the game, A-Rod took the questions and, essentially, stated that he has to get his health back.

But, make no mistake, the A-Rod you are watching today is not the A-Rod of yesterday. Whatever the reason, whether it be no steroids or too many injuries or age or whatever, is irrelevant. "

Well, the reason is very relevant.

If it be "no steroids," then he's not getting it back. If it be age, then he's not going to get younger. If it be injuries, then he will likely get healthy and drive in 120 next year.

It's the difference between being drunk or ugly. Tomorrow, the drunk will be sober.


"The reality is that the new 10-year contract he signed after opting out (which, by the way, was opposed by GM Brian Cashman) will be an albatross around the neck of the New York Yankees for years to come."

Most observers seem to misundrestand the concept of an albatross. It's not merely a foolish decision, it's not merely a large expenditure, it's not merely a large expenditure with insufficient returns.

ARod's contract may be all these things -- though I'm not sure if the Yankee gravy train would be rolling quite so furiously the past four years -- or if they'd have won the WS in 2009 -- if they'd saved $20 mill per year and played Mike Lowell at 3b every day.

(Adrian Beltre at half the price would have been a wise choice in retrospect, but, you know, that's just not how it works. Also, it's unclear whether a productive player sans star power could fill the back pages and the $1,000 seats at a plushy new stadium.)

ARod's contract would be too expensive baseball-wise even if he was putting up .325/50/140 every year.

This is not unique. Every long-term contract will eventually overpay for an old player.

But even that's not an albatross.

An albatross is specifically concerned with missed opportunity costs.

An albatross is a liability that is holding you back.

Jayson Werth's contract may be an albatross. Jason Bay's contract may be an albatross. If you're the Royals, Billy Butler's contract may be an albatross.

If you're the Yankees? No albatross.

The Yankees have been so burdened by ARod's contract, they subsequently lavished long-term contracts to Teixeira, Sabathia, Granderson, Rivera, Jeter ... and tried give another $100 million to Cliff Lee.

The idea that ARod's contract is holding back the Yankees is like saying Soros needs to cancel his Netflix subscription on account of the rate hike.