What was Brian (Fredo) Cashman's worst Yankee move this year? It's not what you think

"I'm smart and I want respect!" -- Brian (Fredo) Cashman

Grrrrr. I am irate at the state of the Yankees these days. A little bit more than a quarter of the 2015 Yankees' season is over, and the team is not in a good way. Yes, the Yanks are only 1.5 games out of first place in the American League East, But they have lost five in a row, and nine of their last 10 games, They are only a game over .500. And unless they get a grip -- and soon -- their season will be falling apart pretty quickly.

As I noted yesterday, even the YES Network's Jack Curry was suggesting changes to shake up the Yanks. Unfortunately, other than calling up Jacob Lindgren, Brian (Fredo) Cashman seems content to wait out these underachieving players. Joe Girardi, too. 

Why else would you see a player like Stephen Drew, whose .177 batting average puts him as 173th of 175 qualifying hitters in the majors, batting sixth, as he did on Saturday? Why else would Esmil Rogers still have a job?  And why in the world was Didi Gregorius the best choice to replace Derek Jeter? Cashman had many years to find and groom Jeter's successor, and this is the best he could come up with? A weak-hitting player who makes so many mental mistakes? Who missed the cut over this guy?

Cashman needs to channel "The Gambler," the classic Kenny Rogers song with the lines about how you've got to know when to hold them and when to fold them. But instead of acknowledging the obvious, not even easy things like giving Drew the old heave-ho, Fredo is staying with the status quo, clapping his hands and believing in fairies. Again.

The New York Post's Joel Sherman asked Cashman yesterday if changes were afoot:

As for the players viewed most on the firing line — Didi Gregorius, Stephen Drew and Esmil Rogers — Yankees general manager Brian Cashman told The Post no changes were planned. All are staying. At least for now. “We have to play better,” Cashman said. “We have to clean up our act.”

The only reason the Yankees aren't further down in the standings is because they are in such a weak division. And the problems with this team aren't just the players above.

Aside from the other usual suspects, like the perennially underachieving Carlos Beltran, can we talk about how overrated Chase Headley is? Wasn't the hot corner supposed to be a power-hitting position? It no longer is in Yankeeland.

Headley's splits this year are .235/.289/.379 (.668 OPS), with nine errors at third. His .688 OPS is 18th out of 22nd among qualifying third basemen this year. This is the guy to replace Alex Rodriguez at third? This is the star who earned a four-year, $52M deal from the Yanks after a very mediocre summer in the Bronx?

Here are the stats for just one of the many third basemen who are doing better than Headley this year. In addition to playing third, Player Y has also played first and second base this season. He has a .273/.326/.383 (.709 OPS) slash line this year, outdoing Headley here, even though Player Y plays in a pitcher's park. Player X also had comparable numbers to Chase last year:

Player Y in 2014: .260/.336/.369 (.705 OPS) with 10 HRs and 48 RBI
Headley in 2014:  .243/.328/.372 (.700 OPS) with 13 HRs and 49 RBI

Oh, and Player Y is only costing his team $516,400 this year, while the Yanks are paying $13M for Headley.

Want to know who Player Y is? It is Yangervis Solarte, the former Yankee traded for Headley. The Yanks got a player who is four years older, more expensive, and not as good as the person they traded him for. Talk about the Yankee way -- or make that the Brian (Fredo) Cashman way. Good grief.

Same old, same old: Brian Cashman looks silly after getting ripped off (again) by Dave Dombrowski

The New York Post's Joel Sherman wrote an excellent column yesterday about how it looks like Yankees GM Brian (Fredo) Cashman was again "fleeced" by Detroit GM Dave Dombrowski. I have been banging this drum for years, and now Sherman is making his own noise in his Post column. He went through all the times that Dombrowski has gotten the better of Cashman, going back to when the Tigers GM was GM for the Florida Marlins, Here are the dopey things Cashman has done with Dombrowski as a trading partner:

• Traded Mike Lowell to Florida and got nothing good in return.
• Gave up Ted Lilly for Jeff Weaver.
• Traded Gary Sheffield to Detroit and got nothing good in return.
• Traded Austin Jackson and Ian Kennedy for Curtis Granderson in a three-way deal. Detroit got Jackson and Max Scherzer in that deal. Granderson was good, but ultimately, the trade still favored Detroit.
• Traded Shane Greene in a three-way deal for the immortal Didi Gregorius. 

Sherman points out that Greene has been great with Detroit -- in his first two starts, he went eight innings each time and has yet to give up an earned run. Meanwhile, Gregorius has been notorious -- notoriously awful, that is. Between the bad hitting, worse fielding, and dumb baserunning, he is a hot mess so far.

Also, as Sherman writes, Greene was very poised as a Yankee pitcher last year, while Didi seems overwhelmed by the New York spotlight. (And those knuckleheaded Yankee fans chanting "Der-ek Jet-er" at him aren't exactly helping!)

Granted, as Sherman notes, it is still very early. But geez, at a certain point, when does Cashman realize that Dombrowski owns him? Even fantasy baseball players eventually figure out which competitors will outsmart them!

I really hope Sherman's column is a sign of things to come with the New York media when it comes to Brian Cashman. They can't blame this season on injuries, and everybody important is healthy -- but just not very good. Except for Alex Rodriguez, that is. You know, they player they have tried to marginalize, ignore, and treat shoddily all year! So much for Cashman's baseball acumen. He really is the Fredo of GMs -- thinks he's smart, but isn't.

With Stephen Drew, Yankees show (again!) that they have no imagination

Remember that talk this winter that there might actually be a competition at spring training for second base, with Rob Refsnyder and Jose Pirela competing for the role? Remember how Brian Cashman claims pretty much every year that the Yankees need to get younger and more athletic? Heck, even remember the fact that Cashman signed great-defensive/light-hitting infielder Brendan Ryan to a two-year deal, so that he could fill in at the spot?

Well, forget all that stuff. As I noted yesterday, Stephen Drew has won the starting role at second base. Never mind that he currently has a slash line of .091/.231/.091, while Pirela is hitting .462/.533/.692 and Refsnyder has a slash line of .455/.538/.545. (Ryan has been out with a back strain.) So, yes, Drew is actually doing even worse than he did last season with the Yankees, yet the team is locked into him as the starter at second, even though Drew never played the position until last season.

It is bad enough that the Yankees let Robinson Cano walk away and put their franchise in this position in the first place. I would compare it to letting Darrelle Revis and Jose Reyes go. (Incidentally, Squawker Jon has written about that very issue today.)

It adds insult to the proverbial injury that with a team desperate for a hometown hero, that the Yankees wouldn't allow one of their farmhands a spot at the position. But how can a rookie compete with Drew's illustrious pedigree? Drew is a former Red Sox, he gets injured a lot, he is on the wrong side of 30, and his best days are behind him. Those facts are like catnip to Cashman!

Anyhow, the Daily News' John Harper writes about this situation today, and about the fact that no less than Reggie Jackson thinks that Pirela is the best hitter in the Yankees organization. Cashman completely disagreed with that assessment, snapping:

“That’s wrong,” Cashman said. “Greg Bird’s by far the best hitter (among prospects) in the organization.”

Cashman also said: "Once we brought Drew in, the roster was locked in. There’s no competition in the middle infield" and that while “the baby Bombers are hustling, showing their stuff,” that “the veterans are just getting their work in.”

Yeah, heaven forbid anybody earn their spot on this team from good play in spring training. Know your place, rook. You can't compete with the illustrious Stephen Drew, who earned a $5M 2015 deal (plus $1.5M in incentives) after going .150/.219/.271 (!) last year as a Bomber.

As it looks now, the only way the Yankees will dump Drew is if he ends up in a Brian Roberts situation. Remember how Roberts surprised everyone by staying healthy as a Yankee last year, and being in the position to make bonuses? He had these incentives, as Joel Sherman wrote:

Roberts bonuses: $175G for 250pa, 300pa; $250G for 350pa, 400 pa. $300G for 450pa, 500pa; $350G for 550pa $400G for 600pa, 650 pa

And wouldn't you know it? Roberts was benched, and then designated for assignment, when he came within two plate appearances of reaching the $250G bonus for 350PA. What a weird coincidence!

Drew's plate appearance bonuses don't start kicking in until he reaches 450 PA, though. So unfortunately, we may we be stuck with him until then! Oh, joy.

Why didn't the "classy" Yankee brass show a Robinson Cano tribute video?

Not only were too many Yankee fans classless and petty and ungrateful when they booed Robinson Cano so vociferiously last night, but the Yankee front office didn't exactly cover themselves in glory either. Unlike when Jacoby Ellsbury returned to Boston and received a nice video tribute, the Yankees chose not to do the same last night for Cano.

According to David Lennon of Newsday, "a team spokesman declined to say why that decision was made." And Andrew Marchand of ESPN New York said that according to a team official, "The Yankees feel they have not done video tributes in the past when players like David Cone, Tino Martinez, Jason Giambi or David Wells have returned," so they decided not to do one here as well.

However, the Yankee brass had to realize that 1) none of those players were ever the caliber of Cano, and 2) there is the fact that Ellsbury just got that nice Red Sox tribute, which did get help him some cheers at Fenway. At any rate, for a franchise that prides itself on class, and tradition, and doing the right things, not doing a Cano video comes across as pretty small-minded and petty. And it only makes Boston, a franchise which has a sordid history of trashing players on their way out the door, look good in comparison. Sheesh.

And I am not the only one to notice this. CC Sabathia was asked last night why Cano got so many more boos than Ellsbury did. He said, regarding the Red Sox, "They showed a video." Yep.

Not that Cano would have gotten 100% cheers during that, but it would have at least showed that the team, which talks so much about pride, and tradition, and Yankee history, would have some sense to acknowledge their best player over the last half-decade, and arguably their best second baseman ever. And it would have given the non-knuckleheaded Yankee fans an opportunity to cheer, too.

I saw this picture of fans holding up this idiotic sign at the game on the Daily News' website. Sorry, Yankee fans, but we should be better than the pathetic taping of dollar bills to signs -- leave that to the fans of the smaller-market franchises, not to those of  the one with the $200+ million payroll. And last time I checked, Cano did actually help the Yankees to both the playoffs, and to a World Series ring. Also, for those who throw out words like "tradition" and "loyalty" and "pinstripe pride," they ought to at least acknowledge Cano for his great play as a Yankee. Finally, look at all of those empty seats!

* * *

Joel Sherman, a frequent target of this blog, actually had a terrific column in today's New York Post slamming the boobirds. He writes: "I almost never comment on fan behavior, unless it is dangerous. But this reaction was so particularly mob-mentality dumb it is hard to ignore."

Sherman points out that the Stadium has been so quiet over the years, but finally erupted loudly over booing Cano.

The 10,000 or so folks who endured the bad weather sounded like four or five times that much with their animus drowning out the few who were trying to offer applause and thanks for the memories. It was as loud as the Stadium has been all year, louder than some playoff games of the recent past.

He also sarcastically notes:

You know [Cano] had committed the unpardonable sin of being the Yankees’ best player (by far) for about the past half decade, never was involved in off-field trouble and was well-regarded by his teammates. That horrible, horrible man. I really can’t separate who is the bigger public nuisance, Cano or Donald Sterling.

Anyhow, the article is definitely worth reading in full. I agree with pretty much every word Sherman writes here!

Joel Sherman and Joe Girardi brouhaha: Why I am on Girardi's side

I was as peeved as anybody about the way the Yankee game ended Saturday night -- clearly Mark Teixeira was safe, although the umpire didn't see it that way. However, CC Sabathia also needs to be the CC of old; your ace can't be giving up five runs in a start.

Anyhow, I just wanted to weigh in on the hissy fit Joel Sherman had in the post-game presser. He asked Girardi if CC was hurt, acknowledging that this question may have been asked before. Girardi snapped back about it being the third time he was asked that question. Sherman sassed that it was "part of the game."

Then Girardi sez, "I know, but I was asked three times," to which Sherman says that it's "still part of the game." To which Girardi says,"I’m not lying. One time is sufficient." Then Sherman goes about how Girardi "gets the big money" as Yankee manager, and such questioning is all part of the game. (Really? Reporters needing to ask the same questions multiple times is part of the game? And having to put up with an  insufferable clown is part of the game, too? Who knew?)

You can listen to the exchange here, starting at about 3:30 into it. Reportedly, the two continued the conversation in Girardi's office, and supposedly nearly came to blows, with security needing to intervene.

Here's the thing -- I pretty much agree with Sherman's take on the Yankees in the Sunday papers here and here. But I also think that Sherman was completely out of line with the Yankee manager. You didn't hear the answer to the first two times Girardi answered the question? Tough. Listen to your tape recorder, ask one of your colleagues, or watch the YES clip later. What gives you the right to monopolize the press conference and make it about yourself, because Girardi had the nerve to point out that he had already answered the question?

Besides, I've heard Sherman do this over and over, either asking the interview subject a question that has been asked multiple times, or asking the person three or four variations on the same question. It's grandstanding, based on his position as a sports columnist. A rookie writer who asked Girardi to answer a question he had already answered would be lambasted by his colleagues for not paying attention. But since Sherman is a baseball columnist for the New York Post, he gets away with it.

As for this "part of the game" stuff, Sherman makes a lot of money, too. Does that give him the right to make the presser all about him? How does Sherman acting like Veruca Salt in "Willy Wonka" help the readers -- you know, the people he is ostensibly writing his columns for?  What did they learn from that exchange? It seemed like Sherman was picking a fight and claiming the high ground, simply so that people could say how unhinged Girardi is over losing, a la Bobby Valentine losing his mind in Boston.

Perhaps Girardi should have gritted his teeth and not said anything snappy in response. But I don't think it would have made any difference. Sherman was like a dog with a bone, and he wasn't going to let go, no matter what. That's part of Sherman's game!


What do you think? Tell us about it!

I Stayed Out in the Cold for This? Yankees Lose to Twins

I went to the game last night, and saw the first Yankee failure of Rafael Soriano. Hmmmm, did Michael Kay jinx him by coming up with the JoSoMo name, or did I jinx him by talking about it? Yikes!

At least I had a great time seeing my childhood friend Kelly at the game, which cushioned the stomach punch of the loss a little better! Of course, I come home to see that Squawker Jon is gloating about his Mets, and giving me the what-for!

A few thoughts on the evening:

* I was just saying to my friend that after Russell Martin hit a homer in his second Yankee game, John Sterling had a nickname ready to go. So when Andruw Jones came up for the first time as a Yankee, I was wondering what Sterling would come up with. Just a few seconds later, Jones hit a homer in his first at-bat as a Yankee. I called Squawker Jon to ask if he could find out what the Sterling call was. I get a text and a voice mail with the goods a few minutes later: "Andruw Jones makes his bones!" Jon sez that Twitter folks think it's a new low for Sterling!

* It was bitterly cold. Just very uncomfortable, even for me, who is pretty warm-blooded. The Stadium paid attendance of 40K last night did not reflect the actual number of people in the seats (I think it was more like 25-30K).

* I saw all sorts of talk about the onion rings guy when I got home -- the dude whose food went flying onto Andruw Jones when he tried to catch a foul ball. I saw the clip on big screen, and thought it was a hot dog that went flying (Kelly was in the concourse at the time, and heard Suzyn Waldman say it was onion rings.) A few points: Aside from the waste of food involved, you cannot expect to catch a foul ball with an onion rings basket. And, more importantly, why do you try to catch a foul ball at all when a Yankee player is trying to get it. Isn't him getting an out for your team more than you getting a souvenir? Yankee fans pride themselves on how knowledgeable they are, but I see ignorant nonsense like this all the time. Do people still not know after Steve Bartman not to go after foul balls your team is trying to catch?

* The media is in a tizzy over Soriano showering and going home before talking to them. I get that, but at the same time, they're taking it too far, reading all sorts of aspersions into Soriano as a person and as a teammate because he didn't stick around to talk to the press. Two examples this morning: Wally Matthews sez "Soriano is no Mariano Rivera. And likely never will be. Nor does it seem like he will ever be a true fit in this clubhouse." And not to be outdone in hysteria, Joel Sherman writes:  

..."this game was lost in the eighth. Was it because of the cold that Soriano faltered? Pitching the day before? Unfamiliarity with the role? Or anger at being asked to take the ball at 4-0 in the eighth? Soriano played to the worst of his reputation and was not around to answer.

He took a bribe to come here for a role he did not really want. Maybe money really can't buy happiness."

Glad to see that, in addition to writing, these two have side careers in mind-reading to fall back on!

* We stayed around until the end, and I actually was hopeful the Yankees would come back and win. After all, it was two years ago against the Twins that the Yankees had a walkoff win, and their first pie-throwing! Alas, it was not to be, not even against Joe Nathan, who usually folds against the Yanks. Bummer.

What do you think? Tell us about it.

Shocker! Joel Sherman Says Criticism of A-Rod Is "Unfair"

Will wonders never cease? I almost spilled my morning coffee on myself when I read that the New York Post's Joel Sherman wrote a column today entitled, "Continual digs at Alex unfair."  Joel Sherman, who has taken as many cheap shots at A-Rod as any sports columnist in this town, has had enough? I can't believe it.

Sherman writes that while Rodriguez has often been his own worst enemy, he notes:

...at some point legitimate critique of Rodriguez has been usurped by something close to piling on. He is the fish in the barrel and shooting at him has become a hard-to-break habit. It feels like the fun, easy game that anyone can play.

It's 2011, and Sherman just realized this? (I thought the criticism went over the top in 2006, when his paper blamed A-Rod sunbathing in Central Park for the Yankees losing a game to the Red Sox.) But better late than never, I guess. Of course, Sherman doesn't admit the obvious truth when it comes to the media -- that writing about A-Rod sells papers and generates page views. There's a reason sportswriters are addicted to yakking about him!
 
Sherman also criticizes Hank Aaron for taking potshots at A-Rod in the Post a few weeks ago (I wrote about the unfair criticism at the time.) Aaron said, among other things, that "Rodriguez has got too many irons in the fire, right now. I think his head's not level enough to the point where he can have the kind of year that it takes in order to go by all of the records in the book."

Joel responds:

Again, Rodriguez is an easy target on many things, but focus on baseball is not one of them. His harshest detractors would concede Rodriguez obsesses on preparation; that he has the mentality of a baseball gym rat. If you think Cameron Diaz, for example, is keeping him from being ready for the 2011 season, you are wrong.

I agree with Sherman, but I wonder why it took three weeks for somebody else in the media to acknowledge that Aaron's criticism was unfair.

Sherman also criticizes "Player X "in the upcoming ESPN the Magazine for disparaging Rodriguez when saying that Albert Pujols deserved to make more than him. Of course Pujols does -- he's been the most underpaid guy in baseball for years now. (An aside --Sherman has another piece on Player X firing at Scott Boras -- and Boras firing back.)

I think Sherman's column today is a good and fair one. But I wish he, and some of his brethren in the media, would take their share of responsibility for making Rodriguez a baseball punching bag. Sure, A-Rod did bring some of it on himself by saying and doing dopey things (there's an article in the Wall Street Journal about the Yankees' media training for players, where he wryly acknowledges that he "wouldn't be the ideal guy to ask" about how to handle the media.)

But the press also has a lot to do with it. There are a lot of fans who form their opinions on players based on what they read in the papers. And players know that they can pretty much say whatever they want on A-Rod, and get lauded for it in the press, no matter how unfair. Dallas Braden, I'm looking at you! The media should be more responsible with the power they hold, because the perceptions they make on players are hard to change.

Another example of the power of the press -- after the way the media has lionized Derek Jeter in this town, why should anybody be surprised that he topped a poll as New York's all-time greatest athlete and beat out Babe Ruth? The press has written about Jeter for years as if he deserved that spot. Heck, Mike Lupica didn't bat an eye when Jeter's agent Casey Close compared Jeter to Babe Ruth in an interview! Sure, blame the fans for being short-sighted in that poll. But the press deserves their share of blame for miseducating them, too.


What do you think? Tell us about it!

Famous Last Words: Hal Steinbrenner has "no problem" with Brian Cashman

The New York Post's Joel Sherman has an exclusive interview with Hal Steinbrenner today, with Hal saying that he has "no problem" with what Brian Cashman is doing:

 "[Cashman] and I have a great working relationship," Steinbrenner said by phone, "There is no problem, right now. I think we have had a bunch of drummed-up drama."

....When asked if he imagined wanting to keep Cashman beyond 2011, Steinbrenner said: "Yes, absolutely. I think Brian does a great job. We need to sit and talk, but now is not the time for that."

Sherman writes that Steinbrenner "blessed Cashman's behavior at the [Rafael Soriano] press conference":

"I keep reading about dissension and discord. We are a well-functioning company. The bosses have a decision to make. Sometimes people don't agree with those decisions. So I told him, 'You are always honest with the media, be honest now. Tell them what you have to tell them.' I was already onto the next decision. I told him, 'You and I are fine. Answer in any way you want.' We are not always going to be on the same page. It is my job to think what is best for the family, partners and company."

But here's the thing Sherman didn't ask Hal Steinbrenner: If the Yankees were so fine with Cashman speaking out at the Soriano presser, then why didn't they air the press conference live on the YES Network? What, the network the Yankees own couldn't interrupt the gazillionth showing of the Luis Castillo Yankees Classic game in favor of showing their only big free agent signing of the offseason? Come on now.

I have watched a lot of Yankee free agent press conferences on TV over the years, and ever since the YES Network launched, every single one of them have been aired on the network. Except for the Soriano one. Why is that?

Brian Cashman may be the Yankees GM in 2012, or he may not be. But there is no way, even in Yankeeland, that the Steinbrenners are going to publicly express anything but confidence in their GM right now. Do you really think Hal or even Hank is about to say, "What the bleep is going on with Cash? He's having a midlife crisis right before our eyes!" Of course not.

Tennessee Titans owner Bud Adams seemed to be all BFF with head coach Jeff Fisher, too, even saying just a few weeks ago that he would be back next year, until the two parted ways yesterday. So you never know what can happen.

If the Yankees win the World Series this year, I would guess Cashman would be back. But even then, he could always walk away after winning. You never know what could happen.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Joel Sherman and his latest wacky contract proposal for Derek Jeter

What's the deal with Joel Sherman? The New York Post columnist has been over the place on the Derek Jeter contract issue from reasonable to raving, and his latest column, suggesting that the Yankees give Jeter a contract to age 42 (!), makes no sense, especially given what he's written before.

Let's review what Sherman has said so far:

* On November 5, he suggested the Yankees offer the shortstop a 3-year, $45 million deal, which turns out to be what the Yanks actually offered. But then he added on a 25-year, $75 million personal service contract, where the Yanks would essentially pay Jeter to be Jeter. This deal would set a horrible precedent for the team, and makes zero financial sense.

* On November 12, he supported signing Jeter, but said pleasing the captain couldn't take the place of the Yankees' winning, writing: "This is a baseball team, not a fan club or an alumni association. Realistic discussions of Jeter are too often scuttled with his intangibles or his class or his history. That is all nice. But what do they have to do with winning games from 2011 forward? If you are honoring those elements with unquestioned playing time or a spot atop the order, you have lost what Jeter himself claims he is all about, which is team and winning."

* On November 23, Sherman wrote very harshly about the shortstop's demands, saying, "Derek Jeter’s position when it comes to his contract negotiations appears to be this: I am Derek Jeter, pay me."

* And today, the New York Post columnist thinks he's come up with a way to solve the negotiations. But not only is it inconsistent with what he's written in the past, it's even inconsistent with what he writes earlier in the column!

Early in the column, Sherman sez:

"Frankly, I think the Yankees are fine here. Their three-year, $45 million offer is probably way more than any other team would bid. Therefore, every additional penny proposed represents bidding against themselves."

But then he suggests they do just that, bid against themselves.  One of the reasons Sherman exhorts the Yanks to do this deal is that if they don't give Jeter more money, "we might, for example, see the passive-aggressive Jeter emotionally detach himself from some of the day-to-day elements that he has taken on previously as Yankees captain and icon." Yeah, before you know it, he'll stand by idly and refuse to step in when one of his teammates is getting vociferously booed or something.

Sherman then suggests:

"So how can both sides move toward each other? Here is the Thanksgiving gift: The Yankees give Jeter a six-year, $75 million contract that breaks down as $20 million a year from 2011-13 and $5 million a year from 2014-16. The twist is that each $5 million year becomes a $20 million season if Jeter reaches 500 plate appearances in the previous campaign. Thus, for example, if Jeter remains a full-timer in 2013 and totals at least 500 plate appearances, then he would make $20 million in 2014 rather than $5 million."

How does this deal make any sense for the Yankees? Sherman suggests that the average annual value would be less, so it would save the Yanks a little on luxury taxes. Big deal. They still have to pay Jeter for six years, not three. How does that help?

And Sherman misses some really obvious problems with his proposal. It's not so much the $20 million in the first three years (although that's still overpaying Jeter for lower production). It's giving him three more years. It's keeping in on the payroll until he's 42, when he's already showing signs of aging at age 36.

And to top it off, making 500 plate appearances be the magic number to guarantee Jeter an extra $15 million a year will hamstring the Yankees in several ways.

First off, it gives Jeter even less of an incentive to never take a day off, when any potential day off could mean a 75% pay cut. And forget about pulling him before the end of the game, either. He'll be playing as much as possible to make that money. Who wouldn't?

It will also put immense pressure on whoever the Yankee manager is to play him every game, no matter what, or risk alienating Jeter and his rabid supporters.

Then there's the place in the lineup, which is currently at the top. How are the Yanks going to move him further down in the lineup, even when his stats merit it, if it could cost him plate appearances?

Sherman may think this compromise (which is a completely one-sided one, where the Yanks gain nothing, and Jeter everything) is a good one, but it makes zero sense financially. And having to get at-bats everyday for a player in his 40s, or risk him making less money than A-Rod (shudder!) will be an ongoing nightmare for the Yankee manager. How does this help the team win, or do anything other than make Jeter even richer?

Sherman ought to remember what he himself said earlier this month: "If you are honoring those elements with unquestioned playing time or a spot atop the order, you have lost what Jeter himself claims he is all about, which is team and winning." The writer sometimes comes up with great ideas, but this "Thanksgiving gift" of a new contract idea is a real turkey.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Brian Cashman speaks out about Derek Jeter controversy

It's so on. If Casey Close thought the Yankees were too harsh on his client Derek Jeter before this week, I wonder what he's thinking after reading today's New York Post, where GM Brian Cashman speaks out against Close's "baffling" remark.

Cash told George King (emphasis added):

“There is nothing baffling about our position,” Cashman said. “We have been very honest and direct with them, not through the press. We feel our offer is appropriate and fair. We appreciate the contributions Derek has made to our organization and we have made it clear to them. Our primary focus is his on-the-field performance the last couple of years in conjunction with his age, and we have some concerns in that area that need to be addressed in a multi-year deal going forward.


“I re-state Derek Jeter is the best shortstop for this franchise as we move forward. The difficulty is finding out what is fair between both sides.”

Cashman also told King that the Yankees would not offer Jeter arbitration, a fact that the New York Daily News' Mark Feinsand was apparently unaware of; he has a whole story suggesting the opposite.

I think Derek Jeter and the people around him have really miscalculated his value here, and mishandled these negotiations. For one thing, you know what is missing from the spin from his agent, his trainer, and an insider in the Jeter camp? There was no talk about how Jeter wants to get the Yankee another ring, and no talk about how re-signing him will get the team to that goal. Instead, they're acting like it's a marketing deal or something, with Close comparing Jeter to Babe Ruth (!) as a Yankee icon, and citing his intangibles.

Frankly, the Jeter camp reminds me of that old adage about lawyers: "If you have the law on your side, argue the law; if you have the facts, argue the facts; if you have neither, pound the table." There is a lot of table-pounding going on right now.

Look, Jeter has the right to ask for whatever he wants, although in an age of double-digit unemployment, him griping about only making $15 million a year might not go over so well among fans. But the thing is, as I've said before, his image is based on him being somebody who cares more about being a Yankee than about money. He's supposed to be the guy who is all about team and all about winning. I've always thought that the mystique was a bit much -- I've watched the media build up so many athletes as saints, only to see years later that they had feet of clay. And the next time Jeter gives the Yankees a hometown discount will be the first time.

But Jeter and his agent can't have it both ways. If they're going to treat this like a business, they can't be surprised when the Yankees do the same thing in return. And, as I keep on saying, the longer this negotiation goes on, the worse this looks for Jeter.

For one thing, he can't count on all the media uncritically stating his case, as they've done in the past. Look at how Joel Sherman of the Post has done quite the turnaround here. Just a few weeks ago, he was suggesting the Yankees pay Jeter $75 million in a 25-year personal services contract. Today, he writes a pretty tough column about the negotiations:

Derek Jeter’s position when it comes to his contract negotiations appears to be this: I am Derek Jeter, pay me.


It doesn’t matter he has almost no leverage or he is coming off his worst season or the production of shortstops 37 and older in major league history is dismal.


Logic and facts are not supposed to matter. All that is supposed to matter is this: I am Derek Jeter, pay me....


When Jeter had the leverage a decade ago, he translated it into a 10-year, $189 million contract. Now the Yankees are not supposed to use their leverage. Why? Because I am Derek Jeter, pay me.


The Jeter camp described the negotiations as baffling. Really? It is baffling that the Yankees want to pay Jeter for what he is and what he projects to be in his declining seasons rather than for what he was?


They already have paid $205 million for his prime, a little fact the Jeter camp does not acknowledge much publicly. After all, it is hard to evoke sympathy with the fans/media about disrespect when the disrespecting party is offering a deal that would make Jeter a lifetime quarter-of-a-billion dollar player.....Yes, now we will hear about intangibles. But how did those intangibles translate last year when Jeter led the majors in making outs?

All the "I'm Derek Jeter, pay me" lines seem to echo the "bleep you, pay me" scene in "GoodFellas," where the mafiosos want to get paid by the businesses who owe them money, no matter what financial issues they may be having.  I wonder if that is intentional on Sherman's part.

Sherman also writes, "Jeter can’t argue the age or production concerns well, so he will try emotion, tied to throwing out ceremonial first pitches in 2021 or some other nonsense. It all comes down to this argument, though: I am Derek Jeter, pay me."

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Joel Sherman proposes a $75 million (!) post-career Yankee contract for Derek Jeter

I'm still digesting today's Joel Sherman column in the New York Post, because it's partly reasonable, partly outrageous. In the article, Sherman suggests that the Yankees offer Jeter a three-year, $45 million deal, even though Sherman writes that Jeter "probably is not one of their 10 most important players anymore" (harsh!)
But when it comes down to it, I don't have a problem with Sherman's contract suggestion, although I think he's a little too tough on how important a player Jeter still is on the team.

What I do take issue is his idea for a post-career contract with the Yankees for the captain. Sherman proposes "a $75 million, 25-year post-career deal" for Jeter from the team, and compares it to the way George Brett and Cal Ripken Jr. got deals from their own teams after retiring. There are several problems with this idea:

* Exactly what are the Yankees going to get for three million a year for somebody who won't be playing? To put Sherman's figure in perspective, Joe Girardi makes $3 million a year in his new contract. Hitting coach Kevin Long just got a new deal, which makes him the second-highest paid hitting coach in baseball at a little over $600K a year. Most of the team's coaches make in the low hundreds for a full-time job. And Sherman wants the Yankees to pay Jeter $3 million a year, for 25 years, for what exactly? To be a mascot? He never really explains what Jeter will be doing for the money.

*For tthe Royals and Orioles, they have very few icons, so keeping Brett and Ripken in the fold made sense, because they were really the the big names of their generation. (Notably, Sherman didn't mention the 10-yea rpersonal services contract the Astros signed Roger Clemens to, for $200K a year, and now how Houston has essentially told Clemens to stay away from the team!) But the Yankees have a whole slew of superstars. If Jeter gets this sort of deal, then what about Mariano Rivera? Or Paul O'Neill? Or Bernie Williams? Or Jorge Posada? Or David Cone? Or Andy Pettitte? Where does it end? Is there going to be a $200 million payroll for ex-players, too?

* And how would the older Yankee roster of living legends handle this? For example, Yogi Berra and Whitey Ford each made less than $500K in their entire careers with the Yankees. They still do events with the team, and have attended spring training, which they're apparently compensated for to some extent. But how will they, or other retired Yankees, handle if Jeter gets such a huge deal, even though he's already made $205+ million as a Bomber? Reggie Jackson draws a salary from the Yankees as a special assistant, but it's not even near  the money in Sherman's offer.

* And it's not like this would guarantee Jeter's undying loyalty to the pinstripes. Sherman writes that in his deal idea, "Jeter would receive an opt-out provision any time if he truly wants to pursue an ownership stake with another team." Sherman wants the Yankees to spend $75 million on somebody who won't be playing, then let him go and have to watch him compete against him elsewhere one day? How does that even make any sense?

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Joe Girardi leaves A.J. Burnett out to dry

A.J. Burnett is getting a lot of grief from Yankee fans these days, including some calling for his head last night. But really, he did much better than expected, giving up only two runs in the first five innings. Heck, he was the first Yankee starter to get through the first inning without giving up a run in this series. Until Joe Girardi left him in too long in the sixth, that is.

Longtime readers know that I'm no Girardi basher, but he has done such a poor job with decision-making this series that Squawker Jon and I were musing last night what were the chances that be fired if the Yankees lose the ALCS. And what Joe did in the sixth was just ridiculous.

Guess Girardi never heard of that "leaving on a high note" adage. He should have pulled Burnett after Vladimir Guerrero's hit. At that point, A.J. was at 90 or so pitches. Burnett could have left the cheers from the crowd, with a well-pitched game, and something to build on for the future. Instead, Girardi got a little too cute, deciding to leave him in, and then intentionally walking David Murphy to pitch to Bengie Molina. This, even though he had Joba Chamberlain warmed up in the bullpen. I thought Girardi would keep Burnett on a short leash, but instead, the leash was long enough for A.J. to get caught in.

Incidentally, did you see that Burnett nearly threw the ball away in one of the intentional walk pitches? That should have been yet another clue to Girardi that Burnett was about to turn into a pumpkin.

I didn't watch the postgame last night because he was too angry after the loss. But Jon did, and he thought Girardi was awfully defensive. New York Post columnist Joel Sherman wrote about what the manager said, and I pretty much agree with Sherman's take on what happened last night (emphasis added).

Girardi had Mariano Rivera for as much as two innings, a remnant of the manager’s iffy choice not to use the closer to keep the Yankees within 2-0 in the ninth inning of Game 3. So Girardi would have had to fill just two set-up innings here.

But he got greedy or caught up in the moment....

“If you take A.J. out there and you give up a couple of runs, people say, ‘Why did you take A.J. out?’“ Girardi said.

No, that would not have been the conversation. New York is now well versed on Burnett. No one could think it was a good idea to have him on the mound at that moment: tying run in scoring position, go-ahead run on first, season on the brink. Burnett has spent a career breaking hearts, throwing the pitch he absolutely could not at the wrong time.

And he did here....

Girardi had given a baseball arsonist matches and the Yankees season went up in flames.

I agree with Sherman, something I don't say very often!

One last note -- Squawker Jon sez Molina's homer is bad karma on me for trash-talking Jon for four years about Yadier Molina's homer against the Mets. By the way, last night was the fourth anniversary of that event.

What do you think? Tell us about it.

My thoughts on Yankees-Twins, Game 1

I was pretty grumpy for the first half of last night's game, between CC Sabathia looking shaky, and Jorge Posada's passed ball contributing to a run. (I wondered on Twitter whether Jorge would blame CC for it!) And the fact that the Yanks looked flummoxed against Francisco Liriano for the first five innings ticked  me off.

But then the sixth inning came, Jorge Posada redeemed himself, and Curtis Granderson proved to be something sort of Grandish (I wonder how John Sterling called his big hit -- I hope it was better than the TBS announcers, who muffed it!)

I really thought that after the Yankees scored  four runs in the sixth inning, that Joe Girardi should have had a reliever ready to go, especially since CC may be needed to pitch on short rest in the series. Sabathia looked D-O-E-N  DONE, as Jerome from Manhattan would spell it! As great as Sabathia has been for the team this season (they wouldn't be in the playoffs without him), he labored yesterday, throwing 27 pitches in the sixth, 111 overall. He walked three batters his last inning, including the tying run. Yet he ended up with the win, thanks to Mark Teixeira's homer (another call the TBS broadcasters messed up on.)

I thought CC should have been pulled earlier -- getting the Yankees the win, not CC the win, should have been the priority. Others disagreed with me on Facebook.  Fortunately it all worked out, though.

But how about the messed-up call on Greg Golson's catch last night? The Yanks had to get 28 outs, thanks to that. Joel Sherman wrote this in support of instant replay in his blog today:


... "this is strictly about the blown call. There is a way to get a high percentage of them corrected, so why would we not want to do that. One argument I hear is that it would eliminate the human element. Stop. The human element is that Jorge Posada has trouble catching the ball, not umpires messing up.

After years of cheerleading for Jorge, Sherman's really down on him, isn't he?

Anyhow, had a late night watching  the game, so I'm way off schedule. Coming later today -- more thoughts on Carl (Iron Man) Pavano!

Joel Sherman has Mets' marketing critique backwards

The Post's Joel Sherman lays out the Mets' likely offseason strategy to sell 2011 tickets as follows:

1) Hire a new general manager and manager...

2) Systematically leak how great Johan Santana, Jason Bay, Carlos Beltran and Jose Reyes are doing physically over the winter...

3) Oversell the one positive from the 2010 season: the rookie class/breakout components...

Sherman's piece mostly focuses on a critique of the third item, arguing that popular new players such as Ike Davis should not be untouchable for marketing purposes if trading them will help the team. But if the Mets really want to avoid alienating their fans for a change, they should change their thinking regarding item #2 - and stop encouraging unrealistic expectations when it comes to injuries.

In January, Met fans were surprised and disappointed to learn that Carlos Beltran was undergoing knee surgery. Even worse, he might not be ready for the start of the season. Throughout the preseason and the first part of the regular season, reports kept changing as to when Beltran would return - late April, mid-May, maybe even the All-Star break.

As time went on, the story evolved to when Beltran would be able to resume "baseball activities." Media and fans became frustrated with Beltran's lack of progress. Those fans who believe that Beltran is less likely to play through injuries had new ammunition.

When Beltran finally returned after the All-Star break, manager Jerry Manuel raised expectations by putting Beltran back in centerfield and batting him cleanup despite the fact that Beltran was clearly not ready for either.

The Mets were 48-40 when Beltran returned to the lineup. Since then, they have gone 22-33. The Mets' collapse is far from all Beltran's fault. But it would have been better for both the team and Beltran if the Mets had said from the start that he probably wouldn't be back before the All-Star break, and once he returned, he was not going to be 100%.

Met fans have been burned so many times waiting for players to return from injury that the biggest marketing mistake the Mets can make is to try to burn them again by touting a quick return of Johan Santana.

Already we are hearing conflicting reports about when Santana will start "throwing" and when he will start "pitching" and when he will finally return. The truth is that nobody knows, and the main thing that nobody knows is how effective Santana will be when he returns.

The Mets' position should be that they hope to have Santana back by the All-Star break. From what has been reported, that is probably optimistic, especially having Santana back at full strength. But such a position tells fans and media right up front that the Mets are planning to play a significant portion of 2011 without Santana.

Rather than raise the fans expectations only to disappoint them yet again, the Mets will be obliged to come up with a plan B - competing without their ace.

No one is more of a competitor on the Mets than Santana, but if the Mets start fudging his return date, they run the risk of making Santana look like yet another Met who can't quite make it back on the field.

Of course, the new GM will have to do a better job than Omar Minaya of coming up with a plan B. Minaya's initial replacement for Beltran in the outfield rotation was Gary Matthews Jr. When Daniel Murphy, then the starting first baseman, got hurt in spring training, Minaya and Jerry Manuel's initial plan B was Mike Jacobs.

As for trading the young players, I agree with Sherman that nobody should be untouchable. But it's one thing for the Mets to realize that Davis is no Jason Heyward - there's still no point in trading him unless the other team still buys into the hype. Otherwise, you end up with a deal along the lines of once-hyped Lastings Milledge for Ryan Church and Brian Schneider.

Says Sherman about Davis:

What do you think will be his best year, something like .275 with 30 homers? That is good. But it probably never makes him one of the 10 best first basemen in the game.

Yes, but .275 and 30 homers would make him the cleanup hitter on the Mets. And most of the players that Sherman suggests as stopgap alternatives for Davis have no shot at 30 homers. Lyle Overbay has hit more than 20 homers just once - and his career high is 22. Adam LaRoche hit more than 30 homers once, back in 2006. And both Overbay and LaRoche have generally played in ballparks far more homer-friendly than Citi Field.

Hubie Brooks was once a popular young player, but it made sense to trade him when the Mets had a chance to get Gary Carter before the 1985 season. But unless the Mets get an offer they really can't refuse, I would hold on to the young players. Better to oversell the young players than the seriously injured veterans.

George Steinbrenner, Joel Sherman, and what it means to be a great man

Longtime reader Uncle Mike weighed in regarding my squawk about sportswriter Joel Sherman discounting George Steinbrenner's philanthropy. Mike made some really good points in the comments section about the nature of philanthropy: such good points, I thought, that I'm doing this post so everybody could read them. Here's Uncle Mike:


When Sherman wrote "Birth of a Dynasty," about the 1996 Yankees, he wrote like one of the classic baseball writers, like Red Smith or Roger Kahn. When he writes anything else, he writes like a New York Post employee. And I don't mean Jimmy Cannon, an example of the former, because Cannon died before Rupert Murdoch turned the Post from the people's paper into the crazy people's paper.

Are we not supposed to go to a library because it was endowed by Andrew Carnegie, who authorized the cold-blooded murder of unionized employees at his mines and mills? Are we not supposed to go to a museum because it was endowed by John D. Rockefeller, who did the same?

Lots of people have done a lot more wrong, and far worse things, than George Steinbrenner did. Most of his wrongs were less "How dare you?" and more "What were you thinking?"

We're not talking about Walter O'Malley here. What did he ever do for kids, or sick people, or old acquaintances in trouble? And anything he ever did that helped the game of baseball, he did it first, foremost, and often only because it was going to help himself. Face it, if he thought he could make more money in Japan than in Los Angeles, the Yankees would have played some World Series against the Tokyo Dodgers.

George Steinbrenner could have taken the Cornelius Vanderbilt attitude of "The public be damned." Instead, he took the Carnegie attitude of "I have to make amends." Even if we don't like him -- and no one is required to like him -- we should at least respect his willingness to change for the better, and to act on that change. No, he was no saint. But show me one person who ever owned a sports team who was.

Joel Sherman sez The Boss only did good things to get into heaven

I'm surprised there hasn't been more outrage in Yankeeland over columnist Joel Sherman's nasty little screed about George Steinbrenner that ran in Wednesday's New York Post. Sherman is annoyed that there were too many positive things written about Steinbrenner on the day he died. And he even suggests that The Boss had ulterior motives behind the good things he did:

Life today would be easier to mindlessly accept the myth and ignore decades of reporting that show Steinbrenner was hardly the family man or friend refashioned in recent years. Who wants to write the truth on the day of a man’s death, that Steinbrenner’s life was not all champagne, parades and genius accompanied by the background music of a "Yankeeography?"

Oh, please. Nobody out there is saying Steinbrenner was perfect. But there is a big difference between acknowledging his flaws, and making his biography all about those flaws. Besides, most people have the sense to know that it doesn't come off very well to talk too poorly about the deceased on the day that they died. Heck, even Michael Jackson got a pass on such matters right after he passed away.

And Sherman, of all people, complaining about perspective? This is the guy who wrote after 2009's Opening Day that CC Sabathia and Mark Teixeria got "money for nothing." Who suggested that the 2009 World Series feels "over" because the Yankees lost Game 1. And who, in a time of two wars and double-digit unemployment, complained about Joe Torre's "plight" with the Dodgers. Now he's going to lecture the rest of us on how to feel about Steinbrenner? C'mon now.

And what's even more offensive is that the writer claims to know what was in Steinbrenner's heart, writing:

Yes, he would often — with the passing of time — try to ameliorate heartlessness with charity, as if that made the balance sheet even in the human-being department. He used his checkbook to make the Yankees a powerhouse and to try to get into heaven by correcting wrongs.

Give me a break. Is the Post writer not just a baseball columnist, but a theologian, too?

Steinbrenner did many good things for thousands of people over the years - make that decades. It's obnoxious that Sherman not just discounts that, but questions his reasons for doing so.

And it's funny how Joel is lecturing the rest of us about having a one-sided portrayal of The Boss, but his perspective of Steinbrenner is just as one-sided, in the opposite way. George was a complicated man, with many sides to him, but Sherman is the one who wants to ignore all the good in him, and insinuate that even his most charitable efforts had an ulterior motive. How insulting.

The writer also claims:

"As Steinbrenner completed a cycle from character to caricature to ghost, his family and the organization used his public silence to go into rewrite: To turn his twilight reputation into benevolent elder statesman. And to whitewash a past of cruelty, bluster and rule-breaking. The Yankees owner was a winner, instead, and winners sometimes commit minor transgressions in order to win." However, the transgressions were often far from minor, unless — for example — owning the record for being thrown out of your sport (twice) is minor.

That's not what happened at all. Sherman is the one who's being the myth-maker here, wanting us to believe that Steinbrenner stayed the same as he was in 1978, and it was only his minions who changed his reputation. Did he even pay attention to anything The Boss did from the mid-1990s on? Because we could see with our own eyes that Steinbrenner had mellowed. Had made amends for his wrongdoing. Had even learned a little from his mistakes.

Remember how fans serenaded Steinbrenner with the "Thank you, George" and "We love you, George" chants on 2004's Opening Day? That wasn't the family rewriting his reputation - it was fans seeing on their own what Steinbrenner had done for them - and appreciating him for it.

And contrary to Sherman's opinion, I don't think The Boss' minions had anything to do with all the people coming forward now with stories about how good Steinbrenner was to them. It's just the opposite - time after time, we read, like in Sherman's own New York Post, about how George would do something kind for somebody, and ask them to keep it quiet.

Maybe the worst thing about Sherman's piece is that he's so self-righteous in spitting on Steinbrenner's grave, claiming "it is more disrespectful now to Steinbrenner’s legacy to offer a sanitized version of his story." Spare me the sanctimony, dude.

What do you think? Tell us about it!

There you go again, Joe Torre

Joe Torre is talking out of both sides of his mouth again - and I can prove it.

Monday, he played all dumb when asked about Ken Rosenthal's report that friends of the manager have told the reporter that Torre would not be back with the Dodgers next year unless the ownership's "penny-pinching circus" ends. Rosenthal suggested that Torre could be in demand as the manager for the Mets, Braves, or Cubs, as well as other teams.

Torre denied all, telling Ken Gurnick of MLB.com,  "Obviously they're not friends of mine." Torre insisted, "I don't really allow those conversations out of my home. I haven't made up my mind and won't until closer to the end of the season."

Oh really? Joe doesn't know what he's going to do next year? Because that's not what he told Joel Sherman when his Dodgers were in town last month.

Sherman wrote in his New York Post about what he called Torre's "plight" with the "penny-pinching" (there's that phrase again!) Dodgers. In the piece, Sherman said Torre "told me that he knows right now what he wants to do, but was not going to announce it until later in the season." Busted!


That wasn't the only disingenuous comment Torre said in the MLB.com interview. As for the report that he might be managing elsewhere this year, he had this to say:

"Must be the same friends," he said. "I refuse to say absolutely, but I have to say it's very, very remote that ever happens. I certainly don't anticipate, at age 70, searching around for another managing job."

Weasel words alert! Of course he doesn't "anticipate" searching for another job. He figures that some sucker (err, I mean owner) will want his great managerial skills for their team, and come looking for him! (Squawker Jon, don't say I didn't warn you if you end up with him with the Mets!)

It's amazing how many gushing "poor Joe" stories have been written by the media this year, usually just around the time Joe comes to town to privately spin his tale of woe. Joel Sherman said that Torre "has too much invested in his image as an unflappable statesman of sports to publicly explain his disillusionment with the Dodger ownership embarrassment," but that the manager "is clearly annoyed that promises about payroll and the kinds of players the Dodgers would bring in have evaporated." Boo hoo!

Can you imagine the grief a player would get if he spent so much time obsessing during the season about where he's going to be next year? And last time I checked, Torre was getting $4 million this season to manage the Dodgers. Not talk about his Kentucky Derby horse, or feed stories to the media about his future.  It sure doesn't look like he's earning his keep with the Dodgers, even if he is blaming it all on the McCourts.


But Torre is such a master manipulator of the press that not only does he never get called on this, but the media will continue to sing his praises. It's amazing how much Teflon Torre can still get away with.
Remember how he denied he was after Grady Little's Dodger job after he left the Yankees, until he took the job? Here's a recap from when he appeared on David Letterman in October 2007:

"Maybe Dodgers, maybe Angels?" Letterman asked.

"Well, the Dodgers have a contract, I mean, a manager," Torre replied. "The Angels have a very good manager [Mike Scioscia]."

Torre went on to say: "That's a bad question to ask. I know what's been rumored. The local paper today is talking about going to LA. There has been a time or two that something that has been in the newspaper hasn't been true."

What a grade A phony Torre was - and is. Too bad the media is still too in the tank for Torre to notice.


What do you think? Tell us about it!

Squawker Dilemma: What to watch - and tape - last night during Yankees-Red Sox

I had a very busy evening last night, with some tough television choices. And I didn't even get to see the first half of Yankees-Red Sox live.

Here's the story - I was in Manhattan for a computer software training class that I needed to attend, so I didn't even get home to Staten Island until 9:45 p.m. And if that weren't bad enough, two of my favorite shows were on TV at the very same time as the Yankee game - "Dancing With the Stars" and "The Biggest Loser"!

As my DVR will only let my TV tape two shows at once, I had to have a mini-elimination round at home. Sorry, "Dancing With the Stars," I will have to watch (Spoiler Alert!) Buzz Aldrin get thrown off the show on my computer screen later today. "The Biggest Loser" and the Yankee game made the cut instead (although my DVR taping the game inexplicably cut off at 9:28 p.m., for some bizarre reason!) And that doesn't even get into that I also missed "V" last night, which I taped to watch today.

Anyhow, I got home when the game was tied, 4-4, and watched the rest of it live. Fortunately, I got to see Nick Johnson walk in the go-ahead run, Joba Chamberlain go back to being the Joba of old (as Vinny from "Jersey Shore" would say, Joba was fist-pumping like a champ!), Robinson Cano's homer, and Mariano Rivera's save. Good times!

About Johnson's crucial walk: Joel Sherman has a piece in the New York Post today, called Rivalry now more about patience than passion, in which he complained about the walk:

Not long ago The Rivalry was about Manny and Papi. Jeter and Mo. It was about bloody socks, Pedro tossing Zimmer and everyone hating A-Rod on both sides of the field.

Now the symbol of Yankees-Red Sox is Nick Johnson looking at pitches.....

Johnson saw five pitches in his final at-bat. That is all he did. He never swung. In the current condition of The Rivalry that made him a hero.

Yes, because somebody getting a crucial walk has NEVER become a hero (cough, cough, Kevin Millar) in the Rivalry. Next thing you know, somebody will become a Rivalry hero by stealing a base or something!

Oh, and Sherman can never resist the A-Rod snipes, can he? Even in an article that has absolutely nothing to do with Rodriguez, he's still got to cut the knife. Classy!

Anyhow, back to the game. A.J. Burnett and Jorge Posada seem to have peace in the valley for now, although Burnett said it's going to be the last time he's going to talk about it. Somehow, I don't think that's a promise he's going to keep!

And how about Posada saying that Joba was back where he belonged? That's one thing about Jorge - he always speaks his mind!

On a superficial note, does Mark Teixeira have a new hairstyle this year? And is Jeter's high-top fade finally gone? Talk about the end of an era!

What do you think? Tell us about it!

Joel Sherman concedes - kind of - that his Opening Day column was a bit over the top

New York Post columnist Joel Sherman got a lot of grief today from Yankee fans - including myself - about his column "Curtis fails to get the big hit in first test", regarding Curtis Granderson's performance in last night's Yankees-Red Sox game. So after fans were squawking about the article, Sherman wrote an explanation of sorts on his piece, via his Hardball blog. Here's some of what he had to say:

There are few columns I enjoy writing less than the post-game one after the season opener. You feel forced to make huge proclamations based on a single game. It is one of the elements of my business I would change if I was elected newspaper czar. Alas, the job is not open and I am not running.

 Hmmmm. Sherman is not only one of the biggest names at his paper, he's one of the top stars on the New York baseball beat. Is there any reason he should "feel forced to make huge proclamations based on a single game"? Absolutely not. Nobody's putting a gun to his head and making him extrapolate such ridiculous pronouncements based on one game. (Incidentally, if any player gave such a "blame the system" response to crititicism, he'd get ripped to shreds by the likes of Sherman for not taking responsibility. Just saying.)

In the scope of things, Game 1 matters as much as Game 111 does. Which is to say, it's silly to read much of anything into it. Granderson, Sherman continues, "filled a lot of columns in Day 1, but obviously no conclusions should be drawn on anything." Gee, ya think?

However, Sherman still argues that "Granderson is going to have to compete this year against the ghosts of Hideki Matsui and, especially, Johnny Damon." I still don't get this logic. Granderson is technically replacing Melky Cabrera, although I can understand why he's perceived as essentially replacing Damon on the team. That makes sense. But it doesn't make sense to have it that he's replacing Matsui as well - that's Nick Johnson's spot. Unless Granderson becomes Albert Pujols overnight, he would never be able to replace both Matsui and Damon, and to suggest that he is is dooming him for failure.

One other thing - in both pieces, Sherman talks about clutchness, although in the blog entry, he further explains his point about Grandy's last at-bat of the night.

That Granderson grounded out to end the game does not mean he was afraid. Most people make out against Jonathan Papelbon. There is no shame in that. But this is the beginning of the evidence about how Granderson will handle how major situations by which Yankees are defined: On the road at Fenway in the ninth inning, who do you want up?

What, is Sherman looking for a new "he's not clutch" scapegoat, now that A-Rod has gotten that monkey off his back? The writer suggested in his column this morning that Granderson "does not have a clutch rep for his career." But according to Baseball-Reference.com, 63 of Granderson's 103 career homers have come with the game being within one run or less, and a 91 of his 300 RBIs came with two outs.

Anyhow, why don't we wait a week or two (or three or four!) before we decide whether the Curtis Granderson Era is a failure yet? Just a thought.


What do you think? Tell us about it!

Joel Sherman's Opening Day tradition of over-the-top columns continues

New York Post columnist Joel Sherman can be great with breaking news and analysis. But all too often, he seems to lack perspective on how little one regular season game means, even if it's a high-profile season opener.

Last year, he suggested that, after lousy Opening Day performances, Mark Teixeira and CC Sabathia were "money for nothing," and wrote, "no one wants to make a bad first impression as a Yankee because the hole is always a little deeper, so deep that many never truly escape." Yeah, because Teix and CC never came close to escaping from the hole they dug for themselves into from those crummy Opening Day outings, right?

Sherman is at it again today with "Curtis fails to get the big hit in first test", his column about last night's Yankees-Red Sox game, where he's in full hand-wringing mode about how Granderson made the last out against Jonathan Papelbon. Good grief.

"Curtis Granderson opened brilliantly and had a chance to close even more spectacularly," Sherman begins his column. He continues, saying:

"He was the tying run. He was the last shot for the Yanks to avoid a discouraging opening loss to their most bitter foe. But Granderson could not furnish a memorable final blow. He could not open with a close. Instead, he grounded out to third, the last out in a 9-7 Boston."

More from Sherman:

Granderson exposed the issues that he will have to contend with all year, vs. lefties and vs. the ghosts of Damon and Matsui. His final four at-bats all came with runners on base, and Granderson -- as opposed to Damon and Matsui -- does not have a clutch rep for his career. He went 0-for-3 with a walk....

Who knows what Damon or Matsui might have done? But the specter will linger for the Yankees' center fielder. He will try to get used to a new team while contending with old ghosts.

While Sherman does concede that "the Yankees did not lose because of Granderson," he still writes a column about how Granderson will have the ghosts of Damon and Matsui to contend with, and tweaks him for not getting the big hit in last night's game. Gimme a break. It's one game, dude.

Besides, how is it that Granderson is replacing two players? Nick Johnson is really the person who's replacing Matsui in the lineup. You can make the case that Granderson is replacing Johnny Damon, but if Brian Cashman and Scott Boras had each been willing to give a little, Damon could still have been a Yankee.

And enough with the ghosts, already. Remember how last year, the big story in April was how the Yankee ghosts stayed in the old Stadium. How did that work out for the Yankees last year, anyway?

 

Even the most demanding Yankee fan out there was happy with Curtis Granderson's pinstripes debut last night - after all, he hit a homer in his very first at-bat, and made some great catches in center field.

Heck, the Boston papers have a more calm perspective on last's game than Sherman's New York Post column. The Boston Globe wrote, "Just remember, the Yankees lost their first eight games to the Red Sox last season and wound up 9-9 against them and won the World Series. And the Boston Herald said, "If the Yankees had any concerns about how Granderson would respond to his introduction to the rivalry, he answered them in his first at-bat when he crushed a Josh Beckett offering over the Sox bullpen."

Look, I wasn't happy with the Yankees losing last night - I never am, especially when it's against the Red Sox. I'm also peeved that:

1. The YES Network didn't show Pedro Martinez's first pitch live - what, would it have cut into the time designated for introducing the teams' massage therapists?
2. Neil Diamond was at Fenway in person to sing his creepy song, "Sweet Caroline," 
3. John Sterling apparently came up with one of the goofiest home run calls he's ever done, with his "Something Sort of Grandish" reference for Granderson. Sportswriter Pete Caldera reported on Twitter that this was a song from "Finian's Rainbow." Huh?
4. Squawker Jon totally called the Dustin Pedroia homer, imploring him to hit one. I was not very happy with that!

But Granderson wouldn't even begin to make my goat list for last night, which consists of Joe Girardi leaving in CC way too long, the Yankee bullpen being unable to get the job done, and Jorge Posada, who hit spectacularly, but was dismal behind the plate.

However, at any rate, it still is only one game. Somehow, the Yankees managed to win the World Series last year despite having both a dismal Opening Day, and an awful home opener. Imagine that!

What do you think? Tell us about it!