So the Yankees have a budget, after all (?) (!)

Or, Another way of considering the Trade Deadline


I have been told that I look for causation in everything.

I don't deny the charge. My background, as a student in history, is such that I do so by habit. If there is a Y, there must be an X.

Sometimes, there is multiple causation. Take, for instance, any great war. There is, at face value, multiple causes.

Even so, for the general rule of things, one simple rule applies: the simplest explanation is often the best.

Such, I have argued, is the case with Joba Chamberlain--pitching innings in the major leagues now that should have been pitched in the minor leagues, Chamberlain faces the normal developmental struggles a young pitcher should expect without the aid of a safety net. Fortunately for the Yankees and their fans, Chamberlain seems to have figured something out in his last few starts, but this is digression.


I would like to consider both these stipulations: that I always look for causation, which hinders my argument, and that the simplest explanation (Occam's Razor) is the best, which helps it.

I would like to consider both of these and apply them to the Yankees' recent behavior this trade deadline, a comment made by Joe Girardi after tonight's game, and what we may be hearing bandied about.


I am going to start, however, by asking you to think back to Christmas 2008, or, a couple of days before.

The Yankees had already shocked no one by signing CC Sabathia to a seven-year, $161 million contract. They had already shocked some by signing AJ Burnett to a five-year, $83 million contract.

Then, the bombshell announcement: the Yankees had signed Mark Teixeira to an eight-year, $180 million contract.

For the fans, this seemed like Christmas, indeed. The top three free agents in that off-season all ended up in pinstripes, and all locked up for what may very well amount to the defining portion of their careers. All three capable of all-star caliber play. All three clear upgrades over what the Yankees had in those positions in 2007 and 2008.

All three more expensive than most teams could afford, even had the American (and global) economy not collapsed in the preceding autumn.

While my younger brother and I were celebrating the Teixeira signing, my older brother issued a stern warning: "I don't like what the Yankees are doing. It's going to drain them. They're going to go bankrupt if they continue like this."

Now, the comment might be taking things to an extreme, but it appears that it is not wholly without merit.

Consider the activity and non-activity surrounding the trade deadline:

• The Yankees, in first place and with one of the top three records in baseball in the weeks preceding, did not need to move mountains. They had--and still have--a need at the fifth starter, a need made all the more urgent when it became abundantly clear that Chien Ming Wang would not return this season. The Yankees already had a need at the position, since from the start of the season it was known that Joba Chamberlain would have an innings limit. Though the panic move that ultimately sent Phil Hughes to the bullpen eliminated one option, others should have remained had there been some more depth at AAA. No one expected Ian Kennedy to have an anuerysm, for example.
  

• Even so, in the past week, the Yankees have learned, 1) Chien Ming Wang is gone for the year, 2) Alfredo Aceves--the emergency starter candidate du jour--had a tired shoulder, and certainly doesn't look recovered, 3) Sergio Mitre works as a fifth starter against last place teams and little else, 4) the depth at AAA was so bad that the team had to trade for Jason Hirsch, who was pitching to a 6.00+ ERA at that level for Colorado.

• The Yankees' only real other need was another back-up outfielder, but in this case there were in-house options available. The Yankees didn't need another power-hitting corner fielder, they just needed someone that could play halfway decent defense in center and run the bases, at least until Brett Gardner returns. Another reliever would have been nice, too, but not nearly as necessary as another starter.

• The two biggest pitchers rumored to be available at the deadline, Roy Halladay and Cliff Lee, were mostly discussed by fans (and writers) in the context of "don't-let-Boston-get-them". I, of course, don't know about the Yankees' plans, but it seems that JP Ricciardi overplayed his hand with Halladay and the Yankees never seemed to seriously consider Cliff Lee--at the very least, he didn't seem to be much discussed.

• There wasn't much of a "second-tier" of available pitchers. Jarrod Washburn and Ian Snell were probably the only ones that fit into this catergory, and even Snell here is a stretch. Still, Snell, along with his compatriot Jack Wilson were sent to Seattle earlier this week. That left many Yankee fans clamouring for Washburn, and though it was later revealed that it would have cost Austin Jackson, Washburn did end up in Detroit for the price of Luke French.

• Of more interest is this: it was rumored, partly by Joel Sherman, that the Yankees turned down a potential deal for Brian Bannister of Kansas City because they couldn't get Kansas City to continue to pay the remainder of Bannister's $650k salary--which would be closer to $910k when accounting luxury revenue. These are Bannister's stats, if you're interested. They're nothing spectacular--he's doing it in the weak AL Central--but they'd probably translate better than what Sergio Mitre has been doing.

• In acquiring Eric Hinske, the Yankees got Pittsburgh to pay the rest of his salary. It seemed insignificant enough at the time, right now...not so much.
  

• Now consider the following posts from Matthew Cerrone at MetsBlog.com and from Mike Silva's NYBD:
  

1. "…Mets fans will find particularly interesting:

   …in talking to people around the game today, there is a lot of chatter about how the Yankees are being pressured from investors to cut spending and start delivering a dividend for once… in other words, the Yankees are unable to spend like they used to, and the gravy train may be coming to end, not surprising in this economy… in other words, nothing can last forever, and there is no such thing as an unlimited budget… "(found here)

2. "Our main source down in Tampa just called to tell me that it appears that, sadly, the Yanks are sitting this one out. There appears to be less than a 10% chance that Cashman will make a move of any kind, let alone a major deal. Financial constraints, and not wanting to move any of the prospects, are the two main reasons." (found here)

• Now consider a comment made by Joe Girardi during tonight's postgame report after a 10-5 loss to the Chicago White Sox: “I’m not sure that we have a lot of options at this point, [Mitre] has got to get it done for us.” That's a little concerning. It's one thing not to have a lot of options and quite another to admit that it's the case, especially on a day such as the trade deadline, when every team wants to come off for their fans and for the public as though it is they who are the big winners. To admit that the Yankees don't have a lot of options on a day like today is, could be in a sense, insinuating that Cashman hasn't done his job. I don't see it as that--I see it more as a comment to the effect that Cashman's hands may have been tied--maybe, for whatever reason, he couldn't do much.

• Mets, Cardinals and Cubs fans and bloggers I have talked to have all told me they've heard or read whispers about the Yankees having financial constraints this year. From Yankee fans, I hear mostly that it's hogwash to think so, because, hey, they're the Yankees. Here, however, it's probably important to remember that as Yankee fans we are inherently biased. We don't want to believe that the Yankees can be mortal just as any other organization.

What I'm left with is the notion that taking on the Sabathia, Burnett and Teixeira contracts, in edition to those of Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, Jorge Posada, Mariano Rivera, and, yes, Kei Igawa, has left the Yankees financially inflexible.

It's true that the Yankees have drawn remarkably well in a bad economy and in one of the coldest and wettest summers in recent memory, but I feel this may only be a mask.

The bigger piece here to consider is the YES network--by far the most successful of any of the regional sports networks. If the Yankees are drawing the revenue from the network that everyone thinks they are drawing, then it should be more of a question of the Yankees choosing not to spend more as opposed to being unable to do so.

Still, the added payroll is no small thing. Just because the Yankees could go out and spend another $30 million doesn't mean that they should. I point to Matthew Cerrone's quote above, where he states that investors are looking for a return on the investment. Investors is a vague term, but it's hard to believe that those responsible for supporting the YES network, such as sponsors or Goldman Sachs, aren't included here.

One must remember that the Yankees don't just have to deal with these massive contracts this year; Posada and Sabathia will take them to 2011; Burnett to 2013; Teixeira to 2015 and Alex Rodriguez to 2017.

There's no doubt that the Yankees right now are helped in that guys such as Melky Cabrera, Brett Gardner, Phil Hughes, Joba Chamberlain and others are still cost controlled, but the honest truth is that no other team even comes close to what the Yankees have spent.

I don't know if there was more to the Yankees not getting Brian Bannister--such as Kansas City asking for Austin Jackson or Jesus Montero--but if one considers that the Royals traded for Yuniesky Betancourt, it seems odd, indeed.

It's one thing if a Halladay-like $15 million salary is a sticking point--most teams cannot afford that--though the Yankees are theoretically one of the few that can.

It is an entirely different thing when a $650k salary, or when the Pittsburgh Pirates are asked to continue to pay the salary for your utility bench guy with a l'il pop. That is Tampa Bay Rays-ish territory.

Maybe the Yankees have some grand plan for the 2009-2010 offseason, in which they acquire Jason Bay trade with the Nationals for Stephen Strasburg (assuming he ever signs), but the word on the street is that the 2010 free agent class is notable for being thin. Maybe the Yankees hope to pick someone up off of the waiver deadline, but other teams can block waiver deals. That seems a risk, indeed, when Ian Snell, Jarrod Washburn, Brian Bannister et. al. were available this time.


Of course, I don't have access to the Yankees' financial records. This post here is nothing more than speculation at 2.30 AM while the notions are fresh in my mind.

Still, I would urge you to keep your eyes and ears opened.

That the Yankees would have any sort of budget should surprise no one but what may be surprising, however, is to see how tightly the Yankees have stretched it.; history is rife with kings and queens that plunge their country into bankruptcy because they overspend from theoretically limitless coffers. Such are among the causes of the French and Russian revolutions.

It would seem a much less daunting task for financial insolubility to cause trouble for even the exalted Yankees.

Lonn Trost Doesn't Get It

[What I am writing here can probably be addressed to more than just Trost, but since he's the one with the quote, he gets to bear the brunt of it.]

"If you purchased a suite, do you want people in your suite. If you purchased a house, do you want people in your house?”

That, ladies and gentlemen, was Lonn Trost's reply when asked about letting us regular fans down to the field level during batting practice.

I am actually having trouble putting my outrage into words.

Yes, I realize there are some out there who can spend $1500 or whatever on a baseball ticket I'm not one of them. Neither, I imagine, are most of my friends.

Here's the thing: Why would we pay $100 or more to see a regular season game for a team that's not been out of third place since 2007, when it's no longer the last year of the Old Stadium, when many of us are struggling just to find jobs, when, at the same time, we can get down to Staten Island or Trenton or Scranton to see the prospects for something that costs less than our tuition?

Trost and co want to reach out to the fans. I get that. It's a laudable idea.

The problem is, they're reaching out to the fans that represent everything people hate about the Yankees and alienating the gross majority of other fans in the process.

Now, I don't doubt that some who can afford the really expensive seats are genuine, die-hard fans. I know plenty, including myself, who've scored the really good tickets just by virtue of knowing the right person at the right time.

Still, it doesn't change the fact that for the majority of fans, the caste system so firmly in place seems to decree that only those with $100,000 K + salaries are worth the time and effort.


Trost, and others, should take a good look at the Yankee fanbase.

Look at the portion of fans that are high school, college students or those still in their twenties--not usually those with the most disposable income. Yet, it's among this group you find some of the most hardcore fans. I don't want to sound to self-centered, but it's really us that Trost and co should be targeting.

After all, we're the ones that have yet to settle down and start families (for the most part); we're the ones that will one day decide whether or not it's worth it to put down the deposit for season tickets, and, as far as I know, this isn't football--there's no fifty-year waiting list here.

Field level seats may never be affordable to the general public, but the ability to go and watch batting practice up close should be.

The vast majority of fans are good people who don't go and get drunk and become a nuisance.

There was never a problem when I watched BP at Fenway, even when fully decked out in NY Yankees clothing.

I don't understand why it's so hard for the Yankees to put together a good PR department.


Without the fans, the team means nothing. This includes ALL fans, regardless of income or socio-economic class.

Because, when it matters, the 20 year old nanny from Harlem is as much a New Yorker as the 40 year old hedge fund manager from Connecticut wishes he was one.

Because the Yankees are the Bronx Bombers, not the Wall Street Bombers or the Park Avenue Baseball Team.

Because baseball exists as an escape from reality, and not an exaggeration of it.

Because Joba's fist pump doesn't give a crap about who sees it, but only that it's seen.

This is what they don't get.

Yankees' non-roster Spring Training Invitees

Per the Yankees and Lohud, the Yankees have invited 20 to take part in Spring Training.

The list includes:

Catchers: Kyle Anson, Kevin Cash, Jesus Montero, P.J. Pilittere and Austin Romine.

Infielders: Doug Bernier, Angel Berroa, Shelley Duncan, Justin Leone, Eduardo Nunez, Ramiro Pena, Kevin Russo

Outfielders: Colin Curtis, Austin Jackson, Todd Linden, John Rodriguez

Pitchers: Kei Igawa, Jason Johnson, Mark Melancon, Sergio Mitre

Top prospects are in bold; those that have previously appeared in the majors are in italics.


Notes: Sergio Mitre will miss the first 50 games after a suspension for PED use, Jesus Montero will be the youngest present (he's 19!) and Shelley Duncan apparently cleared waivers and will be outrighted to AAA.

Most of these players will end up in the minors for most, if not all, of the year, but it should be fun to get another look at Montero, Jackson and Melancon.

Jorge Posada to play in the World Baseball Classic?

According to this ESPN Deportes report, Jorge Posada wants to play in the 2009 World Baseball Classic. Rather than making you sift through a mangled babelfish translation, I did some translating of my own.

Please note, it might not be perfect--and if you're a fluent speaker, feel free to correct me--but it should be better than what you get from an automated translator:


BRISTOL—A diferencia del torneo anterior, el receptor puertorriqueño Jorge Posada afirmó el martes que sí jugará con Puerto Rico durante el Clásico Mundial de Béisbol 2009.

Unlike the earlier tournament, the Puerto Rican catcher Jorge Posada affirmed Tuesday that he would play for Puerto Rico during the WBC in 2009


“Sí, él va a jugar. De hecho, ya firmó para jugar, y está practicando en Tampa”, dijo Jorge Posada padre a ESPNdeportes.com.

“Yes, he is going to play. He has said he is going to play and he is practicing in Tampa”, said Jorge’s father to ESPN Deportes.

“Él sí estuvo operado del hombro, pero está recuperado”, agregó Posada. “Va a jugar como bateador designado, por lo menos. Él me lo ha dicho enfáticamente en dos o tres ocasiones”.

“He had surgery, but he has recooperated”, said Posada. “He is going to play as a designated hitter, for now. He has told me he has said so on two or three occasions . "

Según informó el martes un oficial de los Yankees, Posada, quien no jugó durante el torneo del 2006 con la escuadra boricua, tampoco jugaría con Puerto Rico en la edición del Clásico 2009.

After being informed on Tuesday, a Yankees official said that Posada did not play in 2006 with the Puerto Rican squad, nor would he play with Puerto Rico in 2009.

El receptor de los Mulos solamente jugó 51 partidos con 168 turnos al bate en el 2008 con los Yankees.

The starting catcher only played 51 games with 168 ABs in 2008 with the Yankees. (Note: I'm not quite sure if this is an accurate translation of 'receptor de los Mulos', but it would fit with the article).

“Él está lesionado y no va a jugar”, dijo una fuente del equipo a ESPNdeportes.com.

“He is injured and is not going to play”, said a source with the team to ESPN Deportes.

Posada sufrió una lesión en el hombro que lo llevó dos veces a la lista de incapacitados, hasta que finalmente fue operado en julio y perdió el resto de la temporada.

Posada suffered an injury that had him on the DL twice, and was finally operated on in July and lost the rest of the season.

Según la fuente, los Yankees no le han prohibido jugar a Posada y éste podría tener la opción de jugar en el Clásico 2009 si se siente recuperado.

Following the source, the Yankees have not prohibited Posada from playing and Posada has the option to play in the WBC in 2009 if he is feeling better.




The last bit doesn't seem to jive with the rest of the article, but what it's basically saying is that technically Posada is not prohibited from playing if he's healthy, even if the Yankees don't want him to.

Whether or not Posada should play is an issue--he does have at least two new pitchers to learn--but he has gone so long without game action that a few games at DH could not be an awful thing.

Should the Yankees consider Braden Looper?

Late last night the Atlanta Braves signed Derek Lowe to a four year deal.

While this is good news for Atlanta and gives them a possible rotation of Lowe, Vasquez, Jurjens, Campillo, Reyes and the new guy Kawakami, which could easily challenge the Phillies for the NL East, it's not such good news for the Yankees and, of course, even worse news for the NY Mets.

For the Yankees, the signing of Lowe means that one of the options they had for the fifth spot in the rotation, should they be unable to come to terms with Andy Pettitte, is now no longer viable.

ESPN's free agent tracker provides a wonderful list of the starting pitchers still on the market; as you can see, there are not a whole lot of options.

One option, though, that seems to be continually glossed over is that of Braden Looper. Sure, he's no spring chicken, but the Yankees right now are not looking for a long-term option, since conventional wisdom states that by sometime in 2010 Hughes and Chamberlain would have established themselves in the rotation.

Let's take a look at Looper's numbers.

Last year, while pitching for the Cardinals, Looper went 12-14 with a 4.16 ERA. These aren't the most attractive numbers, of course, but when you consider what Pettitte did in the #2 spot--14-14, 4.54--Looper's basic line doesn't seem so far off.

Of course, the worst thing to do is judge a pitcher on a won-loss record, so let's look at some of Looper's other numbers.

Looper pitched 199 innings last year, which compares similarly to Pettitte's 204. Pettitte had more strikeouts--158 to Looper's 108--and Pettitte also had a better K/BB ratio, 2.87 to Looper's 2.4.

However, Pettitte was tagged for 112 runs, while Looper was only tagged for 101. Whether this has something to do with the defense playing behind them is entirely possible, given the Yankees' nearly league-worst defense last year and the type of pitcher that Pettitte is, but, even so, the ultimate results are similar.

In another statistic that SABR and stats geeks everywhere love, Pettitte's ERA+ was 98 for 2008, while Looper's was 102. Over the course of their careers, Pettitte's is higher-117 to 109, but Looper's career WHIP is lower, 1.35 to Pettitte's 1.36.

You can view Pettitte's complete stats here and Looper's here.



So what does this mean?

On the surface, the two pitchers seem remarkably similar, so the thinking would go that if Pettitte is the best fit for what the Yankees need, that, failing that, Looper would be a good option.

It is, of course, entirely possible that there's something I'm missing--Looper might want a long-term deal the Yankees don't want to give, or perhaps has a medical history of which the Yankees are wary (though I have not heard anything like that), but it does seem strange to me that names like Jon Garland and Randy Wolf are bandied about with more force than Looper, when Looper might seem to be the better fit.

[Edit]: This post, from LoHud gives a better take on the situation:

Looper isn’t good and he was nowhere close to as good as Pettitte was last year.

The numbers you’re looking at probably aren’t the best way to compare them.

By adjusted pitching stats in 2008 Looper was around 9% worse than a league average pitcher. In 2007 Looper was 11% worse. In 2008 pettite was 7% better than league average. In 2007 8% better.

So the past two seasons Pettitte has been Looper by 16% and 19%.

And that was while looper was pitching in the NL which is very difficult to truly adjust for.

A lot people keep talking about Looper (Cliff Corcoran in particular…) but they are simply looking at his ERA without considering the defense he plays in front of and the league.

Stupid numbers. Always getting in the way of everything...

Why Baseball Doesn't Need a Salary Cap

This post was inspired by a very well-written post by Mike of High and Tight, which can be found here. It's worth your time.

****

In the past decade, both the NBA, in the forms of the Spurs and the Lakers, and the NFL, in the form of the Patriots, have seen "dynasties"; that is, teams winning, year after year.

Both leagues have had a salary cap for that time span, if not longer.

The NHL also has a salary cap, but as it was only implemented a few years ago, it's still too soon for any conclusive remarks.


Baseball, on the other hand, has no salary cap. Every single person reading this post right now probably knows that. Still, in the last decade, only the Red Sox have won multiple World Series--and not consecutively, either.

In 2007, the Tampa Bay Rays finished last in the AL East.
In 2008, the Tampa Bay Rays went to the World Series.

Sure, the method of losing for nine years in a row, taking the first round draft picks and then building a contender is something many teams probably want to avoid, but the points remain: a) it's possible to build a winning team out of a perennial doormat, b) you don't need gigantic contracts to do so, and c) smart ownership and general managing is much more important how much the ownership spends.

Lucky for baseball, there are a lot of smart GMs and owners out there.

Okay, so there are a few that we like to pretend don't exist (I'm looking at you, Pete Angelos), but consider that in the past ten years the following teams have made the playoffs, including a one-game playoff scenario: (+ denotes at least one World Series appearance)

Diamondbacks +
Dodgers
Angels +
Athletics
Giants +
Padres
Rockies +
Marlins +
Rays +
Braves
Cubs
White Sox +
Red Sox +
Tigers +
Twins
Cardinals +
Yankees +
Mets +
Indians
Phillies +
Astros +
Mariners
Brewers.


That means that a grand total of seven teams in the league--Orioles, Nationals, Rangers, Blue Jays, Royals, Reds, Pirates--have not appeared in the playoffs in the last decade.

With the Orioles and Nationals, of course, there is a recent history of sordid ownership, and while the Royals and Reds have not had much recent success, both teams have a core of young players that will, quite possibly, make the teams much more competitive in the very near future.

A sweeping majority of teams have made the postseason at least once--many more than that--and a variety of teams have made World Series appearances, as well. If that type of scenario, or a scenario where a team like Tampa can go from worst to first, or, like the Mariners, from first to worst, does not speak for parity, then I'm not sure what does.

The idea of a salary cap, at least as presented to the casual fan, is to level the playing field, so to speak, right?

Well, baseball seems to have a fairly level playing field as it is!

You can't use basketball or hockey to argue that a variety of teams appearing in the playoffs is a moot point, because in those two sports, half of the teams in each conference make the playoffs, and once in, strange things can happen. In baseball, however, only four teams per league make the playoffs-meaning that your team has to be that much better to get in.

Heck, all you have to do is remember that .500 basketball gets you a playoff spot in the NBA Eastern Conference. In baseball, last year, that would have gotten you contention in the NL West for half the season, at least before the Dodgers got Manny, and nowhere close to the Wild Card.

Yes, it's true, teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets spend more than the GDPs of many smaller nations, but the important question to ask is what they spend it on.

All three teams spend the money they have on their team, and while we Yankee fans might lampoon the moves that the Red Sox and the Mets make, the fact is that the intent is to build a winning team, to entice players to come to Boston or New York, and not steer them away because the owners don't feel like paying for marquee talent.

That said, the plethora of teams that have seen success in the past decade illustrates that smart management and smart player development means just as much, if not more, than signing big free agent contracts.

To be completely honest, however, as incoherent as my argument may be (it's 2 AM, after all), there is one thing that shouldn't escape your mind: If the 2008 World Series saw the Phillies taking on the Rays, there is really no logical argument to be made that only the rich teams have a chance.

As much as we might get disgusted at the giant player contracts, or, in the case of some of us Yankee fans, revel in them, the truth is that baseball is surviving quite well without a salary cap.

A salary floor, however, is an entirely different argument--and for a different day.

Invest Wisely

Hal Steinbrenner has an answer for you.

For everyone bemoaning the fact that the Yankees now have the four highest paid baseball players in the league, for everyone bemoaning that their small market team doesn't stand a chance, Hal Steinbrenner has an answer for you:

“So we have some money to spend, and we’re going to reinvest it. That’s going to continue, whether people like it or not. That’s for the fans. They deserve the best team we can put out there.” (With thanks to Sam Borden over at Lohud).

This is why many Yankee fans don't, in fact, feel bad about their team.

Would you, dear baseball fan, rather have a team whose ownership is willing to continually invest in the team--even if the owner is on occasion a bit of a nutjob or if on occasion the investments are misguided--or would you rather have a team whose ownership is in it only, for the money, and a la Pete Angelos or Carl Pohlad (RIP) spend not a cent more than absolutely necessary to keep the team afloat?

Thought so.

While the Steinbrenner tenure of the Yankees has, of course, been far from perfect, there is one constant:

Every decision made, rightly or wrongly, was made to make the Yankees a championship team.

There is no denying that spending vast sums of money is a conspicuous activity and that in a time such as this GLOBAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN OF DOOM that spending vast quantities of cash can seem ostentatious, but the ownership of the Yankees is spending the money on improving their product.

Would you, after all, rather see the CEO of Ford or Toyota spend vast reserves of cash on their private jet, or would you rather see them spend it on improving their cars that they sell to the public?

Such it is with a baseball team. Would you rather the Steinbrenners spend their money on upscale vacation condos that only they get to enjoy, or would you rather them spend it on improving their baseball team?

Teams like Kansas City or Tampa Bay may not have a lot of money (at least compared to the NY teams and Boston), but here's the kicker:

If you invest in your team by scouting well, signing good, young players and helping them develop, you can use these players and players acquired through trades of these players to build a winning team. Winning gets fans, even the notorious "pink hats", fans buy stuff, buying stuff means tickets and souvenirs, and this means money for the team.

It's not something you can do in one year--the worst to first flip of Tampa Bay is a rarity--but it happens over time.

I'll admit that for the Yankees and the Mets, being in New York certainly helps, but in truth, the 26 World Series rings really do have a lot to do with why the Yankee fan base is a large as it is.


So listen, if you're a Yankee fan and you're getting flak from fans about the money they spend, ask them this: what has their owner down for them, lately?

Everything's Bigger with Tex

ESPN's Buster Olney and Sports Illustrated's Jon Heyman are now reporting that the Yankees and Mark Teixiera have agreed to an 8-year, $170 million deal.

This, on the heels of announcing that prices to an exhibition game against the Chicago Cubs to open the New Stadium will be slashed to 1923--yes, you read that right--1923 prices, is enough to make your head spin.

Among the questions to be asked now are:

1) Is Teixiera really worth that deal?
2) Have the Yankees reverted back to a 1980s buy-everything-in-sight model? You know, the one that didn't work?
3) What do you do with recently acquired 1B/OF Nick Swisher?
4) How many countries have smaller GDPs than the Yankees' corner fielders?

Anyway, uh, I guess you can all consider it baseball's Christmas/Chanukah/Kwanzaa/Festivus present...

A Jay comes to the Yankees

ESPN is currently reporting that a 5 year, $82.5 million deal has been agreed to in principle between AJ Burnett and the Yankees.

If we ignore the fact that right now the Yankees seem to be printing their own money, this is a move that has to be approached with a lot of caution.

Burnett can be great, and you'd be hard pressed to find a Yankee or Yankee fan not excited at the prospect of not having to actually face Burnett, but the lengthy injury history is a major red flag. We're talking the Yankees are Marie Antoinette and Burnett is the storming of the Bastille--so what if I've been watching the History Channel?

It almost has a here we go again feel to it, but the good news is that because the Yankees signed Sabathia, they will (hopefully) not have to rely on Burnett as their ace.

Conventional wisdom states that you don't sign free agents coming from your division rival because there's probably a real good reason if they're letting one of their stars go to your team--at least in Burnett's case, the caveat is well known.

C. C. You in the Spring!

Holy crap it's been a little while since I've posted, hasn't it?

Well, when you're spending eight hours a day in the library researching medieval Nottingham...yeah, yeah...anyway...

According to multiple sources--Peter Abraham, ESPN.Com, SI.com and the NY Post, C.C. Sabathia is all but set to sign his Yankee papers.

No doubt, primal yelps of joy are sounding throughout all of YankeeLand, as he is by far the best pitcher on the market.

That said, a word of caution--one great free agent signing does not a team make, and there is word that he is looking for an opt out clause in the contract.

It's like getting that shiny brand new ipod for Christmas--it could be amazing, but if you don't care for it properly, bad things can happen.

Anyway. The important thing is that there's a new guy in pinstripes in the spring--and it's the one (most of us) all wanted.


****

In other Winter Meetings news, Francisco Rodriguez has signed a three year contract with the Mets. It's a good deal--K-Rod wants the money, the Mets need some semblance of a bullpen, even if one closer does not a good bullpen make.

SWISH

The Yankees have acquired Nick Swisher and a pitcher, Kanekoa Texeira from the White Sox in exchange for Wilson Betemit, Jeff Marquez and Jhonny Nuñez.

Thoughts:

1) Swisher might not be a great player, but we got him cheap.

2) The funny thing is that the pitcher we acquired in the deal is named....Texeira. So we can't complain about not getting Texeira, even if it's not the one we originally wanted.

3) I have no idea if this means we aren't going after that *other* Teixeira, but hey, you never know. At the very least it seems to say that Cashman and co., are serious about tightening up that roster...and possibly making more room for CC.

4) What the hell were the White Sox thinking/smoking? They got Betemit! Okay, so just because of that, he's going to win the AL MVP next year...




Anyway, I need 35 sources on women and work and late medieval Nottingham. Oh, this is going to be so much fun...

Bobby Meacham Fired

Bobby Meacham has been fired.

This move was not unexpected, though what is perhaps most interesting is to see how Girardi deals with the loss of one of his hand-picked coaches, the other being bullpen coach Mike Harkey.

Much of the in-house criticism leveled against Joe Girardi had to do with his over reliance on Meacham and Harkey to the exclusion of his other coaches; perhaps part of the thinking is that removing Meacham from the fray will force Girardi to better utilize his other coaches.

That, or Meacham simply was that bad as a third base coach.


No replacement has been announced of yet.

The Ca$hman (sung to a tune of an old song...)

Newsday is reporting that Brian Cashman will return with a three year deal.

Ed Price of the Ledger also reporting the same.

Grading the Trade Deadline

One day removed from the most interesting regular-season day of the year, one can begin to analyze the moves the Yankees have made as buyers at the Trade Deadline.

To recap:

Bought
Dàmaso Marte, LHP, Pirates
Xavier Nady, OF, Pirates
Ivan "Pudge" Rodriguez, C, Tigers
Jhonny Nuñez, RHP, Nationals
Matt Cusick, 2B, Astros

Sold
Ross Ohlendorf, RHP
Jose Tàbata, OF
Jeff Karstens, P
Dan McCutchen, P
Kyle Farnsworth, RHP
Alberto Gonzalez, INF
LaTroy Hawkens, RHP


By the above lists alone, once can see that in the trades the Yankees did make, they came away very well, getting an outfielder having a career year, the best left-handed reliever on the market and a hall of fame bound catcher, for what looks like little cost (unless Jose Tàbata's power magically develops ad he becomes the next Vladimir Guerrerro).

The Yankees filled some of their most glaring needs--a right handed bat, a lefty reliever and a catcher to help take the strain off of Jose Molina--but there is one area that they were not successful: they did not get a starting pitcher.

While one can argue that the Yankee rotation as is can suffice, just remember that tonight Sidney Ponson is pitching against the Los Angeles Angels (of Anaheim of the USA of the Milky Way of the Universe...)

Now, just because the Yankees didn't get a strting pitcher at the deadline doesn't mean they're out of option--there's still the waiver deadline later this month, not to mention certain available free agents and Ian Kennedy, Alfredo Aceves, et al, in the minors...

The Yankees were much more active this year at the trade deadline than they were last year, and on the surface it looks as though they pulled off a coup, but all of their needs have not been solved yet.

It's up to the Yankees now to make something happen with the pieces they've gotten.