More Stadium fallout, misuse of funds

This stuff just keeps coming, and I am glad it is because there's something woefully wrong about the way this whole thing has been handled. The behind-the-scenes, under-the-table deals between the Yanks and the City have been exposed for all their ugliness. And it just keeps coming:

More than a quarter of the $370 million in taxpayer financing in the Yankees' latest demand would go to shiny new toys like giant video screens and upgraded luxury suites, documents show.

Nearly $95 million is for "scope modifications" - items not in the team's original plan when it got $942 million in tax-exempt bonds via the city.
[...]
The Yankees' $95 million in extras includes $14.2 million for a scoreboard, $10.7million for a giant video board and $10.4 million in luxury suite upgrades.

The team wants more money to make room for two restaurants, a New York Yankees Steakhouse and a Hard Rock Cafe.

"It's terrific that they want to have a Hard Rock Cafe and a steakhouse there, but why should the taxpayer pay for that?" [Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, (D-Westchester)] asked.

Well said.

Laughing about the ugly Yanks fans

I was interested in reading Jon Heyman's latest tidbits on the Yanks fielding offers for Swisher and/or Nady, but when I read some of the comments below his posting, you'll see the best (or really, the worst) in Yanks fans. The epitome of "dump our crap for your gold and acquire every player possible" rantings. The Manny-love is astounding.

Sox adding Smoltz, Baldelli

Given this off-season, given the team making the signings, I think these are good moves for the Sox. These are the "Lieber contract" guys, like the Sox already did with Brad Penny, that big market teams can afford to do. The risks are purely financial and over-priced for the smaller market teams, but perfect for the Sox and Yanks. Short term financial risks. Good moves.

It didn't work last year for the Sox in Bartolo Colon, but who knows with Smoltz? I'll tell ya what, I'd bet on Smoltz a thousand times more often than I would on Colon. Smoltz might be the most competitive man in the game, from all accounts. I'd take that risk.

As for Baldelli, this is a total no-brainer. He's a hometown guy who seems to be turning the corner on this health issue he's been suffering from. He's only 27 and while the contract appears to be just a 1 year deal, if Baldelli can get back on the field and make an impact, I am sure he'd want to stay in Boston.

But don't fool yourself, my Boston fans. These are big market moves. Don't try to paint yourselves as a small, scrappy market. You are a financial behemoth. Don't try to hide what is true. Risks like Smoltz and Baldelli are precisely the moves that you (and the Mets, Angels, Yanks, etc.) should be making.

"This is one of the worst winters I can ever remember"

Sounds like Peter Gammons is not having much fun this winter. Between agents controlling the flow of information to his Sox getting hoodwinked by Boras and the Yanks, Gammons is clearly a bitter, angry New Englander.

From Chad Finn's blog on Boston.com, he caught up with Gammons and got his thoughts on the events of this Hot Stove Season. It ain't pretty. Here are some of the abridged highlights:

On why Teixeira chose the Yankees over the Red Sox when the conventional wisdom was that he would sign with Boston:
Gammons: [...] Not because his father was a [high school] teammate of Bucky Dent, but he made it very clear watching it yesterday [and wading] through the baloney . . . Teixeira is Scott Boras's ultimate client, and he's very well-programmed . . . The Red Sox didn't know it, and in the end there was nothing they could do about it. He wanted to go to the Yankees, his wife doesn't like Boston -- apparently she doesn't like the stores on Newbury Street or something -- and in the end that's the way it goes.

On whether -- or when -- John Henry realized Teixeira was ticketed for New York:
Gammons: They didn't know it. They were waiting on the day that he signed . . . they thought that they were going to get him. They tried to close the deal on Monday night [Dec. 21], and Scott [Boras] said, 'Well, the Teixeiras are flying, and they haven't quite done this, and they haven't quite done that," and he kept putting it off an all along it was to just finish the language with the Yankees. That's the way it goes. [...] As you probably remember, there was a lot of testiness between Alex Rodriguez and Mark Teixeira when they played in Texas together . . . and I don't think Alex really cares about communicating with other players, we know [that] from Derek Jeter. Also, we haven't really seen Teixeira in a situation where the expectations are really that high, and he's going to have to deal with them in New York. It will be very interesting to see how it goes with the Yankees.

On whether there was a number that would have convinced Teixeira to come to the Sox:
Gammons: Maybe $220 million . . . This is one of the worst winters I can ever remember. What happened this winter is that, as the internethas expanded to become the media power, the flow of information is quickly controlled by agents. A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com [...] But Scott floats this stuff out, and he's able to get people to report it.

On whether there is a strain on the relationship between Boras and the Red Sox:
Gammons: Well, it's good that Scott didn't call back at 5 o'clock that afternoon [when Teixeira chose the Yankees] and try to sign up another player [...] In was unnecessary for Scott to try to lay some of the blame on Larry Lucchino, as if, you know, Teixeira didn't like him.

There some more there but this really reads like a disappointed fan, not a Hall of Fame writer. Perhaps he was just having a bad day. Or a bad Winter. I really do like Gammons and have the utmost respect for him, but his biases are showing now more than ever.

**PS: How incredibly awesome is that picture? Gammons, Boras, Cashman and Epstein. Talk about MLB's power brokers!

Teix's honesty

Points for honesty, Teix.

"Every team did [have a chance]," said Teixeira. "I told my agent, 'This is the pecking order,' and I gave him my idea of who was going to be near the top.

"At the same time, I'm not going to lie to you guys. Contract was important. I wasn't going to take half as much money to play in New York. But when a team like New York steps up and is very competitive with their contract, it was an easy decision for me.

"I'm sure there could have been [a deal with Boston], but like I said, contract is important. When everyone was kind of around the same contract, there was no rush for me to make a decision, so that's kind of the way I went about that meeting with Boston.

"I have so much respect for [the Red Sox], but when their offer wasn't with the Yankees' and it just didn't seem like they were going to continue to better their offer, and the Yankees came in and did what they did, it was an easy decision."

Thanks to joeorange for the tip!

More on Mitre; Dissecting Romero's claims

I managed to get hold of Matt Sosnick from Sosnick-Cobbe Sports, the firm that represents Sergio Mitre. Sosnick is not Mitre’s representative; Paul Cobbe is. Matt was kind enough to take a few moments to help clarify some things about Mitre’s story.

IIAMTS: Why should we believe Mitre’s story?
Sosnick: Paul and Sergio have been dealing with this issue for months, working with the MLBPA. Based on what I know about the situation, I believe there is zero chance that Sergio would be making this up.

IIATMS: It was noted in Peter Gammons’ original article that Romero claims he was offered a more lenient suspension (25 games) if he plead guilty. Was Mitre offered that same deal?
Sosnick: Mitre was not offered that deal. A lot of scenarios were bantered around as possibilities but Mitre was never offered a choice. My partner Paul Cobbe handled the entire deal with Mitre and the MLBPA hearing/appeals process. He was never offered a choice. We hoped for zero games; it came down as a 50 game [suspension] for both Romero and Mitre. We, along with the MLBPA thought that was unfair. If Romero claims he was offered 25 games to admit guilt, that comes as a surprise to us since Mitre was never made that offer.

IIATMS: Who knew about this and for how long?
Sosnick: Only myself, Paul and Sergio [and the MLBPA] were aware. We’ve been working on it for months. Paul and Sergio have been to NYC to discuss and meet with MLB officials. Once we knew that the league would release this today, the only person that I called was Yankees’ GM Brian Cashman, out of respect for him and our working relationship. We released Sergio’s statement after the Romero statement was released.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

A few things that I’ve been thinking about since the news broke and it’s only now, after I have had a chance to re-read everything and digest it all, that some things are becoming clearer.

First of all, while I am fortunate to have a good relationship with Sosnick, I do not work FOR him. Just because Sosnick told me that he doesn't believe Mitre intentionally did anything wrong doesn't mean you or I have to believe him. I'm presenting his side since I have access; decide for yourself.

That said, I think Paul Cobbe’s statement on behalf of Mitre was spot on. Nothing resonates more than someone taking responsibility for their actions, even if it means certain punishment. Man-up, as they say. Mitre manned-up. Mitre’s entire statement (emphasis mine):

"Although being suspended for 50 games is tough to accept, I think that it is important to understand that I am in full support of drug testing in Baseball. I did take the supplement in question, and accept full responsibility for taking it. What has been difficult for me to understand is that I legally purchased this supplement at GNC, and had no intention nor desire to cheat or to circumvent the system in any way. As confirmed through the drug testing and grievance processes, it contained a "contaminant" amount of an illegal, performance-enhancing drug. This was not listed as an ingredient on the packaging, should not have been in the supplement and certainly should not have been available for legal purchase at a store. Despite this, I do accept my punishment because, as a professional, I have a responsibility for what I put into my body. For this I will suffer a significant financial penalty and, more importantly, it will affect my reputation. I only hope that this will help others avoid being punished for having taken a product bought legally at a retail store."

Whether you or I believe that Mitre was unknowingly taking a substance that was against the rules is almost immaterial here. What is important is that he acknowledged it and takes responsibility for his actions.

What also struck me here is how much his statement felt like the similar tactic that Andy Pettitte took last Spring in speaking out in the face of the Mitchell Report fallout. Different circumstances, to be sure, but I can tell you that more people respected Pettitte for admitting his guilt than the morbid path that Roger Clemens decided to take. Clemens, as you will never forget, blamed everyone else and never took responsibility for his actions.

I went back over some of the other things that I read about the Romero “situation”, since that clearly had greater legs than Mitre’s. Peter Gammons’ timeline shows us that this was ongoing in the Fall, through the playoffs and actually during the World Series! Pretty interesting how long this process takes to germinate.

What really sticks out is Romero’s response, how he blamed everyone he could seemingly think of, from the MLBPA (the very organization who serves as his advocate and also happens to be the most powerful union in perhaps the world), to GNC, to the manufacturer, down to his trainer on the Phillies.

Regarding the 25 game “offer” that Romero suggested that he received from MLB [EDIT: see update at end], Romero’s comments come across as Clemens-esque. The first comment is particularly insulting:

"But they are not going to make an example of me thinking that I’m just a (dumb) Puerto Rican. It’s not going to happen. It’s not the way I’m built.

"For me to keep my mouth shut? That’s not the right thing to do. If they want to bump me out of the game, so be it. What am I going to do, just sit back and take it? When I know in my heart I’m innocent? That doesn’t fly well with me and it doesn’t fly well in my house, either."

Sounds like Clemens’ initial reaction, too, but I’m willing to give Romero a break here since we don’t know all the facts and we don’t have the benefit of the Mitchell Report to rely upon.

So let’s dig deeper since some things begin to look very sketchy when laid out on a kitchen table:

What did the MLBPA know and when did they know it?

According to the Gammons’ article, Romero claims that “he spoke to Michael Weiner at the MLBPA and told him he did not know the cause of the positive test. On Oct. 1, Weiner told Romero that the specific supplement was indeed the cause of the failed test and that because it was purchased over the counter in the U.S., he believed the case would be dropped.”

Why, then, would Michael Weiner, MLBPA’s General Counsel, issue a tersely written “Statement Statement In Response to Media Reports on the Suspension of J.C. Romero” emailed to all MLBPA personnel? “Press stories” here has to only refer to that Gammons’ source article, essentially coming from Romero’s mouth. So what did Weiner have to say about one of his dues-paying Union members’ claims?

“Some press stories have stated that the Association advised players that the particular supplement J.C. took was safe. Others have suggested that the Association knew, in advance of the positive tests, that this supplement contained a banned substance. Neither is accurate. The Association knew nothing about the particular supplements involved here prior to learning of these positive results.

"There also has been a suggestion in some reports that the MLBPA misled its members about the potential dangers of nutritional supplements. That suggestion, too, is not accurate. We have and will continue to do our utmost to counsel players with regard to compliance with our Program.”

Friends, that is the general counsel of the world’s most powerful union effectively calling “bullsh*t” on one of its members. Do not take this lightly. Weiner is essentially calling Romero (and his claims) a liar. I cannot believe, for a second, that the senior attorney for the union would publish a comment like this without it being a bulletproof statement.

It makes me wonder if there really was a firm offer to accept a lesser penalty for pleading guilty. Maybe it was a trial balloon. Who knows? But no matter what, Weiner’s calling him out on it.

Weiner goes on to then say that he thinks the punishment is too harsh and unfair but the statement abruptly ends there. That’s Weiner doing his job after slamming the door. Weiner issued a joint release for Mitre and Romero that also criticized the ruling.

The Union respects the arbitration process and treats the decision as final. In our view, though, the resulting discipline imposed upon Mitre and Romero is unfair. These players should not be suspended. Their unknowing actions plainly are distinguishable from those of a person who intentionally used an illegal performance-enhancing substance.

He's sticking up for his Union members, as you'd expect, but it's the MLBPA email with the time stamp of 01/06/2009 01:05 PM To: All MLBPA Personnel that is particularly scathing.

What’s certainly possible: Romero, like Mitre, unknowingly took something from GNC that contained elements that are against the MLB drug policy. However, attacking the MLBPA is not the way to go about defending yourself.


The GNC Supplement in question:
Will Carroll from Baseball Prospectus had an interesting little piece on what Romero was supposedly taking: Ergopharm 6-OXO Extreme. Notes Carroll:

According to multiple sources (and also reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer), Romero tested positive for 6-OXO Extreme, a product that enhances testosterone production in ways very similar to anabolic steroids. While legal and still available at your local GNC, 6-OXO Extreme has always carried a warning that it could result in positive tests. If you look at the above link, you’ll be able to find the same warning in the online information.

But it gets better, or worse, if you’re Romero. 6-OXO is a product of Ergopharm. Ergopharm is owned and operated by a guy you might remember: Patrick Arnold. Yes, that one. Arnold was the source for the THG used by BALCO. Arnold served several months in jail due to his involvement and is now back in business.

If Romero didn’t know what he was taking, he sure got unlucky in picking the product marked “for hardcore users only” and with a connection that baseball fans would rather forget.

Whoops. Rob Neyer had the logical comment worth repeating:

Here's a crazy idea: Read the label, and if the label says the product may be banned by an athletic association and you're a professional athlete subject to drug testing … don't take that drug.

The Inquirer article did secure a comment from Arnold, which puts Romero in a further negative light, if you ask me:

In an e-mail exchange, Arnold said there was nothing in his supplement that should have created a positive drug test.

"We have funded two independent clinical studies (one done at Baylor University) that have been peer reviewed," Arnold wrote. "These studies demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the product. We also have funded studies that have demonstrated the compound’s compliance with FDA regulation. Furthermore, we funded another study at (the University of Illinois) in Chicago using classical protocols that demonstrated that 6-OXO is absolutely not an anabolic steroid."

Why didn’t MLB alert its players about this OTC product?
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer article referenced by Carroll:

In July, Romero showed the new supplement to Phillies strength coach Dong Lien, who recommended that Romero get a second opinion before using it. Romero then showed it to his personal nutritionist, "the guy I’ve been working with since I’ve been in major-league baseball," Romero said.

That nutritionist checked the product’s label and saw nothing on MLB’s banned list. Romero began taking the supplement at that point.

Meanwhile, according to the arbitrator’s report, Lien sent a sample of the supplement to MLB for testing. The tests showed the supplement contained a substance that could result in a positive drug test. A copy of those results was sent to commissioner Bud Selig’s office in July.

Considering it was the first time a banned substance was found in an FDA-regulated, over-the-counter supplement — one available to every major-leaguer and millions of youths — that should have sounded alarms. But no one from MLB, the players’ association or the Phillies told Romero that there was a problem with the supplement.

Note the timing: In July. Unfortunately, the MLBPA memo citing certain OTC supplements may trigger positive tests came in November. Again from the Inquirer:

The Major League Baseball Players’ Association has told players that supplements purchased in U.S. retail stores should be safe and within the guidelines of baseball’s drug-testing program. The union acknowledged giving that advice in a letter it sent out to players and their advisers in November. That letter, which arrived too late to help Romero, informed players that three over-the-counter supplements were found to create positive tests under baseball’s drug program.

The Phillies response:
From GM Ruben Amaro:

"I feel very confident with how our staff handles -- and has handled -- these situations, both [trainer] Scott Sheridan and Dong Lien. I have absolutely no problem with the way they handled their roles," Amaro said. "It's unfortunate that J.C. and the Phillies have to deal with this situation, but that's how it is."

Standing by his staff.


Conclusion:
Right now, regarding Mitre, we have a player who admits to taking something that triggered a positive test. He’s taken responsibility for his actions. He might be lying to us and we will never know, but this is all we have right now. I commend him for his statement.

Honestly, I think that Romero might be as unwittingly guilty as Mitre at the core of it all. But his plan of attack on his Union, his team/trainers, plus the supplement in question and his not taking any responsibility for his actions is disturbing. What I have presented above is purely conjecture based upon various reports issued. I am not claiming that Romero is lying about the circumstances or the MLBPA’s actions. What really is bugging me is Weiner’s statement flatly calling Romero’s claims false. That’s a big red flag to me.

We've seen a lot written how Romero's not getting a fair shake because it seems that everyone is believing Romero's story that the MLBPA was aware of this supplement's potential for causing positive tests yet they did nothing to help him. I'm not sold that's the truth.

I don't know what the truth really is --and doubt I will ever know-- but there are just some very curious things that Romero's comments and their reaction brought to the surface.

UPDATE (1/7/09, 10:55am): Reader Larry Selzer was good enough to provide this link with Rob Manfred's admission that a 25 game suspension was indeed offered to Romero. Seems that MLB didn't want a player who has tested positive in the World Series. Thanks, Larry!

"We generally do not negotiate discipline in the drug area," MLB's executive vice president for labor and human resources Rob Manfred said. "If he appealed it would go beyond the World Series. We offered to reduce the suspension to avoid him being in the World Series. ... I think a scientist will tell you that the [banned] substance was no longer in [Romero's] system, but the appearance of it - you prefer to avoid. With any drug program, the goal is to remove the athlete as quickly as possible."

Again, all this does is tell us there is so much more we don't know. It still does not change the fact that Romero's attack on everyone else rather than taking any responsiblity is a bad PR move. I'm OK with a player protesting the claims and professing his innocence, but I would not have recommended Romero's tactics.

UPDATE (1/9/09, 11:15am): An update from USA Today's Bob Nightengale, with an interesting tidbit on the company certifying supplements:

NSF International, a not-for-profit organization based in Ann Arbor, Mich., certifies supplements for Major League Baseball, the NFL and the PGA Tour. EgroPharm, the manufacturer of 6-OXO Extreme, is not one of NSF's approved companies and any product that purported to be a testosterone booster, like 6-OXO Extreme, should be avoided by professional athletes who are tested, according to Ed Wyszumiala, NSF's general manager of dietary supplement programs.

"There is a certain segment of the market where we're not convinced isn't adulterating their products," Wyszumiala said. "Maybe this is a case where a company would spike a product in order to gain market share.
[...]
"Oftentimes, what's on the label is not in the bottle," said Lori Bestervelt, senior vice president and chief technical officer at NSF. "The only way you know is through testing the product and having a certification process."

Previewing the Teixeira unveiling

What I expect to hear:

Randy Levine:

• "...Steinbrenner's continued committment...putting first rate product on the field...for our fans...the best fans in the World...deserve the best...deliver another World Series...continuing our legacy...new era of Yankee baseball excellence...thank you City of New York..."

Brian Cashman:

• "...welcome Mark to the Yankee family...rich history...switch hitting force in the lineup...great defense...thank you Steinbrenners for your continued reinvestment...best product possible...unless Girardi screws it up..."...a player we targeted all along...happy to have him...

Mark Teixeira:

• "...a dream come true...happy to be here...looking to be just a part of the team...want a chance to win every year...looking forward to playing with Jeter, ARod...can't wait to walk onto the new field...can't wait to meet the guys...excited to bring a championship to the Yankees...be part of the Yankee tradition...it's not about the money"

Bucking the trend, against the odds

This tidbit struck me (emphasis mine):

The Rays and Phillies last year provided another reminder of the trend toward younger, more athletic players by reaching the World Series without counting on old, everyday players. The past seven world champions have used a combined total of only seven starting everyday players who were 33 or older, including just four players who were playing past their 35th birthday.

The Yankees, for all the money they have spent, will try to buck this trend by starting Alex Rodriguez, 33, Derek Jeter, who turns 35 in June, Johnny Damon, 35 and Jorge Posada, 37, with Hideki Matsui, 35, getting at-bats in the outfield and at DH. No team has won the pennant with a 35-or-older shortstop since the 1956 Brooklyn Dodgers with Pee Wee Reese. Only two of the 240 teams to make the postseason since then used such an old shortstop: the 1996 Orioles (Cal Ripken) and 1981 Phillies (Larry Bowa).

Whoa.

Mitre tagged by PED police

Given my relationship with agent Matt Sosnick (of the Sosnick-Cobbe Sports firm), I found this news doubly depressing: Yanks' Mitre to get suspension. The Yanks signed Mitre this off-season knowing he'd miss most of the year rehabbing from elbow surgery.

I'll maintain some semblance of skepticism about his claims, as I would any with player, but something sounds amiss in this supplement/FDA/labling/legality mess:

"Although being suspended for 50 games is tough to accept, I think that it is important to understand that I am in full support of drug testing in baseball," Mitre said in a statement released through his agent, Paul Cobbe. "I did take the supplement in question and accept full responsibility for taking it. What has been difficult for me to understand is that I legally purchased this supplement at GNC and had no intention nor desire to cheat or to circumvent the system in any way.

"As confirmed through the drug testing and grievance processes, it contained a 'contaminant' amount of an illegal, performance-enhancing drug. This was not listed as an ingredient on the packaging, should not have been in the supplement and certainly should not have been available for legal purchase at a store."

I hope we can get to the bottom of this. If Sosnick has a comment for me to post here, I will update as I can.

ShysterBall has the take on JC Romero's suspension for essentially the same thing. VERY sketchy stuff.

On letting go

I've said many, many times here that the one thing that I respect about the RedSox organization is their ability to cut relations with their "heroes", guys like Pedro, Damon, Lowe, Manny, Nomar and now possibly Varitek. There's a fine line between being heartless and having conviction in your beliefs. The Yanks have been guilty of keeping their recent heroes past their primes while paying "in the prime" prices. Going the extra year on both Mo and Posada most recently were classic examples of this.

Let there be no confusion: I am a big Andy Pettitte fan. Even with the whole PED situation, I remain a fan of his game, his demeanor, his contributions to the dynastic run. All that said, if Andy truly wants "in the prime" dollars/years right now, I will not shed a tear if he doesn't return. He's a 4th or 5th starter in the AL right now, at best. At worst, slightly below league average (see the 2nd half of 2008). Maybe he pulls a Mussina and cranks out a 20 win out-of-nowhere season in 2009, but I'm not holding my breath.

Pettitte did not tell the Yankees that he might be included in the report, which said he had used human growth hormone. Pettitte admitted his use and the Yankees supported him publicly. But his performance suffered in the second half of the season, when he usually gets stronger, and he admitted his distracting off-season might have been a factor.

In a way, though, such honesty has always been part of Pettitte’s appeal; his sincerity and earnestness have made him a fan favorite. In an interview in September, Pettitte forecast a quick negotiation, even though he knew it might not be wise to do so.

“Obviously anyone else would say, ‘I’ll go wherever I want to,’ because people want to try to get the most money,” Pettitte said before a Yankees-Angels game in Anaheim, Calif. “But, I mean, I’m not going anywhere, you know what I’m saying? The Yankees know me enough, it’s not like I’m going to hold out. I guess if I had spent all my money or whatever, it might be different. But it’s not about that, really, anymore.”

If Andy can get $16m or so from another team, TAKE IT. Seriously. I would not be remotely upset if he went after the money. Heck, it's in everyone's DNA to take the highest dollar, or to at least ASK for the highest dollar they feel they are worth. Just don't tell me that you're not going to hold out for the highest dollar then do just that. That's hypocritical, Andy.

Don't forget, Andy, how the team wrapped their collective arms around you in Spring Training as you apologized for the PED usage. This team would be better with you in it, but if you want that extra few million, after you have made over $100m in your career, best of luck. See ya at Old Timer's Day. I'll be cheering for you then.

Fellow blogger "el duque" at the well-written IT IS HIGH... penned an open letter to Andy, begging him to return, citing Pettitte's legacy. This is precisely the thing that the Yanks have done over the years in the face of declining productivity.

We need you as starting pitcher on the day the world greets the new Yankee Stadium.

The Yankiverse needs you.

The other starters -- Sabathia, Burnett, Wang, Chamberlain -- may someday be great Yanks. You, however, have already earned that distinction. Therefore, please consider this request.

Andy, I'd like to see you back in pinstripes in 2009 but if it's not meant to be, it's not the end of the world. The Yanks should just be willing to let go. The 2009 season is the dawn of a new era. A new ballpark, a new club. Sabathia should be on the hill that Opening Day in the Bronx as the unofficial face of the new era.

2009 Y.A.E. candidates

I've been watching Tom Verducci's "year after effect" candidates for some time, anxiously looking ahead to see who's a candidate for a drop-off and to then examine which of the candidates suffered. Except usually I wait for Verducci to, you know, actually publish his list/analysis. This year, Beyond The Box Score did it for him, though I don't think it's an exhaustive list:

• Jon Lester (162 IP last year, 237 this year – 76 inning increase)
• Cole Hamels (190 IP last year, 262 this year – 72 inning increase)
• Chad Billingsley (147 IP last year, 212 this year – 65 inning increase)
• John Danks (139 IP last year, 195 this year -56 inning increase)
• Mike Pelfrey (146 IP last year, 200 this year – 54 inning increase)
• Tim Lincecum (177 IP last year, 226 this year – 49 inning increase)
• Jair Jurrjens (142 IP last year, 188 this year – 46 inning increase)

I'll wait for Verducci's work but this is a good preview!

Hell hath no fury

Hell hath no fury for he who slanders Cashman... or at least does so with the flimsiest of arguments, horrible fact-checking and perhaps the lamest profile photo ever (that's him to the right, folks).

The source of the angst comes from LoHud's guest blogger today, the now infamous Sam I Am (aka Mr. Mute Point). I won't dignify anything by blockquoting. Just have at it.

And the always fun IT IS HIGH... blog furthers the blogger-flogging.

Whatever the reason, it's worth a read. That is, if you're planning on going out and getting in a brawl in the next 20 minutes and need something stronger than loud Metallica, Jagermeister and piles of cocaine to get you fired up for a round of fisticuffs.

Larry Bird isn't walking thru that door...

...and neither is Tino, Brosius and Paulie, but that doesn't stop unnamed former Yankees for pining for the 90's heyday.

"I still don't have a good feel about their club," one former Yankees player said. "They'll have a great statistical club, but I still think they're so away from what made them great. They don't have enough down-and-dirty guys like (Scott) Brosius, Tino (Martinez) and (Paul) O'Neill."

Look, I loved that era as much as anyone; it was a wonderful time in my life. I got married a month and a half before the first WS title of that run. My first was born Opening Day of the 2000 season, the last year the Yanks would capture that title. My second was born in the Spring of 2003, the year of their last visit to the WS. But that era is gone, we've all gotten older and moved different directions. It's time to stop genuflecting on the "gritty/gutty" guys who won a decade ago and worry about where the team is going over the next decade.

And Tim Kurkjian, the author of the linked-to article got this wonderful quote from an unnamed executive, a quote I just love:

"It will be fun to watch," one baseball executive said. "All the Yankee lovers will love them even more because they're really good. The Yankee haters will hate them even more for just buying all the best players. I'd have done the same thing if I were them. We'll see if it works."

Truer words were never spoken.

Kurkjian summarizes the moves for Teix, CC and Burnett logically, as the Yanks likely have viewed them: "The moves they made had to be made."

On Teixeira:

Teixeira is a major upgrade at first base over Giambi, who was one of 12 guys to play the position for the Yankees last season...
......
Teixeira was just as productive after being acquired by the Angels last year: in 54 games, he slugged .632 (172 points higher than the Yankees' first basemen last year) and had an on-base percentage of .449 (100 points higher than the Yankees' first basemen).

"And he is so much better defensively than any first baseman the Yankees threw out there last year," one scout said. "The Yankees weren't a good defensive team last year, especially in the infield."

Teixeira likely will fit in well in the clubhouse because he always plays, he always plays hard and he always works at improving his game.

On Sabathia:

Sabathia arguably has been the game's best pitcher the past two years. He won the American League Cy Young in 2007, and, after April, he was equally good last year -- when he pitched the Brewers to the playoffs for the first time since 1982. He is strong, durable and talented. Plenty of pitchers have flopped in New York because they couldn't handle the heat, but most of them weren't nearly as good or as young as Sabathia.

"If he doesn't win 20 games for them, I would be very surprised," one GM said. "He is the real deal. He is, by far, the biggest move that they made in this offseason."
......
Sabathia has no clubhouse issues to worry about. He is a fun, affable guy, who loved playing in Cleveland and loved playing in Milwaukee. He volunteered to pitch on short rest four times down the stretch to get the Brewers to the playoffs, even though it was clear he would not be playing for them in 2009. He, like Teixeira, has never played under the stress of New York, or under the stress of that contract, but all indications are that he can handle it.
......
The Yankees used 27 pitchers; 13 started at least one game, including Kei Igawa and Brian Bruney. It is remarkable that the Yankees won as many games as they did with such a patchwork pitching staff, which included Sidney Ponson, who started 15 games.

Timmy's right: Every part of the Yankees will be fascinating.

Reluctantly, Neyer concedes

I am sure this must have been thru gritted teeth:

What if I told you that a team with unlimited financial resources won 89 games, and then acquired the world's greatest pitcher and the American League's greatest first baseman? Is that something you'd be interested in? I'm fairly sure it's going to interest the oddsmakers. It has been so long since the Yankees have won a World Series that it's now fashionable to look for reasons why they'll continue not winning. It's really not that complicated, though: The World Series favorite should be the best team in the American League, and right now that perfectly describes the New York Yankees.

Lest you be confused, Neyer's a Royals fan so picking the Yanks must have been tough, not just due to the sheer volume of money spent but that the team wasn't constructed organically or elegantly.

Good names still available!

"My clients and colleagues won't want to hear this, but it's not collusion; it's economic reality," said a prominent player agent who requested anonymity. "This is the bust to what in recent years has been the boom. That said, I really do expect the action to be fairly fast and furious in January."

Plenty of good, solid players at bargain basement prices still available. So save your "we need a salary cap" whinings, spare me the "it's collusion!" rantings. When guys like this are still homeless and your team is sitting doing nothing to improve, start rioting at your local stadium. The economy IS in the toilet but at some point, these players' prices will become prohibitively cheap enough for any team to afford:

Oliver Perez, Ben Sheets, Derek Lowe, Andy Pettitte, John Smoltz and Pedro Martinez are still out there, as are slightly lesser lights such as Randy Wolf, Jon Garland and Paul Byrd. Curt Schilling is available, too -- for comment, to campaign, or maybe even to pitch again.
......
Relivers: Trevor Hoffman, Juan Cruz, Brandon Lyon, Joe Beimel, Eric Gagne, Eddie Guardado and Takashi Saito
......
A pack of "name" players for whom the stove has been anything but hot to this point: shortstop Orlando Cabrera, third baseman Joe Crede, first baseman Jason Giambi, catchers Ivan Rodriguez and Jason Varitek, and outfielders Mark Kotsay, Jim Edmonds and Garret Anderson.
......
And anyone who knows how to work a mouse knows that the biggest fish as yet unhooked is Manny Ramirez.
.....
For teams looking for a younger offensive force, Adam Dunn (29), Milton Bradley (29), Pat Burrell (32) and Bobby Abreu (34) are still out there. So is Gold Glove second baseman Orlando Hudson, whose recent injury history is said to be giving potential suitors pause, and future Hall of Famer Ken Griffey Jr.

There are many guys in those lists above who could help turn a team's fortunes around, or at least give some hope. These are not $15m/year players. Likely half that, or more.

I'm sure these guys wouldn't want to sign one year cheapie deals, but some smart GM will start offering some of these guys short term deals to help his team acquire players that they might not normally be able to afford.

And as an aside, that move not to offer Abreu arbitration on his $16m 2008 deal looks pretty darn good right now, doesn't it?

"No Duh" headline du jour

Gotta chuckle when I see a headline like this: Reloaded Yanks have high expectations

Really? What clue gave it away?

With $423.5 million committed to three players -- left-hander CC Sabathia, right-hander A.J. Burnett and first baseman Mark Teixeira -- the Yankees are staking their biggest bet yet toward knocking out a drought that saw their last World Series title come in 2000.

The death of a blog

This caught me (and many others) way off guard. The Pride Of The Yankees blog at NJ.com is likely done. I found this very troubling for a number of reasons, the least of which was the fact that I have known the brothers writing team since we were wee lads. I'm having trouble going to past tense here, so bear with me.

POTY is/was a great first-stop source for all Yanks baseball news, not disimilar to Buster Olney's "blog" with all the latest news from around the league. David and Aziz are/were adept at siphoning out the noise and giving us the nuggets that would most interest us.

Besides the writing of the brothers, POTY has/had a great following of commenters who didn't fall prey to the hyperbole, name-calling, slap fights that overtakes other large sites. They are/were smart, fact-driven, self-policing. It was a joy to watch/read.

Some 30-odd comments into the post-mortem, they posted this in a comment:

Aziz and I are working with the NJ.com staff to try and maintain this site. While the blogging will likely stop for a little while, we're hoping to bring the blog back in the not-too-distant future -- hopefully with us as contributors (only less often), and perhaps with other contributors as well.

We can only hope.

Now, D&A have given the reasons of "life" and "law school" as reasons to halt the daily production and I hope the call was theirs to make.

Nonetheless, here at IIATMS, I welcome all of the POTY readers with open arms and bountiful comments-driven debates. I will leave their links in the blogroll and daily blog circuit to keep vigil.

Don't blame the Yanks

Another belated link, this one from Russ at Splice. Remember, before reading, that Russ is a Sox fan and hates the Yanks. He kicks it off in grand fashion:

Friends, Americans and baseball fans around the globe, lend me your eyes: I’m writing to praise the New York Yankees, not to bury them.

Don’t misinterpret this message, for my Yankee-hating bona fides are second to no one. Over the decades, I’ve cursed Mantle and Munson, Martin and Maris, Jeter and Giambi, Posada and Pepitone, Reggie and Rocket, Tito and Torre, and Dent and Damon. There’s a particular loathing for Paul O’Neill, YES yes-man Michael Kay, Mike Mussina and, it hardly bears repeating, the most odious athlete of this era, Alex Rodriguez, aka A-Fraud. As a Red Sox fan I’ve been threatened and punched by creeps at Yankee Stadium, endured slings and arrows and misfortune from skunks in the stands, and once gave my sons permission to give a bow-tied afternoon drunk the finger after he hooted at my wife for the crime of cheering a David Ortiz blast into the right field seats.

Nevertheless, the recent commotion from baseball media commentators—in print, on the tube, online and at parties—after the Yankees signed free agent Mark Teixeira for $180 million has been the most knee-jerk, naïve and plain dumb hyperbole that’s occurred in the past year. The Yankees are ruining Major League Baseball! The Steinbrenners Hal and Hank (and GM Brian Cashman) don’t play fair! Locking up three players—aside from Teixeira, they nabbed C.C. Cheeseburger and A.J. Burnett—for a total of $423.5 million is unseemly during a crippling recession and the world’s most famous sports franchise is once again spitting at
people with prudence and manners!

What a load of hooey.

What he said.

More reader mail: The "C' Word

More reader mail, via Shysterball, so that's doubly good. Though this is more of a guest posting and the last time we did a guest post call, I asked for a donation to a charity. I'll contact the author Jay Gargiulo of the newly-formed FackYouk blog to see if he'd be interested in doing something. His blog is brand-spankin' new so in honor of my blog's first birthday, I granted Jay his wish. Particularly since he's chatting about the Dreaded "C" Word.

UPDATE: Jay just made a donation to the American Cancer Society. Big props for Jay and his blog team at FackYouk!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The word "collusion" gets thrown around a lot in baseball circles, most recently in reference to this gentleman, and shortly before that, this guy and as Joe said in the comments it's only a matter of time before it's said in conjunction with Manny. In all three cases, I would tend to take things at face value and conclude that these are 30 teams all acting rationally and coming to the same conclusions.

An interesting fact that I was unaware of: It was Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale who created the need for these regulations by demanding joint negotiations with the Dodgers prior to the 1966 season (Wikipedia). As a result of the leverage provided by these transparent negotiations, the two pitchers received the two largest contracts in baseball history at the time. The owners were obviously none too pleased, and wanted to ensure this was not allowed to happen again.

In 1968, when Marvin Miller negotiated the first Collective Bargaining Agreement, he ensured that the owners were not allowed to collude either. The final language in the CBA reads "Players shall not act in concert with other Players and Clubs shall not act in concert with other Clubs."

According to Roger I. Abrams in his book Legal Bases, the owners didn't see how this restriction could ever apply to them. They were wrong. In the age of free agency, players gained the upper hand and were now able to negotiate with all other teams, and the resulting competition drove salaries upward, theoretically.

In 1986, a year when only four free agents switched teams and free agent salaries declined by 16%, the Player's Association filed a grievance against the owners, claiming that they had been acting together so as not to bid for each others players. The arbitration process consisted of 32 days of hearings spread out over almost a year, and in the end Arbitrator Tom Roberts ruled in favor of the players. Again according to Legal Bases, the rationale was that:

"Reaching a formal agreement was only one of many ways for two or more parties to act in concert. Some 'common scheme or plan' would be sufficient to provide a violation of that parties' bargain."

Which makes me think back to this. Remember when Bud Selig had ex-Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker speak to owners and executives of all 30 teams in November?

For roughly 45 minutes. According to several people who attended the meeting, Volcker discussed what led to the current economic plight and where things might be headed. His assessment was not upbeat, the attendees said.

At the end of his presentation, Volcker took several questions from owners and officials but did not specifically address how the economy could affect the 30 teams, big market and small, in the months to come.

Those who spoke about Volcker's remarks did so on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be linked to the public discussion of a private meeting.

The off-season was already under way, but basically no free agent signings had occurred yet. On a certain level, you have to think that Selig knew that Volcker's assessment wasn't going to be "upbeat". They certainly must have spoken recently about the state of the economy before Selig asked him to address the owners.

Selig said he first broached the idea of having Volcker address the owners when he saw him at a World Series game last month.

You think they might have had some sort of a discussion about the economy when they ran into each other at the World Series? The World Series obviously took place in October, a month when the market posted triple digit fluctuations in 20 out of 23 days of trading. If Selig respected Volcker's opinion enough to have him address the franchise owners of his mega-billion dollar corporation, then he would surely have sought some expert insight in such turbulent financial times. Men of much smaller intellects and bank accounts were discussing the economy at that time. It was the most important and prevalent conversation echoing throughout the country and had been since the Lehman bankruptcy over a month before.

So what I'm getting at is... doesn't that sound like "acting in concert" or at least promoting or encouraging "a common scheme or plan"? Not surprisingly, neither Selig or Volcker have commented on the what was said during the 45 minute address. Even if Volcker didn't "specifically address how the economy could affect the 30 teams", doesn't this at least create the appearance of impropriety?

Maybe teams would have come to the same conclusions and almost universally ratcheted down spending (save for the Yankees, who have historically taken their own stance against the MLB). But if you were an executive or owner, wouldn't you be more reluctant to spend after hearing a pessimistic assessment of the economy from an ex-Federal Reserve Chairman who had "warned against the credit collapse for several years"?

Reader mail: A Gammons rant

Some reader mail for you guys, from you guys. This from joeorange31:

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Gammons.....(sigh)

Must have been drunk when he wrote this article about the Yankees: My responses are below.

But the Red Sox can also resume the role of underdog, which to an organization priding itself on the flow of self-developed talent isn't a bad thing. We have seen how well Ben Cherington, the RedSox's vice president of player personnel, and Mike Hazen, Boston's director of player development, have built a player development environment which has led to many seamless transitions from the minor leagues into the Fenway Park pressure cooker. And that will continue.

RESUME THE ROLE OF UNDERDOG??? Can he be serious? They've got the number two [EDIT: #4] payroll overall...are you KIDDING ME??? The temperature of the whole article is smarmy and stewed with angst.

We have months to see how the Yankees mesh, what scabs they develop, what injuries they must overcome, whether the expectations make the game joyless despite the joy that Derek Jeter, Mo, and Sabathia bring to the ballpark every day.

Oh. I know...because if you put that "B" on your cap, it just brings joyand love right? I suppose Manny Ramirez was a guy FULL of joy and pridewearing those socks. I suppose that Teixeira can look forward to a careerof misery now that he'll play in NY? I suppose that it wasn't Jeter's lifetime goal to play in the Bronx? That'd sure make ME miserable, too.

Now they're reminded that the Red Sox can not win the revenue war and winning will continue to depend on development of players like Lars Anderson, Jed Lowrie...

I take Umbrage here! The Red Sox are hardly among thirty-one, also-rans along with the Rays, the Marlins, the Royals, the Pirates, the poster children for Baseballs version of Public assistance. To imply that they aren't an income generating GIANT is ridiculous. John Henry could have very easily chose to drop an additional eight million into Teixeira'scontract offer and have him signed. To say that they weren't capable of itis an insult to any fan with a quarter of a brain.

Look....Baseball is a world of "haves" and "Have nots". The Yankees have. We all know it. We don't try to hide it. To say that the Red Sox "Havenot" is a slap in the face to the remaining baseball world. It's like saying that Dale Earnhardt Jr. is just a 'good ole boy' Grease Jockey in comparison to Jeff Gordon who has better corporate sponsorship. Now we hear these "Have not" teams screaming for a salary cap. Guess what? TheYankees can't sign eight hundred players. They can sign 25. (Okay...Iguess you can say that they can keep 40 on the active roster). Even if they sign the best of the best to play each position, it guarantees them nothing. Baseball isn't football. You can't bury your opponent. The Rays are still going to have Evan Longoria, David Price, Scott Kasmir. The RedSox are still going to have Youkilis, Beckett, Ortiz....You STILL have quality opponents.

Yeah... The Yankees have permanently priced me out of seeing their games on anything other than my new 32" Sharp HDTV. Yeah, It does take the feeling of Slaying the giant/David vs Goliath out of winning the WS as the Yankees assume the role of the Giant. However, if the Yanks are the Giant, The Red Sox are not David. To portray them that way is unfair and biased. I was wondering if Gammons could tell me whether or not the Pirates would like Jason Bay to be patrolling left field in PNC rather than Fenway!

Act responsibly.