Is Hughes the new Joba? Huh?

You can count me as one of those who loves what he sees with Hughes' emergence in the Yanks bullpen. He can handle two big innings, throws heat, gets the ball to either Bruney or Mo.

Sure, he's a starter toiling in the bullpen right now, but given the depth of their rotation (especially with Wang making some improvements), I think Hughes should remain here at least until Joba hits his inning limits.

Not by coincidence, Hughes' velocity has seen a jump since he moved to the bullpen, even though this wasn't the original plan. Of course Hughes would prefer to stick in the big leagues -- the pay, travel, everything is better; no one grows up dreaming of pitching in Triple-A -- but even though relieving isn't his first choice, Joe Girardi and Brian Cashman have been impressed by his open mind.

Let's not forget that Hughes isn't far removed from being touted as a top prospect, so we shouldn't be completely stunned that he's finding success. But, looking to cut off another Joba Chamberlain debate at the pass, the Yankees are making sure people know Hughes really is a starter masquerading as a reliever.

Joba should be a starter. For good. I also understand that the Yanks will try to cap his innings around the 150-175 mark. In other words, Joba's pitched almost half his season already, having thrown 75.2 innings thus far this year, making 14 starts. So when Joba gets closer to 150 innings, I could see Hughes and Joba possibly swapping roles, allowing them to remain effective and fresh.

Of course, there are the playoffs, should they make it. I'd like to believe that Joba, assuming all else is the same, is the #3 starter in any playoff rotation. Does it make sense to remove Joba from the starting rotation in September, only to toss him back in it in October? Or just cap his innings on a game-by-game basis, stopping at 6 innings?

How do you handle these two young guns? I don't have the answers. But I keep looking for them.
Do you let them throw as long as they are healthy and effective? Or do you continue to baby the hell out of them, ever fearing the worst? Do you have to develop a way to separate "easy innings" from "high stress" innings. Are "easy innings" innings in which the pitcher gets out in under 12 pitches? Are "high stress" innings those that require greater than 18 pitches? After all, all innings are not created equal.

I've listened to/read Goose Gossage, Jim Kaat and Tommy John recently, discussing how they believe pitchers need to train to go longer in games. The old "you don't train to run a marathon by running 2 miles" analogy. I had been a big believer in the protecting of arms at all costs, but I have come around to more of the old school approach. Over-protecting an arm is fine if you think that arm belongs to a motion that is flawed. But if the pitcher has good fundamentals and approach, I think the pitchers need to learn to extend, reach for that extra inning. Stop looking towards the dugout once he gets close to 100 pitches.

Small guys like Lincecum and Oswalt each tossed 2 hit complete games last night. Lincecum has gone the distance in 3 of his last 4 games. He's conditioned himself to do that. Halladay, too. Lincecum's highest pitch count in any one inning was "just" 13 pitches. He finished the game in under 100 pitches. No walks, 8 K's. Efficiency.

I'd like to see Joba and Hughes eventually get to that.

The wussing of the pitcher

Scenario: The starting pitcher is cruising in total control, 101 pitches thru 8 innings, allowing just three hits and one walk while striking out 6. But because this pitcher is "just" 23 years old, the manager gives him the hook despite a 11-0 lead.

Believe me, I am all for watching the pitch count and innings count for the younger pitchers, but when any pitcher is on cruise control, and the innings/pitches are not high leverage, high stress sort of pitches, it's gotta be OK for the kid to go for the CGSO. What's another 15 or so pitches when he's just throwing fastballs, pitching to contact to get the last 3 outs?

And the best part: Hughes was PISSED to get the hook:

Phil Hughes wanted no part of the handshake that would end his afternoon, not three outs shy of a shutout. But by that time, there also wasn't a whole lot left to prove.
[...]
"He didn't want to shake my hand -- he wanted to go back out," Girardi said. "I said, 'You know what, you're going to have plenty of time to get complete games.' I understood he was disappointed, because he wants a complete game. But we're looking at him long-term, not just this start."

Attaboy. Just wish Girardi let him go back out there. If he struggled, yank him. But give him the chance.

Phil Hughes, lookin' sharp

I don't do daily game recaps; you can get them everywhere else. Not to mention, I don't get to watch every inning of every game.

But, I did watch much of the game last night and wow did Phil Hughes look sharp. I'll try to temper my enthusiasm as I'd be beyond excited to see one of our own emerge again. It was a long time between Pettitte to Wang and Joba and the expectations have hounded Hughes for years. It's hard to remember that Hughes is just 23 years old.

Phil Hughes wasn’t just good tonight, he was great. Six scoreless innings, two hits, two walks, six strikeouts. He threw 59 of 99 pitches for strikes and never cracked in a scoreless duel with Edwin Jackson.

If you were watching closely, Hughes had to fight to get command of his curveball. It was all over the place in the first few innings, even when he threw it for strikes. When he struck out Placido Polanco in the first inning, it was on a curve that wasn’t where he wanted it.

I saw that curve and Polanco's knees buckled. I thought that pitch was perfect, but what do I know?

Here's to hoping Hughes develops into everything we want him to be. Of course, that will only mean that the cries to "move Joba back to the pen" will get louder.

25 things facing the Yanks, Canadian style

A sobering and otherwise depressing view of the Yanks 2009 season done in a "25 things" style can be found here, at Neate Sager's place. Some of the best ones:

2. One Buffalo columnist imagined a major-league roster drawn entirely from the best players age 25 and under. One big takeaway: He didn't have a single Yankee.

3. That knee-jerk impulse about how Allen James Burnett only manages to throw 200 innings when he's in his contract year (and the one time he wasn't, he needed elbow surgery) was probably right.

7. They will be the best third-place team money can buy.

8. Right-hander Phil Hughes, or as he's alternately known, The Reason Johan Santana's A Met, is still only 22 years old.

25. Jaded Jays-fan backbiting aside, Yankees fans is good people, especially Jason at It Is About The Money, Stupid. You have to be courteous and friendly. Please remember that there but for the grace of God goes Roy Halladay's future team.

Yep, I am a straight up sucker for anyone saying nice things about me.

And I think Neate is spot on with some of these, #25 aside.

Projecting the Yanks' 2009 staff

SNY compiled three major sources who project all sorts of stuff like this and here are the Yanks' 2009 projections, including this preamble (you'll have to hit the link for the details):

Again, don't let the stats blind or bias you. Everyone who is serious about projecting players knows it's an inexact science. In their best years, the various systems struggle to project even 1/5 of the players to within 10-percent accuracy.
[...]
CC Sabathia: Shandler: 218 innings, 201 strikeouts, 3.02 ERA; James: 240/205/3.48; ZiPS: 223/204/3.07.

Andy Pettitte: Shandler: 194/149/3.99; James: 192/147/3.90; ZiPS: 195/138/4.43.

A.J. Burnett: Shandler: 183/186/3.89; James 224/218/3.62; ZiPS 179/170/3.97.

Chien-Ming Wang: Shandler: 189/101/3.92; James 200/92/3.70; ZiPS 149.3/71/3.92.

Joba Chamberlain: Shandler 199/236/3.12; James: Not projected; ZiPS: 131.3/129/3.77.

Ian Kennedy: Shandler: 123/103/4.11; James: Not projected; ZiPS: 128/94/4.57.

Phil Hughes: Shandler: 149/127/4.59;, James: 125/122/3.35; ZiPS: 59/42/4.27.

Mariano Rivera: Shandler: 73/67/2.73; James: 70/66/2.07; ZiPS: 67/65/2.28.

Damaso Marte: Shandler: 58/64/3.72; James 56/60/3.40; ZiPS: 53/62/3.58.

Edwar Ramirez: Shandler: 58/68/3.57; James: 53/74/3.38; ZiPS: 56/66/3.86.

(h/t to WasWatching.com)

Update on Yanks pitching prospects

Chad Jennings has a good update on the upper level Yankees pitching prospects, including one on my boy Eric Hacker. Guys profiled include: Phil Hughes, Humberto Sanchez, Ian Kennedy, Phil Coke, Alfredo Aceves and even Kei Igawa. Because I got to interview him here, Hacker's review is below:

Eric Hacker
Right hander
25 years old
Where he's been: Hacker is older than you might expect because he too has been hampered by injuries which cost him all of 2004 and 2006. When he's pitched, though, Hacker has a 2.70 ERA in the minors and he was outstanding last season in Tampa and Trenton.
Where he's going: I've been thinking he'll open back in Trenton, but Hacker is on the 40-man and he'll turn 26 before opening day, so a push to Triple-A has merit, especially if he gets in some games in big league camp and opens some eyes on the major league coaching staff.
Ticket to New York: Consistency. Health is too obvious and goes without saying. Hacker doesn't have massive strikeout numbers, but he also doesn't walk many guys and he gets a lot of outs on the ground. If he's steady in Triple-A, he should earn a shot. That consistency, obviously, requires that he not go back on the disabled list.

I'll be down in FLA right after P&C report. Eric, if you're reading this, I'll give you a call/email when I am down there. How's about a tour of the ballpark/facilities?

Buster on the Yanks, prospects

Just a bit from Buster on the Yanks and their keeping of their prospects:

On the front end, both teams would have been required to surrender their top pitching prospects -- for the Red Sox, that was Jon Lester, and for the Yankees, that was Phil Hughes -- and then they would have to pay Santana like he was a free agent. It was such an extraordinary price that even some folks in the Mets' organization wondered, after getting Santana, whether it was the right thing to do.

The argument that several executives made with the Red Sox and Yankees was that if you were patient -- patient -- then you might have a shot at a pitcher much like Santana in CC Sabathia, and the cost would only have one layer. Sure, you'd have to give him a huge contract, but you wouldn't have to give up top prospects along the way.

So the Yankees, in the end, were patient and got Sabathia, and the pundits who are saying that the team has blown up its plan for player development are simply not paying attention. In fact, the signings of Sabathia and A.J. Burnett are absolutely in keeping with the refocus on the farm system.

None of this is a guarantee of a playoff visit, no matter how much money is spent. The RedSox and Rays are formidable and equally talented. But it sure makes the team better than it was last year. And that's the point.

Stark's (Yankee) Rumblings

From Jayson Stark, first about Sabathia (who really sounds like he doesn't want to be in NY):

We've heard the arguments that Sabathia's contract is too important to his fellow players for him to turn down the most dollars. And it's hard to imagine that the Dodgers will attempt to beat the Yankees' total dollars. But one longtime friend of CC told Rumblings this week that if the dollars he's offered in California are "anywhere close [to the money in New York], he'll go there."

Another veteran baseball executive asked this question: "Let's say he takes less money than he'd get in New York, but he still signs the richest pitching contract of the winter. Wouldn't he be able to sell that [to the union]?"

Our suspicion is: As long as he beats the average annual value of Johan Santana's deal (just under $23 million), he would.

And this tidbit about Hughes, from a review of the Arizona Fall League:

Yankees pitcher Phil Hughes (1-0, 3.60 ERA, 28 K's, 25 IP): "Saw him two games, and he cruised. He dominated, and he should. His curveball was very sharp. All those people who think he's lost his luster -- no way. Hell, he'd be our No. 2 starter right now."

Broken record alert

Peavy to the Braves. Nope. Wait, maybe.
Peavy to the Cubs. Nope. Wait, maybe.
Peavy to the Yanks. Nope. Wait, maybe.

You get the picture.

So what will it take? Honestly, I have no idea and even less of an idea after reading this (emphasis mine):

The Yankees' farm system is strong enough to match up with the Padres if the teams revive their discussions on right-hander Jake Peavy. The Padres, according to one major-league source, told the Yankees that a deal would be possible even if the Yankees declined to offer right-hander Phil Hughes.

The Padres scouted Hughes in a recent Arizona Fall League game, but the Yankees have zero intention of trading him ...

If they don't want Cano and will do a deal without Hughes, who are they after? Brackman? Austin Jackson? Betances? I'm curious to know what the roadblock is, from the Yanks side, if Hughes is off the table. Where's the tipping point? Who's holding it up?

Meh, I give up. Just email me when something's done.

Collision inevitable; assume crash positions

With the NL targets for Peavy seemingly dwindling (Braves seem the leader), the natural collision between the Yanks and the Padres now appears inevitable. I've been saying this for some time: Don't count out the Yanks until the ink is signed on a trade landing Peavy somewhere else.

The Yankees could put together a package built around Phil Hughes and Austin Jackson, according to a source, although they would likely have to include two or three more players, one of which could be Ian Kennedy. The Padres, according to the source, have no interest in Robinson Cano. Hughes was the closest thing the Yankees had to untouchable last year during the Johan Santana saga, but after the righthander's subpar 2008 season, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the Yankees would move the 22-year-old.
......
Peavy identified the Braves, Cubs, Astros, Cardinals and Dodgers as the five teams he would want to play for if the Padres dealt him, while San Diego GM Kevin Towers said the pitcher has added the Yankees and Angels to that list. Chicago, Houston and St. Louis don't seem to match up well with San Diego, and Towers appears to have no interest in dealing Peavy to another NL West team, which would take the Dodgers out of the mix. Peavy, who has four years and roughly $60 million left on his contract, would apparently accept a deal to the Yankees or Angels if no deal with an NL team works out.

UPDATE (11/6/08, 10:28am): Ken Davidoff calls this rumor/collision not likely:

So...no on this. The Yankees know they're not getting Jake Peavy. He doesn't want to come to New York, despite whether his agent did or didn't include the Yankees in that informal list. The Braves and Cubs are the clear leaders for Peavy's services. Seems like a good chance that a trade will be completed before full free agency begins on Nov. 14th.

UPDATE (11/6/08, 12:55pm): Joel Sherman craps all over the Peavy-to-the-Yanks talk. He also repeats my fears about Peavy in the AL East and the fact that the more Peavy wants to accept a deal makes it more and more likely that he returns to SD.

As for Peavy, I reported two days ago that the Braves and Cubs had broken free of the pack. San Diego GM Kevin Towers - one of the most accessible GMs in the sport - has been open that this almost certainly will be an NL trade. Barry Axelrod - one of the most accessible agents in the sport - has made it clear that Peavy has not given approval to be dealt to the Yankees and that his client badly wants to stay in the NL. If you have any sources with the Yankees, they will tell you that it is a pipedream that the Yanks get Peavy. There are many reasons for this, but let me tell you an important one: The Yanks know that even if Peavy said, yes, he would agree to go to the Yanks, it would only be with the stipulation that his contract be re-worked. A key element in making Peavy so attractive right now is that he has a contract for four years at $68 million already in place. He would probably want that adjusted toward Johan Santana money to OK a deal, a year after the Yanks wouldn't give up the prospects and pay the dollars for Santana. And Peavy is not as good or dependable as Santana, or as projectable to be good in New York/the AL
East.

So there.

NY Post missing the point

Bless their hearts, but the NY Post just has to take the low road, the caustic approach with the teams they cover. Rather than focus on what is the real story within this Joel Sherman article, they bury it behind the title and thrust of "YANKS' DECISION LOOKING BAD".

Sure, after Year 1, the decision to keep Hughes and others rather than deal them all AND pay $140 million-ish for Johan doesn't look good. Who would disagree with that? But there is some harrowing scouts-take buried in here worth reading:

But scouts who have watched him in the AFL say Hughes' delivery, command and array of stuff have not been impressive.

He started the Rising Stars game and permitted four runs (one earned) in three innings, allowing two homers and walking two. One scout who has seen multiple starts in the AFL by Hughes offered this report from the Rising Stars game:

"His velocity was fine. He threw some at 93-94 (mph), but mostly he was in the low 90s, but the problem was that they were straight. He gave up two bombs and even the outs were mostly hard hit. He couldn't command his fastball to the corners at all. Only about half his curves were good and only about one in four were in the strike zone. He is working to add that changeup (to use against lefties), threw three and all were up and out of the zone.

"I think the problem is that his elbow is too low so he is not commanding because he is not throwing downhill. His command stinks because his motion stinks. For example, his curve has good rotation and break, but I think because of that delivery it breaks early and so hitters pick it up."

OK, that's some good insight that we can't see. But to focus on the deal not done is just plain lazy.

What we also have to consider is the fact that we still have Hughes, et al, and we now have the financial flexability to go after a younger CC Sabathia. Perhaps I am simply being foolish, but I'd rather have a younger horse like Sabathia than a slightly-older greyhound like Johan. We may wind up with neither and that's the risk.

But they have to stop harping on the Johan non-trade. That ship is LOOOOOONG gone.



UPDATE (10/27/08, 12:50pm): Pete Abraham from the LoHud blog has a bit on the Shermanisms above:

But this is definitely true: Of the 120 pitchers in the Arizona Fall League, 108 of them are older than Hughes. That stat courtesy of Brian Cashman, who shuffled papers in his desk until he found it this morning.
......
Hughes is 22. Give the guy a chance to pitch before you decide whether he can or not.

Peavy talks warming up

Starting to simmer is more like it:

The San Diego Padres have begun to exchange names with teams interested in All-Star pitcher Jake Peavy, in what appears to be an aggressive effort to maximize return on the right-hander, who is signed to a contract that keeps him under a team's control through 2013. And increasingly, it seems that team won't be the Padres.
......
If AL teams get involved, the Yankees might be a fit, although New York GM Brian Cashman has made it clear in the past that he wants to adhere to a path of player development. That stance could change if the Yankees have changed their internal evaluations of young players who struggled in 2008, such as Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy and Melky Cabrera.

Multiple sources consider it likely the Padres will deal Peavy in the weeks ahead, and that is a virtual certainty that he will be traded before the July 31 deadline next season. The Padres are seeking at least two young pitchers in return, along with someone who can become the team's everyday center fielder sometime in the immediate to near future.
......
Last year, the Twins found that the market for Johan Santana to be relatively lukewarm, primarily because Santana was in line to become a free agent after the 2008 season and teams like the Red Sox and Yankees were leery of absorbing the double-barreled cost of the prospects and a big-money, long-term contract. But in Peavy's case, he is under contract for the next four seasons, meaning that the Braves or the Dodgers or some other team would be assured of cost certainty.

There's a bunch more on all the other likely landing spots so I'd go check out the source article from Buster. Otherwise, I'd be blockquoting the whole thing....

I still think that if Hank finds out he can get Peavy for Melky, Hughes and another part or two, he'll really hold Cashman's hands to the fire to get it done.

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

For more on my Peavy man-crush: click here.

Testing Cashman's love for Hughes

The guys at WasWatching took a look at a possible Peavy trade and following the blockquote, they noted that:

Well, first of all, Brian Cashman…I believe…would never do that. Cashman would rather stand completely nude in the middle of Times Square during rush hour and sing Touch Me In The Morning than consider the notion of trading Phil Hughes.

I wonder if that's really true. I know Cashman (and others in the "brain trust") really believe in Hughes but at what point do you look at it objectively and ask: "Will Hughes become Peavy?" If they really only think he'll progress to a #2 or #3, then they must realize that Peavy is already Peavy.

They then noted the obvious next question: “Why didn’t you offer Hughes and Cano for Johan Santana last year?” The answer to that is that Johan required a six year deal worth about $140 million, plus Hughes and others. And, if you remember back then, there was a bit of concern about Johan's decreased velocity in 2007 and a very real fear that he was beginning a decline. Turns out, that decline was overstated, at least for 2008.

Peavy is younger and has a more "reasonable" contract, even if the Yanks must guarantee the option year worth $22 million. He's a bulldog, not a finesse guy, and that will play well in New York. There are very few opportunities to get a bonafide number one ace and I don't think the Yanks should let this opportunity go by the wayside.

You can bet I will be watching this one closely.

Neyer on the Yanks, perpetual putridity

I've said many, many times that while I am not happy the Yanks are missing the playoffs, it's not the end of the world. I've often said that the Sox missed the playoffs in 2006 only to rebound in 2007 and win it all. Could it happen to the Yanks in '09? Maybe.

And it seems that Rob Neyer is drinking some of the Kool-Aid:

And although it's easy to say that you can't win with young pitching, I believe the Twins and the Rays might like to argue with you. It's obviously true that the Yankees' young pitchers let them down this year, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll let them down next year.

I do want to mention the comparison between the 2006 Red Sox and 2008 Yankees. My first thought was that they weren't comparable at all. I'd thought that the Red Sox were simply unlucky in 2006, that they had all the pieces in place.
......
That's mind-blowing, don't you think? After winning 95 games in 2005, the well-heeled, brilliantly run Boston Red Sox were outscored in 2006. Hey, it happens. The next year they won the World Series.

No question, the Yankees have a lot of work to do this winter. But I hardly think we've seen the last of them.

The main point in the text above, to me, is that just because guys like Hughes and Kennedy struggled this year doesn't automatically mean they will next year. Could they? Of course, but a miserable 2008 doesn't poison the well in perpetuity. Perpetual putridity?

PS: I still think they should deal Igawa with any other parts to get a more reliable/established arm. He'd have value in the NL, particularly in a big park that can mask his fly-ball tendencies.

Enough second guessing

One thing I've heard a bit too much lately, especially from Mets fans, is how the Yanks should have traded for Johan when they had the chance.

Sure, hindsight being what it is shows that the players the Yanks could have dealt have greatly disappointed the team this year. Melky, Kennedy, Hughes... all a disappointment.

However, what makes me crazy is that looking at just the talent-for-talent transfer is only half the story. We have to remember that Johan signed for over $130 million. That's not insignificant, especially when you add in the 40% luxury tax hit.

Cashman noted the double-dipping issue yesterday:

"No, not necessarily," he said. "Ultimately, what I feel is a strong reluctance to trade three or four assets to another team [for a player] and then sign him to a multiyear contract. You trade for a guy, give up three or four assets [and then pay him], then you've crushed your payroll and your assets at the same time."

That's why he didn't trade for Santana.

It's also worth noting Cashman's thoughts on Hughes, expectations and what's to come:

"Certainly, he's stubbed his toe with the injury," Cashman said. "But when we held on to a guy like that, you don't do it and say, 'OK, in the next four months, he's got to do X.' He's got five years, whatever it is, to show why you bet on someone like that."

Cashman added, "When you're dealing with youth, it's very volatile," and he noted that 2008 served as a bad year for Hughes and Ian Kennedy while boosting the status of young pitchers Dellin Betances and Phil Coke and outfielder Austin Jackson.

We can only keep our faith in Cashman and his accountability, his judgement and the surrounding scouts.

So now what?

So now what should the Yanks do to play out the string? I'm already in favor of dumping Ponson in favor of ANY of the kids on the farm....

Bugs & Cranks' Yanks correspondent Ed Valentine has some interesting ideas, too. (You'll have to head there to read the full thing as I don't want to pilfer the whole shebang.) To summarize:

1. Shut down Joba Chamberlain
2. Play Brett Gardner every day
3. Shut down Hideki Matsui
4. Get Phil Hughes some big-league starts
5. Play Johnny Damon at first base

I know all of this makes the Yankees seem like a $200 million version of the Washington Nationals. But, the reality is, that is what they are. Just another team going nowhere in 2008 that needs to spend the next few weeks finding out what they can about how they will be constructed in 2009.

I like his thinking, though I am not so sure about Damon at 1B.

The party's over

This hurts. This is not fun. This makes Sox (and everyone else) happier. This is disappointing. Most of all, this is not a surprise.

The Yanks (version 2008) are done.

I guess I knew it was coming. I felt it going into this year (and truth be told, last year, too, but I wasn't officially blogging a year back). This team is not built to win it all this season. I mentioned more than a few times that I'd be OK with a missed post-season if the Yanks kept the farm system intact and a major part of their future, and I think that's precisely where we are headed.

The road to disappointment is paved with a thousand if's. The Yanks have plenty of what if's to ponder. Here are a few of mine, feel free to add your own.

What if...

• Wang didn't get hurt
• Posada didn't get hurt
• Hughes didn't get hurt
• Matsui didn't get hurt
• Joba didn't get hurt
• Damon didn't get hurt and could still throw the ball (not a 16-hopper to 2B)
• Cano didn't regress so badly
• Cano gave max effort all the time
• Melky didn't get exposed as merely a 4th outfielder rather than a starting CF for a contending team
• Abreu showed any fire (yeah, I know it's not his style) and could catch a ball near the fence
• Hughes and Kennedy combined for more than 0 wins. ZERO?!?
• Giambi was able to show some semblance of consistency
• Ponson was merely the answer to a bad trivia question, rather than our nominal #3 right now
• Dan Geise wasn't needed to help keep a rotation afloat
• Rasner didn't turn into a pumpkin so quickly
• Jeter didn't look so old at the plate
• ARod didn't chase every ball that was low and away
• Pettitte didn't look so hittable
• Justin Christian wasn't your starting LF in a critical game against the team just in front of you for the wildcard
• Moose hadn't found the Fountain of Youth

Buddy Shysterball noted it today in his always excellent "And That Happened":

Yesterday morning I read a story in one of the New York tabloids -- not unlike stories I've read in the New York tabloids for the past, oh, six or seven years -- in which some putatively ballsy New York writer tells Yankees fans how it really is: the Bombers are no longer the class of the league. The party is over. Get used to looking up at Tampa or Boston or Anaheim or Chicago or whoever. It's always styled as hard truths and tough love, and it's always ridiculous. It's especially ridiculous this year, in that Yankees fans -- who are rightly, I think, reputed to be among the most knowledgeable in baseball -- are well aware that any team trotting out a squad consisting of Justin Christian, Xavier Nady, Richie Sexon, and Sidney Ponson in mid August is not a contender, let alone the class of the league. They don't need a writer to tell them this. Instead, maybe they need some writers who can help them analyze this new reality as opposed to dwell on the end of a party everyone left hours and hours ago.

I have promised those of you who are kind enough to drop by and read that I'd always try to give you the straight dope on the team I grew up rooting for. I haven't, for one second, thought the team was the class of the league. Haven't thought so for years. We've been merely competitive the last few years, nothing more. Our shortcomings have been obvious and this is the year that it all finally came to roost.

Frequent reader and poster themarksmith noted this on his quiz, presumably about the Yanks: Karma finally comes back to bite you for winning too damn much. Karma? Maybe. I don't think karma plays much of a role but I do think age caught up with the Yanks (too old, too young). The lack of balance was painful.


OK, the wallowing in regret portion of our posting is now over. We need to get started on the rebuild portion. Email/post your thoughts on what the Yanks need to do for 2009 and beyond. I NEED YOUR HELP! Full credit given if you post your name/location. I want to make this an audience participation event.

Seriously, what do the Yanks need to do?
Who should they keep?
Who should they target (and who will realistically SIGN with the team)?
Who should they trade/dump?

A weekend lost

I woke up and saw that the Yanks are 8.5 games back in the AL East and three games behind the Twins (4.5 behind the Sawx) for the Wild Card. We just got swept in LA. As Tyler Kempner puts it, "It’s Getting Late Early for the 2008 Yankees" and he's right on.

The Yanks rotation consists of a rejuvenated Moose, an eminently hittable Pettitte, a profoundly frustrating Ponson and then a hodgepodge of guys including Dan Giese, Darrell Rasner, a recently sent-down Kennedy (foot-in-mouth disease). Generation Trey, as some had called them, imploded rather than "was here to stay". Kennedy and Hughes have yet to win a game. The vets are not happy with Kennedy's comments. Joba's on the DL after what had seemed to be a seamless transition into a top tier starter. Heck, we might even see American Idle Pavano back before Joba. Wang will be ready just as the regular season will come to a close.

With the bats, ARod's still slumping (despite a HR yesterday). Jeter's looking lost. Abreu and Damon are still hitting [I am totally on board with keeping Abreu another two years, for whatever my vote's worth]. Melky has been passed. Cano remains an enigma, with the bat and the glove. Matsui's been out for ages. Nady has been great, though.

What can I say? The best part of my baseball weekend was that I missed the end of every game. Too tired Friday. Hanging with the kids Saturday. Dinner with the extended family Sunday. Missed a lot of the games. Not upset in the least.

More importantly for me was that my older son's catching the ball better. We had a good long catch on Sunday morning and he's catching better. And my younger one (age 5) now knows how to throw from a full windup. Not sure where the ball is going to go, but he'll call out "two seamer" or "four seamer", go into a windup and hurl the ball in my general direction. Yes, he tries to put his little fingers across four seams. And that's why I had a good weekend even though my team didn't.

Reader mailbag: Ya stumped me

JoeOrange emailed me this, and quite frankly, I don't have an answer.

Okay, I have a question for you:

Darrell Rasner wears #43. When the Yankees made the trade for Damaso Marte, he couldn't continue with his number, so he chose (or maybe it was chosen FOR him) #34.

Now I KNOW that the Yankees suffer from a depletion of usable numbers due to the number of retired jerseys, but they have to "borrow" numbers from players on the DL? Didn't Phil Hughes wear #34 before going on the DL with that broken rib? What happens when he comes back? Does he get his old number back?

So, what happens to Marte and Hughes when Hughes comes back off the DL? Does he get his old number back? Does he go back to the Spring Training garb he wore when he first came up (#65)? Can he "steal" Joba's #62? For THAT matter, what if he wanted to wear #40?

I gotta admit, I hadn't put 2+2 together to see that Marte was wearing Hughes' #34. I'm surprised they let Marte take that. In checking the Yanks 40 man roster, they have a "--" by his number. Wang (#40) is still on the 40 man roster, Hughes is not. Obviously Joba (#62) is as well.

Joe, ya got me. I have NO idea what Hughes or Marte will do once Hughes comes back. Zero clue. I'd like to think that Hughes will get #34 but maybe he'll change his number once again, looking for something with ANY good luck to it.

$%^&*(@#$

I couldn't muster a title for this.

I watched much of the Yankees game last night, at least into the 6th or so when the game was tied. I lost much of my appetite for the game once Joba left. Not that he was doing well (he wasn't), but the image of another Yanks pitcher leaving a Texas game early (that's where Hughes blew out his hammy in the midst of a no-hitter last year) left me feeling queasy. So I went upstairs to watch TV with my wife (that David Caruso is gawdawful terrible, by the way).

That I missed a walk-off grand slam was a good thing.

I'll hope a double mug of liquid motivation kicks in soon.