I have been following your work assiduously this off-season. My hats off. No GM has had a better hot-stove season than you. You held the line with Damon, made savvy trades for Grandy & Javy and have made incremental moves to bolster an already strong team. On paper, you've got the best team in baseball.

That said, I now understand that you are moving forward with a deal for Jerry Hairston Jr. I like that dude. Don't get me wrong. But seriously, can you really make any decisions on the rest of your roster until you've determined what Damon is willing to accept? If Johnny and the Yanks are truly and finally at loggerheads, then fire away on JHJ. But you are probably a week away from getting Damon at $7M for one season. The Gaints just sailed as a competitor for his services. Nobody is falling over themselves to employ him. Now is the time sit back, wait out Boras and swoop in to get the LF option that has been, for weeks now, the only real alternative to Brett Gardner.

With apologies to FreeBradshaw and Wraithpk, Matt Holliday and Jason Bay were never realistic alternatives. You were never going to make that sort of long-term commitment. But Damon remains doable. So can we just get it done. And stop haggling over $1M. Please?

Sincerely,

Late Inning Relief

There's been a lot of grumbling about bringing Vazquez back for another round in the Bronx. The knocks on Javy are: (1) He's a NL pitcher; in his stints in the AL, he sucked. (2) He's not a big-game pitcher, with a mammoth 10.34 ERA in the postseason.

Let's look at (1): Javy had a great year for the White Sox in 2007: He went 15-8, with 213 strikeouts, a 3.87 ERA and a 1.14 WHIP. In an excellent breakdown of Vazquez, RAB points out just how strong the first half of his 2004 season with the Yankees was:

Through 18 starts, Javy averaged almost 6.2 innings per start, posting a 3:1 K/BB ratio and allowing just 47 runs through 118.2 innings.

Obviously, shortly after making the All-Star team, everything came unglued for him that year. Is he a guy who can't finish? No. Per LoHud:

Over his final 22 starts of 2009, Vazquez posted a 2.49 ERA with 160 strikeouts and just 29 walks in 155.1IP, while limiting opponents to a .217 average.

The guy had shoulder problems in the second half of 2004. Enough said.

In terms of (2): Vazquez has logged 15.2 innings in the post-season: 2004 with the Yankees and 2008 with the White Sox. Over those admittedly abysmal innings, he gave up 18 ERs. So let's take a similar sample size from Sabbathia for his 2007 and 2008 postseason appearances. In 19 IP for Cleveland and Milwaukee, CC gave up 20 ERs. Which tells you precisely what?

If you believe the maxim that, given enough postseason appearances, a guy's numbers will start to synch up with his regular season numbers, then what does that get us? Over his career, Vazquez is 15th on the active leaders rankings for WHIP. Click that link. Seriously, just click it. You know who shows up in the top 15? Aces, plus Mo and Trevor Hoffman. Guess where CC falls into that group? # 13.

Vazquez will be going into a contract year with a chip on his shoulder. His last experience in the Bronx was a disappointment, yes. But we got a #4 pitcher with a very real capability of pushing AJ and Andy (and, if the stars align, even CC) down the depth chart.

For the price of Melky and Mike Dunn? It's a no brainer. It's Vizcaino who makes this deal even moderately debatable.

So says Ken Rosenthal:

Swisher, 29, is the right guy to move; he will not improve much on his 29-homer, 82-RBI season, and his over-the-top gregariousness eventually will wear thin. The Braves love Swish, and would love even more to obtain him for right-hander Derek Lowe. The Yankees should pass on that idea – Lowe turns 37 on June 1 and has not pitched in the American League since 2004. Swisher for prospects would be a better move, and the Yankees then could sign some innings eater at a reasonable price to be their No. 4 starter.

I’ve got no problem with the Yankees refusing to give Damon big money for three or four years. I’ve also got no problem with Boras advocating for his client and trying to suck every last dollar out of the biggest money-making machine in sports. It’s business, and we’ve all become accustomed to the familiar off-season song-and-dance.

Well, enough already.

Damon needs the Yankees, and the Yankees need Damon.

Get it done.

Thoughts?

With all the talk of the "untouchables" in our farm system, I thought this cautionary tale was worth a read. Remember Todd Van Poppel? As sure thing pitchers go, he was about as big a disappointment as you can get. For position players, I'd rank Steve Balboni at the top of the list of major league busts. 

Two years ago, all the hot stove talk here was about the Trinity: Joba, Hughes and IPK. It's still possible that they could all put it together and anchor a dreadnought rotation for the next decade. Joba and Hughes have demonstrated that they can play a role at the major league level, but so far, neither has proven they're anything more than a # 4 starter or an 8th inning guy. And Kennedy got shellacked in his last winter league outing.

It's a big jump from AAA to MLB. You hate to trade away a prospect that turns into Mike Lowell. But the chances of that happening are less than trading away a sure thing that becomes a journeyman.

To create a little reality check, I thought I'd see who everybody thought was the biggest bust as a prospect, as well as who you think turned into the one who got away. For the one who got away nominees, consistency is key. (Last year, I would have put Dioner Navarro in the one who got away category. This year, not so much.)

I just saw this quote from Jimmy Rollins on RAB:

“They were the better team this series,” Rollins said after the game. “Do I think we’re the better team? I really do. They just executed. I think we weren’t playing bad, but they were playing that much better. They got the hits, we didn’t. It’s that simple.”

Classy, right? Which brings up my next question:

Who was the better team: The Angels or the Phillies? I actually think the Phillies were the third best team in baseball this year.

Having Andy taking the mound tomorrow in Philly gives me confidence that we can re-take home field advantage. I think we're going to need it because Cliff Lee is IN THE ZONE right now. (The behind-the-back catch? Christ. How do you beat that?)

Still, a key issue is what do about the young gun relievers. Roberston may have been the victim (sigh) of poor calls, but what Hughes, Chamberlain and Bruney are going to do, game to game, is anybody's guess. Clearly, Girardi felt the same way last night, going with Mo for 6 outs. I just don't see how we can ride our starters, LOOGYs, Roberston and Mo to victory against the Phillies.

So let's assume Bruney's seen his last serious appearance. Does Girardi keep working through the kinks with Hughes? Is Chamberlain the next call in a 7th inning situation? Or is it Robertson? Does Girardi toy with Gaudin or Aceves in late innings?

Here we go again...A-Rod's admission has that carousel of moralizing columnists and talking heads moving again. Sigh.

This is one sticky wicket, and honestly, at this point, Bonds, Clemens and A-Rod seem victims of MLB's catastrophically flawed approach to steroids, with Clemens and Bonds also victims of their own hubris to the extent that they are likely going to jail for perjury. This the nub of the issue: An illegal, performance-enhancing substance was not banned in baseball until 2004. If we're to believe Canseco--and at this point, why shouldn't we?--steroids were rampant in clubhouses for well over a decade before that.

It's hard to believe that Selig et al did not make a conscious decision to keep the issue at an arm's length for as long as possible. Perhaps they reasoned that the data was not clear, that the facts were not all in, that previous generations had been hopped up on speed to get through 162 games. As likely, I think they feared the repecursions of placing the issue on center stage. McGuire and Sosa's battle for the home run record brought the game back to life. And that little bottle of andro in McGuire's locker? Well, you'd have to ask him about that.

Am I alone in thinking that the tax dollars we're spending to put Bonds in jail, send IRS agent Jeff Nowitzky scouring the seedy world of Houston bodybuilders and hold Congressional hearings could be better spent elsewhere? Certainly, something that can give you an extra ten feet of lift on your fly ball, or a few extra MPH on your fastball may not be equivalent to Mantle popping greenies to get up for the game. But are the steroid users of this era of clearly lesser moral character than previous generations?

...yet.

I was delighted to see that IPK had nearly thrown a no-hitter in Scranton. Glad to see that he's back on our radar and making a case for a promotion to the Bronx. I'd love to see a replay of last year, when he comes up in August and makes a big impression.

But please, brass, be patient. Give him at least 2 more starts in Scranton. Let Ponson and Rasner soak up the innings for a bit longer. Let IPK build up a good head of steam. He needs to string some consecutive strong outings together before he gets the call up.

My two cents.

Consider me the lone voice of dissent in saying that while Wells himself is not the right move, throwing the young guns into the mix to see if one of them can handle the challenge isn't either. Let's see IPK string another couple victories together in Scranton. White and Marquez aren't ready yet either; otherwise, nobody in their right mind would have put Igawa on the mound yesterday. Rasner did well last go-round, and hopefully he can fill the #4 slot for a bit. McCutch and the rest: Let's discuss in July.

Here's the point:

The idea of bringing in a veteran, in my view, is about letting the young guns develop at their own pace. This is not Tampa, and we're not the Rays. I saw the long list RAB put up the other day, laying out all the in-house talent they'd prefer to give a shot over Wells. While I'd probably pick AAA talent over tub-o-goo, let's get real about how one a.) develops young talent and b.) does it in NYC.

The Yankee organization needs to stop over-compensating for years of larding the roster with overage stars by suddenly putting all of the onus on the young guns.

Okay, the ship has partially sailed. That's a given. And hopefully, IPK can get back into the swing, Rasner can hold down the fort and Hughes can get his mojo back. But organizationally, this focus on throwing kid after kid into the breach is sort of like trench warfare. Yeah, sooner or later, somebody's going to get through, but the attrition rate is too high.

Let's be smart about it. And let's give these kids a lot bigger net. Because it's all a game of expectations. Last year, IPK and Hughes had far less, and they won the expectations game. This year? Not so much.

Ed got me thinking about why I'm a bit disengaged this year. The process of developing young talent is always a bit of a trial, no matter how strong a fan one may be.

But that, I think, is really only part of the issue. I can live with a young group of players. However, we're also breaking in a new pair of owners and a new manager. The whole organization, in my view, is up in the air a bit. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the Yanks have the third best organization just in the AL East.

Curious what everybody else thinks...

is now all about depth. Even if Joba's move to the rotation gives us the semblance of a starting 5, Phil and IPK are definitely looking more like reclamation projects in 2008. Meaning: Cashman's youth movement needs to produce some unlikely heroes. Otherwise, the big non-deal last winter will probably get him canned.

Jscape, is there anybody in the pipeline beyond Rasner that could be helpful? With Horne on the DL, does White look like the best candidate to come up next?

Now that criticism of the front office is no longer tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy, can we finally have a real discussion on our reliance on the Trinity?

There's been a lot of hazy thoughts on what package the Yankees ultimately left on the table for Santana, but I believe Pfisty mentioned that the last demand the Twins made was IPK + Horne or Marquez + Another Prospect. As I recall (and my memory is not entirely clear on this, so correct me if I'm wrong), Hank was for the deal, Hal and Cash were against it, largely because of the need to then swing a huge contract. Bottom line: If Boston wasn't a real stalking horse, the Hal and Cash did not want to give up both solid prospects AND a gargantuan contract.

I understand that 4 weeks do not in any way indicate whether the long-term decision to forego Santana was right or wrong. But if we're evaluating stretching out Ohlendorf and hailing the 2nd coming of Rasner, things, uh, ain't going so well.

Was this avoidable? I sure think so. I'm the last person anybody would want evaluating prospects, but I am enough of a student of history to think the odds were long that two legitimate rookies (IPK and Joba) and the youngest starter in MLB (Hughes) could power this team to any real standing this year. I believe I am also in the minority in thinking that Joba is going to have a rockier transition to the rotation than most of us think. And I remain dubious that all three are going to be real aces period.

Yeah, yeah, you say. Water under the dam. Case closed. Santana's a Met. Hold the line, and they'll turn it around. Don't panic.

Well, not so fast. Because there's a big fella in Cleveland whose likely going to be in another uniform by the trading deadline. And I think it should be pinstripes.

Thoughts?

to let Hughes and/or IPK work out their issues in the minors?

I realize Joel Sherman is not a big draw around these parts, but his article this morning on demoting Hughes--

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04302008/sports/yankees/phils_like_time_for_a_demotion_108728.htm

--actually has a pretty informative quote from Hughes:

"It's not my decision. The mound is just as far away in Triple-A as it is here. Maybe I wouldn't be hit as hard. I have some things to work out. Where that is is not my call."

Maybe Hughes is ready to get off the big stage for a few weeks so he can get his confidence back?

With apologies to the good folks at Fire Joe Morgan, I would like to introduce the inaugural issue of Fire Andy Roth. Now that blogs have come of age, it seems time for...that's right: analysis of our blog analysts. Just as Richard Sandomir in the Times takes a long hard look at sports media, just as FJM skewers flabby thinking from sportswriters and broadcasters, FAR will scrutinize all public blog analysis.

First, a basic ground rule. Anybody can create a FAR post, but it should never be used as a means for settling scores, but rather as a tool for genuine posting analysis. This means that the concept of 'public blog analysis' is a key one; use good judgment and be fair about it.

So, without further adieu, for our first edition, I will take a quick look at comments from, um, andyroth, in reply to the Wang, Chamberlain, Rivera fanpost of yesterday afternoon. Please reference the original post.

EASY TO TALK CRAP NOW

especially when I made the call about not starting Wang in games 1 and 5 last year BEFORE the series started. Where the F was your ass and rest of the people here about Torre’s decision….

Well, actually, at the time Mr. Roth made the post, I believe most of us we were trying not to engage him in the hopes that he'd go away. He had made a few previous posts, such as one where he wanted to gauge interest in a regular newsletter on how stupid major league managers were. That was a sign to most of us that we should give him a wide berth.

As to the merits of Mr. Roth's Wang claim, yes, indeed, he did say that. And his prognosticating paid off in that instance, emboldening him to become louder and more public. In fact, it seems Mr. Roth feels he has secured his place in the blog-world based on the fact that he looked into a crystal ball and saw that Wang was going to get shelled in Games 1 and 5. So let's avoid the 'even a stopped clock is right twice a day' argument and give Mr. Roth credit for making a predication that virtually nobody else made. The question is whether this makes him an analyst that should be followed or, in fact, Chauncey Gardiner (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_there). Let's see what else he's had to  say.

I’ve been negative about Mussina and he’s been better than I thought

Uh oh. Alarm bells. Mr. Roth's now brought his prediction rate down to .500. But let's see if he can get that up again.

and have been very negative about Hughes and Kennedy and they’ve been bad.

Well, okay, this is actually two strikes against Mr. Roth. First, he admits that he's been 'very negative' about IPK and Hughes, while they have been merely 'bad.' Erego, one must conclude, that his negativity is out of proportion to their badness--one might think that Mr. Roth is, well, a bit of a crank.

Second, we then really need to address Mr. Roth's analytical skills. Describing Hughes and Kennedy as 'bad' actually could be Mr. Roth's undoing. Most knowledgeable baseball analysts have used words like 'inconsistent', 'growing pains' or 'uneven'. As they mix high quality innings with bad ones, IPK and Hughes should stabilize their outings in the next few months, which would surely wipeout all of the goodwill Mr. Roth has built up with his Wang prediction last fall. Let's see how this one goes.

And Cashman is Cashman. Just from the little I’ve seen of Kobayashi, he’s clearly better than Hawkins and Cashman wasn’t even in on this guy and he’s $3.1M per season.

Curious what Mr. Roth means by 'the little I've seen of Kobayashi.' Did Kobayashi strike out a batter while Mr. Roth was surfing through the channels? Need some clarity here.

And I also said before the season I would’ve signed Mahay and Affeldt. Let’s see how that turns outs.

Mr. Roth has made numerous trades/signings that seemed to have gone extraordinarily well for his fantasy baseball team. Next up: Whitey Ford.

As far as Wang, if he can continue throwing the slider as well as he did today he would establish himself as a true No. 1.

Uh oh. Now he's undercut the entire argument that he built his reputation on, which was that Wang just wasn't a  #1.

As far as Chamberlain, the stupid Yankee organization and the rest of the scouts didn’t even realize that his talent was clearly above Hughes.

Okay, this one could be deal-closer for Mr. Roth. If he can produce documentation that he saw Chamberlain's greater potential anytime prior to last July, then he is an analyst worth listening to. Would also be curious if he picked which third of all first round draft picks will become MLB contributors and which will wash out in the minors.

I SEE YOU ROOT FOR THE KNICKS

which makes you dumber than Jim Dolan.

Now this is just lazy. Had Mr. Roth gone a step further, he would have also noticed that I root for the Cleveland Browns, which haven't won a championship since the Jim Brown era and haven't been competitive (until recently???) since the Bernie Kosar era. That's a whole lot dumber than rooting for the Knicks. Another demerit for Mr. Roth.

Wang: C+. I know this guy is now 5-0 on the season, he was in the running for the Cy Young and he has more wins over the last 2 seasons than anybody, but I still wouldn't have started him in Game 1 last year. Anyway, I hear he had decent command of his sinker today--I didn't actually see the game--but does he stack up against Santana? Only clowns in Pinstripes would think so. Chamberlain: B-. Overrated. Rivera: F. This guy is hardly Hall of Fame material. I would trade him for Lincecum or Santana in a heartbeat.

is a matter of VORP.

To commemorate my first diary posting, last August, on the idea of keeping Joba in the bullpen, I'd like to present an argument for padlocking the bullpen door so he cannot escape, at least through the rest of the season. (Consider this, as well, an invitation for Haggs and Anaconda to finetune their arguments pro/con.)

Basically, my view on keeping Joba there comes down to two things:

1.) Are the Yankees competitive at the All-Star break, with a chance to advance in the playoffs. If they're clearly out of the playoff picture, by all means send Joba to Tampa to convert to a starter. If they're in the running, then I rest my decision on issue #2:

2.) How well IPK is pitching. This is the VORP argument. In my view, Joba's value as a starter has to be evaluated against the value of the starter he'd replace, most likely IPK. The bottom line is whether Joba's innings as a starter are of significantly more value than IPK's innings.

If IPK settles down and pitches like he did last night (and Moose and Hughes are reliable), the only issue is managing IPK and Hughes' innings. I'd rather cap IPK and Hughes' innings/game and give the young relievers (Ohlendorf, Bruney et al)  add'l innings to try out to replace Joba in 2009.

My two cents.

With opening day just around the corner, I was looking to commemorate the occasion with a cool Doc Watson version  of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame." So I did some searching on You Tube.

Well...

I didn't find Doc's version online. But I found some of the most god awful versions of the song, which is a mainstay during the 7th inning stretch at Wrigley. If you've got a few minutes, check these out. Then let me know which is the WORST VERSION:

Eddie Vedder (drunk): http://youtube.com/watch?v=zal4Oj8fhX8

Ozzie Osborne (addled): http://youtube.com/watch?v=OdwOoinuJi0

Sinatra & Kelly (tap dancing): http://youtube.com/watch?v=JGws1yR0tg8

William Hung (awful): http://youtube.com/watch?v=opvBzRxIIP0

Frank TV (promotional): http://youtube.com/watch?v=U6yNce_GRS8

Jeff Gordon (worse than Hung?): http://youtube.com/watch?v=AvmIxhX5LeY

Andy Pettite and Chuck Knoblauch were excused from tomorrow's circus on Capitol Hill. The Times theorizes that the committee got what they needed and agreed to spare Pettite the awkwardness of incriminating his good friend Roger in person.

I realize most of us have been wishing for this spectacle to just stop, but the evidence, circumstantially at least, seems stacked against the Rocket. So the question then is, is he just on a kamikaze mission? Has he decided to just fuel up and charge head on into this mess? Does Hardin have a plan?

Or is Rocket possibly innocent? What do you think?

Clemens released a statement through his agent today:

"I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life. Those substances represent a dangerous and destructive shortcut that no athlete should ever take.

"I am disappointed that my 25 years in public life have apparently not earned me the benefit of the doubt, but I understand that Senator Mitchell's report has raised many serious questions. I plan to publicly answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the appropriate way. I only ask that in the meantime people not rush to judgment."

Anybody believe him?

Eesh, what a crappy day for baseball and the Yankees. Given their penchant for bringing on aging stars, I can see how they'd take a bigger hit on this than most, but clearly something's rotten in Denmark when a HUGELY significant report like this is based largely on two sources, both of whom were based in NYC. Even giving Mitchell a pass on his Red Sox board seat, there needed to be far more made on the fact that this was a small percentage of steroid users.

Question is, how do you feel about those who were named?  

While I don't know that the Santana deal is off for sure, it certainly looks unlikely. So let's say that Santana goes to the Sox. What then? The Sox, of course, become a formidable superpower that is, um, like life in an alternate universe.

What do we, in fact, stand to lose? What is life like for the Yankees in the near and far term?

How do we get Santana?

Clearly if we could pull it off without gutting ourselves, we should do it. So the real question  is what's the appropriate package.

Thought I'd put it to a vote. I haven't made IPK an option as an anchor, because I don't see the Twins taking the deal. In my view, either Joba or Hughes has to anchor the deal.

You can write in your own trade bait. Just select "I got a better package."

There's been a lot of talk about how we must get A-Rod back at any cost. But I think we need to quantify this with a bit of a poll. I'm curious to see where people draw the line...

Since one of the bigger issues is going to the duration of the contract, this is going to have to be admittedly unscientific, as we'd need an actuarial table to look at all the options.

Anyway, I'm just looking at two scenarios for length: 7 years and 10 years.