New Year's resolutions................written for Brian Cashman

I hope everyone had a great Christmas. I, myself, had a wonderful time as usual, even though the combo of two days of heavy eating, drinking, spiked egg nog, and some sort of Flahn my aunt made (I don't know how to spell it and I never want to eat it again) landed me home sick the day after. But there are worst days to be sick. Now I can play with all my gadgets and get myself ready to do it all over again next week for New Year's Eve. Oh yeah baby, get the stretch pants out this year cause daddy is all about expanding that spare tire before 2008 comes around.


But being home sick also allows me to do something else. It allows me to sit at home and write down Brian Cashman's New Year's resolutions. Cash doesn't strike me as a resolution kind of guy, but he does strike me as someone who loves a good list (it goes with the whole pocket protector nerd persona he's got going on). So I thought I would help the man out and make up a list of things Brian should be looking to do come this 2008 season.



Resolution 1: Brian will lose 210 pounds of muscle this year, referred to as Kyle Farnsworth.




Has anyone heard Cash and Joe Girardi talk about Kyle Farnsworth this offseason? You would think the king of sulk, the sultan of choke had, at one time, been a dominant relief pitcher. You would think there is some sort of "form" the man is destined to return to. You would think Cash and Girardi were eating the same crop of mushrooms together.


Farnsworth was a horrible signing from the onset. The man has always had trouble maintaining the constitution of his ball sack in the big moments. Even in years when he was pitching in the also ran league - the NL - and his ERA was respectable, you could never count on the guy to get any big outs. His tantalizing fastball gets up there in velocity but is straighter than Russel Crowe on testosterone pills. He is moody, unreliable, fragile both physically and mentally, and no one in that clubhouse seems to even want to share the same oxygen as him. But now, we are to believe that Farny is gonna step up and be a legit setup man after three miserable years trying to fill that role?


Here is your first resolution Brian: If someone comes to you and asks if you would like to dump Farnsworth and his salary for a sack of rotten apricots and The Dukes Of Hazzard movie, you say YES!!!!!! The amazing thing is that, last year, the Braves evidently offered to trade Cashman more than just rotten fruit and bad cinema for the menace of the middle innings. They were willing to eat some of his contract and trade the Yanks back Bob Wickman. The Yanks said no. They said no. I'll say it again: THEY SAID NO!!!!!!!!! So, in order for the New Year to get off on the right foot, Cashman must promise himself that, when someone walks in and offers you silver for goat shit, you take the silver, even if you wanted gold.



Resolution 2: Brian will have to promise himself that, when someone offers you a Bentley for a Pinto, you take the Bentley, even if you built the Pinto yourself.



Don't get me wrong, I like Phil Hughes, but if he is the only things, at this point, standing in the way of a Santana to the Yankees deal then I will personally kidnap the prick, throw him in a trunk, drive the 2,000 or so miles from here to Minnesota, and dump him on the side of the road.



Hughes is gonna be a very good pitcher. He could even be great. But will Hughes ever be far and away the best pitcher in the game? Maybe not. Will he ever be left handed? Nope. Will he ever win two Cy Youngs? Possibly, but there is no way to know.




What's the point of all those questions? Well, unless you can convince me, or anyone else, that Hughes will DEFINITELY be better than Johan Santana, then you have to make the deal.



See, I get the sense that Cashman is a stubborn nerd, more like Mr. Spock than Captain Kirk. He made Hughes what he is today. He cultivated the kid. He groomed him. He promoted him as the next Rocket Clemens (hopefully without a Mitchell Report in his future). You get the sense that, even though from a baseball standpoint it makes all the sense in the world to trade Santana for a proven, otherworldly pitcher who immediately put you on even footing with your arch rival (Red Sox) and makes you a favorite to win a title, Cashman is still hesitant because this is HIS guy. He has convinced himself that Hughes will be the best pitcher in the history of baseball, and you know that he has convinced himself that Santana could be a bust. It comes down to stubborness, it comes down to ego, and it is the dumb way to approach anything in life.



So Brian really needs to ask himself this question: what does it get you to KEEP Hughes over Johan Santana?



He is younger so he'll be pitching well after Santana (who is 8 years older than Hughes) has gone the way of the Mussina. This is true. Hughes is much younger. But Santana is still under 30 years old (he'll be 29 at the beginning of spring training). This is a pitcher who has never had arm or shoulder problems, is a legs power pitcher (putting less strain on the arm) and has the best changeup in baseball, meaning that when his velocity starts to go he should have enough to get guys out with his offspeed stuff.



The way pitchers and players in general keep their bodies in such great condition, there is absolutely NO question in my mind that you can get at least 6 or 7 more top of the line, Cy Young caliber years out of this guy. In that time, the Yanks SHOULD be able to develop another big pitcher or, at the very least, be able to bid on some other team's high item ticket pitcher.



Plus, remember that unless Hughes made a GIANT leap next year, in his first full year in the bigs, it would take him at least a year or two to really become a dominant presence. And then he would have to equal what you get out of Santana for it to have been a bad deal.

Resolution 3: I will start looking at resumes before giving people millions of dollars.

This resolution could have helped a few weeks ago, before Cashman, who seems utterly incapable of convincing himself that the best pitcher in baseball is worth the money, gave Latroy Hawkins $4 million for one year. Latroy Hawkins. I'll say that again: LATROY HAWKINS!!!!!!
Now, Latroy Hawkins was a shaky, at best, big game and big moment picther when he was decent. But the last four years have showed a steady decline. He hasn't pitched over 60 innings in that time. He has had an ERA around 4 each of those years. His hits to innings pitched are absurdly high. His strikeouts are insanely low (51 innings pitched last year, 29 strikeouts). And, again, he is STILL a bad big moment pitcher.

So, exactly what is the Hawkins signing suppose to do besides waste $4 million dollars of the Yankees?

Cashman has a tendency to ignore the resume of the person he is signing. He gave Farnsworth an insane deal base on his velocity. Think of that for a second. Kyle Farnsworth, argueably one of the worst Yankee signings in the last 10 years, is still on the team because he can throw hard. He was never durable. He was never capable in the big moment. EVERYONE knew he would implode, and he did. Yet Cashman gave the man his years, his money, and refused to dump his sorry excuse for a pitcher last year on some misguided notion that, because he throws hard, he will most certainly turn it around. Because, you know, if you throw hard, there is no chance you won't turn it around, right?

Now, I won't blame Cashman on Carl Pavano all that much because no one could know he would become more brittle than a rag doll right after signing his contract with the Yanks, but there must have been some warning signs there, right? I mean, not only was he brittle, he was a sullen, rotten s.o.b. from all reports and it was obvious he never wanted any part of the New York scene. Did no one do any research on the man? Did no one ask around? Again, if we are looking at resumes, did anyone call up for a reference?

It isn't just those guys however. Cashman traded for Kevin Brown, ignoring his career long struggle with injuries and assuming that he would keep himself healthy with the Yanks. He didn't. Cashman traded for Javier Vasquez based on possible talent, never once checking to see if his demeanor would translate to New York. It didn't.

So, in the coming year, Brian, your resolution must be to actually WATCH the players you are signing and trading for. Check up on them. Take a quick look at that resume bro. Because the majority of busts that have come under your tenure could have been predicted by a intellectually slow monkey with bad eyesight.

Resolution 4: I will stop whining about my new role with the Brother's Fredo in charge.

Seriously Brian, no one cares that Hank and Hal have usurped much of your power. In fact, if Cashman were smart, he would embrace this new Yankee heiarchy because it would allow him to go back to his old ways of blaming every bad move on the Steinbrenners ("hey, I didn't want that guy, but what am I suppose to do") and take credit for the moves that work. The truth is that, since Big George handed the reigns over the Cashman, it has been a mixed bag. Cash has done a WONDERFUL job of rebuilding the minor leagues, but has done a woeful job of building the teams bullpen, bench, and landing players that seem to mesh well. He has made numerous mistakes on pitchers, from Randy Johnson to Carl Pavano, to the uttely disasterous signing of Kei Igawa. He has saddled the team with guys like Farnsworth and now Hawkins, who will turn out to be an equally big bust, and while his attention to the farm system has been wonderful, his dogmatic adherence to keeping the pitchers and players down on that farm, even when the big teams needs their talents, has perhaps hampered the big clubs ability to win over the last few years.

If Cashman's role in the organization is scaled back a bit, that isn't a terrible thing. Cashman is a good GM, but he certainly isn't great, and he has never proven that he can build a winner all by himself. In fact, Cashman has only proven he can build somewhat odd fitting teams that don't do well in the playoffs. To me, that isn't a resume that demands he keep control of the entire organization.

Cash, you have a job with the best organization in the world, making boat loads of money. This year, stop mentioning how your role has changed. It sounds juvenile and it sounds like someone is setting up an excuse down the road when things go bad.

So What The F*CK Was That Worth? I a small glimpse at the Mitchell Report

It always amazes me how quickly people are willing to simply accept a mountain of shit someone else is willing to pile on top of them.

Take, for instance, the Mitchell Report, which not only led the sports news for the last week but was the lead story on the national news outlets on Thursday when it became available.

The Mitchell Reports is nearly two years in the making. At its head was a man who once brokered peace in Northern Ireland (something former Senator George Mitchell seems only too willing to remind everyone of any chance he gets) and a litany of high priced invesitgators and lawyers. The report cost, reportedly $20 million or more to complete. And, for all of that, what, exactly did we get?

We got shit, that's what we got. We got an embarrassment. George Mitchell should keep reminding us that he brokered peace in Northern Ireland because, looking at this report, it would be hard to believe he brokered peace between his older and younger daughters. I have never seen a more useless, more trivial, bigger waste of time, money, energy ever, in any venue. The Mitchell Report must go down in history as the worst example of invesitgation in recent memory.

First, let's look at what everyone wanted to see: the list. I don't care who you are or what your personal views are about the steroids era, everyone wanted to see whose names were on that list. EVERYONE. So, what did we get? There was not ONE name on that list, save perhaps Paul LoDuca, that none of us haven't heard before. Every single name on the list had been implicated previously. Every name on that list had been "found" by some other invesitgative body, whether that was the federal government or state officials. So, after 2 years and $20 million, George Mitchell and his invesitgators essentially just lifted his report from other sources.

Think of it in terms of school. Let's say someone asked you to put together a list of the most important battles of the Civil War and then give a detailed account of why they were so significant. Imagine you were given the entire year to do the report. Can you imagine the SIZE of the F you would find on your paper if, at the end of that time, you had simply copied the list of battles from two books and included THEIR explanation of why they were important? Can you imagine what your teacher/professor would say if you presented something that was COMPLETELY unoriginal, with not one imaginative or unique thought of you own included?

That's exactly what Mitchell just gave us. The most expensive plagarized book report ever. NONE of the information he gave in the report is new. There is nothing we already didn't know.

Now, let's look at this from the standpoint of what it tells us about the beginning of the steroid era in baseball, how it came about, how it was cultivated, how this "culture of drug use" came to being, and who the major players were. Well, I wish we could look at that aspect of the report, unfortunately it doesn't tell us ANYTHING about that. It is further evidence of how useless this report truly is. You would think that, even if the Mitchell Report was unable to put together an accurate, all encompassing list of players who used during the era, it would at least be able to shed some light on the era itself. Instead, it gives us a history of steriods in general, a history of drug use and durg use regulations in baseball, and some of the medical reprecussions of steroid use in baseball. Never, not once, does it shed light on how steroids in baseball got started (where did it originate, who were the major suppliers, who were the major users in the early years). We know NOTHING about how such a "culture" was created in baseball. We only know it existed.

Again, for a history analogy, it is like discussin World War II, and starting your discussion in 1944, only stating that "political actions taken before hand led to the war." Wow, that would really be glossing over a lot of information, wouldn't it? The same things here. Mitchell tells us that baseball created a culture of steroid use, and cultivated an atmosphere where it was accepted, but never once explains how or why that happened.

Buster Olney of ESPN.com, who has been critical of the report from the beginning, had the best take on the report I have seen yet, and he makes this point very eloquently when speaking about what the report failed to do (which is provide any important information whatsoever). Instead of some critical insight, we get cancelled checks and detailed accounts of how someone sent a text message to a clubbie trying to acquire some steroids, or how many times Roger Clemens was injected with HGH, or who approached whom about HGH use. That's all fine and good if one is trying to build a case against one individual. But when you are charged with creating a narrative on how steroid use permeated the baseball landscape and how it was allowed to grow under the noses of all involved without ever being detected or dealt with, tracing a paper trail for athletes who purchased the drugs is worthless. I don't need a detailed account of HOW Paul LoDuca got his steroids. I assumed they didn't just magical appear when he thought of them, or that a genie provided them when he wished it. Whether he was purchasing through a clubbie, through some scam dentist or health center in Puerto Rico, or whether he was purchasing them on some Website called HGH Plus, I assumed he took some sort of active role is acquiring his own drugs. How does that help my understanding of the steroid era?

Now, the question, in my mind, becomes "why is this report so incomplete and so narrow in its focus?" A lot of people have suggested that it would be foolish to think that Mitchell, who is on the board of directors for the Red Sox and a personal friend of Bud Selig, would ever overlook pertinent, important information because of those ties. By God, they remind us all, this man brokered peace in Northern Ireland (I don't know if you knew this or not. I did a little digging and it turns out to be somewhat true. Mitchell should really mention that part of his resume more, don't you think?). How could HE ever be swayed but such petty considerations?

I am not the man nor do I have access to his head. All I know is this. This report is light in two very important areas; its examination of the Commissioner's office and baseball's role in allowing this "culture" to exist, and any examination of steroid use outside of the predominently New York based steroid ring he had access to.

Let me take the second part first. I do believe that the players silence was a major impediment to Mitchell. It is clear that his inability to get players to go on record all but destroyed his ability to put a real report together. Yet, many people are willing to give Mitchell a pass because of this. "What did you want him to do" they say, "no one would talk to him." Well, first off, the question is, what the hell did the old man expect? Yeah, come on in as we ask you hard, incriminating questions that could be held against you in a court of law, and even if you deny the charges, since most of the accusations are first hand accounts of what happened not backed by any hard evidence, your name is still going to go on my list. Shocking no one wanted to talk to him.

Olney has a wonderful anticdote on how a couple of players were named by Radomski and were approached about the accusation. They denied the accusation. Yet, their names appeared in the report anyway. Matt Franco, who was named, is the perfect example of that. So, when we say that Mitchell's investigation was stymied by the players refusal to meet with him, where is the proof? As with much of the actual report, proof is hard to come by.

Second, where does it say that an investigation can only be successful if the people you suspect of doing wrong are willing to talk with you, or their friends are willing to give them up? That's really what Mitchell was expecting? He was truly counting on players lining up to give HIM a detailed account of how everything happened? Why would we need an investigator if that were the case? Isn't an investigation designed to uncover information that is hard to come by, or even hidden from public view? Isn't it suppose to DO the work, not rely on other people to fill in the blanks?

This isn't just obvious when looking at the lack of cooperation from the players. Mitchell would have had NO report without Radomski. Why didn't Mitchell and his investigators flush out a few more Radomskis to talk to, or at least to finger in the report? Wouldn't the report be more credible if he included the steroid dealings of a few more spots other than New York? One would think that Kirk Radomski, a clubbie for the Mets in the late 90's, invented steroids, yet we know players were using all the way back in the late 80's. The $20 million gang couldn't uncover ONE other supplier?

Mitchell expects us to simply gloss over his inefficient and sloppy investigating by admitting what we already know; Mitchell hasn't given a complete picture of what happened. It is as if Mitchell expects us to give him a pardon because he admits the investigation was harder than we thought. But, if you've taken a $20 million pay day, the investigation should have continued until a REAL report could be filed.

And in filing this report, Mitchell convientely slaps the hand of MLB officials and the Commish office, but seemingly stays away from laying any real blame at their feet. So, from the late 80's until now, a culture of steroid use was allowed to exist in baseball, but we have no evidence that Bud Selig of ANYONE else in MLB had a hand in allowing that to happen? None?

Newspaper accounts of the last several years have more details about this than the Mitchell Report. No where in the report does it address the fact that Selig has stated in the past that he didn't know steroids was a problem in baseball until after the 1998 season, yet there are records indicating Selig was talking to MLB officials about steroid use in baseball years before. Did Mitchell not know or see this? Did he investigate those claims and deem them unfounded? We have no idea because it isn't addressed.

How about the fact that it took Selig and baseball until 2006 to institute a REAL drug test? Were there meetings, dealings, back room discussions between and owners and the players discussing this matter? We have no idea reading the Mitchell report. We simply have the senator's assertion that ALL of baseball is to blame. I could have made a simliar claim two years ago without the benefit of a multimillion dollar investigation.

So why is the Commish office not taken to task, and why were so few "suppliers" investigated?

There are two possibilities. The first is that Mitchell simply didn't possess the skill to do a better job. Negotiating peace in Northern Ireland doesn't necessarily mean you are the best person to investigate an entire era of baseball and put it into context. In fact, a more legitimate option would have been to hand the money and the man power over to a biographer or documentary maker, who is used to researching complex, wide ranging issues and trying to put them into broad context. Mitchell approached this as a prosecutor and a politician, two things the report did not need. While the list of names was the hook, the meat of the report, the important legacy of the report was to be shedding a light on a 15 or 20 year period where steriods went from rare to common in what seemed like a blink of an eye.

Mitchell built a case against players named in the report, at time providing devastating evidence, at other times providing flimsy evidence that doesn't even pass the smell test (Brian Roberts is in the report because he TOLD someone he injected himself with steroids? How can a former prosecutor sleep at night knowing he has smeared someone's name forever off evidence like that?). But the "how" of one particular player getting steroids was simply useless in this situation. As said before, this wasn't a "case" against a player, this was an overview, or was suppose to be an overview, a history if you will, of what happened and how it happened.

As a politician, Mitchell understood that he needed something sensational to blind everyone to the flimsy job he had done, so he focused much of his attention on Roger Clemens. Clemens use is a MAJOR part of the Mitchell report. Why? He is one player? How does knowing Clemens used help us better understand steroid use in baseball? It doesn't, but without Clemens name, Mitchell simply has retred names and Andy Pettite, who seems to be guilty of using HGH twice when his elbow was about to fall off. Add Clemens to the mix, Mitchell knew, and no one will ask "how come you didn't do any digging of your own senator?"

The second reason Mitchell might not have looked harder at those two questions is because he didn't want to get any muddier than he already was.

Mitchell and Selig are friends. Sorry if I am a little skeptical that Selig and his cronies are barely mentioned as having a hand in this era of steriod use. They didn't know what was going on? They were incapable of stopping it when they found out? They had no dubious intentions in letting it continue? Money, and the resurrection of the sport didn't play a factor in MLB looking the other way for years? There's no evidence that they did look away?

Mitchell didn't include those tidbits because he didn't find any evidence to support those claims. However, he didn't find evidence because he didn't look for it. If I don't want my girlfriend to leave I'll tell her I couldn't find her keys. Of course, if I never look for the keys in the first place, I'm not technically lying, am I? I didn't find the keys. The fact that I didn't look for them doesn't need to be mentioned.

Only the most naive of us all would believe that Selig didn't know what was happening in his sport for years, and chose to look away. But Mitchell didn't talk about that in his report, either because he is incompetent or perfectly willing NOT to find that evidence; evidence that would certainly damage his friend's legacy and perhaps put his job in jeopardy.

The same applies to the list of players. Aside from Clemens, there are no surprising names on the list. Most of them are from New York. Did Mitchell really want to turn every stone over, especially in Boston, and find that a few current players on the Red Sox have been taking some Canseco bathroom breaks? Did he purposely set out to attack New York players, or hide information on current Red Sox players that may be juicing? I'm sure he didn't. Instead, I'm sure he was perfectly content to produce a thin list that doesn't implicate any major names currently in baseball and doesn't tarnish the team he works for. Could he have done a little more digging? I'm sure he could have. In fact, what kind of investigator would he be if THIS is all he could legitimately come up with? But Mitchell chose to produce a list, and a report, he could have put together a year and a half ago, just by simply cutting and pasting newspaper reports and including the information he was given by federal investigators. I have to believe it was what he preferred to do.

Roger Clemens has never been a likeable guy his possible use of steroids has been rumored for years. The other players on the list seem to be just as guilty, and it is hard to focus on anything other than the 80 or so named players who cheated the game of baseball. I have no sympathy for any of them (except, perhaps, the players who were named on such flimsy evidence as to make the most skeptical of us all wonder outloud what Mitchell was doing). This isn't about defending the players or defending steriod use. Those who bought from Radomski and used over a period of years deserve whatever they get as a result of this disclosure.

But that doesn't negate the fact that the Mitchell report has done nothing but provide the names of suspected steriod users who essentially bought from one supplier. It hasn't "caught" the vast majority of those who cheated the game and, in fact, may have let many of them off the hook because no other investigation of this magnitude will be launched. If you never crossed paths with Kirk Radomski, you can feel safe that your past steriod use will probably remain a secret for many, many years to come.

We don't know why steriod infiltrated baseball, or when it truly began, nor do we know why the major players in baseball (Bud Selig, Don Fehr) allowed it to fester for as long as it did. There are no substanative questions answered by the Mitchell report, and the names we received, for the most part, are old and outdated. This was, in many ways, a plagarized report, and for that Mitchell has been congratulated for his efforts. Instead, the Mitchell Report should be viewed as another example of baseball dropping the ball on this issue and should hold less water in the eyes of baseball fans across America than the next Jose Canseco tell-all should.

George Mitchell may have secured peace in Northern Ireland, but he certainly seemed off his game on this one.

A moment of reflection

I just needed to write a very quick post about this past week. You see, my 77 year old grandmother passed away on Monday from gallbladder cancer. She had been struggling with the terrible disease for more than a year and the fight just became too much for her body. It has been an utterly gutwrenching week for my family as my grandmother was our patriarch. She was a larger than life character that filled whatever room she found herself in.

For me, I had a very special, unique relationship with my grandmother. She fawned over me for my entire life, taking me on as more than just a grandson but a favored child of her own. She was my greatest advocate and, because of her youthful personality and her outgoing approach to life, became my dear, dear friend. While my peers spoke of their grandparents in detached, impersonal ways, my grandmother was like a second mother to me. She was there for me all through my 29 years on this earth and there was scarcely a week of my life where I did not see or talk to her at some point.

Because of that the loss I feel now is real and pronounced. It is more than just the loss of the person, it is everything that person came to be in your life. My grandmother was my security blanket. I could go to her with problems or ideas, or simply go to her to feel safe and removed from the real problems I was facing in my life. She never judged me or doubted me. She would have done anything for me, at any time. She had unconditional love for me.

The comfort of her house is gone. She no longer lives there. It is no longer a place of warmth and peace, as it has been for me throughout my entire life. The traditions that centered around her are gone. Christmas eve will forever be changed. Thanksgiving Day will be different and probably more hallow. Family get togethers, always facilitated by her and her complete love of family, will become more sporadic and may even become nonexistent over time. The life that I had known is over, with a new one about to begin that I cannot see through the haze of grief.

This blog has been about sports and my passion for it. I won't bore you with another "at times like these sports seems so insignificant" columns, but it is true that life falls more into perspective now than it perhaps ever did before. I have had to try and deal with my own emotions and then be there for my family (mostly my mother) who has been devastated by this whole process.

I don't know if anyone ever reads this. I have always thought this blog was more about me writing to myself than anything else. But I needed to share this with someone, even if it is being shouted into thin air.

My grandmother is dead and my life, in the course of only a few days, is completely changed.

GET ER DONE CASH-MAN!!!!!!!!

Just a very quick note on the whole Santana saga.........

The reports now are pretty mixed, as you would expect, but the consensus seems to be that the Yanks are holding firm that they will give up Hughes and Melky but not another "top" prospect. It doesn't seem as if the Twins are holding out to try and fleece the Yanks on Ian Kennedy. Rather, they seem to be fixated on either AAA pitcher A;an Horne or AA outfielder Austin Jackson. John Heyman was reporting that the Twins were also interested in AAA SS Alberto Gonzalez in the deal.

Now, here's the thing. I understand Brian Cashman's desire not to be completely and utterly fleeced on this deal. It doesn't make any sense to build up your farm system only to give it away for one player. But some of this smacks of Cashman not wanting to APPEAR to be giving in to the Twins demands, rather than really evaluating the talent being given away. If this is being held up because of Alberto Gonzalez, than Cashman needs to be brought out back and pistol whipped. If it's Alan Horne, well, to me, you can replace Alan Horne, who came on this year but hadn't been a HUGE prospect before hand, in the system so he shouldn't hold up the deal either. I would much rather keep Jackson because, to me, he seems like a very nice CF waiting to happen.

The point is this............the Yanks CANNOT let Santana go to the Red Sox. Like I said, I am not into the whole "give them whatever they want" thing, but letting Santana land with the Sox would be absolutely devastating. The Yanks have said they will go after Dan Haren if Santana falls through. Ummm...............alright. Haren is a really, really good pitcher, but he isn't at Santana's level, and he has only had one year (this year) where he pitched to a Cy Young caliber year (and had a very bad second half of the season). Plus, there is no guarantee that the Yanks would be able to get Haren. Considering his cost, more teams would probably be in the mix for him than are in for Santana right now. And word out of Oakland is that it would take basically the same bounty of players to extricate Haren from the A's as it would Johan from the Twins. Think about this nightmare scenario: Yanks say no go on giving up another good prospect. The Sox turn around and throw Buckholtz into the package and the Twins say yes. Santana is now wearing that shitty, ugly red and white. The Yanks then turn their attention to Haren. Because of how cost effective he is for the next three years a BUNCH of teams are in it for him. The Yanks, out of desparation now (the Sox have two legit aces to none for the Yanks) give up the prospects they wouldn't give up for Santana to get Haren, who comes to New York and is more of the near to over 4ERA guy he had been rather than the lights out guy he was for the first half of last year.

That's why, if I'm the Yanks, I throw in one more really good prospect (Alan Horne for instance) and say "final offer, we want to hear back by noon tomorrow or the deal is off." But they just CAN'T let this guy go to Boston. It is far more important for the Yanks to get him than the Sox. Far more. Step up Cashman and make the deal. Just keep being smart with your draft picks, maybe find a way to trade off a Giambi for some young prospects, and replenish what you gave up for Santana. It needs to be done.

New York Sports..........the Good, the Bad, the Knicks

Okay, let's start with the good...........

Reports from ESPN are that the Yanks are willing to add Phil Hughes to the deal for Johan Santana. Right now, the deal would be Hughes, Melky Cabrera, and another second tier prospect. It wouldn't shock me if the Yanks added a second, second tier prospect in just to get the deal done.

This is a good trade for the Yanks for a variety of reasons. First, Joba "The Hut" Chamberlain proved last year that he is the creamy filling in the oreo, not Hughes. I think Hughes can still be a very, very good pitcher with number 1 quality stuff, but I think Chamberlain has the chance to be special. He can be the next BIG TIME pitcher, the type of guy whose name trancends the sport, and he was such a HUGE plus for the Yanks last year, such a cult icon right off the bat, you can't trade him. He is the next big, Yankee homegrown player.

Hughes will be good, but, legitimately, how much better could he ever be than Santana? Chances are he will never be AS good. Santana is 28. He is a lefty. He has a career 1.17 ERA in Yankee Stadium. He has playoff experience and has good numbers in those situations. He's a strikeout pitcher. He's durable. He pitches with his legs, not his arm. He has a plus fastball but the best changeup in the game, meaning that, in 7 years, when the zip on the fastball has come off, he will be able to transition nicely into Pedro Martinez land where he just knows how to pitch. He is the best pitcher in the game today and there is little chance the future "best pitcher in the game" will become available. And, to top it all off, it appears the Red Sox are the second team in this race and the Yanks CANNOT let him go to the Red Sox. It would give them too much of an advantage in the pitching department.

What about Melky?

I have been a HUGE Melky fan; moreso than a lot of people. I love the kid and the energy he brings to the game, and I honestly believe he can be a very productive offensive player (not great but productive). However, Melky isn't good enough to hold a deal for the best pitcher in baseball. You have to be willing to let him go. The Yanks can sign an Aaron Rowand or even an Andruw Jones, or they can bring up Bret Gardner and let him play next year. There has been talk of moving Damon back to CF, which is move I would be against, but the point is there are options if you lose Melky. You can replace him. This isn't like losing Cano where his offense at the position would be almost impossible to replace. Melky just isn't that caliber of talent.

Plus, while the Yanks don't have a tremendous amount of top tier position player prospects, their BIG young guys all seem to be center fielders. Jose Tabata may move to left or right, but right now the teenage phenom is a center fielder. Austin Jackson is looking everyday like a Tori Hunter type of player, and is rocketing up the minor leagues. He is a center fielder. And Gardner is someone people ironically compare to a Aaron Rowand. He's a center fielder. They can replace Melky in house. It doesn't mean losing him won't hurt, but when you weigh the team with him or with Santana, it is by far more formidable with Santana.

If the Yanks can make this deal and convince Pettite to return, they are set. It would give them a rotation of Santana, Pettite, Wang, Chamberlain, Mussina with Ian Kennedy waiting in the wings as the sixth starter. It would be the best rotation in baseball and, I have to believe that, unless the Red Sox are ready to relinquish both Ellsbury AND Buckholtz (they haven't even considered either one right now) the Yanks will make this deal happen.

Now, let's talk about the bad...............

I have never been a big Eli Manning fan. I just never saw the talent a drunk, tripping Ernie Acorsi evidently saw. Everything about him screams "ahhhh". There's nothing special about him. But, I always thought that, given time, Eli would become a good QB. Maybe not a great one, but at least a good one. He might have a bad day, but most days would be good, and some days would be great. I thought that would be his eventual landing place.

It has been almost three full years; almost four years total now. Can anyone truthfully say that Eli has made ANY true strides towards getting better? Look at it this way; less than a year into his NFL career, what were the major, MAJOR criticisms of Eli? He threw too many interceptions: This year, he has thrown 16 TDs and thrown 15 INTS. He isn't consistent enough. This year, he has a passer rating of 75, up only slightly over his career average of 73.6. He overthrows WAY too many open receivers. He has a completion percentage of 58 this year, which is slightly up from his career average of 55. He tends to start off great and then fall off dramatically in the second half of the season. Starting with a "lucky" win over the horrid Miami Dolphins, Eli has gone two and two with three TD's and six INTS. He doesn't seem to inspire his team and his body language is almost always negative. During his last 4 INT game, Eli looked like a small child just scolded by his little league coach. There was no passion or fire, simply a downtroden young man who seems to only be playing football because it is expected of him.

The point is that, after nearly four years in the league and three years directly under center for every game, one has to ask themself whether Eli will ever become a bonafide QB in this league. Considering how aweful QBs are in this league today, Eli will never be expendable. There just aren't enough quality quarterbacks to justify moving Eli. But not being bad enough to be let go is very different than being good enough to help lead a team to a championship.

Here's what it comes down to; teams with mediocre QBs can win if they have exceptional players or talent at other positions. If the team has an incredible defense, they only need a QB who can manage a game and an offense. If a team has an amazing running back, they can win with a QB that just needs to keep a defense honest. But if a team doesn't have those elements, they need a QB that can LEAD the team to victory. That doesn't mean only a team with an elite QB can win. That would pretty much mean that only the Pats and the Colts could win each year. But you better have a QB the caliber of Big Ben or Drew Brees or Carson Palmer or Donovan McNabb in order to win, or an excptional athlete with an intagible quality like Vince Young to win. Eli is just another run-of-the-mill QB, another guy who, when thrown up against the Tony Romo's and Brett Favre's of the world, looks small and out of his league. The Giants aren't good enough to overcome that. They need more from Eli than simply "managing" a game. They need more than just an "average" quarterback. They need someone who can win a few games all by himself, when the other parts of the team aren't working. Eli hasn't shown he can do that, and in year four of his career you have to wonder whether he ever, ever will. I mean, exactly WHEN does he stop being a young, learning QB? Year seven? Year ten? is that about the time we can expect him to make the "leap"? How about this; if it hasn't happened yet, the chances are it won't ever happen. Four years is plenty of time to address what a player is. Eli Manning is average at best, with his terrible days outweighing his exceptional days.

One thing's for sure, anyone who wants to praise Ernie Acorsi for ANYTHING will have to explain how a man who prided himself on knowing QB talent EVER wrote that Eli could be better than his brother. That ship has definitely sailed a long time ago.

And now.............for the ugly.

You have bad teams, then you have joke teams. You have bad coaches, then you have joke coaches. You have perrenial losers then you have perrenial embarrassments. The New York Knicks are always the latter.

I have to admit that I found myself fascinated by the most recent Knicks 45 point loss to the Celtics. It just seemed to be a watershed moment. It seemed to be a moment in sports, and Knicks history that you would be able to point back to one day. In 2003 the Yanks were no-hit by a Houston Astros team who threw what seemed to be 50 pitchers at the Bronx Bombers to achieve the feat. It seemed even more embarrassing because it was a combination of pitchers rather than just one dominant performance. It was the watershed moment of the season, where the team turned it around and started playing inspired baseball afterwards.

But, after that Knicks game, there was no feeling that the team would, or could bounce back. They won the next night against a lowly Milwaukee Bucks team, but there was no true feeling that the team would turn around and play inspired basketball on a consistent basis. Instead, it felt like you were watching the bottom of what has been a bottomed out team for a while. Not only did the Knicks give up, they looked like they WANTED to give up from the onset. They looked disinterested. And their coach, Isiah Thomas, looked like a man just content to sit on the bench and watch his team implode, as if he were disconnected from all the shame of the moment. It seems as if Thomas believes he has no culpability in what is happening at the Garden these days.

The sad part of the whole thing is that there is almost no light at the end of the tunnel for Knicks fans. Thomas was not fired after the Celtics game, and every win seems to be some sort of repreive for the worst basketball administrator in the history of the game. Lose in embarrassing fashion to the Celtics on national television where your team is openly mocked? Don't worry, as long as your team wins its next game, you're in the clear. Have a few wins on the season? That's all that counts.

The truth is it does not appear that Thomas is going anywhere, and James Dolan doesn't appear close to selling the team, meaning he isn't going anywhere, and Stephon Marbury and his bloated contract and terrible attitude doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and the collection of "I couldn't root for this team if I tried" players don't seem to be going anywhere. And the team seems destined to always have enough wins to keep them out of the top spot in the draft but never enough wins to have the team competing for anything other than jokes on radio.

Let the Hot Stove begin...............

You can really make the case that the baseball offseason is every bit as fascinating as the sport's regular season is. In fact, this year, there is no comparison between the offseason and the postseason. The postseason offered us snore fest after snore fest, with the Indians - Red Sox series even remotely appraoching watchable (and even that lacked real spark as the last three games of the series were easy wins for the Sox). Already, you have the pretty boy A-Rod out there, you have Miggy Cabrera on the block, you possibly have D-Train, Dontrell Willis, available for the right price, there are rumblings that the best pitcher on earth, Johan Santana, will become available, there are rumors that ace starters Erik Bedard and Scott Kazmir could be had, and free agent players like Tori Hunter, Aaron Rowand, and Andruw Jones are all on the market for someone to try and pluck up.

With the amount of money baseball is swimming in right now, and with the amount of teams possessing coveted young players (especially pitchers), this offseason really promises to be as interesting as we believe it can be.

Having said that, the Yanks have already been linked to a few big, big names, and a few interesting moves that may or may not pan out. It's important to look at each one individually and see what is the smart move for Cash and which move makes NO sense at all.

Miggy Cabrera - I go back and forth on this one all the time. On the one hand, the kids numbers are amazing. I mean, look at his stats playing for a horrid team in Florida, in a horrid ballpark? They rival anyone, even A-Rod. He is putting together one of the best all around careers we are ever going to see, and, oh, by the way, the kid really is a KID. He is 24 years old.

On the flip side, he is expanding like a star about to go supernova. For a kid who is about six feet tall, he is north of 260, with many feelin he may be 270 plus. Now, at 225 or 230, no problem, just has a little meat on him but he can carry that load pretty easy. An extra 40 pounds of chunky monkey at 24? That is a bit alarming.

What's also alarming is thathis defence at third is putrid, meaning that, if you traded for him with the idea that he would be your third baseman of the future, you might find yourself having to move him to first or to DH, which is tricky because you seemingly have enough firstbasemen to hold down the fort for this year, and you need that DH spot open down the line anyway for when Posada moves out from behind the backstop (and he's coming back folks, just read the Derek Jeter quotes from the Joe Torre dinner). If Cabrera can't control his Louie Anderson eating habits it could spell big problems down the road.

There is also the issue of Cabrera playing in New York. To me this is neither a positive nor a negative, it is simply an unknown. On the one hand, Yankee fans have seen too many guys, quality players, march into NY with a resume and an attitude and run screaming for the door. Cabrera would be going from the easy life of Florida, where each days game meant about as much to the citizens of Miami as rehab means to Lindsay Lohan, to the pressure cooker of New York, where fans are gonna know Cabrera's stats and have lofty expectations before he even steps off the plane. However, on the flip side, as opposed to the Dr. Phil case study A-Rod was, Cabrera seems to have a lot of that Manny, Bernie, Abreu, laize fair attitude, where nothing seems to really effect him. It isn't to say he doesn't want to win. It is just saying that the "pressure" of NY may not melt him the way it did A-Rod. He comes to the park, he hits the shit out of the ball, he tries to win, then he goes home. It might make it seem as if he doesn't care, but who would you rather have up in the big spot, Manny being Manny or A-Rod being pussy?

In the end, I think it comes down to how much the Yanks would have to give up. If the asking price is Ian Kennedy, Melky Cabrera, and another prized prospect, I would have to do it and take my chances. I like Kennedy, who looks like a Mussina clone, and I LOVE Melky, and seeing him go would be tough, but if Cabrera didn't break down, you would be getting yourself one of the top righthanded hitters in the game today, and a guy who promises to be that good for the next 12 years. You get yourself a Hall of Famer. It is hard to look that in the mouth and then walk away.

On the other hand, I would have to think twice before giving up Phil Hughes. Would it be a complete deal breaker for me? No, but Hughes showed in the playoffs that he may have a Roy Oswalt type of career waiting for him. He is only 21. He has been the most coveted player in their system for years. If I was going to give up Hughes in that deal, I would want to look to throw in a few more prospects and get Willis back WITH Cabrera. That is a rich diet to feast on, no doubt, but Hughes can be special, and as much as I love what Miggy can be, I don't know if he's worth a potential #1 starter, not when there are other options.

Joe Crede - It seems like this deal might be dead, but there was A LOT of talk about a Joe Crede for Johnny Damon swap. Now, a couple of things might have happened here. One possibility is that the Yanks were looking at Crede as a "shit, well, we got nothin else, and we need a player there, so why not take a chance" kinda guy and when Cabrera came on the market, and a few other possibilities presented themself to Cash and the boys, they decided that Crede really wasn't the type of splash they wanted to make. There is also the possibility that the Yanks decided (and rightfully so) that Damon is actually and incredibly valuable player for them. With he and Jeter at the top of the lineup - if both stay healthy - they have first and third with no one out ALL THE TIME. Damon is really a spark plug for the team and if they Yanks can hang on to him, and get his body to the point where it isn't constantly breaking down, then hanging onto him is a good idea I believe. Then, there is the possibility that one of the two teams simply pulled out of the running for either player, with the Yanks overly concerned about Crede's back problems, and the White Sox concern about Damon's overall health in the future.

Whatever the case, if this deal is dead for the Yanks, it is good news. Crede, when healthy, is a GREAT defensive third baseman. However, again, when healthy, Crede only had one really solid year with the bat. Let's assume that, as with most career years from second tier players, his 2006 campaign was more a flash in the pan than a sign of things to come. Let's assume he is more the .250, 17, 82 player than he is the All Star player his 2006 numbers suggest. That means the Yanks would be trading Johnny Damon for an average, at best, hitting third baseman. Okay, I can hear the "Scott Brosius" defense coming up (which is defined as a Yankee fan pointing out that the team was tremendously successful when Scotty Brosius was playing third and not putting up A-Rod numbers every year). That's a fine arguement, except for a few things. 1.) Brosius was on one of the most unique, dominant teams in baseball history. The chances of finding the type of players the Yanks had during those years is slim to none, and none just threw slim over the side of the boat in the middle of the Pacific. 2.) The Yanks had the Bam Tino at first during those years, who was good for 30+ homers a year. Maybe he wasn't the best player, but he was a slugger. Right now, if you brought Crede in and made no other move, your third baseman would be an average, at best, hitter, and your first base situation would be an unknown. Giambi might not be able to stay healthy at all and Shelley Duncan might turn out to be Shane Spencer light. You can't afford to have both corner infield positions be light hitting for you, not even the dynasty teams could have afforded that. 3.) Brosius was an OUTSTANDING fielder. So is Crede. That is to say, so WAS Crede before the back surgery. We have no idea what Crede is going to be, defensively, after undergoing such extensive surgery. Look at Hideki Matsui. Now, he was never a great fielder, but he was a solid left fielder (even playing some center from time to time) before he mangled his wrist. Now? He is atrocious. He is a liability in the field. His whole demeanor out there has changed. What if Crede is like that?

I say you move on to bigger and better things and let the White Sox deal with Crede, and it looks like the Yanks may be doing exactly that.

Johan Santana - Okay, here is the ONE guy that is potentially on the market that I believe the Yanks should look to give up almost anyone not named Joba Chamberlain. Here is the thing about Santana............if Phil Hughes accomplishes everything in this game we think he can, he will have possibly, possibly become as good as Santana. He isn't going to be better than him. He isn't going to eclipse him. He can only hope t match him.

Santana fits exactly what the Yanks would be looking for. He is relatively young (27), he throws hard, he is a lefty, he is durable, and he has postseason experience. Plus, all indications point to him being a bulldog. A package of Hughes, Melky, Tabata, and one more guy for Santana and maybe a player to be named later, or a middle of the road reliever, sounds like a decent deal for everyone all around. If you can work the deal with Kennedy instead of Hughes, Cashman should get GM of the century, but I believe the Yanks would HAVE to give up Hughes in that scenario.

Santana would instantly become a difference maker, and with the potential for Chamberlain to be utterly dominant, and with Wang still a very good pitcher (despite his deept throar choke job in the playoffs), the Yanks would have a starting rotation unmatched in the majors. And, with everyone under the age of 30, that rotation would be set for the next decade and beyond. Hughes is a high price to pay for anyone, but Santana is the one guy I wouldn't flinch to give him up for.

Miguel Tejada - Okay, I know this isn't gonna be a popular rumor, and it might be just a lot of noise which signifies nothing, but I actually think this makes a lot of sense for the Yanks. Let's say the asking price for Miggy Cabrera is too high. Let's say the Angels give up on A-Rod and walk in and say "here's Howie Kendrick and our two best prospects" and blow Florida out of the water. Let's say your options at that point are trading for the likes of Joe Crede and Hank Blalock, or going into the season with Wilson "Big Willie" Betemit. Isn't Tejada the BEST option at that point? Seriously, Tejada's bloated contract and his disatisfaction with the Orioles makes it likely that you can have him without having to give up ANY of your big pieces to the puzzle. You won't have to give up either of the big three pitcher, probably won't have to give up Melky Cabrera, and could put together a package of A- to B+ players in the minors to get him. The Orioles would be dumpling his salary and moving on.

That would give the Yanks their fourth place, right handed hitter. It would give them a guy who has power (not 50 homers power, but 30+ power), a good average, an ability to walk, and a nack for getting the big hit. He destroys the Red Sox, hits very well in Fenway, and seems to be a gamer, even if he is a little too emotional sometimes (which might be what the Yanks need right now). How would he make the transition to third? Well, I'm not here to tell you he will be a gold glover, but if he wanted to make the move, he has a good enough arm, has some pretty good range, and you have to believe he would be able to learn the position. Solid defenders usually stay solid defenders no matter where you move them (except from outfield to infield).

Now, the concern is that Tejada is declining and that he will be connected to the steroids once it comes out. I don't know how to answer this question except to say steroids hangs a black cloud over the entire sport, and there are NUMEROUS players who are gonna be suspected of using. Could Tejada's name be on that list Mitchell is about to release? Sure, but so could Miggy Cabrera or Joe Crede or Wilson Betemit or a million other players who might fit on the team. All I know is this..........last year was the first year Tejada did not play 162 games in the season, and it is the first time he didn't hit 20+ homers. In that Yankee lineup, if he stays healthy, he is hitting 25+ homers and knocking in 110+ RBI. Is that A-Rod esque? No, but it should be plenty good to win a lot of games and be right there in the playoff hunt. Then, in the playoffs, Tejada has routinely done better than A-Rod and has been, throughout his career, a better clutch performer. It isn't saying he is a better player than A-Rod, by no means. What it is saying is that Tejada is a cheap solution that could end up paying huge dividends to the team. Remember, he is only 31.

I'm sure, over the course of the next few weeks, more names are going to pop up. Do the Yanks decide to move Melky in a deal for a starter and sign a free agent center fielder as their big bat in the middle, ala Andruw Jones? Does a player like a Mark Texieira become available as the Braves decide that signing him after next year would be too costly? Do the Yanks try and pry a Willis away from the Marlins at a cheaper rate than what Santana would cost, trying not to use their big, blue chip players to acquire him? Is there another bat on the market no one truly knows about right now, someone the Yanks would be interested in for either third or first?

All these questions will be answered in the next month. But, for now, the Yanks already have some interesting names on their plate. Oh, and by the way, as I have stated MANY times before on this blog PLEASE SIGN KERRY WOOD TO BE THE SET-UP MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cleaning up some of the Yankee mess........

A couple of things on the Yankees, and then a look ahead to this offseason with some completely uninformed suggestions that will never, ever pan out.

Say it aint Joe: I will still contend that Don Mattingly was a better candidate for this job than Joe Girardi. Why? Because the most overrated thing a manager in baseball does is manage the game. That's right, managing the actualy game is about as difficult as playing tic-tack-toe all by yourself. Think about the team the Yankees will put out there next year. The lineup will still feature Damon, Jeter, Abreu, Matsui, Posada (most likely), Cano, Melky, Giambi. The starters will be Petitte (hopefully), Wang, Hughes, Chamberlain, Mussina. The bullpen, well that is a different issue, but more than likely Mariano Rivera will be there once again. This is the point: on game day, what does the manager REALLY need to do? Hit and Run? Send a runner? Know when to pull a pitcher? You're telling me a man who has been around the game for almost 30 years in Mattingly could never figure that out? Sure, he would make some questionable decisions, but everyone does.

Mattingly simply would have been better handling the larger issues, like the media, the day to day problems in the clubhouse, the barbs that will eventually reign down from the front office. I don't Girardi is a bad manager, I think he could be quite good, but I still believe Mattingly would have been better. The idea that Mattingly wouldn't know how to fill out a proper lineup card because he has never managed before is just absurd. Why is it that guys like Guillen and Girardi and Randolph and Scoscia can have NO managerial experience and do exceptionally well, yet Mattingly was too unproven to trust? Come on now.

A-Rod: I already covered the A-Rod thing in my last post, but let me just say, again, that the Yanks CANNOT go back on their word. Now, every team is gonna be linked to this asshole because Boras is gonna WANT the Yanks back in this to try and drive the price up. We are gonna hear about how much the Mets want him. We are gonna hear about how much the Red Sox want him. We are gonna hear about him following Joe Torre out to LA. We are gonna hear every scenario possible that would lead the Yanks to believe that something very bad, for them, is going to happen. DON'T BUY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Boras is a master bullshit artist, and until anyone catches the man telling the truth, I aint buying a word he said. Remember Yankees, you just spent 4 years with A-Rod on the same team as Jeter, Mariano, Posada, and a whole HOST of other superstars and it didn't mean a thing in terms of championships. Even if he does sign with the Mets or the Red Sox, he won't mean anything to them, or to you. Look to build your team in a different way now. Look to build your own great players in time. Let douche bag MVP boy walk away, and don't look back.

What to do now: Okay, here are a few of my suggestions for the upcoming offseason. First, in case I forgot to mention this, DO NOT sign A-Rod. Let him walk. Then, take Ian Kennedy and dangle him for a bat. See if you can get either a young third baseman or a young first baseman. Whose on that list? To be honest, I have no idea. Miguel Cabrera's name has been thrown around but it would take a lot to get him, probably more than just Kennedy and even Melky, and there are serious questions about his work ethic and his possible relationship with Girardi (another interesting side note to Giradi, the fact that his relationships with other teams and other players might hinder the Yankee chance to get them. There was little concern about bringing in problem people with Joe Torre because of the way he handled all different types of personalities, while Girardi seems more controlling and combative). I still think the Yanks NEED to explore getting this kid because he is an amazing offensive player and he could always be moved to first base. So let's say, for now, you trade Ian Kennedy, Melky Cabrera, and another player or two for Miguel Cabrera and you stick him at first. Now, I would stick Betemit at third and give him a chance over there. He is a heck of a defensive player, has pop, is a switch hitter, and is murder on righty pitchers. Give him a chance to flourish.

With Melky gone in the trade I would do one of two things: I would go and sign Aaron Rowand, or I would give minor leaguer Bret Gardner a chance in the outfield, a geat fielder with a lot of intangibles at the plate. Or, you could take a chance on the Austin Jasckson kid everyone loves and promote him. But, at this point, the better chance is to have Rowand in center. He is an excellent defender, and he would cover a lot of ground.

For the bullpen, my number one priority would be to sign Kerry Woods. I cannot tell you how strongly I feel about this. Woods can be Joba Chamberlain in the bullpen for the Yanks. He can be the bridge to Mariano. He is only 3o. His arm seems to be taking to bullpen work far better than it ever did to being in the rotation, and he has the guts of a burgalar. Plus, Girardi knows Woods and evidently loves him, so it would be a perfect match. Then, I would start Russ Olendorf and his 95 MPH sinker in the bullpen, look to sign one more veteran guy, maybe a veteran lefty or maybe even a Mike Timlin (even though I never trust Boston throw aways anymore).

If that is done, right there, here is the team you start the season with next year: Damon, Jeter, Abreu, Cabrera, Cano, Posada, Matsui, Betemit, Rowand. Rotation: Pettite, Wang, Hughes, Chamberlain, Mussina. Bullpen: Mo, Woods, Timlin, Olendorff, Farnsworth, veteran lefty. You can't tell me you don't like that team. And folks, it is a pretty good mix of young and old.

Adios-Rod!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alex Rodriguez informed the New York Yankees last night - via text message by the way - that he is officially opting out of his contract and will become an unrestricted free agent when the offseason begins in the next few weeks. It was a classless, lowlife act by a prima donna, whiny, pretty boy who still believes that being booed at Yankee Stadium is this generation's version of being fired on at Bastogne.



Now comes the hard part. The Yanks have said there is NO chance they will get back involved with the mega-talented anchor and they HAVE to stick to their guns. Why? Will the Yanks, on the field, be better off without him? Of course not, but the truth is that, eventually, someone has to yell ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is the reason to bring A-Rod back: He is the lynchpin to this lineup. Without A-Rod, there is no sure fire fourth hitter in a lineup that no longer features the type of all around, clutch performers it once did so abundantly. In those days, with Tino and Paulie and Bernie, you could get away with having a fourth place hitter that only hit 25 homers because everyone, from 1-9, was just so damn good. Everyone had power, just not too much. Everyone could hit for average. The Yanks were the FIRST team to perfect the "wait him out" approach to tough starters, getting the likes of Pedro to wear down over the course of a game and then force the other team to turn to a lesser bullpen. Now? Without A-Rod, the fourth place hitter would probably be Jorge Posada. While Jorge is a terrific player, he is a catcher, meaning he won't play in a good percentage of games, and he is not likely to duplicate the type of season he had last year. After that, the only other candidates are Giambi, who could work but is no longer CLOSE to the type of player he once was, Matsui, who no know truly knows what to expect from going forward, or Cano, who is a third place hitter in the waiting, not a fourth place hitter.

That means the Yanks will have to FIND another bat somewhere, but with the current state being that A-Rod is gone, right now, there is no other bat to plug into the fourth hole. Don't kid yourselves Yankee fans, that is a HUGE hole to fill.

Okay, here are the reasons NOT to bring him back: He doesn't make the difference between a championship and going home empty handed. Remember, before the Yanks got A-Rod, the YEAR before, they went to the World Series. They didn't have Paulie. They didn't have Tino. Bernie was a shadow of himself. They had Aaron Boone at third. They had Giambi basically injured the entire year. They went to the WS.

As great as A-Rod is, he has never proven to be a difference maker. It is truly uncanny, when one thinks about it. When A-Rod was on a good team in Seattle, they got better AFTER he left. When he went to a horrid team in Texas, they actually got WORSE with him on the roster. And, going to a great team in the Yanks hasn't meant anything different for the team. It is as if, while A-Rod is compiling his numbers, his effect on the team is minimal (now, don't scream about this year. There is no question that the only reason the Yanks sniffed the playoffs is because of A-Rod. I am talking about overall. When A-Rod goes to a team, he leaves it in the the same shape, or the team gets better when he leaves. It might be the worst luck, the worst timing in the history of the game, or it may just be that, for whatever reason, A-Rod is not a difference maker).

For a team like the Giants or the Dodgers or even the Mets, or the Angels, teams that need to make big personnel changes, teams that need to have a huge star, teams that need that draw more than they need a "difference maker", A-Rod makes perfect sense, no matter what the cost. The Giants are seemingly scoffing at the notion of signing the Rod, but the truth is they would make the $30 mill they are gonna pay him back in about 6 weeks of his first season out there. He is a tremendous draw, and coming to New York has raised his star level. A-Rod was always viewed as perhaps the best player in baseball. Now, his name is one of the few that trancends the sport. That wasn't the case before the Yankees, but now he can sell on that for the rest of his career.

For the Yankees (and even the Red Sox), for which winning is the most important thing, A-Rod has already proven he guarantees nothing. Why pay him all that money? He won't be as worth it to the Yanks as he is to some other team. The only thing that matters in Yankeeland is winning, and since A-Rod has been here that hasn't happened.

Second reason: His act is really, really getting old. How could the Yanks bring him back now? Think about it: Yankee fans have always been luke warm to this guy (and downright hateful last year). Now, he opts out of his contract without even involving the Yankees in a negotiation. He won't even return phone calls made to him by the organization. Then, he states that the Yanks can only speak with him if they are willing to offer $350 mill contract. Anyone remember the first battle scene from Braveheart, where William Wallace "negotiates" with the British general in order to start a war? That's what that was essentially. The only thing else he could have done to get his point across was demand that Mickey Mantle's ashes be dug up somewhere so A-Rod could shit on them.

Then, A-Rod upstages the world series. Then, he comes out and tries to blame all of this on Mariano Rivera, who was sooooo ungracious as to actually not get three outs in game 4 of the 04 ALCS, which would have allowed A-Rod to continue on to the world series, which is the only thing I was concerned about at that moment, I'll tell yah that. And now he says he would still like to be a Yankee?

Yankee fans would treat this guy like their sister's rapist coming back to work for the family business. Seriously, this whole thing has been so distasteful, has painted A-Rod in such a bad light, it would actually end up being a BAD PR move if the Yanks brought him back. His obsession with all things A-Rod, his love affair with himself, his twisted devotion to his agent, and their dogmatic devotion to money, makes him such an unlikeable character Yankee fans would feel compelled to boo him if he didn't have as good a year last year. It is bad business all around.

Third reason: The future is pitching. The Yanks are still gonna field a competitive team next year, I hate to tell yah. I know a lot of people want that not to be the case, but before all is said and done, the Yanks will certainly trade for another bat, and may make yet another trade for a pitcher. Either way, starting next year, with NO changes, the Yanks will have a rotation of Pettite, Wang, Hughes, Chamberlain, Mussina. If each one of those guys lives up to billing, it is argueably the best in baseball. That is where games in the playoffs are won.

Look at the Sox this year. Their offense came alive in a HUGE way, but that was made possible mostly because their pitchers kept them in the game. The Red Sox did a lot of scoring late in games, busting what had been tough fought contests into blow outs. The Yanks, on the other hand, were always cleaning up after terrible starts, with their pitchers routinely only going a few innings and their bullpen being horribly overtaxed (and pretty much under talented). Next year, with young, talented fireballers in the rotation, and the mainstays of Pettite and Wang, the rotation has the chance to be amazing, truly amazing. THAT is what wins championships, not all star players hitting home runs in 10-9 games. The Yanks will find a bat. Pitching has been what they were missing.

Final point: There needs to be a final cutting of the chord between the team and the 04 season. Now, there are still gonna be some guys on that team, but A-Rod was, with Sheffield, one of the newcomers that infected that 04 team. I know the Yanks have 26 championships to heal all possible wounds, but the sting of 04 was real and it hasn't gone away. A-Rod leaving, for many people, will end thaat unfortunate chapter and turn the reigns of the team over to a younger generation of players, who can learn how to win from players like Jeter and Mo and Posada and Pettite, rather than being infected with the loser karma of one Alex Rodriguez.

Look, I understand what a great player A-Rod is, and I understand how difficult his departure is about to make the Yankee offseason. I'm not a fool. Any team that nabs him will be getting a GREAT, GREAT player. But his act wasn't right for New York and it never will be. A-Rod is a fake. He's a phony. Now, some players have gotten away with being fakes in this town, but the list is pretty small, and the truth is A-Rod's name was never gonna be listed on it. A-Rod became bigger, more important than the team a lot of times, which was a hideous turn of events for a team, and a franchise, that had really become famous for being a non-descript, single-body entity that moved in one motion, always. It made for boring headlines, but it created amazing baseball.

A-Rod's act will be appreciated somewhere else. Where? I have no idea, but somewhere, probably somewhere on the West Coast, where days seem to end a little quicker out there and sports isn't taken all that seriously. For me, I don't care where A-Rod goes, as long as it isn't back to this team, at this time. I just want A-Rod to go away.

Yankees Poised to Continue Their October of Missteps

It started with the Yankees lack luster performance against the Cleveland Indians in the ALDS. Argueably the best team in the AL, again, the Yankees watched as their team imploded on itself, failing to do the things it had become accustomed to doing during the regular season. Chien Mien Wang put himself on the "hey, why don't we try and get something for this asshole while we can" list for most Yankee fans by going out there and almost single handedly losing the series. The "ACE" of the staff ended up with an ERA over 12. Roger Clemens? Amazing that no one has mentioned what a waste of money he turned out to be. Clemens, whose pro-rated contract averaged out to about $28 million over the course of the year, didn't pitch one meaningful game down the stretch of the season, and lasted a whopping 2 2/3 innings in Game 3 against the Indians.

There was no timely hitting, Jorge Posada played defense like a blind ferret with polio, Derek Jeter drank A-Rod juice before the series, killing rally after rally, and the two man bullpen just wasn't deep enough to keep a good Indians lineup down. It was a nightmare.

In the middle of that was the ill timed, ill fated George Steinbrenner quote that the Yanks would not bring Joe Torre back if they didn't beat the Indians and move on to the ALCS. No one knows for sure what that quote was designed to do. Was it simply an ageing, old man raging at the thought of another first round loss? Was it some sort of strange, football vodoo motivational tool the Steinbrenners cling to as if they invented the Knute Rockne School For Getting The Most Out Of Your Players? Was it an orchestrated attempt by Randy "Rosemary's Baby" Levine to begin the process of getting rid of Torre, a man who, for some reason, he has disliked since becoming team president in 2000? No one knows, but whatever the quote, the interview was meant to accomplish, it failed to miserably.

Then came the Joe Torre offer/non-offer. There wasn't any aspect of Torre situation that was handled correctly. I have already written on this, and more columns have been written about it than on the Watergate scandal in the last three weeks, so there is no need to rehash it. The fact is the Yanks bungled the Torre scenario about as badly as one could have. It was a disgrace. It was embarrasing, and it was the first parlay onto the national scene for the SteinBoys. Not a good first impression at all. The only way they could have made things worse for themselves is if they had simultaneously announced that they were also raising ticket prices and selling only Odouls at the concession stands from now on.

Now come the reports that the Yanks are poised to offer Joe Girardi the managerial job on Monday or Tuesday of this week. Don't get me wrong, I like Girardi, and I think he is a good manager, but this will be yet another blunder in a fall of half assed, idiotic moves that just don't seem to make sense.

First, let's look at this from a PR standpoint, and that should not be discounted in the least. Don Mattingly is the most beloved New York Yankee there is. He is Donnie Baseball. He was the only reason to watch the Yankees for 12 years. Every fan between the age of 27 and 35 has a love affair with the man that isn't about to go away. Hiring Mattingly would begin the process of healing the wounds left over from Joe Torre's ouster (and it was an ouster.........as Mike Francesa has said time and again on his show, if the Yanks wanted to keep Torre, they would have KEPT him. They wanted him to walk away). Mattingly would get the benefit of the doubt from both the team and the fans. There would be an excitement surrounding him becoming the manager. I have even heard fans calling up wondering how many titles Donnie would have to win as a manager to finally have a chance to enter the Hall of Fame, an honor most Yankee fans have desperately wanted for Mattingly since he retired.

Granted, I have been shocked how many fans have called up saying they don't want Mattingly to manage, but I still believe most fans would be comfortable, and excited to see Donnie Baseball as the clubhouse leader.

Girardi offers none of that. He was a Yankee but he isn't viewed AS a Yankee. He was a part-time player, a part-time catcher, the last spoke in the wheel of a championship team that would have, and did, sail on without him. There is no love affair with Joe Girardi. There is no magic between he and the fans. If Girardi begins the season badly, there will be no grace period. The comparisons with Torre will begin immediately. The bench mark for success with him will be ALCS or bust. The fans will turn on him at the sign of trouble, and the Yanks will be put in the awkward position of trying to convince the fanbase to "stick" with their new manager.

Couple that with the fact that Mattingly will more than likely walk away if he is passed over, and the Yankees will have essentially alienated Joe Torre, Don Mattingly, and fired Ron Guidry for Joe Girardi. In what UNIVERSE other than one designed by the brothers Fredo, does that make sense?

Let's also look at this from a man to man perspective. I understand that decisions are made everyday that screw someone else over. I get that. But here is the truth. Don Mattingly has said, from day one, that he would not have come back to coach if it were not made abundantly clear to him that he would have a legit shot to manage the team after Joe Torre left. Now, I don't think anyone guaranteed him the job, but I think he was made aware of the fact that he was viewed as the successor to the job if things went well.

Mattingly served as hitting coach from three years and then as a bench coach this year. He has received wide spread praise from the players. Torre has gone out of his way to compliment Mattingly, stating that he would, one day, make a GREAT manager. It is widely known that he is the players choice to take over for Torre. By all accounts, he has done a terrific job in his role with the team. Now, after proving himself as the coach, after basically being promised the job, after having what has been described as a "very good" interview, he is going to be passed over? It is yet another example of how the Yankees are going to run their business. Word and honor and promises don't matter. Showing someone respect doesn't matter. If someone has to be thrown under the bus, so what. The bottom line is the bottom line.

Everyone could understand the Yankees passing over Mattingly, breaking their word to him, if they had the opportunity to bring in a proven, Hall of Fame caliber manager. If Lou Pinella were being hired over Donnie, everyone would understand. If, oh, I don't know, JOE TORRE were being hired over Mattingly, one could understand. But Joe Girardi? I mean, seriously? Could you blame Mattingly for being pissed off?

Now, let's look at it from the standpoint of team continuity. Mattingly is, as I said before, widely known to be the players choice for the job. He has been a coach with the team now for 4 years. He has been with these guys, through thick and thin, every step of the way. He knows the players and he knows the team. He immediately has the respect of the room. Not only was he a former player, he was a former star. he is a borderline Hall of Famer. He has instant credibility with everyone in that room, from the rookies to Derek Jeter. He watched as Joe Torre handled different players in different fashions, understanding how their personalities worked and how they should and should not be motivated. He isn't on any kind of learning curve.

Girardi? He walks back into the locker room as the former back up catcher. There are already reports that Jorge Posada would rethink signing with the Yankees because Girardi was manager. There are similar reports that A-Rod would be hesitant to sign because of Girardi's reputation for being like Buck Showalter, who he did not get along with in Texas. Would Girardi command respect from the players in the room? Perhaps, but it certainly isn't a given as it is with Mattingly. Joe Torre would, from time to time, call his best players out, in team meetings, to prove a point. He would call a Jeter out, or a Clemens out, to prove that EVERYONE was accountable. Those types of veterans understood that and were fine with it because of who Joe Torre was. You can imagine they would have a similar reaction with Mattingly. With Girardi? Probably not. How about guys like Cano, or Melky? Who is going to have a better chance of reaching them, Girardi or Mattingly? Come on, that isn't even a debate.

So, by hiring Girardi over Mattingly, you could potentially lose your starting catcher, your starting third baseman, and tick off the rest of your players. Again, it is Fredo logic at work here.

Now, let's look at it from simply a baseball standpoint since, if the Yanks announce Girardi tomorrow, that will be the crutch they use to stand on. Girardi has managed one more year than Don Mattingly. ONE. He isn't a veteran manager. He isn't a man who has had significant success with a team. In fact, all Girardi's team in Florida did was NOT lose 100 games. Now, don't get me wrong, he did a fine job just by accomplishing that, but Girardi's resume is, shall we say, pretty damn thin. In actuality, Girardi has less time on the bench of a major league club than Mattingly does. Girardi was a bench coach with the Yanks for one year and then the manager of the Marlins for one year. Mattingly has been a coach for four years.

Most of the people who have championed Girardi probably saw a total of five Marlins games in 2006. How did he handle the players, the team, the pitching staff? I don't really know. I believe he did a terrific job, but doing a terrific job with a bunch of kids in baseball wasteland (Florida) is hardly a guarantee for success in New York. Girardi has never had to deal with the media. He has never had to deal with expectations. He has never been in the spotlight. He managed a team of youngsters in a town that couldn't care less what the organization does. How does that translate into success in New York?

Mattingly has no managerial experience, true. That is, and should be a factor. But can anyone honestly look at Joe Girardi and convince themselves that he will be such a significantly BETTER manager than Don Mattingly that it's worth everything discussed above? No freakin way. In fact, I would argue thata Mattingly, for this team, for this town, because of who he is and because of the managers he has played for in the past, would be the far better candidate than Girardi. The only area that Girardi beats Mattingly in is the one year of managerial experience. Does that REALLY trump everything else? Again, this isn't Lou Pinella. This isn't Jim Leyland. This isn't Earl Weaver or Sparky Anderson. This is a man who managed ONE YEAR for the Florida Marlins, and didn't sniff .500 in the process.

Here is the truth: I love Don Mattingly and always will. Does that influence my mindset, my belief that he would make the best choice? Of course. But I still believe the arguements I have made above. The truth is, if the Yanks were considering an experienced, eminantely qualified manager right now over Mattingly, I couldn't argue with it. I might WANT Mattingly to be manager, but I would understand if he wasn't chosen. But Joe Girardi is perhaps the most overrated one year manager I have ever seen. His resume is, again, relatively thin. His ability to handle a veteran team is suspect. People are acting as if Mattingly is somehow the question mark candidate while Girardi is the guarantee.

I think Girardi is a good manager, and if Mattingly were not in the mix I would have no problem with the Yanks turning to him. But, to me, Mattingly is the better candidate for this team. And I have more selfish reasons for this. If the Yanks turn to Don Mattingly and tell him that they are passing him by for a man with one year of managerial experience, after basically promising him the job years before, there is a good chance Donnie will not only walk, but will walk for a while. I would be pretty upset by that scenario and, I would bet, so would you. So that would mean that, next year, when the Yanks are closing down old Yankee Stadium, Don Mattingly and Joe Torre will be absent. That means that, when the Yankees open the new Yankee Stadium, Don Mattingly and Joe Torre will be absent. I'm sorry, but that DOES mean something to me. It doesn't mean you give someone a job just to avoid that type of scenario, I believe it SHOULD enter into the equation.

Girardi would make a good coach, but Mattingly is the RIGHT coach for this team.

Mattingly obvious successor

Don Mattingly is the obvious choice to succeed Joe Torre as the next manager of the New York Yankees. Even a one eyed, one legged farret, or a member of the Yankee front office, should be able to see that. It is the natural progression of things, the natural order of what should happen, and despite the controversy that still swarms around this current managerial change, it was destined to happen eventually.

Don Mattingly has made no bones about the fact that he wants to manage. He made that clear four plus years ago when he took the hitting coach job with the Yankees. He WANTED to be in a corner office one day. George Steinbrenner and the Yankee brass knew this. There was no way on Randy Levine's earth that they were ever gonna let him to cut his teeth for another organization, taking the chance he would find a home somewhere and be off their radar when the time came to replace Joe Torre.

Well, that time has come.

Mattingly is the answer to every question the Yankees could have in hiring a new head man. The team DESPERATELY needs a PR fix, a way to get the fans and the media talking about something other than how they disrespected one of the all time great Yankees this week. NO ONE on their list, not the energetic, eminately talented Joe Girardi nor the experienced, respected Tony Pena accomplishes that. A candidate from outside the organization would be even more of a disaster as the comparisons with Torre would begin from day one.

Mattingly, however, is the most beloved Yankee, still, on the face of the planet. An entire generation - my generation - now entering their 30's remember Mattingly as an icon. I had the Don Mattingly record (not CD, not MP3, but RECORD) of how to hit when I was younger. I have a signed baseball from him. I was there, in game 2 of the ALDS in 1995 when he hit his last home run at Yankee Stadium and I have never felt 56,000 people move, and yell, in unison like that before. I love Derek Jeter, Paul O'Neill, Mo Rivera, Andy Pettite, Bernie Williams, and the rest of those great, dynasty teams. I love Joe Torre. And I can see myself wearing a Joba jersey, and asking if someone has Melky, for many years to come. But NO ONE will ever eclipse Mattingly for me, and that is probably true for most fans my age. That means that fans will be excited by the prospect of Mattingly taking on a more direct role. They will be excited by the notion that Mattingly will take the reigns, and while the sting of watching beloved Joe Torre essentially being insulted out the door for no other reason than the fact that the Yankee brass didn't have the balls to fire him stright up will be ever present, there will be an excitement for next year with Mattingly at the reigns, even if it comes with some quiet anxiety.

The Yankees also need a manager the players can get behind. While this team is certainly becoming younger, and the old guard is beginning to dwindle, it is still made up of accomplised athletes who have made their bones in New York. Any new manager would have to command the respect of clubhouse leader and team captain Derek Jeter. They would have to be able to handle the talented yet enigmatic Robbie Cano, the future star of the team and a player that NEEDS to become the middle of the order player he is talented enough to be right now. They need to be able to handle any new, accomplished, free agents or veterans who come in via a trade. They would have to be able to command enough respect in that clubhouse where they could sit a Jason Giambi or a Johnny Damon without those veteran players becoming disenfranchised and turning their benching into a media circus.

While Girardi or Pena seem to have the make up to be able to handle multiple types of personalities, Mattingly is the only one you KNOW would command respect as soon as he walks into the clubhouse. Jeter, who is 33, has the same feeling towards Mattingly as I do at 29. He grew up watching him. He grew up idolizing him. When Jeter was called up briefly in 1995, struggling at the plater and looking lost in the field, it was Mattingly, then team captain, that offered the future Yankee great encouragement and support. Mattingly automatically has Jeter as a loyal and true ally. Giambi credits Mattingly with supporting him and working with him in 2005, after the steroid scandal broke and it appeared the slugger's career might be over. Mattingly was one of the few in the Yankee organization who continued to insist that Melky Cabrera could still be a solid player in the big leagues even after his disasterous call up in 2005. And he has been Torre's right hand man now for four years, even before he was named bench coach, to the point where Torre has continuously talked about Mattingly being a future GREAT manager. No other managerial candidate comes in with that resume.

The Yankees needs a manager that understands New York. All of the candidates discussed, from Girardi to Pena to Mattingly, understand what New York is all about. They understand the media attention, the talk radio and sports columnist dynamic, and what kind of pressure is placed on the Yankees year in and year out. However, neither Joe Girardi nor Tony Pena have ever experienced New York when the crosshairs were squarely on them. Girardi was a solid, veteran player for the Yanks, loved by the fans for his gutty play and his superb defense behind the plate. Yet, he was never close to being a star. That was reserved for the Paul O'Neills and David Cones. Tony Pena has been a first base coach, never once in the spotlight for this team.

Don Mattingly was a star. When the games were over, it was Mattingly's locker that people crowded around. When the team wasn't playing well, it was Mattingly the press turned to and looked at. And Mattingly was a star, was the center of attention, when the Yankees were at their lowest. He was there in the Mel Hall years and the Danny Tartabull years. He was there when Stump Merril told him he needed a haircut, which was directed from the front office, as if that was the cause of the Yankee demise in those years. Mattingly was booed on field after giving his heart and soul, and body, to the organization. And he has sat next to Joe Torre for four years, witnessing what kind of attention the manager gets on a day in, day out basis. Mattingly, more than any other candidate, understands the nature of the New York beast, and that can't be understated.

The Yankees need someone who could convince their high-profile free agents to come back. While I believe that Giaradi and Pena would be accepted, and respected by the team as a whole, I don't know if any of them would be seen as the calming influence that Mattingly would be seen as. Plus, Girardi has, for whatever reason, a reputation of being a manager in the vein of Buck Showalter, who A-Rod, for one, hated, so that would more than likely hinder the Yankee's chances of signing him to an extension.

Mattingly? He's been there over the last four years. He's been the hitting coach for these guys. For Posada and Mariano, he was the team captain as they were coming up through the Yankee ranks. It would be far more difficult for any of those guys to turn their back on Mattingly than it would for them to do it t anyone else, out of a show of support for Torre. Mattingly instantly gives the Yanks a better chance of resigning any of those guys, even though money will eventually talk.

The Yankees need a calming influence. Usually, a team looks for a manager that is different from the old one. Fire Joe Torre? Usually you get Lou Pinella. But the Yanks have never operated particularly well under the thumb of a dictatorial, high mantainence manager, no matter how talented they are. Now, none of us know how Mattingly will be when he is sitting in that corner office. He may very well be more firey, more prone to get in umps faces, more prone to be excited in the clubhouse and show his emotions on his sleeve, but you can also see that he has a natural, calm personality that has never waivered. Mattingly is, much like Joe Torre before him, confident in who he is. He doesn't need to prove anything. If his managerial career doesn't end well, it will not tarnish what he meant to this organization and to the fan base. He will always be beloved.

Also, Mattingly showed a unique understand of how to deal with people, and personalities when he was captain of the team in the 90's. Bernie Williams always credits Mattingly with showing him support during his darker first days, where the likes of Mel Hall would cruelly rag on the introverted Williams. Mattingly helped protect him from that. O'Neill credits Mattingly for helping sculpt the professional demeanor of the team that went on to dominate the sport from 1996 through 2001. It was his leadership that helped O'Neill understand what it took to be a winner, something he passed on to those who came through the door after him. Mattingly has already shown an ability to deal with different personalities, and deal with them well. He won't be rattled by anything that comes down the pike.

The only thing going against Mattingly is his inexperience. He has never managed before. To be honest, I can't predict how much of a role that would play in his success or failure next year. Maybe it turns out to be a huge deal, maybe it turns out to be nothing. All I know is this: Willie Randolph never managed a day in his life before taking over the Mets, and even though the team collapsed at the end of this season, Randolph has seemingly done a very good job. Mike Scocia never managed a day in his life before becoming the head man for the Angels, and that team, a team that is routinely overmatched, does nothing but win. And one of the candidates for the job, Joe Girardi, never managed before heading down to Florida and he ended up being Manager of the Year in 2006. Does it mean Mattingly will easily make the transition? Nope, but it means that having no managerial experience isn't a death sentence for someone's future talents. Ozzie Guillen has a championship ring, the confidence of his front office, and a strangle hold over the White Sox organization after never having managed before in his life. That's how it works.

Mattingly isn't just the best choice, he is the only choice. He will have a grace period, both with the fans and the ownership. He will be given the benefit of the doubt, even if his team didn't perform the way Torre's team have in the past. Any failures for next year will be laid at the doorstep of Randy Levine, who the fans are looking to blame for anything right now anyway.

But a word of caution to the Yankee brass. There seems to have been a tremendous amount of jealousy attached to the success Joe Torre had and the admiration he received. Many, including Randy "Motivational Speaker" Levine, seemed to believe he received too much credit. It is what made Yankee front office people resent Torre and, at the same time, made him so hard to get rid of.

If Mattingly comes in and is successful, you better be ready for an even worse love affair with a manager. If Mattingly wins a title, leads a team to the promise land, Yankee brass better be ready. If you thought getting rid of Torre was an difficult mission, getting rid of Mattingly after some success would be down right impossible.