(Via Heyman, SI and RAB)

Hey, it gives us an excuse to go look at the fancy splits feature on Fangraphs!

Did you know that last year he hit .299 on grounders…and only .212 on fly balls?

Seriously, check it out!

(And yes, Thames joins Nick Johnson and Javier Vazquez as returning Yankees.)

Share on Facebook

I was going to attempt this post in the vein of Jay-Z’s “99 problems and a bitch ain’t one”, but the thing is, the Yankees don’t actually have 99 problems.

Well, I’m sure they do, but I got stuck after 34–and that was with the majority of them being completely nonsensical.

So where does a manager who brought the Yankees a 100+-win season and their 27th World title in his second year with the team–and third, overall–rank in terms of issues the Yankees may deign to consider as the dawn of the 2010 season approaches?

Pretty far down. I can think of a lot others–both serious and not-so-serious–(these are only in the order they occur to me)

Oh. And for the record, since this seems to sail over some people’s head: If the following is all that plagues your franchise, you are in remarkably good shape.

For instance,

1) Nick Johnson, who history tells us will probably get hurt at some point, is supposed to be the fulltime DH.

What happens when Johnson goes down? Right now your fillers are Randy Winn and Jamie Hoffman; otherwise you’re talking Posada DHing and Cervelli catching, and if Cervelli goes down, you’re rushing Jesus Montero. Johnny Damon would be the perfect fit here, of course, but it looks like both sides blew that one.

2) Jeter’s 36, Mo’s 40, A-Rod’s 35, Posada’s…you know what? I’d rather not know.

For a team that prides itself on getting younger, many of the most important players–Jeter, Mo, A-Rod, Posada, Pettitte–are all on the wrong side of 35.

I’d hate to be considered agist, but the older you are after your mid-20s, the easier it is to wear-and-tear and get hurt, and the Yankees, as 2008 showed us, can ill-afford a slate of injuries. To keep them healthy, Girardi needs to rest them, but when he does rest them, he gets hammered Jim Caldwell-style for sitting his starters…

3) Our best prospect is a 20 year old kid who’s never played above AA.

Yeah, sure, trades are fun, but we’ve more or less gutted the upper levels of our farm system. Sure, Kelvin DeLeon and Slade Heathcott and Manny Banuelos may turn out to be studs, but they are a long, long way off.

2009 worked as well as it did because we had guys like Cervelli and Peña who, though not All-Stars, could still come up and do their fill, what was needed of them, and not be completely overmatched. It meant that hurt guys, like Posada and A-Rod, could take their time coming back, instead of risking re-aggravating their injury.

4) In the time it takes Joba to set between pitches, I managed to finish, print, revise, print, publish and ship my novel.

Speaking of which, there’s the whole Joba-vs-Phil debate, and then someone is bound to bring up the 8th inning thing again, and meanwhile you want to tear your hair out because you remember that good pitchers aren’t built in a day–even though the rest of the media seems to have forgotten this.

5) That (rhymes with duck)-ing moat.

And Kate Smith. And Cotton Eye’d Joe. And YMCA. And fans doing the wave. And everything that says “let’s be cheesy” instead of just letting fans enjoy the game that’s played on the field, like the main attraction it’s supposed to be.

6) The fact that if Granderson and Winn hit back to back, there exists a potential “Grandy and Randy go back-to-back, ain’t that dandy?” from Sterling.

‘Nuff said.

Yeah, there are a lot more problems, I’m sure, but the point is, all things considered, Joe Girardi isn’t really a worry.

Yes, if the Yankees miss the playoffs it will be 2-of-3 years that they missed, but let us not forget that in 2008 the team lost many of its best players due to injury for extended time and still managed to win 89 games–which would have made the playoffs in at least two other divisions.

Then, last year, Girardi and his team won over 100 games, far and away the best team in the league, and virtually steamrolled through the postseason.

Honestly, there are other New York coaches–Tortorella, Coughlin, whatever dude manages the Mets–that should find their seats a whole lot hotter…

Share on Facebook

(with thanks to Jonathan Mayo)

There’s a proud man.

He was once (and presumably still is) a millionaire.

He had a fantastic job, one which many young children dream that they might one day be able to do.

Alas, this November he lost his job.  He wasn’t fired, he didn’t do anything wrong, but his skills were not what his company needed at the moment, and, well, with the economy the way it is, his salary was a little too extravagant for what his performance warranted.

His company decided that they would prefer younger, fresher talent–talent that was not too far removed from training, and thus cheaply obtainable.  In an economy such as this, any dollar saved was supremely beneficial.

As autumn turned to winter, he looked everywhere in his industry, with all the competitors of his former company, his career counsellor advised him that there was no reason for him to ever consent to a salary or employment contract inferior to his previous one.  His career counsellor had long given the same advice to others in the same industry, but niether seemed to grasp the difficulties and the climate of the current economy.

And so, as our hero continued to look, the opportunties disappeared:  in LA, in St. Louis, in Atlanta, in New York and in others, the position was filled by others with either better skills or less pride, and sometimes both.

Soon the new year came around, and not so long after that the proud man found himself only a few weeks before the High Season still seeking employment.

Could he, one must think, return to his previous employer?  Though they have filled the void, they have not done so to the degree that their shareholders had come to expect.

The company, however, is not in the same state that it was when our hero was first employed by them–they can no longer pay him the salary he so desires; out of choice or necessity is known only to those executives, so we must only speculate.

One thing, however, remains clear:  the witching hour grows nigh and our hero is still without a job.

What’s the moral of the story?

Swallow your pride, Damon.  I am about to lose all the credit in the world of Yankee blogging for saying this, but swallow your pride and come back to the Yanks.  Not for your defence, but because Nick Johnson being Nick Johnson is probably going to get hurt at some point and we will need a decent DH and besides do we really want Brett Gardner playing left field every day of the season when a better option is available?

I realize it’s a lot to ask, but you’ve got at least one good year with the bat left; NYS is perfect for your swing and don’t tell me you’re mulling retirement, either….

Share on Facebook

And those who have their noses pressed against their computer screens and think VORP is a valid means of measuring a player’s performance ought to get a life and a credential that would allow them to see and hear the game up close. Then determine the players whose numbers actually contribute to winning and those who are equipped only add the next run in a 15-3 game.

–Marty Noble, here

There is, of course, an obligatory joke here about Mr. Noble being a Mets beat writer and the inability of anything or anyone associated with the Mets to, you know, get it, but in the interest of good sportsmanship I’ll let it pass.

So now, of course, being the blogging nerd he’s so desperately railing against, where do I start?

How about this:  where is it written, in the grand constitution of baseball rules and by-laws, that one would have to actually have a clubhouse credential to be able to see a game?

I assume that it’s not me, that when I pay for my ticket, or even when I tune into YES or FOX or ESPN or whomever, that when I see the game being played, I am, in fact watching the same game that Mr. High-and-Mighty is watching from the press box.

Look, there’s one thing, and one thing only that a clubhouse credential actually gets you:  access to players, coaches and staff.  It’s a pretty big thing, I will admit–access means you get to do the breaking of the news, that you get a feel for the players and staff as people, and that sort of thing helps when you’re writing a story.

The credential, however, does not change the game that’s played on the field.  It doesn’t change how good or bad a player is, and it doesn’t on its own bestow any sort of enlightenment.

That enlightenment–that ability to discern good player from poor–that comes from watching the game on the field, and it comes from the ability to balance first-hand viewing (through whatever medium one so chooses) with the information one can gleam from the box score, and, yes, the advanced metrics.  You should not have to be able to calculate WAR or FIP if you’re not a GM’s assistant (they pay people to do that for you), but having the numbers to back up while Mariano Rivera is more valuable than Jonathan Albaladejo should matter.

Now, here I hate to generalize–I know some sportswriters to whom this would not be applicable–but in Mr. Noble’s case there seems to be an instance in which the credential is seen as this all-powerful document that grants legitimacy to a few and keeps out the masses.  A case of “I have a credential, thus I know what I am talking about and you do not.”  Or, in simpler terms, it’s a case of “I’m better than you.”

This is, of course, not true.

In fact, I could argue that the best analysis (and here we are talking about analyzing criteria and ascertaining whether player X or Y should enter the Hall of Fame, and not waxing poetic about our favorite athletes for a human interest, Bob Costas-laden special) comes not from the credentialed beat guys, but from those basement-living bloggers Mr. Noble so rails against.  Now, of course, there are plenty of credentialed writers who have an excellent analytical mind, but it would seem that Mr. Noble has yet to access his.

Instead, what we are left with is yet another instance of a holier-than-thou bias, as though Joe fan is utterly insginificant.

Look, I don’t want to suggest that actually seeing a player is not important.  It is, especially when it comes to scouting.

When it comes to the Hall of Fame, however, I’m a little more skeptical.  I mean, for one, Ty Cobb’s in the Halll and many consider him to have been, well, if you pardon my language, a racist asshole who was not above hitting women, either.  The thing is, Cobb was also a damn good baseball player, and that should be the primary criteria.

It’s the Hall of Fame–not the Hall of Saints.

Yet Mr. Noble would have us believe that only credentialed reporters are capable of understanding who deserves to go to the Hall of Fame and who does not, because it is apparently impossible to objectively quantify how good a player is in baseball.

Never mind the fact that Moneyball* has been a best-seller because it proves exactly the  opposite.  (Not just Moneyball, but The Numbers Game, which is better, should be considered too.  Oh, and then there’s this thing called Baseball Prospectus…)

Yeah, I wish I had a press credential.  For one thing, it would mean that I might actually get paid (albeit a pittance) to write about baseball, but as far as I understand it, a home run hit by Derek Jeter on my TV doesn’t become a home run hit by Alex Rodriguez just because someone has a press credential.

If a player’s statistics show that he’s one of the best second basemen of all time, he should be in the Hall of Fame.

Most fans understand this.  Maybe, someday, the writers will, too.

*I have certain issues with Moneyball I may or may not remark on at a later date.

Share on Facebook

Yankee fans–the majority of them, anyway–learn fairly early on to believe that anything is possible; that there is no decent reason why their team can’t win night after night and year after year.

Jets fans…well, not so much.

I realize this may be hard for a number of Yankee fans to comprehend (hell, I can’t), but here goes:  before this January, the Jets had won a total of six playoff games between the 1969 Super Bowl and 2009.  They had not won two playoff games in the same season since 1982–(look away if you’re older than me)–a full four years before I was born.

The Yankees, of course, have had no such issue–missing the playoffs only once between 1995 and 2009, and having won seven titles since the Jets won their lone Super Bowl.

So now that the Jets sit one game away from the Super Bowl, what’s a Yankee/Jets fan to do?

First of all, there’s what I say when someone walked in last Sunday as the Jets had a lead with 3.55 left to go in San Diego:

“The Jets have no business winning this game”.

Forget that, the Jets had no business playing that game (or so we thought).  The nine-and-seven Jets had only made the playoffs because a bunch of teams all lost on the same day, the Colts decided to rest their starters and the Bengals had nothing to play for, right?

Okay, so maybe you could give the Jets the Wild Card game because they’d just played the Bengals and they matched up well and because Chad Ochocinco is a little whack, but San Diego would set things right, right?

The hottest team in the league could not have been gifted an easier opponent, right?

Then the words of another ring in my ear:

“Hey, you never know,” and it’s followed by a couple missed field goals and interceptions and what do you know, the Jets, who weren’t supposed to be the better team in their own city, are playing for a conference title.

The Jets, of course, are certainly not supposed to beat the Colts, who have to go and prove that resting their starters still wasn’t a mistake–but then you remember that the Jets are out there to show that their beating the Colts had nothing to do with the Colts playing poorly as it did the Jets playing well, and you begin to think that, hey, anything is possible.

The Yankee fan in you begins to creep out, long hidden in the depths of winter, it’s hungry for some action, and right now it has the perfect opportunity.

If the Jets have gotten this far, halfway home, you say, why can’t they go just that little bit further?

Even as recently as a week ago, few not named Rex Ryan would have believed it, and most who did were those who where green and white and shoulder pads to work.

Now, though, it’s different.  It’s not just a nice story about a team that caught a few breaks.  It’s about a team that earned its right to play on Sunday, earned every little bit of that right.

No one ever questions the Yankees’ right to be in the postseason, or their right to be in the World Series.  If they make it that far, it’s because they’re that good, not that the other team is that bad.  We accept this as fact and don’t blink even when we win a World Series on the strength of 87 regular-season wins in 2000.

Why should the Jets be any different?

If you make it this far, there is every reason to think that you can go further, still.

At some point, the Jets stopped being lucky and started being good.

Believe.

Share on Facebook

According to this post from our friends at RAB, the Yankees offered uber-prospect Jesús Montero straight up for Roy Halladay–and Toronto turned it down.

Oh boy.

I know, I know.  If you have the chance to exchange an unproven prospect for a top-flight starter in his prime, you should do it.

Theoretically.

If the prospect in question isn’t Jesús-freakin’-Montero.

I am generally a conservative person when it comes to trades–you’d really, really have to wow me to get me to sign off on it (the Nady/Marte deal, when it was first done and we were not yet aware of the injurious consequences, was one such deal).

I also happen to be, as I have not bothered to hide, a huge, huge fan of Montero.

While Montero has a lot of work to do before we can brand him a Yankee icon, he is easily the best prospect (from a hitting standpoint, anyway) the Yankees have had for a long, long time–certainly since the uber-days of Bernie and Jeter and Mo and Andy and JoPo.

He’s also only 20 years old–a full 12 years younger (read: a length of time greater than the average MLB career) than Halladay.

If the Yankees had pulled that trade off, the fan base would have probably been divided almost like McCain/Obama country.  Many would have argued that the obvious thing to do is to trade the unproven talent who may not actually stick at catcher for a Cy Young winner and proven Ace; for me the argument would have centered around Halladay’s high cost and (relatively) high age given what it would take to keep him.

We’re two seasons removed now from the Johan Santana trade-of-doom that the Yankees did not make.  The Mets have yet to play a postseason game in that time while the Yankees have a World Series win to their credit.

The Jays kept Halladay and finished in fourth place; the Yankees kept Jesús, and while the Trenton team may not have had a great season, I think we all know what the Yankees did…

Share on Facebook

From ESPN, with the interesting part bolded:

MIAMI – The perennially frugal Florida Marlins have reached an agreement with the players’ union to increase spending in the wake of complaints the team payroll has been so small as to violate baseball’s revenue sharing provisions.

The deal was announced Tuesday in a joint statement by the Marlins, the union and Major League Baseball. The parties did not comment beyond the statement, and it was unclear how much the Marlins’ payroll might increase.

The agreement runs through 2012, when the Marlins’ new ballpark is scheduled to open.”In response to our concerns that revenue sharing proceeds have not been used as required, the Marlins have assured the union and the commissioner’s office that they plan to use such proceeds to increase player payroll annually as they move toward the opening of their new ballpark,” said Michael Weiner, executive director of the players’ association.

The agreement calls for arbitration if further disagreements arise, Weiner said.

Baseball’s basic agreement calls for each club to use its revenue sharing receipts in an effort to improve the team. In recent years, the union has complained the requirement was not met by some teams, including the Marlins.

Plagued by poor attendance in their current home, the Marlins have had the lowest payroll in the majors three of the past four seasons.

But the franchise has gotten considerable bang for its buck. Last year, for example, the Marlins finished six games out of first place in the NL East with a payroll of $37 million, while the division rival Mets finished 17 games behind Florida despite a payroll of $136 million.

“The Marlins have consistently made every effort to put the best product on the field, and our record supports the fact that we have been successful in that regard,” team president David Samson said. “Throughout the discussions, the Marlins maintained that there had been no violation of the basic agreement at any time.”

Citing confidentiality provisions, the joint statement said there would be no comment by any of the parties on further specifics of the agreement. As a result, it’s unclear what impact a spending increase will have on the Marlins’ 2010 season.

They might now be less inclined to trade second baseman Dan Uggla, who is eligible for arbitration and due a hefty raise. And increased spending improves the chance of an agreement with ace Josh Johnson on a multiyear contract.

Okay, so, now I pretend to know what I’m talking about and divulge my thoughts.

First of all, while the Marlins are not the only baseball team that seems to have a phobia of spending money, they certainly seem to be the most egregious example.  The team story–building teams to win World Series in 1997 and 2003 and then blowing them up afterwards–is certainly well known.  The Yankees, the Marlins are not.

However, one has to wonder if this agreement is a one-off deal–because the situation in Florida is so precarious, or if the MLBPA, et al, plan to go after other low-spending teams, such as the Rays and Athletics, as well.

Keep in mind, it would be one thing here if the Marlins were a perenially awful (I’m not talking general meh-ness and wasted talent like Toronto or Cincinnati, but rather downright awful like Pittsburgh or Washington or Dayton Moore’s Kansas City team), but finishing just six games from first in the NL East is no bad thing.  In fact, it’s pretty darn competitive.

The Marlins’ 87 wins, so you get an idea, were the same number of wins the Wild Card-winning Minnesota Twins had–and the Marlins had one less loss.

In fact, while seasons of futility may be remembered more often than seasons of success, the Marlins have won more World Series since 1997 than any team not named “Yankees” or “Red Sox”.  Seriously.

So while one can argue that the Marlins are not paying their players enough (and not be completely in the wrong, either), the argument that it’s costing the Marlins wins is not necessarily true, either.  There are other teams who spend little and win less (I’m looking at you, Pittsburgh), but popular perception often overrules reality.

What am I getting at here?

MLB is clearly a business, but one should consider this:  MLB is, theoretically, the most successful when the greatest number of teams are competitive and have a chance to win (is this not the fan-friendly reason for revenue sharing in the first place?).  If a team has found a way to be competitive on a low payroll, what then?

Of course, the Marlins’ problems have a lot to do with their awful attendance numbers, and thus the perception of being a perennially-losing ballclub even when this is not necessarily the case.

There’s certainly an issue there, and an issue with the loss of gate receipts that come from low attendance.  Trust me–I’m a (NJ) Devils fan, I have heard the attendance arguments–but one has to wonder if increasing player salaries is the best way of raising attendance.  If a competitive team that has an actual history of winning once in a while can’t do it, then there are probably issues with the market itself that need to be addressed.

As it is, this whole thing is unlikely to affect the Yankees, who pay their players plenty, draw plenty and win plenty.  So why bring it up?

If this is not just a one-off, hey-it’s-the-Marlins, type scenario, then it sets a precedent that could change the entire offseason market, making teams less likely to trade some players and more likely to trade others.

There are also the larger issues as to how much control teams should be able to have over how they are constructed, but that’s a task I’m not quite ready to undertake.

Share on Facebook

So it’s been a while since I’ve updated this regularly, hasn’t it?

Well, with the New Year upon us, it seems like a good time to get back into it, no?

Anyway, here are some very non-coherent thoughts about the goings on of the Yankees and the baseball world.

• Left field, left field, I love you, left field…

As it is, right now, the Yankees’ projected 2010 lineup looks something like this (I think):

1) Derek Jeter SS
2) Nick Johnson DH
3) Mark Teixeira 1B
4) Alex Rodriguez 3B
5) Jorge Posada C
6) Robinson Canó 2B
7) Curtis Granderson OF
Nick Swisher RF
9) Brett Gardner OF

Now, a couple of thoughts.

I think many of us assume Granderson will be in center and Gardner in left–assuming it’s these two and not Jaime Hoffman that make the cut.  Granderson’s defense certainly flies in center, but there’s a tremendous difference in the power that Granderson offers versus the power that Gardner offers.

Regardless of where they play, the question is simple–are you really okay with Gardner playing every day at center field?  Last year the Yankees’ line up was so potent that they could carry the Gardbrera construct in the nine spot and be okay, and it didn’t hurt that the two platooned (until Gardner was hurt and then again after).  The platoon kept both fresh and productive–when Gardner was injured and Melky Cabrera played every day, Cabrera’s numbers sagged.

So you probably want the Yankees to have another option in the outfield, if only for depth.  Austin Jackson and Melky Cabrera are now both gone; so too are Mike Cameron and Jason Bay.  Matt Holliday is available but will cost money that the Yankees don’t necessarily want to spend, and the Yankees and Johnny Damon seem to have reached an impasse.

It is here, then, that I make my pipe-dream plea:  re-sign Damon.

It’s not new that Damon would prefer a multi-year deal and won’t come cheap, but the market for his services is drying up and the fit with the Yankees is too perfect.

The kicker, though, (I think, and correct me if I’m wrong…) is that if the Yankees re-signed Damon, they could slot him into the two spot and then move Johnson elsewhere in the order–I’m thinking either fifth or sixth, assuming he remains healthy which is, of course, not a given–so you don’t end up batting Robinson Canó too high in the line up–remember how much he didn’t like that last year?

• We gotta pitcher, not a belly itcher

Let it be known, I am as of right now a fan of the trade for Javy Vazquez.

The Yankees will now go to war in 2010 with, barring injury, four of the five rotation spots already set, and with the fifth likely coming between Phil Hughes or Joba Chamberlain, with the “loser” ending up in the bullpen or AAA.

This is quite a far cry from, say, 2008, when the Opening Day rotation comprised of three largely inexperienced and kind-of-still-rookies.

The key, of course, is staying healthy, and I certainly wish that the Yankees had a little more depth in the minors, but even so they are much better off than a number of other teams.  Like, say, the Mets.

• There’s a method to the madness

In 2009, with the exception of Nick Swisher, all the large off-season moves were done via free agent signing.  This season, with what’s widely considered a “thin” free agent class, with the exception of re-signing Andy Pettitte, the Yankees have accomplished all of their large moves via the trade.

A couple seasons ago, many of us argued that the Yankees should hold onto all of their top prospects and not trade for Johan Santana.  I would argue that most of us are still glad that’s the road the Yankees took.

This season, the Yankees did trade, but in doing so they have managed to hold onto Phil Hughes, Joba Chamberlain and Jesús Montero, who may very well be considered their most tradeable commodities.

Have they given up too many prospects?  It’s hard to say right now–the highest ceiling prospect they gave up may very well be A. Vizcaino in the Vazquez trade, but he is still at A ball and a long was from superstardom.

What the Yankees have given away is depth, and it’s hard to know how much it will come into play.

If 2010 plays like 2009 and everyone stays healthy, the Yankees can weather a shallower talent pool.

If 2010 plays like 2008, and there are numerous injuries–which, with an older team, is not uncommon–there might be an issue.

As it is, there’s no reason to freak out on December 30.  The Yankees, after all, did win the World Series last season.  They’re doing something right…

Share on Facebook

Last night I went to sleep knowing only that the Yankees were in talks to acquire a “mystery pitcher”.

This morning, I was woken by my early-rising brother who told me that the Yankees acquired Javy Vazquez for Melky Cabrera and Mike Dunn.

Brian Cashman, it seems, has the itch this offseason.

While there is a part of me that’s certainly sad to see Melky Cabrera go, the fact is that Cabrera and Mike Dunn is a rather cheap price to pay for Vazquez, someone who had an ERA under three last season (pitching in the NL East nothwithstanding).

Actually, the part of the deal that may end up making Yankee fans squirm is the giving up of Arodys Vizcaino–a low-level minor leaguer with an exceptionally high ceiling.  However, much can happen between now and then.

The important thing to remember here is that Vazquez wasn’t gotten to be the Yankee ace–not when you have CC, AJ and Andy ahead of you, but as a four or five, while Joba and Phil Hughes presumably duke it out for that last spot, and instead of relying on Chad Gaudin, it’s a very lovely move indeed.

The Yankees’ OF depth does take a hit, losing Melky, but then again, would any of us really be all that surprised if the Yankees went a re-signed Damon, anyway?

The Yankees haven’t (yet) signed any high-priced free agents this offseason, but they’ve been no less active.

Let’s just call it an early Christmas present and enjoy it.

The best are getting better.

Share on Facebook

Me: “Two packs of skittles, please.”

Clerk: “You like that candy, huh?”

Me: “You have no idea.” As I count my change, I realize that this is the same person with whom I talked about the parade a month ago “By the way, you know the Yankees got Granderson, right?”

Clerk: “Wha? I heard about the Bruney thing…”

Me: “Yeah. Curtis Granderson for Coke, Jackson and Kennedy.”

Clerk: “No way! We’re getting 28!”

******

So yes, the Yankees have, pending physicals, acquired Curtis Granderson for Phil Coke, Austin Jackson and Ian Kennedy. Granted, the physicals are not guaranteed–and Arizona is also a player in the deal (they get Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy and give up Daniel Schlereth and Max Scherzer)–but the clerk’s reaction, wide eyed and “OMG MY LIFE RULES” seems to be a fairly common one amongst Yankee fans.

How do I see the trade?

It’s a little hard to contemplate Austin Jackson not being in pinstripes after we’ve kept talking about him for so long, but Granderson is, as of right now, better than Jackson. He (Granderson) had a bad 2009 so there’s a little risk in hoping that 2009 was an off year and not a downward spiral, but what it does mean is that the Yankees have that much more leverage in negotiating with Johnny Damon.

I’ll miss Phil Coke’s postgame interviews, but I will rest easy knowing that he won a ring with the Yankees.

The part of the deal that strikes me most is that Arizona is giving up Max Scherzer–who is young and with tremendous upside–for the inconsistent Edwin Jackson.

In fact, netting E. Jackson and Kennedy, it’s hard to see how Arizona benefits–although Kennedy, at least, might find much more success in an NL environment.

The other big news of the day is that Peter Gammons is leaving ESPN.

That’s pretty big. Also, one that came out of basically nowhere. However, it does mean that he is trending above Tiger Woods on Twitter, and that is, given recent revelations, a testament to just how big a name Gammons is.

Regardless of any perceived bias, Gammons is still an institution, and helped nurture the talents of many we read today. No word on if this is a retirement or if he is moving on to another gig, but wherever he goes, I do wish him well.

Share on Facebook