YankeesRedSox.com

Peter, if you weren't in favor of the move, would you have started Joba from day 1? Given your 140 inning logic, he'd have pitched 4.2 innings per start assuming 33 starts. Even if you use him as a # 5 starter, he still gives you 28 starts or just 5 IP per.

How would you have used him?

I would have done this

http://yankeesredsox.com/blog/2008/01/why_not_use_all_six.html

Joba and Rivera are just too good a combination. And Joba has never shown himself to be a major league starter.

I'd try Igawa or some other AAA pitcher in the rotation before I'd go to Joba. He's a last resort.

The real problem is not Joba but the simple fact that Kennedy and Hughes need seasoning. Even Santana, Verlander, and Bonderman all got bombed before they learned to pitch. We're just going to have to take our lumps with these guys. It might be very, very ugly.

You are right, he never has. But, don't you think he would be? I am not saying now, but his future should be in the rotation.

Peter,

I'm not ok with it. Here's why:

1. Yes, Hank owns the team, but he is publicly second-guessing his GM and his manager (not to mention everyone else in the Yankees organization who supported this approach). Just because he can say stupid things doesn't mean that he should say stupid things. If you don't like the GM, then as owner you're free to replace him. Until then, let him do his job. You think it's so damn easy, do the job yourself and we'll see how easy it is. Until then, leave the man alone.

2. He should be expressing his concerns in private, not in public. It's detrimental to the organization, it's classless, it's undignified and it's frankly gutless. He, as owner, has had multiple opportunities to state his case in private to Cashman et al face-to-face. Stop this carping in the press now, weeks and even months later. If he wanted Santana so badly, he could have pushed harder when the Twins came calling.

3. So much for the Yankees' new-found organizational patience. It lasted a whole 20 games. I wonder what the over-under in Vegas was on that? He is sending a mixed message. A week or two ago, the message was "we need to be patient with these young guys" (meaning, of course, Hughes and Kennedy). Now, a whole two weeks later (at most), we get this nonsense. Great way to ratchet up the pressure, Hank. Because after all, it's so easy on these kids having to face a gazillion reporters after each start, asking why they stunk it up so bad, and knowing full well that they are expected to be nothing less than saviors for the New York "the season is an wretched miserable failure if we fail to win the World Series" Yankees. But hey, they should be able to deal, right? After all, Hughes is 21 already! Why aren't you well on your way to 30 winds and the Cy Young, Phil? After all, we passed on Johan Santana to keep you -- you owe us! Now start producing!

4. His outburst reeks of the stench of panic -- and blame control. My God! 20 games into the season and look at us! A colossal failure! I told them this wasn't the way to proceed, but they wouldn't listen to me! Please. Grow up already.

You know what I'd like to see Peter? I'd like to see Yankees ownership stop talking so much about Yankee pride, Yankee class and Yankee dignity, and start living it.

So sorry, but no, I'm not ok with it simply because he's the owner. That cuts no ice with me. It doesn't help the team. No good can possibly come from it. It has to stop.

Additionally, Hank's logic is deeply flawed. He is looking at Chamberlain's numbers and assuming that he can simply scale them up to a full season's work. Well, now, that's stupid. Working the 8th inning every other day is not the same thing as trying to get 27 outs every fifth day. Chamberlain is not going to have a 0.38 ERA (as in 2007) over 33 starts. Corey hit the nail on the head: we have no clue how Chamberlain is going to do as a major league starter. He might flop. Who knows? Further, given Chamberlain's innings limit for 2008, they couldn't use him as a starter. Now, just to be clear, if he has the stuff everyone says he has (meaning four good/great pitches), then yes, long term, I think he is best suited to start (of course, I thought Papelbon ought to be starting, too -- and it looks like I got that one wrong). Right now, Chamberlain is an absolute stud right where he is. He and Mo make a dynamite late-inning duo -- arguably the best in baseball. You mess with that right now, you're asking for trouble. Starting will have to wait for 2009. Besides, if we leave him in the bullpen, that means less Farnsworth. That's always a good thing. Also, he is getting a great trial by fire, pitching in the game situations he is pitching in. That is all to the good. He needs to stay where he is for 2008. And Hank needs to behave himself.

Greg

I totally understand your point.

But, Yankee ownership has been a distraction for the past 35 years. George set the bar and he set it low. He was the master of "it's not my fault" and he had the patience of a two-year old. It took all of 16 games to fire Yogi Berra in 1985, a 6-10 record, to kick that Yankees' great to the curb.

So, I think public statements and lack of responsibility are going to be the s.o.p. around here as long as a Steinbrenner is in charge. I agree with you, it is not the way to do things, but I have resigned myself to the fact that it will happen. My hope is that Hank keeps the personal bullying out of it.

I did a piece on George last month, here's a link

http://yankeesredsox.com/blog/2008/03/steinbrenner_field.html

"In his 85th career start, Wang became the quickest major leaguer to record 50 wins as a starter since Dwight Gooden got No. 50 in his 82nd start for the Mets on June 29, 1986, against the Cubs. Wang is also the fastest Yankees starter to 50 wins since Ron Guidry got there in his 82nd start in 1979 against Texas."

Im pretty sure Wang is the most overlooked, undervalued pitcher on Earth. Can you imagine how the last 3 years would have gone without him?