YankeesRedSox.com

Amazing isn't it, but the worst three months of the baseball season are over tonight. The hot stove certainly takes some of the sting out of the absence of real baseball being played in November, December and January, but there is simply no substitute for the real thing.

And while February may make some people "shiver" 2008 brings a bonus day and the Yankees will play a game before the month is over. That's right, we will see actual baseball four weeks from tomorrow. And we will have pitchers and catcher in two weeks which means we will have lots to talk about.

So, say goodbye to January. This weekend will mark the end of football, then it's back to nine months of baseball. How great is that?

Posted by Peter (Yankees) at 06:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

If this is true and Klapisch usually gets it right, the Yankees took a bigger gamble than we thought when they passed on Santana.

After all, it's one thing to want to keep Phil Hughes and all of his potential in the rotation, it's another entirely to scuttle a trade for Santana over Ian Kennedy, Melky Cabrera and a prospect. Kennedy had a great cup of coffee in the majors last year, but he is not expected to become an ace. Melky, well I like Melky, but I am not convinced he is going to hit enough to be a good player.

I would guess they ultimately passed on the deal because it is almost February and finding someone to play center instead of Damon at this point would be very, very hard. Pulling the trigger on that deal would have left them with a great rotation (Santana, Wang, Pettitte, Hughes, Joba) but forced them to put Damon in center, Matsui in left and Giambi at DH everyday. That is a huge risk to take considering their ages and injury history.

The problem of course is that Hankenstein won't look at it that way. If Santana is dominating for the Mets and Kennedy has washed out of the majors you can bet Brian Cashman will hear about it. That is the bet Brian made yesterday, let's hope he is right.

Posted by Peter (Yankees) at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)

Arbitration figures were exchanged today between players and ballclubs. Chien-Ming Wang asked for $4.6 million while the Yankees offered $4 million and Cano asked for $4.55 million while the Yankees offered $3.2 million. (The Yankees also announced that they reached a deal with Wilson Betemit for $1.165)

I've said it before and I will say it again, now is the time to sign Cano and Wang to long-term deals. Wang is going to be a bargain next season at $4 or $4.6 million, but assuming he has a similar year like 2007 he will earn at least twice that in 2009. Why not offer him 4 years and $26 million or so now?

With Cano I would go even longer. Why not offer him a six-year deal? Start with Carlos Pena's new deal (3 years/$24 million) and go from there. Would 6 years/$55 million or so do it? I would find out if I were the Yankees. Otherwise, they will just keep signing escalating one-year deals like they did with Jeter and Bernie many years ago.

Posted by Peter (Yankees) at 05:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Yankees invited 26 players to Spring Training.

Chad Jennings has a great rundown of each player in his blog and he handicaps the chances of each one making the team.

For my part, I view things this way. The Yankees are going to enter camp with about 21 spots settled. Look at this potential roster: Posada, Molina, Duncan, Betemit, Giambi, Cano, Jeter, A-Rod, Damon, Matsui, Cabrera, Abreu, Wang, Pettitte, Mussina, Hughes, Kennedy, Joba, Rivera, Farnsworth, Hawkins.

That leaves you with 3 pitchers and another hitter who can make the club. I would guess that on the pitching side Ohlendorf, Ramirez and Veras are the favorites heading into camp. Yes, the Yankees want a lefty in the pen, but I don't think they will force the point.

The bat is more of a mystery. Despite the presence of Betemit, I think an infielder might be the way they go. That puts Gonzalez in play and I agree with Chad that Ransom or Green could certainly make the team too.

While this is fun to speculate about, the best news is that pitchers and catchers report one month from today.

Posted by Peter (Yankees) at 10:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

With the Yankees needing to limit the innings of the three kids in 2008, why not use a six-man rotation for part of the season? I fooled around with the concept using the actual schedule and you could make it work and still use Wang and Pettitte for their maximum starts. I won't bore you with the actual spreadsheet I did (yes, I know I need help) but if you keep Wang and Pettitte on their usual turns they would each start 17 times over the first 81 games. Kennedy, Hughes and Joba would start 12 and Mussina 11. (I made Mussina the 6th starter)

Assuming 6-7 innings per start you would project Kennedy, Hughes and Joba to be somewhere around 78 innings pitched at that point. Since I don't think the Yankees want to put Hughes or Joba over 160, it works well and they can always increase Kennedy's workload down the stretch if they so desire.

Now, there are a couple of problems. First, in some instances, pitchers would have up to nine days in between starts. That is sure to get someone like Mussina cranky. And, this assumes that everyone is healthy and the weather is good. Otherwise, things could get really messy.

But, when I think about it, I would like to see the Yankees at least try it. Guarantee that Wang and Pettitte will always make their regular starts and use four for the final three spots. You protect the young arms innings-wise and get some use out of Mike Mussina. Maybe Mussina tanks, maybe someone gets hurt, but in both instances you can just go to a regular five-man rotation and then figure out how to reduce workloads later. The thing to remember is, Hughes and Joba will be working with an innings limit in 2008, so you can't run them out there for 33 starts. How would you go about limiting their innings?

Posted by Peter (Yankees) at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

I will say this about Roger Clemens, he isn't taking the typical route of a guilty man. He is going to Congress, he has sued Brian McNamee and he held a press conference. So far, he is miles ahead of anyone else accused of using PED's. (Anyone else still wondering where Rafael Palmeiro went)

So why can't most of us give this guy the benefit of the doubt? Making it more personal, why am I willing to excuse Pettitte, who has admitted to cheating, and not believe Clemens' claims? After all, Roger should be innocent until proven guilty.

Well, there are two things which stick out in my mind which bias me against Clemens. One is stupid, one is a little deeper than that.

For the stupid one, it boils down to the fact that Clemens will always be a Red Sox in my mind. I was very unhappy when the Yankees sent David Wells to Toronto as part of the Clemens trade. Like Boggs before him, Clemens was a player I didn't like at all. If I ever update my archives (I will, I will) you could read what I wrote when Clemens signed with Houston. Scratch that, I found the entry and updated things. So, as you can see, I don't like him and never will, but it's a stupid reason to think he is guilty.

And that brings me to my second reason for not buying Clemens' story, Barry Bonds. I will also admit that I stood up and cheered Bonds in 2001 because I naively believed he was hitting home runs "cleanly". Chastise me if you will because I didn't stop and ask questions about Bonds' sudden power explosion, but I looked at a player I considered one of the best in baseball for many years have a career year and I applauded. My subsequent realization that Bonds was crooked turned me into a HUGE skeptic about all of the performances on the baseball diamond. It isn't fair, but Clemens is found guilty by me, and I imagine a lot of people, because he is just another athlete from the "steroids era". And, I extend my skepticism to all of baseball. The only reason in my mind that the Mitchell Report didn't name more names is because Senator Mitchell couldn't find a guy similar to McNamee in Boston or Chicago or St. Louis.

So, what do I (and perhaps you) do now? That is the question I keep wrestling with. Palmeiro lied to Congress without any adverse consequences, so why should we believe anything Clemens says next week? But, again why don't we give him the benefit of the doubt? If any of you have answers, I am all ears.

Posted by Peter (Yankees) at 09:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

I have to admit, I was expecting more from Clemens than this. I mean after three weeks, the best you could come up was the same defense that Bonds used? (For those of you who missed it, Bonds claimed that he thought he was getting flaxseed oil and not HGH or steroids.) In short, this seems like a weak defense.

And, I am not sure if Clemens may have violated baseball policy with his admission. Senator Mitchell made it clear that using prescription medications improperly violated baseball policy. How did Clemens or McNamee obtain this lidocaine and was it used properly? I certainly hope that Mike Wallace asked that question and I will watch the interview Sunday, but the initial reports do not lead me to believe anything interesting will be revealed.

Posted by Peter (Yankees) at 04:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)